The 2016 Presidential Election Trainwreck

[YOhio]

when has clinton put peoples live in jeopardy? republicans determined clinton didnt really do anything wrong re: Benghazi.

Storing TS/SCI and SAP intel on an unencrypted server unquestionably puts national security in jeopardy, not to mention the lives of those in charge of collecting the intel she and her team treated so casually.

[wuapinmon]

[Maximus]

For the nevertrump folks, are you for or against dumping trump before nomination?

IMO: The worst case scenario for america is trump winning. the worst case scenario for the republican party is trump being nominated and winning, and second worse is being nominated. He needs to be dumped.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Storing TS/SCI and SAP intel on an unencrypted server unquestionably puts national security in jeopardy, not to mention the lives of those in charge of collecting the intel she and her team treated so casually.

I'm lazy and the only fact-finding I've done here is to read a few essays and opinion pieces covering both sides of the issue. On the one hand, I've seen many statements similar to yours and, obviously, they're very troubling. On the other hand, her apologists claim, among other things, that (i) she did the same thing her predecessors did, including Colin Powell, (ii) the classified information on her server wasn't classified at the time of its initial appearance, and (iii) the information wasn't all that damaging, etc... I'm hopeful the FBI investigation will produce a clear determination of what happened and how damaging it was. I'm also hopeful BYU will go undefeated this year.

BTW, I liked the meme that quoted Hillary as saying that people under FBI investigation shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun, but it's okay if they run for President.

In other news, I'm curious if anyone has done a compare and contrast of Donald's vs. Hillary's speeches following the Orlando massacre. I listened to most of both and thought (quelle surprise) hers was vastly better. Hillary has reduced her shouting and offered a serious, nuanced yet clear approach to what must be done (one can disagree with some or all of her suggestions, but at least they're ideas), while Drumpf seems utterly clueless. He doubled down on barring Muslim immigration while insisting that Muslims help in ferreting out the terrorists. What Muslim wouldn't want to help the Donald? But then, I'm still chafing over his initial post-massacre Tweet when he accepted everyone's congratulations that he was right about radical Islam. Very presidential to turn an unspeakable horror into self-promotion.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Ken Burns nails it in a commencement address. Trump is truly a once-in-a-lifetime caliber horrible candidate.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_3...ess?source=rss

For 216 years, our elections, though bitterly contested, have featured the philosophies and character of candidates who were clearly qualified. That is not the case this year. One is glaringly not qualified. So before you do anything with your well-earned degree, you must do everything you can to defeat the retrograde forces that have invaded our democratic process, divided our house, to fight against, no matter your political persuasion, the dictatorial tendencies of the candidate with zero experience in the much maligned but subtle art of governance; who is against lots of things, but doesn't seem to be for anything, offering only bombastic and contradictory promises, and terrifying Orwellian statements; a person who easily lies, creating an environment where the truth doesn't seem to matter; who has never demonstrated any interest in anyone or anything but himself and his own enrichment; who insults veterans, threatens a free press, mocks the handicapped, denigrates women, immigrants and all Muslims; a man who took more than a day to remember to disavow a supporter who advocates white supremacy and the Ku Klux Klan; an infantile, bullying man who, depending on his mood, is willing to discard old and established alliances, treaties and long-standing relationships. I feel genuine sorrow for the understandably scared and--they feel--powerless people who have flocked to his campaign in the mistaken belief that--as often happens on TV--a wand can be waved and every complicated problem can be solved with the simplest of solutions. They can't. It is a political Ponzi scheme. And asking this man to assume the highest office in the land would be like asking a newly minted car driver to fly a 747.

[YOhio]

The 2016 Presidential Election Primary Thread

I'm lazy and the only fact-finding I've done here is to read a few essays and opinion pieces covering both sides of the issue. On the one hand, I've seen many statements similar to yours and, obviously, they're very troubling. On the other hand, her apologists claim, among other things, that (i) she did the same thing her predecessors did, including Colin Powell, (ii) the classified information on her server wasn't classified at the time of its initial appearance, and (iii) the information wasn't all that damaging, etc... I'm hopeful the FBI investigation will produce a clear determination of what happened and how damaging it was. I'm also hopeful BYU will go undefeated this year.
.

The people who can provide insight on this topic are people that work or have worked in the IC and/or had a TS/SCI clearance within the past decade. On this board it pretty much means happyone, Solon, YO, Bo Diddley and mbn. Maybe there are others I'm missing. Only those folks who have had to deal in the classified world get how incredibly full of shit the Clinton apologists are. It's mind boggling deception that exploits the fact that few people have experience inside a SCIF or on classified networks. To transmit some of the information found on her server it would require someone to manually transcribe the classified intelligence from a computer with secure comms in a secure room (rf shielded, soundproof, solid walls, no windows, white noise generators, etc) to another computer in a separate unsecured room.

As for the origination claim, again FOS. Most of the classified info ID'd on the server was classified upon generation for protection of sources and methods. It may later be reclassified, but a good portion of TS/SCI data is born into the classification (think drone recon data or information provided by a foreign agent).

As for whether the information was or wasn't damaging, we don't know and we'll likely never know. First, none of the Clinton apologists know. The emails have been withheld and only the FBI would be in a position to make that determination. Even then, they're working on incomplete information. Recall that what we're talking about now survived the 30,000 email purge. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that someone on her team may have deleted other classified correspondence.

[MartyFunkhouser]

Ken Burns nails it in a commencement address. Trump is truly a once-in-a-lifetime caliber horrible candidate.

