|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
PROVINCETOWN, Mass. (AP) — It was a very busy, very lucrative weekend for Hillary Clinton in the summer playground of the East Coast's moneyed elite.
She brunched with wealthy backers at a seaside estate in Nantucket, snacking on shrimp dumplings and crab cakes. A few hours later, she and her husband dined with an intimate party of 30 at a secluded Martha's Vineyard estate. And on Sunday afternoon, she joined the singer Cher at a "LGBT summer celebration" on the far reaches of Cape Cod.
By Sunday evening, Clinton had spoken to more than 2,200 campaign donors. But what she told the crowds remains a mystery.
Clinton has refused to open her fundraisers to journalists, reversing nearly a decade of greater transparency in presidential campaigns and leaving the public guessing at what she's saying to some of her most powerful supporters.
It's an approach that differs from the Democratic president she hopes to succeed. Since his 2008 campaign, President Barack Obama has allowed reporters traveling with him into the backyards and homes of wealthy donors to witness some of his remarks.
While reporters are escorted out of Obama's events before the start of the juicier Q&A, the president's approach offers at least a limited measure of accountability that some fear may disappear when Clinton or Republican nominee Donald Trump moves into the White House.
"Unfortunately these things have a tendency to ratchet down," said Larry Noble, the general counsel of the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center. "As the bar gets lower, it's hard to raise it again."
Clinton's campaign does release limited details about her events, naming the hosts, how many people attended and how much they gave. That's more than Trump, whose far fewer fundraisers are held entirely away from the media, with no details provided.
Even some Democrats privately acknowledge that Clinton's penchant for secrecy is a liability, given voters' continued doubts about her honesty.
While Clinton will occasionally take questions from reporters at campaign stops, she has not held a full-fledged news conference in more than 260 days — nearly nine months. Trump has held several news conferences.
Clinton refuses to release the transcripts of dozens of closed-door speeches she delivered to companies and business associations after leaving the State Department in 2013, despite significant bipartisan criticism.
And since announcing her presidential bid in April 2015, Clinton has held around 300 fundraising events. Only around five have been open to any news coverage.
Source
|
How is this news worthy, it's obviously been a smart move from her campaign, and Trump won't be able to attack it at all as he won't release his tax returns and does the same thing.
|
United States41989 Posts
Trump's attacks, and the beliefs of his supporters, will not change whatever Hillary does or does not do. That's simply not the kind of election we're having this year. There is nothing to gain from opening the events to scrutiny. She's been under no shortage of scrutiny between emailghazi and Benghazighazi and the actual findings didn't change the perception of guilt in the eyes of Trump supporters one bit.
|
On August 23 2016 10:07 KwarK wrote:
Trump's attacks, and the beliefs of his supporters, will not change whatever Hillary does or does not do. That's simply not the kind of election we're having this year. There is nothing to gain from opening the events to scrutiny. She's been under no shortage of scrutiny between emailghazi and Benghazighazi and the actual findings didn't change the perception of guilt in the eyes of Trump supporters one bit.
It's not the crime that bothers most people. The "email server contained classified information" is over blown. Out of thousands and thousands of emails there were only a few that were marked as classified, which as Comey said was careless but not worthy of criminal charges. Her scrutiny comes from the lack of transparency, and the outright lies combined with a lack of accountability by the press. This raises the suspicion on the 33,000 deleted emails even further. No press conference either. She's just shady as fuck, and deserves having a never HRC camp.
|
I can find out who donates to the Clinton foundation or who attends those fund raisers. I have no idea who Trump is in debt to or for how much.
|
On August 23 2016 10:07 KwarK wrote:
Trump's attacks, and the beliefs of his supporters, will not change whatever Hillary does or does not do. That's simply not the kind of election we're having this year. There is nothing to gain from opening the events to scrutiny. She's been under no shortage of scrutiny between emailghazi and Benghazighazi and the actual findings didn't change the perception of guilt in the eyes of Trump supporters one bit.
Well the article said there was bipartisan criticism. Surely there are more people to convince than diehard Trump supporters; independents, Bernie supporters tempted by "the dark side". I think if she really had nothing to hide it might be better to prove to people that she is doing her best to change her ways and become more of an open candidate. Rather than someone who says things behind closed doors to wealthy donors, which only reinforces her image as being an establishment politician.
