Monday, September 14, 2015

HRC email Controversy Way Overblown Compared To bush Admin eMail Scandal (Imaginary Vs Actual Crimes)

You have Democrats beginning to panic about the one thing that a lot of them never worried about, which was Clinton's electability in the general election ...the challenge she faces in the general election is both the trust problem and the likability problem ~ Robert Shrum AKA "Dumb Shrum" (dob 1943) an American political consultant, who has worked on numerous Democratic campaigns, including the losing presidential campaigns of Al Gore and John Kerry.

Regarding Robert Shrum's nickname of "Dumb Shrum", my memory tells me that I heard this on Al Franken's Air America radio program. I might be wrong, however, as I could not confirm this via a Google search. In any case, the nickname comes from the fact that "in eight elections (for either the presidential nomination or for the presidency itself), Shrum's candidates have never won". (Wikipedia reports).

Regarding the quote at the top of this post; it is via the far-Right website 9/9/2009 Newsmax story "Democrats Eyeing White Knight If Clinton Implodes"... which is complete nonsense, as there is almost nothing to this so-called scandal. Despite deluded Righty fantasies of Hillary (and perhaps Obama) ending up behind bars... for their fictional "lawlessness".

Hillary did SOMETHING wrong. As long as the Republicans keep looking, eventually they'll find a transgression with substance. Although they've been looking for the last 35 years and both Hillary and Bill are still free. Not imprisoned for their many imaginary crimes, much to the chagrin of the (real) vast Rightwing conspiracy.

The latest imaginary crime of Hillary Clinton involving her emails, being yet in another in a series of desperate attempts by the Right to derail her POTUS candidacy. Another attempt that will fail, despite what Dumb Shrum sez. Those who do not trust HRC or find her "likable" did not trust or find her likable to begin with. They would not be voting for her even if Congressional Republicans were not continuously investing fake/overblown Clinton misdeeds.

Overblown HRC email Scandal Aspect #1: Used Personal email & Server Which Was Either Illegal Or At Least Shady

This allegation concerns Hillary doing something wrong by using a private email and server. Perhaps even illegal! Except that... no. "Clinton and her staff have stated that her use of the private email account was above board and allowed under State Department rules" and this is indeed the case.

HRC, in using/maintaining a private server broke no laws that existed at the time.

...federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after [Hillary] Clinton stepped down. (That Story About Hillary Clinton's Private Email Account Isn't as Awful as It Seems by Bob Cesca. The Daily Banter 3/3/2015).

Frankly I think it should have been law long ago that government employees were legally required to communicate using government (and not private) systems. However, until recently it has not been. Hillary Clinton followed the law and is guilty of nothing, nor has anything been uncovered (via the release of these emails) that show she was trying to hide something. At most she could be "convicted" of falling "short of the Obama administration's preferred best practices". (A Crystal-Clear Explanation of Hillary's Confusing Email Scandal).

Which differs significantly with what happened during the bush administration. In 2007 it was discovered that preznit bush (and underlings in the office of the preznit) corresponded "via a non-government domain hosted on an email server not controlled by the federal government... in violation of the Presidential Records Act of 1978, and the Hatch Act". (Wikipedia/Bush White House email controversy).

What the bushies were attempting to hide was that their Attorney General, Alberto Gonzales, fired US attorneys who wouldn't investigate fake/non-existent voter fraud cases.

Investigative journalist Greg Palast: David Iglesias of New Mexico was one of seven U.S. Attorneys fired by the White House for their refusal to bring voter fraud prosecutions. [According to Iglesias] "We took over 100 complaints... We investigated for almost 2 years [and] I didn't find one prosecutable voter fraud case in the entire state of New Mexico".

Specifically, Attorney General Gonzales... wanted him to bring what the prosecutor called "bogus voter fraud" cases. In effect, US Attorney Iglesias was under pressure from the boss to charge citizens with crimes they didn't commit.
(Gonzales "wrong and illegal and unethical" by Greg Palast. 8/28/2007).

The purpose of prosecuting phony-baloney "voter fraud" cases? According to Greg Palast, Karl Rove "convinced Bush to fire upright prosecutors and replace them with Rove-bots ready to strike out at fraudulent (i.e. Democratic) voters". This was another example of bushie election thievery antics, in other words... which is why this (genuine) controversy was viewed as a possible violation of the Hatch Act... which is a law that says the president or VP can't direct their underlings to engage "in some forms of political activity".

