patrick.net

A quarter century of bullshit. Nobody could withstand being investigated that many times without embarrassing shit (unrelated to the original accusation) being dredged up.

Blumenthal was apparently the source of the idea that the Benghazi attacks were spontaneous, a notion that proved incorrect and provided a political bludgeon against Clinton and Obama.

And wingnuts, who ardently supported an administration that got 9-11 wrong for years, we're furious at an administration that got Benghazi (sort of) wrong for 36 hours. (The film was the pretext which allowed the attacks to go forward, as it motivated demonstrators who provided cover for militants.)

I just want to know how the Clintons went from broke to 100s of millions by only "speaking engagements".

DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie says

Everyone wants to know how the ClintFUCKS! can speak with all that bankster cock in their throats.

It's quite a mystery.

Reasonable analysis. The only one it says is "serious," is the email question, of Clinton receiving classified emails on her personal server. Is this an example of corruption or lack of ethics ? Those are the attributes many want to attribute to Clinton. Or is it simply an error ? An error in judgement ? The magnitude in my opinion would be in dependent a few things, including:

1) Was the server well secured ? That is, did she hire competent people to make it as secure as possible ?

2) How calssified were these emails ? They say that a lot of information which is not necessary to be classified is. IF there was important classified info in some of the emails, then this needs to be evaluated by people with the right kind of clearance, but also without a partisan bias.

THese technologies are still fairly young, and mistakes such as these go a long way towards bringing about rules that will be have to be followed in the future. THat's a good thing.

I would argue it is a mistake but no where near the level of a major policy blunder.

Christopher Hitchens on Hillary's Quest for the Presidency
www.youtube.com/embed/qE8PG2mpo58

His Book: "No One Left to Lie To: The Triangulations of William Jefferson Clinton"
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B007EDYSD6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

I'll never forget the $400,000 lobbying money and forgiven loan by pardoned financier to Hillary's brothers for their Georgian hazelnut monopoly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/23/us/clinton-pardons-brothers-siblings-who-often-emerge-unflattering-spotlight.html

...signed off as legit by... Eric Holder.

#CrookedHillary #CorporateClinton

marcus says

Reasonable analysis.

I thought so, too. A good effort to keep it fact based.

Questions for you... Why is she always so close to such shenanigans? It's not like she's the only liberal to ever run for office. She's not the only female to run for office. She's either the most targeted politician in the history of politics or there is some fire to the smoke. You have to admit, she sure finds herself in close proximity to trouble, a lot. Does that raise any suspicions in your mind? If you knew that a person were called in frequently for questioning by the police, wouldn't you start to wonder about the person? Even if that person were never charged... How many times would it take before you begin to suspect that the person is involved in things she shouldn't be?

turtledove says

It's not like she's the only liberal to ever run for office.

What is a more prominent Democrat family since the Kennedys? They hate Obama and tried like hell to treat him as a Muslim foreigner of all things. But the Clintons have a chance to be in the white house for another 8 years. There is a huge right wing news industry that started with am radio, that is tremendously aggressive about this stuff. These people seem to have a huge hard on for the Clintons and are probably still pissed that bill skated on blow job gate.
How many millions have they spent investigating the Clintons? Having an investigation is not proof of guilt, and having lots of investigations is also not proof of guilt.

turtledove says

She's either the most targeted politician in the history of politics or there is some fire to the smoke.

Look at Obama. He is ridiculously clean, but they still tried to say he wasn't born in the U.S., that he's a Muslim, reverend Wright, and so on. Anything they can find. Anything they can make up that might stick. And they like him personally.

I have an older brother that's a republican. The extreme hate against Hillary started when she was put in charge of health care policy under Clinton. A woman, given such a leadership role in helping him form his health care policy ? ! That's unheard of. Doesn't she know ? The first lady is supposed to be choosing drapes and China. THey hated her all along.

I don't know if it's payback for Nixon or what (of course by today's standards he's an extreme liberal - but he was hated by democrats back then) ?

You won't see a democrat President embraced by republicans, or even worked with in any meaningful way. Democrats can not be allowed to perceived as successful leaders. This is the highest objective of republicans. Because that might lead to higher taxes paid by the Koch brothers and corporations.

turtledove says

there is some fire to the smoke

She's been ambitious and very busy. She's done a lot. So there's a lot to work with if you're looking for lies to build a story around.