But I suppose this could be one of those political tactics, where you know you're far ahead of your opponent, so just don't say anything that makes you critiqueable and you'll win (although apparently she is being criticized regardless, but I assume it is more of a risk otherwise). I can understand her actions from that angle. Trump does seem to have a tendency to self-destruct, though he *seems* to be changing recently, at which point we will see whether the polls equalize
|
Trump only stabilizes until he takes his eyes off the teleprompter and turns into unhinged Trump again. Which happens after about five seconds at every interview or press conference
|
Canada11279 Posts
Apparently I picked a bad day to be MIA from the thread.
On August 23 2016 05:34 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 05:26 xDaunt wrote:On August 23 2016 05:23 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
Does there really need to be a debate over whether or not "mess" is used sexistly? There are plenty of other examples of Trump being sexist, that one hardly needs to focus on the "mess" comments and can just look at the dozens of other things he's said and done. Surely it's been firmly established that Trump is sexist by now. This is correct. There are any number of other examples that liberals could use to paint Trump as a sexist ( and they'd still be wrong, but that's besides the point). This "she's a mess" business is absolutely retarded. This post of yours won't win any honesty awards but I'm glad you included the "shitpost" red flag "retarded".
You were being obtuse and got called out on it. I'm not going to quibble too much on the language used, though maybe the word I would have used instead would be 'bull-headed'. I guess you've gotten a warning and a call out, so it is what it is now. But in the future, don't be so difficult when arguing a relatively weak point compared to anything else Trump has said.
|
On August 23 2016 10:59 Nyxisto wrote:
Trump only stabilizes until he takes his eyes off the teleprompter and turns into unhinged Trump again. Which happens after about five seconds at every interview or press conference
To borrow a term from the Clinton years, I want a vast right-wing conspiracy to turn off his Twitter.
|
Hey check out the ads popping up on my TL
They said on Face the Nation yesterday that the campaign was planning to do a big online ad buy
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/pIReuYn.png)
+ Show Spoiler +
|
Can someone help me understand how the 15,000 emails that were work related but deleted by Clinton would happen unintentionally? Would that not require an extraordinary amount of incompetence?
WASHINGTON — The dispute over Hillary Clinton’s email practices now threatens to shadow her for the rest of the presidential campaign after the disclosure on Monday that the F.B.I. collected nearly 15,000 new emails in its investigation of her and a federal judge’s order that the State Department accelerate the documents’ release.
As a result, thousands of emails that Mrs. Clinton did not voluntarily turn over to the State Department last year could be released just weeks before the election in November. The order, by Judge James E. Boasberg of Federal District Court, came the same day a conservative watchdog group separately released hundreds of emails from one of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides, Huma Abedin, which put a new focus on the sometimes awkward ties between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.
The F.B.I. discovered the roughly 14,900 emails by scouring Mrs. Clinton’s server and the computer archives of government officials with whom she corresponded. In late July, it turned them over to the State Department, which now must set a timetable for their release, according to Judge Boasberg’s order.
While the emails were not in the original trove of 55,000 pages that Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers handed to the State Department last year, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said in July that he did not believe they had been “intentionally deleted.” Still, he characterized Mrs. Clinton’s handling of classified information during her years at the State Department as “extremely careless.”
Source
It's very hard to imagine Hillary as both the political mastermind her supporters envision her as, and also the unimaginably incompetent, and extremely careless person the FBI has asserted she is as to justify not recommending charges. At some point this has got to irritate Democrats?
|
|
|
On August 23 2016 17:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Can someone help me understand how the 15,000 emails that were work related but deleted by Clinton would happen unintentionally? Would that not require an extraordinary amount of incompetence? Show nested quote +
WASHINGTON — The dispute over Hillary Clinton’s email practices now threatens to shadow her for the rest of the presidential campaign after the disclosure on Monday that the F.B.I. collected nearly 15,000 new emails in its investigation of her and a federal judge’s order that the State Department accelerate the documents’ release.
