Hillary Clinton email megathread

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

She has become a complete disaster since starting her campaign.  Seriously, it would only be a plus for Democrats if she dropped out tomorrow.  Exactly what advantage does she still have at this point?  Being a woman?  That ship has sailed.  It's not like any women who have ever voted Republican in the past 20 years are going to support her now.  There are plenty of other Democratic women who could run.

Elizabeth Warren should have ran, or even Kristen Gillibrand.

They still can and very well might in a post-Hillary field.  Warren is perfect for reassembling the Obama coalition, and she has room to reach a couple % more of the rural white vote on economic grounds to offset any fall in black turnout.  Not sure what is so special about Gillibrand, though.  I would prefer Klobuchar among female Dem senators.

No, it's clearly too late for anyone else to enter as the Clintons have been saying. After all, Bill Clinton entered the 1992 election on October 3, which is.... Ooops.

[Lincoln Republican]

This changes nothing.

Have you not learned by now that the Clintons are in a league of their own, and that they are above the law?

Nothing of any consequence will be found and no laws will have been broken.  This finding has already been pre-determined.

Besides, how much of the e-mail content has mysteriously gone missing?

Democrats have come to expect this type of behavior from Bill and Hillary.  In fact, the more crooked Bill and Hillary are, the more Democrats love them.

[Skill and Chance]

The fact is that without Hillary the Democrats don't really have a plan B.  Sanders and Biden are both unelectable, and O'Malley/Chafee/Webb aren't viable.

At this point, I would be willing to support an alternative to Clinton, should a serious and electable alternative emerge.  Unfortunately, nobody of that description is currently challenging her or is even rumored to be challenging her.

Right now Democrats are stuck hoping that this email scandal blows over.  Barring that, we have to hope that the Democrats have someone lined up to enter the race (who isn't Biden).  

And there lies the issue. But if you stick with such a corrupt individual, wouldn't that destroy the credibility of your party? Wouldn't it make more sense tactically to surrender 2016 and target gains in 2018 instead?

There is no such thing as 'tactically' surrendering a presidential election.  Losing the presidency won't help us in 2018.  In fact, if the economy continues to grow, then Democrats would be in an incredibly bad position in 2018, fighting against both an incumbency advantage from the economy and low turnout.

Wrong. There will be a lot of term limited governors in 2018. Easy pickings since midterms favor the opposite party. You could also maintain your at risk Senate seats versus almost invariably lose them. Losing them would almost certainly destroy your chances of taking back the Senate in 2020 and probably 2022 since the blue state Pubs will probably be filtered out next year.

"

This attitude is also dumb.  2016 should be nothing worse than a toss up for Democrats, even without Clinton.  This is an election that can be won.  There is no need to step back and (with near certainty) let Republicans fully control the federal government for the next 4 years and basically enact damnatio memoriae on everything Obama stands for just so that you might be able to control 2022 redistricting.

[Free Bird]

The fact is that without Hillary the Democrats don't really have a plan B.  Sanders and Biden are both unelectable, and O'Malley/Chafee/Webb aren't viable.

At this point, I would be willing to support an alternative to Clinton, should a serious and electable alternative emerge.  Unfortunately, nobody of that description is currently challenging her or is even rumored to be challenging her.

Right now Democrats are stuck hoping that this email scandal blows over.  Barring that, we have to hope that the Democrats have someone lined up to enter the race (who isn't Biden).  

And there lies the issue. But if you stick with such a corrupt individual, wouldn't that destroy the credibility of your party? Wouldn't it make more sense tactically to surrender 2016 and target gains in 2018 instead?

There is no such thing as 'tactically' surrendering a presidential election.  Losing the presidency won't help us in 2018.  In fact, if the economy continues to grow, then Democrats would be in an incredibly bad position in 2018, fighting against both an incumbency advantage from the economy and low turnout.

Wrong. There will be a lot of term limited governors in 2018. Easy pickings since midterms favor the opposite party. You could also maintain your at risk Senate seats versus almost invariably lose them. Losing them would almost certainly destroy your chances of taking back the Senate in 2020 and probably 2022 since the blue state Pubs will probably be filtered out next year.

"

This attitude is also dumb.  2016 should be nothing worse than a toss up for Democrats, even without Clinton.  This is an election that can be won.  There is no need to step back and (with near certainty) let Republicans fully control the federal government for the next 4 years and basically enact damnatio memoriae on everything Obama stands for just so that you might be able to control 2022 redistricting.

