The odds of Corbyn becoming Labour leader and Trump becoming the GOP candidate are about 56 to 1 if you multiply the respective Betfair odds. If you'd said that a few months ago people would have thought you were a few sandwiches short of a picnic.
I find Reeves to be terribly overrated and I can't quite understand Labour's obsession with her.
Yes, I have always wondered what dirt Rachel Reeves has on people to constantly be getting these top gigs.
Frankly, for as much (deserved) flak as Cooper and Burnham's campaigns are getting, they are still streets ahead of the rest of the shadow cabinet bar Chuka (whose politics I don't like but he still undeniably has a bit of stardust).
When Reeves first came onto the scene her gig appeared to be 'look how good I am at Maths'....which is actually the minimum expected of a future Chancellor. She's also about as telegenic as IDS. Chuka, I have to say has improved immeasurably over the last couple of months. I also like Stella Creasy, but it looks like Labour party members/CLPs will be dumb enough to vote in Tom Watson. I know he did good work in the Phone Hacking scandal, but I actually can't stand him.
The biggest barrier to Rachel Reeves career is her voice.
There's just something about the pitch and tone of her voice that makes nails on a blackboard sound appealing.
It's true. I remember some months back my mum saw on her TV and remarked that she needed elocution lessons.
Before my time, but it was said Thatcher's voice when she became Leader of the Opposition was unappealing to voters, she had lessons and became more appealing.
Is Rachel Reeves the new Margaret Thatcher?
There's a bigger chance of Boris getting a new haircut than Rachel Reeves being the new Thatcher!
I think there’s more chance of Boris being the new Maggie than of Rachel Reeves looking good with a handbag
Well good for you, but some people can fall on hard times and be made redundant and having contributed into the pot all their lives it is immoral in my view to give them nothing to survive on beyond scraps of charity until they get their lives back on track
I paid £60k tax last year (and * knows how much NI) - can I have some of it back to pay for losses on my Brazil ISA?
I am not talking about some losses on some investments, I am talking about losing everything eg a minimum wage job and eating up most of your savings and having nothing left to fall back on, in my view any civilised society should provide enough to survive on until people get back on their feet, including for you were Ave it were you ever to face such misfortune
GRRRR HYUFD - had to log back in again to respond to this shyte
As I have already pointed out to you, due to the wealth I have earned for myself I would not get any state benefit if I lost my job. As it happens if that happened which hopefully it doesn't then actually I have enough to get me through to retirement - having already paid for benefits for a small primary school of children through my taxes!!!
*
Definitely off now GN
PS Priti Patel rules!!!
Wrong, as you can claim contributory JSA for 6 months regardless of savings
I really do not wish you ill, AveIt, perhaps your football team, but not you, but if you really are so prejudiced against the less fortunate, as your posts would imply, I hope you do not hit hard times.
Indeed, we are all but a few bad decisions and some bad luck from calamity
Of course it has to do with polling, Clinton rode out Whitewater and Monicagate because his poll ratings remained high, Nixon initially rode out Watergate after his 1972 victory, it was only as his poll ratings nosedived he had to go
HYUFD Anyone who lived through Watergate knows that it was the certainty of impeachment that forced Nixon to resign. It had nothing to do with polls.
House Judiciary Committee passed the articles of impeachment 27-30 July. This is the first in 3 steps (next the full House votes on the findings of the Judiciary Committee, then the Senate sets up an impeachment trial). It rapidly became clear in August that this would happen. Nixon resigned rather than be impeached on 8 August.
Andt why was Nixon certain to be impeached, because his polls nosedived. Why did Clinton survive impeachment, because his poll rating remained high
Total bollocks. Just admit you are wrong, for once, and stop acting like an 11-year old.
Well thankyou for that well argued response, nothing I said was wrong. If Nixon's poll ratings had remained skyhigh when the impeachment votes were taken he would probably have survived them as Clinton survived his impeachment votes
Nixon was going to be impeached because he was blatantly guilty of criminally obstructing the Watergate investigation, and clearly being complicit in using the office of the Presidency to pervert the outcome of democratic elections, thereby bringing the Office of the Presidency into disrepute. People - both the public and the politicians - were reacting to the facts. The polls were a consequence, not a cause, of the events that led to impeachment.
Not everyone lives and dies by polling. And yes, your refusal to ever admit you are wrong is juvenile. Just calling it as it is.
Sometimes it is instructive to shut up and listen.
@HYUFD - Yes and those tapes were connected to ever more evidence that the President of the United States had authorised a burglary of his opponents HQ and then tried to stop the investigation.
I just told you that. You don't need to repeat what I just told you. It doesn't speak well of you.
That evidence was what led to his polls nosediving and resignation.
Again, do not confuse cause and effect. It was obvious to all that Nixon was a crook. He had no support in Congress as a result of the 'smoking gun' tape. The men in suits from Congress turned up and told him he had to go. You obviously didn't live through this or you would understand.
The fact Hillary may have put some emails in her private account rather than the state account is nothing like the same unless there is some extraordinary revelation in those emails eg Hillary openly assisted an enemy of the US
You clearly didn't read my original post - yes, you clearly have no knowledge and understanding of this. Hillary didn't have a State email account.
It is nothing to do with Hillary using a private email account - it is that they have found classified info in her emails from that account. That is a crime.
Also comparing impeachment to federal criminal charges is ludicrous.
Of course you are being patronising, you cannot assume anything of my knowledge of US politics and history.
Well good for you, but some people can fall on hard times and be made redundant and having contributed into the pot all their lives it is immoral in my view to give them nothing to survive on beyond scraps of charity until they get their lives back on track
I paid £60k tax last year (and * knows how much NI) - can I have some of it back to pay for losses on my Brazil ISA?
I am not talking about some losses on some investments, I am talking about losing everything eg a minimum wage job and eating up most of your savings and having nothing left to fall back on, in my view any civilised society should provide enough to survive on until people get back on their feet, including for you were Ave it were you ever to face such misfortune
GRRRR HYUFD - had to log back in again to respond to this shyte
As I have already pointed out to you, due to the wealth I have earned for myself I would not get any state benefit if I lost my job. As it happens if that happened which hopefully it doesn't then actually I have enough to get me through to retirement - having already paid for benefits for a small primary school of children through my taxes!!!
*
Definitely off now GN
PS Priti Patel rules!!!
Wrong, as you can claim contributory JSA for 6 months regardless of savings
I really do not wish you ill, AveIt, perhaps your football team, but not you, but if you really are so prejudiced against the less fortunate, as your posts would imply, I hope you do not hit hard times.
Indeed, we are all but a few bad decisions and some bad luck from calamity
Of course it has to do with polling, Clinton rode out Whitewater and Monicagate because his poll ratings remained high, Nixon initially rode out Watergate after his 1972 victory, it was only as his poll ratings nosedived he had to go
HYUFD Anyone who lived through Watergate knows that it was the certainty of impeachment that forced Nixon to resign. It had nothing to do with polls.
House Judiciary Committee passed the articles of impeachment 27-30 July. This is the first in 3 steps (next the full House votes on the findings of the Judiciary Committee, then the Senate sets up an impeachment trial). It rapidly became clear in August that this would happen. Nixon resigned rather than be impeached on 8 August.
Andt why was Nixon certain to be impeached, because his polls nosedived. Why did Clinton survive impeachment, because his poll rating remained high
Total bollocks. Just admit you are wrong, for once, and stop acting like an 11-year old.
Well thankyou for that well argued response, nothing I said was wrong. If Nixon's poll ratings had remained skyhigh when the impeachment votes were taken he would probably have survived them as Clinton survived his impeachment votes
Nixon was going to be impeached because he was blatantly guilty of criminally obstructing the Watergate investigation, and clearly being complicit in using the office of the Presidency to pervert the outcome of democratic elections, thereby bringing the Office of the Presidency into disrepute. People - both the public and the politicians - were reacting to the facts. The polls were a consequence, not a cause, of the events that led to impeachment.
Not everyone lives and dies by polling. And yes, your refusal to ever admit you are wrong is juvenile. Just calling it as it is.
Sometimes it is instructive to shut up and listen.
Yes, and those facts built up over time to show that he was using the Presidency to authorise a break in and burglary of his opponents HQ in order to undermine their election campaign and it was that which led to his poll fall. Unless and until Hillary is shown to have taken national security decisions which clearly aided America's enemies and were intended to endanger American lives whatever lies within her emails will not fatally undermine her campaign. Presidential campaigns do live and die by polling actually, they are elections after all
I will listen, that does not mean I have to accept all your arguments
“It should be halted. It is becoming a farce with longstanding members . . . in danger of getting trumped by people who have opposed the Labour party and want to break it up, expressly want to break it up — some of it is the Militant Tendency types coming back in.”
Maybe Harriet will stay on. Could do worse.
Harriet's ratings are significantly worse than Corbyn's in tomorrow's ST poll, indeed it actually suggests Labour should be more worried about Cooper winning than Corbyn https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/625049550315724800
Yes, thats the one thing that tempts me about Corbyn, better to go down fighting that not fighting at all. He may just get my vote after all. Fuck it.
