PDA

View Full Version : Bill Clinton does a dumb thing



Norman Bernstein
07-01-2016, 02:00 PM
It was certainly dumb... although there's no specific evidence it was malevolent. Loretta Lynch says the conversation never veered towards the FBI investigation... regardless, she's now pledged to follow the FBI conclusions, regardless.

Bill Clinton isn't ordinarily dumb, but this was a particularly stupid lapse of judgment:


Back in April, Slate’s Michelle Goldberg (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/fire_bill_clinton.single.html) offered the Hillary Clinton campaign some sage advice: “Fire Bill Clinton.”

The Clinton campaign declined to take her suggestion, but perhaps they should give it another look.

Bill Clinton is one of the most talented politicians of the past century, but his infallible skills continue to fail him when put in the service of someone other than himself.

On Monday, Clinton was on a tarmac in Phoenix when he learned that the attorney general, Loretta Lynch, would soon be on the same tarmac. He delayed his flight so he could try to meet with her. He asked for a meeting, boarded her plane and chatted for about 30 minutes.

On Friday, MSNBC’s Jonathan Capehart asked Lynch if there was one important thing she wished former Attorney General Eric Holder had told her. “Where the lock on the plane door was,” Lynch deadpanned.

She needed refuge from Clinton, of course, because the FBI is nearing the end of what has long seemed like an endless investigation of Hillary Clinton’s use of an insecure private server for her official email as secretary of state. Now, it’s fine to believe that the investigation itself is over-the-top, but whatever your view on its merits, the investigation exists. For Bill Clinton to meet with the attorney general, who has final authority over whether to bring charges, toward the end of this investigation corrupts the process and casts doubt about the integrity of the outcome.

(Meanwhile, Republicans are calling for an independent prosecutor, which is rich: there isn’t enough time to confirm a Supreme Court justice, but plenty of time for Ken Starr to ride into town again.)

On its face, it was wrong to do, and Democrats would be savaging Republicans if the situation were reversed. It raises one of two possibilities: Either Bill Clinton is an idiot or he wants his wife to lose.

“I wonder if there’s a part of Bill Clinton that doesn’t really want Hillary Clinton to become president, particularly if she has to distance herself from his legacy to do so,” wondered Goldberg back in April, listing a bill of idiotic particulars (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/04/fire_bill_clinton.html). “How else to explain why one of the world’s most talented and agile politicians is so consistently flat-footed and destructive when advocating on his wife’s behalf?”

The fallout from the meeting was predictable: Lynch has said she regrets sitting down with Clinton and wouldn’t do it again, given a do-over. And she has said that she will not overrule career prosecutors if they recommend an indictment. Whatever decision the Justice Department ends up making is now clouded in (even more) suspicion.

And perhaps the greatest damage was done to Lynch. It must be awfully difficult to turn down a meeting request from a former president, the spouse of the likely future president, especially for somebody who may have future political ambitions. Did Lynch have aspirations for the Supreme Court? If so, what Clinton just did casts a pall over whatever chance she had.

And for what?

biga
07-01-2016, 02:04 PM
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. i can't tell you how many times my private jet has pulled up to the private jets of the people investigating my wife for crimes and i just hopped over to chat about the weather for half an hour. definitely nothing to see here.

Jim Mahan
07-01-2016, 02:09 PM
What a crock of jorsesh!t. This sky-is-falling reaction presumes that the attorney general is completely vulnerable to having her role and her judgement co-opted by a half hour meeting with anyone. That's half of it. The other half of course is that the former president is automatically taken to be a subservise evil bastard that would corrupt Santa Claus if he could get a flight to the North Pole.

Hillary has baggage! Her husband got an airstart from an intern twenty years ago! Now she's going to lose the election! The integrity of the U.S. Justice Department hangs in the balance over this!

Is there anything about the government of our country that is immune to the childish crap in the OP?

Oh my God. What if Bill had written an email!

delecta
07-01-2016, 02:19 PM
Props to you Norm, took a while but no one else stepped up. I have a few questions about the meeting, why did the FBI demand no photos, video or cell phones, perhaps SOP? Chance meetings like this just don't happen, so it was obviously arranged, wonder by whom? They both had to know it would be exposed, was this on the insistence of Bill, hard to say no to a former President. Seems odd you'd spend thirty minutes exchanging pleasantry's about family and golf with someone that isn't a good friend.

