• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Clinton had no official State Dept. email address

You've just recited a bunch of rules then asserted without evidence that they apply to emails. And when the NYT reporter was challenged about the specific law Hillary was alleged to have broken, he finally referred to a section of the National Archives regulations that dealt with transferring her private emails to a government server.

Just for example, the amendments to the Federal Records Act explicitly ALLOW for use of private email accounts - thanks to Issa.

It's possible that some law was broken, but it's not been proven. For example, if she transferred classified documents via email, that might be a violation. So which email did that? Etc.

Look, JasperL, I don't really give a damn if you trust my credentials or not, but this is my line of work. The private email use by federal officials is solely for the purposes of adhering to the Hatch Act. It is most definitely illegal to store classified data or privileged communication on a private computer (ask General Petraeus). I mean, seriously dude, this crap is boilerplate plastered on every wallpaper on every federal computer in the whole country. Every federal employee and contractor is required to go through annual training that tells your precisely not to do this crap or you will go to jail.

Your ignorance of the law is not a compelling argument.
 
The original 1950 Act was in force during Clinton's SecState tenure.

Jack, I think it's obvious that they know all they have left is the hope it dies over time with enough delaying & trolling.
They all think they're Lanny Davis.
 
How is it that nobody at the federal level thought to ask why everything that went to Clinton was off the books?
I have heard that John Kerry was the first SoS to have an official gov e-mail.

If no SoS had an official gov e-mail, how would someone have thought to wonder why a SoS followed the SOP?

Clintons don't operate by law or morality.
Was a law broken?
If so, which one?
If not, then we're just pointing out that she was not engaged in best practices?
 
I have heard that John Kerry was the first SoS to have an official gov e-mail.

If no SoS had an official gov e-mail, how would someone have thought to wonder why a SoS followed the SOP?

There were only 4 previous Sec of State that could potential have had email: Warren Christopher, Madeline Albright, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice.

* Rice apparently rarely used email, but when she did, she used the official State Department email. This claim is not at odds with current State spokeswoman Harf who stated Kerry had the first "state.gov" email.
* Powell had a private account, but there is no information as to how often it was used or who provided the implementation.
* Albright & Christopher both didn't have an email account.

The State Department's own rules, sent out by Sec State Clinton, specifically prohibited using non-government email for official business. Additionally, people that worked with Clinton at State are starting to state that she also used IM for business( I assume Lync, since the email was via Outlook )
 
Here's a nice breakdown of the lack of security:

How Unsafe Was Hillary Clinton's Secret Staff Email System?
When Hillary Clinton ditched government email in favor of a secret, personal address, it wasn't just an affront to Obama's vaunted transparency agenda—security experts consulted by Gawker have laid out a litany of potential threats that may have exposed her email conversations to potential interception by hackers and foreign intelligence agencies.

"It is almost certain that at least some of the emails hosted at clintonemails.com were intercepted," independent security expert and developer Nic Cubrilovic told Gawker.

Another fun point, there is mail server at clintonmail.com registered since 2002, by a different party with the same last name. Hope his mail server didn't keep a log of misdirected emails!
 
Look, JasperL, I don't really give a damn if you trust my credentials or not, but this is my line of work. The private email use by federal officials is solely for the purposes of adhering to the Hatch Act. It is most definitely illegal to store classified data or privileged communication on a private computer (ask General Petraeus). I mean, seriously dude, this crap is boilerplate plastered on every wallpaper on every federal computer in the whole country. Every federal employee and contractor is required to go through annual training that tells your precisely not to do this crap or you will go to jail.

Your ignorance of the law is not a compelling argument.

But your assertions do not square with the law. Here's how the NEW law reads: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1233/text

SEC. 10. DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT FOR OFFICIAL BUSINESS CONDUCTED USING
NON-OFFICIAL ELECTRONIC MESSAGING ACCOUNT.
...
(a) In General.--An officer or employee of an executive agency
may not create or send a record using a non-official electronic
messaging account unless such officer or employee--
``(1) copies an official electronic messaging account of the
officer or employee in the original creation or transmission of the
record; or
``(2) forwards a complete copy of the record to an official
electronic messaging account of the officer or employee not later
than 20 days after the original creation or transmission of the
record.