I'm rather baffled as to why so many Labour supporters are feeling so defeatist (other than just having been defeated, I guess) less than 3 months into a 5 year parliament. Any talk about "going down" is bizarrely premature, to say the least.
You don't yet even know who you'll be facing at the next election. You might get lucky if the Conservatives get complacent and choose an unelectable right-winger (there are no shortage of candidates) as their next leader - so why gift them an unelectable left-winger?
The Labour Party now has the rather unenviable record of having suffered net seat losses at the last 4 consecutive general elections? 4!!! Do you really feel like picking Corbyn and trying for a near certain run of 5 ???!!! You need to show the electorate that you're listening to them - not sticking two fingers up at their verdict on you.
I think it's a great pity that leaders of defeated parties don't feel able to stay on a while after election defeats these days, at least long enough to ease their parties through the worst of the post-GE traumas, before the process of choosing a new leader begins. There's no doubt at all that the Labour Party isn't quite in the right frame of mind to make important decisions yet and it seems rather cruel that they're being forced to do so.
Of course it has to do with polling, Clinton rode out Whitewater and Monicagate because his poll ratings remained high, Nixon initially rode out Watergate after his 1972 victory, it was only as his poll ratings nosedived he had to go
HYUFD Anyone who lived through Watergate knows that it was the certainty of impeachment that forced Nixon to resign. It had nothing to do with polls.
House Judiciary Committee passed the articles of impeachment 27-30 July. This is the first in 3 steps (next the full House votes on the findings of the Judiciary Committee, then the Senate sets up an impeachment trial). It rapidly became clear in August that this would happen. Nixon resigned rather than be impeached on 8 August.
Andt why was Nixon certain to be impeached, because his polls nosedived. Why did Clinton survive impeachment, because his poll rating remained high
Total bollocks. Just admit you are wrong, for once, and stop acting like an 11-year old.
Well thankyou for that well argued response, nothing I said was wrong. If Nixon's poll ratings had remained skyhigh when the impeachment votes were taken he would probably have survived them as Clinton survived his impeachment votes
Nixon was going to be impeached because he was blatantly guilty of criminally obstructing the Watergate investigation, and clearly being complicit in using the office of the Presidency to pervert the outcome of democratic elections, thereby bringing the Office of the Presidency into disrepute. People - both the public and the politicians - were reacting to the facts. The polls were a consequence, not a cause, of the events that led to impeachment.
Not everyone lives and dies by polling. And yes, your refusal to ever admit you are wrong is juvenile. Just calling it as it is.
Sometimes it is instructive to shut up and listen.
Yes, and those facts built up over time to show that he was using the Presidency to authorise a break in and burglary of his opponents HQ in order to undermine their election campaign and it was that which led to his poll fall. Unless and until Hillary is shown to have taken national security decisions which clearly aided America's enemies and were intended to endanger American lives whatever lies within her emails will not fatally undermine her campaign. Presidential campaigns do live and die by polling actually, they are elections after all
I will listen, that does not mean I have to accept all your arguments
Good Grief - you really STILL don't get the email problem at all, do you?
If the 140,000 figure is accurate then surely Corbyn must have a very, very good chance indeed of winning.
Looks to me as if this is now getting incredibly serious - could the next move be something like a joint statement / press conference by Kinnock and Brown calling for the election to be halted?
On what grounds? While it's supposed to be 'genuine' Labour supporters voting in the election, the defence mechanism against a candidate not sufficiently backed by MPs (and in an imperfect representation as a result, party members) as to be deemed 'suitable', is meant to be the MP nomination limit. That is, only suitable candidates make it through to the open vote, so it isn't supposed to matter which wins, and though undermined a little that doesn't seem totally undermined if people are marshalling behind a particular candidate for less than pure reasons, as they have implicitly said all the candidates are viable labour leaders already.
To suspend the race would be to admit they shouldn't have allowed Corbyn on the ballot. Ok, if that's what they want, but best be sure it's worth looking silly.
"HARRIET HARMAN has been urged to suspend the Labour leadership race after evidence emerged that hard left infiltration is fuelling a huge surge in party membership.
More than 140,000 new activists are projected to have joined by the deadline for registration to vote, a rise of more than two thirds since the election, with many signing up to back the hard left candidate Jeremy Corbyn.
The Communist party of Great Britain has called on supporters to join and back Corbyn as part of its revolutionary “strategy” while Green party activists have also been discussing how to vote for him."
If Labour think that their members are going to get outvoted by members of the Communist Party in their own leadership contest then they've got much larger problems than Jeremy Corbyn.
Quite. Surely the Corbyn bubble will burst, this has to be a lot of noise from one side and quiet from those longstanding non left types, surely?
Harman is probably thinking that if she had known the field was this poor she would have had a crack herself. She probably would have won too.
“It should be halted. It is becoming a farce with longstanding members . . . in danger of getting trumped by people who have opposed the Labour party and want to break it up, expressly want to break it up — some of it is the Militant Tendency types coming back in.”
Maybe Harriet will stay on. Could do worse.
Harriet's ratings are significantly worse than Corbyn's in tomorrow's ST poll, indeed it actually suggests Labour should be more worried about Cooper winning than Corbyn https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/625049550315724800
I think those graphs mostly show that the public do not know the 4 candidates well enough to form an opinion when compared with the better known old timers.
Yes, and those facts built up over time to show that he was using the Presidency to authorise a break in and burglary of his opponents HQ in order to undermine their election campaign and it was that which led to his poll fall. Unless and until Hillary is shown to have taken national security decisions which clearly aided America's enemies and were intended to endanger American lives whatever lies within her emails will not fatally undermine her campaign. Presidential campaigns do live and die by polling actually, they are elections after all
I will listen, that does not mean I have to accept all your arguments
Disagree. If Hillary is found to have lied repeatedly to or deliberately misled the US electorate about the nature of the emails that went through her server, then that will have a very large electoral consequences, even short of criminal action against her.
Evidence that could come out of ServerGate to achieve that outcome would include: 1. classified emails found on her server, or emails which clearly should have been classified 2. evidence that she deliberately did not classify emails she sent from that server that should have been classified, or 3. evidence that she prevailed upon employees not to classify emails they sent to her that should have been classified.
“It should be halted. It is becoming a farce with longstanding members . . . in danger of getting trumped by people who have opposed the Labour party and want to break it up, expressly want to break it up — some of it is the Militant Tendency types coming back in.”
Maybe Harriet will stay on. Could do worse.
Harriet's ratings are significantly worse than Corbyn's in tomorrow's ST poll, indeed it actually suggests Labour should be more worried about Cooper winning than Corbyn https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/625049550315724800
I think those graphs mostly show that the public do not know the 4 candidates well enough to form an opinion when compared with the better known old timers.
Maybe and it does suggest David Miliband remains 'the Prince across the water' but net positive and negative does allow at least something for name recognition
If the 140,000 figure is accurate then surely Corbyn must have a very, very good chance indeed of winning.
Looks to me as if this is now getting incredibly serious - could the next move be something like a joint statement / press conference by Kinnock and Brown calling for the election to be halted?
On what grounds? While it's supposed to be 'genuine' Labour supporters voting in the election, the defence mechanism against a candidate not sufficiently backed by MPs (and in an imperfect representation as a result, party members) as to be deemed 'suitable', is meant to be the MP nomination limit. That is, only suitable candidates make it through to the open vote, so it isn't supposed to matter which wins, and though undermined a little that doesn't seem totally undermined if people are marshalling behind a particular candidate for less than pure reasons, as they have implicitly said all the candidates are viable labour leaders already.
To suspend the race would be to admit they shouldn't have allowed Corbyn on the ballot. Ok, if that's what they want, but best be sure it's worth looking silly.
"HARRIET HARMAN has been urged to suspend the Labour leadership race after evidence emerged that hard left infiltration is fuelling a huge surge in party membership.
More than 140,000 new activists are projected to have joined by the deadline for registration to vote, a rise of more than two thirds since the election, with many signing up to back the hard left candidate Jeremy Corbyn.
The Communist party of Great Britain has called on supporters to join and back Corbyn as part of its revolutionary “strategy” while Green party activists have also been discussing how to vote for him."
If Labour think that their members are going to get outvoted by members of the Communist Party in their own leadership contest then they've got much larger problems than Jeremy Corbyn.
Quite. Surely the Corbyn bubble will burst, this has to be a lot of noise from one side and quiet from those longstanding non left types, surely?
Harman is probably thinking that if she had known the field was this poor she would have had a crack herself. She probably would have won too.
We all discuss democracy on here. I guess we all have our own understanding of what democracy means .... We have this, yet...many do not.
I have Just watched a film based on the life of Aung San Suu Kyi. In regard to Burma.
If you haven't seen this may I very highly recommend.
It's simply called "The Lady" (2011
"Please use you're Liberty to promote ours" Aung San Suu Kyi
Burma has elections this November for 75% of the seats in both houses (25% are reserved for the military). Progress at last.