As a result, thousands of emails that Mrs. Clinton did not voluntarily turn over to the State Department last year could be released just weeks before the election in November. The order, by Judge James E. Boasberg of Federal District Court, came the same day a conservative watchdog group separately released hundreds of emails from one of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides, Huma Abedin, which put a new focus on the sometimes awkward ties between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.
The F.B.I. discovered the roughly 14,900 emails by scouring Mrs. Clinton’s server and the computer archives of government officials with whom she corresponded. In late July, it turned them over to the State Department, which now must set a timetable for their release, according to Judge Boasberg’s order.
While the emails were not in the original trove of 55,000 pages that Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers handed to the State Department last year, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said in July that he did not believe they had been “intentionally deleted.” Still, he characterized Mrs. Clinton’s handling of classified information during her years at the State Department as “extremely careless.”
SourceIt's very hard to imagine Hillary as both the political mastermind her supporters envision her as, and also the unimaginably incompetent, and extremely careless person the FBI has asserted she is as to justify not recommending charges. At some point this has got to irritate Democrats?
Not a Hillary supporter, and I don't think Hillary's handling of this is excusable, but you are grossly misinterpreting Comey's statements. I assume this is entirely due to the way it was shortened there ("he did not believe they had been “intentionally deleted.”").
The relevant quote (thought still far from being the full context) is "no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them". The last part being key to answering your question. Comey did not by any means suggest that the emails were accidentally deleted, or even that they weren't deleted intentionally, he is only saying they they weren't deleted with the intent of hiding them from investigators.
Whether that's true or not is an entirely different discussion.
Edit: Also, it's not known how many of the 15000 are work-related. They've only said that there are both personal and work-related in those and that they are in the process of sorting them.
|
No, she very clearly did not?
+ Show Spoiler +
Boy that's a very high quality source you've got there.
|
On August 23 2016 18:37 OuchyDathurts wrote:No, she very clearly did not? + Show Spoiler +Boy that's a very high quality source you've got there.
Who cares, it's hillarious.
|
On August 23 2016 17:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Can someone help me understand how the 15,000 emails that were work related but deleted by Clinton would happen unintentionally? Would that not require an extraordinary amount of incompetence? Show nested quote +
WASHINGTON — The dispute over Hillary Clinton’s email practices now threatens to shadow her for the rest of the presidential campaign after the disclosure on Monday that the F.B.I. collected nearly 15,000 new emails in its investigation of her and a federal judge’s order that the State Department accelerate the documents’ release.
As a result, thousands of emails that Mrs. Clinton did not voluntarily turn over to the State Department last year could be released just weeks before the election in November. The order, by Judge James E. Boasberg of Federal District Court, came the same day a conservative watchdog group separately released hundreds of emails from one of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides, Huma Abedin, which put a new focus on the sometimes awkward ties between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.
The F.B.I. discovered the roughly 14,900 emails by scouring Mrs. Clinton’s server and the computer archives of government officials with whom she corresponded. In late July, it turned them over to the State Department, which now must set a timetable for their release, according to Judge Boasberg’s order.
While the emails were not in the original trove of 55,000 pages that Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers handed to the State Department last year, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said in July that he did not believe they had been “intentionally deleted.” Still, he characterized Mrs. Clinton’s handling of classified information during her years at the State Department as “extremely careless.”
SourceIt's very hard to imagine Hillary as both the political mastermind her supporters envision her as, and also the unimaginably incompetent, and extremely careless person the FBI has asserted she is as to justify not recommending charges. At some point this has got to irritate Democrats?
Because E-discovery in a nightmare and an email chain isn't a chain. Each response is a new email. Each person on the chain, a new email. Sometimes emails are deleted from one side, but saved on the other. You will note they didn't find the emails on her system, but on the back ups of other government officials she corresponded with. Her office and the state department did not have access to them. It is weird the FBI just got around to searching those now. But this is why asking for "all the emails anyone ever sent or received" is a nightmare and leads to shit like this.
|
On August 23 2016 19:36 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 17:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Can someone help me understand how the 15,000 emails that were work related but deleted by Clinton would happen unintentionally? Would that not require an extraordinary amount of incompetence?
WASHINGTON — The dispute over Hillary Clinton’s email practices now threatens to shadow her for the rest of the presidential campaign after the disclosure on Monday that the F.B.I. collected nearly 15,000 new emails in its investigation of her and a federal judge’s order that the State Department accelerate the documents’ release.
