SOS wrote:
Quote:

stillinjc wrote:
Btw, Ruth Bader Ginsburg needs to STFU. She is unfit for SCOTUS. I don't see how she can continue serving.

The majority of Americans feel that Trump should STFU.

There?s a good reason the Code of Conduct for United States Judges flatly states that a ?judge should not .?.?. publicly endorse or oppose a candidate for public office.? Politicization, real or perceived, undermines public faith in the impartiality of the courts.

For once, a respite from my strongly held opinions on Trump. Let me just break down for you what I see happening and ask someone to make the contrary case.

Right now, Clinton is ahead of Trump by 4.3% in the polling averages. She has led Trump in all but eight of the last seventy polls. Of those eight, four were Rasmussen polls and Rasmussen continues to be about the worst pollster in the United States, as it has been since 2012.

Trump has good news today from Quinnipiac, which has him competitive with Clinton in Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania. But competitive is not winning. At the same time, there are more Republican states competitive for Clinton than there are Democrat states competitive for Trump.

On top of that, Clinton has an overwhelming fundraising advantage. Republican donors have decided to sit on the sidelines and are neither funding Trump nor the RNC. Because of Trump, corporate sponsors have pulled out of the convention, so the RNC is going to have to cover those costs. Because of limited funds, neither the Trump nor the RNC can hire ground games in swing states.

In fact, the Trump campaign lacks a significant ground game in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, New Hampshire, and Nevada. The Trump campaign has likewise eschewed big data operations to identify persuadable voters. On top of that, the Trump campaign and RNC are probably going to have to spend resources in Arizona and Missouri, two states they should not have to worry about, and might have to spend resources in Georgia. On top of that, North Carolina looks less and less winnable for Trump in terms of ground operations and polling. The GOP will probably even lose the North Carolina Senate seat.

The Trump response has been that by force of personality and hatred of Hillary Clinton, he is going to move voters to his camp.

But most of Clinton?s negatives are fully baked in. Benghazi has been known for a long time. All the Clinton scandals are known. The email situation is most likely to hurt her, but Democrats will stick with her and there are more of those than there are Republicans. Her negatives remain lower than Trump?s even after the email scandal and even if Trump and the RNC wanted to make it an issue, they don?t have a ton of resources.

On the issue of Trump?s force of personality, I am at a loss to think who now will convert to Trump that has not already converted to Trump. If the same shtick did not work before now, how now will it work? On top of that, the Trump shtick was able to work because the media ran his speeches uncritically and wall to wall in a primary season where he battled 17 candidates, none of whom could compete against the wall to wall free, mostly uncritical media Trump received. Since he became the presumptive nominee almost all of the media has taken a negative and highly critical turn against Trump.

Add into this that most of the negatives about Clinton are already known and most of the negatives about Trump are not as widely known. There is a lot more ground to explore with Trump and the Clinton operation and Democrats combined have several hundred more million dollars to use to explore that ground with the American people. For a reference point, Trump?s Republican opponents and anti-Trump outside groups spent $42.7 million against Trump in the primaries total. That will amount to one month of negative ads against him by the Democrats in the thirty days after his nomination is secured. For even more reference, that $42.7 million is for the total campaign primary season where in 2012 Mitt Romney spent $15 million for just Florida. In other words, compared to prior years, the GOP really did not spend a great deal of money on Trump and even then did so well after the momentum was fully in his direction. Democrats are not going to make that same mistake.

Lastly, a chunk of evangelical, conservative, and even moderate Republicans will not vote for Trump. The Democrats are the larger of the two parties and more Democrats are backing Clinton than there are Republicans backing Trump. Right now, Clinton has over 90% Democrat loyalty and Trump only has around 70% loyalty within the GOP. But even if he had 100% loyalty in the GOP that number would still be smaller than the 90% loyalty from Democrats. Trump has to persuade moderate and independent voters, but is losing every demographic except non-college educated white voters to Clinton. In fact, for the first time since 1952 the Democrats are winning white college educated voters.

So I?m honestly curious to know what Trump Republicans see as his path to victory. All I hear is ?he is not Hillary.? And they are right. He has higher negatives, worse polling, less party loyalty, less money, and more states on defense. To win he must hold all of Romney?s states with 206 electoral college votes and find 64 more electoral college votes. Even if Trump wins all of Romney?s states and wins Pennsylvania and Florida, he would still lose to Clinton and on top of that he is more likely than not going to lose North Carolina while having to spend resources just to play defense in Arizona and Missouri.

