If the FBI do ferret it out, then that makes a difference. Until then, you don't know what is in the redacted or classified parts, and so no way to be sure they really are a matter of vital national security or just gossip, or information that is of minor value. Governments, as any one will know, keep a lot secret for no real reason other than that they can.

danivon wrote:If the FBI do ferret it out, then that makes a difference. Until then, you don't know what is in the redacted or classified parts, and so no way to be sure they really are a matter of vital national security or just gossip, or information that is of minor value. Governments, as any one will know, keep a lot secret for no real reason other than that they can.

Yes, and that's what the FBI is spending tens of thousands of man-hours looking into--stuff kept secret for no reason then put on Hillary's server.

#speciousreasoning

I wonder how most people in the intelligence field would fare if their email was assessed for any signs that it contained classified material. I just have a hard time with the concept of charging public servants--police, military or bureaucrats--for alleged poor decisions or judgment rather than intentional wrongdoing. I think it is the wrong route to go on. I think I have expressed before my discomfort with police officers being charged when they have made bad decisions. Intentionally doing wrong (or recklessness sufficiently extreme to be equivalent to intent )should be the standard, I think. Lesser misconduct can lead to other discipline, including discharge.

By the way, I don't think partisan politics enter into it. If person being investigated was a leading Republican presidential candidate the US Attorney's Office would be reluctant to file unless the case was very strong. And if the case were very strong against Hillary they would file. US Attorneys are well- known for only filing very strong, almost air-tight cases. They are not interfering in a US presidential election unless they are certain of victory. And nothing has come to make it likely that are ever going to have that strong of a case. So they won't file.

Is that the crux of the Clinton defense? Everybody else is doing it?

For goodness sake! I thought she was above the age of 10.

If it is wrong, I don't care how many people do it. At least that is what I teach my children. I don't know what you teach yours. I teach them to follow the law and not base a standard upon what what the crowd is doing.

I want a leader.

bbauska wrote:Is that the crux of the Clinton defense? Everybody else is doing it?

For goodness sake! I thought she was above the age of 10.

If it is wrong, I don't care how many people do it. At least that is what I teach my children. I don't know what you teach yours. I teach them to follow the law and not base a standard upon what what the crowd is doing.

I want a leader.

It wasn't her fault. She should have been warned.

Everyone is doing it.

She wouldn't do anything to endanger national security.

The half-excuses and tired tropes will just keep coming. Come on FBI!

I guess you like longshots when you go to the racetracks , DF...because Hillary is not getting indicted. No way. Not going to happen. Hillary is getting elected.
I don't see having emails later reclassified by typically over zealous bureaucrats as being a crime, so you're criticism Brad of the everyone does it defense is inapplicable.

But I understand why you guys are upset...because it's over.

freeman3 wrote:I guess you like longshots when you go to the racetracks , DF...because Hillary is not getting indicted. No way. Not going to happen. Hillary is getting elected.
I don't see having emails later reclassified by typically over zealous bureaucrats as being a crime, so you're criticism Brad of the everyone does it defense is inapplicable.

But I understand why you guys are upset...because it's over.

Oh, you must have a link saying Hills has been exonerated! Please share!

freeman3 wrote:I wonder how most people in the intelligence field would fare if their email was assessed for any signs that it contained classified material. I just have a hard time with the concept of charging public servants--police, military or bureaucrats--for alleged poor decisions or judgment rather than intentional wrongdoing. I think it is the wrong route to go on. I think I have expressed before my discomfort with police officers being charged when they have made bad decisions. Intentionally doing wrong (or recklessness sufficiently extreme to be equivalent to intent )should be the standard, I think. Lesser misconduct can lead to other discipline, including discharge.

Excuse my jumping in here, Freeman, but I have a question and thought or two. First, I agree that it isn't always fair to second-guess officials for decisions made in the field that later turn out wrong. I certainly would not want to be a policeman these days.

But we often get our decisions reviewed. General McClellan's decision to wait for reinforcements outside of Richmond and not pursue Lee cost him his command and career. Is "intentional wrongdoing" the act of performing something you know at the time is wrong?