I did some work running a teaching course in Burma some years ago. Lovely country and people but strange to be warned of police spies in the hospital. A glimpse of what some people have to put up with.
'Nixon was going to be impeached because he was blatantly guilty of criminally obstructing the Watergate investigation, and clearly being complicit in using the office of the Presidency to pervert the outcome of democratic elections, thereby bringing the Office of the Presidency into disrepute. People - both the public and the politicians - were reacting to the facts. The polls were a consequence, not a cause, of the events that led to impeachment.
Not everyone lives and dies by polling. And yes, your refusal to ever admit you are wrong is juvenile. Just calling it as it is.
Sometimes it is instructive to shut up and listen.
Yes, and those facts built up over time to show that he was using the Presidency to authorise a break in and burglary of his opponents HQ in order to undermine their election campaign and it was that which led to his poll fall. Unless and until Hillary is shown to have taken national security decisions which clearly aided America's enemies and were intended to endanger American lives whatever lies within her emails will not fatally undermine her campaign. Presidential campaigns do live and die by polling actually, they are elections after all
I will listen, that does not mean I have to accept all your arguments
Good Grief - you really STILL don't get the email problem at all, do you?'
No and nor do most voters unless and until something is uncovered showing Hillary deliberately endangered US lives
Yes, and those facts built up over time to show that he was using the Presidency to authorise a break in and burglary of his opponents HQ in order to undermine their election campaign and it was that which led to his poll fall. Unless and until Hillary is shown to have taken national security decisions which clearly aided America's enemies and were intended to endanger American lives whatever lies within her emails will not fatally undermine her campaign. Presidential campaigns do live and die by polling actually, they are elections after all
I will listen, that does not mean I have to accept all your arguments
Disagree. If Hillary is found to have lied repeatedly to or deliberately misled the US electorate about the nature of the emails that went through her server, then that will have a very large electoral consequences, even short of criminal action against her.
Evidence that could come out of ServerGate to achieve that outcome would include: 1. classified emails found on her server, or emails which clearly should have been classified 2. evidence that she deliberately did not classify emails she sent from that server that should have been classified, or 3. evidence that she prevailed upon employees not to classify emails they sent to her that should have been classified.
The average voter in Ohio is not going to determine their vote on whether Hillary disclosed the precise nature of her emails and gave it the exact security classification she should have or not, they may do if they show she deliberately endangered US lives
Yes, and those facts built up over time to show that he was using the Presidency to authorise a break in and burglary of his opponents HQ in order to undermine their election campaign and it was that which led to his poll fall. Unless and until Hillary is shown to have taken national security decisions which clearly aided America's enemies and were intended to endanger American lives whatever lies within her emails will not fatally undermine her campaign. Presidential campaigns do live and die by polling actually, they are elections after all
I will listen, that does not mean I have to accept all your arguments
Disagree. If Hillary is found to have lied repeatedly to or deliberately misled the US electorate about the nature of the emails that went through her server, then that will have a very large electoral consequences, even short of criminal action against her.
Evidence that could come out of ServerGate to achieve that outcome would include: 1. classified emails found on her server, or emails which clearly should have been classified 2. evidence that she deliberately did not classify emails she sent from that server that should have been classified, or 3. evidence that she prevailed upon employees not to classify emails they sent to her that should have been classified.
The average voter in Ohio is not going to determine their vote on whether Hillary disclosed the precise nature of her emails and gave it the exact security classification she should have or not, they may do if they show she deliberately endangered US lives
Wrong. The average voter in the States does not like being lied to. Period. End of story.
That was Nixon's ultimate political crime - lying to the electorate.
Of course, the die-hard Dems will vote for her regardless, if she is the party's nominee. But the floating voters won't if she has clearly lied to them. And the grandees of the Democratic party know this and so will not let it get that far if there is a story and it breaks before the Convention.
@HYUFD - Yes and those tapes were connected to ever more evidence that the President of the United States had authorised a burglary of his opponents HQ and then tried to stop the investigation.
I just told you that. You don't need to repeat what I just told you. It doesn't speak well of you.
That evidence was what led to his polls nosediving and resignation.
Again, do not confuse cause and effect. It was obvious to all that Nixon was a crook. He had no support in Congress as a result of the 'smoking gun' tape. The men in suits from Congress turned up and told him he had to go. You obviously didn't live through this or you would understand.
The fact Hillary may have put some emails in her private account rather than the state account is nothing like the same unless there is some extraordinary revelation in those emails eg Hillary openly assisted an enemy of the US
You clearly didn't read my original post - yes, you clearly have no knowledge and understanding of this. Hillary didn't have a State email account.
It is nothing to do with Hillary using a private email account - it is that they have found classified info in her emails from that account. That is a crime.
Also comparing impeachment to federal criminal charges is ludicrous.
Of course you are being patronising, you cannot assume anything of my knowledge of US politics and history.
Oh I think I can....
Why did he not have support in Congress because his polls in Congressmens districts had nosedived. Have any federal criminal charges been brought, no, as yet they are unlikely to be brought. Nixon of course could well have faced jail had Ford not pardoned him
@HYUFD - Yes and those tapes were connected to ever more evidence that the President of the United States had authorised a burglary of his opponents HQ and then tried to stop the investigation.
I just told you that. You don't need to repeat what I just told you. It doesn't speak well of you.
That evidence was what led to his polls nosediving and resignation.
Again, do not confuse cause and effect. It was obvious to all that Nixon was a crook. He had no support in Congress as a result of the 'smoking gun' tape. The men in suits from Congress turned up and told him he had to go. You obviously didn't live through this or you would understand.
The fact Hillary may have put some emails in her private account rather than the state account is nothing like the same unless there is some extraordinary revelation in those emails eg Hillary openly assisted an enemy of the US
You clearly didn't read my original post - yes, you clearly have no knowledge and understanding of this. Hillary didn't have a State email account.
It is nothing to do with Hillary using a private email account - it is that they have found classified info in her emails from that account. That is a crime.
Also comparing impeachment to federal criminal charges is ludicrous.
Of course you are being patronising, you cannot assume anything of my knowledge of US politics and history.
Oh I think I can....
Why did he not have support in Congress because his polls in Congressmens districts had nosedived. Have any federal criminal charges been brought, no, as yet they are unlikely to be brought. Nixon of course could well have faced jail had Ford not pardoned him
Oh FFS. He didn't have the support of members of Congress from either party because no politician wants to be associated with a known criminal. Not because his poll numbers were down.
Yes, and those facts built up over time to show that he was using the Presidency to authorise a break in and burglary of his opponents HQ in order to undermine their election campaign and it was that which led to his poll fall. Unless and until Hillary is shown to have taken national security decisions which clearly aided America's enemies and were intended to endanger American lives whatever lies within her emails will not fatally undermine her campaign. Presidential campaigns do live and die by polling actually, they are elections after all
I will listen, that does not mean I have to accept all your arguments
Disagree. If Hillary is found to have lied repeatedly to or deliberately misled the US electorate about the nature of the emails that went through her server, then that will have a very large electoral consequences, even short of criminal action against her.
Evidence that could come out of ServerGate to achieve that outcome would include: 1. classified emails found on her server, or emails which clearly should have been classified 2. evidence that she deliberately did not classify emails she sent from that server that should have been classified, or 3. evidence that she prevailed upon employees not to classify emails they sent to her that should have been classified.
The average voter in Ohio is not going to determine their vote on whether Hillary disclosed the precise nature of her emails and gave it the exact security classification she should have or not, they may do if they show she deliberately endangered US lives
Wrong. The average voter in the States does not like being lied to. Period. End of story.
That was Nixon's ultimate political crime - lying to the electorate.
Of course, the die-hard Dems will vote for her regardless, if she is the party's nominee. But the floating voters won't if she has clearly lied to them. And the grandees of the Democratic party know this and so will not let it get that far if there is a story and it breaks before the Convention.
Oh really, floating voters did not seem too concerned when Bill lied about 'not having sexual relations' with Lewinsky. Nixon's crime was he ordered a burglary, whether he lied about it or not. I also fail to see where this great lie is anyway, has Hillary ever made a great statement about how she classified her emails to the US public? Not to my knowledge
Oh really, floating voters did not seem too concerned when Bill lied about 'not having sexual relations' with Lewinsky. Nixon's crime was he ordered a burglary, whether he lied about it or not. I also fail to see where this great lie is anyway, has Hillary ever made a great statement about how she classified her emails to the US public? Not to my knowledge
She is on record as saying that there was no classified material on her server.
Bill was not up for reelection after the Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998. The scandal is deemed to have affected the 2000 election:
"The scandal arguably affected the 2000 U.S. presidential election in two contradictory ways. Democratic Party candidate and sitting vice president Al Gore claimed that Clinton's scandal had been "a drag" that deflated the enthusiasm of their party's base, effectively suppressing Democratic votes. Clinton claimed that the scandal had made Gore's campaign too cautious, and that if Clinton had been allowed to campaign for Gore in Arkansas and New Hampshire, either state would have delivered Gore's needed electoral votes regardless of what happened in Florida." from wikipedia
@HYUFD - Yes and those tapes were connected to ever more evidence that the President of the United States had authorised a burglary of his opponents HQ and then tried to stop the investigation.