So strategically, how does Trump win?

The best I get from Trump partisans is that the polling is wrong. But it has been pretty accurate so far except Rasmussen. And I get that he is a new style of candidate, but what worked in a field of 17 Republicans in a primary does not seem like it will work in a general.

So what does he do? I am genuinely curious and made more curious by the reality that if you swapped Trump with just about any one of the other seventeen Republicans next week, they would start the general election with more willing donors, better favorability, better odds in Romney won states, and a more enthusiastic party operation.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Bernie Sanders endorses Hilary Clinton:

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/12/12160214 ... hillary-clinton-statement

Meanwhile Anxiety Replaces Excitement Over Upcoming GOP Convention:

http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/201 ... -upcoming-gop-convention/

GOP looks like a winning party!
(Go to hell, GOP!)

Let's not celebrate yet. Trump has a 1 in 5 chance as of today and lots can happen between now and November.

That's true. Unthinkable has happened this year. But I'm reasonably confident that people whose opinions I respect, are indeed confident.

Opinions are irrelevant. The election is months away, so it's too soon to feel confident.

Btw, 538 has a 1 in 4 chance of a Trump victory.

If you read broadly, then you begin to recognize who are top tier analysts and political scientists who back their arguments with data. Their analysis has values. But someone's opinions may not. If you know any top tier analysts or strategists from both sides that Trump has a higher chance of winning, I would like to know. There is no one (at least, I haven't been able to find one). Sure, there are plenty of people argue Trump's vicotry, including self-claimed experts on this forum, but like you say, their opinions are indeed irrelevant.

Like I already said, 538 has Trump with a 1 in 4 chance of winning.

If this doesn't worry you, you have your head in the sand.

neverleft wrote:
Quote:

Monroe wrote:
Weeks ago, Bernie said Hillary was unfit to become POTUS. Now, he endorses!

Trump is already having a field day with that endorsement. The ads with Bernie ripping into Hillary are brutal.

PS - the email scandal DID hurt her....

July 13, 2016 - Clinton Losing On Honesty In Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll Finds

FLORIDA: Trump 42 - Clinton 39
OHIO: Clinton 41 - Trump 41
PENNSYLVANIA: Trump 43 - Clinton 41

With a drop in grades on honesty and moral standards, Democrat Hillary Clinton loses an 8-point lead over Republican Donald Trump in Florida, and finds herself in too-close-to-call races in the three critical swing states of Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, according to a Quinnipiac University Swing State Poll released today.

Clinton loses ground on almost every measure from a June 21 survey by the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University. The Swing State Poll focuses on Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania because since 1960 no candidate has won the presidential race without taking at least two of these three states.

The presidential matchups show:

Florida - Trump at 42 percent to Clinton's 39, compared to a 47 - 39 percent Clinton lead June 21;

Ohio - Clinton and Trump tied 41 - 41 percent, compared to a 40 - 40 percent tie June 21;

Pennsylvania - Trump at 43 percent to Clinton's 41 percent, compared to June 21, when Clinton had 42 percent to Trump's 41 percent.

With third party candidates in the race, results are:

Florida - Trump leads Clinton 41 - 36 percent, with 7 percent for Libertarian Gary Johnson and 4 percent for Green Party candidate Jill Stein;

Ohio - Trump at 37 percent to Clinton's 36 percent, with Johnson at 7 percent and Stein at 6 percent;

Pennsylvania - Trump over Clinton 40 - 34 percent with 9 percent for Johnson and 3 percent for Stein.

WhoElseCouldIBe wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

SOS wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Bernie Sanders endorses Hilary Clinton:

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/12/12160214 ... hillary-clinton-statement

Meanwhile Anxiety Replaces Excitement Over Upcoming GOP Convention:

http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/201 ... -upcoming-gop-convention/

GOP looks like a winning party!
(Go to hell, GOP!)

Let's not celebrate yet. Trump has a 1 in 5 chance as of today and lots can happen between now and November.

That's true. Unthinkable has happened this year. But I'm reasonably confident that people whose opinions I respect, are indeed confident.

Opinions are irrelevant. The election is months away, so it's too soon to feel confident.

Btw, 538 has a 1 in 4 chance of a Trump victory.

SOS wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Bernie Sanders endorses Hilary Clinton:

http://www.vox.com/2016/7/12/12160214 ... hillary-clinton-statement

Meanwhile Anxiety Replaces Excitement Over Upcoming GOP Convention:

http://www.redstate.com/sweetie15/201 ... -upcoming-gop-convention/

GOP looks like a winning party!
(Go to hell, GOP!)

