pool for hillary s withdrawal date....

[wesw]

jim, in my opinion Kasich is the only politician who is running who(m) I consider qualified.

I consider the other politicians are unqualified for various reasons.

bush , I think , is considered qualified by you, but not by me, and I ll tell you why.

trump is right, special interests have too much control over him.

have you ever watched the Simpsons? there is a character named mr burns, who owns the nuke plant, he has a lackey named Smithers.
jeb is the Smithers character, in my view, with numerous mr burnses pulling his strings. dick cheney for one.

now I am not certain (italics) that carson and trump are unqualified, so that puts them ahead of everyone but Kasich, in my simple view.

[Crackpot]

Wes.
It's true that my argument is simplistic. But you were the one suggesting that such rights shouldn't apply to this person when you are one that has in the past made the same comments to. Others that you don't feel suitably follow the basic principles this country are founded on.

[wesw]

I was suggesting that by invoking one s right not to incriminate one s self, one appears to be criminal, or is hiding the criminality of others, which is also criminal

I was suggesting that when one chooses not to answer the questions of govt., press, and law enforcement, one appears to have something to hide.

I was suggesting that when one appears to be a liar, one is often a liar.

[Crackpot]

To those not looking at what's actually on maybe. Fact is he may be an acessory to the commission of a crime (real or politically motivated). Any information he gives may aid in charges on himself regardless of malicious intent. Would you volunteer information?

[wesw]

in this case yes. i would consider the ramifications of what i had done and the importance of my honesty to our national interest, and i would confess my sins and hope for forgiveness.

if I was busted for weed I would probably remain silent until I figured out how I was going to handle the charges.
me smokin' a doobie ain t not nuthin' but a small thing, and may not even be wrong, tho it is illegal.

apples and oranges.

[wesw]

hey campers!!!!

there is still time to get your vote in! the giant pot cookie could still be yours.....

here s the rundown....

meade has February 2016, I am sticking with November 2015, even tho December is looking mighty tasty....

pick your month now !!!

all of those who predicted that Hillary will win the presidency can t win the cookie....

if Hillary wins, we all lose.....

[Guinevere]

Saying it over and over and over and over and over again doesn't make it true. It only makes you obsessed.

I just signed on to the Clinton legal team today, for special projects and voter protection (which I have previously done in 04, 08, and 12)

[wesw]

you are a loyal friend guin...

...and her legal team can use all the help that they can get.

bah dunt chhhhhhh.....

[Econoline]

there is still time to get your vote in! the giant pot cookie could still be yours.....

Cookie? Pot cookie? GIANT pot cookie???!!!

You didn't mention that before.

all of those who predicted that Hillary will win the presidency can t win the cookie....

Daayumm. *NOW* you tell me...

[wesw]

you can always revise your prediction up to her actual withdrawal date, whenever that may be.

December looks tasty, bud.

[Econoline]

[...] in my opinion Kasich is the only politician who is running who(m) I consider qualified.

I'll agree with you to a limited extent: in my opinion Kasich is the only current Republican candidate who would probably not be an unmitigated disaster for the nation. (Most of the candidates would probably also take the Republican party with them as they failed; whether that would be a good thing or a bad thing is debatable, but if the nation goes down the drain I guess that's a moot point.) Clinton, Sanders or Biden would all be better choices.

[wesw]

where da white women at?

Hillary drops from 71% in july to 42% now among white dem women....

someone predicted that...

if the ladies at the library ain t with her....

prescient I tell you, prescient....

[oldr_n_wsr]

[Lord Jim]

The news just gets better and better for Hillary:

Tech company: No indication that Clinton’s e-mail server was ‘wiped’

The company that managed Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail server said it has “no knowledge of the server being wiped,” the strongest indication to date that tens of thousands of e-mails that Clinton has said were deleted could be recovered.

Clinton and her advisers have said for months that she deleted her personal correspondence from her time as secretary of state, creating the impression that 31,000 e-mails were gone forever.

There is a distinction between e-mails’ being deleted and a server being wiped. If e-mails are deleted or moved from a server, they appear to no longer exist on the device. But experts say, depending on the condition of the server, underlying data can remain on the device, and the e-mails can often be restored.

To make the information go away permanently, a server must be wiped — a process that includes overwriting the underlying data with gibberish, possibly several times.

That process, according to Platte River Networks, the ­Denver-based firm that has managed the system since 2013, apparently did not happen.

