February 23, 2016

"A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that State Department officials and top aides to Hillary Clinton should be questioned under oath..."

"... about whether they intentionally thwarted federal open records laws by using or allowing the use of a private email server throughout Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013."
The decision by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington came in a lawsuit over public records brought by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal watchdog group, regarding its May 2013 request for information about the employment arrangement of Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide.
Meanwhile, Trump might sound as though he's committing to prosecute Hillary: "You have no choice... In fairness, you have to look into that... She seems to be guilty... But you know what, I wouldn't even say that. But certainly, it has to be looked at... If a Republican wins, if I'm winning, certainly you will look at that as being fair to anyone else. So unfair to the people that have been prosecuted over the years for doing much less than she did. So she's being protected, but if I win, certainly it's something we're going to look at."

I'm seeing that paraphrased at some less-than-careful websites as: As president, I would prosecute Clinton.

"You have no choice" is the strongest statement, but to pin him down, you have to connect it to the question asked, and considering how many times he spoke only in terms of looking into it and being fair — treating her the same as others — I think it's absolutely wrong to view Trump as committing to prosecution... which by the way is something he should not do, precisely for the sake of the fairness about which he was emphatic.

119 comments:

Ignorance is Bliss said...

If elected president* I promise her a fair trial and a speedy execution.

*Note to Secret Service: That is if I am elected President. Not if she is elected President.

Sebastian said...

"I think it's absolutely wrong to view Trump as committing to___" Fill in the blank. With anything.

Rob said...

Were Trump to win, it's a good bet that Obama would pardon Hillary before leaving office. He wouldn't like it clouding his legacy as it did Ford's, but he'd do it anyway.

YoungHegelian said...

You look down the list of all the hi-jinks that Hillary & her krew were into at State, and your first reaction is "She just thought she could do anything she damn wanted to do, didn't she?"

And the second thought is: "Well, she got away with it, didn't she? If she wasn't running for President & just wanted to be a grandma, no one would have followed up on this."

How did this happen? Why weren't there employees in IT, security, & administration at the State Dept rioting in the streets over this? Why didn't senior government officials at other agencies shit a brick when they got an email from Hillary from a domain other than "state.gov"?

This whole affair points to the inevitable conclusion that the Federal government bureaucracy is profoundly dysfunctional. Dept. of State looks so bad that it needs to be burnt to the ground & re-built if it's ever going to be made right.

tim in vermont said...

Cue Sammy Finkleman to explain why the Federal Judge has no idea what he is yammering on about!

damikesc said...

Were Trump to win, it's a good bet that Obama would pardon Hillary before leaving office. He wouldn't like it clouding his legacy as it did Ford's, but he'd do it anyway.

...then a Republican should simply dump all of the data humanly possible out there. Embarrass the hell out of him and her.

...I'll also say that if I don't hear the name "Marc Rich" in the general, I will be disappointed in the GOP more than usual.

This whole affair points to the inevitable conclusion that the Federal government bureaucracy is profoundly dysfunctional. Dept. of State looks so bad that it needs to be burnt to the ground & re-built if it's ever going to be made right.

That's every agency.

This shows why the spoils system wasn't so bad. At the end, SOMEBODY was responsible for what the clowns did.

SteveR said...

You can easily contrast "you have to look at it" with "how can we ignore this".

buwaya said...

"So unfair to the people that have been prosecuted over the years for doing much less than she did. "
This sounds like the future rhetorical line.
He doesn't have to make promises, just press the point.

tim in vermont said...

There was never more than one possible explanation for why she had that private server. It is the only way she would have complete control over it. It is almost impossible to delete emails on hosted servers, as the Climategate people discovered to there sorrow.

The IRS's Lois Lerner? She had to resort to shredding hard drives because IMs were stored there. The fucking gall, really, to think she could do that. Either that or the stupidity. Stupidity is what led Lerner to use IMs. She thought they weren't stored.

mccullough said...

If Obama pardons Hillary, he should pardon everyone else convicted of mishandling classified information. And then we should amend the constitution to remove the presidential power to pardon. We actually should have done it after ford pardoned Nixon

tim in vermont said...

Trump may not beat Hillary, but he will rough her up to the point that nobody is going to give her the Senate back. I have friends whose only news comes from the networks who have no idea why anybody would think Hillary was dishonest. They are not going to be able to gag Trump in the general, in the debates, in his ads. It will be coming out.

Hillary famously complained that the internet had no gatekeepers. Well she is going to find out what it is like to have her big media gatekeepers steamrollered by forces they can't re$i$t. Those would be the rating$ that Trump brings, and the fact that he will be the major party candidate. SNL will have its hands full mocking the entertaining candidate while acting the palace guard for the defensive Nixonian one. "She is not a crook!" I can see it now.

Terry said...

It is getting very late in the election season to prosecute Hillary. I think the DOJ and FBI have decided to pass on prosecuting Hillary for her security failures, for different reasons. A judge is a different matter.

tim in vermont said...

Even The Onion has sullied its brand propping up Hillary.

Bay Area Guy said...

This is great, but let's clarify:

Hillary is not going to be indicted, and is not going to be pardoned. Period. Stop dreaming.

At best, the folks at Judicial Watch may get a few embarrassing video-taped depositions (Huma's would be great) or someone in the FBI leaks that it recommended an indictment, but that the DOJ is sitting on it indefinitely. Then, the DOJ would start an investigation into the FBI leaker!

That's how the Left works when it has power - don't be naive. Obama's never gonna indict his successor.

Now, having said all that, the more drip, drip, drip it hurts Hillary and cements the narrative that she is dishonest, well, Hallelujah -- I'll be a happy man!

damikesc said...

Keep in mind, if she is President, there will be NOBODY to make her use the government's email system then. And nobody can honestly believe she'll do so if she is the big dog.

You want transparent government? You cannot vote for her. She will end it, just as Obama killed off the concept of matching public funds for campaigns.

Sammy Finkelman said...

What Trump said is almost word salad. He doesn;t know exactly how to finesse this.

Gusty Winds said...

NICE!

Trump said he'd prosecute Hillary if elected. And he'll say it for the next 9 months. Over, and over, and over...

He should just narrow down to that one issue.

BTW. The GOP Judiciary committee dug in its heels committing to no hearing, no vote on and Obama Supreme Court candidate. Trump and Rubio aren't attacking each other, only Cruz.

The GOP must thinks Hillary is beatable. Even if Trump is the nominee. They'd rather negotiate and appointment to SCOTUS with him than her.



Eric said...

Were Trump to win, it's a good bet that Obama would pardon Hillary before leaving office. He wouldn't like it clouding his legacy as it did Ford's, but he'd do it anyway.

Is there a better way to make it obvious that "Laws are for the little people"?

I agree with Bay Area Guy. Hillary will not be indicted. Not because she didn't break the law, but because, well, laws are for little people.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Blogger YoungHegelian said...

And the second thought is: "Well, she got away with it, didn't she? If she wasn't running for President & just wanted to be a grandma, no one would have followed up on this."