You can't see how laughable the list is, because you're a republican, and you want there to be fire there.

turtledove says

State Department Emails

Benghazi

Conflicts of Interest

Private Server

Sidney Blumenthal

Paid Speeches

The Clinton Foundation

The Bad Old Days

marcus says

Reasonable analysis. The only one it says is "serious," is the email question, of Clinton receiving classified emails on her personal server. Is this an example of corruption or lack of ethics ? Those are the attributes many want to attribute to Clinton. Or is it simply an error ? An error in judgement ? The magnitude in my opinion would be in dependent a few things, including:

1) Was the server well secured ? That is, did she hire competent people to make it as secure as possible ?

2) How calssified were these emails ? They say that a lot of information which is not necessary to be classified is. IF there was important classified info in some of the emails, then this needs to be evaluated by people with the right kind of clearance, but also without a partisan bias.

THese technologies are still fairly young, and mistakes such as these go a long way towards bringing about rules that will be have to be followed in the future. THat's a good thing.

I would argue it is a mistake but no where near the level of a major policy blunder.

Damn it's hard to see the forest with all those trees in the way. The problem is not security, the problem is hillary set up the server to sidestep the federal records act and the freedom of information act. All correspondence in any form related to the execution of her duties must be archived on a government server that is search able for FOI requests. Setting up the private server was carefully planned to avoid this requirement while not actually breaking any laws. At the time (this has been fixed) there was no limit on time to get records archived and after 5 years hillary was still working on it. If she hadn't gotten caught she would have been working on it forever.

So while what she did is technically legal it was a deliberate and carefully planned gross breach of her responsibilities as secretary of state. This shows a level of arrogance and contempt for the responsibilities of public office that makes her totally unfit for the office of president.

Ironman says

There has to be questionable activity to START an investigation... If they weren't involved in questionable business or personal activities, there would be zero reason to start an investigation.

Here we go again, the famous Clinton "no need for investigation... because there is no solid evidence of wrongdoing" solipsistic runaround.

The purpose of the investigation is to look at suspicious activity and see if there is evidence.

bob2356 says

his shows a level of arrogance and contempt for the responsibilities

Yup and very typical with people with sketchy backgrounds.

It'll all go poof and disappear once she's elected. If she doesn't pull any major shit after being elected, she'll be fine.

Kennedy's assassination made Lyndon Johnson's pending indictments go poof when Johnson stepped into the Oval Office. Sometimes, you think they want to get elected so they DON'T get indicted.

Trouble is that old habits die hard.

LBJ was one of the worst presidents we ever had.

bob2356 says

So while what she did is technically legal it was a deliberate and carefully planned gross breach of her responsibilities as secretary of state. This shows a level of arrogance and contempt for the responsibilities of public office that makes her totally unfit for the office of president.

I understand you completely and I disagree. I'm guessing you're an accountant or bookkeeper of some kind ? In your job having good records and detailed documentation of every single thing that you do is paramount to all else ?

Newsflash: Everyone is not just like you. People bring different kinds of skill sets to the table.

Your assumption is that she had some motives to hide what she was doing. That's nonsense. Some people are goofd at saving all their reciepts and every record of every thing they do. Others, not so much.

Too many assumptions in your take on this.

bob2356 says

The problem is not security

I didn't say it was a problem. But if she made a diligent effort to have a secure email server, then there is less credence to the claim that she was carelessly leaking classified state secrets.

I believe she may have been paranoid about people misconstruing her actions thus preferring when at all possible to keep private correspondence private. I believe she probably knew too much, from when she was first lady, about the others that would have access to all of her emails. It may have been mostly about keeping private emails private. Arrogant versus just smart (using what she knew to her advantage - and at the same time being confident that she's a good person and not harming anything).

Arrogant ? MAybe you can call it that. But not in a way that in my view is a proof of dishonesty, bad ethics, immorality or corruption. None of those words apply. I'm okay with that kind of arrogance.

bob2356 says

Damn it's hard to see the forest with all those trees in the way

It's called having a different take on it than you.

I see you know a lot about arrogance.

marcus says

I understand you completely and I disagree. I'm guessing you're an accountant or bookkeeper of some kind ? In your job having good records and detailed documentation of every single thing that you do is paramount to all else ?

Newsflash: Everyone is not just like you. People bring different kinds of skill sets to the table.