Clinton has come under fire for using a private e-mail address during her time as secretary of state. The e-mails are being screened and released in batches. Here are some things we’ve learned from them.
By Rosalind S. Helderman, Tom Hamburger and Carol D. Leonnig September 12

The company that managed Hillary Rodham Clinton’s private e-mail server said it has “no knowledge of the server being wiped,” the strongest indication to date that tens of thousands of e-mails that Clinton has said were deleted could be recovered.

Clinton and her advisers have said for months that she deleted her personal correspondence from her time as secretary of state, creating the impression that 31,000 e-mails were gone forever.

There is a distinction between e-mails’ being deleted and a server being wiped. If e-mails are deleted or moved from a server, they appear to no longer exist on the device. But experts say, depending on the condition of the server, underlying data can remain on the device, and the e-mails can often be restored.

To make the information go away permanently, a server must be wiped — a process that includes overwriting the underlying data with gibberish, possibly several times.

That process, according to Platte River Networks, the ­Denver-based firm that has managed the system since 2013, apparently did not happen.

During an interview with ABC News, Hillary Clinton apologized for using a private e-mail server during her time as secretary or state. Here are past statements where the presidential hopeful neglected to take personal responsibility for the controversy. (The Washington Post)

“Platte River has no knowledge of the server being wiped,” company spokesman Andy Boian told The Washington Post. “All the information we have is that the server wasn’t wiped.”

Clinton and her staff have avoided directly answering whether the server was ever wiped.

In a memorable exchange at a campaign event in Las Vegas last month, Clinton turned aside a question about whether the server had been wiped with a joke: “Like what, with a cloth?” she said, adding, “I don’t know how it works digitally at all.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

[Econoline]

Justice Department Lawyers:
Clinton Had Authority To Delete Personal Emails

In a court filing on Wednesday, the Justice Department argued on behalf of the State Department that there was “no question” Hillary Clinton had the authority to determine and delete personal email without supervision.

In a little noticed brief, filed on Wednesday to a federal court, Department of Justice lawyers outlined a comprehensive defense of the contentious decision by Hillary Clinton to wipe the private email server she used as secretary of state. The attorneys assert that, regardless of whether she used a personal or government account, Clinton was within her legal right to handpick the emails that qualified as federal records — and to delete the ones she deemed personal.

“There is no question that former Secretary Clinton had authority to delete personal emails without agency supervision — she appropriately could have done so even if she were working on a government server,” write the Justice Department attorneys, representing the State Department in the brief.

The lawyers add that under policies issued by the State Department and by NARA, the National Archives and Records Administration, government employees “are permitted and expected to exercise judgment to determine what constitutes a federal record.”

The filing is the latest in a long-running fight between the State Department and the conservative public interest group, Judicial Watch, over public records related to Clinton’s tenure in the administration. The brief this week, as first reported by the Washington Times, concerns Clinton’s personal emails in particular.

Late last year, in response to an administration record-keeping request, Clinton and her attorneys conducted a review of four years’ worth of email from her personal account, which she used to conduct government business as secretary of state. And in December, Clinton sent the State Department copies of emails she identified as work-related. The 31,830 remaining emails, described as strictly personal, were deleted.

In all the complexity of the email controversy — involving a tangle of concerns about server technology, anachronistic record-keeping practices, and the government’s oblique classification system — a more straightforward question has lingered since news of the email account broke in March: Was it a sound decision by Clinton to, without third-party oversight, determine the emails considered work-related, and therefore part of the federal record — and to then delete the rest?

On both counts, the Justice Department lawyers argue in the affirmative.

The attorneys, representing the State Department, filed the brief in response to a proposed “preservation order” by Judicial Watch: essentially a request that the State Department obtain and/or preserve the 31,830 emails not turned over in December “until the court can fully brief and consider relevant questions of law.” The sought preservation order, proposed to the federal court last week, is part of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act case, re-opened this spring following the disclosure of Clinton’s personal email server. (Of the 30 outstanding FOIA suits relating to Clinton’s tenure at the State Department, Judicial Watch has filed 16.)

The group’s preservation order would also ask that Clinton, her lawyer, and her IT company “confirm in writing under penalty of perjury” whether they or anyone else still hold the emails from the server not already turned over to the State Department.

In the response from the Justice Department, attorneys state that, first and foremost, they cannot comply with the proposed order because there is no legal basis under FOIA law for access to a federal employee’s personal records.