Clinton's decision to carry out official Secretary of State business on her home network certainly looks like a case of bad judgement. It was deliberate. It was intentional. And by any measure of rectitude has to be seen as wrong. Of course, she may have decided it was right for her. That doesn't mean it was not wrong. The idea of a US Secretary of State using a home-brewed mail server rather than the servers of the State Department is amazing. Never mind the dubious filtering or reviewing of her emails before turning them over to the State Department. We have her word that she only filtered out personal emails. But with such bad judgement already on view, why should her Word have any significance? Whether she was truthful, the whiff of arrogance and superiority in her actions spoke volumes for what she thought of the Government and The People.

Could there have been correspondence that she would not like to have permanently backed up on State Department mail server backups? Did she believe the State Department servers were compromised? If so, nothing was said or done about it, as I recall. I'm sure she could have had access to the most secure servers in the country, if that was an issue.

But keep in mind that this was not just some mid-level supervisor or office worker. It was the Secretary of State of the United States. The job demands a much higher level of competence, oversight, and responsibility. It is not a job where you can simply say "Oopsie! No harm, no foul."

Whether criminal, negligent, ignorant, or just arrogant, it was an appalling lack of sound judgement. And isn't sound judgement one of the key qualities we look for in a high office holder, such as Secretary of State or President of the United States?

I not sure there is a criminal case, unless something more incriminating comes forth, but that should not be necessary. Clinton's decision and later attempts to brush this off as a simple case of "no big deal" displays hubris and a lack of respect for her position and our government. That she is now running for President and expects us to overlook those actions displays an equally appalling lack of respect for the People of the United States. Isn't that enough for people to reject her, even if she does not have the humility and decency to not run in the first place? Unfortunately, the greater tragedy may be that enough voters are willing to overlook her arrogance and poor judgement.

georgeatkins wrote:Clinton's decision and later attempts to brush this off as a simple case of "no big deal" displays hubris and a lack of respect for her position and our government. That she is now running for President and expects us to overlook those actions displays an equally appalling lack of respect for the People of the United States. Isn't that enough for people to reject her, even if she does not have the humility and decency to not run in the first place? Unfortunately, the greater tragedy may be that enough voters are willing to overlook her arrogance and poor judgement.

Well said.

We live in a world where such brazenness is seen as normative.

I think we have to wait for conclusive evidence re criminality. However, I don't believe that is far off. Whatever leaks or whatever is released is not going to make Hillary look Presidential. That I will guarantee.

george

Clinton's decision to carry out official Secretary of State business on her home network certainly looks like a case of bad judgement. It was deliberate. It was intentional. And by any measure of rectitude has to be seen as wrong.

There's a lot wrong with the entire system of cyber security and computer security within the US government.
Who's heads rolled when Snowden walked with all his information? Shouldn't the people responsible for the glaring lack of security that allowed one contractor to do what he did be fired? And yet there have been few repercussions within the agencies involved.
The reason is that the bureaucracy, including all of the agencies that are responsible for security, can't cope with he task.
Classification is a nightmare worthy of a Kafka novel. Rules and guidelines can't cope with volumes of information. And the volumes that are classified by over zealous and ass covering managers are often irrelevant.
Clinton did something that was legal in using a personal a server. It shouldn't have been.
The bureaucracy and the agencies responsible for security should not have allowed the continued use of private servers at her level, or probably at any level. But they did.
For those critics who say this is all Clinton's fault that she should have been the ultimate arbitrar of what is classified or not, and what she should have communicated or not ...I ask - what kind of security system is so vulnerable to one persons continued 100% correct judgement on communications she would make hundreds of times a day. The notion that a nations security would be allowed to depend upon one persons judgement rather than a team of security experts and agencies .... is absurd.
For some reason the bureaucracy is capable of slapping a classified label on anything that they think is remotely interesting... But no where could an agency take the time to actually look at the systems being used?
The only reason that this is an issue is because its Clinton, and because the only chance that the right seems to have of derailing her impending Presidency is divine intervention...

