Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Clinton Scandals
#1
Basically, the Email scandal is much ado about very little
  • Out of 30,000 emails 110 (the back and forth of 52 email chains) contained classified info. That's 0.003%.
  • 8 of these 110 contained top secret info, but 7 of these 8 were referring to CIA drone strikes, which are top secret unlike the unclassified Defense Department drone strikes. The reason for the CIA drone strike classification is to give cover for foreign governments (for whom it is awkward politically to admit they are cooperating with the US). Not really issues of state security.
  • The sole other top secret email contained a conversation with the president of a foreign country (Malawi), which are automatically classified as top secret.
Quote:As anyone who’s ever had a security clearance will tell you, the labels secret and confidential mean next to nothing. When I worked on Capitol Hill in the late 1970s, the government gave me a secret clearance on my first day of work, pending the investigation into my worthiness to hold a top secret badge. As far as anyone knew, I might have been a Soviet spy, carting out confidential and secret documents every night and making copies for my handler. But they also knew the risk was low because there was nothing in those documents that the Soviets would have paid a dime for. The same is true of our various adversaries and stuff marked secret today.

Several news stories have likened Clinton’s actions to those of retired Gen. David Petraeus, but the situations are very different. Petraeus showed a notebook containing highly classified information—names of agents, code words, and ongoing tactical operations in the U.S. war in Afghanistan—to Paula Broadwell, who was writing a book about him. Later, when the FBI asked him if he had done this, he initially said he hadn’t. The first act might have been a misdemeanor or a felony; the second, lying to an FBI agent, is usually a felony. For reasons that are still mysterious, Petraeus was charged with a misdemeanor. (The FBI reportedly recommended charging Petraeus with a felony, but then–Attorney General Eric Holder downgraded the charge. Unlike the Clinton case, no Republican lawmaker called for the appointment of a special prosecutor; nor did Donald Trump accuse Petraeus of bribing Holder, as he accused Clinton of bribing Loretta Lynch.)
Hillary’s email scandal was overhyped.

Reply
#2
Quote:It's no accident that the one pseudo-scandal that truly spurred congressional Republicans to action — and eight separate investigations — was the one where they could focus all their attention on her. If the attack on Benghazi had happened six months or a year later — when John Kerry was secretary of state — would there have been eight separate congressional investigations into it? Not on your life.
The Benghazification of Hillary Clinton's emails

Quote:Comey was hauled before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, where instead of using the opportunity to replay and magnify his criticisms of Clinton, Republicans attacked him for not putting her in leg irons. And that's just the beginning: They've announced that five — five! — separate congressional committees will investigate the FBI's handling of the case. The Benghazification of Clinton's emails has begun, and it won't stop, at least not until there's something else that can become the focus of their unflagging belief that if only they look hard enough, her criminality will become clear to all.
The Benghazification of Hillary Clinton's emails

Quote:If you were around in the 1990s, this has a very familiar feel. For much of Bill Clinton's presidency, Congress was practically one giant Select Committee on Getting the Goods on Bill and Hillary. There were hearings on anything and everything — Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, this gate and that gate. At one point a prominent congressman conducted a home experiment that involved firing a bullet through a cantaloupe, in an attempt to prove that the Clintons killed their friend Vince Foster (seriously — that actually happened). As The Boston Globe noted in 2005, once George W. Bush was president, Republicans could rouse themselves for only 12 hours of hearings on the mistreatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib, a scandal that did incalculable damage to America's image around the world, but a few years earlier they took 140 hours of sworn testimony on the pressing issue of whether the Clintons had misused the White House Christmas card list.
The Benghazification of Hillary Clinton's emails



What did all these, mostly concurrent investigations actually achieve, apart from wasting an inordinate amount of tax money? 
Reply
#3
This really has some interesting bits..

Three facts that prove Clinton wasn't 'careless' with her emails

Lanny Davis, former special counsel to President Bill Clinton
7 Hours Ago
CNBC.com

This was originally published on TheHill.com.

Hillary Clinton has acknowledged, with the wisdom of hindsight, that she made a mistake in using one device for sending personal and business emails rather than using two when she was secretary of State, and in sending all of her emails to a private server.

I respect and agree with FBI Director James Comey's conclusion, speaking on behalf of a unanimous team of FBI professionals, investigators and expert technologists, that there was no criminal conduct. Almost all of the former prosecutors and experts with whom I have consulted agree with that conclusion, including a former inspector general of the National Security Agency.