No, that's protection.

This came out not because of the election but because of the Benghazi committee's subpoena (not technically a subpoena yet, but they had e-mail from Hillary to otehrs but nothing directy from Hillary. Hillary and her lawyers arranged to turn over a lot of stuff to teh State Department and erase the rets before the committee was told anything..

You notice she has now made herself up to be about 55 years old? (I mean in looks)

Sammy Finkelman said...

damikesc said...

Keep in mind, if she is President, there will be NOBODY to make her use the government's email system then. And nobody can honestly believe she'll do so if she is the big dog.

Oh, Obama doesn't sue e-mail, government or private. What she would do, who knows?? Probably what Bill Clinton did.

YoungHegelian said...

@Bay Area Guy,

Hillary is not going to be indicted, and is not going to be pardoned. Period. Stop dreaming.

I agree, but if the DoJ fails to indict, I think that the FBI & the Intel community will go apeshit. I think Comey will resign, and the public firestorm will be almost as damaging as an indictment.

The country as a whole doesn't know about this mess, but, believe me, all the folks involved in Federal security in some way in DC know, and they're madder than a bunch of wet hens. Something's gotta happen.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Bay Area Guy said...2/23/16, 4:19 PM


Hillary is not going to be indicted, and is not going to be pardoned. Period. Stop dreaming

She could be an uninidicted co-conspirator.

Hagar said...

You cannot assume anything from the fogbank of Trumpian rhetoric.
Everything he says, he walks back, or says the exact opposite, in the next paragraph, or at most by the following evening.

MikeR said...

If the FBI recommends indictment, Clinton is toast. It wouldn't matter what the DOJ decides to do.

Terry said...

Tim in Vermont wrote:
"Even The Onion has sullied its brand propping up Hillary."
The Onion now has Univision as a 40% shareholder:http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/01/19/463535648/area-satiric-publication-the-onion-sold-to-univision-seriously

Browndog said...

Hillary hasn't answered a question posed by the pool reporters covering her campaign in 3 months.

If she becomes President, the only time you'll see her is when they run a carefully choreographed 30 second clip of her touring a baby-milk factor on State-run tv.

Steve Uhr said...

Too bad we can't have a warren v Romney election. The issues would be front and center.

The Godfather said...

"Hillary won't be indicted"? She will if Obama sees it in his interest that she be indicted. Her election as "first woman" president would undermine Obama's legacy as "first black president". He's savvy enough to know that, if elected, she'll blame him for every one of her failures and give him no credit for her successes (if any). If Hillary! garners [sic] enough convention votes to assure her nomination over Sanders, then she'll be offered a "deal": We won't indict you if you withdraw from the race for "reasons of health" and direct that your delegates vote for Biden (the best possible candidate not to interfere with Obama's legacy).

Dan Hossley said...

Both Sanders and Trump play to the sentiment that there are two sets of rules out there; one for the rich and well connected and one for the rest of us. Bernie's term of art is "rigged". Trump's term of art is "win again".

His comment about Hillary plays to the heart of it. She will be treated like any other criminal suspect, no special deals. It's interesting that Bernie refuses to go there, given his animosity toward "rigged" systems.

I think Tim Cook will get caught in this snare also. His position seems to be that Apples economic performance is superior a federal judges search warrant.

David Begley said...

Huma and Cheryl don't recall a thing. Depose them for days and the answers will be the same. And Huma is real busy these days, too.

bbkingfish said...

"...less-than-careful..."

(Chuckle.)

Beldar said...

Trying to parse Trump's words, or hold him responsible for them, is a futile exercise.

All his supporters care about is that he continues to be outrageous, and he doesn't disappoint them. But the content is generally irrelevant.

Beldar said...

^^^ They're not necessarily all suckers, but they're all being suckered, and once they cast a vote for him, they'll forever after be suckers for purposes of the 2016 election cycle, and responsible for the chaos Trump will inflict upon the country (like he's inflicted on his businesses, which he's dragged through four waves of bankruptcy).

CWJ said...

YoungHegelian @ 4:00,

Because federal bureaucrats hew to whichever person or party protects their rice bowls. The ones who don't either get the message or are extruded.

Getting away with it means the "Justice" Department, see above, swallowing the most amazing stories of hard drives simultaneously crashing for only those people under suspicion and no others, and declining to seriously investigate much less prosecute.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Beldar

(like he's inflicted on his businesses, which he's dragged through four waves of bankruptcy).

I enjoy your Trump critiques very much -- but "four waves of bankruptcy" greatly undermines them.

The term "Bankruptcy" may sound bad -- to a lay person. It implies being broke. But in the business/legal world companies and subsidiaries file BK all the time, and few hold it against them. Chrysler and GM both filed BK, and emerged to continue selling cars. Lehman Bros did not.

It depends on the circumstance.

I suspect Trump's BKs were shell subsidiaries relating to a specific Casino project or some discreet construction job that simply failed. But so what? Many more of his deals have succeeded (making him a billionaire) than the handful that have failed.

I just don't think the BK issue has any legs. I say this as a Rubio voter in the primary.

CWJ said...

damnikesc wrote -

"...then a Republican should simply dump all of the data humanly possible out there. Embarrass the hell out of him and her. 

...I'll also say that if I don't hear the name "Marc Rich" in the general, I will be disappointed in the GOP more than usual."

I understand your sentiment, but this is just stupid. Not you, the comment. Marc Rich has been as exposed as anyone has ever been. Neither the Clinton's nor the Democrats are embarrassed. The voters don't care. Maybe they should but they don't!

What's the point of losing focus during the general by bringing up someone about whom the public doesn't care who is busy being dead and aluding to what Obama might do in the future AFTER the election.

Levi Starks said...

Wouldn't intent be more of a consideration during the sentencing phase?

Michael K said...

"Were Trump to win, it's a good bet that Obama would pardon Hillary before leaving office"

I agree and that will end the matter unless the next administration goes after Huma and Cheryl and the rest of the cockroaches under the covers.

Amanda said...

Well, take heart, if a Trump Administration Attorney General doesn't get the chance to prosecute Clinton, he could just water board her or maybe punch her in the face. He likes to do those sort of things.

AprilApple said...

She used her stint at State to stuff Clinton foundation coffers, and the rest of the government yawned and looked the other way.

tim in vermont said...

like he's inflicted on his businesses, which he's dragged through four waves of bankruptcy

Plus Rubio is a lying weasel, so we all need to vote for Cruz!

Fabi said...

Your comment at 6:26 is scurrilous, Amanda. How is such a defamatory statement allowed to stand?

AprilApple said...

what are we saying... it's all a big right wing conspiracy!

Fustigator said...

I wasnt in the Trump camp until now. This is great. Enough reason for me to vote for Trump IF he follows through with this (just to be fair).

Also, in my opinion, no way in hell that Obama will pardon Hillary. He can't stand her and would be happy to see her twist in the wind.

MaxedOutMama said...

Anybody remember Corzine? NJ governor after Goldman Sachs, Dem bigwig, head of firm that stole its customers' money? MF Global. And nothing happened.

