Sign in to follow this  
TheCid

FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton

39 posts in this topic

The Republicans have been preparing for this day since the investigation began.  And it was an agency of the Obama adminstration that started the investigation, not Congress.  Although I am sure the GOPers would have started one if DOJ had not.


Any report that did not state that Hillary R. Clinton should be tried for a crime would not have satisfied the Republicans in Congress and nationally.  Not even sure that would have satisfied them.


Based on 26 years in the military and handling classified information as a senior officer, it is not as cut and dried as some think.  There is also a tendency to over classify information.  An old expression we used was that "Even the toliet paper is classifed secret."


Might add that Confidential is used way too much.


The use of electronic devices and systems makes it just that much worse.  Too easy for too many people to forward information and/or parts of documents.  Heck we do it here all the time.


Watched part of the inquisition and obvioulsy the GOPers were well prepared for it.  Their staffs (and other Republicans) must have worked long hours to get this well prepared.  Maybe we could send them to Iraq and Afghanistan?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought we might as well start a thread on this one, so I moved my post under another thread.

Just watched some more of it.  About four hours in Rep. Chaffetz (R-Utah) made it perfectly clear - it is a witch hunt against Clinton and an attempt to degrade her candidacy for president in order to favor Trump.

Dir. Comey was excellent in his knowledge and presentations.  No matter how hard Chaffetz tried to confuse him or make him make a misstatement, Chaffetz failed.  It was also apparent that Chaffetz either did not understand or more likely did not care how Comey responded unless it supported Chaffetz preconceived ideas.  One example, Comey was very clear as to what "paper" meant in DOS parlance, but Chaffetz refused to hear it.

Chaffetz also does not understand the difference between a prosecutable case vs. a witch hunt.  

Also, as a former four star general, Army commander and CIA director, the GEN Petraeus situation is entirely different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Based on 26 years in the military and handling classified information as a senior officer, it is not as cut and dried as some think.  There is also a tendency to over classify information.  An old expression we used was that "Even the toliet paper is classifed secret."

Might add that Confidential is used way too much.

The use of electronic devices and systems makes it just that much worse.  Too easy for too many people to forward information and/or parts of documents.  Heck we do it here all the time.

 

 

 

Sorry I didn't see this first.

 

While what HRC did might not have risen to the standards for criminal prosecution according to Comey, it is still telling that he used the words "careless" and "negligent" regarding her behavior.  This doesn't exactly give me confidence where she's concerned.  Heck, I don't even know how she should be able to regain clearance should she be elected. 

 

I hadn't heard that phrase about toilet paper in a long time, and agree about the tendency to over classify.  That being said, I wonder why it seems I'm more troubled by this than you.  My entire 22 yr. AF career was spent in what was then called Security Service (don't know what it would be today).  Perhaps its because you were an officer and I was enlisted?  Different branches?  At any rate, the consequences of mishandling classified material were always stressed, and I, for one, took it very seriously.  And being SoS, she should have been held to a much higher standard than almost anyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry I didn't see this first.

 

While what HRC did might not have risen to the standards for criminal prosecution according to Comey, it is still telling that he used the words "careless" and "negligent" regarding her behavior.  This doesn't exactly give me confidence where she's concerned.  Heck, I don't even know how she should be able to regain clearance should she be elected. 

 

I hadn't heard that phrase about toilet paper in a long time, and agree about the tendency to over classify.  That being said, I wonder why it seems I'm more troubled by this than you.  My entire 22 yr. AF career was spent in what was then called Security Service (don't know what it would be today).  Perhaps its because you were an officer and I was enlisted?  Different branches?  At any rate, the consequences of mishandling classified material were always stressed, and I, for one, took it very seriously.  And being SoS, she should have been held to a much higher standard than almost anyone.

 

I'm surprised by your POV here since in that other thread I was told only sexist white GOP males have that POV.    ;)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hadn't heard that phrase about toilet paper in a long time, and agree about the tendency to over classify.  That being said, I wonder why it seems I'm more troubled by this than you.  My entire 22 yr. AF career was spent in what was then called Security Service (don't know what it would be today).  Perhaps its because you were an officer and I was enlisted?  Different branches?  At any rate, the consequences of mishandling classified material were always stressed, and I, for one, took it very seriously.  And being SoS, she should have been held to a much higher standard than almost anyone.

