SHOCK POLL: 71% of Dems Say Clinton Should Keep Running Even If Indicted...

[eohrnberger]

Again, you have framed the argument just the way you like. It isn't about stopping external forms of communications, it is being in control of the platforms of official communication. Only the controller of a domain can determine what is official from that domain. Heck, HDR hasn't had activated SPF from her own server. If I want to block any specific traffic on my network, I can, but that doesn't mean that I do. Clearly an outside email server is outside the reach of the FOIA law.

News flash: The Inspector General of the State Department isn't a Republican and isn't lead by anyone in Congress. Perhaps you can something really bad to say about Mr. Linick: https://oig.state.gov/about/IG.

So you understand how republicans think and their schemes? How comforting for you.

Indeed.

The sole purpose for Hillary having that private email server set up, and then exclusively using it for her SoS official emails is that she would have total control over what emails are released at anytime of her choosing, and to anyone of her choosing. This has been clearly demonstrated over the extended and painful court ordered extraction of emails, akin to pulling hen's teeth, of which it's still impossible to determine with any degree of certainty if all relevant emails have been disclosed.

It's more than clear that she intended to be the sole arbiter of what was private and what was not, without any possibility of proper, regular, and normal oversight that government communications, especially senior Cabinet position communications, normally receive. And that most certainly IS in violation of the Federal Records Act of 1950.

She clearly, and incorrectly, perceives herself as being above the law of mere mortals.

What sort of presidency will this beget? Not a good one, is the safe bet.

 

[Paperview]

...

She clearly, and incorrectly, perceives herself as being above the law of mere mortals.

Do you think if she were under indictment she should not be allowed to run?

 

[jonny5]

Most continue to believe likely Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton is a lawbreaker, but half of all voters also say a felony indictment shouldn’t stop her campaign for the presidency.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone and online survey finds that 43% of Likely U.S. Voters think Clinton should immediately stop campaigning if she is charged with a felony in connection with her use of a private e-mail server while secretary of State. Fifty percent (50%), however, think she should continue running until a court determines her guilt or innocence.

50% Say Clinton Should Keep Running Even If Indicted - Rasmussen Reportsâ„¢

To be fair, and indictment is not a conviction. She is innocent until proven guilty. But it certainly seems like it should be career ending.

 

[MrWonka]

That rings awfully hollow after that latest OIG report . Turns out all us Republicans who have called her a seial pathological liar have been vindicated, huh?

No, not really. Pretty much all politicians bend the truth a bit. As it turns out when it comes to relevant subjects Hillary does it far less often than pretty much the entire Republican field....




Even the most honest Republican in the field told more pants on fire lies than both democratic candidates combined.

 

[eohrnberger]

Do you think if she were under indictment she should not be allowed to run?

I think that if she were under indictment it would hurt her chances of winning, yes.
Whether someone else can deny her continuing to run, I don't believe so.
Whether she is arrogant enough to continue running even under indictment, I think she would.

 

[Paperview]

I think that if she were under indictment it would hurt her chances of winning, yes.
Whether someone else can deny her continuing to run, I don't believe so.
Whether she is arrogant enough to continue running even under indictment, I think she would.

Flashback: When Rick Perry announced his bid for presidency last year --

he was


under indictment.

 

[KLATTU]

Congress was fed a bunch of lies disguised as facts in order to get their votes. A lot of Senators were fooled, not only Hillary. She certainly did not give the order to invade Iraq either. No one is defending Bush's lies now either. Everyone thinks the Iraq invasion was a huge blunder.

What lies? Congress was fed intelligence that existed at the time. The liar is YOU claiming it was otherwise.What kind of despicable person aids and abets our enemies by perpetuating a left wing lie that has been debunked 100 times over?

Oh wait, I know- A Clinton voter!!

 

[KLATTU]

No, not really. Pretty much all politicians bend the truth a bit. As it turns out when it comes to relevant subjects Hillary does it far less often than pretty much the entire Republican field....


View attachment 67202107

Even the most honest Republican in the field told more pants on fire lies than both democratic candidates combined.

Weak .
Defending the sleazebag Clinton's make you look really sleazy.

 

[Gaius46]

First, unlike Republicans I have always opposed the Patriot Act and any attempts by the government to expand warrantless searches and unreasonable searches and seizures. However if you have legitimate probable cause to think someone is guilty of a crime to the point where they can be put on a no-fly list then it is only reasonable to prevent them from purchasing a gun until they can be cleared of wrong doing. That is not a violation of anyone's rights that is just common sense. It's fine to have a high bar for probable cause, but if it is met then temporary restrictions are necessary.

You shouldn't be using the terms "probable cause" and "no fly list" in the same sentence. No one, except some faceless bureaucrats deep in the bowels of some government building, has a clue as to how one gets put on a no fly list or how one challenges being put on it.