Trump's comments are being misreported, but we do seem to have a problem with sudden surprising failures of law enforcement when it comest to the connected.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MF_Global

There is just no way that Corzine didn't know. If an average person kites checks they'll be arrested. This was theft and check-kiting on a large scale, and it is outrageous that everybody walked.

If Donald Trump were to become president, and were to direct say, Chris Christie, his AG, to enforce the laws fairly, it would be the one of the best things that ever happened in this country.

We do have a problem. We have a real problem. A Mafia type problem, in which who you are seems to matter more than what you did. Americans don't believe we have one law.

Jeffry Epstein. There's another striking set of prosecutorial decisions.

This is not going to lose Trump any votes.

David Begley said...

Bay Area Guy

In a chapter 11, the equity gets zero. Unsecured creditors can take a hit. Even secured creditors can get less than 100 %. No one escapes unscathed except management.

Original Mike said...

I saw about half of the sit down between Trump and Hannity last night (Trump was pretty good, BTW). The Trump statement I liked the best on this topic was something along the lines of, "You know, this election is very important for her", implying she needs to win to stay out of jail.

Bruce Hayden said...

Should be interesting. Right now, I see it likely that the FBI recommends prosecution of at least Hillary, and maybe her stable of enablers at the State Dept. But, I don't see prosecution by the Lynch DoJ. But, that doesn't end it - that recommendation will still be hanging around if and when Trump, or another responsible Republican, is elected and takes office. Which really means that Obama is probably going to have to pardon Herself, along with a bunch of her minions, to keep the Republicans from trying her in the next Administration. Of course, the only way to make sure that she is safe is to win the election, and then pardon herself and all her enablers. Which is a great way of focusing her attention on the Presidential race - facing a choice of the White House or the Big House, depending on whether she wins the election. No wonder the Dems are pulling out all the stops to give illegals the vote this election. Which comes back to Obama - I think that he pardons Herself (unless she wins), because her going to jail would piss off a lot of the people who would likely make Obama rich and comfortable when he leaves office.

Original Mike said...

Can Obama pardon her if she hasn't been indicted yet?

AlbertAnonymous said...

Huma and Mills (if they ever actually get deposed) will plead the 5th. With the FBI looking to recommend indictments against some or all of the Clinton state department big wigs? No way they give actual testimony.

Unknown said...

My fervent desire is the G-d of the Old Testament returns to strike dumb the so-called remaining 6 contestants for the White House! While I'm not asking Him for replacements, just about anything/anybody would/will be an improvement! BTW, since I'm pretty sure I'll make it past '16, SMOD 2020 is a winner for me.

Responder67 said...

Finally, an adult in the room.

Anglelyne said...

MaxedOutMamma: Anybody remember Corzine?

Oh, I do. I most certainly do. Reflecting upon Corzine, one hopes that it is true that "the mills of God grind exceeding slow but they grind exceeding small".

Eric said...

Everything he says, he walks back, or says the exact opposite, in the next paragraph, or at most by the following evening.

Yeah. The guy is just selling himself to the electorate the way you'd sell a used car - tell the customer what he wants to hear, no matter what the truth is. We have no clue as to what's actually going on in his head. I've voted R in nearly every election since I turned 18, but if ends up being a contest between Trump and Hillary I'll probably stay home. I can't distinguish small gradiations of "terrible".

Paddy O said...

"They are not going to be able to gag Trump in the general"

This brings up an interesting point. Trump is media dependent. How the media covers him makes a huge amount of difference. They can (and will) easily shift from covering all his statements into only writing stories about him and all his various misdeeds. Does Trump has his own network of media sources to help him get out his message once the general election hits? That's a huge question.

Mark said...

Pardon, no prosecution, even if a Republican wins.

It is time for our long national nightmare of the Clintons to be over. A trial would only prolong their presence in the national consciousness.

A pardon, just to get them to go the hell away. But a true pardon, not a hypothetical one, that is worded in such a way that it is clear she is guilty. A pardon for legal purposes, not a pardon for historical purposes.

Eric said...

I think it would be a mistake for any Republican administration to pursue Clinton aggressively on corruption or the email stuff because of the precedent it sets. You're in banana republic territory when wining an election is the opportunity to send the loser to jail.

The time to nail her would have been before she announced her candidacy. Of course, that would have required a DoJ that wasn't the political enforcement arm of the current administration.

Maybe a Sanders administration could do it, but even then it's iffy.

Terry said...

"MaxedOutMamma: Anybody remember Corzine?"
They found the missing 1.6 billion from the collapse of Corzine's securities firm!

Roughly $700 million of the missing money is now locked up with MF Global’s subsidiary in the United Kingdom, where Giddens and his team are engaged in litigation to have it returned to U.S. customers. Giddens said he is “reasonably confident” that these funds will be recovered, though he added that it will be a lengthy process with no guarantee of success.

Another $220 million was transferred inadvertently from the accounts of securities customers to those of commodities customers. That money is now in limbo amid a dispute over which customers it belongs to, said Kent Jarrell, a spokesman for Giddens.

The final $680 million or so was transferred to other financial institutions with which MF Global did business, including a substantial portion that went to JPMorgan.

Giddens said his team has “a solid basis for seeking the recovery of some of the funds that were transferred to JPMorgan,” and is engaged in ongoing talks on the issue. JPMorgan did not immediately return a request for comment.

In Amanda's fondest dreams, starting in January 2017, senators like Corzine will once again have control over who gets appointed to the Supreme Court!

Bruce Hayden said...

@Eric

I don't think that anyone really wants to prosecute Hillary, but a lot of people think that it is necessary here. The basic problem is that up until now, the sort of things that she has apparently done, would be good for a couple decades in federal prison. We are talking nearing 1800 classified documents that were apparently mishandled by being stored (illegally) on her personal server. People go to prison for one or two sometimes. How does the govt. ever prosecute anyone in the future for mishandling classified documents, if the biggest offender in recent history walks free? We are talking a really bad thing here. This seems to be what is driving the FBI here - they likely would have preferred to take a walk here, but didn't, because her handling of national security documents was so egregiously bad.

Terry said...

Bruce Hayden said...
Should be interesting. Right now, I see it likely that the FBI recommends prosecution of at least Hillary, and maybe her stable of enablers at the State Dept. But, I don't see prosecution by the Lynch DoJ.

I wouldn't bet on the FBI recommending prosecution. If they were going to do that, they would have done so by now. The FBI tries to avoid being seen as a political actor (unlike the DOJ). If I am right, the time has passed for the FBI to go after Clinton, at least in a way that can be traced to them. It would look too much like the FBI trying to sabotage a candidate. At some point the people become the boss, and if the people decide to elect Hillary despite knowing, pretty much, what she has done, than so be it. It becomes a political rather than a criminal matter.
Of course I am just guessing.

Bruce Hayden said...

