For anyone here that remembers Watergate

[Value Buy]

Nixon did not have to resign because of the actual break in.
It was the cover up he was involved in that destroyed his Presidency.

Hillary is now dragging President Obama down this long and winding road.
Hillary and Bill are dragging the Administration, Justice Department, and now the FBI down the rabbit hole in her quest to bury an indictment. 
The Administration was innocent in the State department e-mail foul up, but now the AG meeting Bill "innocently on a tarmac", a Saturday conference on a holiday weekend for three hours with Hillary and the FBI, and now a news conference on the day after the holiday laying out how Hillary committed crimes and broke laws while presiding over the State Department, but no indictment because no "intent" was found.

Comey said he did not have enough info to indict.
He does not indict. The Justice department indicts.
He just presents the info.

I am of the belief he realized there would be no indictment, but he felt so strongly there was massive problems with Hillary's e-mails he did not want it to go un-noticed, and felt he had to go public.
Unfortunately, he has muddied the waters so poorly, neither Democrats or Republicans can be happy and let this rest.

Now we will see how open and public this administration is in the next few weeks.
I am thinking the President has to be so upset with Hillary right now, he will privately ask the AG to do an indictment anyway, blow Hillary out of the water, and let Biden walk in and get the nomination.
Only thing stopping him, he knows Bernie Sanders and his followers would go ballistic and blow up the convention.
Problem is, if he does nothing, Sander's camp might just go a head and blow up the convention over Hillary anyway.
 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 6, 2016 8:55:29 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I am thinking the President has to be so upset with Hillary right now, he will privately ask the AG to do an indictment anyway, blow Hillary out of the water, and let Biden walk in and get the nomination.

Pres. Obama reads from the teleprompter. Does the teleprompter want to blow Ms. Clinton out of the water?

[Value Buy]

Jul 6, 2016 9:04:15 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 6, 2016 8:55:29 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

I am thinking the President has to be so upset with Hillary right now, he will privately ask the AG to do an indictment anyway, blow Hillary out of the water, and let Biden walk in and get the nomination.

Pres. Obama reads from the teleprompter. Does the teleprompter want to blow Ms. Clinton out of the water?

He may have to.
Like Bill and Hillary he never accepts blame.
It is always someone else that takes the knife.

Last night I watched a documentary on the rise of Islamic terrorism  and ISIS in Iraq and Syria on Bush's and Obama's Presidency.
He was asked to comment or interview on the documentary.
He declined.

The President is now in his "how does history judge me" phase, and he does not want to be the person that fell on the knife for Hillary and Bill.

[Value Buy]

www.cnbc.com/2016/07/06/why-fbi-director-comey-didnt-recommend-prosecution-for-clinton.html

[Value Buy]

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/six-things-we-learned-from-the-fbi-investigation-into-hillary-clinton%E2%80%99s-email/ar-AAi86mJ?li=BBnb7Kz

[Value Buy]

www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/even-without-charges-fbi-rebuke-leaves-a-heavy-political-cloud-over-clinton/ar-AAi8yZ5?li=BBnb7Kz

[Value Buy]

www.msn.com/en-us/news/factcheckingclinton/clinton%E2%80%99s-handling-of-classified-information/ar-AAi8LlU?li=BBnb7Kz

[Value Buy]

Any reasonable person who opens any of the above three links will realize there was enough evidence to indict.
Whether a conviction would be made, is irrelevant.

Hillary has lied to American citizens since March 2015 and know they were outright lies.
No, we do not indict on public lies. We indict on the evidence that proved she did what she says she and her team did not do.

[whoisjohngalt]

If anyone EVER thought Hilary would be indited - I have a bridge to sell you.

When Trump said that he could go shoot someone in the middle of Time Square and people still vote for him, that applies to Bill and Hilary times a million.  They can do whatever they want, whenever they want it - not only they will walk away, they will write a book about it, get elected and get even richer and more untouchable. 

People spend too much time worrying about who the president will be instead of spending half of that time trying to completely change the system and EVERYONE in it.  And I mean EVERYONE - Senate, Congress, DOJ, AG, etc etc etc.  Our entire govt is so corrupt and so deep in shit in rich people's pockets, we are doomed.