 

[MrWonka]

Left-Libertarianism: Libertarian socialism

It is in essence permanent and infinite revolution and enlightenment. The status quo and civil stagnation will become obsolete.
Dictators, oligarchs, authoritarianism, and corruption become impossible.

Sorry, but no. You don't get to just go around throwing a bunch of random and contradictory words together and pretend they mean something completely different. Come up with a real description of your ****. Sounds like pretty classic liberalism to me.

 

[MrWonka]

You shouldn't be using the terms "probable cause" and "no fly list" in the same sentence. No one, except some faceless bureaucrats deep in the bowels of some government building, has a clue as to how one gets put on a no fly list or how one challenges being put on it.

Wanting that process to be made public and denying a need for it are two very different things.

 

[iguanaman]

What lies? Congress was fed intelligence that existed at the time. The liar is YOU claiming it was otherwise.What kind of despicable person aids and abets our enemies by perpetuating a left wing lie that has been debunked 100 times over?

Oh wait, I know- A Clinton voter!!

LOL Congress was fed only the intelligence that supported ths Bush Administrations wild claims. The info they heard came from informants with CIA names like "curveball" which shows you how much they trusted his info. The only one aiding abetting our enemies was GW Bush who actions created more islamic militants than ever before and resulted in the horror of ISIS taking over much of the M.E..

 

[MrWonka]

Weak .
Defending the sleazebag Clinton's make you look really sleazy.

Facts are never sleazy. It is the rumors, speculation, and unfounded accusations of republicans towards the Clinton's that are sleazy.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Yes it is. You claimed that in your place of work if people were conducting communications on an outside non-company server they would be fired. I gave you numerous examples of that not being true proving you wrong.


Not anymore so than having one on one conversations that are not written down or recorded at all would be. The server is intended for everyday chatter back and forth between advisers not official business. You can certainly argue that she pushed the limits of that, but off the record communication between politicians and their advisers is standard issue. There's nothing you can do to stop it.


Nobody is claiming that he is, but by his own admission they asked Clinton to change her email policy a number of times. They didn't throw her out of office for it. They maybe didn't like it. It may have went against best practices, or recommended procedures, but that's very different than it being illegal.

You proved you can answer your own argument. An employee at my company conducting all their company business on their own email account would be subject to being fired. You may be all knowing about all that you know, but you don't this situation and quite frankly, didn't ask. Why would you ask when you already know? At our company, we provide the computer, we provide the phone and the policy is to use them to conduct business. We do allow personal communication if people do so choose. You want to expand it to online chat and other similar tools. Please share which ones of these HDR used because I've seen no others. This is official communication being discussed, not a group session in a slack room. And after doing a bit of research, if you are on the paid version of slack, the Administrator can retain the messages: https://get.slack.help/hc/en-us/articles/203950296-FAQs-about-privacy. Sometimes companies want artifacts for future project reviews. Hmmm, I may need to start paying up for that little gem.

So to boil it down. Clinton did nothing wrong because they haven't charged her with anything. Clinton wasn't thrown out of office for using her own service so it must have been OK. I don't agree with your leaps of faith, but neither have I convicted her of anything.

Back to my question: If HDR is convicted (the original poll only says indicted), would you still vote for her for President? That was my question I first posted on this thread. I believe that a substantial percent would still vote for her if she were convicted, but that is just my opinion.

 

[Gaius46]

Wanting that process to be made public and denying a need for it are two very different things.

Where did I deny the need for it - though in point of fact I don't see much need for one for purely domestic travel and certainly do not believe it right to restrict the travel of citizens who have not been charged with a crime.

You said something like "if there is probable cause to put someone on a no fly list then there is probable cause to deny them their 2A rights." Given that the process is opaque we have no way of knowing whether there is cause to put someone on a no fly list. Even if cause exists, absent a conviction, it's far from clear that you have grounds to deny someone a Constitutionally protected right.

 

[AliHajiSheik]

Indeed.

The sole purpose for Hillary having that private email server set up, and then exclusively using it for her SoS official emails is that she would have total control over what emails are released at anytime of her choosing, and to anyone of her choosing. This has been clearly demonstrated over the extended and painful court ordered extraction of emails, akin to pulling hen's teeth, of which it's still impossible to determine with any degree of certainty if all relevant emails have been disclosed.

It's more than clear that she intended to be the sole arbiter of what was private and what was not, without any possibility of proper, regular, and normal oversight that government communications, especially senior Cabinet position communications, normally receive. And that most certainly IS in violation of the Federal Records Act of 1950.

She clearly, and incorrectly, perceives herself as being above the law of mere mortals.

What sort of presidency will this beget? Not a good one, is the safe bet.

I'd be even more interested in why she had so many accounts on that server. HDR22 was only one account but there were more HDRxx accounts.

 

[KLATTU]

Facts are never sleazy. It is the rumors, speculation, and unfounded accusations of republicans towards the Clinton's that are sleazy.

Well the whole unfounded rumor thing is out the window now that the OIG report came out, huh?

