New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

Actually, quite the opposite. Hillary Clinton worked very well with many Republicans while she was a senator and secretary of state:

Ridge, Tom (Homeland Security Secretary). The Hill: Former Secretary of Homeland Security Tom Ridge said he always had “productive’” meetings with Sec. Clinton when he was in the Cabinet. “Ridge also offered some praise for Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, saying he always had ‘productive’ meetings with her when he was in the Cabinet and she was a senator. He said a Bush versus Clinton match-up would be ‘almost a clash of titans,’ leading to a campaign that is ‘tough, rigorous, and hopefully, for the first time in a long time, civil.’”

Huntsman, Jon (Utah Governor, later U.S. Ambassador to China). “It’s way too soon to tell. I’ve worked around Hillary Clinton while serving as ambassador to China, and all I can tell you as a Republican is she’s pretty good. She’s smart. She’s hardworking. She – she relates to all kinds of people, and I was very, very impressed working with her as a Republican.

John Kasich on Hillary Clinton: “I know her. I like her. I’ve worked with her.” BRET BAIER: How do you think Republicans fight a Hillary Clinton nomination? >> GOV. JOHN KASICH: I don’t think you have to run against her. I think you run for what you’re for.

King, Peter (New York Representative) BANFIELD: I wonder if you think that the former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton’s comments about the secretary, and in my words, faking an illness, in his words, having a diplomatic illness to beat the band, are deserving of an apology. KING: I certainly wouldn’t have said it, especially knowing Hillary Clinton and what a tough warrior she is. To me, there’s never a basis for that. Even if I didn’t agree with someone, you should always give them the benefit of the doubt when it comes to a health issue. The only thing I’d say in Bolton’s defense, and I’m being sarcastic when I say this — it is hard for me to imagine Hillary Clinton ever being sick. She’s one of the strongest people I’ve ever met in my life.

‘I think she’s represented our nation well,’ Senator Lindsey Graham, the Republican from South Carolina, who as a member of the House served as one of 13 managers in the 1998 impeachment trial of Clinton’s husband, told me in an interview in his Senate office. ‘She is extremely well respected throughout the world, handles herself in a very classy way and has a work ethic second to none.’”



As far as the dumb part, I'd have to say...hmm. Don't know. I've always thought she was pretty intelligent. It's just hard to explain this whole email thing. I'd have to know more. I've had clients tell me they thought they did something worse than they actually did, and I've had clients tell me they did something great which really wasn't that great- after you examined all the information. So, I'd want to know a lot more about the details. But certainly it doesn't speak well of her.

The question is: would she make a good President? Hard to tell. The only thing I know is that, IMVHO, it's much more likely that Hillary Clinton would make a good President vs. Donald Trump. Hillary's mistake is the kind that, yes, she should probably be reprimanded for (kind of like how Andrew Johnson was reprimanded but not terminated- am I right on that? No, he was impeached but acquitted), but I think she would learn from that and be much more careful going forward. Solely IMO, and I do understand how it will be impossible for many to feel the same.

The question is: do you believe Trump would change and become more Presidential and less childish? Less... I don't know, everything he is? I mean, now he's threatening senators in his own party? I honestly think he may have some form of dementia or something-

 

It depends on what your definition of "is" is.

 

Yes, a blast from the past when you couldn't hear enough of Matchbox 20 and I learned what a Royale with Cheese was.

 

Bobby, I think this has to be included under gross negligence, intelligence-wise:

Sanford noted that Trump was asked at one point about protecting Article I powers in the Constitution. “I think his response was ‘I want to protect Article I, Article II, Article XII ― go down the list,” Sanford said, noting that there is no Article XII.

 

Oh, there's no question that Trump is a moron....but if we're to believe the story about Hillary, she's just as bad.

I don't think many people really believe her though. Basically most realize that she's corrupt as hell and if her lips are moving, she's lying.

 

We will see. Looking forward to 4 more months of hell, at least.

 

Not really. Byod was a trend that Corp can't ignore and ended up allowing. Reluctant were exactly related to security and management of devices. Yes, early on, additional SW were needed to enhance security and allow remote management of the devices - this is less required now as many of these devices today have built in encryption and some remote management capabilities. However, it should be clear that these aren't at the security or management level that many IT like to have but continue to allow and it is not in full control by IT administrator.

