US Politics Mega-thread - Page 4163

On July 06 2016 06:19 biology]major wrote:


No what it means is their decision to not place charges is highly suspect. This investigation should have been handled by people who have no stake in this election.

On July 06 2016 06:46 dAPhREAk wrote:

i guess i should dumb it down for you. there is an appearance of impropriety in the handling of this matter that could have been better handled by independent investigation. you represent yourself as someone knowledgeable in legal matters in multiple threads, but dont really seem to comprehend legal terms very well. just my two cents.

On July 06 2016 06:48 Gorsameth wrote:

Is there an independent organization with clearance to review the evidence that could have handled it instead?

On July 06 2016 06:46 Gorsameth wrote:

I understand your being sarcastic but without proof yes you certainly should not be doubting them.

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

On July 06 2016 06:51 GreenHorizons wrote:


We obviously don't see eye to eye on much, but even I saw this when you first said it. I mean there is some subtext there, but your point was sound.

Curious who could act as the independent investigators in your view though?

On July 06 2016 06:42 Gorsameth wrote:

Who else can appoint someone who reports to the president?

Congress? That is just as biased and would make for yet another public theater.

On July 06 2016 06:52 dAPhREAk wrote:

yes. and it may be the case that the attorney general bows out (as she should) and appoints independent counsel. that is why i asked in my original question.

On July 06 2016 06:46 Gorsameth wrote:

I understand your being sarcastic but without proof yes you certainly should not be doubting them.

On July 06 2016 06:55 ZeaL. wrote:


Wouldn't the fact that the AG appoints them create the appearance of impropriety given that the AG is appointed by the president

On July 06 2016 06:54 dAPhREAk wrote:

i dont know for sure, but this may be the proper department:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Office_of_the_Independent_Counsel

On July 06 2016 06:55 Godwrath wrote:
You tell me if it's possible, I am genuinely asking.

On July 06 2016 06:58 zlefin wrote:

could you clarify exactly what you're asking (in terms of the "if it's possible")?

On July 06 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:


Any chance you would support something like that for investigations into police misconduct?

On July 06 2016 07:02 dAPhREAk wrote:

if you're asking me whether the local police department should investigate its own police misconduct, or an independent group, the answer is the latter. are you looking for another vague sound bite to put in your signature?

On July 06 2016 07:18 xDaunt wrote:
The part about Comey's statement that bothered me the most were his comments about there not being another example of prosecuting an individual for gross negligence in the handling of classified materials where there was no evidence of malicious intent. Well, it didn't take long for someone to show that to be false:

Source.

Anyone else still wondering why daphreak has raised the points about recusal that he did?

On July 06 2016 07:35 Mohdoo wrote:


My understanding is that verdicts are not mathematical and the details matter a lot. I do not take these two situations to be comparable. Can you explain why this verdict should directly relate to Clinton's?

Washington (CNN)President Barack Obama will give Hillary Clinton a lift on Air Force One Tuesday when they fly to North Carolina for their first joint campaign appearance.

It's a powerful symbol of the presidency that Obama appears happy to confer upon his preferred successor. Clinton's presumptive Republican opponent repeatedly criticized the move Monday and Tuesday.

The cost of flying Air Force One for political travel is divided between the federal government (using taxpayer dollars) and the candidate's political organization. Because Obama is traveling to Charlotte solely for the purpose of stumping for Clinton, her campaign (or the Democratic National Committee) would have to foot a portion of the bill whether the candidate was aboard or not.

The exact breakdown of how much the campaign will owe, however, isn't precisely known. In 2012, when Obama was running for re-election, his campaign reimbursed the government millions of dollars for Air Force One travel based on a pro-rated share of an equivalent-sized charter plane.

Whatever Clinton's campaign does pay, however, is far less than the actual costs of flying Air Force One, which is retrofitted with secure communication and navigation equipment, and costs north of $200,000 to operate per hour.

While former Presidents Bill Clinton and George W. Bush largely stayed off the campaign trail in their final years in office, Obama is expected to stump heavily in support of the presumptive Democratic nominee, meaning Democrats will be on the hook for at least some of his travel in the coming months.

Like past administrations, Obama could offset some of the price-tag by combining political travel with official events, which are paid for by the government. The formula breaking down campaign and official costs, however, has been kept secret by White Houses going back to the 1970s.