We all think of Bubba as a good old boy but I wouldn't put anything past him. If I was going to bet, I would say that Bill does not want Hillary to ever be President.

biga
07-01-2016, 02:20 PM
What a crock of jorsesh!t. This sky-is-falling reaction presumes that the attorney general is completely vulnerable to having her role and her judgement co-opted by a half hour meeting with anyone. That's half of it. The other half of course is that the former president is automatically taken to be a subservise evil bastard that would corrupt Santa Claus if he could get a flight to the North Pole.

Hillary has baggage! Her husband got an airstart from an intern twenty years ago! Now she's going to lose the election! The integrity of the U.S. Justice Department hangs in the balance over this!

Is there anything about the government of our country that is immune to the childish crap in the OP?

Oh my God. What if Bill had written an email!



hahahhaa, you think the beginning and end of bill clinton's sexcapades was with lewinski? you think the clintons are squeaky clean politicians that are only looking out for the good of the downtrodden and ethnic minorities? c'mown man.

Tom Montgomery
07-01-2016, 02:31 PM
Chance meetings like this just don't happen, so it was obviously arranged, wonder by whom?
It's a conspiracy I tells ya!

delecta
07-01-2016, 02:36 PM
It's a conspiracy I tells ya!

There is a huge difference between a conspiracy and a wtf were they thinking. I bet Bill spent thirty minutes trying to convince LL to throw Hillary in jail :d

Norman Bernstein
07-01-2016, 02:36 PM
Props to you Norm, took a while but no one else stepped up.

I call 'em like I see 'em.


I have a few questions about the meeting, why did the FBI demand no photos, video or cell phones, perhaps SOP?

Where did THAT come from? I haven't read anything about any FBI involvement in this impromptu meeting.


Chance meetings like this just don't happen, so it was obviously arranged, wonder by whom?

I don't see ANY evidence that this was anything other than an impromptu meeting. The two planes were on the tarmac at the same time. If you have other verified information, please present it.



They both had to know it would be exposed, was this on the insistence of Bill, hard to say no to a former President.

I would agree.... when a former President wants to talk, it would be damned difficult to say no... and perhaps this was as much of a lapse in judgment on Lynch's part, as it was Bill Clinton's. However, even the most astute and sophisticated people make mistakes from time to time.


Seems odd you'd spend thirty minutes exchanging pleasantry's about family and golf with someone that isn't a good friend.

Stranger things have happened. Since we don't have video and a transcript, it is impossible to know WHAT was said. Partisans will 'invent' the conversation, for themselves.


We all think of Bubba as a good old boy but I wouldn't put anything past him. If I was going to bet, I would say that Bill does not want Hillary to ever be President.

In that case, feel free to invent the facts as you'd prefer to see them. As for me, I'll stick to what can be verified.

Norman Bernstein
07-01-2016, 02:37 PM
hahahhaa, you think the beginning and end of bill clinton's sexcapades was with lewinski? you think the clintons are squeaky clean politicians that are only looking out for the good of the downtrodden and ethnic minorities? c'mown man.

Of course, you're right. Donald Trump is the only selfless candidate in the race :)

Too Little Time
07-01-2016, 02:42 PM
I don't see ANY evidence that this was anything other than an impromptu meeting. The two planes were on the tarmac at the same time. If you have other verified information, please present it.
It appears that you provided the verified information


He delayed his flight so he could try to meet with her.
Since the Attorney General now thinks the meeting was a bad idea, it must have been a bad idea sometime during the meeting.

delecta
07-01-2016, 02:55 PM
"Increasingly, the Clintons' defense on the email story is summed up in two words: "Trust us."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/01/loretta-lynch-and-bill-clinton-just-made-hillarys-email-problems-even-worse/

This is looking nasty.....


