Clinton emails

[NM11046]

 

 

Can someone provide me with a cliff notes explanation on this entire email scandal? My head hurts trying to make non-partisan sense of any of it.

Same. I also don't understand why it's back in the news again. Sounds like a long shot that there is any new information the way I'm interpreting this.

 

This is a lot of reading: https://www.lawfareblog.com/james-comey-hillary-clinton-and-email-investigation-guide-perplexed

 

Vox has a set of cards on the whole thing: http://www.vox.com/cards/hillary-clinton-email-scandal

 

Thanks Zoogs - love the "cards". Going to have to head back and read into some of the other topics. Good, succinct overview.

[TGHusker]

 

 

Sen. Reid basically just accused Comey of violating the Hatch act, by not releasing information about Trumps ties to Russia, but releasing information that there maybe more Clinton emails.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Trey-Gowdy-Harry-Reid-Hatch-Act-Complaint/2016/10/31/id/756158/

 

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid's letter to FBI Director James Comey, accusing him of violating the Hatch Act is "laughable," considering he didn't make similar complaints about President Barack Obama or Attorney General Loretta Lynch about their actions concerning Hillary Clinton, Rep. Trey Gowdy said Monday.

"Sen. Reid didn't write a letter to either one of them about the Hatch Act," the South Carolina Republican told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program. "I mean, President Obama is actively campaigning right now for a candidate for president, and that doesn't violate the Hatch Act. So how Jim Comey supplementing his record before Congress violates the Hatch Act is just laughable."

 

 

The Hatch Act limits political activities of federal employees, such as Comey, who is a Republican, to ensure their duties are administered in a nonpartisan fashion. However, some top executive branch officials, such as a president or vice president are exempt from the act.

Gowdy, though, refused to blame Comey for sending the letter to congressional leaders.

"There's not a single one of the facts at hand that is directly attributable to Director Comey," said Gowdy. " He didn't tell her to set up her own private email server. He did not tell her to mislead the public about whether or not she sent and received public information. He didn't tell Huma Abedin, don't turn over all your devices.

"And God knows he didn't tell Anthony Weiner to sext with an under-aged girl. None of that is Comey's fault. The timing is a direct and natural consequences and probable consequence of the decision secretary Clinton made years ago."

Reid also did not call out Lynch for her meeting with former President Bill Clinton just shortly before Comey announced his decision not to recommend charges against the Democratic presidential nominee, Gowdy noted.

Comey's letter to congressional committee chairmen on Friday, though, didn't mean he was updating lawmakers, but instead, he was "supplementing his previous testimony," Gowdy insisted Monday. The letter, he continued, was "short on substance," but "it was just a notification letter."

 

 

 

 

Neither Lynch nor Obama violated the Hatch Act. Obama isn't covered and Lynch hasn't done anything partisan.

 

That's a weird article.

 

Newsmax. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

Yes, the article said Obama didn't violate the Hatch Act. Lynch : regarding partisan - meeting with Bill Clinton shortly before Comey came out with his July report is partisan unless you believe they just talked about the grandkids.

 

I agree, the newsmax article wasn't written very well - kind of jumped all over. Newsmax mainly links to other sources and comments or summarizes. In this case they are jumping from the Morning Joe show to a Fox News show. Both interviews wt Gowdy.

[knapplc]

Regarding Newsmax, it bills itself as a Conservative site. It's another room in the echo chamber. For all the grief people give CNN for being "biased," at least CNN tries to paint both sides equally. Why should we take anything from a self-described Conservative website at face value?

 

 

 

 

Regarding Lynch: If you don't know what they talked about, you can't claim it's a violation of the Hatch Act. What tangible benefit did Hillary gain after Bill met with Lynch? Lynch meets with all kinds of people. I know the Conservative mediasphere had a collective conniption over that meeting, but nothing has come out showing it was improper in any way.

[TGHusker]

Regarding Newsmax, it bills itself as a Conservative site. It's another room in the echo chamber. For all the grief people give CNN for being "biased," at least CNN tries to paint both sides equally. Why should we take anything from a self-described Conservative website at face value?