What's key is the USING of private email by those covered employees is perfectly LEGAL even under the revised Federal Records Act. What changed is the procedures for timely archiving them. So in this example, Hillary could use clintonemail.com and all she had to do to be in perfect compliance is to bcc her state dept email address. Under the old rules, there were no deadlines and if she transferred the relevant records as part of that 55,000 page submission, she is still in perfect compliance with the old rules.

If you want to allege that she transferred classified documents via her personal email, then prove it or at least show someone making a credible allegation. There has been none of that. And it's a different charge than the one that alleges USING this account was illegal - it is plainly and obviously legal even under the revised rules.
 
Last edited:
But your assertions do not square with the law. Here's how the NEW law reads: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1233/text



What's key is the USING of private email by those covered employees is perfectly LEGAL even under the revised Federal Records Act. What changed is the procedures for timely archiving them. So in this example, Hillary could use clintonemail.com and all she had to do to be in perfect compliance is to bcc her state dept email address. Under the old rules, there were no deadlines and if she transferred the relevant records as part of that 55,000 page submission, she is still in perfect compliance with the old rules.

If you want to allege that she transferred classified documents via her personal email, then prove it or at least show someone making a credible allegation. There has been none of that. And it's a different charge than the one that alleges USING this account was illegal - it is plainly and obviously legal even under the revised rules.

If you're cool with what she has done as Secretary of State, that's your problem. She was responsible for secret negotiations with both friendly and unfriendly countries, and most of us want to know what the hell was going on. Are we now rewarding the highest foreign bidder, especially since millions go into her family's personal foundation, as we are learning?
 
If you're cool with what she has done as Secretary of State, that's your problem. She was responsible for secret negotiations with both friendly and unfriendly countries, and most of us want to know what the hell was going on. Are we now rewarding the highest foreign bidder, especially since millions go into her family's personal foundation, as we are learning?

Goodness, if she was conducting ANY secret negotiations over ANY email, we've got a serious problem, but it's not that she used clintonemail.com and not state.gov. Neither are secure ways to communicate.

And I've said many times I have a lot of problems with Hillary and haven't defended the wisdom or propriety of routing all her emails over her private account - it's tone deaf and that's just the start of the problems. And I haven't defended the Clinton Library/Foundation stuff, or worse IMO, the people who paid Bill over $100 million for speaking engagements - money that didn't flow through his foundation.

All I'm pointing out is there is really no 'there' to this story about the legal issues that I've seen demonstrated. At worst from a LEGAL standpoint, she didn't timely archive these emails over to State. But I've not ever said as a citizen I'm fine with her using private email - it's an obvious attempt to either hide emails or make them more difficult to discover via FOIA requests. It's part of the reason I'm not a fan at all of HRC. Not being a fan =/= belief she broke the law.
 
If she didn't have a fed. e-mail account, then she must have been conducting federal business through some other e-mail account--unless, of course, you're suggesting that she worked seven days at week and was able to be in multiple countries at the same time or simply did all her work from a phone. Are there any other possibilities?

She certainly could do most of her work by phone and hardcopy messages. For anything too sensitive for the mail, the State Department uses the diplomatic pouch.

Not to mention, she's got plenty of aides who can send emails on her behalf from their own state.gov accounts.
 
Then someone should connect the dots. Bottom line is private email accounts have been widely used by top officials across both parties since email was invented.

which to be fair, hasn't been all that long... corporate emails were around in the mid-80s, but I didn't get a private one until late '90s. Weird how things have changed in 20 years, huh?
 
There's no love lost between the Clinton's and Obama. I imagine Jimmy Carville has cracked open a few bottles of Makers Mark by now. This definitely has implications beyond the simple, "So, she had a personal email account," - as if that's the objection. She conducted State business over insecure communications. She sought to avoid disclosure to the American public at the expense of the American public.