[dondub]

Bang the drum.

[Tennesseer]

Slowly.

[billisonboard]

Jul 6, 2016 8:55:29 GMT -5 Value Buy said:

Nixon did not have to resign because of the actual break in.
It was the cover up he was involved in that destroyed his Presidency.

Hillary is now dragging President Obama down this long and winding road.
Hillary and Bill are dragging the Administration, Justice Department, and now the FBI down the rabbit hole in her quest to bury an indictment. 
The Administration was innocent in the State department e-mail foul up, but now the AG meeting Bill "innocently on a tarmac", a Saturday conference on a holiday weekend for three hours with Hillary and the FBI, and now a news conference on the day after the holiday laying out how Hillary committed crimes and broke laws while presiding over the State Department, but no indictment because no "intent" was found.

...

As someone who remembers the unfolding of the Watergate scandal, I find it an extreme stretch to compare the current situation to that situation.

[djAdvocate]

you guys need a new hobby.  might i suggest something more.....tangible?  maybe wood carving?  archery?

[Opti]

Jul 6, 2016 10:00:20 GMT -5 dondub said:

Bang the drum.

Stop please. Sigh.

No one is going down the rabbit hole. This isn't Watergate, this isn't a concerted effort to do the wrong thing for personal gain. I would like VB and others to tell me why they are certain, with absolutely no proof and no personal relationship with Hillary, that why the deleted emails must be classified not embarrassing personal stuff that would be drug through the media and RW pundit's maws until they had gone past beating it all into a pulp?

[Opti]

Jul 6, 2016 10:39:52 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

you guys need a new hobby.  might i suggest something more.....tangible?  maybe wood carving?  archery?

I think this is the heart of the reason conservatives accuse liberals of not letting things go and being unreasonable. Its because those are the traits their accusers hold dear, and unreasoning hate seems to blind them to RL. Being bitter and seeing the worst in anyone not a conservative is not a hobby, its become a way of life, a way of being.

Its so amazingly sad and wasteful. What you see and what you focus on says more about you than its does the subject. I am no different. I just prefer to focus on how things can improve and only what is needed when things suck.

A novel I am reading has a good paragraph in it, which I'll post here if I can find it.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 6, 2016 10:57:43 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jul 6, 2016 10:00:20 GMT -5 dondub said:

Bang the drum.

Stop please. Sigh.

No one is going down the rabbit hole. This isn't Watergate, this isn't a concerted effort to do the wrong thing for personal gain. I would like VB and others to tell me why they are certain, with absolutely no proof and no personal relationship with Hillary, that why the deleted emails must be classified not embarrassing personal stuff that would be drug through the media and RW pundit's maws until they had gone past beating it all into a pulp?

the post that VB presented showed that, according to Comey, the deleted emails which they managed to recover had approximately the same amount of questionable material in it (less than 1%) as the emails that WERE submitted.  in other words, there is absolutely NO indication of a coverup whatsoever.  if that is what is breathing oxygen into this debate, then the GOP needs to focus on the facts and come to grips with them.

i see a woman who stubbornly stuck to her own habits and made some mistakes.  i don't see Hillary Nixon.

[Opti]

Jul 6, 2016 11:21:13 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

Jul 6, 2016 10:57:43 GMT -5 Opti said:

Stop please. Sigh.

No one is going down the rabbit hole. This isn't Watergate, this isn't a concerted effort to do the wrong thing for personal gain. I would like VB and others to tell me why they are certain, with absolutely no proof and no personal relationship with Hillary, that why the deleted emails must be classified not embarrassing personal stuff that would be drug through the media and RW pundit's maws until they had gone past beating it all into a pulp?

the post that VB presented showed that, according to Comey, the deleted emails which they managed to recover had approximately the same amount of questionable material in it (less than 1%) as the emails that WERE submitted.  in other words, there is absolutely NO indication of a coverup whatsoever.  if that is what is breathing oxygen into this debate, then the GOP needs to focus on the facts and come to grips with them.

i see a woman who stubbornly stuck to her own habits and made some mistakes.  i don't see Hillary Nixon.

Exactly. And I don't see Teflon here at all. Teflon is not getting into the situation in the first place, and barring that getting out quickly like Reagan. Eleventy million investigations is not an evidence of Teflon. It is however evidence that the Republicans have gone from leading to circuses that pander to their voters.