I just told you that. You don't need to repeat what I just told you. It doesn't speak well of you.
That evidence was what led to his polls nosediving and resignation.
Again, do not confuse cause and effect. It was obvious to all that Nixon was a crook. He had no support in Congress as a result of the 'smoking gun' tape. The men in suits from Congress turned up and told him he had to go. You obviously didn't live through this or you would understand.
The fact Hillary may have put some emails in her private account rather than the state account is nothing like the same unless there is some extraordinary revelation in those emails eg Hillary openly assisted an enemy of the US
You clearly didn't read my original post - yes, you clearly have no knowledge and understanding of this. Hillary didn't have a State email account.
It is nothing to do with Hillary using a private email account - it is that they have found classified info in her emails from that account. That is a crime.
Also comparing impeachment to federal criminal charges is ludicrous.
Of course you are being patronising, you cannot assume anything of my knowledge of US politics and history.
Oh I think I can....
Why did he not have support in Congress because his polls in Congressmens districts had nosedived. Have any federal criminal charges been brought, no, as yet they are unlikely to be brought. Nixon of course could well have faced jail had Ford not pardoned him
He had no support in Congress because everyone in the country knew he was implicated in the break-in and had lied about it. He was a crook.
The last two sentences don't even make sense. Of course no charges were brought. He resigned, so no impeachment. Ford pardoned him so no criminal charges. They are not likely to be brought because he's been dead for years.
Of course you are being patronising, you cannot assume anything of my knowledge of US politics and history.
Yes, and those facts built up over time to show that he was using the Presidency to authorise a break in and burglary of his opponents HQ in order to undermine their election campaign and it was that which led to his poll fall. Unless and until Hillary is shown to have taken national security decisions which clearly aided America's enemies and were intended to endanger American lives whatever lies within her emails will not fatally undermine her campaign. Presidential campaigns do live and die by polling actually, they are elections after all
I will listen, that does not mean I have to accept all your arguments
Disagree. If Hillary is found to have lied repeatedly to or deliberately misled the US electorate about the nature of the emails that went through her server, then that will have a very large electoral consequences, even short of criminal action against her.
Evidence that could come out of ServerGate to achieve that outcome would include: 1. classified emails found on her server, or emails which clearly should have been classified 2. evidence that she deliberately did not classify emails she sent from that server that should have been classified, or 3. evidence that she prevailed upon employees not to classify emails they sent to her that should have been classified.
The average voter in Ohio is not going to determine their vote on whether Hillary disclosed the precise nature of her emails and gave it the exact security classification she should have or not, they may do if they show she deliberately endangered US lives
Wrong. The average voter in the States does not like being lied to. Period. End of story.
That was Nixon's ultimate political crime - lying to the electorate.
Of course, the die-hard Dems will vote for her regardless, if she is the party's nominee. But the floating voters won't if she has clearly lied to them. And the grandees of the Democratic party know this and so will not let it get that far if there is a story and it breaks before the Convention.
Oh really, floating voters did not seem too concerned when Bill lied about 'not having sexual relations' with Lewinsky. Nixon's crime was he ordered a burglary, whether he lied about it or not. I also fail to see where this great lie is anyway, has Hillary ever made a great statement about how she classified her emails to the US public? Not to my knowledge
That's the point !!!!!! She has steadfastly maintained there was no classified material on her server. Now we know for a fact that she lied about that.
You really have no idea, do you?
AS a matter of pure interest, and not related to the discussion, whereabouts are you?
@HYUFD - Yes and those tapes were connected to ever more evidence that the President of the United States had authorised a burglary of his opponents HQ and then tried to stop the investigation.
I just told you that. You don't need to repeat what I just told you. It doesn't speak well of you.
That evidence was what led to his polls nosediving and resignation.
Again, do not confuse cause and effect. It was obvious to all that Nixon was a crook. He had no support in Congress as a result of the 'smoking gun' tape. The men in suits from Congress turned up and told him he had to go. You obviously didn't live through this or you would understand.
The fact Hillary may have put some emails in her private account rather than the state account is nothing like the same unless there is some extraordinary revelation in those emails eg Hillary openly assisted an enemy of the US
You clearly didn't read my original post - yes, you clearly have no knowledge and understanding of this. Hillary didn't have a State email account.
It is nothing to do with Hillary using a private email account - it is that they have found classified info in her emails from that account. That is a crime.
Also comparing impeachment to federal criminal charges is ludicrous.
Of course you are being patronising, you cannot assume anything of my knowledge of US politics and history.
Oh I think I can....
Why did he not have support in Congress because his polls in Congressmens districts had nosedived. Have any federal criminal charges been brought, no, as yet they are unlikely to be brought. Nixon of course could well have faced jail had Ford not pardoned him
Oh FFS. He didn't have the support of members of Congress from either party because no politician wants to be associated with a known criminal. Not because his poll numbers were down.
Given the history of some Congressmen that is debateable
Oh really, floating voters did not seem too concerned when Bill lied about 'not having sexual relations' with Lewinsky. Nixon's crime was he ordered a burglary, whether he lied about it or not. I also fail to see where this great lie is anyway, has Hillary ever made a great statement about how she classified her emails to the US public? Not to my knowledge
She is on record as saying that there was no classified material on her server.
Bill was not up for reelection after the Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998. The scandal is deemed to have affected the 2000 election:
"The scandal arguably affected the 2000 U.S. presidential election in two contradictory ways. Democratic Party candidate and sitting vice president Al Gore claimed that Clinton's scandal had been "a drag" that deflated the enthusiasm of their party's base, effectively suppressing Democratic votes. Clinton claimed that the scandal had made Gore's campaign too cautious, and that if Clinton had been allowed to campaign for Gore in Arkansas and New Hampshire, either state would have delivered Gore's needed electoral votes regardless of what happened in Florida." from wikipedia
Bill Clinton had an over 60% approval rating when he left office, you could just as easily have made the argument Gore did not make enough of Clinton's record and instead engaged in populist class warfare of 'the people v the powerful'
@HYUFD - Yes and those tapes were connected to ever more evidence that the President of the United States had authorised a burglary of his opponents HQ and then tried to stop the investigation.
I just told you that. You don't need to repeat what I just told you. It doesn't speak well of you.
That evidence was what led to his polls nosediving and resignation.
Again, do not confuse cause and effect. It was obvious to all that Nixon was a crook. He had no support in Congress as a result of the 'smoking gun' tape. The men in suits from Congress turned up and told him he had to go. You obviously didn't live through this or you would understand.
The fact Hillary may have put some emails in her private account rather than the state account is nothing like the same unless there is some extraordinary revelation in those emails eg Hillary openly assisted an enemy of the US
You clearly didn't read my original post - yes, you clearly have no knowledge and understanding of this. Hillary didn't have a State email account.
It is nothing to do with Hillary using a private email account - it is that they have found classified info in her emails from that account. That is a crime.
Also comparing impeachment to federal criminal charges is ludicrous.
Of course you are being patronising, you cannot assume anything of my knowledge of US politics and history.
Oh I think I can....
Why did he not have support in Congress because his polls in Congressmens districts had nosedived. Have any federal criminal charges been brought, no, as yet they are unlikely to be brought. Nixon of course could well have faced jail had Ford not pardoned him
He had no support in Congress because everyone in the country knew he was implicated in the break-in and had lied about it. He was a crook.
The last two sentences don't even make sense. Of course no charges were brought. He resigned, so no impeachment. Ford pardoned him so no criminal charges. They are not likely to be brought because he's been dead for years.
Of course you are being patronising, you cannot assume anything of my knowledge of US politics and history.
Oh I think I can....
Had Ford not pardoned Nixon he could have well have been prosecuted as a private citizen, however Ford did pardon him even if it helped cost him the 1976 election to restore peace to the nation
Oh really, floating voters did not seem too concerned when Bill lied about 'not having sexual relations' with Lewinsky. Nixon's crime was he ordered a burglary, whether he lied about it or not. I also fail to see where this great lie is anyway, has Hillary ever made a great statement about how she classified her emails to the US public? Not to my knowledge
She is on record as saying that there was no classified material on her server.
Bill was not up for reelection after the Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998. The scandal is deemed to have affected the 2000 election:
"The scandal arguably affected the 2000 U.S. presidential election in two contradictory ways. Democratic Party candidate and sitting vice president Al Gore claimed that Clinton's scandal had been "a drag" that deflated the enthusiasm of their party's base, effectively suppressing Democratic votes. Clinton claimed that the scandal had made Gore's campaign too cautious, and that if Clinton had been allowed to campaign for Gore in Arkansas and New Hampshire, either state would have delivered Gore's needed electoral votes regardless of what happened in Florida." from wikipedia
Bill Clinton had an over 60% approval rating when he left office, you could just as easily have made the argument Gore did not make enough of Clinton's record and instead engaged in populist class warfare of 'the people v the powerful'
I figure the only way to help you stop digging yourself further into the hole and get over your China Syndrome is to just stop responding. Have a good night.