“Where the lock on the plane door was,” she quipped. LL

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/loretta-lynch-clinton-emails_us_57766279e4b0a629c1a98005

SullivanB
07-01-2016, 02:59 PM
Props to you Norm, took a while but no one else stepped up. I have a few questions about the meeting, why did the FBI demand no photos, video or cell phones, perhaps SOP? Chance meetings like this just don't happen, so it was obviously arranged, wonder by whom? They both had to know it would be exposed, was this on the insistence of Bill, hard to say no to a former President. Seems odd you'd spend thirty minutes exchanging pleasantry's about family and golf with someone that isn't a good friend.

We all think of Bubba as a good old boy but I wouldn't put anything past him. If I was going to bet, I would say that Bill does not want Hillary to ever be President.

It's another big mistake that never should have happened and that will only increase the nation's distrust of the Dem's nominee. This was an arranged meeting from the getgo. What's more, the AG absolutely tells a former president to hit the road when the situation calls for it, as was certainly the case here. Director Comey, when he was acting AG under Ashcroft, told a sitting president's goons to shove off when they tried to steamroll him and Ashcroft on that administration's illegal eavesdropping. This thing stinks to high heaven and plays right into Trumps/the Republicans hands.

Keith Wilson
07-01-2016, 03:04 PM
This thing stinks to high heaven and plays right into Trumps/the Republicans hands.I'm becoming more and more convinced that our friend Sullivan B is actually a Republican.

delecta
07-01-2016, 03:15 PM
I'm becoming more and more convinced that our friend Sullivan B is actually a Republican.

I look at him more as a scorned Bernie devotee but whatever makes you feel better. He hates her and he's not alone. Trying to somehow diminish his opinion by calling him something that he isn't is more of a reflection of your misguided allegiance then his.

Gerarddm
07-01-2016, 03:15 PM
Bubba can certainly step in it from time to time. Lynch was pretty clean about it afterward, though. A kerfuffle that will fade.

Speaking about the FBI though, I understand that they will FINALLY meet with Hillary about the email server next week. Why this whole thing has dragged on so long is beyond me. In fact, they owe it to the country that if they want to indict her, then do so already; nothing would cause more damage to the country than to indict an actual nominated candidate. Fish or cut bait.

Norman Bernstein
07-01-2016, 03:15 PM
I'm becoming more and more convinced that our friend Sullivan B is actually a Republican.

I agree.... especially when he made the following comment:


This was an arranged meeting from the getgo.

I'd only expect that kind of wild, unsubstantiated accusation, from the whacko right wing fringe.

SullivanB
07-01-2016, 03:20 PM
I'm becoming more and more convinced that our friend Sullivan B is actually a Republican.

Keith, try to change the subject if you will, this deal is a real stinker. They got caught and now they're both lying though their teeth. It's a particularly bad deal for Ms. Lynch, whose credibility will only suffer. Bill, of course, has none.

SullivanB
07-01-2016, 03:27 PM
I agree.... especially when he made the following comment:



I'd only expect that kind of wild, unsubstantiated accusation, from the whacko right wing fringe.

Too bad, Norm. You no sooner show a bit of objectivity and balance by bringing up this unseemly rendezvous, and then you join Keith in trying to change the subject. Everyone posting here knows full well that this was a planned meetup and they got caught. She made a very bad decision with this one. It's a shame, really.

delecta
07-01-2016, 03:29 PM
When you back a rat into a corner it will fight, be prepared.

Norman Bernstein
07-01-2016, 03:42 PM
Everyone posting here knows full well that this was a planned meetup and they got caught.

No, everyone doesn't... since there's been no evidence of that. You may desire to ASSUME that to be the case, in which case, that's your partisanship showing.... but just because you wish to believe it, does NOT make it true.

SullivanB
07-01-2016, 03:43 PM
I look at him more as a scorned Bernie devotee but whatever makes you feel better. He hates her and he's not alone. Trying to somehow diminish his opinion by calling him something that he isn't is more of a reflection of your misguided allegiance then his.

When one supports a candidate like the Clintons, changing the subject, just making stuff and ignoring the facts are about all that's available. You certainly can't go with the truth when it's your worst enemy. These guys are so married to a Clinton presidency that they'd probably defend her if it became clear that she'd been selling secrets to the Chinese.