Let me add that the storing of those documents on her personal, unsecured, server (and, no Secret Service protecting the physical server doesn't help in any way) made them available to a number of our enemies. It is likely that some of them, notably Russia, China, and Iran, probably were able to, and did, hack into her server, and likely watched her email in near real time. It is likely that the identity of at least one of our spies was compromised by this. And why? We all know the answer - she traded the security of these documents for the ability to thwart FOIA laws.

J. Farmer said...

Watching the elite classes hold Hillary's hand on her march to the coronation (sorry, nomination) is truly depressing. I don't give a shit about partisan politics, but Clinton is truly a godawful candidate.

YoungHegelian said...

@Bruce Hayden,

And why? We all know the answer - she traded the security of these documents for the ability to thwart FOIA laws.

I disagree. I think she or her krew set up an external email server and used the public excuse of evading FOIA, but the real reason is that she or one of her high-level associates has been willingly or unwillingly compromised by a foreign intelligence service. Think about it. It's perfect. Leak secrets through the email server, & use the Clinton Foundation & various on-the-side consulting deals to launder the payments from the foreign governments.

Otherwise, you tell me how the Clintons go from "flat broke" in 2000 to worth $110 million in 15 years when one of the pair is a Senator or Sec. of State.

Levi Starks said...

Hilary's best defense is one of complete incompetence.
Fortunately those days of incompetence are behind her.
We can safely elect her as president knowing that the country will be in the very best of hands

Bob Ellison said...

Is there evidence or reason to believe that the government's communications systems are any more secure than Hillary's closet server?

No.

tim in vermont said...

Obama could end the whole thing by nominating this guy to the Supreme Court.

From now on my question on every problem is going to be "What would Saul Goodman do? Or that CIA chief at the end of Burn After Reading

Terry said...

Bruce Hayden wrote:
"It is likely that some of them, notably Russia, China, and Iran, probably were able to, and did, hack into her server, and likely watched her email in near real time."
Hillary was our top diplomat when she did this. She must have known that at least America's enemies (Russia, Chine, Iran), and maybe some other nations not so clearly identified as enemies, had teams of highly qualified intelligence agents tasked with breaching her communications security. She didn't seem to take the slightest interest in insuring that they would be thwarted. Is there any evidence at all that she cared more about the security of her email than your grandma?

buwaya puti said...

Trump is a heavy user of Twitter.
I think Twitter is working up to a general deplatforming move, and is currently testing the waters by trying this out on the smaller fish. So far a dozen at least of right-wing bloggers/pundits.
I don't think it's unlikely for there to be a general deplatforming move across all media.
Things are going to get very ugly, in many ways.

YoungHegelian said...

@Bob E,

Is there evidence or reason to believe that the government's communications systems are any more secure than Hillary's closet server?

Yes, there is. The State Department's secure network was "air-gapped" from the unsecured network. Hillary's staff either had to manually move every document from the secure network or somehow have a gateway that defeated the air gap between the secure & non-secure network. Probably they did both.

NSA was an insider job by a system admin. OPM was not really a secure network in the Intel sense. Various Pentagon non-secure networks have been hacked, but if a secure one has been hacked nobody's talked about it.

Terry said...

I think Obama should nominate one of these great Americans to the Supreme Court:
1) Morgan Freeman
2) Cuba Gooding Jr.
3) James Earl Jones
But not Samuel L. Jackson. Too much of an angry vibe.

Sammy Finkelman said...

YoungHegelian said... 2/23/16, 8:17 PM

I think she or her krew set up an external email server and used the public excuse of evading FOIA,

That wasn't and isn't, the public excuse, and probably isn't exactly legal. It's rather the most innocent explanation people can think of.

but the real reason is that she or one of her high-level associates has been willingly or unwillingly compromised by a foreign intelligence service.

Well, the Clintons may have the upper hand here, but they probably wanted the money, too.

Think about it. It's perfect. Leak secrets through the email server,

No, no, that's not how it was done. It's possible a few times things were forwarded, and when her lawyers did their text searches, they didn't search through attachments, but what she basically did was something else.

Sidney Blumenthal would e-mail to her various kinds of foreign disinformation - really really bad and implausible disinformation usually, probably from Russia (he claims these reports were really written by Tyler Drumheller, or that the now-late Tyler Drumheller was his source)

She would hen pass the disinformation on to Jake Sullivan, after deleting the source (Sidney Blumenthal) sometimes apologetically because it was so bad.

She would then have Jake Sullivan e-mail it all over the U.S. government, asking people to write reports on it, you know, whether they believed it ot not and so on like that. Jake Sullivan also hid whatever he knew about Hillary's source.

He would then e-mail back to Hillary the reports or summaries of them possibly.

Hillary would not usually send the reports back to Sidney Blumenthal via e-mail but rather talk to him on the telephone.

& use the Clinton Foundation & various on-the-side consulting deals to launder the payments from the foreign governments.

Some of that, yes.

Otherwise, you tell me how the Clintons go from "flat broke" in 2000 to worth $110 million in 15 years when one of the pair is a Senator or Sec. of State.

When one was out of office, the other got the money, and when both were out of office, and not runnning for anything, both got the money. For all sorts of things on paper.

Beldar said...

@ Bay Area Guy, who wrote: "The term 'Bankruptcy' may sound bad -- to a lay person. It implies being broke. But in the business/legal world companies and subsidiaries file BK all the time, and few hold it against them. Chrysler and GM both filed BK, and emerged to continue selling cars. Lehman Bros did not."

You're completely wrong. I speak as a lawyer who is not a bankruptcy specialist, but who has indeed litigated the fate of national companies in bankruptcy court. In the 1990s I was a partner in the Houston office of the New York law firm that represented GM and Lehman Bros. in their bankruptcies; I was the lead lawyer in the trial here in Texas that saved Greyhound Lines, Inc., from liquidation.

Whether it results in a reorganization or a liquidation, bankruptcies are, by definition, caused by the bankrupt entity becoming insolvent -- unable to pay their debts as they come due.

GM, Chrysler, and Lehman were all insolvent -- unable to pay their debts. GM and Chrysler, however, had significant hard assets that could be used to reorganize a new business around. What exists today as GM and Chrysler are, technically, completely different entities from the companies that entered bankruptcy. And their entire financial structures are now different -- different equity (ownership), different debt (bonds, mortgages).

The fact that there's something left for someone to take over after a bankruptcy does not mean, as Trump suggests, that bankruptcy is just a normal and common event in the life of a company. Insolvency is bad.

Trump isn't even a bottom-fisher. He's what the bottom-fish EAT. Ask his buddy Carl Icahn, who ended up with the remaining dregs of Trump's New Jersey casino empire, while Trump's unsecured creditors got less than $0.01 on the dollar.

Everyone one of Trumps four waves of corporate bankruptcies screwed over everyone who trusted him, who took his word, who were fooled by his BS into thinking he's competent in addition to being rich.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Terry said...2/23/16, 8:32 PM

Is there any evidence at all that she cared more about the security of her email than your grandma?

She's a Clinton! What do you think? They don't care about keeping things secret??

Of course they do!