@HYUFD - Yes and those tapes were connected to ever more evidence that the President of the United States had authorised a burglary of his opponents HQ and then tried to stop the investigation.
I just told you that. You don't need to repeat what I just told you. It doesn't speak well of you.
That evidence was what led to his polls nosediving and resignation.
Again, do not confuse cause and effect. It was obvious to all that Nixon was a crook. He had no support in Congress as a result of the 'smoking gun' tape. The men in suits from Congress turned up and told him he had to go. You obviously didn't live through this or you would understand.
The fact Hillary may have put some emails in her private account rather than the state account is nothing like the same unless there is some extraordinary revelation in those emails eg Hillary openly assisted an enemy of the US
You clearly didn't read my original post - yes, you clearly have no knowledge and understanding of this. Hillary didn't have a State email account.
It is nothing to do with Hillary using a private email account - it is that they have found classified info in her emails from that account. That is a crime.
Also comparing impeachment to federal criminal charges is ludicrous.
Of course you are being patronising, you cannot assume anything of my knowledge of US politics and history.
Oh I think I can....
Why did he not have support in Congress because his polls in Congressmens districts had nosedived. Have any federal criminal charges been brought, no, as yet they are unlikely to be brought. Nixon of course could well have faced jail had Ford not pardoned him
Oh FFS. He didn't have the support of members of Congress from either party because no politician wants to be associated with a known criminal. Not because his poll numbers were down.
Given the history of some Congressmen that is debateable
There is a world of difference between being a crook but nobody knows and wanting to be associated with one that everybody knows.
'Oh really, floating voters did not seem too concerned when Bill lied about 'not having sexual relations' with Lewinsky. Nixon's crime was he ordered a burglary, whether he lied about it or not. I also fail to see where this great lie is anyway, has Hillary ever made a great statement about how she classified her emails to the US public? Not to my knowledge
That's the point !!!!!! She has steadfastly maintained there was no classified material on her server. Now we know for a fact that she lied about that.
You really have no idea, do you?
AS a matter of pure interest, and not related to the discussion, whereabouts are you?'
'The inspector general for the intelligence community has informed members of Congress that some material Hillary Clinton emailed from her private server contained classified information, but it was not identified that way.
Because it was not identified, it is unclear whether Clinton realized she was potentially compromising classified information.
The IG reviewed a "limited sampling" of her emails and among those 40 reviewed found that "four contained classified [intelligence community] information," wrote the IG Charles McCullough in a letter to Congress.
McCullough noted that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings" but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network.
I'm watching an Arena Football game - this nonsense is a great distraction.
HYUFD - have you noticed yet that the two people disagreeing with you have both lived in the US for many years?
Yes and you are both Republicans , so not exactly objective
and you are????
In American terms I would be moderate middle I suppose, I would vote for Hillary, otherwise I would vote for the GOP top tier over Sanders and Biden, with the exception of Cruz and Trump and maybe Walker
'Oh really, floating voters did not seem too concerned when Bill lied about 'not having sexual relations' with Lewinsky. Nixon's crime was he ordered a burglary, whether he lied about it or not. I also fail to see where this great lie is anyway, has Hillary ever made a great statement about how she classified her emails to the US public? Not to my knowledge
That's the point !!!!!! She has steadfastly maintained there was no classified material on her server. Now we know for a fact that she lied about that.
You really have no idea, do you?
AS a matter of pure interest, and not related to the discussion, whereabouts are you?'
'The inspector general for the intelligence community has informed members of Congress that some material Hillary Clinton emailed from her private server contained classified information, but it was not identified that way.
Because it was not identified, it is unclear whether Clinton realized she was potentially compromising classified information.
The IG reviewed a "limited sampling" of her emails and among those 40 reviewed found that "four contained classified [intelligence community] information," wrote the IG Charles McCullough in a letter to Congress.
McCullough noted that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings" but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network.
@HYUFD - Yes and those tapes were connected to ever more evidence that the President of the United States had authorised a burglary of his opponents HQ and then tried to stop the investigation.
I just told you that. You don't need to repeat what I just told you. It doesn't speak well of you.
That evidence was what led to his polls nosediving and resignation.
Again, do not confuse cause and effect. It was obvious to all that Nixon was a crook. He had no support in Congress as a result of the 'smoking gun' tape. The men in suits from Congress turned up and told him he had to go. You obviously didn't live through this or you would understand.
The fact Hillary may have put some emails in her private account rather than the state account is nothing like the same unless there is some extraordinary revelation in those emails eg Hillary openly assisted an enemy of the US
You clearly didn't read my original post - yes, you clearly have no knowledge and understanding of this. Hillary didn't have a State email account.
It is nothing to do with Hillary using a private email account - it is that they have found classified info in her emails from that account. That is a crime.
Also comparing impeachment to federal criminal charges is ludicrous.
Of course you are being patronising, you cannot assume anything of my knowledge of US politics and history.
Oh I think I can....
Why did he not have support in Congress because his polls in Congressmens districts had nosedived. Have any federal criminal charges been brought, no, as yet they are unlikely to be brought. Nixon of course could well have faced jail had Ford not pardoned him
Oh FFS. He didn't have the support of members of Congress from either party because no politician wants to be associated with a known criminal. Not because his poll numbers were down.
Given the history of some Congressmen that is debateable
There is a world of difference between being a crook but nobody knows and wanting to be associated with one that everybody knows.
The only difference is one of notoriety and the impact it would have on your reputation
Oh really, floating voters did not seem too concerned when Bill lied about 'not having sexual relations' with Lewinsky. Nixon's crime was he ordered a burglary, whether he lied about it or not. I also fail to see where this great lie is anyway, has Hillary ever made a great statement about how she classified her emails to the US public? Not to my knowledge
She is on record as saying that there was no classified material on her server.
Bill was not up for reelection after the Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998. The scandal is deemed to have affected the 2000 election:
"The scandal arguably affected the 2000 U.S. presidential election in two contradictory ways. Democratic Party candidate and sitting vice president Al Gore claimed that Clinton's scandal had been "a drag" that deflated the enthusiasm of their party's base, effectively suppressing Democratic votes. Clinton claimed that the scandal had made Gore's campaign too cautious, and that if Clinton had been allowed to campaign for Gore in Arkansas and New Hampshire, either state would have delivered Gore's needed electoral votes regardless of what happened in Florida." from wikipedia
Bill Clinton had an over 60% approval rating when he left office, you could just as easily have made the argument Gore did not make enough of Clinton's record and instead engaged in populist class warfare of 'the people v the powerful'
I figure the only way to help you stop digging yourself further into the hole and get over your China Syndrome is to just stop responding. Have a good night.
I'm watching an Arena Football game - this nonsense is a great distraction.
HYUFD - have you noticed yet that the two people disagreeing with you have both lived in the US for many years?
Yes and you are both Republicans , so not exactly objective
and you are????
In American terms I would be moderate middle I suppose, I would vote for Hillary, otherwise I would vote for the GOP top tier over Sanders and Biden, with the exception of Cruz and Trump and maybe Walker
Hillary is NOT moderate middle these days. Her husband was second term. The Democratic Party has moved radically left over the last decade. The fact she is a flip flop machine should tell you that.
'Oh really, floating voters did not seem too concerned when Bill lied about 'not having sexual relations' with Lewinsky. Nixon's crime was he ordered a burglary, whether he lied about it or not. I also fail to see where this great lie is anyway, has Hillary ever made a great statement about how she classified her emails to the US public? Not to my knowledge
That's the point !!!!!! She has steadfastly maintained there was no classified material on her server. Now we know for a fact that she lied about that.
You really have no idea, do you?
AS a matter of pure interest, and not related to the discussion, whereabouts are you?'
'The inspector general for the intelligence community has informed members of Congress that some material Hillary Clinton emailed from her private server contained classified information, but it was not identified that way.
Because it was not identified, it is unclear whether Clinton realized she was potentially compromising classified information.
The IG reviewed a "limited sampling" of her emails and among those 40 reviewed found that "four contained classified [intelligence community] information," wrote the IG Charles McCullough in a letter to Congress.
McCullough noted that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings" but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network.
I'm watching an Arena Football game - this nonsense is a great distraction.
HYUFD - have you noticed yet that the two people disagreeing with you have both lived in the US for many years?
Yes and you are both Republicans , so not exactly objective
and you are????
In American terms I would be moderate middle I suppose, I would vote for Hillary, otherwise I would vote for the GOP top tier over Sanders and Biden, with the exception of Cruz and Trump and maybe Walker
Hillary is NOT moderate middle these days. Her husband was second term. The Democratic Party has moved radically left over the last decade. The fact she is a flip flop machine should tell you that.