Let's not celebrate yet. Trump has a 1 in 5 chance as of today and lots can happen between now and November.

?If you want to stump a Democrat, ask them to name an accomplishment of Hillary Clinton,? Carly Fiorina quipped at Wednesday?s Republican debate. The line got hearty applause?but it also cut to the core of one of the defining lines of attacks against the former first lady and Democratic presidential frontrunner. After nearly forty years in public life, what exactly has she accomplished?

It?s a question that even, at times, has tripped up Clinton herself: During her 2014 book tour, when ABC?s Diane Sawyer asked her about her ?marquee achievement,? Clinton changed the subject and she fumbled over a similar question during a women?s forum in Manhattan last year. ?I see my role as secretary?in fact leadership in general in a democracy?as a relay race. You run the best race you can run, you hand off the baton. Some of what hasn?t been finished may go on to be finished,? she told Thomas Friedman. ?I?m very proud of the [economic] stabilization and the really solid leadership that the administration provided that I think now leads us to be able to deal with problems like Ukraine because we?re not so worried about a massive collapse in Europe.?

The question Fiorina posed has also tripped up members of the Obama administration. When State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki was asked last year to ?identify one tangible achievement? accomplished through one of Hillary Clinton?s key projects as Secretary of State?the first-ever audit of the department?Psaki punted, ?I am certain that those who were here at the time, who worked hard on that effort, could point out one.?

Hillary?s supporters have been stumped too. When Bloomberg Politics? Mark Halperin asked a focus group of Iowans this summer about Hillary Clinton?s accomplishments, one Democratic supporter said, ?I honestly can?t say I followed along [with] everything that was going on.?

So is Fiorina right? Are Democrats really unable to defend Clinton?s record on the merits? To find out, Politico Magazine on Thursday asked the nation?s top Democratic leaders and thinkers to name Hillary Clinton?s biggest accomplishment.

What is the most impressive item on Clinton?s record? Which legislative or policy triumph from her many years in office will be most important on the campaign trail? Not surprisingly, those surveyed all came up with an answer to defend their party?s likely presidential nominee. Whether these count as ?marquee,? ?significant,? or ?tangible?? You be the judge.

***

?It?s kind of hard to pick one accomplishment?

By Bill Burton, former senior strategist for Priorities USA Action, a super PAC in support of President Barack Obama.

It?s kind of hard to pick one accomplishment for Hillary Clinton. Personally, I?m sure she?d say her daughter and grandchild are her greatest accomplishments. Professionally, how about these three?

1. Her China speech on women.
2. Her role in killing Osama bin Laden.
3. Management of the State Department during which time we saw a 50 percent increase in exports to China, aggressive work on climate (particularly at Copenhagen), and the effort to create and implement the toughest sanctions ever on Iran?helping to lead us to the agreement currently on the table.

***

?The sanction on Iran that brought them to the table?

Howard Dean is the former governor of Vermont and the former chair of the Democratic National Committee.

Hillary Clinton was the principal author of the sanction on Iran that brought them to the table. We cannot afford any Know Nothings like Carly in the White House.

***

?Nearly every foreign policy victory of President Obama?s second term has Secretary Clinton?s fingerprints on it?

By Harry Reid, Senate Democratic leader.

American foreign policy was stronger when Hillary Clinton left the State Department than when she arrived. She took the reins from a Bush administration that had left America?s reputation deeply damaged and planted the seeds for the foreign policy successes we see today. From the agreement to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon, to the landmark normalization of relations with Cuba, nearly every foreign policy victory of President Obama?s second term has Secretary Clinton?s fingerprints on it.

Her accomplishments extend to health care, as well. As First Lady, she helped create and guide through Congress Children?s Health Insurance Program, a key program that brought health care coverage to millions of children. As a Senator, she worked across the aisle to provide full military health benefits to reservists and National Guard members.

Secretary Clinton was also an outspoken champion for women around the world. She set records for travel while leading the State Department and used every trip to empower the women of the 112 countries she visited. She made gender equality a priority of U.S. foreign policy. And she created the ambassador at large for global women?s issues, a post charged with integrating gender throughout the State Department.

***

?The SCHIP program ? which expanded health coverage to millions of lower-income children?

By Anita Dunn, Democratic political strategist.