The firing of the US attorneys who wouldn't investigate bullpucky "voter fraud" cases to help Republicans win via cheating (preventing legitimate voters from casting ballots by scarring/harassing them away from the polls) was a purely political act... so here we have actual violations of the law, coordinated via email that the bushies tried to hide... and the only thing that happened was that Gonzales fell on his sword (took the blame and resigned).

With HRC, no wrongdoing of any kind has yet to be shown. Should she have used a private server? No, she absolutely should not have IMO. But did she break the law or do anything shady? There is no evidence she did.

Overblown HRC email Scandal Aspect #2: Classified Info Was Sent/Received Through Private Server

Here there appears to be a little more substance, in that Hillary may have actually sent or received classified information. Although, it should be noted that nothing HRC sent/received was marked classified at the time. "None of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings..." according to Intelligence Community Inspector General I. Charles McCullough III (Hillary's emails touch off debate about classified documents by Josh Gerstein. 07/24/2015).

It appears, however, that it is possible that some of these sent/received communications should have been treated as classified (even though not marked as such).

...foreign government information [is defined by] The US government... as any information, written or spoken, provided in confidence to U.S. officials by their foreign counterparts. This sort of information, which the department says Clinton both sent and received in her emails, is the only kind that must be "presumed" classified, in part to protect national security and the integrity of diplomatic interactions...

"It's born classified", said J. William Leonard, a former director of the U.S. government's Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO). Leonard was director of ISOO, part of the White House's National Archives and Records Administration, from 2002 until 2008, and worked for both the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations. (Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest by Jonathan Allen. Reuters 8/21/2015).

If HRC is "guilty" of anything, it appears as though this may be the smoking gun. Although I would say this, if it occurred, is most likely an oversight and not due to any nefarious intentions on Clinton's part. Quite unlike bush's email scandal, where the intention was to hide illegal politicking (in the form of election thievery) using the office of the White House (in violation of the Hatch Act).

So we are clearly not dealing with anything of an illegal nature re the Hillary email non-scandal, although a Libertarian blog I read sez that if HRC asserts that she did not know the emails were supposed to be treated as classified "she looks like a total incompetent and a moron".

Personally I do not agree with this assessment. Smart competent people make mistakes all the time. In any case, HRC's team destroyed a large number of communications they deemed "personal", so if there is any incriminating evidence, it's likely gone. "Incriminating" her in regards to what, I do not know. Unlike with the bushies. With this genuinely lawless administration I know they covered up and escaped prosecution in regards to their election thievery.

This is why I predict the Republican investigations will go nowhere (the same direction they've been going thus far). Congressional Republicans know this, of course. They simply want to firmly plant the idea in the gullible base voter's noggin that HRC is getting away with unspecified illegalities. And spread that false meme into the general electorate as widely as they are able. There is no real "investigating" in other words. What is going on is all political in nature.

Hillary Clinton will likely be the nominee as well as our next president... in my estimation. This so-called scandal will not be "devastating" to campaign as the aforementioned Libertarian asserts.

The bottom line here, I'd say, is that I just do not f*cking give a shit. Barring me hearing (at the very least) some sane sounding conspiracy theory concerning ACTUAL wrongdoing by HRC. WHY did she (or her underlings) destroy thousands of emails they say were "personal"? What is she hiding/what is the REAL crime? I mean, the bushies got away with fricking election fraud shenanigans simply by having Alberto fall on his sword and resign.

Although preznit doofus defended him, saying that Gonzales' "good name [was] dragged through the mud", and that he stepped down only because he received "unfair treatment that has created harmful distraction at the Justice Department". Right.

Now we have Hillary-haters who are calling for her head on a pike for significantly lesser transgressions? I am NOT going along with it. She isn't an "incompetent moron" nor a brilliant criminal mastermind who has evaded successful prosecution for 30-plus years for her many (imaginary) crimes... committed as a part of her husband's administration, via the charitable Clinton Foundation, and as a member of the "lawless" Obama WH.