Not to say I didn't take it seriously, but I think this particular issue has been politicized too much.  She took information she received and sent it to other people. There were career DOS security employees who should have been more assertive in preventing this situation.  The information should have been more clearly marked as secret or top secret.  Confidential doesn't really mean anything. Confidential is what the organization or person doesn't want the media or public to learn about.  More of an embarassing issue than "national security."

Unfortunately, sometimes we and the media and the public become too concerned over the small things.  Who is going to make the world (and US) safer, the economy better, the quality of life of all better, ad infinitum?  Who is best qualified to be president?

Incidentally, I am really getting tired of hearing "qualified to be commander-in-chief."  We are electing the president, not someone to fill a military position.  The president has DOS, DOD, HS, etc. people to advise him/her.  While he/she may make final decision, there is a huge amount of input from professionals.  We need a CIC who will accept that input, understand it, process it and act upon it.  Not a cowboy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to say I didn't take it seriously, but I think this particular issue has been politicized too much.  She took information she received and sent it to other people. There were career DOS security employees who should have been more assertive in preventing this situation.  The information should have been more clearly marked as secret or top secret.  Confidential doesn't really mean anything. Confidential is what the organization or person doesn't want the media or public to learn about.  More of an embarassing issue than "national security."

Unfortunately, sometimes we and the media and the public become too concerned over the small things.  Who is going to make the world (and US) safer, the economy better, the quality of life of all better, ad infinitum?  Who is best qualified to be president?

Incidentally, I am really getting tired of hearing "qualified to be commander-in-chief."  We are electing the president, not someone to fill a military position.  The president has DOS, DOD, HS, etc. people to advise him/her.  While he/she may make final decision, there is a huge amount of input from professionals.  We need a CIC who will accept that input, understand it, process it and act upon it.  Not a cowboy.

 

Agreed about the political aspect.  I have too many issues with the whole setup to go into here, but even if we agree about markings, she didn't seem to understand that it's better to be overcautious than too lax.

 

As for advisors, knowing she has heavily relied on Kissinger in the past and regards him as a mentor, doesn't put my mind at ease that she'd have the best people to counsel her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet your thread will become very active with this latest news:

 

http://www.thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/286939-state-department-reopens-clinton-emails-probe

 

"The State Department is restarting its internal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server now that the Department of Justice has decided not to pursue charges against her. 

 

“Given the Department of Justice has now made its announcement, the State Department intends to conduct its internal review," State Department spokesman John Kirby said in a statement.

 

The State Department had suspended its investigation into its former secretary to avoid interfering with the FBI and Justice Department reviews."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed about the political aspect.  I have too many issues with the whole setup to go into here, but even if we agree about markings, she didn't seem to understand that it's better to be overcautious than too lax.

 

As for advisors, knowing she has heavily relied on Kissinger in the past and regards him as a mentor, doesn't put my mind at ease that she'd have the best people to counsel her.

 

She does what she wants to do - rules, regulations, expert advice notwithstanding. It's always what she wants that matters most.

 

The e-mails will probably seem like small change once the investigation into the criminality of the Clinton Foundation begins to take on more heat. Of course, the disappearance of important evidence will likely prevent indictment there as well. One might almost suspect that disappearing evidence is quite a pattern when it comes to Clinton affairs.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In MY case, this still all boils down to the thought that I'd STILL rather have her tainted pantsuits parked upon that chair behind that famous Oval Office desk, than I would that big blustery loudmouth New Yorker who's an embarrassment to me as an American every freakin' time he opens his damn pie hole!!!

 

(...yep, given the choice between these two less-than-desirable choices, I still gotta go with that Clinton woman) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rep. Chaffetz announced on Fox News that Congress (Republicans) are requesting that FBI investigate Clinton for perjury re: her testimony to Congress.  After that it will be her taste in pants suits?  

I'll say one thing for them - they never give up.

Of course, this also indicates that the Republican Party is very afraid of how much more qualified Hillary Clinton is than Trump and that they need as many diversions as possible to keep the American voter from discovering that.