We are all lesser for that. Makes our form of government look stupid and useless as well.

[djAdvocate]

the other thing lacking from this criminal investigation is inordinate amounts of memory loss.  i bet Reagan said "i don't recall" 1000x during Iran-Contra.  i am not intentionally exaggerating:  it seemed like every question he was asked was met with that response.  and, obviously, that is what the lawyers told him to say.  FORCE others to figure OUT what you said, don't volunteer it.  Clinton was relatively forthright in questioning, and that is quite different from Reagan.

i think the "Teflon" term indicates shennanegans that border on illegality, such as "Taking the 5th" or feigning memory loss, or getting an administrative pardon rather than facing your accusers with candor.

[Green Eyed Lady]

So....how do those who support Mrs. Clinton's run for the Presidency feel about this statement recently issued by the FBI? Is it just no big deal? Something you can overlook? It is just an attempt to sully her rep? How do you feel?  Discard the comparison to Watergate and take it for what it is.  How do you feel about it?  Does it give you any pause that, at the least, she was careless with the security of our nation? 

[djAdvocate]

Jul 6, 2016 12:15:59 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

So....how do those who support Mrs. Clinton's run for the Presidency feel about this statement recently issued by the FBI? Is it just no big deal? Something you can overlook? It is just an attempt to sully her rep? How do you feel?  Discard the comparison to Watergate and take it for what it is.  How do you feel about it?  Does it give you any pause that, at the least, she was careless with the security of our nation? 

i don't support her candidacy, but i like to think i am a keen political observer.

i think that only a small fraction of the US public actually cares about this issue.  of those that care, about half see it as a fishing expedition, designed to ensnare Clinton and damage her reputation.  those will see this as a victory for her.

the other half will see the dark spots in the rebuke, and seize on them- which was precisely how it was before.

in short, i think this changes nothing.  it only removes the uncertainty.

[Waffle]

Jul 6, 2016 11:51:45 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the other thing lacking from this criminal investigation is inordinate amounts of memory loss.  i bet Reagan said "i don't recall" 1000x during Iran-Contra.  i am not intentionally exaggerating:  it seemed like every question he was asked was met with that response.  and, obviously, that is what the lawyers told him to say.  FORCE others to figure OUT what you said, don't volunteer it.  Clinton was relatively forthright in questioning, and that is quite different from Reagan.

i think the "Teflon" term indicates shennanegans that border on illegality, such as "Taking the 5th" or feigning memory loss, or getting an administrative pardon rather than facing your accusers with candor.

"To the best of my recollection" was right up there with "I don't recall".    I remember my mom and I laughing about it and answering every question with "to the best of my recollection" for days, if not weeks.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 6, 2016 12:26:41 GMT -5 Waffle said:

Jul 6, 2016 11:51:45 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

the other thing lacking from this criminal investigation is inordinate amounts of memory loss.  i bet Reagan said "i don't recall" 1000x during Iran-Contra.  i am not intentionally exaggerating:  it seemed like every question he was asked was met with that response.  and, obviously, that is what the lawyers told him to say.  FORCE others to figure OUT what you said, don't volunteer it.  Clinton was relatively forthright in questioning, and that is quite different from Reagan.

i think the "Teflon" term indicates shennanegans that border on illegality, such as "Taking the 5th" or feigning memory loss, or getting an administrative pardon rather than facing your accusers with candor.

"To the best of my recollection" was right up there with "I don't recall".    I remember my mom and I laughing about it and answering every question with "to the best of my recollection" for days, if not weeks.

if a drinking game had been constructed along those lines, the hospitals would have overwhelmed with cases of people drinking themselves unconscious.

[Wisconsin Beth]

I thought this was gonna be about the renovations at the Watergate that were finally finished earlier this year. Lol. I'll see if I can find a link.

[Wisconsin Beth]

Www.vanityfair.com/style/2016/05/the-watergate-hotels-renovation-embraces-its-scandalous-past

[dondub]

There IS no comparison to Watergate, or the worst exercise in governmental malfeasance, The Iran-Contra Affair. Any attempts therein are simply in vain.