After universal health care failed in 1994, the Clinton Administration was reluctant to go anywhere near healthcare again?Democrats lost the Senate and the House in 1994, and losing the house was for the first time in 40 years. Then-First Lady Hilary Clinton ended up being the White House ally and inside player who worked with Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch to create the SCHIP program in Clinton's second term, which expanded health coverage to millions of lower-income children. She has other accomplishments but this one made a huge difference, and came at a time when politically the Administration was cutting deals with Newt Gingrich on the budget and not necessarily all that enthusiastic about revisiting health care.

This obviously isn't her only accomplishment but it is meaningful because she took a political battering after the failure in 1994 but came back to fight again, and was able to work on a bipartisan basis during a very polarized time to get this done. Seems relevant!

***

?Clinton is one of the most accomplished people ever to run?

By Chuck Schumer, U.S. Senator for New York, Democratic party.

Hillary Clinton is one of the most accomplished people ever to run for the Presidency. I?m lucky enough to have seen those accomplishments up close from her time as Senator from New York and as Secretary of State. Hillary Clinton was instrumental in helping secure $21 billion in federal aid to help New York rebuild after 9/11. She fought tooth and nail to protect the first responders who rushed into danger when the towers collapsed and was pivotal in the passage of legislation that helped those first responders who got sick get the care and treatment they deserved. She worked night and day to protect and create jobs in New York, whether that was at the Niagara Falls Air Force base or the Center for Bioinformatics at the University of Buffalo. She also led the charge on the Lilly Ledbetter Pay Equity Act, which is now the law of the land.

As Secretary of State, Secretary Clinton was not only inspirational figure for billions of women around the globe, she also did much to restore the shattered credibility of the United States, which had lost so much influence following the failed foreign policies of the previous administration. She negotiated the cease-fire in Gaza that stopped the Hamas from firing rocket after rocket into Israel. She helped secure the START treaty?s ratification, and has advanced women?s rights in countries around the globe. That?s just a snapshot of what Hillary Clinton has accomplished over a lifetime of public service to New York and the country. If you really want to stump a Democrat, you should ask them which of Hillary?s accomplishments is your favorite?there are too many to choose from

***

?Rebuilding America?s leadership and prestige overseas after the Bush years?

Bill Richardson is a former secretary of energy and governor of New Mexico.

As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was key in rebuilding America?s leadership and prestige overseas after the Bush years. She restored our alliances with the EU and key Asian allies as well as key relationships in Africa and Latin America.

***

?The Pediatric Research Equity Act?

By Chris Dodd, former U.S. Senator for Connecticut, Democratic party.

Having worked with her in the Senate and on the HELP Committee, the first thing that came to mind was her authorship of the Pediatric Research Equity Act. This law requires drug companies to study their products in children. The Act is responsible for changing the drug labeling of hundreds of drugs with important information about safety and dosing of drugs for children. It has improved the health of millions of children who take medications to treat diseases ranging from HIV to epilepsy to asthma. Millions of kids are in better shape and alive because of the law Senator Clinton authored.

***

?Crippling sanctions against Iran?

By Paul Begala, political analyst for CNN and counselor to President Bill Clinton.

Easy: Iran sanctions. Sec. Clinton accomplished the nearly impossible mission of getting China, Russia, the European Union and the civilized world on board with crippling sanctions against Iran. This is what brought Iran to the negotiating table.

Ms. Fiorina may not see that as an accomplishment, since while she was CEO of Hewlett-Packard the firm sold hundreds of millions of dollars of computer products the the terrorist regime in Tehran, evading US sanctions.

If the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results, then Republicans lost their minds chasing the Clintons down rabbit holes years ago.

They spent the 1990s turning every gnat fart in the Clinton White House into a six-part inquiry, and at the end of it, Bill left office historically popular. They?ve spent the better part of the 2010s doing the same thing to Hillary, and though she is emphatically not historically popular, Republicans have, in the process, tended to humiliate themselves and abet Donald Trump?the one person politically incorrect enough to call her crooked and accuse her of playing the woman card, at last, at last.

What we witnessed Thursday was part of a pattern that goes back more than 20 years. A Clinton does something?in some cases innocuous, in this case worthy of criticism?and her political nemeses respond completely out of proportion. They?ve invested so heavily in the fantasy that Hillary?s one email or utterance away from complete self-destruction that they can?t bring themselves to accept anything less than the highest return. A sunk cost fallacy of power politics and partisan score-settling.