As a result, thousands of emails that Mrs. Clinton did not voluntarily turn over to the State Department last year could be released just weeks before the election in November. The order, by Judge James E. Boasberg of Federal District Court, came the same day a conservative watchdog group separately released hundreds of emails from one of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides, Huma Abedin, which put a new focus on the sometimes awkward ties between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.
The F.B.I. discovered the roughly 14,900 emails by scouring Mrs. Clinton’s server and the computer archives of government officials with whom she corresponded. In late July, it turned them over to the State Department, which now must set a timetable for their release, according to Judge Boasberg’s order.
While the emails were not in the original trove of 55,000 pages that Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers handed to the State Department last year, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said in July that he did not believe they had been “intentionally deleted.” Still, he characterized Mrs. Clinton’s handling of classified information during her years at the State Department as “extremely careless.”
SourceIt's very hard to imagine Hillary as both the political mastermind her supporters envision her as, and also the unimaginably incompetent, and extremely careless person the FBI has asserted she is as to justify not recommending charges. At some point this has got to irritate Democrats? Because E-discovery in a nightmare and an email chain isn't a chain. Each response is a new email. Each person on the chain, a new email. Sometimes emails are deleted from one side, but saved on the other. You will note they didn't find the emails on her system, but on the back ups of other government officials she corresponded with. Her office and the state department did not have access to them. It is weird the FBI just got around to searching those now. But this is why asking for "all the emails anyone ever sent or received" is a nightmare and leads to shit like this.
uh?
The F.B.I. discovered the roughly 14,900 emails by scouring Mrs. Clinton’s server and the computer archives of government officials with whom she corresponded.
They may not have intentionally deleted them from her server to avoid them going to the investigation, but it's pretty hard to imagine they had no idea they were destroying public records. Of course I imagine this is where the incompetence comes in.
|
On August 23 2016 18:37 OuchyDathurts wrote:No, she very clearly did not? + Show Spoiler +Boy that's a very high quality source you've got there.
I want that picture on a T-shirt.
|
On August 23 2016 19:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 19:36 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2016 17:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Can someone help me understand how the 15,000 emails that were work related but deleted by Clinton would happen unintentionally? Would that not require an extraordinary amount of incompetence?
WASHINGTON — The dispute over Hillary Clinton’s email practices now threatens to shadow her for the rest of the presidential campaign after the disclosure on Monday that the F.B.I. collected nearly 15,000 new emails in its investigation of her and a federal judge’s order that the State Department accelerate the documents’ release.
As a result, thousands of emails that Mrs. Clinton did not voluntarily turn over to the State Department last year could be released just weeks before the election in November. The order, by Judge James E. Boasberg of Federal District Court, came the same day a conservative watchdog group separately released hundreds of emails from one of Mrs. Clinton’s closest aides, Huma Abedin, which put a new focus on the sometimes awkward ties between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department.
The F.B.I. discovered the roughly 14,900 emails by scouring Mrs. Clinton’s server and the computer archives of government officials with whom she corresponded. In late July, it turned them over to the State Department, which now must set a timetable for their release, according to Judge Boasberg’s order.
While the emails were not in the original trove of 55,000 pages that Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers handed to the State Department last year, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said in July that he did not believe they had been “intentionally deleted.” Still, he characterized Mrs. Clinton’s handling of classified information during her years at the State Department as “extremely careless.”
SourceIt's very hard to imagine Hillary as both the political mastermind her supporters envision her as, and also the unimaginably incompetent, and extremely careless person the FBI has asserted she is as to justify not recommending charges. At some point this has got to irritate Democrats? Because E-discovery in a nightmare and an email chain isn't a chain. Each response is a new email. Each person on the chain, a new email. Sometimes emails are deleted from one side, but saved on the other. You will note they didn't find the emails on her system, but on the back ups of other government officials she corresponded with. Her office and the state department did not have access to them. It is weird the FBI just got around to searching those now. But this is why asking for "all the emails anyone ever sent or received" is a nightmare and leads to shit like this. uh? Show nested quote +The F.B.I. discovered the roughly 14,900 emails by scouring Mrs. Clinton’s server and the computer archives of government officials with whom she corresponded. They may not have intentionally deleted them from her server to avoid them going to the investigation, but it's pretty hard to imagine they had no idea they were destroying public records. Of course I imagine this is where the incompetence comes in.