So Republicans were left with the awkward position of calling a congressional hearing to attack an FBI director who was appointed by a Republican president, George W. Bush, to serve as a top prosecutor in New York and subsequently as deputy attorney general. And Donald Trump, the Republican Party's standard-bearer? Surprise! He attacked the integrity of Comey and his entire team, declaring their investigation as "rigged" — similar to his racist attack on a federal judge's integrity due to the judge's heritage.

As to Comey's characterization that Clinton's handling of her official emails was "extremely careless," I believe there are three undisputed facts that undermine his subjective characterization.

First, as Clinton repeatedly has stated over the last year, she never received or sent any email that was marked as classified. At Comey's press conference on Tuesday, he appeared to contradict that claim, saying there were "very few" that had classified markings. But then at the congressional hearing on Thursday, he withdrew his claim. He said that three, out of more than 30,000, had a marking of a small "C" — something he said a classification expert would not regard as sufficient to know the document contained classified information.

Not surprisingly, the media on Tuesday and Wednesday hyped the fact that the FBI director had contradicted Clinton's repeated assertions that she had never sent or received emails marked as classified, but then when Comey later withdrew that claim, the media barely covered the reversal.

Second, despite accusations by partisan Republicans to the contrary, there is no evidence — none — that the former secretary of State in fact compromised national security by using a private server. Both the FBI director and the State Department inspector general confirmed that. Comey's statement that it is "possible" is pure speculation — questionable for the head of the FBI to use such a speculative word publicly.

He also did not point out at his press conference or during the hearing that using the State Department server, state.gov, was a known, definite risk; we know that the department server has been hacked multiple times by Chinese and Russian hackers.

Third, Comey used the expression "extreme carelessness" because he said Clinton "should have known" that more than 100 emails that were sent to her private server using nonsecure communications channels contained classified information, albeit without any classification markings. But what he did not say is that more than 300 State Department officials, including many longtime, nonpartisan career professionals and diplomats, also used the same nonclassified channels to send her these emails allegedly containing classified information.

If over 300 State professionals and experts didn't recognize classified information in the emails they sent to Clinton, and they used nonsecure channels to send them to her, then how can Clinton plausibly be accused, alone, of showing "extreme carelessness" because she "should have" known what 300-plus government professionals did not? I don't think she can.

My respectful suggestion to the media and to fair, open-minded voters — I still believe there are a lot of those left — is that if you look at these indisputable facts, you will conclude that Clinton may have made mistakes, but certainly not at the level of "extreme carelessness."

The subject of Clinton's emails at State has now been closed — except by partisan Republicans, who are desperate to pound away on the subject so they don't have to defend the racist, misogynistic and reckless statements of their own presumptive presidential nominee.

Now, I believe, the American people want both Clinton and Trump to give them specific solutions to address the serious problems facing the country at home and abroad. Clinton has been doing this week after week in detail. I seriously doubt that Trump has any intention of doing the same — or any ability to do so even if he wanted to.

Commentary by Lanny Davis, who served as special counsel to former President Clinton. He is co-founder of the law firm Davis Goldberg & Galper PLLC and co-founder of the public relations firm Trident DMG, and author of "Crisis Tales: Five Rules for Coping with Crises in Business, Politics, and Life."
Reply
#4
But hey, wait for the tax payer funded multiple investigations, or should we say goose chases and none of the above article's arguments mentioned in our "liberal" press..
Reply
#5
This is quite shocking. I'm sure this info doesn't really get out to the right-wing press, especially the part where Comey withdrew his claim about the classified marking.

Didn't Colin Powell also use a private server?
Reply
#6
Actually, good point:

Quote:Hillary Clinton’s campaign claimed vindication in the long-running emails saga on Thursday when it emerged that two Republican secretaries of state had also received information later deemed classified on personal accounts. The state department watchdog found that both Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, America’s top diplomats under president George W Bush, were sent sensitive national security information to nongovernment email addresses.
Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice used private accounts for classified emails | US news | The Guardian
Reply
#7
Trump versus the facts:

Quote:Donald Trump took to Twitter with his usual bombast in response to FBI Director James Comey's recommendation that charges not be broughtagainst Hillary Clinton for her handling of classified information in connection to private email servers. "The system is rigged. General Petraeus got in trouble for far less. Very very unfair! As usual, bad judgment," the GOP's presumptive nominee tweeted.
'Very very unfair!': Trump on FBI's Comey