The pattern has become familiar enough that reporters now anticipate it. When FBI Director James Comey excoriated Clinton for her sloppy email protocol, it was almost a foregone conclusion that Republicans would peer so deeply into the mouth of the gift horse he?d just given them that they?d pop out the other end. On Thursday, they hauled him up to Capitol Hill knowing that any number of right-wing members on the House Oversight Committee might attack his integrity, and sure enough they did. Now the chase continues.

What made this episode unique is that the same media that expected Republicans to overreach played a critical role in increasing their expectations of a political windfall.

Republicans in Congress and their conservative media allies largely brought this upon themselves. They were the ones who made right-wing sop out of baseless speculation that Clinton might be indicted for violating a law nobody?s ever been convicted of violating.

But due to a strange brew of incentives that proved toxic?the competition for eyeballs, the lack of subject matter expertise, the industry standard of reportorial balance?the mainstream media did nothing to puncture this myth. To the contrary, it treated the threat of indictment as a permanent question mark hovering over Clinton?s campaign like a dark cloud. In a different media ecosystem, this wouldn?t have happened. A mix of common sense and truly basic research and reporting would have established a consensus that Republicans were trying to gin up intrigue and damaging innuendo, but that an indictment was extraordinarily unlikely. Instead, the remote odds of one came to be seen as something like a 50-50 proposition, to the point where even professional Democrats began to worry Clinton might be charged with a felony and prosecuted.

By the time Comey handed down his utterly predictable recommendation that prosecuting Clinton would not be reasonable, it had become a foregone conclusion on the right that an indictment was imminent, and could only be sidestepped through corruption.

The ensuing dissonance between what this unimpeachable, Republican FBI director had concluded and what the Republican Party had trained its voters to expect explains why some members of the oversight panel felt compelled to question Comey?s honor. It also made it impossible for Republicans to congratulate themselves on a job well done, thank Comey for laying out the truth about Clinton?s ?extreme carelessness,? and use his statement as ammunition in the election.

The only other way to resolve the inconsistency was to suggest that Clinton must have lied criminally along the way?to Congress under oath, or to the FBI in an effort to obstruct justice, or both. Jason Chaffetz, the committee?s chairman, thus promised to refer Clinton to the FBI for another investigation.

This will likely produce another disappointing finding (Clinton may have presented facts in a misleading way, but there?s no reason to believe she perjured herself). It will leave the conspiracy-minded GOP base blindsided once again, and give way to some other tangentially related but probably fruitless inquisition. We will be dealing with the fallout of the email investigation well into Clinton?s first term in the White House, unless Democrats reclaim the House and Senate. But now, instead of investigating Clinton for endangering national security or for some other crime related to her public service, it will transform into a shameless witch hunt. The kind of partisan onslaught that only seems to make the Clintons more powerful. And thus the insanity begets itself.

SOS wrote:
56 percent of Americans disapprove of FBI decision to exonerate Hillary Clinton

But the bad news for Trump -
"Among all voters, 60 percent say the outcome makes no difference in their vote choice, including an identical share of political independents. Republican voters are the most likely to say the outcome discourages them to support Clinton ? 49 percent ? though the vast majority of this group was already strongly opposed to her candidacy before the FBI's announcement."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/th ... -915am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

TheBigGuy wrote:
Pebbles is the is the most insufferable BS artist on this blog... he makes the most outrageous personal attacks when he is proven wrong or challenged. His lightweight opinions are dressed with this faux intellectual superiority that would embarrass even the extreme narcissist. His pompous attitude must be barely tolerable to friends and family. What an empty suit.

Congressional Republicans had a nice, simply morality tale to tell. The main narrative was a little thin ? any story built around email server protocols is going to be dry ? but GOP lawmakers had clearly identified protagonists and antagonists. Just as importantly, they?d convinced much of the media that their tale was as important as it was riveting.

Today, however, Republicans lost the plot.

On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey announced that while Hillary Clinton?s email server protocols were careless, no sane prosecutor would find her actions worthy of an indictment. House Republicans, who were counting on an indictment to improve the GOP?s election chances, were apoplectic and hastily threw together a hearing, forcing Comey to go to Capitol Hill to explain himself.

What Republicans didn?t realize is the degree to which they were doing Clinton and Democrats a favor. NBC News reported on the proceedings:

FBI director James Comey stuck to his guns Thursday and defended his decision not to charge Hillary Clinton with a crime for her use of a private email server while serving as secretary of state.