 

 

 

 

Regarding Lynch: If you don't know what they talked about, you can't claim it's a violation of the Hatch Act. What tangible benefit did Hillary gain after Bill met with Lynch? Lynch meets with all kinds of people. I know the Conservative mediasphere had a collective conniption over that meeting, but nothing has come out showing it was improper in any way.

There are plenty of articles on Newsmax that are anti Trump - as many as anti-Clinton. The editor/owner, Christopher Ruddy, was called on the carpet by conservatives for contributing to the Clinton Foundation. While they may say conservative, I think they paint wt a broader brush - they appeared to be more of a Jeb Bush supporter at the beginning of the primaries.

 

Lynch, of course we don't know what they were talking about specifically. But sometimes things don't smell right. Tangible benefit - Comey no indictment seems to be circumstantial to the Clinton/Lynch meeting but not provable unless one of the parties involve testifies otherwise. Talking about grandkids was the claim by Lynch. While Lynch may meet wt all kinds of people, how often does she meet wt people related to a person under FBI investigation - a few days prior to Comey reveals his report in July? - and only to small talk as the narrative is given by Lynch . Sometimes things just are not believable.

[knapplc]

Is that the narrative? Bill influenced Lynch to influence Comey (a Republican) to stop the investigation in a meeting on a plane sitting on a tarmac?

 

Why would Bill meet with Lynch to get that done when a thousand eyes were on him? Both Lynch & Bill have retinues that follow them, they would have seen. Bill has a cadre of press who follow him, they saw. The airport is staffed by thousands of people, many of whom saw.

 

That's like Bill robbing a bank in broad daylight. Isn't the narrative on Bill & Hillary that they're super sneaky & crafty? Does this fit that narrative?

 

 

Honestly. Why would Bill have to meet with Lynch to get that done? Why couldn't he make a phone call?

 

 

Think logically about this story.

[TGHusker]

Good point Knapp, but why did the same soil the blue dress, sell the Lincoln bedroom, etc and etc. Because he thinks he is bigger than the law and can/would get away with it.

 

Here are some NEWSMAX articles in support of Hillary

Judge Napolitano, strong conservative guy, says it was wrong for Comey to release the letter to Congress.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/anthony-napolitano-james-comey-unfair-unethical/2016/10/31/id/756222/

 

Libertarian VP Weld agreeing wt Napolitano

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Bill-Weld-Comey-FBI-Off-Reservation/2016/10/31/id/756175/

 

Quoting Political on no change in the polls

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Poll-Election-Unchanged-Comey/2016/10/31/id/756143/

 

Quoting Washington Post

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/fbi-clinton-foundation-probe-emails/2016/10/31/id/756103/

 

 

This one is interesting: Obama doesn't think Comey did anything wrong wt the letter

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/obama-clinton-comey-election/2016/10/31/id/756199/

President Barack Obama believes FBI Director James Comey is a man of integrity and is not trying to influence the U.S. presidential election by announcing scrutiny of additional emails linked to Democrat Hillary Clinton's private server, the White House said on Monday.

 

 

White House spokesman Josh Earnest also said he has no "independent knowledge" of how Comey had arrived at his decision to make public the FBI email investigation or "what factors were considered" in his decision to discuss the issue publicly.

Earnest said he would neither "defend nor criticize" Comey's decision to disclose the FBI's renewed probe.

He said there are significant institutional responsibilities that the Department of Justice must fulfill.

He said Comey is in a tough spot, but the FBI director is in the best position to defend his actions in the face of significant criticism.

[knapplc]

All you have to do is read the comments in those Newsmax articles to see what kind of person they cater to. Or you could just believe what they say they are.

[Husker Red Til Dead]

Mishandling sensitive material is serious ,even deadly.

Clinton lied about having the server to begin with, not to mention the crap pulled by the DNC to help Clinton. But still, there are some that would rather have her than the egomaniac that is Trump.