No, I very much doubt government would allow byod devices for sensitive information. If you think so, you are in a way arguing that private server is OK, when it is not.

Agree getting your own private email server isn't for her purpose of accessing *sensitive* email from anywhere and any devices. It's for accessing private personal email from anywhere on any devices. And it's likely to hide from public view.

 

My problem with the underlined above is this.

Comey claimed "no reasonable prosecutor" would have brought this case to a grand jury. I've seen several former AG's/US attorney's/legal experts claim THEY would have done so. For him to be the person making the assumption that he knows the mindset of all attorney's in the DOJ, AND essentially creating the definition of "reasonable" on his own...makes me very leary of his judgement.

The better option would be to make the recommendation, let Lynch assign a prosecutor who would refer it to a Grand Jury and let THEM decide if the evidence was strong enough.

I think the country could live with a Grand Jury as ultimate authority on this. As it is, we are being asked to accept Comey as not only cop...but also judge and jury. That's quite a bit for many to swallow.

 

Who picks the Grand Jury members? Because the result would be entirely predictable.


A farmer asked a friend to recommend an attorney to defend him against a charge of bestiality.

"I know a great trial lawyer," the fellow said, "but he's expensive and doesn't know how to pick a jury. I know another lawyer," he continued, "who's not a great trial lawyer, but he's cheap and really knows how to pick a jury."

The farmer settled on the cheap attorney, but immediately had second thoughts when the key witness, a neighbor, began his testimony.

"I saw Jed mount his goat from behind," he said, "and when he was finished, I saw the goat turn around and lick Jed's pecker."

The accused farmer was devastated and had all but given up hope of acquittal when a juror in overalls whispered to the fellow next to him, "You know, a good goat will do that."

 

You'd also have documentation of her lying under oath in a government hearing

 

Did the FBI actually use the term "Grossly Negligent" or is that a term being applied as an interpretation?

 

gross negligence is the official term for what she is being charged with.

 

The term used by Comey in his speech was "Extreme Carelessness". Legal experts I've seen speaking about "Gross Negligence" state that the legal definition of "Gross Negligence" includes the term "Extreme Carlessness".

 

The establishment just played their slight of hand with the Hillary crowd by somehow convincing them that 'Extreme Carelessness' isn't 'gross negligence' and that someone as educated, experienced and qualified as Hilary Clinton would be completely oblivious that her private home servers had classified information.

I mean, I guess that is within the realm of possibility but do Hillary supporters here have NO SKEPTICISM on the claim that she had NO CLUE about the content on her servers. None what so ever?

So my statement still stands. A 'lesser' human would have been indicted.

 

Ok so they didn't actually say "gross negligence"

Thanks for clarifying.

Definition of gross negligence: Gross negligence is extreme carelessness that shows a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, and likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm.

So it's just not extreme carelessness but has to be coupled with the other two things. I am not sure you can take "extreme carelessness" and turn that into a gross negligence based on the definition of it.

I don't like what she did, but to say it was criminal - it doesn't meet the test.

 

Yeah so instead of saying "gross negligence" they just described it by talking about her "extreme carelessness" that shows a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care.

I mean, I guess he could have made the speech shorter by just saying "gross negligence" and being done with it right?

 

We thought these wingnuts gave Obama a hard time. Wait till Hillary wins and their heads explode. We ain't seen nothing yet.

 

Of course we do. And therein lies a problem- generalization. We certainly do have skepticism. And it's troubling. But then again, I've been troubled by things almost every President has done. I was troubled by Reagan selling arms to Iran, by Clinton having affairs in the WH, by GW leading us into a war that cost 1,000s of lives and a fortune, and Obama with the drone strikes. They've all bothered me in some way.

 

A grand jury could indict a ham sandwich if the prosecutor requested it.

 

No Skepticism? Not even close. It sounds to me that the FBI think she has no intention of handling sensitive email through her private server but was extremely careless that end up with her handling such information through her private server. I don't know what to think of it - on it's own merit, I think it's should speak about her ability to think and plan ahead carefully. However, mistakes do happen, past Secretary and government officially used private system and in the bigger scheme of things, it's low due to all those factors. It's a black mark, not anywhere close to be 'disqualifying' and certainly not going to change my mind when the other *current* option is horrible.