The Justice Department also stated that Clinton had the authority to determine what constituted her own personal and federal records — just as she would have were she working on a government email account.

For those reasons, the Justice Department argued, there is no legal basis for the preservation order.

In the brief, the Justice Department lawyers note that the State Department — as with other government agencies that task employees with managing their own emails — requires individuals to “review each message, identify its value, and either delete it or move it to a record-keeping system,” according to NARA rules.

As such, the attorneys state, “there is no question” that Clinton was legally permitted to delete correspondence she considered personal. Because State Department employees “may delete messages they deem in their own discretion to be personal,” the briefing reads, the Judicial Watch argument “reduces to an unsupported allegation that former Secretary Clinton might have mistakenly or intentionally deleted responsive agency records rather than personal records.”

The administration attorneys’ argument amounts to one of the most definitive government statements that Clinton was not in violation of the law in deciding to sort and delete the emails herself.

The back-and-forth over the preservation order, as part of a narrow FOIA case, does not address the classification issues that still command sustained political coverage about Clinton.

But in terms of the email submission itself, the lawyers argue that, without reason to believe that Clinton was not honest and forthcoming in selecting and turning over her federal records, no government agency would be required to “recover deleted material based on unfounded speculation that responsive information had been deleted.” Such was the case with Clinton, the lawyers say.

The Department of Justice also now possesses Clinton’s email server, which she handed over this spring amid an FBI inquiry into the security of the setup. At the time, a report suggested that investigators might attempt to recover some deleted material. Asked to what end the Justice Department remains in possession of the server — and whether the officials have reason to believe that responsive information had been been deleted — a spokesman declined to comment.

[Lord Jim]

And now we'll be able to find out if the emails deleted were in fact "personal"

[Joe Guy]

And now we'll be able to find out if the emails deleted were in fact "personal"

Hillary: It depends upon what the meaning of 'personal' is.

[wesw]

lotta news this morning.....

October is looking likely....

maybe she should hire el chapo as a consultant.....

I bet Obama pardons her....

[Lord Jim]

Drip...drip...drip:

Report: FBI pulls deleted emails from Hillary Clinton's server

The FBI has salvaged work and personal emails thought to have been deleted from the private server Hillary Clinton used while she was secretary of state, Bloomberg first reported Tuesday night.

The FBI has been trying figure out how many classified emails Clinton had on her server and how they got there. The agency is concerned about whether Hillary Clinton's private email system exposed any classified information, and if so, the extent of exposure, as well as why it occurred.

The request for the Justice Department investigation came after the inspector general (IG) for the State Department and the inspector general for the intelligence community penned a memo in late June suggesting that Clinton's private account had "hundreds of potentially classified emails" in it. The two IGs were concerned about the possibility that classified information may have been compromised.

Clinton turned over about half of the 60 thousand emails that were on her server, after telling the State Department that the emails she deleted - about 30,000 - were personal.

Back in August, Judge Emmet Sullivan ordered the State Department and FBI to communicate about what was recovered from Clinton's server, as well as a thumb drive that also contained thousands of her emails.

The State Department was also told to communicate with the FBI about documents on Clinton's server that could be relevant to FOIA requests involving her emails.

But when State contacted the FBI to ask for its help on one of those FOIA requests, the FBI wouldn't even acknowledge its investigation, according to a Politico report Monday.

Politico referred to a letter written by the FBI's general counsel with a boilerplate rejection: "At this time, consistent with long-standing Department of Justice and FBI policy, we can neither confirm nor deny the existence of any ongoing investigation."

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/report-fbi- ... ns-server/

More, excerpted from the Bloomberg article:

The FBI is investigating how and why classified information ended up on Clinton’s server. The probe probably will take at least several more months, according to the person, who described the matter on condition of anonymity because the investigation is continuing and deals with sensitive information.

Once the e-mails have been extracted, a group of agents has been separating personal correspondence and passing along work-related messages to agents leading the investigation, the person said...

Internal government watchdogs have determined that classified information ended up on the system. Their findings sparked the FBI inquiry....

The bureau’s probe is expected to last at least several more months, according to the person. That timeline would push any final determination closer to the Democratic presidential primary calendar, which kicks off Feb. 1 with the Iowa caucuses.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/artic ... ton-server

[wesw]

also previously undisclosed benghazi e mails

also Hillary s e mails were requested first, then later her predecessors e mails were requested, a little different than her story....

the list of possible charges is legion