The assertion that 55,000 emails is significant is meaningless.

There is a long, dark hole where there should be a record. That void will now be filled, and what's disclosed along the way doesn't bode well for the former secretary. She knows this, knew this, and has known that at some point it would be exposed. No matter how much is exposed, the question will always linger about all that wasn't.

I wonder if any of the 55,000 include those dated 9/11/12 through 9/14/12?

I doubt her political ambitions will survive this. I also wonder who else will be implicated. Should be interesting to watch.



We will see what brings her down.

I hope this does not preclude her from running, as she is the best candidate for the Republicans.

I thought the Lewinski affair would have brought them both down, but in a classic move, converted the issue into one of a a cheap blow job instead of the serious obstruction of justice case it was. Since then, I tend not to underestimate the stupidity of the American voter, a stance it seems was wise.

It would be a strategic blunder for the Republicans to rest their laurels here. First, I think she may be a sacrificial lamb tied to a stake by the masters of manipulation in the White House basement. With the right manipulation she becomes the blame for ALL that went before, and a "new face" in Elizabeth Warren emerges up the middle....

Second, it may not be the 'smoking gun'. It may be that Hillary has to be taken down bit by bit, like a monolith eroding. As the voter is confirmed stupid, we now must come to the reality that minds are made up on a little more than 144 characters. What sticks is not long term either. So in the end, the details don't mean much, memes do. She remains the leading lady in the Democratic party, and that is the meme to be overcome. The "there's nothing there" has been working...that has to be reversed
 
We will see what brings her down.

I hope this does not preclude her from running, as she is the best candidate for the Republicans.

I thought the Lewinski affair would have brought them both down, but in a classic move, converted the issue into one of a a cheap blow job instead of the serious obstruction of justice case it was. Since then, I tend not to underestimate the stupidity of the American voter, a stance it seems was wise.

It would be a strategic blunder for the Republicans to rest their laurels here. First, I think she may be a sacrificial lamb tied to a stake by the masters of manipulation in the White House basement. With the right manipulation she becomes the blame for ALL that went before, and a "new face" in Elizabeth Warren emerges up the middle....

Second, it may not be the 'smoking gun'. It may be that Hillary has to be taken down bit by bit, like a monolith eroding. As the voter is confirmed stupid, we now must come to the reality that minds are made up on a little more than 144 characters. What sticks is not long term either. So in the end, the details don't mean much, memes do. She remains the leading lady in the Democratic party, and that is the meme to be overcome. The "there's nothing there" has been working...that has to be reversed

I agree with all of the above. I think the "second" scenario is the more likely, and not inconsequentially the best for the opposition regarding 2016. I think a significant unraveling has begun, but it will take time. There's little doubt in my mind that the political left, in spite of their internecine war, is counting on the incremental disclosures to be minimized and buried. This is not likely to happen, except to the voluminous brain dead in the country, and even they won't miss the headlines in spite of themselves. And there will be headlines coming from all of this eventually. It will be a slow process, but a resolute one. Of course, that assume the republicans are smart about this, and that ever remains in doubt.
 
I agree with all of the above. I think the "second" scenario is the more likely, and not inconsequentially the best for the opposition regarding 2016. I think a significant unraveling has begun, but it will take time. There's little doubt in my mind that the political left, in spite of their internecine war, is counting on the incremental disclosures to be minimized and buried. This is not likely to happen, except to the voluminous brain dead in the country, and even they won't miss the headlines in spite of themselves. And there will be headlines coming from all of this eventually. It will be a slow process, but a resolute one. Of course, that assume the republicans are smart about this, and that ever remains in doubt.



I hate to brag, but here goes anyway..LOL

I said the day after the mid-terms it was a new ball game, as the Republicans now had the numbers to define the issues and control the debate. It was predicated on the Republicans not fighting one another and having the stones to see it through, unlike the last time the Clintons and Republicans squared off head to head.