As for hating her, no, I just know what she and her hubby stand for and that they'd be very bad for the country. Sanders is clearly the better choice.

skuthorp
07-01-2016, 03:45 PM
No matter how bad Hill is, Donald is worse. You really do have to tidy up your preselection procedures.
But of course the US is not alone in this dilemma.

Bobcat
07-01-2016, 03:49 PM
I'm becoming more and more convinced that our friend Sullivan B is actually a Republican.

Yup. If it walks like a duck....

SullivanB
07-01-2016, 03:49 PM
No, everyone doesn't... since there's been no evidence of that. You may desire to ASSUME that to be the case, in which case, that's your partisanship showing.... but just because you wish to believe it, does NOT make it true.

Oh, get real. Of course they do. l

hokiefan
07-01-2016, 03:50 PM
When one supports a candidate like the Clintons, changing the subject, just making stuff and ignoring the facts are about all that's available. You certainly can't go with the truth when it's your worst enemy. These guys are so married to a Clinton presidency that they'd probably defend her if it became clear that she'd been selling secrets to the Chinese.

As for hating her, no, I just know what she and her hubby stand for and that they'd be very bad for the country. Sanders is clearly the better choice.

Thing is Sanders is no longer an option. The choices are now Hillary or Trump. It's a very clear choice as a Trump presidency would be appalling.

Bobcat
07-01-2016, 03:51 PM
Oh, get real. Of course they do. l

Don't assume everyone thinks like you. And don't tell us what "everyone knows." It's annoying

delecta
07-01-2016, 03:51 PM
No matter how bad Hill is, Donald is worse. You really do have to tidy up your preselection procedures.
But of course the US is not alone in this dilemma.

The current issue is not about whether Hillary is better then Trump because it is not to late to find someone better on both sides, it's more about the retarded notion that she is the one that really pi$$s off people that actually think.

SullivanB
07-01-2016, 04:06 PM
Sanders isn't on the menu, pal.

I know you're really into whining about your sour grapes . . .

Either that, or you're just who Norman says you are.

Until the coronation's over, he's still on the menu. Who knows, the county still might get lucky and actually end up with a candidate to vote for that they can actually trust.

delecta
07-01-2016, 04:15 PM
Now you're talking, a real fight between left and right. Cruz VS Sanders. :D

SullivanB
07-01-2016, 04:30 PM
Now you're talking, a real fight between left and right. Cruz VS Sanders. :D

Yep, that really would be a genuine fight between left and right. Sadly, at least it's my guess, we'll have something that will be called bipartisan cooperation between a moderate Republican (HRC) and the far right Republicans on matters financial and economic ( it's the money, stupid) that will further enrich them who don't need it, at the further expense of the middle class and the even less fortunate; in other words, more of the same.

delecta
07-01-2016, 04:33 PM
Yep, that really would be a genuine fight between left and right. Sadly, at least it's my guess, we'll have something that will be called bipartisan cooperation between a moderate Republican (HRC) and the far right Republicans on matters financial and economic ( it's the money, stupid) that will further enrich them who don't need it, at the further expense of the middle class and the even less fortunate; in other words, more of the same.

I think you're nuts to call Trump the far right, basically what we're going to get is the two liberals that blow with the wind.

SullivanB
07-01-2016, 05:42 PM
I think you're nuts to call Trump the far right, basically what we're going to get is the two liberals that blow with the wind.


And I might say that you're nuts to call Mrs. Clinton a liberal. She's a moderate Republican, who's already pulling like minded Republicans away from Trump and the GOP.

I wasn't talking about Trump. I'm was suggesting that Clinton, if she won, will find ways to work with the Republicans on taxation and other money matters.She's certainly more likely than Sanders to cut deals on money matters favorable to big business and the 1%, and unfavorable to the 99%. For example, she's already indicated she was willing to cut Social Security to make a deal, as has Obama. My fear is that she'll find areas like that to cooperate with the Republicans, so that the have's will get more and the have nots will be further squeezed.