If DOS investigates Clinton, does that mean the Republican Inquisition Committee (AKA Government & Oversight) will also require a report and hearing from those people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I hear something negative about Clinton and her trust issues with the American public I cringe, not because I'm that upset at the thought of she being such a flawed character elected to the Oval Office, but over the fact that it could possibly lead to that loud mouthed New York buffoon getting elected instead.

 

The thought of him impacting the economy, of his pandering to bigots and having his finger near the nuclear button is definitely more distressing that the thought of a second Clinton in that position.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time I hear something negative about Clinton and her trust issues with the American public I cringe, not because I'm that upset at the thought of she being such a flawed character elected to the Oval Office, but over the fact that it could possibly lead to that loud mouthed New York buffoon getting elected instead.

 

The thought of him impacting the economy, of his pandering to bigots and having his finger near the nuclear button is definitely more distressing that the thought of a second Clinton in that position.

 

You have little faith in voters.     But hey,  Bush was elected to a second term so,,,,,, :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have little faith in voters.     But hey,  Bush was elected to a second term so,,,,,, :blink:

 

Oh, well THAT of course could be explained due to W being President during a war. A war, of course, he needlessly AND stupidly started in Iraq, but still a war. And everybody knows "you don't change horses mid-stream" during something like that.

 

(...oh, and of course another reason he won reelection was because his Democratic opponent was just about the most lackluster candidate bearing his party flag since that party's inception...can't forget that too, ya know...the way he allowed himself to be "Swift Boated" was almost "criminal" ITSELF!!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, well THAT of course could be explained due to W being President during a war. A war, of course, he needlessly AND stupidly started in Iraq, but still a war. And everybody knows "you don't change horses mid-stream" during something like that.

 

(...oh, and of course another reason he won reelection was because his Democratic opponent was just about the most lackluster candidate bearing his party flag since that party's inception...can't forget that too, ya know...the way he allowed himself to be "Swift Boated" was almost "criminal" ITSELF!!!)

I can remember when Bush got us into that Iraq war that nearly everybody at the grocery store had a we support our troops sticker on their cars to show they agreed with the Iraq War.

 

Now you can't find a person who was for it. -- except maybe Tony Blair.

 

How does that work?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole situation plays out like the classic story of "The boy who cried Wolf"  The long time increasing  stupidity of the republicans of constantly throwing mud and making anything a democrat does into a terrible scandal  has just completely destroyed their (republicans)  credibility. So if there is any real substance to a charge , the general public will just dismiss it as "politics". And to believe the republican line, there is no acceptable way  of investigation  that is objectionable and  non partisan if it  doesn't lead their way.  That is the right wing extremist point of view that runs the present day republican party.  And the few remaining "sane, rational republicans" that are out there  just stand back and won't call out the nut jobs.   What has to happen, and what I want to see, is the whole party implode and a new more responsible opposition (to the democrats) party emerge. And the right wing nut jobs can crawl back into their holes.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can remember when Bush got us into that Iraq war that nearly everybody at the grocery store had a we support our troops sticker on their cars to show they agreed with the Iraq War.

 

Now you can't find a person who was for it. -- except maybe Tony Blair.

 

How does that work?

 

Simple, Princess! Americans have always been suckers for someone waving Old Glory around! And it doesn't matter one freakin' iota IF the reason it's being waved around is for a cause that's smart and "righteous", or NOT!!!

 

(...yep, there's your answer in a freakin' nutshell)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Americans have always been suckers for someone waving Old Glory around!

 

lead_large.jpg?GE2DGMBRGQ2DKNBYFYYA====

 

o-DONALD-TRUMP-facebook.jpg

 

Flag manufacturers must make a fortune just with political candidates alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This whole situation plays out like the classic story of "The boy who cried Wolf"  The long time increasing  stupidity of the republicans of constantly throwing mud and making anything a democrat does into a terrible scandal  has just completely destroyed their (republicans)  credibility. So if there is any real substance to a charge , the general public will just dismiss it as "politics". And to believe the republican line, there is no acceptable way  of investigation  that is objectionable and  non partisan if it  doesn't lead their way.  That is the right wing extremist point of view that runs the present day republican party.  And the few remaining "sane, rational republicans" that are out there  just stand back and won't call out the nut jobs.   What has to happen, and what I want to see, is the whole party implode and a new more responsible opposition (to the democrats) party emerge. And the right wing nut jobs can crawl back into their holes.   