Defending her makes you look really bad.

 

[MrWonka]

Where did I deny the need for it - though in point of fact I don't see much need for one for purely domestic travel and certainly do not believe it right to restrict the travel of citizens who have not been charged with a crime.

If there is legit reason to believe someone is mentally unstable or in contact with known terrorists there's little choice, but to have these restrictions. Often times when investigating terror suspects it is necessary to catch them in the act of trying to carry out some kind of an attack. Simply having evidence that they've been in contact with someone from the middle east that is a part of a terrorist organization alone isn't enough to arrest them, but it would not be wise to let someone like that access to weaponry or on an airplane. A high burden of suspicion I will grant you, but no ability to restrict at all would be foolish.

You said something like "if there is probable cause to put someone on a no fly list then there is probable cause to deny them their 2A rights." Given that the process is opaque we have no way of knowing whether there is cause to put someone on a no fly list. Even if cause exists, absent a conviction, it's far from clear that you have grounds to deny someone a Constitutionally protected right.

And I would grant you that it should be less opaque. I would require at least an independent judge to sign off on such a move, but again those are two different problems.

 

[KLATTU]

LOL Congress was fed only the intelligence that supported ths Bush Administrations wild claims. .blah blah blah blah blah curveball blah blah blah .

FALSE!!!

They relied on the NIE , which is the Intelligence Community's most authoratative product

https://www.cia.gov/news-informatio...nts/press-release-archive-2003/pr08112003.htm

A great deal has been said and written about the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) on Iraq’s Continuing Programs for Weapons of Mass Destruction. Much of this commentary has been misinformed, misleading, and just plain wrong. It is important to set the record straight. Let me make three points.

We stand by the judgments in the NIE.
The NIE demonstrates consistency in our judgments over many years and are based on a decade's worth of work. Intelligence is an iterative process and as new evidence becomes available we constantly reevaluate.
We encourage dissent and reflect it in alternative views.
We stand behind the judgments of the NIE as well as our analyses on Iraq’s programs over the past decade. Those outside the process over the past ten years and many of those commenting today do not know, or are misrepresenting, the facts. We have a solid, well-analyzed and carefully written account in the NIE and the numerous products before it.



Bush relied on the NIE as any President would and should.

 

[eohrnberger]

Flashback: When Rick Perry announced his bid for presidency last year --

he was


under indictment.

Federal beef? I didn't think it was.
Even so, that was dismissed as a political ploy, from what I recall. Don't think that applies to Hillary, considering that the FBI is rather apolitical.
And then there's Hillary's long history of scandals, questionable judgement, clear instances of conflict of interest.

 

[eohrnberger]

I'd be even more interested in why she had so many accounts on that server. HDR22 was only one account but there were more HDRxx accounts.

Hmm. When someone has many multiple email addresses isn't it usually because they are trying to hide something via obfuscation?

 

[DA60]

I despise Clinton, but of course she should keep running if indicted.

It's innocent until PROVEN guilty.

Not guilty until proven innocent.

The police/FBI do make mistakes sometimes, you know.

 

[wist43]

I'm voting for Clinton, and if she's indicted or found guilty, I'm also hoping for the above scenario because Trump is an obvious liar and a lunatic.

Heck, give me Rubio, Jeb or Kasich instead of a Dem. Just so help us if that page six celebrity Trump gets anywhere near the White House.

You like your big government corruption regardless of party, huh??

You're certainly no libertarian :thumbdown

 

[MrWonka]

You proved you can answer your own argument. An employee at my company conducting all their company business on their own email account would be subject to being fired. You may be all knowing about all that you know, but you don't this situation and quite frankly, didn't ask.

You claimed that an employee doing similar things to what Hillary Clinton is accused of would be fired from almost any company. I pointed out the fact that you are indeed wrong about that.

HDR is convicted (the original poll only says indicted), would you still vote for her for President? That was my question I first posted on this thread. I believe that a substantial percent would still vote for her if she were convicted, but that is just my opinion.

If Hillary Clinton were convicted of anything significant she would almost certainly have to back out of the race, and I would happily vote for her replacement. Now if you're asking me to chose between a convicted Hillary Clinton(on a charge similar to Patreaus) vs Donald Trump, then yes I would still choose Clinton. I can assure you Trump's crimes against humanity are far worse than anything the Clinton's have ever done or would do. I would vote for occasionally poor judgement over intentional evil every single time. But in a general sense if she was actually convicted on a real charge almost all Democrats would prefer that she step down and be replaced with a different Democrat like Biden, Bernie, or Warren.

 

[MrWonka]

Hmm. When someone has many multiple email addresses isn't it usually because they are trying to hide something via obfuscation?

No, in fact I have three myself. One to sign up for junk mail, one for family and friends, and another for work. Since I consider some of my co-workers friends they also have my personal family and friends email. I think you'll find this pretty standard among normal people.