I think Trump is as unpredictable as any candidate I've seen come down the political pike. Whether he's sincere in his rhetoric or just playing a role, he's a dangerous man and maybe a right wing nightmare. I do agree that there's reason to question whether he's sincere in his outlandish rhetoric, based on his past positions which are largely inconsistent with what he's saying now. But I think he'll give HRC a real run, in no small part because of her own flaws and the fact that the Dems are asleep at the wheel when it comes to understanding the mood of the country.

CWSmith
07-01-2016, 07:00 PM
There are serious issues with the Clinton campaign and this is not one of them.

Daniel Noyes
07-01-2016, 07:23 PM
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. i can't tell you how many times my private jet has pulled up to the private jets of the people investigating my wife for crimes and i just hopped over to chat about the weather for half an hour. definitely nothing to see here.


OH little Johnny Oliver would BLOW a GASKET if a Republican No-body did anything this STUPID!!! ... or Criminal??? but since they are Dems you wont hear a peap from the Comedy/Propoganda mills.

http://sharing.thecwtucson.com/shareknxv/photo/2016/06/29/16x9/Loretta_Lynch_and_Bill_Clinton_meet_in_P_0_4131506 7_ver1.0_640_480.jpg

Chip-skiff
07-01-2016, 07:33 PM
Shouldn't the title be "Bill Clinton does another dumb thing?"

My guess is that (to quote Bush II) he "misunderestimated" the hate and vindictiveness of the Republican mob.

johnw
07-01-2016, 08:10 PM
The beauty of this thread is that you can update it about once a week with some faux-pas or another.

And at least is isn't another Trump thread.

Sky Blue
07-01-2016, 08:16 PM
The irony is that it is yet another incredibly stupid move involving a woman. Only this time it's because he's old and out-of-touch (so to speak).

John Smith
07-01-2016, 11:22 PM
What a crock of jorsesh!t. This sky-is-falling reaction presumes that the attorney general is completely vulnerable to having her role and her judgement co-opted by a half hour meeting with anyone. That's half of it. The other half of course is that the former president is automatically taken to be a subservise evil bastard that would corrupt Santa Claus if he could get a flight to the North Pole.

Hillary has baggage! Her husband got an airstart from an intern twenty years ago! Now she's going to lose the election! The integrity of the U.S. Justice Department hangs in the balance over this!

Is there anything about the government of our country that is immune to the childish crap in the OP?

Oh my God. What if Bill had written an email!

I agree the over reaction is amazing, but predictable. It was as dumb a thing to do as Monica was. Smart people do dumb things all the time.

John Smith
07-01-2016, 11:24 PM
Props to you Norm, took a while but no one else stepped up. I have a few questions about the meeting, why did the FBI demand no photos, video or cell phones, perhaps SOP? Chance meetings like this just don't happen, so it was obviously arranged, wonder by whom? They both had to know it would be exposed, was this on the insistence of Bill, hard to say no to a former President. Seems odd you'd spend thirty minutes exchanging pleasantry's about family and golf with someone that isn't a good friend.

We all think of Bubba as a good old boy but I wouldn't put anything past him. If I was going to bet, I would say that Bill does not want Hillary to ever be President.

Chance meetings happen often. In the middle of the magic Kingdom one year we ran into our landlord. At Sea World one year we ran into daughter's teacher.

John Smith
07-01-2016, 11:27 PM
Bubba can certainly step in it from time to time. Lynch was pretty clean about it afterward, though. A kerfuffle that will fade.

Speaking about the FBI though, I understand that they will FINALLY meet with Hillary about the email server next week. Why this whole thing has dragged on so long is beyond me. In fact, they owe it to the country that if they want to indict her, then do so already; nothing would cause more damage to the country than to indict an actual nominated candidate. Fish or cut bait.

Maybe we'll have another 9 investigations.

John Smith
07-01-2016, 11:28 PM
Keith, try to change the subject if you will, this deal is a real stinker. They got caught and now they're both lying though their teeth. It's a particularly bad deal for Ms. Lynch, whose credibility will only suffer. Bill, of course, has none.

Time will tell.

John Smith
07-01-2016, 11:30 PM
Until the coronation's over, he's still on the menu. Who knows, the county still might get lucky and actually end up with a candidate to vote for that they can actually trust.

Sanders has you fooled. He's not all that trustworthy.