Quote:Was Clinton held to a different standard than General David Petraeus? Here, Comey was persuasive. In 2012, Petraeus knowingly shared classified information with his biographer and lover Paula Broadwell, who did not have the security clearance that would have authorized her to see the information. He lied to the FBI investigators about the whereabouts of classified information, indicating that he had returned it to its proper repository when it was found in his desk. He admitted to wrongdoing as part of a plea agreement. Intent was a central element in the Petraeus case; there was no evidence of intent in the Clinton case. Petraeus lied to the FBI; Clinton cooperated with the FBI.
James Comey Was Right Not to Indict Hillary Clinton Over Emails - Fortune

Rightwingers site versus the facts:

Quote:“From the 30,000 emails returned to the State Department in 2014, 110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received,” Comey said this morning — a direct contradiction of Clinton’s previous statement. After repeating Clinton’s clip, the shows Comey saying, “Eight of those chains contained information that was ‘top secret’ at the time they were sent.” He continues, “Thirty-six of those chains contained ‘secret’ information at the time they were sent.”
Trump releases damning video contrasting Clinton, Comey statements - The American MirrorThe American Mirror

Quote:First, as Clinton repeatedly has stated over the last year, she never received or sent any email that was marked as classified. At Comey's press conference on Tuesday, he appeared to contradict that claim, saying there were "very few" that had classified markings. But then at the congressional hearing on Thursday, he withdrew his claim. He said that three, out of more than 30,000, had a marking of a small "C" — something he said a classification expert would not regard as sufficient to know the document contained classified information. Not surprisingly, the media on Tuesday and Wednesday hyped the fact that the FBI director had contradicted Clinton's repeated assertions that she had never sent or received emails marked as classified, but then when Comey later withdrew that claim, the media barely covered the reversal.


But what he did not say is that more than 300 State Department officials, including many longtime, nonpartisan career professionals and diplomats, also used the same nonclassified channels to send her these emails allegedly containing classified information. If over 300 State professionals and experts didn't recognize classified information in the emails they sent to Clinton, and they used nonsecure channels to send them to her, then how can Clinton plausibly be accused, alone, of showing "extreme carelessness" because she "should have" known what 300-plus government professionals did not? I don't think she can.
The Clinton Scandals
Reply
#8
You mean there isn't really much of a scandal here? Revolutionary! Portraying Clinton as a shady character could easily backfire as I'm pretty sure Trump is quite a bit more shady. Court cases, bankruptcies, Trump university, unpaid suppliers, etc.. And, of course his missing tax returns.
Reply
#9
While no Clinton scandal in a strict sense, it's still worth considering the following:

Quote:What was so terrible about the e-mails? In one, a D.N.C. staffer raised the possibility of Sanders being asked about his religious views, though it appears nothing came of the suggestion. In another, D.W.S. referred to a Sanders campaign official who had criticized her as a “damn liar.” A third showed her explicitly criticizing Sanders himself, saying he had “no understanding” of the Democratic Party. (This might be because Sanders has never been elected as a Democrat but, rather, always as an independent who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate.) Do these e-mails strike anyone as appalling and outrageous? Not me. They strike me as . . . e-mails. The idea that people might speak casually or caustically via e-mail has been portrayed as a shocking breach of civilized discourse. Imagine! People bullshitting on e-mail!

But that is what people do on e-mail. They spout off, sound off, write first, and think later. Of course, people should do none of these things. They should weigh carefully the costs and benefits of each e-mail that they write, and consider the possibility that someone might make the e-mails public someday. (They should also change their passwords regularly and get lots of exercise.) Last year, unfiltered talk on e-mail also got several people in trouble during the notorious Sony hack. But the real question is whether any of these e-mails really matter. Do they reveal deep-seated political or philosophical flaws? Do they betray horrible character defects? In the case of the Democrats, it seems clear that the answer to these questions is no. The vast majority of the e-mails contain normal office chatter, inflated into a genuine controversy by people who already had axes to grind.
Why the D.N.C. E-Mails Aren’t Scandalous - The New Yorker
Reply
#10
Yea, we couldn't really understand what the fuss was all about, blown out of all proportion, this.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)