Newsflash, the federal records act is totally clear and unequivocal. If correspondence is in an official capacity it must be archived with the federal government and available to the public. You are telling me someone who was first lady, a senator, and secretary of state HONESTLY wasn't aware of this? OR are you saying that 7 years after she started as secretary of state she was HONESTLY still working on getting her correspondence, any of her correspondence at all, over to the state department to archive OR are you saying her skill set was so poor she couldn't couldn't manage to get one single official email to the state department to be archived? Really? Seriously?? Come on, that's ridiculous even for you. We aren't talking finding receipts for lunch at the airport stuffed in your wallet, it's email. Unless you erase it it's there.

When exactly do you think she was planning to hand over all of her job related emails if no one had found out about her private server? Come on, seriously, take a stab at it. When did you think it was going to happen if she didn't get caught?

Even more lame is her saying that she sent her email to people who would have had the records archived so she didn't have to archive hers. That is the most ridiculous thing ever said on two fronts. First the records act says both sides of the correspondence must be archived separately. Secondly that means as secretary of state somehow she sent no emails to anyone who wasn't a US federal government employee Hillary knows perfectly well it's total bullshit. She can't not know, she's a lawyer and she's been in government her whole life. She is absolutely standing there lying. Yet somehow you and the rest of the Hillary apologists are buying this?

marcus says

I believe she may have been paranoid about people misconstruing her actions thus preferring when at all possible to keep private correspondence private.

WTF. Let's type really slowly. Any and all correspondence having to to with execution of her duties as secretary of state is PUBLIC. That's the law. Period. Are you clear on that point now or would you like me to use smaller words?

Are you actually trying to tell me hillary somehow wasn't aware she could have her server set up with 2 email accounts, one for official emails and one for her private emails? OR use her .gov account for official business only and a private server for private emails. In the year 2009? If so then she really, really shouldn't be president.

marcus says

I'm okay with that kind of arrogance.

That kind of arrogance is the belief that the rules don't apply to her and actively circumventing them. There is absolutely no other explanation why 7 years after she started as secretary of state all of her official emails were still squirrelled away on a private server that no one knew about. You may be ok with that but I'm not. If she didn't want to be in the public eye she should not have taken a public position. It's part of the job.

marcus says

bob2356 says

Damn it's hard to see the forest with all those trees in the way

It's called having a different take on it than you.

I see you know a lot about arrogance.

Then why in your take are you focused on secondary or irrelevant issues like server security and private emails rather than why she didn't do her duty as secretary of state if you are looking at the big picture?

bob2356 says

7 years after she started as secretary of state all of her official emails were still squirrelled away on a private server that no one knew about.

It was after she left the state department that the department of archives recommended that official business not be done through private email accounts. And yes any emails she sent to people on .gov accounts would indeed be archived elsewhere.

bob2356 says

why she didn't do her duty as secretary of state

Give me a fucking break.

The Secretary's office was located in a secure area. Classified information was viewed in hard copy by Clinton while in the office. While on travel, the State Department had rigorous protocols for her and traveling staff to receive and transmit information of all types.

A separate, closed email system was used by the State Department for the purpose of handling classified communications, which was designed to prevent such information from being transmitted anywhere other than within that system.

https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email-facts/

She had a private email account that was in addition to this. With all the emails stored. How can your head be this far up your ass on this issue ?

You say she thought she was above the rules, but we're talking about email rules that didn't exist yet.

My bottom line: I think she probably had reasons for wanting privacy with her emails (some of her emails). Whether she should have been entitled to that ? I don't know, but I know there were no existing rules at that time she broke. If that privacy made her more comfortable for whatever reason, it may have helped her rather than hindered her from doing her duty as well as possible.

If you think following some specific protocols for the way her private (some containing work & unclassified or least classified info) emails are stored is a significant part of a U.S Secretary of State's duty, then I have to ask you again, are you an accountant or something along those lines ? You must realize that she had a staff that was handling a majority of communications anyway, all on state department servers

Note to Republicans and conservatives: There are non-Republicans and liberals here discussing the sins of Clinton (gasp) without need to mention the other guy. Republicans and conservatives should try it sometime when their guy is on the slab. It's yet to happen. Doubt it ever will.

DieBankOfAmericaPhukkingDie says

The CLINTFUCKS are fucking equivocating scum who get attacked for the wrong shit.

What is the right shit?

How can Hillary be in the slammer? My impression is that Trump will deputize her (on a pile of money) thereby exposing her as the sheriff-loving traitor she is.

bob2356 says

What part of ALL correspondence in an official capacity emails or otherwise MUST be archived AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT do you not get?

What part of Clinton finished being being secretary of state in 2012 do you not get ?