Congressional Repubs just can't seem to get anything to stick. Perhaps because there is (and have been) no wrongdoings by HRC? Call me a partisan, but I say f*ck these Rightwing idiots who think there is even the remotest chance that HRC will end up behind bars for this nothing-burger. Or the even bigger non-scandal of Benghazi.

Which, by the way, was one of the conspiracy theories floated back in March. That a Benghazi stand down order might be found among the HRC emails. A conspiracy that is leagues away from sane sounding, you poor deluded desperate Repub-identifying halfwits.

Video: Alberto Gonzales said "I don't recall" 72 times during his January 2007 Senate hearing. Gonzales resigned on 9/17/2007 (0:52).

SWTD #313. See also OST #71.


  1. You must be happy, your man seems to be on fire while the droopy HRC continues to lose ground. To which I say, hot damnHCR may be soon in 2'nd place.

    1. No, that's good news, but being happy would be premature. I'll be happy when Senator Sanders wins the nomination... but I have a suspicion that establishment Democrats will do their best to prevent that from happening.

    2. Re Bernie Sanders poll numbers in Iowa and New Hampshire, David Shuster recently tweeted the following....

      David Shuster ‏@DavidShuster Sep 13

      Since 1976, every nominee (but Bill Clinton '92) has won either Iowa or NH. Every candidate to win both has won nomination. #FeelTheBern View conversation 36 retweets 22 favorites

      David Shuster ‏@DavidShuster Sep 13

      CBS News Poll Iowa: Sanders 43%, Clinton 33%, Biden 10%, N.H.: Sanders 52%, Clinton 30%, Biden 9% #FeelTheBern


  2. Remember when Obama committed treason by bypassing Congress and swapping five high-value detainees for one American traitor?

    Remember the speech Obama gave last week telling Americans that we must take on ISIS?

    Put together the two and you have a case for charges of treason against Barack Hussein Obama.

    It is being reported that at least 3 of the 5 detainees involved in the swap have joined ISIS in Syria and Iraq as commanders and are using that rank to usher in an "Islamic Caliphate" (a Sunni Islamic Theocracy - contrary to Obama's claims that ISIS is not Islamic).

  3. Remember when Obama committed treason by bypassing Congress and swapping five high-value detainees for one American traitor?

    Politifact says your story concerning the Taliban Gitmo prisoners president Obama swapped for American soldier Bowe Bergdahl is "pants on fire" a lie. According to experts Politifact consulted, the ex-detainees "are all in Qatar. This is nonsense".

    Anyway, in regards to released Gitmo prisoners who joined some group fighting the United States... my memory tells me most of these prisoners were released by the former president, george w. bush. So, when you spoke of treason in this matter... are you sure you didn't mean the treasonous president is george w. bush?

    1. According to the NY Post, "Ibrahim al-Rubaysh [who] was originally released in 2006 by the George W. Bush administration... returned to the battlefield and now serves as a top leader with al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula - one of the most dangerous al Qaeda affiliates".

      The NY Post also notes that Ibrahim al-Rubaysh was release in 2006 by bush, but that "since 2009, the Defense Department and five government departments and agencies conduct thorough security and intelligence reviews prior to transferring Guantanamo detainees..."

      So bush let this terrorist leader go without checking first to see how likely it was he would join some group fighting our soldiers? Must be an example of double-treason by george w. bush, huh Angry Republican?

  4. Don't confuse the feeble minded with facts Dervish, they'll short circuit.

    But your characterization of GWB as a treasonous person is nothing more than an opinion. One most find laughable.

    1. Actually, RN, I didn't characterize GWB as a treasonous person in my comments. Both of my "treason" comments were phrased as questions. I was pointing out to the Angry Republican that, using the same criteria he gave to label BHO treasonous, gwb must be treasonous too (or, he is treasonous while BHO is not).

      Legally and Constitutionally speaking, I'm not sure if a case for treason could be made against gwb. I do, however, believe he acted treasonously by lying us into a war with Iraq, which OBL wanted... to bleed America to the point of bankruptcy through the use of a war of attrition. So, definition-wise, gwb absolutely did commit "a violation of allegiance to one's sovereign or to one's state". And he is a war criminal, of course.

      RN laughs because he has been duped into believing Iraq was a "mistake". No offense (and thanks for the defense re Angry Republican's lies about Taliban Gitmo prisoners traded by Obama joining ISIS), but it is so plainly obvious that bush lied to get us into the war... I don't know how else to describe anyone who believes otherwise.