This attitude is also dumb. Get out of your bubble and face facts. Obama is NOT that popular, and the presidential pendulum almost is never broken. It WILL be Lean R without Hillary

[Skill and Chance]

The fact is that without Hillary the Democrats don't really have a plan B.  Sanders and Biden are both unelectable, and O'Malley/Chafee/Webb aren't viable.

At this point, I would be willing to support an alternative to Clinton, should a serious and electable alternative emerge.  Unfortunately, nobody of that description is currently challenging her or is even rumored to be challenging her.

Right now Democrats are stuck hoping that this email scandal blows over.  Barring that, we have to hope that the Democrats have someone lined up to enter the race (who isn't Biden).  

And there lies the issue. But if you stick with such a corrupt individual, wouldn't that destroy the credibility of your party? Wouldn't it make more sense tactically to surrender 2016 and target gains in 2018 instead?

There is no such thing as 'tactically' surrendering a presidential election.  Losing the presidency won't help us in 2018.  In fact, if the economy continues to grow, then Democrats would be in an incredibly bad position in 2018, fighting against both an incumbency advantage from the economy and low turnout.

Wrong. There will be a lot of term limited governors in 2018. Easy pickings since midterms favor the opposite party. You could also maintain your at risk Senate seats versus almost invariably lose them. Losing them would almost certainly destroy your chances of taking back the Senate in 2020 and probably 2022 since the blue state Pubs will probably be filtered out next year.

"

This attitude is also dumb.  2016 should be nothing worse than a toss up for Democrats, even without Clinton.  This is an election that can be won.  There is no need to step back and (with near certainty) let Republicans fully control the federal government for the next 4 years and basically enact damnatio memoriae on everything Obama stands for just so that you might be able to control 2022 redistricting.

This attitude is also dumb. Get out of your bubble and face facts. Obama is NOT that popular, and the presidential pendulum almost is never broken. It WILL be Lean R without Hillary

We have 5% unemployment and dropping and petroleum products are almost free.  It's true that Obama isn't overwhelmingly popular, but he's holding up well enough that were are presently looking at a 1960/1968/2000 statistical tie situation, with a chance at 1988/1940 conditions if the rate of economic improvement picks up.  And with today's map, the Democrat almost certainly wins the electoral college if it's within 1% either way.  No reason to give up.

[Torie]

Here is this morning's morsel of Dem insider hand wringing (the article uses the language panic mode) over Hillary to savor with your coffee and Danish.

[KingSweden]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/16/upshot/is-hillary-clinton-really-in-danger-of-losing-the-primary.html?rref=upshot&smid=tw-upshotnyt&_r=0&abt=0002&abg=0

Mrs. Clinton’s advantage among the majority of Democratic voters is underpinned by just about all of the forces that help shape public opinion and determine the outcome of primary elections. Her policy views are smack-dab in the middle of the Democratic electorate, denying Mr. Sanders much room to challenge her on the left. She has won the so-called invisible primary, the behind-the-scenes competition for elite support that helps decide the nomination. She has more endorsements and cash than just about any candidate in American history.

Her commanding advantage among party elites has not been shaken by the concerns about her email account. Just ask Joe Biden.

The possibility that Mr. Biden might run for president has led many to imagine that Mrs. Clinton’s sagging support has Democrats on the verge of drafting him into the race. But the reaction from Democratic elites to a possible Biden run has been tepid at best. Major Democratic figures have publicly argued against his candidacy. My colleagues Carl Hulse and Jason Horowitz reported that the skepticism even extends to Mr. Biden’s friends and many Obama 2008 supporters — exactly the sort of people who ought to be most receptive to his candidacy.

I read this entire article. Very sober and straightforward, and I largely agree with its thrust. Clinton has damaged herself with this email nonsense, but like someone else pointed out, it would be very easy to pull a "someone else running my server screwed up, it won't happen again" and that be the end of the story.

Not to sugarcoat, though, this has always been a major blunder by the Clintons that I've failed to wrap my head around. I don't think this will cost her the nomination, or even the Presidency, but considering that the GOP tried to take her husband down for a bad land investment and then triggered a constitutional crisis because of a blowjob, she should have expected that something like this could catch Republican attention. Why she set herself up for something like this, with everything her and her husband have experienced, is beyond me.

(A note on prior Clinton scandals - I've always thought Whitewater was dubious, but that cattle-future trading incident with Hillary in the late 70s is actually the one that I've always thought stank to high heaven. No broker just waves off a margin call of 100k, even back then).