What, they are going to trust some foreign governments to keep their secrets?

That server had to be secure.

Fabi said...

SIPRNet, JWICS, and NSANet are absolutely more secure than a home server.

Sammy Finkelman said...

Bob Ellison said...2/23/16, 8:25 PM

Is there evidence or reason to believe that the government's communications systems are any more secure than Hillary's closet server?

There is reason to believe it was less secure.

After all, the Clintons could have checked the device used to access their server, and even how far away it was.




Beldar said...

More @ Bay Area Guy, who then wrote: "I suspect Trump's BKs were shell subsidiaries relating to a specific Casino project or some discreet construction job that simply failed."

Again, you could not be more wrong. All of Trump's companies were cross-collaterized. That is, the assets of all were pledged to secure the obligations of each and every one. A default by one automatically triggered a default by them all. So each of Trump's four waves of companies involved many, many companies, and they comprised essentially his entire corporate empire at the time.

Additionally, the first wave of bankruptcies very nearly ended up with him being forced into an involuntary personal bankruptcy based on his personal guarantees. He got better lawyers after that; he doesn't put his own money up any more, he just does deals using other people's money (so he can walk away after screwing them over).

Trump routinely and reflexively lies about this, but you can go on PACER and look at the docket sheet in each of his four waves of bankruptcies. The first filing in each is the petition, and in each of them, Trump needed two or three separate pages just to list, one company per line, all of his related subsidiaries that were going bankrupt simultaneously.

Trump had to cross-collateralize everything because he's such a bad credit risk (junk-bond interest rates). He's such a bad credit risk because everyone knows how quick he is to sue, how insistent he is on re-trading every deal, and how casually he breaks his word on behalf of his companies.

He's just a spectacularly bad businessman. If you can't see that, then you're the kind of sucker who's made him rich despite being a spectacularly bad businessman.

Beldar said...

Please don't take my word for any of this. Just go online, and listen to anyone but Trump on the subject of his bankruptcies.

He just lies outright about this stuff because no one ever calls him on it, and he's being allowed to fool millions of people with his lies.

Eric said...

I think she or her krew set up an external email server and used the public excuse of evading FOIA, but the real reason is that she or one of her high-level associates has been willingly or unwillingly compromised by a foreign intelligence service.

I doubt that. I think it's far more likely she was simply trying to hide evidence she was peddling her influence as Secretary of State. The State Department decides which countries can buy US military hardware, for instance, and can use its influence to decide which countries can buy strategic minerals like uranium ore, even if the selling country isn't the US. There are several instances where large donations were made to the Clinton Foundation which were immediately followed by a favorable decision from State.

For military hardware she a bit from both sides of the deal - campaign contributions from the military contractor and then, well, let's call them what they are - bribes from foreign countries wishing to purchase the hardware.

If you were handling a highly placed spy, would you want them doing things (aside from the spying) that would arouse suspicion? No, you'd want your spy to scrupulously obey every law except the ones that were necessary to break in the furtherance of the intelligence operation.

Sammy Finkelman said...

@Beldar re: Donald Trump's bankruptcies

Could it be that Donald Trumps fault as a businessman was that he never took precautions against things going wrong in an unanticipated way, and he was highly leveraged, to the maximum?

Possible explanation: He was always counting on his ability to negotiate his way out of trouble and/or find new partners.

But he seems to be a good politician now, so much so he could open the Trump School of Campaigning. Or is he getting secret advice form somebody?

Beldar said...

When you file a corporate Chapter 11 bankruptcy, you have to list your recent bankruptcies on Schedule I.

This is from Schedule 1 attached to the Trump companies' initial consolidated bankruptcy filing on Feb. 17, 2009, in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey. Your eyes will rapidly glaze over. More Trump companies got swept into this, of course.

------------

On November 21, 2004 the entities listed below filed for bankruptcy and were jointly
administered at Case Number 04-46898-JHW (the "2004 Debtors")
Case No. 04-46898; THCRILP Corporation, £'k/a TMlGP Corporation
Case No. 04-46899; Trump Taj Mahal Associates, a New Jersey General Partnership
Case No. 04-46900; Trump Plaza Associates, a New Jersey General Partnership
Case No. 04-46901; Trump Marina Associates, L.P., a New Jersey Limited Partnership
Case No. 04-46902; Trump Indiana Realty, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
Case No. 04-46903; Trump Indiana Casino Management, LLC
Case No. 04-46904; THCR Management Holdings, LLC
Case No. 04-46905; THCR Management Services, LLC
Case No. 04-46906; THCR Enterprises, LLC, a New Jersey Limited Liability Company
Case No. 04-46907; THCR Enterprises, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
Case No. 04-46908; Trump Internet Casino, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
Case No. 04-46909; Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Development Company, LLC
Case No. 04-46910; Trump Atlantic City Associates, a New Jersey General Pminership
Case No. 04-46911; Trump Casino Holdings, LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company
Case No. 04-46912; Trump Casino Funding, Inc., a Delawm'e Corporation
Case No. 04-46913; Trump Atlantic City Funding, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
Case No. 04-46914; Trump Mm'ina, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation
Case No. 04-46915; Trump Hotels & Casino ResOlis Holdings L.P.
Case No. 04-46916; Trump Atlantic City Holding, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
Case No. 04-46917; Trump Hotels & Casino ResOlis, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
Case No. 04-46918; THCR Holding Corp., a Delaware Corporation
Case No. 04-46919; Trump Hotels & Casino Resorts Funding, Inc., a Delaware Corp.
Case No. 04-46920; Trump Plaza Funding, Inc., a New Jersey Corporation
Case No. 04-46921; Trump Atlantic City Funding II, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
Case No. 04-46922; Trump Atlantic City Funding III, Inc., a Delaware Corporation
Case No. 04-46923; Trump Atlantic City Corporation, a Delaware Corporation
Case No. 04-46924; Trump Indiana, Inc., a Delawm'e Corporation
Case No. 04-46925; THCR Ventures, Inc., a Delaware Corporation

An Amended Order Confirming the Second Amended Joint Plan of Reorganization dated March 30, 2005 was entered on April!!, 2005 by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey for all of the 2004 Debtors. As a result of the plan, certain 2004 Debtors were renamed, and certain subsidiaries were merged and/or dissolved. The following reorganized debtors emerged: TCI Ho!dings, LLC; Tnullp Entertainment Resorts, Inc.; Tnnnp Entertainment Resorts Holdings, L.P,; Trump Entertainment Resorts FWlding, Inc.; Trump Entertainment Resorts Development Company, LLC; Trump Taj Mahal Associates, LLC; Trump Plaza Associates, LLC; Trump Marina Associates, LLC; TER Management Co" LLC; TER Development Co., LLC; and TER Keystone Development Co., LLC. All of these entities are direct or indirect affiliates of Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc, As of the date hereof, all of these cases have been closed, with the exception of 04-46898, 04-46899, 04-46900, 04-46901.

YoungHegelian said...

