danivon wrote:Yep. So is hypocrisy.

Trump is not exactly well known for his complete honesty and he leads his race.

freeman3 wrote:Mukasey had to walk back his claim that Hillary would be unqualified for president if she were convicted of destroying federal records. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/for ... -e-n417291

Also, how could you prove that Hillary destroyed federal records when Clinton says they were personal e-mails?

Hopefully, Republicans have someone stronger than this...

The private employment of Pagliano provides a new example of the ways that Clinton — who occupied a unique role as a Cabinet secretary who was also a former and potentially future presidential candidate — hired staff to work simultaneously for her in public and private capacities.

Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff, and Huma Abedin, a close confidant who served as deputy chief of staff, both spent time working for the State Department, the Clinton Foundation or the Clintons personally.

Pagliano’s employment by the Clintons was confirmed by a campaign official in response to questions from The Washington Post. The official spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter. A campaign spokesman declined to provide a statement.

Pagliano had served as the IT director of Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign and then worked for her political action committee.

The Clintons paid Pagliano $5,000 for “computer services” prior to his joining the State Department, according to a financial disclosure form he filed in April 2009.

But even after arriving at State in May 2009, Pagliano continued to be paid by the Clintons to maintain the server, which was in their Chappaqua, N.Y., home, according to the campaign official and another person familiar with the arrangement. That person spoke on the condition of anonymity because the matter is under investigation.

The private pay arrangement has not previously been reported. The State Department has declined to answer questions about whether the private system was widely known within the agency or officially approved.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:If someone sends you information that is only made classified after you received it, what crime have you committed?

Okay, I'll answer your question: this did happen. And, she is responsible to report when it does happen. Since she didn't, she violated it.

She also transmitted material that was "born classified."

I know, I know. It's shocking. Hillary is lying.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:If someone sends you information that is only made classified after you received it, what crime have you committed?

Prove that was the case.

Prove an "if" question? Puhleeze.

If she did violate the law, should she be President?

Probably not, but several recent Presidents have violated laws and it has been know about and they won elections. Clinton, Bush II and Obama definitely.

Ideally you should not elect lawbreakers. Now I have answered your question, do you care to answer mine?

Oh, and the FBI is not investigating for their health.

No, but they do have to investigate allegations. But the fact they are investigating is less strong than if any actual charges are laid and neither is proof that she is guilty.

Not so long ago, you were telling us that a difference between Republicans and Democrats was that the former would wait for all the evidence before rushing to judgement...

"All" is a pretty big word.

Yep. So is hypocrisy.

As I have said, I prefer Sanders. But I have no illusions that whoever the Dem frontrunner was, the right wing hysteria machine would not be spreading smears and you would not be repeating them as Gospel.

Nah, the facts will do. I'm just shocked that someone everyone knows to be deceptive is leading. It's not even a debate whether she's honest or not.

Trump is not exactly well known for his complete honesty and he leads his race.

freeman3 wrote:Plan A is still good...of course Pagliano's lawyer is going to tell him to take the Fifth given that the Republicans would like for Clinton to be criminally charged...even if he has nothing at all to add to the discussion other than, yes, he set up and maintained the server. We won't know unless he ever testifies...what else is he testify to, anyway?

[T]he NBC/Marist polls find that Jeb Bush and Donald Trump both beat Clinton in Iowa:

Bush 50 percent, Clinton 39 percent
Trump 48 percent, Clinton 43 percent.

But Biden performs better:

Bush 46 percent, Biden 44 percent
Biden 49 percent, Trump 45 percent

In New Hampshire, the general-election numbers are:

Bush 48 percent, Clinton 43 percent
Clinton 46 percent, Trump 45 percent
Bush 46 percent, Biden 45 percent
Biden 50 percent, Trump 41 percent.

danivon wrote:"preserve the record"?

Why go back and edit a post from days ago when it would be more honest to just respond following my last post?

You call others dishonest regularly.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:"preserve the record"?

Why go back and edit a post from days ago when it would be more honest to just respond following my last post?

You call others dishonest regularly.

When they're being dishonest. Thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. *cough*

Here's what happened. I was trying to respond to something in your last post which referred to a previous question you alleged I had not answered. I went back and found what I thought was the question. I meant to hit the "quote this post" button and didn't notice I'd hit the edit button until I had submitted it. At that point, I'd edited an old post and didn't know how to un-edit it. So, I went back in my browser's history and found the old page and "preserved" it. It was a mistake; nothing nefarious.

Shame you don't have your own server ... all of this could have been avoided

The New York Times reports on a special intelligence review of two emails that Madam Hillary received as secretary of state on her personal account. The special review confirms the finding of the intelligence inspector of the intelligence agencies that these two emails (out of a sample of 40 emails from the personal account she used as Secretary of State) contained highly classified information “when Mrs. Clinton received them.” The Times’s Michael Schmidt puts the confirmation in this context:

Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and the State Department disputed the inspector general’s finding last month and questioned whether the emails, which are being released to the public, had been overclassified by an arbitrary process. But the special review — by the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency — concluded that the emails were “Top Secret,” the highest classification of government intelligence, when they were sent to Mrs. Clinton in 2009 and 2011.

Schmidt adds that “the Clinton campaign disagreed with the conclusion of the intelligence review and noted that agencies within the government often have different views of what should be considered classified.” I take it that Madam Hillary disagrees with the inspector general of the intelligence community, with the CIA, and with the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency regarding the proper classification of the information. I guess she has to say something.

Schmidt notes toward the end of the story that President Obama signed an executive order in December 2009 that defined “Top Secret” as information that if disclosed could “reasonably” be expected to cause “exceptionally grave damage to national security.” In other words, the information in issue was Top Secret whether or not it was marked as such at the time that Madam Hillary received it.