freeman3 wrote:And perhaps that surgical reputation is a bit inflated.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015 ... -president

freeman3 wrote:I just said what my standard was for whether Hillary should run or not. And, ultimately, if she does not get charged this is much ado about nothing.

So, whether she's guilty doesn't really matter--as long as it's not proven?

freeman3 wrote:Kind of seems like a deal where the facts are not going to be much in dispute, but it's whether the conduct violated any law. So if they don't charge her it means she's innocent, not just that she cannot be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So the contention that she's guilty but it maybe cannot be proven does not appear to be apposite. So I don't have to feel any guilt about supporting her. Either she's guilty of a crime in which case she will be prosecuted OR she's innocent and this e- mail thing is nothing.

freeman3 wrote:Kind of seems like a deal where the facts are not going to be much in dispute, but it's whether the conduct violated any law. So if they don't charge her it means she's innocent, not just that she cannot be proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So the contention that she's guilty but it maybe cannot be proven does not appear to be apposite. So I don't have to feel any guilt about supporting her. Either she's guilty of a crime in which case she will be prosecuted OR she's innocent and this e- mail thing is nothing.

freeman3 wrote:With all the allegations of Hillary being deceptive made by DF, I saw this collection of the Bush Administration's deception regarding the invasion of Iraq....

http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/d ... ements.htm

rickyp wrote:There have been 22 "scandals" concerning Hillary since the early 90's.
None stick.
I highly doubt that this one will stick either.

Deliberately destroying government records didn't seem to disqualify Mitt Romney.

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/ ... struction/

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/ ... 0X20111206

However it ends up Clintons transgressions won't be any more significant than Romneys. .
Sort of a shame because i"d like to see Sanders versus Trump.

freeman3 wrote:What are Hillary's supposed lies? I have been trying to get a list from a conservative website and it seems to be a somewhat pathetic list for someone who has been in public life for so long. Here is one such list. http://louderwithcrowder.com/caught-top ... nton-lies/

Where are the significant lies like the ones documented with regard to the Bush Administration?

For months, the U.S. State Department has stood behind its former boss Hillary Clinton as she has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured, private email account, a practice the government forbids.

While the department is now stamping a few dozen of the publicly released emails as "Classified," it stresses this is not evidence of rule-breaking. Those stamps are new, it says, and do not mean the information was classified when Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 presidential election, first sent or received it.

But the details included in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found.

The new stamps indicate that some of Clinton's emails from her time as the nation's most senior diplomat are filled with a type of information the U.S. government and the department's own regulations automatically deems classified from the get-go — regardless of whether it is already marked that way or not.

In the small fraction of emails made public so far, Reuters has found at least 30 email threads from 2009, representing scores of individual emails, that include what the State Department's own "Classified" stamps now identify as so-called 'foreign government information.' The U.S. government defines this as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts.

This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions, according to U.S. regulations examined by Reuters.

"It's born classified," said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations.

Expecting the full and unvarnished truth from politicians is naive.

I see no evidence that Hillary is any different from most politicians in this regard--the only difference is that she is part of a political family that is subject to unrelenting scrutiny and attacks from the right-wing.

Most worrying is the fact that, for several months, Clinton's personal server was wholly unencrypted. Given the high value of any secretary of State — the world's top diplomat — to dozens of foreign intelligence agencies worldwide, it's a safe bet that Russian and Chinese spies were reading her correspondence.

Secretary of State John F. Kerry recently acknowledged that he assumes those countries are reading his unclassified emails. And only a decade ago, Russian intelligence got caught planting a bug in State Department headquarters, just down the hall from the secretary's office. Moscow and Beijing may know more about Clinton's activities at Foggy Bottom than Congress ever will.

This scandal isn't going away anytime soon. Investigators have examined only one-fifth of the emails that Clinton handed over to them, so the true number of her “unclassified” emails that were actually classified may be in the thousands. Although it's premature to discuss prosecutions, Clinton's staff may well have engaged in conduct that lands less exalted citizens in prison.

John R. Schindler is a security consultant and a former National Security Agency counterintelligence officer. He is on Twitter at @20committee.

Meanwhile, it just gets better and better for Hillary, right?