Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[Deleted]

Because you're making up 80% of the story.

The story is that Clinton had her maid print her e-mails off for her sometimes. That's it. Those e-mails accidentally included some classified material, as it turns out, but there's still been no evidence that Clinton was aware of this at any point, let alone including that material on purpose.

This is the issue; rather than sticking to the facts, you invent most of the "case", and then blame Clinton for the imaginary stuff you've invented.

So this is filed under the 'extremely careless' list?

[Forogil]

Wow, that seems mad... how would this normally work? I mean, obviously she would need people to do stuff like printing out; would those individuals be expected to be government employees with their own clearances etc?

It seems the Bureau of HR at state department would determine if a security clearance is needed and then check the person.

However, if it were the president doing it there is no problem - the president and some of the presidential staff is exempt from any clearance requirement (however, members of congress, supreme court justices don't need security clearance - their staff do). And if the presidential maid isn't exempt that could be changed by an executive order.

[Endus]

So this is filed under the 'extremely careless' list?

Pretty much, yeah. I've been pretty clear that I think Clinton's poor management of State Department e-mail practices was "bad". It's just not anything approaching criminal. At best, it might have gotten her fired, but that wouldn't have any effect on her current candidacy, even if it had happened, which it didn't.

I just allow for a pretty broad range between the extremes of "acting in the most perfect way possible" and "willfully breaking the law". I'd take as much issue with the former stance as the latter, but in the real world, we have people chanting "lock her up", but pretty much nobody, not even Clinton herself, is saying her actions as Secretary of State were blameless and without error.

But she's apologized for it, and there's no other penalty that her actions warrant, so it should be over and done with.

[Sunseeker]

http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton...ied-materials/

This is just crazy at this point. Why would she do this?

That's not corruption. Laziness, maybe. Stupidity, maybe. Arrogance, maybe.

An example of corruption would be: accepting bribes to create policy, blackmailing other officials to do her bidding, selling government secrets for money, using classified secrets against other government agents to get them to quit or change their decisions. So on and so forth. Telling her maid to print out whatever she got in her email is lazy, but not corruption. Mind you I'm not saying it was a good or wise thing of her to do, it's just not corruption.

[Forogil]

An example of corruption would be: accepting bribes to create policy, blackmailing other officials to do her bidding, selling government secrets for money, using classified secrets against other government agents to get them to quit or change their decisions. So on and so forth. Telling her maid to print out whatever she got in her email is lazy, but not corruption. Mind you I'm not saying it was a good or wise thing of her to do, it's just not corruption.

Corruption could also be to give government positions to donors. Many would consider it corruption - but it isn't illegal in the US, and you don't need to look at WikiLeaks to find strong indications of that (especially among ambassadors) - and it seems that corrupt practice has bipartisan support.

[Sunseeker]

I agree on the first two, but I wouldn't call it arrogance.
Arrogance is when you'd abuse your charity to pay a 7 dollar scouting fee. Cause you'd be going out of your way to break rules.

Sure, but not illegal. Maybe frowned upon, but plenty of wealthy people pay their Foundations to do things. It's a common tax loophole. Effectively it means you lost income while still actually having access to the Foundation's funds, which you just increased.

I'm down for a complete tax system overhaul in this country.

Corruption could also be to give government positions to donors. Many would consider it corruption - but it isn't illegal in the US, and you don't need to look at WikiLeaks to find strong indications of that (especially among ambassadors) - and it seems that corrupt practice has bipartisan support.

Sure. I personally consider it corrupt. But a lot of politicians do it and it isn't illegal. So the best I can do is complain about it, which I do. I'd love to see it become illegal, but it's far too lucrative a practice for that to happen any time soon.

[Deleted]

Because you're making up 80% of the story.

The story is that Clinton had her maid print her e-mails off for her sometimes. That's it. Those e-mails accidentally included some classified material, as it turns out, but there's still been no evidence that Clinton was aware of this at any point, let alone including that material on purpose.

This is the issue; rather than sticking to the facts, you invent most of the "case", and then blame Clinton for the imaginary stuff you've invented.

Intent isn't needed to get punished for mishandling classified files. Gross negligence is enough. At least, for normal people.

[Deleted]

Pretty much, yeah. I've been pretty clear that I think Clinton's poor management of State Department e-mail practices was "bad". It's just not anything approaching criminal. At best, it might have gotten her fired, but that wouldn't have any effect on her current candidacy, even if it had happened, which it didn't.

