Trump: Clinton Will See A Brawl Over E-Mails in General Election

[Purveyor]

Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump said Tuesday on Fox & Friends he would focus on Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton’s private e-mail server if both make it to general election.

* “We are never going to let this e-mail thing die because frankly what she did was break the law,” Trump said on Fox & Friends.

* “I think it’s going to be pretty rough”

* Trump also said he would “of course” slam her over the Benghazi attacks from her time as Sec. of State

* Responding to reports Clinton campaign planned to deploy Bill Clinton to criticize Trump’s statements on women, Trump, who has criticized the former president’s affairs, said, “I hope they do that. If Bill tries to portray me as a sexist, he’s going to have a hard time.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/trackers/2016-03-01/trump-clinton-will-see-a-brawl-over-e-mails-in-general-election

[revbones]

1. This just shows that it's going to become more of an issue going forward. n/t

[Cali_Democrat]

6. Oh noez....I'm sure Hillary is terrified!

[revbones]

8. Good one. Way to contribute!

[PonyUp]

4. Leave Bill at home, please.

Last edited Tue Mar 1, 2016, 04:11 PM - Edit history (1)

She's better off without him speaking.

[Purveyor]

5. Here's one for ya. Clinton indicted, withdraws from race. Trump finally implodes and the party

bosses deny him the nomination. In steps Romney. DNC denies Bernie the nomination. In steps Biden.

There is a reason we are hearing/seeing those two, more than usual, lately in the MSM.

Just pondering and just toked some good shit! ~~~

[TeamPooka]

12. Clinton being indicted is a Fox News masturbatory fantasy. nt

[BainsBane]

19. The voters will be determining the nomination

Last edited Wed Mar 2, 2016, 02:19 PM - Edit history (1)

To insist Bernie will be "denied" suggests it is owed to him. The nomination is not owed to anyone. It must be won. So far Bernie has lost three states and trails in the earned delegates. He is likely to fall further behind today. As much as some think a small group of people who think exactly like that should determine the nominee, and the president, that isn't how it works. One person, one vote. No one here's vote is worth more than that of any other American.

Instead of concocting doomsday scenarios, Bernie supporters could be working right now on getting their supporters to the polls, just as Clinton volunteers are doing. Elections take hard work. When people aren't willing to put in that work, they don't win; nor do they deserve to.

[yourpaljoey]

3. The bank speeches, the Clinton Foundation shenanigans, her Iraq War vote... so much

[bigwillq]

11. Yup

I think she is a horrible candidate.

[JaneyVee]

7. BRING IT ONNNNNN!

[Jitter65]

9. She has already said to release them.. Can't wait to see the ones from and to Trump.

[Vinca]

10. When it comes to the emails, I'm not worried about Trump. I'm worried about the FBI.

I wish they'd either clear her or charge her ASAP so we know we won't have a real nasty October surprise.

[Gothmog]

13. Officials: New Top Secret Clinton Emails 'Innocuous'

Here are some more facts on this matter http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/officials-new-top-secret-clinton-emails-innocuous-n500586

The officials say the emails included relatively "innocuous" conversations by State Department officials about the CIA drone program, which technically is considered a "Special Access Program" because officials are briefed on it only if they have a "need to know."

As a legal matter, the U.S. government does not acknowledge that the CIA kills militants with drones. The fact that the CIA conducts drone strikes in Pakistan and Yemen, however, has long been known. Senior officials, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein and former CIA Director Leon Panetta, have publicly discussed CIA drones.

In 2009, Feinstein disclosed during a public hearing that the U.S. was flying Predator drones out of a base in Pakistan. Also that year, Panetta called drone strikes in Pakistan "the only game in town in terms of confronting or trying to disrupt the al Qaeda leadership." Various public web sites continue to keep track of each CIA drone strike.

At issue are a new batch of emails from Clinton's home server that have been flagged as containing classified information in a sworn statement to the inspector general of the intelligence community. The sworn statement came from the CIA, two U.S. officials tell NBC News.

[Gothmog]

14. ANALYSIS: No, Hillary Clinton Did Not Commit a Crime ... at Least Based on What We Know Today

There was not crime committed here. Dan Abrams (son of Floyd Abrams) has some good analysis here http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/analysis-hillary-clinton-commit-crime-based-today/story?id=36626499

In the Wall Street Journal, Judge Michael Mukasey seems to be arguing that because this all just feels wrong and even criminal-y, Clinton should at least be charged with a misdemeanor. That is, of course, not how the law can or should work. In fact, Judge Mukasey learned the hard way that misstating the law when discussing the case against Clinton can be hazardous. Judge Mukasey also echoed the conservative talking point that the case against Clinton is eerily similar to the charges against former general David Petraeus: "This is the same charge brought against Gen. David Petraeus for disclosing classified information in his personal notebooks to his biographer and mistress, who was herself an Army Reserve military intelligence officer cleared to see top secret information." Except that it is nothing like that case. Apart from the possible charge, there are actually few or no similarities from a factual perspective as the lead prosecutor in the Petreaus case explained in an op-ed in USA Today:

"During his tenure as the commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan, Petraeus recorded handwritten notes in personal journals, including information he knew was classified at the very highest level. . .