John Smith
07-01-2016, 11:32 PM
Yep, that really would be a genuine fight between left and right. Sadly, at least it's my guess, we'll have something that will be called bipartisan cooperation between a moderate Republican (HRC) and the far right Republicans on matters financial and economic ( it's the money, stupid) that will further enrich them who don't need it, at the further expense of the middle class and the even less fortunate; in other words, more of the same.

The 'same' is gridlock. And that may be the case. Something 'different' doesn't necessarily mean 'better'.

The more we learn about Trump the more Rubio got that right, too: He's a con man.

mdh
07-02-2016, 12:19 AM
Don't you people ever get tired of saying "there's no evidence" for the clintons?

Breakaway
07-02-2016, 12:25 AM
This was no, "chance meeting." Bill Clinton held his plane to meet hers. So it was planned at least that far in advance, if published reports are to be believed.

Of course, the Secret Service, along with the rest of Clinton's entourage, surely knows which planes are coming and going when he is coming and going. There is no "chance" that they did not know what aircraft were scheduled and who was aboard them. Knowing this, we can say that Clinton himself LIKELY had knowledge of who's plane would be where and when.

Kevin

Jim Mahan
07-02-2016, 07:18 AM
No wonder our elected officials keep acting like their constituencies are stupid.

Norman Bernstein
07-02-2016, 07:42 AM
Don't you people ever get tired of saying "there's no evidence" for the clintons?

Do you ever get tired of believing every single accusation against the Clintons, even when there's no evidence?

elf
07-02-2016, 08:22 AM
Doesn't sound like a consummate politician to me.

Durnik
07-02-2016, 09:10 AM
Hillary has you fooled. She's not all that trustworthy.

ftfy




Don't you people ever get tired of saying "there's no evidence" for the clintons?

The thing is, while Hillary has issues, those issues are things neocons approve of. The B.S. 'issues' the handlers of the willfully ignorant feed their.. 'idjit voting block' are manufactured B.S. - gotta wonder about the sheeple who eat that B.S. up.

bobby

Paul Girouard
07-02-2016, 10:47 AM
No wonder our elected officials keep acting like their constituencies are stupid.


Pol's like Clinton can count on it as this thread shows, he's above reproach , his motives can never be questioned , his followers will make sure of that!

Keith Wilson
07-02-2016, 11:38 AM
Jesus, guys - you think if Bill wanted to interfere with the AG's investigation, you think he would ahve done it like that? Might as well have the meeting on national TV. Dumb, because it will give the RW shriekers something more to shriek about, but really, have some sense.


http://www.trbimg.com/img-57761c9f/turbine/la-1467358582-snap-photo/1150/1150x647

Jim Mahan
07-02-2016, 11:49 AM
I knew someone would be reasonable about this nothingburger.

Boater14
07-02-2016, 01:26 PM
Call me a conspiracy theorist. The AG says she'll leave it up to the pros.....the FBI. The FBI director was appointed by Obama but was high up in Justice appointed by Bush. What could be sweeter than having a guy with impeccable reep creds say she's clean? Call me crazy. Now, back to who killed Vince Foster and Elizabeth warrens DNA sample.

Daniel Noyes
07-02-2016, 10:23 PM
I knew someone would be reasonable about this nothingburger.

precisely... and above all this episode proves Trump and his morons are far from having a MONOPOLY on STUPID :) talk about a bone headed move... this whole debacle makes Hillary and Co. look like "Loose Cannons"

Lew Barrett
07-02-2016, 10:41 PM
Doesn't sound like a consummate politician to me.

He feels entitled because he is and not in a good way. Like Sanders, he needs to get out of the way but I'm not sure he is entirely capable of that and it seems Sanders isn't either. It was a dumb move. Bur it was not really a significant dumb move. Someone please ignite the rockets and send in the marines when something real happens.

And more importantly, who is posting under my avatar to a political thread?

John Smith
07-03-2016, 08:55 AM
Pol's like Clinton can count on it as this thread shows, he's above reproach , his motives can never be questioned , his followers will make sure of that!

Hey this is the guy who was being investigated on at least two fronts and gave his enemies Monica. And that cost him. Probably cost Gore, too.