Summoned to appear before the Republican-led House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, Comey insisted again that Clinton ?did not break the law? and that there was not enough evidence to charge her with a crime. ?That?s just the way it is,? Comey said.

I honestly have no idea what Republicans thought they were going to achieve with this spectacle. Did GOP lawmakers expect Comey to declare, ?Now that you?ve yelled at me for a few hours, I?ve changed my mind and now support criminal charges against Clinton??

Before the hearing Republicans had a series of fairly specific talking points: Clinton lied to the FBI; she created a national security threat; she plays by a different set of rules than everyone else. But instead of simply repeating those talking points, GOP lawmakers invited the FBI director ? a lifelong Republican, whom GOP officials have repeatedly praised for his honesty ? to testify about how wrong the party?s arguments are.

?We have no basis to believe she lied to the FBI,? Comey said. Asked about Clinton benefiting from a different set of rules, he responded, ?It?s not true.? Asked about classified emails, Comey said there were only three messages ? each of which were not properly marked classified when she received them.

In other words, congressional Republicans had the bright idea of holding a hearing with a credible witness who was perfectly happy to explain to them how wrong they are.

Making matters worse, GOP lawmakers forgot who the villains and heroes were supposed to be in their story. Republicans were supposed to make Clinton the scoundrel of this narrative, but today, they decided instead to go after the director of the FBI ? because he had the audacity to say a Democrat didn?t commit a crime.

But what?s to be gained from going after Comey? The Washington Post?s Greg Sargent noted during the Q&A that the hearing ?was meant to be about Hillary,? but it instead devolved to the point in which ?Comey is angrily defending his integrity against conspiracy theories.?

And that helps Republicans, how?

As if that weren?t enough, note that on Tuesday, the story looked like Comey vs. Clinton ? the FBI director didn?t think the Democratic candidate broke any laws, but he clearly wasn?t pleased with some of her decisions, and he delivered a public rebuke. Now the story is Comey vs. Republicans ? GOP lawmakers had some baseless allegations and reckless conspiracy theories, some of which targeted Comey directly, and they asked the FBI director to give testimony knocking down each of their bad arguments.

For their part, Democrats suddenly found themselves keeping up with Republican attempts to change the subject ? talking about Clinton?s emails is suddenly less important than talking about Comey?s credibility and reliability.

When congressional Republicans take stock this evening and reflect on their failed gambit, one wonders whether they?ll appreciate the fact that this Comey hearing was a bad plan, executed poorly. The last time Democrats were this pleased with GOP hearing, it was Clinton?s 11-hour Benghazi Committee testimony ? in which Republicans made fools of themselves and their conspiracy theories, and Clinton turned her entire presidential campaign around.

It helps sometimes to be blessed with incompetent enemies.

Today's grilling of FBI Director James Comey was probably a dumb move on the part of Republicans. He didn't give them anything new to work with, but he did offer up plenty of answers helpful to Hillary Clinton. Here's a small sampling:

Did Hillary Clinton lie?
To the FBI? We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.

Did Hillary Clinton lie under oath?
Not to the FBI. Not in a case we're working.

Do you agree with the claim that General Petraeus "got in trouble for far less"? Do you agree with that?
No, it's the reverse.

What do you mean by that?
His conduct, to me, illustrates the categories of behavior that mark the prosecutions that are actually brought. Clearly intentional conduct, knew what he was doing was a violation of the law, huge amount of information. Even if you couldn't prove he knew it, it raises the inference that he did it. An effort to obstruct justice. That combination of things makes it worthy of a prosecution.

If you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document. Right?
Correct.

Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little "C" in the text someplace?
No....There was no header on the email or the text.

So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what's not classified and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
That would be a reasonable inference.

I understand why people are confused by the whole discussion. I get that. But you know what would be a double standard? If she were prosecuted for gross negligence.

Did you get any political interference from the White House?
None.

Did you get any political interference from the Hillary Clinton campaign?
None.

This last one is from Rep. John Micah of Florida, who spent most of his time laying out a full-blown conspiracy theory about collusion between Comey, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Loretta Lynch about this investigation. Then he claims there's something "fishy" about the whole thing:

Tomorrow we'll go back to our districts and we have to explain to people, in a couple cafes where I see folks and have meetings. They're going to ask a lot of questions about what took place....One week ago, former president Clinton meets with the attorney general in Phoenix. The next Friday, last Friday, Mrs. Lynch, the AG, says she's going to defer to the FBI. On Saturday morning I saw the vans pull up....Then on Tuesday morning...you basically said you going to recommend not to prosecute. Correct? And then Tuesday we had President Obama and Secretary Clinton arrive in Charlotte at 2:00. Shortly thereafter we had the attorney general closing the case. This is rapid fire. I mean, my folks think there is something fishy about this. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but there are questions on how this came down.