Both the law and his oath required Petraeus to mark these books as 'top secret' and to store them in a Secured Compartmented Information Facility. He did neither. Rather, Petraeus allowed his biographer to take possession of the journals in order to use them as source material for his biography.

Importantly, Petraeus was well aware of the classified contents in his journals, saying to his biographer, Paula Broadwell on tape, 'I mean, they are highly classified, some of them. They don't have it on it, but I mean there's code word stuff in there.' When questioned by the FBI, Petraeus lied to agents in responding that he had neither improperly stored nor improperly provided classified information to his biographer. Petraeus knew at that time that there was classified information in the journals, and he knew they were stored improperly."

In the law, intent can be everything. Petraeus clearly knew he was violating the law, but based on what we know today, there is no evidence - not suppositions or partisan allegations but actual evidence - that Clinton knew that using a private email server was criminal or even improper at the time. Even assuming for argument's sake she created the server to keep her emails out of the public eye, that is in no way remotely comparable to the Petraeus case. Efforts to contrast the two cases fall flat factually and legally....

To be clear, none of this means Clinton won't be charged. There may be a trove of non-public evidence against her about which we simply do not know. It's also possible that the FBI recommends charges and federal prosecutors decide not to move forward as occurs in many cases. No question, that could create an explosive and politicized showdown. But based on what we do know from what has been made public, there doesn't seem to be a legitimate basis for any sort of criminal charge against her. I fear many commentators are allowing their analysis to become clouded by a long standing distrust, or even hatred of Hillary Clinton.

Dan is a good lawyer and this is a good analysis of the law on this issue

[Orsino]

15. Therefore she won't.

That was easy.

[Gothmog]

16. Yep, the "Top Secret" Emails Were All About Drones

The so-called "Top Secret" emails were all about NYT stories concerning drones and were in the public domain http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/02/yep-top-secret-emails-were-all-about-drones

So just what was in those "top secret" emails that Hillary Clinton received on her personal email server while she was Secretary of State? The New York Times reports what everyone has already figured out: they were about drones. What's more, the question of whether they contain anything that's actually sensitive is mostly just a spat between CIA and State:

Some of the nation’s intelligence agencies raised alarms last spring as the State Department began releasing emails from Hillary Clinton’s private server, saying that a number of the messages contained information that should be classified “top secret.”

The diplomats saw things differently and pushed back at the spies. In the months since, a battle has played out between the State Department and the intelligence agencies.

....Several officials said that at least one of the emails contained oblique references to C.I.A. operatives. One of the messages has been given a designation of “HCS-O” — indicating that the information was derived from human intelligence sources...The government officials said that discussions in an email thread about a New York Times article — the officials did not say which article — contained sensitive information about the intelligence surrounding the C.I.A.’s drone activities, particularly in Pakistan.

The whole piece is worth reading for the details, but the bottom line is pretty simple: there's no there there. At most, there's a minuscule amount of slightly questionable reporting that was sent via email—a common practice since pretty much forever. Mostly, though, it seems to be a case of the CIA trying to bully State and win some kind of obscure pissing contest over whether they're sufficiently careful with the nation's secrets.

It is not against the law to read and talk about articles in NYT. Your wait for an indictment may be a very long one.

Heck even Trump has given up an indictment

[timlot]

17. Sooo He's going to bring up stuff Rebugs have been talking about everyday for the last 4 years...

A one on one race is very different. You are going hear Hillary going into details. Speak from first hand knowledge. Then you will hear Donald, "we're going to build a wall, its going to be a beautiful wall". Then the moderator will move on to the next question and the difference between the two will be stark. Right now in the republican debates you have Ben Carson, shouting from the bleachers. Kasich trying to be the good guy voice of reason and Cruz and Rubio tagging one another in ring against Trump. It becomes all noise so Trump wins by default. When there are just two plans on the table for the American people to digest things will become clear.

I will also add. Trump vs Clinton will have an even different element in it. Male vs female. If folks think Trump is going to be able to lay personal attacks on Hillary like he has been able to do his male counterparts in the republican primary they are going to be surprised how that is not going to go over well. Especially since I don't believe she is going to respond in kind. The issues are on our side.

[thesquanderer]

18. Its going to be one ugly campaign. (n/t)