pool for hillary s withdrawal date....

[Lord Jim]

This email story has got legs like a Kenyan marathon runner...

Hardly a day goes by without some fresh embarrassing revelation or seeming impropriety coming to light...

And with two federal investigations, ( two so far; one involving a judge) congressional investigations, and 30,000 of these emails being released in relatively small batches, (possibly more if the FBI is able to recover any of the ones that Clinton and Co. sought to conceal from the government) this story is just going to go on and on and on...

There's really no end in sight...

[Long Run]

Shades of Watergate in that, people could not believe that after all the crap Nixon had done, this relatively minor offense would bring him down (it was all about the cover up).

[rubato]

Shades of Watergate in that, people could not believe that after all the crap Nixon had done, this relatively minor offense would bring him down (it was all about the cover up).

Hmmmm

1.
Burglary of DNC headquarters organized and run by the White House. Payoffs to quiet witnesses. The president directing witnesses to lie.


2.
Mishandled emails.


One is a mountain. The other the latest Republican molehill. The stench of desperation only grows. The only people who believe this shit are the hardshell right who would never have voted for a Black man in 2008 or Hillary in 2016 anyway. You keep going after the least important part of the electorate.


yrs,
rubato

[Lord Jim]

The stench of desperation only grows.

Man ain't that the truth....

[Big RR]

rubato--it was not the break in that lost it all for Nixon, it was the cover up. And if the same is true here, it could sink the campaign, regardless of the significance of the initial "crime".

[wesw]

wow rube. which way is your wind blowing today?

back on the Hillary?

it appears to me that the FBI will have to double the number of agents in the bureau just to investigate and prosecute the apparent mountain of crimes and (italics) criminals.

[Lord Jim]

rubato--it was not the break in that lost it all for Nixon, it was the cover up. And if the same is true here, it could sink the campaign, regardless of the significance of the initial "crime".

One thing that the two definitely have in common is that at the core, they were caused by the same thing...

Arrogance....

An arrogant belief on the part of the principals that the rules others are expected to follow simply don't apply to them.

I think Hillary's biggest problem with this, (assuming that the FBI doesn't find something on the server demonstrating a direct quid pro quo between a State Department action and a contribution to the Clinton foundation, or a speaker's fee for her husband) relates to the classified information aspect of this. She's really in a box...

If she admits to knowingly sending and receiving classified information over a unsecured server (and storing it on that server) that creates one set of huge problems for her...(political and legal)

If on the other hand she takes the position that she didn't know that official private communications between the SOS and the Foreign Ministers or Intelligence chiefs of other countries, (or our own intelligence directors) are automatically considered classified, she raises questions about her basic competence. Which is one area, (unlike honesty and trustworthiness) where her poll numbers have up to now been pretty good.

[Sue U]

What, exactly, is being "covered up"? What are the "crimes"? Were is the "scandal" in this whole affair? Oh, wait, here it is:



Gefiltegate!!!!!!!!!!111!!!!!!!!!111! MUST PROSECUTE!!!!11!!1!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111!!!!!!1

You know I'm not a Hillary partisan, but this all seems like a total load of bullshit to me.

[Lord Jim]

In the latest batch of emails released are some where Clinton cronies are performing some major kissy fanny on Hil...(one from Lanny Davis is particularly slobbering)

I'm sure that Team Clinton thought it would be just peachy to have these emails released; they figured it would be great to show people directing praise and compliments towards her....Folks talking about just how wonderful she is...(funny how none of these emails, that really have no official relevance, managed to make it into the "delete and wipe from server" pile....)

I suspect that's going to backfire however, because what these emails really demonstrate is the extent to which she surrounds herself with toadying sycophants...

[MajGenl.Meade]

"Gefilte fish"... a fairly obvs code for the secret operation to take over Texas and install a Hillary... sorry, Military Dictatorship! Either that or she's secretly been Gob all this time and is looking for yet another freaking recipe to put on FB

[wesw]

....and that is even if they don t recover the "private" e-mails......

[Big RR]

Covered up Sue; right now I don't know--maybe nothing. But that's what the investigation(s) should uncover. My point to rube was that the seriousness of the allegation is of secondary importance to the coverup alleged.

[Econoline]

In the latest batch of emails released are some where Clinton cronies are performing some major kissy fanny on Hil...(one from Lanny Davis is particularly slobbering)

I'm sure that Team Clinton thought it would be just peachy to have these emails released; they figured it would be great to show people directing praise and compliments towards her....Folks talking about just how wonderful she is...(funny how none of these emails, that really have no official relevance, managed to make it into the "delete and wipe from server" pile....)

I suspect that's going to backfire however, because what these emails really demonstrate is the extent to which she surrounds herself with toadying sycophants...

And exactly how is this illegal, or how is "covering up" this illegal?????




ETA: Oh, and BTW...how many of the emails of Clinton's two immediate (Republican) predecessors have been released to the public, just for the sake of comparison? Seriously, I'm curious.

[wesw]

from poor wes' anecdotal almanac.....

in the last few months the ONLY people I have talked to who support and trust Hillary Clinton are on this board.

really. not one stinkin person I know supports her. holly says there is only one woman at the library, a younger woman , out of about 7 women who work there, who supports her, and I m gonna have a talk with Jessica soon and help her see the light.....

[Econoline]

FWIW...in 2000, and again in 2004, not one stinkin person I knew supported George W. Bush. And now, not one stinkin person I know supports Donald Trump--or any other occupant of the GOP clown car.

[wesw]

yeah, but no one thought of Bush as a liar until after he got elected....

[rubato]

rubato--it was not the break in that lost it all for Nixon, it was the cover up. And if the same is true here, it could sink the campaign, regardless of the significance of the initial "crime".

The comparison with Watergate is moronic. Go back and read the history: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal

With Watergate the coverup(s) led to the crimes themselves. And there were real crimes. The coverup in that case included 'bag-men' and payoffs and the president instructing cabinet members to lie. Watergate resulted in the conviction and imprisonment of 48 top Nixon aides for committing crimes. And it was the exposure of systematic criminality in the WH that caused even a few Republicans to rise up in disgust.


Here, there is no crime, there is no evil intent, there is merely a case of the technology of communications running ahead of the ability to regulate it. Nothing. There has not even been a 'coverup' In fact emails were readily released which no Republican administration would have allowed to be released. Most administrations would have sealed records like that for 50 years with not a peep.


This is nothing, bullshit for idiots. Go back to pretending that Obama attacked the consulate in Bengazi to recover his Kenyan birth certificate .



yrs,
rubato

[MajGenl.Meade]

Big RR, you gonna take that lying down? Or do you have a gentleman from Hansard to do that?

[rubato]

Big RR, you gonna take that lying down? Or do you have a gentleman from Hansard to do that?

There have been incidents where more minor indiscretions led people to commit worse crimes to cover them up. Watergate is not an example of that and it is foolish to suggest it.

Rush Limbaughs bank helping him to evade anti-money laundering laws in order to facilitate his addiction to oxycontin is a case like that. And the bank, who had done nothing wrong in giving Rush money which was legally his, only in doing so in a way to evade detection, paid a fine for it ( 1.5 million$ iir).


yrs,
rubato

[wesw]

nothing to see here, just move along......