    2. No Dervish, I have not been duped. So take your immense feeling of superiority and stick where the sun son't shine.

      I've been clear and I've been right. So henceforth on this issue have a conversation with yourself.

  5. Rational Nation USA Sun Jul 29, 10:03:00 PM EDT

    Twisting, spinning, and turning in your perverse desire to be foolish are ya s. Shaw?

    American Jews are the offspring of the pacifists that willing were led to the gas chambers in Hitlers Holocaust.
    Exactly what Dr. Carson says

  6. That is the comment TOM attempted to post at RN USA. Comment which I have retained in my weblogs spam folder.

    TOM, I suggest you go back om your meds.

    1. These are your words, posted on your blog RN, but of course deny it Jew hater. Now back to your meeting, the cross is almost burnt.

  7. Carson did say something quite similar, so why didn't RN publish and say that, yes, he is in agreement with Carson on this issue? As far as I know RN stands by the comment Tom refers to. Perhaps not. The comment is a few years old.

    1. You know very well. Are you suggesting he is no longer a Jew hater? Has he seen the light? I doubt it since he and Shaw continue to delete comments that mention this quote and have for years.

  8. I will not get into a pissing contest over this issue here or anywhere else. I do not agree with Carson's posistion in the present and I acknowledged my error in my previous post.

    Several liberals and progressives acknowledged my rhetorical error and understandably questionable judgement in posting it, some of Jewish heritage. At the same time they also acknowledged that I am not a Jew hater. This is sufficient enough for me and I was grateful at the time and remain grateful today.

    More bluntly put, I have no time for those like TOM, and apparently you Dervish, who frankly seem to enjoy crunching old bones.

    Have a marvelous day.

    1. What a FKing lying Jew hater; and now you try to pass yourself off as a moderate HA HA HA HA when your blog is full of supporting conservative haters. Enjoy yourself asshole.
      Your history is:
      Blog attacker
      Intentionally starting fights on blogs
      You tried to shut down my blog, but I don't cave to bigots like you
      You did (along with your asshole buddies like Will and Bluepittbull) shut down many blogs by endlessly attacking them.
      Your blog is full of support for the Republican haters you now claim to be against
      What a FKing dirt bag

  9. RN's posts:
    Alan West (another Republican hater) is great according to RN

    And of course your defense of G. Bush
    Your blog is full of the typical hate Republicans embrace, and you embrace Republicans., Plenty of proof if people want to read your hate filled blo0g

  10. What do you NOT understand TOM? I am not going to engage with with you or post your bullshit on my weblog period.

    Keep traipsing around the internet and regurgitate you hate for all to witness if you like. That is your interrogative However, a saner thing would be for you to get back on your meds..

    Bye Bye TOM..

  11. I don't know what the "rhetorical error" was, but RN says he disagrees with Carson... So I will accept that. An elaboration as to why he disagrees might finally put this issue to bed once and for all, but I'm willing to move on, regardless (no doubt Tom will not, however).

    For the record, I do not believe RN is a "Jew hater", given the fact that there are no other comments RN's detractors can point to in support of this accusation.

    In any case, I (originally) took RN's comment to be a Libertarian anti-gun control screed... A position that RN seems to have moved away from. Fact is, he has authored a number of posts on his blog that attracted the attention of a Libertarian gun nut who calls himself the "Constitutional Insurgent"... With RN arguing the rational/sensible position and the Insurgent taking the gun nut position.

    Anyway, unless RN chooses to elaborate as to why he disagrees with Carson, I have no further interest in "crunching" this topic.

    1. You are just a fucking fool Der5vish, always have been. I guess you cannot read, it speaks for itself no matter what Carson says. Enjoy yourse4lves assholes.
      If you stop passing yourself off as some nice guy asshole, I might reconsider. You are not a nice guy, you are an antisemite and you admitted it yourself above. Let devish the fool swallow your crap. You have years on your blog to prove otherwise. Of course you don't want to get into it, because you are guilty and sick. Yopu attacked blogs, harassed people and in general you are just an ass. Now we are to believe you changed, FU!