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_3...ess?source=rss

I agree he nailed it.

Trump is scary. I'm worried for the entire world if he is elected.

Sent from my VS985 4G using Tapatalk

[falafel]

I agree he nailed it.

Trump is scary. I'm worried for the entire world if he is elected.

Well, you've been worried for practically everything else, might as well add the entire world to the top of the heap.

[PaloAltoCougar]

...Recall that what we're talking about now survived the 30,000 email purge. I'll go out on a limb and suggest that someone on her team may have deleted other classified correspondence.

That's one of the things that really bothers me about the email mess: as an experienced trial lawyer, Clinton knew all of the emails would be called into evidence and yet she destroyed them.

[myboynoah]

That's one of the things that really bothers me about the email mess: as an experienced trial lawyer, Clinton knew all of the emails would be called into evidence and yet she destroyed them.

Her predecessors did not do what she did. They may have done something that resembled what she did (did work emailing via their private email accounts), but she went way beyond that (directing a State Dept IT guy--who was given immunity--to set up a private server in her home that she controlled for her "private" work emails and more). Also, during the time of her predecessors most official communication by the State Dept was still being carried out via cables (a secure system) even if the information was unclassified. About the time HClinton and team came in the picture, the State Dept switched over to the much easier email system for most official communications (still using cables, but for only very official communications). Those HClinton apologists are bold face lying when they make this argument. These are lies, plain and simple. Cynical lies, at that. The Dump is a buffoon and I would never vote for him, but in many ways she is more dangerous. She maintains some air of respectability when she is really no better than him. Just as corrupt, just as self-centered, just as cynical, just as willing say anything and lie in any way to get what she wants. You think The Dump's followers are unthinking fanatics? Just look at those people making these arguments for her. It was not the same.

Those emails were our property. She took them, as if she carried desks, computers, cameras, telephones, books, skilcraft pens, and the like out of the building to her home for her private use. People loose clearances and are fired for this. We have no idea what she deleted. That public record is gone. She disposed of government property without any accounting. Is that not crazy? There are so many regulations in government in order to keep the regular Joes from walking out the door with all the stuff. Why are we so content to allow her to do this?

As for the classified, let's assume the best, that this information was classified after these emails. Even then, she puts us at jeopardy by making such information more easily accessible. If it ended up being classified, it was an exchange of cake recipes. There are reasons they have a dedicated unclass system that is controlled by federal government agencies and that they require employees to use if for official business. This is one of them. But like YO, I have no doubt that they communicated classified info via this server and that it was the classified stuff was the first to get deleted. They skirted all the other regs, so that was just another easy step.

Well, that's probably fairly incoherent. Anyway, write in Mitt!

[YOhio]

I didn't think it was incoherent. I thought it was amazing and I'm so proud to be on your side.

[imanihonjin]

I'm lazy and the only fact-finding I've done here is to read a few essays and opinion pieces covering both sides of the issue. On the one hand, I've seen many statements similar to yours and, obviously, they're very troubling. On the other hand, her apologists claim, among other things, that (i) she did the same thing her predecessors did, including Colin Powell, (ii) the classified information on her server wasn't classified at the time of its initial appearance, and (iii) the information wasn't all that damaging, etc... I'm hopeful the FBI investigation will produce a clear determination of what happened and how damaging it was. I'm also hopeful BYU will go undefeated this year.

Come on. The Hillary apologists arguments don't even stand up to a little bit of scrutiny. The "but he/she did it first argument" is one my kids love to use. She is running for president of the United States. Just because Colin Powell did something, or anyone else for that matter, doesn't mean anything, in terms of understanding whether her actions were smart. Additionally, it could be noted that our world changes dramatically in just short periods of time when it comes to technological advances. Colin Powell was last SoS in 2005. Benghazi was in 2011.

As to the second argument. Assuming for the moment that what YO provided above is for some reason inaccurate, as SoS you should pretty well be damned sure that you are going to get some information that isn't initially classified, but will later become so. It's just part of the job. It shows a terrible lack of judgment for her to assume otherwise. So at best this argument shows a terrible lack of judgment....is that someone that should be running for office? She also went from initially claiming that no classified emails were received or sent to/from her private email, to no documents labeled as classified at the time they were received or sent to/from her private email. As we learn from what YO and mbn have provided above, despite the bullshitness of this argument, her word plays on this ridiculous situation are really, really bad.

As to the third argument.....how do we know? She deleted more than 30,000 emails that she, and she alone, determined were personal and didn't need to be turned over to the government. Nobody has been able to see these and evaluate her claims. Oh and lets not forget that she said that many of these were personal emails between her and Bill but yet Bill had previously claimed that he had only send a total of two emails in his life.

All in all, the best argument that Hill can hope succeeds is, "sorry folks, I didn't know what I was doing."

Isn't that great.

And no, I don't think Trump would be better.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Lol. You guys are funny.

[myboynoah]

Lol. You guys are funny.

Yeah, that's the problem. People think its funny. The Dump is pretty funny too.

[wuapinmon]

Yeah, that's the problem. People think its funny. The Dump is pretty funny too.

If it makes you feel any better, I don't think it's funny. I am having a very hard time trying to convince my liberal friends why Hillary is a self-serving stool pigeon of the corporotocracy in the same way that Cruz, Rubio, Jeb!, etc. would've been. Trump, shit. I can't really talk to anyone who would vote for Trump about why that's a bad idea--the thought processes are broken down and a dialectic is wishful thinking at this point for either of us. Someone told me, "You don't vote for the man, you vote for the party." <REDACT> the party.