And George, comparing the issue of cyber security with McClellan's reticence to use the Union Army aggressively .... is a pretty poor comparison. Its 2106 and cyber security is an enormous issue for industry and government. It isn't isolated to one person's use of a computer that should have been systemically stopped by security experts responsible. Making Clinton uniquely responsible for a system she assumed, or was advised, wrongly, was secure, lets all those who should have been responsible for the security structure off the hook.
, and she alone
The complexity of the problem, belies the simplicity of the attacks on Clinton. Mostly her critics want to believe that the answer is simply, "Its her fault. She alone failed. And her failure is criminal".
If the answer is much more complex, as it is, her culpability diminishes.

For some reason Powell never suffered any repercussions( other than reputation) for using bogus intelligence in a speech to the UN that helped bring about the Iraq war. Even though, theoretically, he was responsible personally for its use... The error of using false intelligence was put down to systemic failures within the intelligence departments...
Not that is a more apt comparison that reaching back to 1863. (62?)

I agree with Ricky that it's likely to be Clinton v. Trump. Cruz and Kasich are polar opposites as it relates to ideology and temperament so I don't see how they can work together to defeat Trump.

As it relates to the general election only a fool would make a prediction right now. Even under normal circumstances it can be challenging to predict the country's mood or economic circumstances 8 months out. However, these are not normal times, and Trump is not a normal candidate. He's been underestimated by many Republicans, and Democrats may be suffering from the same over-confidence / arrogance now.

Feel free to post your views, but I think the most logical view is that this is an unpredictable election.

Ray

He's been underestimated by many Republicans, and Democrats may be suffering from the same over-confidence / arrogance now.

Having witnessed the mistakes that the Republican establishment made, and having had their own populist to deal with in Sanders .... I doubt the lesson hasn't been learnt.
The long primary season and Trumps own track record are going to provide much fodder for the Democrats mill of negative advertisements... And Trump will not be able to control himself enough to heal the huge negative impressions that his campaign creates.
If Trump is, and there is still a little doubt, the Republican candidate, and Clinton the Democratic candidate.... I think Republican Senate and Congressional candidates will be in a quandary as to how to run their campaigns. Disavowing Trump or leaping on board the crazy train? Which is worse?

It is always possible that lots of the electorate go mad over the next few months and get aboard the crazy train....But pretty doubtful. Trump isn't getting a majority of republican primary voters, and half of those who didn't vote for him won't support him in a general election if the ABC Exit polls are right... So why would independents and Democrats go nuts?
Sanders will campaign like hell for Clinton and that will heal wounds on the left. Who will campaign for Trump? So far Chris Christie and Sarah Palin.
Carsons' endorsement was a little less than whole hearted.... "Well, it would only be 4 years...."

Ray Jay wrote:Feel free to post your views, but I think the most logical view is that this is an unpredictable election.

Here's a funny thing: I'm actually a neutral party. Hillary should be in prison and Trump is temperamentally unsuited to being President.

You are right: this is an unpredictable election.

That said, I'll tell you what I see as the broad parameters:

1. It is possible that voters cool off, absorb the negative messaging about Trump, and he is defeated in a landslide. In this case, it could be nearly 30 points of victory for Clinton.

2. It is possible that the fever of rebellion grows and all the negatives about Trump bounce off of him (if you don't believe this, try talking to Trump voters. It's surreal.). In this case, I can see Trump winning by more than 10 and less than 20.

3. Hillary is either indicted or the FBI director and others resign in protest of a non-indictment. In this case, all bets are off. Biden would likely be "flown in" as the nominee.

4. A genuine conservative party could form. It could nominate Rick Perry or some other right-wing candidate. This party would likely garner 15-25% of the vote.

In any of these scenarios, or any of another 5 or 6 that are only slightly less likely, I don't think anyone can guess what will happen. This is a year like we have not seen in at least 100 years.

Fate

In any of these scenarios, or any of another 5 or 6 that are only slightly less likely, I don't think anyone can guess what will happen.

And yet you just did.
1 is likely. 4 is plausible (although Perry isn't) and the results you predict are close to what I would predict.
In the case of 4, you're also looking at a Clinton landslide.

2 is only likely if large quantities of LSD are released into the water supply in most major cities.

and 3 is an indication that you may be living in a city where hallucinogenics have found their way into your environment.