I hope what you'll tell the folks in the cafe is, look me in the eye and listen to what I'm about to say. I did not coordinate that with anyone. The White House, the Department of Justice, nobody outside the FBI family had any idea what I was about to say. I say that under oath, I stand by that. There was no coordination. There was an insinuation in what you were saying. I don't mean to get strong in responding, but I want to make sure I was definitive about that.

I don't know that this hearing will have any real effect one way or another. But there was no reason for Republicans to hold it other than inchoate rage at not getting the indictment they so desperately believed they were due. It accomplished nothing for their side, since Comey had already delivered a pretty blistering assessment of Hillary Clinton's "carelessness" and was unlikely to go further in front of Congress. But it did give Democrats a chance to get Comey on record refuting several conservative talking points and conspiracy theories. That was dumb. But that's what happens when you live in a bubble where Hillary Clinton is an obvious villain and it's simply inconceivable that she did nothing illegal.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Pebble wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
I think people misunderstand what lying is.

Even if a statement turned out to be not correct later, it doesn't make it lying.

Based on the intelligence available at the time, Benghazi attack appeared to be inspired by anti-muslim video. That's what CIA advised the administration, and that's why Susan Rice and Hilary Clinton stated so.

It may later turn out to be not correct, but they didn't lie. They made the statement based on available information at the time.

Similarly, Clinton thought that if email is not marked Classified, it isn't classified. You can blame her for not knowing that, but her statement is completely consistent with what she had believed. Just because it later turned out to be incorrect, that's not lying. She thought she had submitted all of her official emails, but because the server didn't have archiving function, many emails had been deleted. That's not lying. That's misunderstanding.

Hater will continue to believe Clinton lied. I don't.

Actually I don't think you understand what lying is. For example, Clinton lied when she said that no documents she received were marked classified. The FBI director specifically said this wasn't true, and in fact they found documents that had classified markings, in addition to thousands more that were classified.

This isn't a "misstatement," it is a flat out lie.

Clinton said she didn't send or receive emails that were marked Classified. She believed that that's how she would know if email contained classified information. Her understanding was incorrect.

FBI said that she sent or received emails that contained classified information even though they weren't labeled classified.

So you can accuse her of not knowing this (I certainly do)--Comey seems to think that she should have known better. But what Clinton said wasn't a lie. It was a statement based on her incorrect understanding of what constitutes classified.

You still don't get it. In addition to Hillary sending and receiving thousands of emails containing classified information that were not marked classified, the FBI said that she also handled emails that WERE marked classified, albeit a much smaller number.

And this was only her latest lie. You obviously don't remember, but when this story first broke, Hillary confidently looked into the camera and proclaimed that there was no classified information at all on her server.

That's so very terrible! Can you image how damaging it would be if Colin Powell had left classified information on a Yahoo server...? Oh wait, that actually happened.

Where is your outrage over the outing of Valerie Plame? We know for a fact it doesn't exist due to the fact that her husband is liberal and you are a hateful little lonely boy (hence all that nasty racism you post).

You can deflect from Hillary's lies all you want, won't change the fact that she has demonstrably lied on pretty much every public statement she's ever given about her national security scandal.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
I think people misunderstand what lying is.

Even if a statement turned out to be not correct later, it doesn't make it lying.

Based on the intelligence available at the time, Benghazi attack appeared to be inspired by anti-muslim video. That's what CIA advised the administration, and that's why Susan Rice and Hilary Clinton stated so.

It may later turn out to be not correct, but they didn't lie. They made the statement based on available information at the time.

Similarly, Clinton thought that if email is not marked Classified, it isn't classified. You can blame her for not knowing that, but her statement is completely consistent with what she had believed. Just because it later turned out to be incorrect, that's not lying. She thought she had submitted all of her official emails, but because the server didn't have archiving function, many emails had been deleted. That's not lying. That's misunderstanding.

Hater will continue to believe Clinton lied. I don't.

Actually I don't think you understand what lying is. For example, Clinton lied when she said that no documents she received were marked classified. The FBI director specifically said this wasn't true, and in fact they found documents that had classified markings, in addition to thousands more that were classified.