I'm not going to defend this meeting. It didn't take a genius to know that it would make the news and how it would look.

That said, The other option here is Trump. He seems far less trustworthy of the two candidates. The more we learn of his history, the better fit "con-man" is.

Then there's this: how much of Bill's behavior do we blame on Hillary?

John Smith
07-03-2016, 09:02 AM
Jesus, guys - you think if Bill wanted to interfere with the AG's investigation, you think he would ahve done it like that? Might as well have the meeting on national TV. Dumb, because it will give the RW shriekers something more to shriek about, but really, have some sense.


http://www.trbimg.com/img-57761c9f/turbine/la-1467358582-snap-photo/1150/1150x647

That's why I don't think it's such a big deal. It was, however, stupid. If he wanted to have a conversation about emails with the AG, I'm sure he could have arranged one no one would know about.

Personally, I don't believe the FBI is even looking for a crime, but that's what the right believes. I think they're going to suggest better ways for official agencies to handle email. If they were to find a crime here, they'd have to dig into a lot of other places and people to find the same crime, as I don't believe there is a statue of limitations in this area.

If you drove last Sunday on a highway at 65 when that was the speed limit, and you drive that highway this week at 50, because the speed limit has been changed, you'd all be quite upset if you got a ticket for having driven last week in excess of this week's speed limit. That's what is going on with emails. Material that was not classified when sent was later determined to be classified.

A number of people have told us NOBODY knew she was not using the official server. I find that hard to believe. The official server would have her email address at something like @State.gov Her private would be something like @HRC.org Everyone would know. No?

SullivanB
07-03-2016, 10:04 AM
That's why I don't think it's such a big deal. It was, however, stupid. If he wanted to have a conversation about emails with the AG, I'm sure he could have arranged one no one would know about.

Personally, I don't believe the FBI is even looking for a crime, but that's what the right believes. I think they're going to suggest better ways for official agencies to handle email. If they were to find a crime here, they'd have to dig into a lot of other places and people to find the same crime, as I don't believe there is a statue of limitations in this area.

If you drove last Sunday on a highway at 65 when that was the speed limit, and you drive that highway this week at 50, because the speed limit has been changed, you'd all be quite upset if you got a ticket for having driven last week in excess of this week's speed limit. That's what is going on with emails. Material that was not classified when sent was later determined to be classified.

A number of people have told us NOBODY knew she was not using the official server. I find that hard to believe. The official server would have her email address at something like @State.gov Her private would be something like @HRC.org Everyone would know. No?

By gum, I think you've got it right, John. It's one of those rare occasions when I tend to agree with you, for I, too, have wondered if the FBI "...is even looking for a crime...", the continued delay of the grand finale even with the IG of the State Department having done a fair piece of their work for them.

Of course, there are two "thresholds" the findings of this "investigation" must weather. The first, as you've mentioned, being FBI Director Comey. The second is General Lynch, whose prominent role in the matter has just been highlighted by this unfortunate, chance meeting Norman was good enough to bring to our attention.

The basic problem with this thread, of course, is that it focuses on President Clinton. The real story is not Bill Clinton and his unfortunate conduct for he's only done what the American people have come to expect of the man, his personal conduct bar having already been set so low that there's little he could do to surprise us.

It's the conduct of General Lynch, the second most powerful and important law enforcement officer in the land, direct representative of the President of the United States, who's the real story, here. It's the fact that the Attorney General allowed this conference to occur when and as it did. It's the fact that she didn't promptly and publicly disclose it, only doing so after it was disclosed by the press. It's the fact that, in a light most favorable to her, it demonstrates very bad judgment and fundamental weakness on her part. It's the fact that it only exacerbates the already significant deficit in the public's trust of this administration's handling of matters involving candidate Clinton. And it's the fact that it only increases the record deficit in the public's trust in and of the candidate, herself. However menacing the threat of a Donald Trump presidency, this matter is not, as some have suggested, a small thing.

Too Little Time
07-03-2016, 12:31 PM
A number of people have told us NOBODY knew she was not using the official server. I find that hard to believe. The official server would have her email address at something like @State.gov Her private would be something like @HRC.org Everyone would know. No?