OH wait you do get it.

bob2356 says

Technically she didn't violate the law.

Wait, but you said she didn't do her duty.

Your level of indignation and outrage has more to do with what you would like this to be than what it is. MY belief is that if this was even intentional on her part it has only to do with one thing. And that is whether others in government can track her emails immediately after they are sent or received versus the requirement that they eventually can, if need be (paranoia ? perhaps).

I can not imagine other reasons for it. Motives or reasons for behavior matter.

Her emails were required to be stored so that in the future if need be, there is a record of all communications. And they were.

You don't imply unethical or corrupt reasons for it, and I don't think you see those as existing. And yet you are outraged that she supposedly doesn't think some rules apply to her, and then you turn around and add that technically she did not break the rules.

You have outrage and indignation and that's it. Otherwise you're just making a fool out of yourself.

marcus says

bob2356 says

What part of ALL correspondence in an official capacity emails or otherwise MUST be archived AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT do you not get?

What part of Clinton finished being being secretary of state in 2012 do you not get ?

OH wait you do get it.

The national records and archive act is from 1954. The freedom of information act is from 1966. The federal records act is from 1981. The 2014 amendment to the federal records act simply closes the loophole hillary used to dodge compliance. It's an amendment to an existing law, not a new law. Existing laws hillary was subject to the entire time she was sec of state.

marcus says

Wait, but you said she didn't do her duty.

Your level of indignation and outrage has more to do with what you would like this to be than what it is. MY belief is that if this was even intentional on her part it has only to do with one thing. And that is whether others in government can track her emails immediately after they are sent or received versus the requirement that they eventually can, if need be (paranoia ? perhaps).

I can not imagine other reasons for it. Motives or reasons for behavior matter.

Her emails were required to be stored so that in the future if need be, there is a record of all communications. And they were.

No completely wrong. Her emails are required to be in government archives available for public searches under the freedom of information act. Not stored so that there is a future record of communications. Do you know anything about the laws of the land? Didn't you take a semester of US government in college to learn how this all works? It was a requirement where I went.

Again you dodged out. When do you think she would have turned over her official correspondence if no one had found out about her server? Simple question that you keep ignoring. Go ahead take a shot at it. Hint, the answer is never. She didn't do her duty. What happened is that after be exposed she very reluctantly complied with the intent of the law under heavy political pressure. If you can't comprehend the difference then that is pathetic. Like you said motives matter. They matter a lot.

Why should hillary be paranoid about public records that until hillary was sec of state traditionally were turned over promptly? What part of public records do you not grasp? They aren't her private correspondence until hillary says they are not. If they have to do with the execution of her post then they are public as soon as they are written. Even classified documents are public. The classification level and handling (redacted or not released) of sensitive documents would determined by a classification authority, not the author of the document. Hillary is supposed to have no say whatsoever in when, where, and how documents, unclassified or classified, are made public. She doesn't have that right under the law, even though she managed to take it upon herself through being clever at the law. This really isn't a hard concept.

HydroCabron says

yet you are outraged that she supposedly doesn't think some rules apply to her, and then you turn around and add that technically she did not break the rules.

You have outrage and indignation and that's it.

Absolutely, although I have to have admiration for someone who was able to so carefully and successfully plan to end run the entire intent of 4 different federal acts. That has to be a record of some kind. I find it hard to believe that anyone could fail to grasp that not breaking the law isn't the same as complying with the intent of the law. The first duty of any public official is to comply with the intent of the law. On the other hand Hillary has apparently found millions of people like you who don't grasp this.

No way, no how she had all of this occur by casual happenstance. As you say give me a fucking break. She is far too smart, too well trained as a lawyer, and has far to much experience in politics for 40 years for that to happen. She knew exactly what she was doing and why. I find anyone that worked that hard to violate the spirit of the law to be completely unfit for the responsibilities of public office. If you and the rest of the hillary apologists don't then it is very likely you will eventually end up with the government you deserve.

You can write an entire book. It doesn't make you look any less silly, if people simply consider the accepted fact that John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to not use a private email account for at least some of his or her official (State Department) business done by email.

Your emotions just control you don't they.

If Hillary were really trying to hide these emails, why didn't she just delete them years ago? The evil plot hypothesis doesn't really make sense.

Ironman says

She HAS deleted 30,000 emails...