@Eric,

If you were handling a highly placed spy, would you want them doing things (aside from the spying) that would arouse suspicion? No, you'd want your spy to scrupulously obey every law except the ones that were necessary to break in the furtherance of the intelligence operation.

Actually, if I was the handler for a foreign agent, I really wouldn't care what happened to my operative if in the course of my handling him/her I scored multiple major intelligence coups, such as the names of multiple CIA moles in foreign governments (which documents Hillary had on her server). If the rules get broken, but my source pulls the scam off long enough for my government to get what it wants, it'll be up to my very powerful & well-connected source to extricate herself from the predicament she got herself in.

grackle said...

Right now, I see it likely that the FBI recommends prosecution of at least Hillary, and maybe her stable of enablers at the State Dept.

Questions: Does the FBI have to recommend … anything? Could not the FBI simply hand over the FBI’s gathered evidence to the DoJ without a recommendation? Is there a rule or law on what the FBI does in regards to investigations after the investigation is finished?

As I understand it, in ordinary investigations by ordinary investigators(usually the local police), that the evidence gathered is handed over to the local prosecutor without any official recommendation from the local police. It’s entirely left up to the prosecutor whether to prosecute.

The Godfather said...

@Beldar: Somebody who knows the facts that you talk about and has credibility should go public about this (and, sorry, comments on Althouse.com don't count as "going public"). My (limited) experience with real estate investments is consistent with what Tromp is always saying: That real estate deals are structured so that if a particular deal goes south the consequences are limited to the assets and investments of that particular deal without affecting the developer's and investors' other holdings and enterprises. Investors in these deals are big boys and they know the risks, so you don't cry for them. Your description is VERY different, and if it could be presented in a way that folks could understand, it could change the public opinion of Tromp.

Of course if people could really understand what Hillary! was going with her private server and foundation, that could change the public understanding and opinion of her.

Eric said...

@YoungHegelian,

But you would care, because you want to keep your agent around. The most damaging agents, people like Ames and Hanson, were spying for decades. People like Huma Abedin will be lodged in the power structure somewhere even if Clinton loses the election. Of course you don't care about your spy as a person, but you care about her as an asset.

Beyond that, you don't want your spies to be caught because it gets people excited enough to implement new security and make your job harder. Better to lull them with the idea spying ended with the cold war.

YoungHegelian said...

@Eric,

I see your point. But, I'd still burn an asset if the collective gains from him/her had proved such a bonanza that the ROI, so to speak, had already been superb. Also, it may be that Hillary & her associates' handlers had cautioned more discretion, but they treated their handlers with the same arrogance & haughtiness they seem to treat everyone with. A handler only has so much non-destructive leverage on a powerful source, after all.

In any case, thanks for even considering the espionage possibility at all. My liberal friends just freak at the thought. For all of the blog readers who consider this just febrile right-wing conspiracy theory, tell me this: Hillary wanted to bring Sidney Blumenthal with her to State, but State denied him a clearance. The reason given: Blumenthal had said nasty things about Obama during the course of the campaign. Oh, right, like the Obama administration didn't have oodles of Clinton acolytes in the ranks who had somewhere, sometime in the campaign bad-mouthed their opposition. So, what's the real reason Sid didn't get a clearance?

cubanbob said...

If Hillary were to get elected she would be the first president to be impeached and removed.The big dilemma for Hillary in choosing her running mate is who would be sufficiently objectionable as president that if she were elected Congress would fear in removing her. Obama has his Biden. Who can Hillary find to be Biden? The only one I can think of is Sanders. Remove Hillary and get the communist.

madAsHell said...

That server had to be secure.

No, you are absolutely wrong. If you were clever, then you would have pointed a browser at clintonemail.com. The domain remained active for several days after the story broke. The login screen came up to show Microsoft Outlook, and a copyright date of 2010. The login screen is updated every time a patch is applied. So....no patches were applied after the install.

She is contempt wrapped in incompetence inside of malfeasance.

I actually posted some of the info here in Althouse comments, but I'm too lazy to search.

By the way, there is also an obamaemail.com that is located in Century City, California.

ping obamaemail.com
PING obamaemail.com (192.64.119.24): 56 data bytes
64 bytes from 192.64.119.24: icmp_seq=0 ttl=50 time=85.775 ms
64 bytes from 192.64.119.24: icmp_seq=1 ttl=50 time=88.873 ms
64 bytes from 192.64.119.24: icmp_seq=2 ttl=50 time=88.785 ms
64 bytes from 192.64.119.24: icmp_seq=3 ttl=50 time=87.145 ms

garage mahal said...

As a bona fide leftist I hope all the Clinton's dirty laundry get aired out- in full public view- for all to see, even if it takes a bought off cash-in-hand, bumfuck backwater Republican judge to accomplish that goal.

Birkel said...

"garage mahal"

The best you can hope is to be a guard who keeps order in the bread lines, if ever your preferred goals are accomplished.

garage mahal said...

birkel-- I thrive in your utopia. You thrive in mine.

Amanda said...

Looks like Trump has his own legal problems.

https://www.yahoo.com/politics/with-gop-nomination-looming-trump-slated-to-take-191550876.html

"Here’s a part of the political calendar that nobody in the Republican Party seems to have noticed: This spring, just as the GOP nomination battle enters its final phase, frontrunner Donald Trump could be forced to take time out for some unwanted personal business: He’s due to take the witness stand in a federal courtroom in San Diego, where he is being accused of running a financial fraud.

In court filings last Friday, lawyers for both sides in a long-running civil lawsuit over the now defunct Trump University named Trump on their witness lists. That makes it all but certain that the reality-show star and international businessman will be forced to be grilled under oath over allegations in the lawsuit that he engaged in deceptive trade practices and scammed thousands of students who enrolled in his “university” courses in response to promises he would make them rich in the real estate market."

dwick said...

Amanda said...
Well, take heart, if a Trump Administration Attorney General doesn't get the chance to prosecute Clinton, he could just water board her or maybe punch her in the face. He likes to do those sort of things.

2/23/16, 6:26 PM


As opposed to the 50 to 100 people close to the Clintons who have died unnatural deaths during Bill and Hillary's 3 decades in political power.
At this point Amanda can't name one person Trump has water-boarded or punched in the face - despite her claim 'He likes to do those sort of things.'

Amanda said...

Dwick, hahahaha, oh my god. Check out Snopes. But it's more fun to be a conspiracy theorist, I suppose.

Birkel said...

"garage mahal"

There is no utopian vision in my mind's eye. The world is. I am a realist who demands a proper accounting. My vision of the world is only that The Gods of the Copybook Headings never relent. Reality intrudes. Math demands interest be paid.

I believe you are a personal, moral coward who would be a guard in the bread lines. You will not be trusted with more than that. And like all petty tyrants, you will exact your revenge for your own mediocrity.

Amanda said...

Trump Says He'd Like to Punch a Protester in the Face

Donald Trump says he'd bring back waterboarding

Some of you people... dwick...are very uninformed.


Amanda said...

Birkel, oh blah blah blah, what a windbag you are.

garage mahal said...