I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
She is for me, Bernie Sanders and Pelosi may be more radically left agreed. You could equally argue much of the GOP has moved radically right
'Oh really, floating voters did not seem too concerned when Bill lied about 'not having sexual relations' with Lewinsky. Nixon's crime was he ordered a burglary, whether he lied about it or not. I also fail to see where this great lie is anyway, has Hillary ever made a great statement about how she classified her emails to the US public? Not to my knowledge
That's the point !!!!!! She has steadfastly maintained there was no classified material on her server. Now we know for a fact that she lied about that.
You really have no idea, do you?
AS a matter of pure interest, and not related to the discussion, whereabouts are you?'
'The inspector general for the intelligence community has informed members of Congress that some material Hillary Clinton emailed from her private server contained classified information, but it was not identified that way.
Because it was not identified, it is unclear whether Clinton realized she was potentially compromising classified information.
The IG reviewed a "limited sampling" of her emails and among those 40 reviewed found that "four contained classified [intelligence community] information," wrote the IG Charles McCullough in a letter to Congress.
McCullough noted that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings" but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network.
IT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!! Why not go back and read my original post on this again.
4 of 40 emails sampled contained classified information. It was on a private server. That is illegal.
The point is it is unclear whether she knew they were classified or whether they were emailed with her consent or not
It doesn't matter!!!!! It is illegal to send classified material over a private email system. Her lawyer has a thumb drive with all 30k emails in his office.
'The inspector general for the intelligence community has informed members of Congress that some material Hillary Clinton emailed from her private server contained classified information, but it was not identified that way.
Because it was not identified, it is unclear whether Clinton realized she was potentially compromising classified information.
The IG reviewed a "limited sampling" of her emails and among those 40 reviewed found that "four contained classified [intelligence community] information," wrote the IG Charles McCullough in a letter to Congress.
McCullough noted that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings" but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network.
IT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!! Why not go back and read my original post on this again.
4 of 40 emails sampled contained classified information. It was on a private server. That is illegal.
The point is it is unclear whether she knew they were classified or whether they were emailed with her consent or not 'It doesn't matter!!!!! It is illegal to send classified material over a private email system. Her lawyer has a thumb drive with all 30k emails in his office.
"The Journal story broke just as the Justice Department issued a statement correcting earlier reports that the probe into email from Clinton's server during her time as secretary of state was a criminal investigation.
Instead, a Justice Department official said that the agency had "received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information."
'The New York Times first reported late Thursday that inspectors general for the intelligence community and the State Department have asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation into Clinton's possible mishandling of classified email. The Times significantly revised its story Friday to say the matter was referred to Justice to examine whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with Clinton's ACCOUNT -- but not necessarily by Clinton.' http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/
I'm watching an Arena Football game - this nonsense is a great distraction.
HYUFD - have you noticed yet that the two people disagreeing with you have both lived in the US for many years?
Yes and you are both Republicans , so not exactly objective
and you are????
In American terms I would be moderate middle I suppose, I would vote for Hillary, otherwise I would vote for the GOP top tier over Sanders and Biden, with the exception of Cruz and Trump and maybe Walker
Hillary is NOT moderate middle these days. Her husband was second term. The Democratic Party has moved radically left over the last decade. The fact she is a flip flop machine should tell you that.
I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
She is for me, Bernie Sanders and Pelosi may be more radically left agreed. You could equally argue much of the GOP has moved radically right
On the US political spectrum she is tacking ever more left, and we are up to 6 or 7 policy flip flops now.
Obama is extreme left, for a reference point.
The Republicans did go right, but when they realized that being elected is more important than being doctrinally pure, they started to see sense and got real.
The Tea Party was a reaction to the first Obama years and is slowly losing its oomph with the sunset of Obama.
'The inspector general for the intelligence community has informed members of Congress that some material Hillary Clinton emailed from her private server contained classified information, but it was not identified that way.
Because it was not identified, it is unclear whether Clinton realized she was potentially compromising classified information.
The IG reviewed a "limited sampling" of her emails and among those 40 reviewed found that "four contained classified [intelligence community] information," wrote the IG Charles McCullough in a letter to Congress.
McCullough noted that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings" but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network.
IT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!! Why not go back and read my original post on this again.
4 of 40 emails sampled contained classified information. It was on a private server. That is illegal.
The point is it is unclear whether she knew they were classified or whether they were emailed with her consent or not 'It doesn't matter!!!!! It is illegal to send classified material over a private email system. Her lawyer has a thumb drive with all 30k emails in his office.
"The Journal story broke just as the Justice Department issued a statement correcting earlier reports that the probe into email from Clinton's server during her time as secretary of state was a criminal investigation.
Instead, a Justice Department official said that the agency had "received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information."
'The New York Times first reported late Thursday that inspectors general for the intelligence community and the State Department have asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation into Clinton's possible mishandling of classified email. The Times significantly revised its story Friday to say the matter was referred to Justice to examine whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with Clinton's ACCOUNT -- but not necessarily by Clinton.' http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/
Again - reread my original post on this. It covers all this.
'The inspector general for the intelligence community has informed members of Congress that some material Hillary Clinton emailed from her private server contained classified information, but it was not identified that way.
Because it was not identified, it is unclear whether Clinton realized she was potentially compromising classified information.
The IG reviewed a "limited sampling" of her emails and among those 40 reviewed found that "four contained classified [intelligence community] information," wrote the IG Charles McCullough in a letter to Congress.
McCullough noted that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings" but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network.
IT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!! Why not go back and read my original post on this again.
4 of 40 emails sampled contained classified information. It was on a private server. That is illegal.
The point is it is unclear whether she knew they were classified or whether they were emailed with her consent or not 'It doesn't matter!!!!! It is illegal to send classified material over a private email system. Her lawyer has a thumb drive with all 30k emails in his office.
"The Journal story broke just as the Justice Department issued a statement correcting earlier reports that the probe into email from Clinton's server during her time as secretary of state was a criminal investigation.
Instead, a Justice Department official said that the agency had "received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information."
'The New York Times first reported late Thursday that inspectors general for the intelligence community and the State Department have asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation into Clinton's possible mishandling of classified email. The Times significantly revised its story Friday to say the matter was referred to Justice to examine whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with Clinton's ACCOUNT -- but not necessarily by Clinton.' http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/
Again - reread my original post on this. It covers all this.
I think we will leave it there and await any further developments if and when they occur
I'm watching an Arena Football game - this nonsense is a great distraction.
HYUFD - have you noticed yet that the two people disagreeing with you have both lived in the US for many years?
Yes and you are both Republicans , so not exactly objective
and you are????
In American terms I would be moderate middle I suppose, I would vote for Hillary, otherwise I would vote for the GOP top tier over Sanders and Biden, with the exception of Cruz and Trump and maybe Walker
Hillary is NOT moderate middle these days. Her husband was second term. The Democratic Party has moved radically left over the last decade. The fact she is a flip flop machine should tell you that.
I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
She is for me, Bernie Sanders and Pelosi may be more radically left agreed. You could equally argue much of the GOP has moved radically right
On the US political spectrum she is tacking ever more left, and we are up to 6 or 7 policy flip flops now.
Obama is extreme left, for a reference point.
The Republicans did go right, but when they realized that being elected is more important than being doctrinally pure, they started to see sense and got real.
The Tea Party was a reaction to the first Obama years and is slowly losing its oomph with the sunset of Obama.
Obama clearly is not extreme left in relation to the average American otherwise he would not have won over 50% of the vote twice
Trump in many ways encapsulates the Tea Party, and who leads the polls at the moment? The Donald
IT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!! Why not go back and read my original post on this again.
4 of 40 emails sampled contained classified information. It was on a private server. That is illegal.
The point is it is unclear whether she knew they were classified or whether they were emailed with her consent or not
'It doesn't matter!!!!! It is illegal to send classified material over a private email system. Her lawyer has a thumb drive with all 30k emails in his office.
"The Journal story broke just as the Justice Department issued a statement correcting earlier reports that the probe into email from Clinton's server during her time as secretary of state was a criminal investigation.
Instead, a Justice Department official said that the agency had "received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information."
'The New York Times first reported late Thursday that inspectors general for the intelligence community and the State Department have asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation into Clinton's possible mishandling of classified email. The Times significantly revised its story Friday to say the matter was referred to Justice to examine whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with Clinton's ACCOUNT -- but not necessarily by Clinton.' http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/
Again - reread my original post on this. It covers all this.
I think we will leave it there and await any further developments if and when they occur
This is very simple - classified info was found in 4 of 40 emails emanating from the Clinton's email server, located at their home in Chappaqua. It doesn't matter who sent it, or received it. It's illegal to send, receive, or summarize classified info on a non-secure (read: non-government secure) network. The FBI has been 'notified' as a security concern NOT a criminal one.
Whether the data was marked as such is irrelevant. Secure government networks have addresses identifying them as such.
DOJ now has to decide how or whether to proceed. The fact that two Inspectors General have made the recommendation means they can't just sit on it. As I said in my original post, this won't happen fast.