[Mr. Morden]

WaPo has a good tick tock of how we got here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-clintons-team-went-from-nonchalant-to-nervous-over-e-mail-controversy/2015/08/14/347f1066-405e-11e5-9561-4b3dc93e3b9a_story.html

[Torie]

It appears per the NY Times that some of the emails deleted by team Hillary will likely be recovered. Also of interest is determining whether the emails were captured by hackers. So there is some hope that if Hillary was trying to cover stuff up, we shall find out what it was. Hillary seems to be rapidly losing control of this situation.

"Computer experts said it was likely that F.B.I. technicians would be able to recover from the server at least some of Mrs. Clinton’s deleted personal emails.

"In addition, specially trained cybersecurity investigators will seek to determine whether Russian, Chinese or other hackers breached the account or tried to transfer any of Mrs. Clinton’s emails, including those containing the classified information, several officials said."

[The Mikado]

The degree to which some Democrats go "there's no story here!" based on pure partisanship is distressing. Clinton was a Cabinet official and this is an offense any anonymous mid-level bureaucrat would be fired for. The degree to which rules everyone else has to follow get regularly flouted by the Clintons is appalling and I hope this is finally the story that nails these vipers.

[DrScholl]

Considering that Republicans have been extremely prone to crying wolf over anything that Democrats do during this administration, it isn't hard to understand why many people don't think there is anything to this story.

[Landslide Lyndon]

Considering that Republicans have been extremely prone to crying wolf over anything that Democrats do during this administration, it isn't hard to understand why many people don't think there is anything to this story.

Remember the good ol' times when Solyndra would be the undoing of Obama?
Or when Benghazi disqualified Hillary from ever becoming president?
Fun times.

[Bull Moose Base]

The degree to which some Democrats go "there's no story here!" based on pure partisanship is distressing. Clinton was a Cabinet official and this is an offense any anonymous mid-level bureaucrat would be fired for. The degree to which rules everyone else has to follow get regularly flouted by the Clintons is appalling and I hope this is finally the story that nails these vipers.

I don't know if there's no story but there's no likely effect on the election. This won't keep her form being nominated or, come the general election, rank high on the list of voters' concerns. As others here are saying, this fits the pattern of the GOP outrage machine pouncing on what they think will be a politically fatal scandal that ends up not mattering.

[Torie]

The degree to which some Democrats go "there's no story here!" based on pure partisanship is distressing. Clinton was a Cabinet official and this is an offense any anonymous mid-level bureaucrat would be fired for. The degree to which rules everyone else has to follow get regularly flouted by the Clintons is appalling and I hope this is finally the story that nails these vipers.

I don't know if there's no story but there's no likely effect on the election. This won't keep her form being nominated or, come the general election, rank high on the list of voters' concerns. As others here are saying, this fits the pattern of the GOP outrage machine pouncing on what they think will be a politically fatal scandal that ends up not mattering.

It sort of depends on how the facts evolve doesn't it? Anyway, Hillary has taken a hit in the polls, and certainly here on this Forum, at least for the moment. And when two thirds of the independent voters say they don't trust her (so said a Fox News poll of yesterday), that's a problem. Those voters are the least likely to return to base as it were, because they aren't part of a base.

[Landslide Lyndon]

The degree to which some Democrats go "there's no story here!" based on pure partisanship is distressing. Clinton was a Cabinet official and this is an offense any anonymous mid-level bureaucrat would be fired for. The degree to which rules everyone else has to follow get regularly flouted by the Clintons is appalling and I hope this is finally the story that nails these vipers.

I don't know if there's no story but there's no likely effect on the election. This won't keep her form being nominated or, come the general election, rank high on the list of voters' concerns. As others here are saying, this fits the pattern of the GOP outrage machine pouncing on what they think will be a politically fatal scandal that ends up not mattering.

It sort of depends on how the facts evolve doesn't it? Anyway, Hillary has taken a hit in the polls, and certainly here on this Forum, at least for the moment. And when two thirds of the independent voters say they don't trust her (so said a Fox News poll of yesterday), that's a problem. Those voters are the least likely to return to base as it were, because they aren't part of a base.

Yeah, just like working class whites would never vote for Obama after the Wright saga.

Oh wait...

[Torie]

The degree to which some Democrats go "there's no story here!" based on pure partisanship is distressing. Clinton was a Cabinet official and this is an offense any anonymous mid-level bureaucrat would be fired for. The degree to which rules everyone else has to follow get regularly flouted by the Clintons is appalling and I hope this is finally the story that nails these vipers.