This isn't a "misstatement," it is a flat out lie.

The Hillary Clinton email controversy is never going to end. At least that's what Republicans are trying to ensure, and they're now calling for a new FBI investigation of Clinton on the question of whether she lied to Congress about her emails.

On Wednesday, FBI Director James Comey announced that that his bureau had found no basis to bring a criminal case against Clinton for her handling of email when she was secretary of state. Immediately, Republicans and conservatives howled, with GOP presumptive nominee Donald Trump claiming this was all part of some nefarious cover-up. Outraged House Republicans demanded hearings on the FBI decision, and on Thursday morning, Comey appeared on Capitol Hill before the House oversight committee.

Comey began his testimony by explaining again that there was no cause to prosecute Clinton and reiterated that there was no precedent for bringing such a case. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), the committee chairman, chose to focus on another matter. He asked Comey if the FBI had investigated whether the statements Clinton made under oath about her email when she appeared before the Benghazi committee last year had been accurate. Comey said that the bureau had not examined those statements and explained that there had been no "referral" from Congress on that matter.

"Do you need a referral from Cingress to investigate her statements under oath?" Chaffetz asked.

"Sure do," Comey replied.

"You'll have one, " Chaffetz said, with a laugh. "You'll have one in the next few hours."

Here was the GOP ploy: request yet another FBI investigation of Clinton, with this one focused on whether she had testified accurately to Congress about the emails.

Moments later, Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), who chaired the fizzled-out Benghazi committee, indicated what the House GOPers want the FBI to probe. Citing Clinton's testimony to his committee, he asked Comey a series of questions. Did Clinton email classified information? Yes, Comey said. Did she use just one device? No, Comey said, there were multiple devices. Did Clinton return all work-related emails to the State Department? No, Comey said, the bureau found others. Did her lawyers read through every single email they reviewed before returning the material to the State Department? No, Comey said, they had not.

The implication was clear: Several Clinton statements to the committee about the emails were not accurate. Gowdy maintained that any false statements would be a sign of "intent and consciousness of guilt." So not only might Clinton be guilty of lying to Congress, Gowdy suggested, but these statements could be the basis for concluding that she should have been prosecuted for mishandling the emails.

At the hearing, Comey was firm in defending the FBI recommendation in the email case. Yet the GOPers demonstrated they have another goal: to kick-start a new FBI inquiry. Then they?and Trump?can spend the next few months declaring that Clinton remains under FBI investigation.

stillinjc wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
FBI Director James Comey: Hillary Clinton didn't lie or break law in email handling

http://www.amny.com/news/fbi-director ... email-handling-1.12010216

For people with rational mind, this closes this matter.

The issue is not whether Clinton lied to the FBI; it is whether she lied to the American public via statements to the media.

Sorry, this matter is still very much open, regardless of how much the left would like to see it closed.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Quote:

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Clinton hater will continue their attack, and FBI has given them plenty of ammunition for sure.

But I don't see inconsistencies between Clinton's statements and FBI's assessment as lies.

Not true. In fact, the AP, which if anything is liberally biased, performed a fact check and demonstrated that basically everything Hillary has said on the email issue since it first was public was an outright, demonstrable lie.

Wouldn't count on her to start telling the truth now.

AP FACT CHECK: Clinton email claims collapse under FBI probe

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8 ... 593a34a3d9f993d0f140aecbd

I don't recognize the inconsistencies between Clinton's statements and FBI statement as lies. I would characterize them as misstatements.

No, they are lies. You clearly didn't read the article.

Just as one example, Hillary lied and said she used a personal server so she only needed to carry one device around. She said it was too complicated to have a device for work emails and one for personal so she just combined them.

Comey told us that Hillary flat out lied, and in fact she used many devices to send and receive email. There are many more lies detailed in the article.

JCMan8 wrote:
Quote:

Atsushi wrote:
Clinton hater will continue their attack, and FBI has given them plenty of ammunition for sure.

But I don't see inconsistencies between Clinton's statements and FBI's assessment as lies.

Not true. In fact, the AP, which if anything is liberally biased, performed a fact check and demonstrated that basically everything Hillary has said on the email issue since it first was public was an outright, demonstrable lie.

Wouldn't count on her to start telling the truth now.

AP FACT CHECK: Clinton email claims collapse under FBI probe

http://hosted2.ap.org/APDEFAULT/89ae8 ... 593a34a3d9f993d0f140aecbd