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. GregPalast.com 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.

Benghazi Irrationality

The rational mind of man is a shallow thing, a shore upon a continent of the irrational, wherein thin colonies of reason have settled amid a savage world ~ Wilford O. Cross, a quote from Prologue to Ethics.

The following statement is from the self-proclaimed "Moderate" Mr. Willis V. Hart (whom I have covered on this blog previously) via the Libertarian rAtional nAtion website...

Willis Hart: This was all about the administration protecting Mr. Obama's narrative (right before the election, no less) that Al-Qaeda was on the run and all that crap... We were lied to... and I don't particularly like being lied to whether it's Dick Cheney or Obama. This was a bald-faced lie of a story line that they didn't pawn on us once or twice but dozens of times and for over 2 solid weeks. And it was absurd, a spontaneous eruption... (condensed from two of Mr. Hart's comments).

But it wasn't Obama who lied (or authored the talking points that contained the lie, at least), not according to the NYT's David Brooks, who, on the 5/12/2013 airing of "Meet the Press" shared his assessment of how the talking points were formulated (and by whom) in the aftermath of Benghazi...

David Brooks: My reading of the evidence is a very terrible event happened at a CIA facility, they went into intense blame-shifting mode, trying to shift responsibility onto the State department, onto anywhere else, and the state department pushed back. ... Out of that bureaucratic struggle, all the talking points were reduced to mush and then politics was inserted into it.

So, was it the Obama Administration who wanted to "protect their narrative" of "Al-Qaeda on the run" and therefore lied to us, or is David Brooks right about this "narrative" being constructed by the CIA in an attempt to cover their ass? And why did former Dick Cheney aid at State Victoria Nuland ask for the removal of references to Al-Qaeda and the CIA's warnings about the dangers to US diplomats in Libya? (more on that later).

Brook's take on Benghazi is interesting because Mr. Hart is a huge fan. On 8/29/2012 Willis composed a commentary titled "On David Brooks", in which he said...

Willis Hart: Liberals think that he's a conservative. Conservatives think that he's a liberal. Yeah, you better believe that I can identify with him.

Willis identifies with him because he thinks Brooks is a "Moderate" like him. Willis' "Moderate" position on Benghazi is that he does not like being lied to "whether it's Dick Cheney or Obama". But Willis' hero David Brooks doesn't think President Obama lied. So where does this leave Mr. Hart, I wonder? "Respectfully" disagreeing, I'd guess. Or (more likely) he'd argue what Brooks said does not indicate President Obama didn't lie.

Also, in regards to Brooks and Hart being fellow Moderates... Mr. Brooks, prior to his NYT gig, "worked as reporter and later op-ed editor for The Wall Street Journal [and] as senior editor at The Weekly Standard from its inception". The Weekly Standard "is an American neoConservative opinion magazine [whose] founding publisher [is] News Corporation [Rupert Murdoch/Fox Nooz]".

OK, got it. Willis identifies with David Brooks because he perceives him to be a Moderate like (he perceives) himself to be a Moderate. But David Brooks isn't a Moderate. Would a "Moderate" work at the neoConservative Weekly Standard? What's odd here is that the Hartster does not identify as neoConservative (he has spoken against the neoCons). While he was gung-ho in his support for bush's Afghanistan invasion, he says he did not support the occupation and nation-building in Afghanistan, or the invasion of Iraq.

But David Brooks is a neoCon (or leaned in that direction while employed by the Weekly Standard, and, since leaving that publication, soured on neoConservatism. I'm not sure.)...

Wikipedia: ...before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Brooks argued forcefully for American military intervention, echoing the belief of commentators and political figures that American and British forces would be welcomed as liberators. [However] In the spring of 2004, some of his opinion pieces suggested he had tempered his earlier optimism about the war. [Also] Brooks' public writing about the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq is similar to those by neoConservatives, according to a Salon article by Glenn Greenwald, that labels Brooks as a neoConservative.

My conclusions are that [1] The Obama Administration may have been aware that the CIA/State talking points were not entirely accurate, but for political reasons decided to go with them until the investigation revealed otherwise. [2] It's Mr. Hart's "Moderation" that causes him to go with the Conservative talking points on this and label this "lying", and [3] Mr. Hart is not that Moderate. In fact, I think it is quite appropriate that he is a contributor over at the Libertarian rAtional nAtion blog.

