FBI Director James Comey

Re: The Fiscal Times (10/27/2015):
How the FBI Could Derail Hillary Clinton By Liz Peek | The Fiscal Times

“James Comey – not Bernie Sanders -- is the biggest challenge to Hillary Clinton’s presidential ambitions, a prospect that should keep the former Secretary of State up at night. The fiercely independent head of the FBI is directing the investigation into Clinton’s use of a personal email server and attendant issues raised during the Benghazi inquiry, which could lead to indictments of the former Secretary of State or her various aides."

"If the probe determines that Hillary or her aides mishandled classified information or obstructed justice, her campaign will likely collapse. (Hence, the rumored possibility that Joe Biden could still emerge as a “draft” candidate.)” ...

 

If that is the case, I think it is good for Politicians hold responsibilities for their actions. Federal employees and contractors face charges for mishandling classified information. Why is not politicians?

 

Hillary Clinton could have never legitimately passed a Special background investigation (SBI) for a Top Secret security clearance—or validly granted one. As SOS (political appointee /hack) … clearly she was not exposed to, nor actually required to undergo such scrutiny re her overall reliability. Her historical mishandling of classified documents and other security mismanagement /decision issues is predictable evidence of such.

Judicial Watch Sues State Department for Records of Hillary Clinton
(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that on October 16, 2015, it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of State to obtain records about Hillary Clinton’s training on “making and marking” classified information. The lawsuit also seeks similar records for Clinton’s top State Department aides Huma Abedin and Cheryl Mills. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of State (No. 1:15-cv-01696)) http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/JW-v-State-Classified-information-course-016961.pdf.

 

While I'm not a supporter of Clinton, that's where I'd put 20 bucks. She's a shoo-in.

 

I've often wondered how much control a cabinet secretary has relative to their permanent civil service counterparts. The SOS cycles out, generally, every four years or so. But there are high level civil servants who have been there for decades. The place could fall apart if a political appointee were allowed to simply go hog wild.

Obviously, they have considerable influence in their department. But I also imagine there is an invisible line that keeps them from inflicting lasting damage, to some extent.

 

Y’all could be right. An unindicted Hillary would not be at all a surprising result from this administration’s politicized DOJ (Holder; now Lynch). On the other hand, if the FBI determines sufficient (they already have this) evidence from its investigation warranting and subsequently recommending indictment and the DOJ were to make the decision to not go forward: Evidential findings by the FBI will surface. Such a disclosure could derail Hillary of the Dem nomination or Gen election. Then again—regrettably, there are existent and growing segments of the electorate who place little to no measurable importance on candidates' major character failings (dark-side—e.g., dishonest, egotistical, materialistic, vindictive, duplicitous), competence level, useful successes, etc., etc. Hillary’s candidacy celebrity is a clear example as to the growing constituency of dismissive mindsets IMO…

 

All of those things could, indeed, happen. I just think they are unlikely. For the record, I don't care for Hillary either.

But let's think about the world in which all of this occurs.

David Vitter gets publicly shamed in two sex scandals and gets repeatedly re-elected to the Senate. His platform? Family values.

Charles Rangel? A big stack of corruption charges and officially censured following a House trial. Still re-elected.

When you want your horse to win objective facts seldom deter a person.

Anything shy of a conviction is not going to deter her supporter base. And any attempt to pursue a conviction is just going to ramp up the rhetoric and whip her supporters into a greater frenzy.

Politicized DOJ? Of course. The DOJ is always politicized and I'd ask for a single administration that hasn't done some sort of boneheaded political grandstanding through the DOJ.

 

Essentially already addressed, e.g.:

 

Ahh, so it was.

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is the benefit of utilizing a private server in lieu of government email? It seems that it would create many more problems than it was worth (case in point, Hillary). It also seems that the practice pre-dates Hillary. So there must be some allure. But the idea of intermingling my personal and work emails makes me cringe. I think of how many times I've accidentally fired off an email to the wrong recipient and was saved by the fact that they were, at least, internal to our company. Accidentally sending a performance appraisal to my cousin or the department budget to my father would potentially be career (or at least, job) ending. Doing the same thing with emails that, if mishandled, could land me in jail? No thank you.

 

My speculation re Hillary utilizing a private server in lieu of government email: Hillary principally trying to conceal the likelihood of using her position as SOS re Clinton influence peddling (who communicating with and what about) via The Bill, Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation shakedown doorway. An additional thought: The overall historical mistrust between the Clintons and the Obama administration.

 

As a non-supporter of Hillary and should she get the Dem nomination … will you vote for her in the General Election?

I’m not a backer of Donald Trump … wouldn’t vote for him should he get the Republican nod.

Wonder who the Libertarian Party will name for 2016 (Gary Johnson again)?

 

I wasn't particularly thrilled with either Bush or Kerry. I voted for Kerry because Bush was, in my opinion, the worse choice.

I would really prefer not to vote for Hillary. If she wins the democratic nomination I can only say that whether I would vote for her would depend greatly upon the GOP candidate.

It's scary when I think that Trump is likely one of the least dangerous choices on that stage.

 

We differ on this ... my take on the narcissistic, loose-lipped (lacking wisdom) Trump (to my knowledge has never really served anyone/anything external his own individual / business interests) as well as Hillary is that they're both dangerous candidates. I do not consider that either one of these two are truly driven to selflessly serve our Country. I believe the power of the office to be the foremost consideration by both...

 

Do third parties have nominating conventions like the Dems and the Repubs?

 

I suppose my view is that I have not identified a candidate who I don't believe to be a narcissist in this current cycle. Nor do I feel any of the candidates are driven by anything more than the power of the office (or, perhaps, the countless ways you can wiggle money out of a campaign to enrich yourself and your friends).

But I generally feel that either Hillary or Trump would be more or less satisfied with that feat. Some of the contenders right now are writing some very big checks to take us back to the middle ages on a slew of social issues.

While I dislike Trump, I don't think he would spend every waking moment plotting to deny marriage equality to American citizens. Nor do I feel he would sit there plotting to deprive women of sovereignty over their own bodies. He's a narcissist but he isn't an ideologue.

Now, if Huckabee won the nomination and it was Huckabee v Clinton, I would not only vote for Clinton but I would probably join a militia if she lost.

 

Can't speak to all Third Party nominating processes; but the more visible (as far as ballot access) LP does have a nominating convention. Not certain, but they probably differ somewhat to those of the GOP and DNC.

Steve Foerster can likely provide a more definitive response to your question Ted.

 

Thanks for your insight re the LP.
You responded before my reply to Ted's question. You're quick ...

 

If only she'd knock over a liquor store, then you'd have her, right?