The dominoes can only fall, when you have the scenario, as I predicted, that there was far too much unknown about the Libya mission and Benghazi; that a wise congress would immediately start digging at that scab and let Obama cook himself in his own oil.

They somehow have stumbled on the appropriate strategy. Now, the crucial part will be tying this string of cans to the tail of the White House. They must not allow the genius of the White House image makers to escape the fact, she was working for him. If he knew, he is culpable, if not, he is negligent. That King/Queen squeeze* is the chess move they need.

* My term when you leave your opponent a choice of check or losing his queen, usually to a knight
 
I hate to brag, but here goes anyway..LOL

I said the day after the mid-terms it was a new ball game, as the Republicans now had the numbers to define the issues and control the debate. It was predicated on the Republicans not fighting one another and having the stones to see it through, unlike the last time the Clintons and Republicans squared off head to head.

The dominoes can only fall, when you have the scenario, as I predicted, that there was far too much unknown about the Libya mission and Benghazi; that a wise congress would immediately start digging at that scab and let Obama cook himself in his own oil.

They somehow have stumbled on the appropriate strategy. Now, the crucial part will be tying this string of cans to the tail of the White House. They must not allow the genius of the White House image makers to escape the fact, she was working for him. If he knew, he is culpable, if not, he is negligent. That King/Queen squeeze* is the chess move they need.

* My term when you leave your opponent a choice of check or losing his queen, usually to a knight

I've believed much the same, but I've always been proven wrong when the republicans step all over themselves in the process. I think you hit the nail on the head with the "stumbled on the appropriate strategy" thing. Gowdy deserves a vote of gratitude for managing to be in the right place at the right time in spite of the spineless blobs that surround him much of the time. The string is there. All they have to do is follow it - in spite of serious roadblocks and distractions they should follow it. A little tug on the thing will help from time to time. If the republicans realize that outside of truly masterful manipulation and misdirection, they're play a little league team, they'll succeed.
 
But your assertions do not square with the law. Here's how the NEW law reads: https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/1233/text



What's key is the USING of private email by those covered employees is perfectly LEGAL even under the revised Federal Records Act. What changed is the procedures for timely archiving them. So in this example, Hillary could use clintonemail.com and all she had to do to be in perfect compliance is to bcc her state dept email address. Under the old rules, there were no deadlines and if she transferred the relevant records as part of that 55,000 page submission, she is still in perfect compliance with the old rules.

If you want to allege that she transferred classified documents via her personal email, then prove it or at least show someone making a credible allegation. There has been none of that. And it's a different charge than the one that alleges USING this account was illegal - it is plainly and obviously legal even under the revised rules.

Well, first, she didn't follow that regulation at all. And second, the rule you stated is required so that FOIA requests and subpoenas can be served on the system.

Thirdly:

(2) subject to any rights, defenses, or privileges which the United States or any agency or person may invoke, Presidential records shall be made available—
(A) pursuant to subpena or other judicial process issued by a court of competent jurisdiction for the purposes of any civil or criminal investigation or proceeding;
(B) to an incumbent President if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of current business of his office and that is not otherwise available; and
(C) to either House of Congress, or, to the extent of matter within its jurisdiction, to any committee or subcommittee thereof if such records contain information that is needed for the conduct of its business and that is not otherwise available; and


Her email scheme was designed specifically to hide documents. Seven subpoenas were ignored because she knew the committees didn't know about her private email account. These are felonies.

Moreover, the rules you stated do not apply to classified, or potentially classified data.

Pro-Tip: Classified data is either data that has been deemed dangerous to disclose because of its nature, or an aggregated collection of unclassified data that, in total, presents a risk to the state. Even assuming that Clinton never actually did her job and avoided ever discussing classified data, her email server would be deemed classified.
 
Not when the email server was at the Clinton residence where she or one of her goons could simply delete any email she would consider harmful to her.