I just allow for a pretty broad range between the extremes of "acting in the most perfect way possible" and "willfully breaking the law". I'd take as much issue with the former stance as the latter, but in the real world, we have people chanting "lock her up", but pretty much nobody, not even Clinton herself, is saying her actions as Secretary of State were blameless and without error.

But she's apologized for it, and there's no other penalty that her actions warrant, so it should be over and done with.

That seems fair enough to me - given that, indeed, it's consistent with what I understood to be the conclusion of the investigation (before it was sort-of-maybe un-concluded again but probably-not-really). I do find it surprising that it's not criminal; and that it's important that the breaking of the law be wilful, when it comes to such a critical area. But if that's the position and the rules/guidance in place at the time were also at fault, I can accept the conclusion that her actions do not warrant further penalty.

In terms of whether it should be over and done with, I assume you mean in that context of criminal penalties/further investigations; because, in the more general sense, I would say it is up to everyone to make up their own mind how these actions reflect upon her fitness for office. (Then look at the other guy and vote for her anyway.)

[Deleted]

Because you're making up 80% of the story.

The story is that Clinton had her maid print her e-mails off for her sometimes. That's it. Those e-mails accidentally included some classified material, as it turns out, but there's still been no evidence that Clinton was aware of this at any point, let alone including that material on purpose.

This is the issue; rather than sticking to the facts, you invent most of the "case", and then blame Clinton for the imaginary stuff you've invented.

As usual, you try to mask her corruption with incompetence. If there's one thing I know about her, it's that she is highly intelligent and anything but incompetent. She knew exactly what she was doing, what documents she was handling and the classification of them. Claiming she didn't is willful ignorance.

Usually, when it's clear that a person violated the law, he/she himself has to prove the lack of awareness or intent, not the other way around.

Basically the three democratic-party pillars of wisdom this election are:

She didn't know/ there was no intent
Russian hackers!
But Trump said mean things!


Now let's hypothetically say she was ̶i̶̶n̶̶c̶̶o̶̶m̶̶p̶̶e̶̶t̶̶e̶̶n̶̶t̶ unaware (she wasn't), at a certain point incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

[Endus]

Intent isn't needed to get punished for mishandling classified files. Gross negligence is enough. At least, for normal people.

And? There's no evidence of gross negligence, either.

Gross negligence isn't just "negligence I think is gross", it's a specific standard that requires you be able to prove a deliberate and willful disregard for proper action. For instance, getting distracted by your phone ringing and trying to see who was calling would not be "gross negligence". Tilting your seat way back and seeing how well you can steer with your feet, that would be gross negligence. There's evidence of some degree of negligence by Clinton and, to a greater extent, her staff, but not anything that approaches criminality.

- - - Updated - - -

In terms of whether it should be over and done with, I assume you mean in that context of criminal penalties/further investigations; because, in the more general sense, I would say it is up to everyone to make up their own mind how these actions reflect upon her fitness for office. (Then look at the other guy and vote for her anyway.)

If someone were to say that her pattern of behaviour showed a lack of forethought they can't support in a potential President, I'd be fine with that. I might think it's significantly worse with Trump, but we're getting into subjective preferences. All I've been doing is taking issue with those who claim there's "proof" that she's a criminal and/or corrupt.

As usual, you try to mask her corruption with incompetence. If there's one thing I know about her, it's that she is highly intelligent and anything but incompetent. She knew exactly what she was doing. Claiming she didn't is willful ignorance.

No, what you're doing is making up imaginary faults and then blaming Clinton for your imagination.

Usually, when it's clear that a person violated the law, he/she himself has to prove the lack of awareness or intent, not the other way around.

This is explicitly false. Prosecution has to establish intent, every single time.

[RobertoCarlos]

As usual, you try to mask her corruption with incompetence. If there's one thing I know about her, it's that she is highly intelligent and anything but incompetent. She knew exactly what she was doing, what documents she was handling and the classification of them. Claiming she didn't is willful ignorance.

Usually, when it's clear that a person violated the law, he/she himself has to prove the lack of awareness or intent, not the other way around.

Basically the three democratic-party pillars of wisdom this election are:

She didn't know/ there was no intent
Russian hackers!
But Trump said mean things!