I'm watching an Arena Football game - this nonsense is a great distraction.
and you are????
Hillary is NOT moderate middle these days. Her husband was second term. The Democratic Party has moved radically left over the last decade. The fact she is a flip flop machine should tell you that.
I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
She is for me, Bernie Sanders and Pelosi may be more radically left agreed. You could equally argue much of the GOP has moved radically right
On the US political spectrum she is tacking ever more left, and we are up to 6 or 7 policy flip flops now.
Obama is extreme left, for a reference point.
The Republicans did go right, but when they realized that being elected is more important than being doctrinally pure, they started to see sense and got real.
The Tea Party was a reaction to the first Obama years and is slowly losing its oomph with the sunset of Obama.
Obama clearly is not extreme left in relation to the average American otherwise he would not have won over 50% of the vote twice
Trump in many ways encapsulates the Tea Party, and who leads the polls at the moment? The Donald
We're back to polls again. Obama was a phenomenon who came out of nowhere, had no real record, legislative or otherwise, did not espouse any political philosophy, and whose message was hope and change. The fact he was black and the media were completely in the tank for him meant that people could project onto him their hopes and aspirations.
Even Dan Rather, as liberal as they come, said afterwards that he was very uncomfortable with how biased and uncritical the media was with Obama.
The mid-terms of 2010 gave a huge setback to Democrats unseen for over 80 years - even Obama called it a shellacking. Ditto 2014.
Yet in 2012 he is reelected. In poll after poll 2/3 of Americans think the country is heading in the wrong direction under his leadership.
A majority of Americans want Obamacare repealed, and his other policies don't fare any better.
Can I explain it? No. He got all the black vote, most of the hispanic vote and enough others to make it.
He is way left of America, which is why both houses of Congress, and most state governors (and even more state houses) are now Republican.
He has taken the Democratic Party far left, which is why Hillary is having to flip flop so much.
Trump at some point is going to flame out. But there is no doubt he has tapped into some frustration in the country.
Feedback from my mother in law in California: last time she called everyone one of the crazies in the right order:
Trump - egosticial, bombastic buffoon. Wants to be President so he can wear a red cap and silly hat and prance around. So that'll be a 'no', I guess
Cruz - likes him, but thinks he's the GOP's Obama: way out in crazie land
Huckebee: likes him, but he comes across as a sunday school teacher. Nice, but not right to be president
Hates Christie (no details), Rand Paul ("God, no! Did you know he's Ron Paul's son?). Perry is stupid, and Jindall is intelligent but "just missing something"
Preference is for a Bush-Walker ticket. Bush because he knows how politics works, how to do deals and compromise to get things done. Walker because he stands up for what he believes in (although she thinks he too willing to fight vs deal). Likes the fact Bush choose someone he believes in rather than "some stiff from a swing state like Ohio"
Read into that what you will...she supported Cain, Perry and Santorum last time round...
Comments
Not everyone lives and dies by polling. And yes, your refusal to ever admit you are wrong is juvenile. Just calling it as it is.
Sometimes it is instructive to shut up and listen.
I just told you that. You don't need to repeat what I just told you. It doesn't speak well of you.
That evidence was what led to his polls nosediving and resignation.
Again, do not confuse cause and effect. It was obvious to all that Nixon was a crook. He had no support in Congress as a result of the 'smoking gun' tape. The men in suits from Congress turned up and told him he had to go. You obviously didn't live through this or you would understand.
The fact Hillary may have put some emails in her private account rather than the state account is nothing like the same unless there is some extraordinary revelation in those emails eg Hillary openly assisted an enemy of the US
You clearly didn't read my original post - yes, you clearly have no knowledge and understanding of this. Hillary didn't have a State email account.
It is nothing to do with Hillary using a private email account - it is that they have found classified info in her emails from that account. That is a crime.
Also comparing impeachment to federal criminal charges is ludicrous.
Of course you are being patronising, you cannot assume anything of my knowledge of US politics and history.
Oh I think I can....
I will listen, that does not mean I have to accept all your arguments
https://twitter.com/TSEofPB/status/625049550315724800
You don't yet even know who you'll be facing at the next election. You might get lucky if the Conservatives get complacent and choose an unelectable right-winger (there are no shortage of candidates) as their next leader - so why gift them an unelectable left-winger?
The Labour Party now has the rather unenviable record of having suffered net seat losses at the last 4 consecutive general elections? 4!!! Do you really feel like picking Corbyn and trying for a near certain run of 5 ???!!! You need to show the electorate that you're listening to them - not sticking two fingers up at their verdict on you.
I think it's a great pity that leaders of defeated parties don't feel able to stay on a while after election defeats these days, at least long enough to ease their parties through the worst of the post-GE traumas, before the process of choosing a new leader begins. There's no doubt at all that the Labour Party isn't quite in the right frame of mind to make important decisions yet and it seems rather cruel that they're being forced to do so.
(Disclaimer - I've never voted Labour).
I have Just watched a film based on the life of Aung San Suu Kyi. In regard to Burma.
If you haven't seen this may I very highly recommend.
It's simply called "The Lady" (2011
"Please use you're Liberty to promote ours"
Aung San Suu Kyi
Evidence that could come out of ServerGate to achieve that outcome would include:
1. classified emails found on her server, or emails which clearly should have been classified
2. evidence that she deliberately did not classify emails she sent from that server that should have been classified, or
3. evidence that she prevailed upon employees not to classify emails they sent to her that should have been classified.
has a certain resonance
I did some work running a teaching course in Burma some years ago. Lovely country and people but strange to be warned of police spies in the hospital. A glimpse of what some people have to put up with.
'Nixon was going to be impeached because he was blatantly guilty of criminally obstructing the Watergate investigation, and clearly being complicit in using the office of the Presidency to pervert the outcome of democratic elections, thereby bringing the Office of the Presidency into disrepute. People - both the public and the politicians - were reacting to the facts. The polls were a consequence, not a cause, of the events that led to impeachment.
Not everyone lives and dies by polling. And yes, your refusal to ever admit you are wrong is juvenile. Just calling it as it is.
Sometimes it is instructive to shut up and listen.
Yes, and those facts built up over time to show that he was using the Presidency to authorise a break in and burglary of his opponents HQ in order to undermine their election campaign and it was that which led to his poll fall. Unless and until Hillary is shown to have taken national security decisions which clearly aided America's enemies and were intended to endanger American lives whatever lies within her emails will not fatally undermine her campaign. Presidential campaigns do live and die by polling actually, they are elections after all
I will listen, that does not mean I have to accept all your arguments
Good Grief - you really STILL don't get the email problem at all, do you?'
No and nor do most voters unless and until something is uncovered showing Hillary deliberately endangered US lives
That was Nixon's ultimate political crime - lying to the electorate.
Of course, the die-hard Dems will vote for her regardless, if she is the party's nominee. But the floating voters won't if she has clearly lied to them. And the grandees of the Democratic party know this and so will not let it get that far if there is a story and it breaks before the Convention.
Bill was not up for reelection after the Lewinsky scandal broke in 1998. The scandal is deemed to have affected the 2000 election:
"The scandal arguably affected the 2000 U.S. presidential election in two contradictory ways. Democratic Party candidate and sitting vice president Al Gore claimed that Clinton's scandal had been "a drag" that deflated the enthusiasm of their party's base, effectively suppressing Democratic votes. Clinton claimed that the scandal had made Gore's campaign too cautious, and that if Clinton had been allowed to campaign for Gore in Arkansas and New Hampshire, either state would have delivered Gore's needed electoral votes regardless of what happened in Florida." from wikipedia
The last two sentences don't even make sense. Of course no charges were brought. He resigned, so no impeachment. Ford pardoned him so no criminal charges. They are not likely to be brought because he's been dead for years.
Of course you are being patronising, you cannot assume anything of my knowledge of US politics and history.
Oh I think I can....
You really have no idea, do you?
AS a matter of pure interest, and not related to the discussion, whereabouts are you?
HYUFD - have you noticed yet that the two people disagreeing with you have both lived in the US for many years?
Had Ford not pardoned Nixon he could have well have been prosecuted as a private citizen, however Ford did pardon him even if it helped cost him the 1976 election to restore peace to the nation
'Oh really, floating voters did not seem too concerned when Bill lied about 'not having sexual relations' with Lewinsky. Nixon's crime was he ordered a burglary, whether he lied about it or not. I also fail to see where this great lie is anyway, has Hillary ever made a great statement about how she classified her emails to the US public? Not to my knowledge
That's the point !!!!!! She has steadfastly maintained there was no classified material on her server. Now we know for a fact that she lied about that.
You really have no idea, do you?
AS a matter of pure interest, and not related to the discussion, whereabouts are you?'
'The inspector general for the intelligence community has informed members of Congress that some material Hillary Clinton emailed from her private server contained classified information, but it was not identified that way.
Because it was not identified, it is unclear whether Clinton realized she was potentially compromising classified information.