I was being sarcastic. Still, the home email server...that's new news to me. Hadn't heard that one before.

This is going to be very interesting indeed.

CYA at it's finest!
 
I've believed much the same, but I've always been proven wrong when the republicans step all over themselves in the process. I think you hit the nail on the head with the "stumbled on the appropriate strategy" thing. Gowdy deserves a vote of gratitude for managing to be in the right place at the right time in spite of the spineless blobs that surround him much of the time. The string is there. All they have to do is follow it - in spite of serious roadblocks and distractions they should follow it. A little tug on the thing will help from time to time. If the republicans realize that outside of truly masterful manipulation and misdirection, they're play a little league team, they'll succeed.

And...a mistake that the left makes here, keep the rabid dogs away. The whole process must be moderate and mature. If you can take a look a look at the Watergate hearings, where Senator Sam Evin kept it all on an even keel while Nixon's goons rained **** on him.
 
And...a mistake that the left makes here, keep the rabid dogs away. The whole process must be moderate and mature. If you can take a look a look at the Watergate hearings, where Senator Sam Evin kept it all on an even keel while Nixon's goons rained **** on him.

Interesting that you mention Nixon. The parallels between Nixon and Obama are striking. The left would react as vampires exposed to a cross at the mere mention of it, but the things in common between the two are unmistakable. The political right would do well, as you say, to maintain calm and steadfast in their investigation, revealing only enough to keep the fires burning until the conclusion is reached in every instance. Someone needs to demonstrate the even handedness and maturity (as you say) to lend this process the dignity a court proceeding requires. In this case, that someone would be the loyal opposition to Obama, who will be grandstanding at every opportunity. The disparity between the two will be striking and convincing, and that will be paramount.
 
Interesting that you mention Nixon. The parallels between Nixon and Obama are striking. The left would react as vampires exposed to a cross at the mere mention of it, but the things in common between the two are unmistakable. The political right would do well, as you say, to maintain calm and steadfast in their investigation, revealing only enough to keep the fires burning until the conclusion is reached in every instance. Someone needs to demonstrate the even handedness and maturity (as you say) to lend this process the dignity a court proceeding requires. In this case, that someone would be the loyal opposition to Obama, who will be grandstanding at every opportunity. The disparity between the two will be striking and convincing, and that will be paramount.

I agree, and have not said so, much in the past, as you really get hammered in typical Obama defense strategy, beginning with pointing out Nixon was a Republican.

The arrogance and swagger is there. I can see Obama saying "I can bomb anybody I want, I'm the president." I can also see that he is as much the egotist as Nixon, and believe he is above the law, simply because he is president. If it should come down to it, and similar hearings have to be held, watch as Obama repeats every step of resistance through the courts, the same "executive privilege" with "national security" now thrown in for good measure.

Americans will have to get a handle on that, the corruption and arrogance if they ever hope to deal seriously with the growing list of ills too long ignored. I do not oppose Obama so much for lying, for abandoning American principles for domestic politics, nor so much the shabby treatment of his allies, but I do damn him outright for having squandered one of the greatest opportunities the country has had to make change. He had a full majority and being an asshole, thought his players would never change.

Had it been a real leader, he would have walked into the Oval Office, called the leaders, plural, of the Republican party and have them over to the White House for a serious chat. The Kind FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan held with them, to find where there was common ground and build on that. I once saw a piece seven years ago that said Obama had the votes in both houses to make changes in immigration, provided he accepted that the flow now had to be stopped. Instead he shot back with an insulting reference to "alligators and moats"

The man has no concept of other's needs, that they have egos too, and that when called out, they react. They have, and now he faces a wall of democracy which he is meeting like a spoiled school boy denied his toys and is now stomping his feet making threats he cannot carry out.

In the end, there are many similarities, too many, between the Nixon White House and it's "German Shepherds"
 
I agree, and have not said so, much in the past, as you really get hammered in typical Obama defense strategy, beginning with pointing out Nixon was a Republican.

