Whoa! Hillary instructs top aid to violate security protocols surrounding classified email?

[Guest042616-1]

I'm all for Hillary going down because it means Sanders would likely be the next president. I'm surprised how many conservatives want to destroy Hillary, because if she doesn't win the nomination, someone far more liberal/progressive than her is likely to get the nominee. And if Cruz or Trump get the republic nomination, which seems very likely now, the democratic nominee is all but a shoe-in.

But, that being said, even the original link notes "“It is not clear what the contents of the email were, whether information sent was classified or secure or whether the order was carried out.”"

Read that again, even hotair has to admit that they don't know whether or not those talking points were classified or not nor if it ever even happened at all. Although, the latter is not all that important, I think an order to violate security protocols would be criminal in-and-of-itself.

I'm interested to see how this all pans out, but this just looks like more attempt to spin what was found to fit the narrative some people want to be true, rather than a smoking gun of any illegal happened.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

I'm all for Hillary going down because it means Sanders would likely be the next president. I'm surprised how many conservatives want to destroy Hillary, because if she doesn't win the nomination, someone far more liberal/progressive than her is likely to get the nominee. And if Cruz or Trump get the republic nomination, which seems very likely now, the democratic nominee is all but a shoe-in.

But, that being said, even the original link notes "“It is not clear what the contents of the email were, whether information sent was classified or secure or whether the order was carried out.”"

Read that again, even hotair has to admit that they don't know whether or not those talking points were classified or not nor if it ever even happened at all. Although, the latter is not all that important, I think an order to violate security protocols would be criminal in-and-of-itself.

I'm interested to see how this all pans out, but this just looks like more attempt to spin what was found to fit the narrative some people want to be true, rather than a smoking gun of any illegal happened.

And you know that Sanders would win? And how do you know this? Crystal Ball perhaps?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by bambino

And you know that Sanders would win? And how do you know this? Crystal Ball perhaps?

Trump v. Sanders is exactly what Bloomberg is waiting and hoping for... he'll run in a heartbeat. And he'll do well - not because people like him or his policies, but because they want a sane alternative.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

...even the original link notes “It is not clear what the contents of the email were, whether information sent was classified or secure or whether the order was carried out.”

Read that again, even hotair has to admit that they don't know whether or not those talking points were classified or not nor if it ever even happened at all. Although, the latter is not all that important, I think an order to violate security protocols would be criminal in-and-of-itself.

I'm interested to see how this all pans out, but this just looks like more attempt to spin what was found to fit the narrative some people want to be true, rather than a smoking gun of any illegal happened.

You're way behind the curve. Read ex-Attorney General Michael Mukasey's analysis in post #43 to get up to date.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Trump v. Sanders is exactly what Bloomberg is waiting and hoping for... he'll run in a heartbeat. And he'll do well - not because people like him or his policies, but because they want a sane alternative.

He would hurt Sanders more than Trump.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by bambino

He would hurt Sanders more than Trump.

I think you're right. Could even lead to a deadlocked Electoral College. Lots of possible crazy scenarios. Too early to contemplate them.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by lustylad

I think you're right. Could even lead to a deadlocked Electoral College. Lots of possible crazy scenarios. Too early to contemplate them.

I feel so much better knowing Bloomberg will swoop in to save our country if needed. Where was he 8yrs ago? Obama is as much a socialist as Sanders is.

[Ex-CEO]

Seems to me a Sanders nomination would be a wet dream for any Republican opponent, who would then be as close to a shoo-in as you ever see in presidential politics.

Reports say Bloomberg might be likely to run if Hillary craters and it's (possibly Sanders?) vs. Trump. And I agree with those pundits who say he would probably hurt the D a lot more than the R.

I could see him getting a fair-sized chunk of the popular vote, like Perot did in 1992. But would he be likely to actually win any states? Seems there might be considerable doubt about that.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by bambino

I feel so much better knowing Bloomberg will swoop in to save our country if needed. Where was he 8yrs ago? Obama is as much a socialist as Sanders is.