The IG reviewed a "limited sampling" of her emails and among those 40 reviewed found that "four contained classified [intelligence community] information," wrote the IG Charles McCullough in a letter to Congress.
McCullough noted that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings" but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network.
Not quite the same
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/
That's the point !!!!!! She has steadfastly maintained there was no classified material on her server. Now we know for a fact that she lied about that.
You really have no idea, do you?
AS a matter of pure interest, and not related to the discussion, whereabouts are you?'
'The inspector general for the intelligence community has informed members of Congress that some material Hillary Clinton emailed from her private server contained classified information, but it was not identified that way.
Because it was not identified, it is unclear whether Clinton realized she was potentially compromising classified information.
The IG reviewed a "limited sampling" of her emails and among those 40 reviewed found that "four contained classified [intelligence community] information," wrote the IG Charles McCullough in a letter to Congress.
McCullough noted that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings" but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network.
Not quite the same
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/
IT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!! Why not go back and read my original post on this again.
4 of 40 emails sampled contained classified information. It was on a private server. That is illegal.
I'm socially liberal, fiscally conservative.
You really have no idea, do you?
AS a matter of pure interest, and not related to the discussion, whereabouts are you?'
'The inspector general for the intelligence community has informed members of Congress that some material Hillary Clinton emailed from her private server contained classified information, but it was not identified that way.
Because it was not identified, it is unclear whether Clinton realized she was potentially compromising classified information.
The IG reviewed a "limited sampling" of her emails and among those 40 reviewed found that "four contained classified [intelligence community] information," wrote the IG Charles McCullough in a letter to Congress.
McCullough noted that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings" but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network.
Not quite the same
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/
IT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!! Why not go back and read my original post on this again.
4 of 40 emails sampled contained classified information. It was on a private server. That is illegal.
The point is it is unclear whether she knew they were classified or whether they were emailed with her consent or not
Because it was not identified, it is unclear whether Clinton realized she was potentially compromising classified information.
The IG reviewed a "limited sampling" of her emails and among those 40 reviewed found that "four contained classified [intelligence community] information," wrote the IG Charles McCullough in a letter to Congress.
McCullough noted that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings" but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network.
Not quite the same
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/
IT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!! Why not go back and read my original post on this again.
4 of 40 emails sampled contained classified information. It was on a private server. That is illegal.
The point is it is unclear whether she knew they were classified or whether they were emailed with her consent or not
It doesn't matter!!!!! It is illegal to send classified material over a private email system. Her lawyer has a thumb drive with all 30k emails in his office.
This can only get worse.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/24/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0PY0DH20150724
'The inspector general for the intelligence community has informed members of Congress that some material Hillary Clinton emailed from her private server contained classified information, but it was not identified that way.
Because it was not identified, it is unclear whether Clinton realized she was potentially compromising classified information.
The IG reviewed a "limited sampling" of her emails and among those 40 reviewed found that "four contained classified [intelligence community] information," wrote the IG Charles McCullough in a letter to Congress.
McCullough noted that "none of the emails we reviewed had classification or dissemination markings" but that some "should have been handled as classified, appropriately marked, and transmitted via a secure network.
Not quite the same
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/
IT IS EXACTLY WHAT I SAID!!!!! Why not go back and read my original post on this again.
4 of 40 emails sampled contained classified information. It was on a private server. That is illegal.
The point is it is unclear whether she knew they were classified or whether they were emailed with her consent or not
'It doesn't matter!!!!! It is illegal to send classified material over a private email system. Her lawyer has a thumb drive with all 30k emails in his office.
This can only get worse.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/24/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0PY0DH20150724
"The Journal story broke just as the Justice Department issued a statement correcting earlier reports that the probe into email from Clinton's server during her time as secretary of state was a criminal investigation.
Instead, a Justice Department official said that the agency had "received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information."
'The New York Times first reported late Thursday that inspectors general for the intelligence community and the State Department have asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation into Clinton's possible mishandling of classified email. The Times significantly revised its story Friday to say the matter was referred to Justice to examine whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with Clinton's ACCOUNT -- but not necessarily by Clinton.'
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/
Obama is extreme left, for a reference point.
The Republicans did go right, but when they realized that being elected is more important than being doctrinally pure, they started to see sense and got real.
The Tea Party was a reaction to the first Obama years and is slowly losing its oomph with the sunset of Obama.
4 of 40 emails sampled contained classified information. It was on a private server. That is illegal.
The point is it is unclear whether she knew they were classified or whether they were emailed with her consent or not
'It doesn't matter!!!!! It is illegal to send classified material over a private email system. Her lawyer has a thumb drive with all 30k emails in his office.
This can only get worse.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/24/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0PY0DH20150724
"The Journal story broke just as the Justice Department issued a statement correcting earlier reports that the probe into email from Clinton's server during her time as secretary of state was a criminal investigation.
Instead, a Justice Department official said that the agency had "received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information."
'The New York Times first reported late Thursday that inspectors general for the intelligence community and the State Department have asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation into Clinton's possible mishandling of classified email. The Times significantly revised its story Friday to say the matter was referred to Justice to examine whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with Clinton's ACCOUNT -- but not necessarily by Clinton.'
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/
Again - reread my original post on this. It covers all this.
'It doesn't matter!!!!! It is illegal to send classified material over a private email system. Her lawyer has a thumb drive with all 30k emails in his office.
This can only get worse.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/24/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0PY0DH20150724
"The Journal story broke just as the Justice Department issued a statement correcting earlier reports that the probe into email from Clinton's server during her time as secretary of state was a criminal investigation.
Instead, a Justice Department official said that the agency had "received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information."
'The New York Times first reported late Thursday that inspectors general for the intelligence community and the State Department have asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation into Clinton's possible mishandling of classified email. The Times significantly revised its story Friday to say the matter was referred to Justice to examine whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with Clinton's ACCOUNT -- but not necessarily by Clinton.'
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/
Again - reread my original post on this. It covers all this.
I think we will leave it there and await any further developments if and when they occur
Trump in many ways encapsulates the Tea Party, and who leads the polls at the moment? The Donald
This can only get worse.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/24/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0PY0DH20150724
"The Journal story broke just as the Justice Department issued a statement correcting earlier reports that the probe into email from Clinton's server during her time as secretary of state was a criminal investigation.
Instead, a Justice Department official said that the agency had "received a referral related to the potential compromise of classified information."
'The New York Times first reported late Thursday that inspectors general for the intelligence community and the State Department have asked the Justice Department to launch a criminal investigation into Clinton's possible mishandling of classified email. The Times significantly revised its story Friday to say the matter was referred to Justice to examine whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with Clinton's ACCOUNT -- but not necessarily by Clinton.'
http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/24/politics/hillary-clinton-email-justice-department/
Again - reread my original post on this. It covers all this.
I think we will leave it there and await any further developments if and when they occur
This is very simple - classified info was found in 4 of 40 emails emanating from the Clinton's email server, located at their home in Chappaqua. It doesn't matter who sent it, or received it. It's illegal to send, receive, or summarize classified info on a non-secure (read: non-government secure) network. The FBI has been 'notified' as a security concern NOT a criminal one.
Whether the data was marked as such is irrelevant. Secure government networks have addresses identifying them as such.
DOJ now has to decide how or whether to proceed. The fact that two Inspectors General have made the recommendation means they can't just sit on it. As I said in my original post, this won't happen fast.
Even Dan Rather, as liberal as they come, said afterwards that he was very uncomfortable with how biased and uncritical the media was with Obama.
The mid-terms of 2010 gave a huge setback to Democrats unseen for over 80 years - even Obama called it a shellacking. Ditto 2014.
Yet in 2012 he is reelected. In poll after poll 2/3 of Americans think the country is heading in the wrong direction under his leadership.
A majority of Americans want Obamacare repealed, and his other policies don't fare any better.
Can I explain it? No. He got all the black vote, most of the hispanic vote and enough others to make it.
He is way left of America, which is why both houses of Congress, and most state governors (and even more state houses) are now Republican.
He has taken the Democratic Party far left, which is why Hillary is having to flip flop so much.
Trump at some point is going to flame out. But there is no doubt he has tapped into some frustration in the country.
Trump - egosticial, bombastic buffoon. Wants to be President so he can wear a red cap and silly hat and prance around. So that'll be a 'no', I guess
Cruz - likes him, but thinks he's the GOP's Obama: way out in crazie land
Huckebee: likes him, but he comes across as a sunday school teacher. Nice, but not right to be president
Hates Christie (no details), Rand Paul ("God, no! Did you know he's Ron Paul's son?). Perry is stupid, and Jindall is intelligent but "just missing something"
Preference is for a Bush-Walker ticket. Bush because he knows how politics works, how to do deals and compromise to get things done. Walker because he stands up for what he believes in (although she thinks he too willing to fight vs deal). Likes the fact Bush choose someone he believes in rather than "some stiff from a swing state like Ohio"
Read into that what you will...she supported Cain, Perry and Santorum last time round...
Or perhaps William Whtye's Organisation Man.