No. I use Google mail. It will collect my mail from my other accounts and send out mail using the other accounts.

So it is reasonable to believe that mail addressed to @state.gov was forwarded to her and her responses to that mail were sent using @state.gov

SullivanB
07-03-2016, 12:59 PM
No. I use Google mail. It will collect my mail from my other accounts and send out mail using the other accounts.

So it is reasonable to believe that mail addressed to @state.gov was forwarded to her and her responses to that mail were sent using @state.gov

Your point is well taken, though some at State certainly knew she was not using the Departments official server. For example, those who warned their superiors about the security issues and were instructed to never to bring them up again. And those who were warned of the lapse in security, yet told those troublemakers raising the security concerns to never mention the matter again. And then there were those who were forced to discontinue the Department's security measures on their official devices so that they'd be able to actually receive the Secretary's unsecured communications. No doubt, all those folks knew. As for John's suggestion that "Everyone would know.", I wonder if the President or the head of Homeland Security knew. I suspect not or at least I'd sure like to think so.

Jim Mahan
07-03-2016, 03:04 PM
I see.

Has anyone even disclosed the nature of that conversation?

I don't believe they have.

As far as I know, they talked about Prokofiev and the political implications of 'Peter and the Wolf'.

It was reported that they talked about grandchildren, and someone's illness, as I recall from the evening news.

Apparently everyone agrees that that half hour of conversation between a former president and a current attorney general was at the least bad 'optics,' because the one is the spouse of a current presidential candidate and the other is the head of an agency overseeing an investigation of that spouse for something that has legs in the court of stupid public opinion but which is really unworthy of a criminal investigation—whether or not that candidate used a private email server and somehow committed a crime because of it.

How can it be, that it is generally understood, and taken as conventional wisdom, that our former two-term president and current attorney general are so corrupt that the one could influence the other in a current case of some national notoriety, with a half hour impromtu meeting on a waiting plane. Some idiots admittedly think that if said meeting was arranged at any time prior and not actually impromptu as was reported—which commonly happens all the time without the taint of criminal conspiracy—then it is defacto evidence of a crime.

And to believe that in our land where one of the most widely respected and dearly held tenets of the law is 'innocent until proven guilty,' it is taken as patently criminal that an elder former statesman of some distinction and the current head of the highest federal law enforcement agency in the country are both corrupt enough to make some kind of deal, and at the same time too stupid to have such a conversation in a private, un-announced location, is the purest, craven stupidity.

It comes from the same mindset that motivated an elected congressman to stand up in the House of Representatives and shout 'liar' at the president during his state of the union address.

delecta
07-03-2016, 05:15 PM
It was reported that they talked about grandchildren, and someone's illness, as I recall from the evening news.

Apparently everyone agrees that that half hour of conversation between a former president and a current attorney general was at the least bad 'optics,' because the one is the spouse of a current presidential candidate and the other is the head of an agency overseeing an investigation of that spouse for something that has legs in the court of stupid public opinion but which is really unworthy of a criminal investigation—whether or not that candidate used a private email server and somehow committed a crime because of it.

How can it be, that it is generally understood, and taken as conventional wisdom, that our former two-term president and current attorney general are so corrupt that the one could influence the other in a current case of some national notoriety, with a half hour impromtu meeting on a waiting plane. Some idiots admittedly think that if said meeting was arranged at any time prior and not actually impromptu as was reported—which commonly happens all the time without the taint of criminal conspiracy—then it is defacto evidence of a crime.

And to believe that in our land where one of the most widely respected and dearly held tenets of the law is 'innocent until proven guilty,' it is taken as patently criminal that an elder former statesman of some distinction and the current head of the highest federal law enforcement agency in the country are both corrupt enough to make some kind of deal, and at the same time too stupid to have such a conversation in a private, un-announced location, is the purest, craven stupidity.

It comes from the same mindset that motivated an elected congressman to stand up in the House of Representatives and shout 'liar' at the president during his state of the union address.

I was going to multi quote this but really what is the point? There is so much stupid there it makes no sense. Carry on!

delecta
07-03-2016, 06:13 PM
Well done, did you and DavidG go to the same forum training course?