I am not sure that every single email in public record. I don't think the public has the right to simply request the content of any senator or public office's email account.
|
On August 23 2016 08:29 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 23 2016 08:24 Plansix wrote:On August 23 2016 08:02 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 23 2016 07:57 Dan HH wrote:On August 23 2016 07:47 Danglars wrote:On August 23 2016 07:17 Dan HH wrote:On August 23 2016 06:53 Danglars wrote:The State Department issued a warning on Monday urging U.S. citizens to avoid traveling to Iran, which has made the detention of Americans a priority.
The latest travel advisory, which emphasizes Iran’s desire to capture U.S. citizens, comes on the heels of a growing scandal over the Obama administration’s decision to pay Iran $400 million in cash on the same day that it freed several U.S. hostages.
The payment has been cast by lawmakers and others as a ransom payment and prompted concern among U.S. officials that Iran is making arresting Americans a priority.
The travel warning is meant to “highlight the risk of arrest and detention of U.S. citizens, particularly dual national Iranian-Americans,” according to a State Department announcement on Monday. “Foreigners, in particular dual nationals of Iran and Western countries including the United States, continue to be detained or prevented from leaving Iran.”
“U.S. citizens traveling to Iran should very carefully weigh the risks of travel and consider postponing their travel,” the warning adds. “U.S. citizens residing in Iran should closely follow media reports, monitor local conditions, and evaluate the risks of remaining in the country.”
Iran continues to imprison Americans, particularly those holding dual Iranian citizenship, according to the State Department.
“Iranian authorities have detained and harassed U.S. citizens, particularly those of Iranian origin,” the travel warning states. “Former Muslims who have converted to other religions, religious activists, and persons who encourage Muslims to convert are subject to arrest and prosecution.”
The Obama administration expressed particular concern about commercial airlines doing business with Iran. This warning comes as American companies such as Boeing continue to pursue million-dollar business deals with the Islamic Republic.
“The U.S. government is concerned about the risks to civil aircraft operating into, out of, within, or over Iran due to hazards from military activity associated with the conflicts in Iraq and Syria,” the warning states. “The FAA has advised U.S. civil aviation to exercise caution when flying into, out of, within, or over the airspace over Iran.”
The warning emphasizes that “the U.S. government’s ability to assist U.S. citizens in Iran in the event of an emergency is extremely limited.” Washington Free Beacon reporting on a State Department travel advisory. I only hope the next president takes Iran seriously in regards to their conduct and aims. So just like in the previous versions of the Iran travel advisory, which warn of the risks for Iranian-Americans March 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20160719233825/https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/iran-travel-warning.htmlJanuary 2016: https://web.archive.org/web/20160216040723/http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/iran-travel-warning.htmlAugust 2015: https://web.archive.org/web/20151008041647/http://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/alertswarnings/iran-travel-warning.htmlYet this Free Bacon is trying to tie it in with the 'growing scandal over the Obama administration’s decision to pay Iran $400 million', implying it made it more likely to get detained. How TLers keep finding these sources astonishes me. Comply by the terms of these inspections and nukes and we'll let you get them in a decade ... but we're fine doing business if you keep imprisoning American citizens at sea and in the country. Hell, we'll pay their ransom. And spin spin spin away the flak. No, I'm not arguing it was perfectly fine to travel there before Obama. I'm not looking to reignite the ransom debate that was beaten to a pulp some pages back. I'm only pointing out how disingenous that article is in implying those parts of the Iran travel advisory are new developments, even hinting it might be a consequence of the payment. If there is one thing we've learned in the last month, it's that everything is Obama's fault. Even if he had to go back in time to do it. I have witnessed people blame TARP and Katrina on him in the past month. Live, in person. I am sure someone could blame the existence of Iran on him as well. Katrina the disaster cleanup/recovery or Katrina the hurricane?
We should blame him for Katarina the Pierson. That woman kills more braincells than moonshine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RHBZ9Rv.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RUmRj58.png)