The arrogance and swagger is there. I can see Obama saying "I can bomb anybody I want, I'm the president." I can also see that he is as much the egotist as Nixon, and believe he is above the law, simply because he is president. If it should come down to it, and similar hearings have to be held, watch as Obama repeats every step of resistance through the courts, the same "executive privilege" with "national security" now thrown in for good measure.

Americans will have to get a handle on that, the corruption and arrogance if they ever hope to deal seriously with the growing list of ills too long ignored. I do not oppose Obama so much for lying, for abandoning American principles for domestic politics, nor so much the shabby treatment of his allies, but I do damn him outright for having squandered one of the greatest opportunities the country has had to make change. He had a full majority and being an asshole, thought his players would never change.

Had it been a real leader, he would have walked into the Oval Office, called the leaders, plural, of the Republican party and have them over to the White House for a serious chat. The Kind FDR, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Reagan held with them, to find where there was common ground and build on that. I once saw a piece seven years ago that said Obama had the votes in both houses to make changes in immigration, provided he accepted that the flow now had to be stopped. Instead he shot back with an insulting reference to "alligators and moats"

The man has no concept of other's needs, that they have egos too, and that when called out, they react. They have, and now he faces a wall of democracy which he is meeting like a spoiled school boy denied his toys and is now stomping his feet making threats he cannot carry out.

In the end, there are many similarities, too many, between the Nixon White House and it's "German Shepherds"

That was very good, and I especially appreciate it as a "foreigner" intimately aware of our politics here. Obama is a petulant, spoiled child of a community organizer (I know that's overused, but remains true) that only knows an "in your face" reaction to anything that requires a well considered appreciation of an opposing viewpoint. We see that all the time here on DP. The question ultimately becomes that in which one must consider whether stomping out all opposition to the president's view is moving the nation forward, or destroying all that makes the nation a vibrant seat of democracy and free-thinking. I maintain the latter is the true reflection of the left's approach here, and it's self-destructive even though they fail to appreciate the damage they're wreaking - on themselves as well as that which they claim to despise.

There will be a reaction from the WH simply because they are inextricably tied to Clinton's State Department. Obama will not be able to help himself in that regard, although it's clear that he'd prefer someone other than Clinton to bear the left's standard. How he splits the middle of the goat will be interesting, and the republicans ought to be aware that such a thing is precisely what he'll want to do. He'll need Valerie Jarrett and David Axlerod as handlers to keep him in check - to keep him from his normal reaction. I don't think those people, and I don't mean to be all-inclusive there, will be able to do that. I think he'll not be able to keep himself from "breaking bad" when the real pressure comes to bear. It'll tell on him to entire nation.
 
You're a couple of days behind the news - no one has any clue where the server is, but it's about a 99.999% probability it ain't in her basement. That AP story that alleged that was laughably sloppy - it assumed that because the bills went to her house the server was at her house.

"No one" is a bit of a stretch. I would bet that wench Hillary Clinton knows where it is.
 
That was very good, and I especially appreciate it as a "foreigner" intimately aware of our politics here. Obama is a petulant, spoiled child of a community organizer (I know that's overused, but remains true) that only knows an "in your face" reaction to anything that requires a well considered appreciation of an opposing viewpoint. We see that all the time here on DP. The question ultimately becomes that in which one must consider whether stomping out all opposition to the president's view is moving the nation forward, or destroying all that makes the nation a vibrant seat of democracy and free-thinking. I maintain the latter is the true reflection of the left's approach here, and it's self-destructive even though they fail to appreciate the damage they're wreaking - on themselves as well as that which they claim to despise.

There will be a reaction from the WH simply because they are inextricably tied to Clinton's State Department. Obama will not be able to help himself in that regard, although it's clear that he'd prefer someone other than Clinton to bear the left's standard. How he splits the middle of the goat will be interesting, and the republicans ought to be aware that such a thing is precisely what he'll want to do. He'll need Valerie Jarrett and David Axlerod as handlers to keep him in check - to keep him from his normal reaction. I don't think those people, and I don't mean to be all-inclusive there, will be able to do that. I think he'll not be able to keep himself from "breaking bad" when the real pressure comes to bear. It'll tell on him to entire nation.