8 years ago he was in the NYC mayor's office. He was elected right after 9/11 and served 12 years. New Yorkers miss him now that they are stuck with a clueless Sandinista mayor.

The WSJ ran a good editorial on Bloomberg's chances yesterday. If you can't find it, I will reprint it here just to annoy asswipe again.

[Guest042616-1]

Originally Posted by bambino

And you know that Sanders would win? And how do you know this? Crystal Ball perhaps?

No, I don't know. Which is why I hedged all of those statements with qualifiers like "likely" or "all but a shoe-in," rather definitive statements. But, yes, I think a populist like Sanders, once he starts getting some attention from the media, is going to appeal to a lot of people, even across the isle.

Originally Posted by lustylad

You're way behind the curve. Read ex-Attorney General Michael Mukasey's analysis in post #43 to get up to date.

I did read that. Keep in mind that this is written by someone currently advising someone who is competing with her for the WH. Don't expect an unbiased assessment of the facts from him.

But to criticize the article directly, no other evidence was offered up. The only hard thing alluded to in that entire article is what we are discussing here: her asking to have the TP sent non-securely. As we have already established, we don't even know if what she was asking to have made "nonpaper" (which, of course, he misquotes as "unpaper") was illegal or not. It very well could be, I don't know. But neither do you and neither does he. He just assumes that there is no other explanation.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by lustylad

8 years ago he was in the NYC mayor's office. He was elected right after 9/11 and served 12 years. New Yorkers miss him now that they are stuck with a clueless Sandinista mayor.

The WSJ ran a good editorial on Bloomberg's chances yesterday. If you can't find it, I will reprint it here just to annoy asswipe again.

Anyone would be better than DeBlowsio. He followed Guliani, who put NYC on the right track. I don't get his rational. I guess he's a Hillary supporter. That tells me all I need to know about him. And besides, he may come after my biggie sized martinis. Fuck him.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

I'm all for Hillary going down because it means Sanders would likely be the next president... if Cruz or Trump get the republic (sic) nomination, which seems very likely now, the democratic nominee is all but a shoe-in.

Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

Seems to me a Sanders nomination would be a wet dream for any Republican opponent, who would then be as close to a shoo-in as you ever see in presidential politics.

Looks like we have a difference of opinion here, lol... or is a "shoe-in" not the same as a "shoo-in"?

I agree with ex-CEO... Sanders would be the Democrats' Barry Goldwater.

[bambino]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Looks like we have a difference of opinion here, lol... or is a "shoe-in" not the same as a "shoo-in"?

I agree with ex-CEO... Sanders would be the Democrats' Barry Goldwater.

Hillary isn't much better than Sanders. She's a walking negative ad campaign. Target rich environment.

[Guest042616-1]

Thanks for the correction on "shoo-in," I honestly thought it was "shoe-in." Always good to learn something from a debate.

Can we get back on topic then? Does anyone have any proof that Clinton actually asked for classified material to be converted to nonpaper? Or do I have to "convict" based on a claim made by a news outlet that openly admits that they have no idea whether or not she was asking for classified information to be "nonpapered" and sent to her unsecurely?

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by eatfibo

I did read that. Keep in mind that this is written by someone currently advising someone who is competing with her for the WH. Don't expect an unbiased assessment of the facts from him.

But to criticize the article directly, no other evidence was offered up...

Of course I am aware of Mukasey's background. He is wearing his lawyer/prosecutor's hat and trying to evaluate the evidence objectively. Since he was head of the DOJ, he can put himself in James Comey's shoes and tell us what the FBI Director is considering here. He gives Hillary the benefit of a doubt when he makes the following point:

"No criminality can be charged against Mrs. Clinton in connection with any of this absent proof that she had what the law regards as a guilty state of mind—a standard that may differ from one statute to another, depending on what criminal act is charged."

Then he offers up a good deal of evidence - including direct quotes from Hillary Clinton's recent book - suggesting that her "state of mind" was such as to warrant a criminal charge.

Mukasey is anything but a political hack. He ran a far less politicized DOJ than Eric Holder did.