I believe you are a personal, moral coward who would be a guard in the bread lines

k

Lem said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Tom said...

Well, looks like this judge has decided to be the independent counsel that should have been appointed months ago.

Bay Area Guy said...

@Beldar,

Oh my God, step away from Lexis/Nexis my friend. You are so lost in the minutia (trees), you can't see the big picture (forest).

First, Trump just won NH, SC & Nevada. Fairly and squarely. Unless Cruz drops out and throws his support to Rubio (or vice-versa), Trump wins the GOP nomination - whether you or I like it. In the real world campaign, nobody gives a rat's ass about a few corporate BKs.

Second, this Forbes piece gives the clearest exposition of Trump's wealth: somewhere between $4 and 8 Billion. That's a lotta shekels. The 4 Corporate BKs were related to a bad casino deal he did in Atlantic City. Big F#}%ing Deal. Again, the guy is filthy rich, filthy successful, and nobody gives a rat's ass about these BKs. At that high level of deal-making, there's always gonna be a few losses, none of which have made a dent in his Billionaire status.

This Fall you're gonna have two options: (1) learn to love the Donald or (2) support Hillary. The decision won't hinge on some failed Casino in New Jersey that nobody cares about. As a Rubio supporter, I'll gladly and proudly pick No. 1 - How 'bout you?

aritai said...

: prosecution. Who needs it? The next president, Sanders included could simply pull her passport when she’s out of your country and wait for the Court challenge, and argue the case long enough that she won't get the medical care she needs that’s only available at Mayo and their one-of-a-kind toys, and if there's a god because of O-Care and death panels.. Just like you did to the Shah. She'll die lonely and cold. As he did. Imagine the state of the ME with a dynastic secular Muslim royalty in place which was less bloody and intrusive than the politburo in the USSR and China, or as bad as the STASI and never reported in you.

Murder most foul, but cools the socialist’s and perfecting humankind revolutionary ardor. See ISIS for much worse. Assuming you in the west would permit this keeping-of-the peace as you did elsewhere. Instead Total Fina wanted in and called the shots, like you did in SA with Gulf and later Standard Oil willing split the proceed with Iraq, for a rich and stable Iraq. Total repeated this In Libya.. Like the Shah an outcast with his closest friends and loved one unable to visit,, sick, coughing fits, knowing she was about to face her maker and Justice. Cold and alone it should be as Mr. C's. enabler. Who renditioned far more than Mr. B. ever Waterboarded, to say nothing of SERE training of your people who need to know they’ll crack so if they know something important they never put themselves at risk of capture. Yes, I’m looking at you Senator McCain. Kept the Soviet Union safe for a decade or two more. 10s of millions of deaths.

Bruce Hayden said...

I doubt that. I think it's far more likely she was simply trying to hide evidence she was peddling her influence as Secretary of State. The State Department decides which countries can buy US military hardware, for instance, and can use its influence to decide which countries can buy strategic minerals like uranium ore, even if the selling country isn't the US. There are several instances where large donations were made to the Clinton Foundation which were immediately followed by a favorable decision from State.

I just don't see it. That would take too much up front planning, and the planning would involve public corruption, to make it easier for her to engage in quid pro quo trades of Clinton cash for U.S. foreign policy advantages. Federal felonies.

My FOIA suggestion is really a bit more general - that the Clintons, and, in particular, Herself, are/is paranoid, esp. of the great right wing conspiracy. She knew that ultimately they would come after everything that she said or did as Sec. of State. She likely just figured that it was the cost of being a Clinton. One of the ways that they would come after her would be to look at her emails through FOIA. So, easy solution, just don't use State Dept. email that is subject to FOIA. We know that she is paranoid, and has been for decades. Of course, it depends on whether you are on the left or the right as to whether you believe her paranoia is justified.

I also don't think that she had any idea how vulnerable she would make the email that she would send and receive as Sec. of State by using her personal server. Remember, this is a very early Baby Boomer, who is close to computer illiterate (she spent her college career studying Saul Alinsky, instead of learning to program, as I did). So, she could maybe be excused for not understanding the security ramifications of her actions. Of course, she probably should have changed her mind after taking all the required security classes (including extra ones, since she was one of a half dozen primary classifiers in the federal govt). But, she doesn't like to hear "no". The problem is that using a private server is probably per se negligent, and maybe even grossly negligent, which would presumably make her criminally liable. She didn't really need to intentionally expose national secrets to our enemies, rather all she needed to have done is to grossly negligently have done so (and, gross negligence is probably close to normal negligence, after all the classes she had to take).

Maybe this will show my naivety, but I just don't see her planning on engaging in the sort of quid pro quo corruption that she appears to have done while Sec. of State. Rather, I think that it just kinda grew on her. Her husband would have taken maybe a quarter of a million for speaking somewhere, or someone gave their foundation a couple million, and Billie Jeff would just suggest to her, and she would pass it on, that the party doing the giving had some sort of concern. She would just pass it on to her minions. Of course, once this got going, the money was good, and so it was never red lighted. It doesn't appear that much of the money got big results, just essentially a nudge here or there, as her minions tried to make her happy.

Bruce Hayden said...

There is reason to believe it was less secure.

After all, the Clintons could have checked the device used to access their server, and even how far away it was.


They could have, but would they have? As I just mentioned, she appears to be fairly computer illiterate. And, likely ditto for her husband. She is a very early Baby Boomer (if not from before that era), at a time when computers sat in large air conditioned rooms attended by their high priests. I spent the end of college (a couple years after her time) learning computer programming. I was a rarity. Instead, she spent it learning public manipulation from the writings of Saul Alinsky. Thence to law school, Watergate, Arkansas, marriage, kid, selling of favors, the White House, Senate, and then Sec. of State. Where, in there, did she learn much about computers? As someone above pointed out, her server appeared to have been a Microsoft Exchange server, to which no patches seem to have been applied over a period of years. The most common patches are security patches, and this then means that she was running it with large numbers of known (including to our enemies) security holes. She actually seemed to think that Secret Service agents in the house would be sufficient security (despite the server being connected to the outside world).

Bruce Hayden said...

Donald Trump says he'd bring back waterboarding

Not quite sure why you think that this is a bad thing. Most of us think that waterboarding of known terrorists is probably a good thing. Actionable intelligence was developed in the very few instances of this being utilized on high value terrorists by the Bush Administration. These people killed Americans, likely indirectly (because they were high value targets), but killed them none the less. If they were waterboarded (which is performed thousands of times a year on our military), instead of merely just killed on the spot, then that shows generosity and tolerance on our side, doesn't it?

Bottom line here is that those who get upset about the few times that our govt. waterboarded known high value terrorists are not going to vote Republican anyway. They aren't up for grabs, and Trump didn't just lose their votes. They are hard core loyal Dem voters. Likely like Amanda. What Trump was saying there is that the era of rolling over for the rest of the world to kick us under Obama is almost over. That wins votes. Probably a lot of votes.

Bruce Hayden said...