I think BHO's people probably fed the Hillary email story to the NYT in the first place.
 
Already done many times by many posters. No longer honoring bad faith requests.

It's the left's way of attempting to bully their debate opposition.
 
That was very good, and I especially appreciate it as a "foreigner" intimately aware of our politics here. Obama is a petulant, spoiled child of a community organizer (I know that's overused, but remains true) that only knows an "in your face" reaction to anything that requires a well considered appreciation of an opposing viewpoint. We see that all the time here on DP. The question ultimately becomes that in which one must consider whether stomping out all opposition to the president's view is moving the nation forward, or destroying all that makes the nation a vibrant seat of democracy and free-thinking. I maintain the latter is the true reflection of the left's approach here, and it's self-destructive even though they fail to appreciate the damage they're wreaking - on themselves as well as that which they claim to despise.

There will be a reaction from the WH simply because they are inextricably tied to Clinton's State Department. Obama will not be able to help himself in that regard, although it's clear that he'd prefer someone other than Clinton to bear the left's standard. How he splits the middle of the goat will be interesting, and the republicans ought to be aware that such a thing is precisely what he'll want to do. He'll need Valerie Jarrett and David Axlerod as handlers to keep him in check - to keep him from his normal reaction. I don't think those people, and I don't mean to be all-inclusive there, will be able to do that. I think he'll not be able to keep himself from "breaking bad" when the real pressure comes to bear. It'll tell on him to entire nation.

What Obama does or doesn't do with this will be interesting. I have not abandoned the theory that the White House is aiding this scandal. Right now, clearly, they are sitting on it, waiting, which is the smart strategy.

I don't think Obama has handlers in the traditional sense. Jarret and co., are errand people, they carry the bags and throw the snowballs. Obama is not the kind of guy who wants a differing opinion around, someone who might rattle the over-sized confidence he has in himself.

It has always been so, with the left, that opposing opinions are not allowed. There is no greater group of people who interpret freedom of expression, which is what we have here, means you can say anything you like so long as we agree with it. University campuses, which should be the center of freedom of expression are now places of freedom of expression of their ideas. Try to put up a poster of an unborn fetus on a campus anywhere in North America. They cannot comprehend the leftist ideology of the 18th century, the then "liberal" concept of "I may not necessarily agree with what you say,. but I will defend to my death your right to say it." [Now attributed to an American, although it was a French philosopher of the left at that time.

They then sneer at the constitution, it's old, the founding fathers could not have foreseen.....which is why they made an amending formula, but that's a mere detail. What they don't see with the "Bush did it to" excuse, or the arguments of mitigation, is that it might be to their advantage today, but tomorrow when the other side is calling the shots, they will scream "tyranny" and be correct, tyranny they brought to the fore.

Having had the benefit of a US education though high school, and a good one then, and watching Canada muddle through its own constitution and a "Charter of Rights and Freedoms" the view from here is different. I see Canada becoming the world leader in freedoms, while Americans surrenders theirs with relish. The right has insisted on draconian laws to fight "terrorism" and ripped away most of your freedoms. Obama rules by decree and the left cheers him on, it's justified in reaching that all important "agenda" that keeps changing. So from both sides, the erosion occurs and no one notices. A foreign leader is INVITED to speak, and his integrity and his nation are attacked viciously because he dared have an opinion, slightly different than Obama. How then is say a college senior able to question him, or other politicians; they have been made into not only "enemies" but enemies out to destroy America.

They will howl like crazy and run for the border as they did during Vietnam, when another Nixon strolls into the White House, pronounces Democrats as "enemies", and saying "Obama did it too" order IRS audits of every registered Democrat in the country.

By then I hope will have sealed the border.
 
Back
Top Bottom