And no righty, especially the Cult of Reagan types, will ever say one thing about how it might have been completely fucked up for the sainted Reagan to

supply weapons to Islamofascists.

[happyhoix]

Jul 6, 2016 12:15:59 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

So....how do those who support Mrs. Clinton's run for the Presidency feel about this statement recently issued by the FBI? Is it just no big deal? Something you can overlook? It is just an attempt to sully her rep? How do you feel?  Discard the comparison to Watergate and take it for what it is.  How do you feel about it?  Does it give you any pause that, at the least, she was careless with the security of our nation? 

I knew when this first came out that she was stupid to use a private email server in her home for work purposes - you can't do that in this day and age, as secretary of state. Not with hackers all over the internet like cockroaches. I don't think she did it purposefully, for nefarious reasons or for personal gain. I think she was either foolish about electronic communications or she relied too much on a staff person who failed to explain to her the ramifications of using a private server. I believe her when she said she didn't forward anything marked secret, and the subsequent investigations confirmed that. Now, whether she should have known that, sometime in the future, some of these things might become state secrets? Would that be reasonable to assume someone can correctly predict that in advance? I don't think it is.

Also, knowing that Colin Powell did the same kind of thing (with no ramifications) made me think that Clinton wasn't the first or only government person who did this kind of thing - but she was the politician that the GOP wanted to sink.

This gives me pause not so much because of what Clinton did, but because I'm certain there are lots of other politicians with access to state secrets who are probably also kind of loosey goosey with it. Some politicians were former military people who are used to controlling secrets, but many are not, and I'm willing to bet they don't do a lot of training on the issue, either.

Bottom line, I think Clinton wasn't that strong a candidate to begin with, and if she was running against almost any of the GOP primary hopefuls this would probably sink her just enough to let them win. I think she should be very grateful she's up against Trump, who can't take a step without shooting himself in the foot. I'm still not certain she'll win, but I don't think this latest revelation will be enough to tip the scales in Trump's favor.

[Opti]

Jul 6, 2016 14:14:51 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jul 6, 2016 12:15:59 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

So....how do those who support Mrs. Clinton's run for the Presidency feel about this statement recently issued by the FBI? Is it just no big deal? Something you can overlook? It is just an attempt to sully her rep? How do you feel?  Discard the comparison to Watergate and take it for what it is.  How do you feel about it?  Does it give you any pause that, at the least, she was careless with the security of our nation? 

I knew when this first came out that she was stupid to use a private email server in her home for work purposes - you can't do that in this day and age, as secretary of state. Not with hackers all over the internet like cockroaches. I don't think she did it purposefully, for nefarious reasons or for personal gain. I think she was either foolish about electronic communications or she relied too much on a staff person who failed to explain to her the ramifications of using a private server. I believe her when she said she didn't forward anything marked secret, and the subsequent investigations confirmed that. Now, whether she should have known that, sometime in the future, some of these things might become state secrets? Would that be reasonable to assume someone can correctly predict that in advance? I don't think it is.

...

I've posted this before and hopefully not again. As a person who has worked in IT, I actually feel a private server could have been more secure if named & protected correctly. Not having us.gov as part of the name of a website, is a great thing if you don't want to attract hackers.

The fact that the concern about hacking mostly came down to email phish schemes pretty much proved what I thought. Hackers were fishing to find her, they really didn't know all that much. I get phished too. I ignore it and life moves on.

Could she have done better? Certainly. But given the track & practices before her, I  mostly when this comes up. She has flaws, personal presence being a big one. This is not worth even 1/100th of the money Congress wasted on it.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 6, 2016 14:24:21 GMT -5 Opti said:

Jul 6, 2016 14:14:51 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I knew when this first came out that she was stupid to use a private email server in her home for work purposes - you can't do that in this day and age, as secretary of state. Not with hackers all over the internet like cockroaches. I don't think she did it purposefully, for nefarious reasons or for personal gain. I think she was either foolish about electronic communications or she relied too much on a staff person who failed to explain to her the ramifications of using a private server. I believe her when she said she didn't forward anything marked secret, and the subsequent investigations confirmed that. Now, whether she should have known that, sometime in the future, some of these things might become state secrets? Would that be reasonable to assume someone can correctly predict that in advance? I don't think it is.