Sidney Blumenthal would e-mail to her various kinds of foreign disinformation - really really bad and implausible disinformation usually, probably from Russia (he claims these reports were really written by Tyler Drumheller, or that the now-late Tyler Drumheller was his source)

She would hen pass the disinformation on to Jake Sullivan, after deleting the source (Sidney Blumenthal) sometimes apologetically because it was so bad.

She would then have Jake Sullivan e-mail it all over the U.S. government, asking people to write reports on it, you know, whether they believed it ot not and so on like that. Jake Sullivan also hid whatever he knew about Hillary's source.

He would then e-mail back to Hillary the reports or summaries of them possibly.


I have little doubt that this sort of thing did happen. But what I think that you are missing is that ALL of her email traffic for the four years that she was Sec. of State was at one point or another, stored on that server of hers. This apparently ranged from planning her daughter's wedding to enough information to identify an American spy overseas. And, everything between. Some was personal, much was business, and some somewhere between. There is pretty good evidence that a lot of stuff was moving from her staff (and minions) to her, on a day to day basis, just to keep her informed enough to do her job.

Think of it this way - she apparently had some 60,000 or so emails over those four years on her email server. That is about 15,000 a year, or maybe 45 per day. Which is actually pretty low for that sort of position (likely, I think, because of the problem of getting classified information across the air gap to her server). And, that supposedly breaks down to 20+ work relate emails, and 20+ personal emails a day (and, if there really were that many personal emails, then why wasn't she working instead?) When I was working full time as a patent attorney, a number of hours would go by with far more emails than these in my inbox. I don't expect that more than a couple of those emails every day involved Blumenthal.

Clyde said...

If our choice is between Trump and Hillary, then America is Fucked and Fuckeder. I'll go lesser of two evils at that point and pick the American Mussolini over the American Imelda Marcos.

Clyde said...

And yes, I realize that's probably unfair to Imelda.

Brando said...

Things are starting to get interesting! Will any of Hillary's toadies crack? Are Democrats going to regret sweeping aside their entire field for her sake? It's not too late to nominate Bernie!

Rusty said...

Possible explanation: He was always counting on his ability to negotiate his way out of trouble and/or find new partners.

Exactly. He's a promoter. he gats other people on board for his ideas. They invest their money and he keeps his.

tim in vermont said...

Twitter is burning the tweets of conservatives because liberals arguments are so strong. That's how it works. When your arguments are extremely strong and persuasive, you force the other guy to shut up so that they can't be heard.

John Henry said...

Amanda, you say that, about waterboarding, like it is a bad thing.

You do realize that the US Govt has waterboarded about 3 terrorists?

You do realize that the US Govt has waterboarded tens of thousands, perhaps as many as 100 thousand, American citizens over the past 50-60 years? Mostly military in the SERE training.

Although President Obama claims to have stopped waterboarding, he has replaced it with murder, generally via drones. Including a 16 year old American citizen who was not accused or suspected of anything other than being the son of a suspected terrorist. Also a citizen, also murdered.

He treats this like a joke, even publicly and to their face threatening to murder via drone the Jonas Brothers. (I agree their music is horrible but it does not justify murder)

So you find murder preferable to waterboarding?

Perhaps you agree with Stalin's "No man, no problem" way of thinking?

John Henry

John Henry said...

Beldar,

I've been reading you for a number of years in various venues and have great respect for you as a lawyer. Your postings on Trump's bankruptcies are interesting but overly deep in the legal weeds. Not being a lawyer, even if I downloaded the filings and found the time to wade through them, I doubt I would understand them.

Do you know of any articles or sources that would explain the Trump Chapter 11 bankruptcies to a layman? Particularly who lost money on them? I have gone looking several times and find nothing that is not pretty superficial.

I also question your use of "insolvency". I am not sure it is technically, legally, incorrect but it may be misleading.

Most bankruptcy chapters are about a person/company having more having more debts or liabilities than assets. That is not true of Chapter 11. My understanding is that Chapter 11 occurs when there are more assets than debts but they are not liquid enough to cover current payments due. The bankruptcy court then allows the debtee to stretch out the payments but the payments still have to be made.

This is what I understand happened in Trump's 4 bankruptcies. I have not been able to find any evidence of all secured and unsecured creditors not eventually getting paid. Were there any I missed? Names?

Yes, I agree that stretching out payments, even if additional interest or other moneys or equity are paid, can represent a loss. Time value of money and all that.

But did any of the Trump debtees not eventually get paid?

John Henry

tim in vermont said...

I think people should concentrate on Hillary's serious miscalculations in Syria and Libya.

Even Europe is beginning to awaken to the clusterfuck she has created. I guess I shouldn't use the term "clusterfuck" in light of the thousands of rapes that the refugees Hillary has created have committed.

tim in vermont said...

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/the-siege-of-aleppo-is-an-emblem-of-western-failure-in-syria-a-1077140.html

John Henry said...


insolvency

Definition
Add to Flashcards
Save to Favorites
Insolvency

In legal terminology, the situation where the liabilities of a person or firm exceed its assets. In practice, however, insolvency is the situation where an entity cannot raise enough cash to meet its obligations, or to pay debts as they become due for payment. Properly called technical insolvency, it may occur even when the value of an entity's total assets exceeds its total liabilities. Mere insolvency does not afford enough ground for lenders to petition for involuntary bankruptcy of the borrower, or force a liquidation of his or her assets.

Read more: http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/insolvency.html#ixzz415w3heqF

Were Trump's businesses ever insolvent in the bolded meaning of the word? If they were, could they still go into Chapter 11 instead of liquidation?

John Henry

John Henry said...

My bolding above.

As several others have said above, who really gives a shit about Trump's bankruptcies?

I don't. Nobody else seems to either.

Including people who continue to loan him money. If he was as untrustworthy as Beldar says, nobody would loan him money. That he has little or no personal stake, that he retains sole control, that the types of development he does are inherently risky mean that he is going to pay a high interest rate.

But they still lend him the money and they always come out of it whole.

As Larry the liquidator said "I'm not your [his fellow stockholders] friend but I always make money for my investors." Very roughly paraphrased from memory.

John Henry

John Henry said...

John Henry said...

I have gone looking several times and find nothing that is not pretty superficial.

The fact that I cannot find anything about the bankruptcies that is not superficial leads me to believe that the bankruptcies themselves were pretty superficial.

John Henry

damikesc said...

He comes from that "bumfuck backwater" that is Washington D.C., where he got his undergraduate and law degree from that right wing bastion Howard University.

Isn't Howard a HBC? Which means that garage is likely being pretty damned racist here.

Eric said...

just don't see it. That would take too much up front planning, and the planning would involve public corruption, to make it easier for her to engage in quid pro quo trades of Clinton cash for U.S. foreign policy advantages. Federal felonies.

And yet that's what happened, unless you believe the cash transfers were unrelated to the State Department rulings. There were millions at stake for her, personally. That's probably worth a bit of up-front planning. Particularly when she was already caught with her hand in the cattle futures cookie jar. This is not new behavior for Hillary Clinton.