I don't know if there's no story but there's no likely effect on the election. This won't keep her form being nominated or, come the general election, rank high on the list of voters' concerns. As others here are saying, this fits the pattern of the GOP outrage machine pouncing on what they think will be a politically fatal scandal that ends up not mattering.

It sort of depends on how the facts evolve doesn't it? Anyway, Hillary has taken a hit in the polls, and certainly here on this Forum, at least for the moment. And when two thirds of the independent voters say they don't trust her (so said a Fox News poll of yesterday), that's a problem. Those voters are the least likely to return to base as it were, because they aren't part of a base.

Yeah, just like working class whites would never vote for Obama after the Wright saga.

Oh wait...

Was there some poll at some point, with numbers stating that a large majority of independents did not trust Obama as a consequence of doing things that appeared to be untrustworthy px? I mean, perhaps comparing apples to apples, rather than apples to chopped liver, might be a bit more apropos here, don't you think?

Again, I know futilely, I suggest that perhaps waiting for the facts to emerge over time, might be wise, before jumping to any definitive conclusions here.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Lol even if Hillary went to jail, Obama would just pardon her. She is fine lol

Even if he did (I'm not convinced he would, since it would reveal him once and for all as the partisan hack he is and negatively affect his approval numbers and legacy), that wouldn't magically eliminate the massive  Hillary favorability sink that would come with her being sent to jail.

[Mehmentum]

I'm honestly glad that the FBI is investigating this.

If it turns out that Clinton seriously mishandled her email account, then an indictment would force her out, clearing the way for a more electable Democrat.

If they find no evidence of wrongdoing, then this effectively becomes another Benghazi.  (i.e. something that Republicans will go on about ad-nausium, with little effect since Clinton has an effective counter to the accusation.)

Imo, a win-win situation.

[The Mikado]

I'm honestly glad that the FBI is investigating this.

If it turns out that Clinton seriously mishandled her email account, then an indictment would force her out, clearing the way for a more electable Democrat.

If they find no evidence of wrongdoing, then this effectively becomes another Benghazi.  (i.e. something that Republicans will go on about ad-nausium, with little effect since Clinton has an effective counter to the accusation.)

Imo, a win-win situation.

It depends on the timing. If, say, the FBI's report indicating wrongdoing came out in early January and it was incriminating enough to force Clinton out of the race, then Democrats would already have filing deadlines in about a third of the states passed and would have significant difficulty getting into the race. If it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well/It were done quickly...

if something is really incriminating here, I hope the FBI reveals it by, say, Halloween, and we can move on. If it's much later, then Democrats will be stuck with the humiliating O'Malley/Webb/Sanders field going into the primaries.

[King]

FBI checking this out isn't going to exonerate her. All that will happen if they say they can't find wrongdoing is it being reframed as the "Democratic Bureaucrats at FBI Shutting Down The Investigation."

Like Benghazi, the narrative will be Retrial Until Proven Guilty.

[rbt48]

Another of the many opinion columns appearing every day:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-kass-clinton-email-met-0816-20150814-column.html

There will be good hints that her campaign is coming to an inevitable end when we start hearing mainstream news reports with words like these:
"Hillary Clinton is on yet another outing to Iowa insisting that her campaign will continue in spite of vicious Republican lies about her e-mails."

[Frodo]

FBI checking this out isn't going to exonerate her. All that will happen if they say they can't find wrongdoing is it being reframed as the "Democratic Bureaucrats at FBI Shutting Down The Investigation."

Like Benghazi, the narrative will be Retrial Until Proven Guilty.

That might be enough of an explanation for Republicans and Republican-leaning independents who have an axe to grind against her, for whom no exoneration is ever possible. 

But don't you think those who are truly independents might be more inclined to accept the verdict, should it come? 

[Free Bird]

Now it's 60

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/16/number-of-hillary-clintons-emails-flagged-for-clas/

[The Mikado]

There's some serious denial going on here about just how big a deal this is. There's a decent chance that the Democratic frontrunner could end up under federal indictment during this election season. Even Ted Cruz could win under those circumstances.

We have people here posting that this story is nothing, or nothing but partisan slander, or whatever. You'd better wake up. This is going to be huge.

[EliteLX]

Now it's 60

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/16/number-of-hillary-clintons-emails-flagged-for-clas/

She truly is the most disingenuous woman in politics right now.