...

I've posted this before and hopefully not again. As a person who has worked in IT, I actually feel a private server could have been more secure if named & protected correctly. Not having us.gov as part of the name of a website, is a great thing if you don't want to attract hackers.

The fact that the concern about hacking mostly came down to email phish schemes pretty much proved what I thought. Hackers were fishing to find her, they really didn't know all that much. I get phished too. I ignore it and life moves on.

Could she have done better? Certainly. But given the track & practices before her, I  mostly when this comes up. She has flaws, personal presence being a big one. This is not worth even 1/100th of the money Congress wasted on it.

You do realize that Russia, Indonesia, and a dozen agencies/hackers besides claim to have accessed every e-mail Ms. Clinton sent or received on her server while SoS?

If this isn't an actionable breach of security, one has to seriously wonder why the US State Department bothers with classified correspondence in the first place.

[whoisjohngalt]

Jul 6, 2016 14:14:51 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Jul 6, 2016 12:15:59 GMT -5 Green Eyed Lady said:

So....how do those who support Mrs. Clinton's run for the Presidency feel about this statement recently issued by the FBI? Is it just no big deal? Something you can overlook? It is just an attempt to sully her rep? How do you feel?  Discard the comparison to Watergate and take it for what it is.  How do you feel about it?  Does it give you any pause that, at the least, she was careless with the security of our nation? 

I knew when this first came out that she was stupid to use a private email server in her home for work purposes - you can't do that in this day and age, as secretary of state. Not with hackers all over the internet like cockroaches. I don't think she did it purposefully, for nefarious reasons or for personal gain. I think she was either foolish about electronic communications or she relied too much on a staff person who failed to explain to her the ramifications of using a private server. I believe her when she said she didn't forward anything marked secret, and the subsequent investigations confirmed that. Now, whether she should have known that, sometime in the future, some of these things might become state secrets? Would that be reasonable to assume someone can correctly predict that in advance? I don't think it is.

Also, knowing that Colin Powell did the same kind of thing (with no ramifications) made me think that Clinton wasn't the first or only government person who did this kind of thing - but she was the politician that the GOP wanted to sink.

This gives me pause not so much because of what Clinton did, but because I'm certain there are lots of other politicians with access to state secrets who are probably also kind of loosey goosey with it. Some politicians were former military people who are used to controlling secrets, but many are not, and I'm willing to bet they don't do a lot of training on the issue, either.

Bottom line, I think Clinton wasn't that strong a candidate to begin with, and if she was running against almost any of the GOP primary hopefuls this would probably sink her just enough to let them win. I think she should be very grateful she's up against Trump, who can't take a step without shooting himself in the foot. I'm still not certain she'll win, but I don't think this latest revelation will be enough to tip the scales in Trump's favor.

It's not the "day and age thing", it's a very strict protocols thing.  I know quite a few people with TS clearance and they are NEVER allowed to work from home.  I am pretty sure they know a lot less of govt secrets that SoS.  There is a whole skit that has to be set up based on very specific rules and regulations if you want to send any kind of "secret" information.

So, is she that ignorant or that arrogant?

Every peon who gets any kind of clearance goes through a VERY extensive training and re-training of what is allowed and not allowed.  Now, whether they follow the protocol is a different story.

I don't think anything can sink that woman, even if she was running against G-d himself.

[djAdvocate]

Jul 6, 2016 14:14:16 GMT -5 dondub said:

There IS no comparison to Watergate, or the worst exercise in governmental malfeasance, The Iran-Contra Affair. Any attempts therein are simply in vain.

And no righty, especially the Cult of Reagan types, will ever say one thing about how it might have been completely fucked up for the sainted Reagan to

supply weapons to Islamofascists.

the whole affair was icky from top to bottom:  Heroin, Cocaine, laundered money, etc.  all of this stuff is forgotten, apparently.  but the ickiest part of all were the Samosistas themselves, who make the Black Shirts of Guantanimo, or Saddam's WORST henchmen look like GIRL SCOUTS.  i will never get over the ugliness that we saw fit to fund, illegally, in the name of "freedom fighting".  it is no different both in terms of wretchedness and pious justification than anything done by AQ.