    2. I guess that post praising Carson by RN was just a mistake.
      You really don't have to prove you are a fool, that's been obvious since you started a blog.

  12. BTW, in regards to the RN comment that says "Dervish, who frankly seem to enjoy crunching old bones", the answer is N-O. Tom made a valid point in regards to Carson, IMO, but now that RN said "I do not agree with Carson's position" I say enough (unless RN wishes to elaborate).

    BTW, that is what I said the last time this topic came up. After a LONG discussion on the topic I authored some blog commenting rules that say further discussion on this topic is henceforth banned (comment guideline No 9). Any further comments from Tom on this topic will (likely) be deleted. Thank you for understanding.

  13. I understand your censorship and stupidity

    1. I removed you previous comment due to your use of a highly offensive word. The rest I could care less about.

    2. This from a hate filled asshole who starts multiple separate blogs just to attack people, then uses censorship to make himself feel superior. Enjoy yourself asshole idiot.

    3. Don't forget to list your words that are unacceptable Stalin Dervish

    4. I thought about asking about these blogs of yours that you're using to attack people, but I realized I don't care. Censor all you like - I won't be visiting.

    5. Here dipshit, another RN post praising the Jew hater Dr. Carson:
      Now on with your 3 blogs of hate and your protection of the Jew hater RN. What a stupid FK you are.

    6. The video attached to the RN commentary you link to won't play any longer, so whatever the "powerful message" is - it is not clear. It does not appear to have anything to do with Jewish "pacifists" being responsible for the holocaust because they didn't fight back using their guns, however. My guess is that the video has something to do with religion, given that RN says watching it is "well worth the 27 minute of your time. And that from a non believer". It doesn't appear to have anything to do with RN praising Carson for antisemitism, in any case.

  14. That's right, pretend you missed the point. The sign of an asshole well versed in blog bullshit. You didn't need to prove that; since you author multiple blogs, two of which are attack/hate blogs aimed at individuals. Another thing you and RN have in common, attacking people just because they disagree with you.

  15. TOM the hypocrite has been attacking RN for years on the basis of ONE comment. As well as the proprietor of any blog where RN is allowed to comment. I have zero blogs where I attack people simply for disagreeing with me, BTW.

    As for missing your point... I looked at the post you linked to and saw that it proves nothing. The post, which is quite old, was written by RN before much was known about Carson. I'm pretty sure RN's opinion on Carson has changed since then.

    1. The hypocrite is you and RN. You can't even take his own words. Enjoy yourself shit blogger. Now back to your hate blogs. HA HA HA HA HA

    2. No surprise you support blog attackers like RN, you are one yourself. And how stupid are you to infer there's only one reason to condemn the Jew hater after he and his minions attacked MANY blogs. What a stupid FK you are. Just a check of your blogs prove you set up complete blogs just to attack individuals. You truly are a sick lying FK head

  16. Here is an example of the hypocrite TOM's "blog attacking". He posts anonymously, but the proof that it's him is that he links to the same "RN post praising the Jew hater".

    I would not be surprised if TOM was behind the Steve ID. "Steve" is a homophobic individual who also had a huge problem with RN in regards to the exact same comment concerning "pacifist Jews". Steve attacked my blog for several months with profanity-laden comments... just as TOM is doing now.

    For the record, I criticized RN for the same comment that TOM obsesses over. There was no "support" for RN from me in regards to this idiotic comment.

    1. Calling you out for supporting an antisemite, is attacking you? Laughable
      I'm not Steve and RN and you, rightfully, have earned many who call you out on your bullshit. Live with it bigot. Now I'm off to your other blogs to join in the hate of individuals.

    2. There is no "support" as I already pointed out. TOM/Steve "calls me out on my bullshit". Another of TOM's delusions is that one person (him) is "many". Laughable. As for the bigot TOM says needs to "live with it"... He must be referring to himself.

    3. Your hate blogs are there for all to see, so thanks for proving me right, you bigot.

    4. TOM/Steve is proven wrong. He calls me a bigot with zero proof. My other blogs ARE there for all to see, and ALL can see there is no bigotry on any of them. TOM/Steve is a liar and a shithead.


Comment moderation is not currently in effect. Your comment will appear immediately. I do not, however, allow Anonymous comments. Anyone wishing to comment MUST have a Blogger account.