Why wouldn't she have deleted all of them, or at least ask of the problematic ones? Also, if it were so egregious, why didn't anyone speak up at the time? Why did they wait 6 years or so?

marcus says

You can write an entire book. It doesn't make you look any less silly, if people simply consider the accepted fact that John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to not use a private email account for at least some of his or her official (State Department) business done by email.

Your emotions just control you don't they.

Irrelevant once again. You are having a lot of trouble sorting out the concept of medium vs content. The content of the message must be archived, regardless of the medium. The medium is totally and completely irrelevant. Did the other sec of state using private emails hide them on a private server? No, they used a commercial email service and sent their emails to be archived like they were supposed to be. John Kerry is the first sec of state to not use a private email? Thomas Jefferson would certainly be shocked to know that.

If plainly stating the facts, legal issues, and political issues makes me look silly then what would you call your endless recitation of irrelevant bullshit and total refusal to address any of the questions I have put to you?

Blind devotion to hillary just controls you doesn't it.

marcus says

I would argue it is a mistake but no where near the level of a major policy blunder.

Some of us think that someone who could be president should be able to handle 2 email accounts.

YesYNot says

If Hillary were really trying to hide these emails, why didn't she just delete them years ago? The evil plot hypothesis doesn't really make sense.

Jesus doesn't anyone know the laws they live under. Just frigging amazing. Destroying federal records would be a felony. Simply not turning them over was technically not illegal until 2014. You were supposed to turn them over, but there was nothing in the statute that set a deadline to do it. Obviously hillary was still working on turning them over 6 years later.

I never said there is any evil plot. She just didn't want to be held accountable for her actions and decisions by the public even though it is required by law. She almost got away with it. On a certain level one has to admire that kind of conceit and clever deception. But not in a presidential candidate.

YesYNot says

Why wouldn't she have deleted all of them, or at least ask of the problematic ones? Also, if it were so egregious, why didn't anyone speak up at the time? Why did they wait 6 years or so?

It's a felony plain and simple. I really don't believe she would be foolish to actually try to delete any actual official records no matter how much she wanted to keep them out of the public eye. The billary twins are masters at twisting the law into pretzels, but they are also the masters of not crossing the line into actual crime.

How would anyone know she wasn't turning over her correspondence to be archived? Everyone would assume the sec of state would follow the law. No one realized that she wasn't until she got caught with her private server 6 years later.

bob2356 says

until she got caught with her private server 6 years later.

You are on a soapbox of indignation and dudgeon about an email server.

Proud?

Ironman says

She wasn't running for President 6 years ago and the voting public didn't have to decide if she's honest and trustworthy. Duh...

Well, at least you agree it is not about criminal behavior, and that it is about politics and the election.

bob2356 says

Jesus doesn't anyone know the laws they live under.

Of course not. That's what lawyers are for.bob2356 says

Simply not turning them over was technically not illegal until 2014. You were supposed to turn them over, but there was nothing in the statute that set a deadline to do it.

Ok then. You also agree it was not technically illegal. It was just tardy.

bob2356 says

Did the other sec of state using private emails hide them on a private server? No, they used a commercial email service and sent their emails to be archived like they were supposed to be.

I'm not sure I get why a private server, commercial email service, or virtual server would be better. It all depends on the integrity and competence of the people running the machine/service.

Ironman says

You really are a fucking idiot if you can't tell the difference.

I know what the difference is, but the preference is not clear. Securely setting up an email server is not trivial, but privacy is not guaranteed on a commercial service. Clearly the preference is to use .gov accounts, and let the correct people deal with security issues. But that wasn't on the list.

Ironman says

Well, at least you agree Hillary has no integrity

True to form, your response has nothing to do with what you are quoting.

Ironman says

the list,

What list are you talking about? I'm talking about the list Bob provided, which is who and what I responding to.
Obviously a .gov account was offered to her and was a possibility for her to use.
As far as commercial servers go, I doubt they all retrain deleted emails indefinitely. That would be stupid.

HydroCabron says

bob2356 says

until she got caught with her private server 6 years later.

You are on a soapbox of indignation and dudgeon about an email server.

Proud?

Irrelevant. Another clueless one comes out of the woodwork. The server is irrelevant. The emails on the server that were never turned over to be archived until hillary was caught hiding them is the issue. Hiding public records, no matter where or in what medium, from the public should be cause for indignation and dudgeon for every citizen of the country.

We only have Hillary's word they were personal. The volume of them, combined with her long-known poor grasp of technology, suggests that she either emails more than the most popular cheerleader in the 10th Grade, or that they weren't all personal.