Occured to me that the current Republicans have betrayed the American people, American principles, God and Christianity by not coming out in opposition to Trump.  They have also betrayed the Republican Party itself.  They should emphatically state that they do not support Trump and will not vote for him in Novemember.

However, this is not surprising considering the direction the party has been heading since Goldwater, but especially since Nixon and Reagan.

Clinton is not the best person to be president, but she is the best candidate.   She definitely has trust and judgement issues, but so does every other politician.  If the Democrats had seen Trump coming a year ago, perhaps a better person would have run and won the Dem. nomination.  Sanders is not that person though.

Trump's judgement, trustworthiness and intelligence is worse.  As for his business "success," four bankruptcies says it all.  The fact he views those as good business practices really proves how unfit he is.  Thousands out of work, investors losing money, etc. Bernie Maddof was a good businessman also and Hitler and Stalin were good politicians and military leaders, although Hitler did not last as long.

Clinton wants to make America better (it's still Great) and improve everyone's lives.  Trump wants to massage his ego.

Basically, the failure of the Republican Party membership to recognize this and acknowledge it is the real tragedy in this whole situation.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In MY case, this still all boils down to the thought that I'd STILL rather have her tainted pantsuits parked upon that chair behind that famous Oval Office desk, than I would that big blustery loudmouth New Yorker who's an embarrassment to me as an American every freakin' time he opens his damn pie hole!!!

 

(...yep, given the choice between these two less-than-desirable choices, I still gotta go with that Clinton woman) 

 

Gawd you're boring.

 

I mean, come on. She'll be death warmed over. The Donald will be a party!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can remember when Bush got us into that Iraq war that nearly everybody at the grocery store had a we support our troops sticker on their cars to show they agreed with the Iraq War.

 

Now you can't find a person who was for it. -- except maybe Tony Blair.

 

How does that work?

 

Cowardice is rampant. It's the norm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many Democrats vote for military adventures they might

otherwise not have for the very rational fear that Republicans

will paint them as weak on defense. Wars are usually popular

at the start, but then the bad news starts and many people

develop a case of amnesia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Many Democrats vote for military adventures they might

otherwise not have for the very rational fear that Republicans

will paint them as weak on defense. Wars are usually popular

at the start, but then the bad news starts and many people

develop a case of amnesia.

This started back in the Truman administration when "weak on defense" implied "soft on Communism".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This started back in the Truman administration when "weak on defense" implied "soft on Communism".

Yep. The weak on defense argument stays the same,

only the enemies change.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Many Democrats vote for military adventures they might

otherwise not have for the very rational fear that Republicans

will paint them as weak on defense. Wars are usually popular

at the start, but then the bad news starts and many people

develop a case of amnesia.

 

And exactly the reason I always thought Senator Hillary voted for W's(okay, actually Dick "Tin Man" Cheney's) incursion into Iraq.

 

And pretty much for NO other reason than that, 'cause I believe she never bought into that bunk about WMDs, let alone all that OTHER bunk about Saddam's supposed connection to 9-11 and his supposed links to Islamic jihadists.

 

(...nope, 'cause I KNOW that woman is a lot smarter than THAT..."bad intelligence"?...PSHAW!!!)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And exactly the reason I always thought Senator Hillary voted for W's(okay, actually Dick "Tin Man" Cheney's) incursion into Iraq.

 

And pretty much for NO other reason than that, 'cause I believe she never bought into that bunk about WMDs, let alone all that OTHER bunk about Saddam's supposed connection to 9-11 and his supposed links to Islamic jihadists.

 

(...nope, 'cause I KNOW that woman is a lot smarter than THAT..."bad intelligence"?...PSHAW!!!)

 

So HRC voted for the Iraq invasion to ensure she didn't lose support when she ran for re-election for the US Senate?     If that is the case that is a worst reason then why Bush and Cheney wanted to remove Saddam.

 

Sorry, I'm not buying it.     My view is that HRC is just a hawk.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us