He is the worst candidate I can remember, he is another big govt liberal. Only getting 38% of repubs support, and not mine either. Yet,still better for the country than Clinton.

This is just a football forum, but the lackadaisical empathy to justice I see here is more than troubling. I could care less about past administrations and their wrongs, the future won't change without accountability to the now.

[knapplc]

Yet,still better for the country than Clinton.

This is just a football forum, but the lackadaisical empathy to justice I see here is more than troubling. I could care less about past administrations and their wrongs, the future won't change without accountability to the now.

Clinton is Old Boy Network politics and bad for America. She's not the person I would choose to run this country in a million years. She's qualified, and will do an adequate job.

 

 

Trump is not remotely qualified. He's bad. Scary bad. Like, possibly in the pockets of the Russians and has basically zero interest in running this country bad.

 

I can't imagine why sane, rational adults who purport to love Ronald Reagan and who are, by their own admission, Reagan Republicans, would vote for Donald Trump who loves Vladimir Putin & Russia and has said so openly.

 

Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave if he knew what his party was offering America as a presidential candidate. It's baffling how we got to this place.

 

The only reason to vote for Hillary Clinton - the only reason, in my opinion - is that she's not Donald Trump.

[TGHusker]

 

Yet,still better for the country than Clinton.

This is just a football forum, but the lackadaisical empathy to justice I see here is more than troubling. I could care less about past administrations and their wrongs, the future won't change without accountability to the now.

Clinton is Old Boy Network politics and bad for America. She's not the person I would choose to run this country in a million years. She's qualified, and will do an adequate job.

 

 

Trump is not remotely qualified. He's bad. Scary bad. Like, possibly in the pockets of the Russians and has basically zero interest in running this country bad.

 

I can't imagine why sane, rational adults who purport to love Ronald Reagan and who are, by their own admission, Reagan Republicans, would vote for Donald Trump who loves Vladimir Putin & Russia and has said so openly.

 

Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave if he knew what his party was offering America as a presidential candidate. It's baffling how we got to this place.

 

The only reason to vote for Hillary Clinton - the only reason, in my opinion - is that she's not Donald Trump.

 

I have no argument with this. I understand the rock and hard place decision - being 'forced' due to limited / bad choices to vote for someone totally unacceptable. I would agree, Clinton in one sense would be a sort of status quo. However, I just cannot vote for Clinton because of her corruptness. If they can sell the Lincoln Bedroom (among too many other 1990s issues), and use the CF as an influence peddling, personal enrichment scheme, and trying to cover it all up wt non-secured servers used to transact state dept business and CF business what will they do when they have ultimate power again (Make Nixon look like a beginner). Have to go 3rd party or abstaining at the top of the ticket - still deciding. I agree, those who would tie Reagan and Trump together are way off base. Reagan would more preferred to be tied to Tip O'Neil (even though their politics was widely different) than Donald Trump. Reagan also would not recognize this republican party nor appreciate how partisan it has gotten.

 

Now the bold might be a stretch like you have said some of the Hillary emls stuff is a stretch. I think you are going off of the 'smell test' on this one. We don't have the facts yet on it that I have seen - & and no I'm not defending Trump. If you have the facts to back it up, please post it.

[knapplc]

Wait, you've been posting nonsense after nonsense about the Hillary emails, and now you're telling me to back up the allegation that Trump is in the pockets of the Russians?

 

Make you a deal. If I can't post something today that verifies a Trump/Russia connection, I won't post about it until the election is over. But unless something verifiable comes out about the Clinton emails, Lynch/Bill collusion, or any of the other alt-right conspiracy theories you've been posting about, you don't get to post about those until after next Tuesday, too.

 

Fair?

[TGHusker]

Wait, you've been posting nonsense after nonsense about the Hillary emails, and now you're telling me to back up the allegation that Trump is in the pockets of the Russians?