Now let's hypothetically say she was ̶i̶̶n̶̶c̶̶o̶̶m̶̶p̶̶e̶̶t̶̶e̶̶n̶̶t̶ unaware (she wasn't), at a certain point incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

So much this, its stopped being fun and has fallen into the depressing to look at category. Over it.

[May90]

You don't get it, do you? Studies are done in parts, with one hypothesis refining the studied subjects until a truth become possible. Hypothesis are the very basics of science. Without them, science is void and is a religion.

Right. And before the truth becomes possible, you don't make far-fetched claims based on what you "believe". You make a hypothesis, explain why you think it is plausible, and that's it. You don't try to push your hypothesis through, claiming that everyone who doesn't accept your reasoning doesn't care about evidence.

You also are very intellectually dishonest, as you keep flipping between "she is corrupt" and "I'm only saying that she might be corrupt", whichever is convenient at the moment. There really is no discussion with you that gets anywhere.

[BrerBear]

Sure, but not illegal. Maybe frowned upon, but plenty of wealthy people pay their Foundations to do things. It's a common tax loophole. Effectively it means you lost income while still actually having access to the Foundation's funds, which you just increased.

I'm down for a complete tax system overhaul in this country.

The behaviors journalists exposed in Trump's Foundation include many examples of self-dealing, and that's not just frowned upon, it's a violation of the tax code. The penalties are fines that must be paid by the individual, rather than the Foundation.

[DeadmanWalking]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/06/politi...ion/index.html

[Deleted]

If someone were to say that her pattern of behaviour showed a lack of forethought they can't support in a potential President, I'd be fine with that. I might think it's significantly worse with Trump, but we're getting into subjective preferences. All I've been doing is taking issue with those who claim there's "proof" that she's a criminal and/or corrupt.

'Lack of forethought' strikes me as underplaying a cavalier attitude to national security and following a proper process, but, fundamentally, agreed.

I can certainly see the lesser of two evils argument - along the lines of the O'Rourke 'wrong within normal parameters' comment; so careless within tolerable parameters, when considering how outright dangerous the other candidate appears; and corrupt, but only within normal parameters too, in the business-as-usual sense in which money in politics has corrupted the system as a whole. This reasoning makes sense to me. I am always surprised when people express genuine enthusiasm about her candidacy, though.

[Merkava]

This is explicitly false. Prosecution has to establish intent, every single time.

Paragraph D of the espionage act appears to be contrary to that. All it says is that the person has to have caused the information to be transmitted or delivered.

The use of the words gross negligence confirms that. People never intend the bad things that happen from gross negligence.

[Venant]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/06/politi...ion/index.html

It's not really surprising, many people see George R.R. Martin as part of the group of people attempting to SJW-ize modern writing. Just look at his views on the Hugo awards debacle.

[Tijuana]

And? There's no evidence of gross negligence, either.

Gross negligence isn't just "negligence I think is gross", it's a specific standard that requires you be able to prove a deliberate and willful disregard for proper action. For instance, getting distracted by your phone ringing and trying to see who was calling would not be "gross negligence". Tilting your seat way back and seeing how well you can steer with your feet, that would be gross negligence. There's evidence of some degree of negligence by Clinton and, to a greater extent, her staff, but not anything that approaches criminality.

- - - Updated - - -



If someone were to say that her pattern of behaviour showed a lack of forethought they can't support in a potential President, I'd be fine with that. I might think it's significantly worse with Trump, but we're getting into subjective preferences. All I've been doing is taking issue with those who claim there's "proof" that she's a criminal and/or corrupt.



No, what you're doing is making up imaginary faults and then blaming Clinton for your imagination.



This is explicitly false. Prosecution has to establish intent, every single time.

So, for example, something like having your maid print out classified documents? Would that be negligent in your mind? (assuming of course it wasn't Clinton, as she of course has different standards because reasons)

[DeadmanWalking]

It's not really surprising, many people see George R.R. Martin as part of the group of people attempting to SJW-ize modern writing. Just look at his views on the Hugo awards debacle.

I usually blame sjw's when I see something that doesn't fit my political bias too. No wait, I don't because I am not weak sauce. Where would you like your safe space from sjw's?

[Tijuana]

I usually blame sjw's when I see something that doesn't fit my political bias too. No wait, I don't because I am not weak sauce.

Martin is a hack who stole everything from Tolkien, including his middle initials.