Now, back to the former Dick Cheney aide who worked at State and asked "for the removal of references to Al-Qaeda and the CIA's warnings about the dangers to US diplomats in Libya". The State department spokesperson being referred to is Victoria Nuland, and regarding her "Republican party pedigree" Salon says...

Salon's Alex Seitz-Wald: Nuland is married to Washington Post columnist and neoConservative historian Robert Kagan, who helped sell the case for the Iraq War, advised both Mitt Romney and John McCain's presidential campaigns, and co-founded the Project for a New American Century think tank with Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol...

So she's a former Cheney aid with a Republican pedigree AND there is also a neoCon connection? Could this possibly be sabotage, in that Nuland purposefully corrupted the talking points so the Republicans could later claim a cover-up? I'm thinking probably no... but this is a rather odd coincidence, to say the least.

The Washington Post (the same paper Nuland's husband works for) says Nuland is the one who, "after reading the first draft of the State Department talking points that stated the incident was a coordinated terrorist attack", pushed for the revisions because she worried members of Congress [might] "beat the State Department for not paying attention to agency warnings". She asked, "why would we want to seed the Hill?".

Does this revelation take at least some of the wind out of the sails of those (like Hart) who are absolutely convinced this was an Obama administration conspiracy to lie to the American people in order to sustain their "narrative"? Or do the irrationals on Mr. Nation's blog have their own agenda? I think the following exchange suggests they do...

Jersey McJones: If there was some misinformation intentionally trotted out to the public... then there should be reasonable consequences. But this issue is not worth a snotty rag compared to the horror the last administration perpetrated while the cons sat silent. (5/13/2013 AT 01:42:00 AM EDT). rAtional nAtion: GWB was a poor President overall IMNHO and did more damage to conservatism than perhaps any prior conservative President. Having said this [Jersey McJones] seems to be stuck in time. But I suppose it is understandable. (5/13/2013 AT 09:20:00 PM EDT).

Yea, I understand why Irrational wants to sweep bush's war crimes and lies about WMD that were not found under the rug. If bush had been prosecuted (as he should have been) it would have been extremely damaging for the Republican brand. Not that Mr. Nation is ever going to get the Libertarian government he wants, but he surely does not want to see things swing in the other direction (toward the Democrats). He doesn't want Hillary (or some other Democrat) to win the presidency in 2016. Which is why he's on board with Willis in using Benghazi to damage Obama and Hillary.

Dictionary.com defines irrational as, [1] without the faculty of reason; deprived of reason; [2] without or deprived of normal mental clarity or sound judgment; [3] not in accordance with reason; utterly illogical", and that is how I view Mr. Hart's outrage over the president's supposed Benghazi "lies". It is very irrational to expect politicians to not act to protect themselves politically. Yet he has no outrage at all when it comes to the Republicans who are using this to ATTACK the Obama administration for political reasons.

It is the Republican lies for which there is FAR greater reason to be outraged, IMO. The truth came out in short order (the Benghazi attack was not a result of a spontaneous attack sparked by the "Innocence of Muslims" video). Obama still would have won the election. Also, nobody died because "the talking points were reduced to mush" (as David Brooks put it)... unlike when bush lied about WMD in Iraq. Mr. Hart isn't outraged about that at all. Quite the contrary, he has authored multiple posts defending bush lying about WMDs, which Willis says there is no evidence of!

When I said, "bush lied when he said we needed to invade Iraq to disarm it... even though all the evidence said Iraq was already disarmed", the Hartster's response was complete denial...

Willis Hart: You gave me no evidence that Bush KNEW that there weren't weapons of mass destruction and then lied to the American public... No testimony. No paper trail. Zero (7/10/2012).

There is "no evidence" bush lied about WMD? Sure. The Downing Street Memo isn't evidence. The Senate Intelligence Committee report that found the bush administration "deliberately misled the American public about Saddam's relationship with al Qaeda and led the nation to war on false premises"... that isn't evidence either.

NO outrage over bush's NARRATIVE that Iraq had WMD and needed to be disarmed, just willful ignorance... but plenty of outrage over Obama's "bald-faced lie"? Willis did mention Dick Cheney lying, but about what I don't know. I tried to comment on the Irrational blog but it appears as though the Irrational fellow won't be publishing my comment. Not that it would matter, because ever since Willis banned me from his blog he refuses to acknowledge any words from me on any site we may both happen to comment on.

SWTD #150, wDel #24.