 

Make you a deal. If I can't post something today that verifies a Trump/Russia connection, I won't post about it until the election is over. But unless something verifiable comes out about the Clinton emails, Lynch/Bill collusion, or any of the other alt-right conspiracy theories you've been posting about, you don't get to post about those until after next Tuesday, too.

 

Fair?

Fair. I'm tired of discussing it anyway. I'm tired of the whole election.

 

Nonsense is your perspective. Obvious not the perspective of those still investigating those email issues. Yes, the Lynch/Bill collusion may never be backed up by facts - it again is a smell test issue from my perspective. Not sure what other alt-right theories you are talking about but I'll leave it at that - I don't need to know.

 

Ok so now that this is settled & we are in agreement, how's the weather in your area? Tulsa is unusually hot - might break the record of 86 today. Um, we could turn this thread into a climate change discussion now.

[Husker Red Til Dead]

 

Yet,still better for the country than Clinton.

This is just a football forum, but the lackadaisical empathy to justice I see here is more than troubling. I could care less about past administrations and their wrongs, the future won't change without accountability to the now.

Clinton is Old Boy Network politics and bad for America. She's not the person I would choose to run this country in a million years. She's qualified, and will do an adequate job.

 

 

Trump is not remotely qualified. He's bad. Scary bad. Like, possibly in the pockets of the Russians and has basically zero interest in running this country bad.

 

I can't imagine why sane, rational adults who purport to love Ronald Reagan and who are, by their own admission, Reagan Republicans, would vote for Donald Trump who loves Vladimir Putin & Russia and has said so openly.

 

Ronald Reagan would roll over in his grave if he knew what his party was offering America as a presidential candidate. It's baffling how we got to this place.

 

The only reason to vote for Hillary Clinton - the only reason, in my opinion - is that she's not Donald Trump.

 

Who's in who's pocket?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?_r=0

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/clinton-foundation-millions-tied-uranium-report-article-1.2197173

 

I agree with you on Trump,he's said things that make my head hurt. I know there are people voting for him only because he is not Hillary Clinton. With the Clinton's we see a history of "questionable" cases ,from the whitewater land dealings to mysterious deaths of associates to where we are now. With Trump, maybe we get lucky and he surrounds himself with good people...maybe.

With Hillary, its a safe bet that we get more of the same.

[knapplc]

The Uranium mine is a great point, and one I'm surprised hasn't come up more. It certainly bears looking into.

The lone thing I can say in favor of Hillary is, she's been under investigation since Bill took office in 1992. 24 years and counting. Either she's clean and these are all politically-motivated "investigations" or the FBI and all the Congressional subcommittees ever formed to investigate the Clintons are 100% inept.

Maybe Hillary & Bill are the Dr. Evil & Moriarty of real life. Maybe they're just too darned clever to be caught. It's possible, I guess.

Or, Occam's Razor tells us that if there's fire, the best & brightest & millions of dollars and dozens of years of investigation will turn up something more than smoke.

But since they haven't found anything criminal yet, and all we're left with is allegations.... maybe we have to consider that there's nothing there.

With Trump, maybe we get lucky and he surrounds himself with good people...maybe.

 

 

That is one hell of a gamble Trump voters are willing to take with America. I guess it's possible that Trump could surround himself with really great people who will control him and stop him from doing whatever he wants.

 

Does that really sound like the Donald Trump we've seen in the last 16 months of this campaign? That Donald Trump cannot be controlled, not by debate moderators or his handlers or Republican party leaders or his own family.

 

Why would you think that a victorious Trump would stop doing what he's been doing this whole time?

 

 

 

 

 

 

With Hillary, its a safe bet that we get more of the same.

 

Distasteful as that is, it's safe. A competent adult to run the country, not a temper-tantrum throwing child. That's what we need - an adult. Only one remaining candidate fits that description. It is not Donald Trump.

[zoogs]

Trump surrounding himself with good people and running a competent administration is like Josh McCown transforming himself into an elite NFL linebacker at this stage of his career.

 

Sure. In theory, there's a first for everything.