From the BBC:
The new Indiana governor has released 30 pages of emails after a public records request, but withheld others.
Look how closely this mirrors what Hillary did. Let's see how many conservatives actually have the guts to say 'lock him up'.
And let's see how many reply to this thread with:
a. This is just another fake news
b. What Hillary did was worse because it involved (shudder) our national security
c. You lost the election losers. Suck it up
He was using AOL. There ought to be a law!
I figured 50% of the politicians used personal email accounts for government work. Then about 30% don't know how to type and don't use email. The whole thing was silly from the start.
@RedShift I must have missed the part when Sessions erased 30,000 emails when he was under subpoena.
A. Indiana law does not prohibit the use of a private email account.
A. The Federal Records Act requires agencies hold onto official communications, including all work-related emails, and government employees cannot destroy or remove relevant records.
B.FThe NARA regulations dictate how records should be created and maintained. They stress that materials must be maintained "by the agency," that they should be "readily found" and that the records must "make possible a proper scrutiny by the Congress."OIA is designed to "improve public access to agency records and information
C. Section 1924 of Title 18 has to do with deletion and retention of classified documents. "Knowingly" removing or housing classified information at an "unauthorized location" is subject to a fine or a year in prison.
Sigh, missed again old friend.
Ah, bring it on hypocrites! Bring it on.
It was different in THIS way THAT way.
He isn't even releasing the remaining emails. No worries though, outa sight, outa mind , eh?
If it's not against the law, why is he releasing certain emails? Not others? What the eff is he hiding?
Why are the records of his service sealed, still? Why does his boss not release his tax records? Ah, the dripping, thick gooey conservative hypocrisy! :-)
For Pence, Indiana law doesn't prohibit a private email account - but it does require that any official business be "preserved". A refusal to provide any emails pertaining to his official duties is a violation of the law. Some would argue that this should be a continuing responsibility - as emails are created they should be passed to the state for archiving. Pence waited until he left office, and turned the emails over to his lawyers, so presumably "some day" the people will get the records.
Hillary Clinton providing some emails then burning down the server is completely unforgiveable. If I had done that, my behind would be behind bars - no questions, no appeals.
Here's the problem we're all having in swaying the opposition and it isn't because we're dumb, I'll-informed, poor communicators or too under the influence to think rationally. It's because we are all faced with the challenge of defending horrible people. Our elected officials are supposed to be a "cut above" not the bottom of the barrel.
So, perhaps we should unite and demand much more from those who represent us. It isn't enough that what they happen to do isn't illegal, they should conduct themselves in such a way that it's clear they aren't even close to the line.
Ahhh to dream
Seriously, Red: the cases aren't even vaguely comparable. Clinton established her server to evade scrutiny, then lied about it, swore that there was never any classified information discussed (and as we now know, there were in fact _hundreds_ of emails containing classified information), then wiped the server using BitBleacher software so that it could not be checked.
The difference is so stark that even the liberal media agrees: as the Washington Post notes: "Using a private account if you're the governor of Indiana, where it's legal to do so and you're ostensibly dealing with much less-sensitive information, is much different than using a private email account exclusively to do work as secretary of state,who has access to many if not most of the nation's top secrets."
@dramsey. Is there really any evidence that Hillary had any nefarious motives with her server beyond being being careless
Do you realize that men are allowed to make mistakes but not woman.
Colin Powell used private e-mail. So did Condi Rice. I seriously doubt there was any ill intent in simply using a private server. There was precedent.
Lost in all this is old politicians don't have a clue about technology (and most younger ones are not much better). Expecting them to even understand what a server is maybe beyond their mental capabilities. This applies equally to both parties. May not be right, but this is really blown so out of portion to any serious offences. We have far more important issues to deal with.
@SCCRENDO >>>>@dramsey. Is there really any evidence that Hillary had any nefarious motives with her server beyond being being careless
Nothing that will convince you. But if you throw something in the trash that was under subpoena that is careless. However, if you burn it and then wash the ashes in acid one might reasonably assume you're trying to hide something.
@TT, I agree. But that also calls into question those who are participating. Meh.
@JT, sorry, that suspends my disbelief.
Simple question to all voters out there: "Do you think Jeff Sessions answered the question put to him in the Senate hearings by Fraken truthfully"?
@NKYTA Considering how smart he is supposed to be and how disjointed Frsnken's construction of the question was, I think he had no choice but to distill it down to "did you meet with any Russian officials since you joined the campaign?"
To that question there is only be answer and he didn't supply it.
The thing is that if it was in his mind that he did, what was the downside of saying so? So it would have been 52-48 instead of 53-47, what's the diff?
So, I'm not seeing a huge cover up here. Still, I want my Attorney General to be beyond competent and in full command of his thoughts and comments. Sessions, like Trump has been quite disappointing on the unforced errors side of things and eventually, even the basest of Trump supporters is going to start wondering about his abilities.
Are you parsing words here @JT? "To that question there is only be answer and he didn't supply it."
He lied, or he is grossly incompetent, or that is how I see it.
"The thing is that if it was in his mind that he did, what was the downside of saying so? So it would have been 52-48 instead of 53-47, what's the diff?"
Does this part even matter to a voter (I don't trust the other elected officials either, or the voters)? The guy lied, or he is grossly incompetent.
-Your- new Attorney General, either lied or is incompetent.
How can that possibly sit well with you?
If he did nothing wrong (let's just assume that he didn't violate any law for shits and giggles), why the eff isn't he releasing all the emails?
Either: you say ' I didn't do anything wrong, I'm not going to give any emails' or you say 'I will give everything because I don't believe there was anything compromising'.
He has done neither. Why?
@NKYTA I LOVE parsing. Parsing and being pedantic and using hyperbole to point out inconsistencies in arguments is great fun. But, this is a different conversation because I do not want to be at odds with the man who is raising my baby, little OMC.
So, I will be straight with my answers in this conversation as I'm sure you'll be.
Franken never asked, "Did you meet with any members of the Russian government since you joined the campaign?" (Now, don't go assuming I'm going to parse Franken's question to excuse Sessions. Just follow along with the bouncing ball and give me the benefit of the doubt.)
He asked, "And if there is any evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the Russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do?"
Sessions' answer should have been, "I'll recuse myself." But, instead he said, "he had no communications with the Russians," which is obviously a lie, because he had, plus it's an answer to a question Franken never asked, which is a huge mistake for a lawyer to make.
When you're under oath, giving testimony, you're never supposed to give extra information. If someone asks you if you know what time it is, you're supposed to say, 'yes" or "no". You're not supposed to say, "It's 12:05, because that's not what was asked."
So, Franken was asking what Sessions would do as Attorney General if there was evidence of "a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government." We never got an answer to that question, which is also weird because I thought Franken would be the kind of guy to say, "Well, that's very interesting but that's not what I asked."
Still, on that basis alone--he gave incorrect testimony and was stupid about it-- I think he should resign or be removed.
As to this part: >>>"The thing is that if it was in his mind that he did, what was the downside of saying so? So it would have been 52-48 instead of 53-47, what's the diff?"
My point here is that his comment was doubly stupid because it wouldn't have mattered to anyone if he had said, "I met with Kisleyev during the campaign in my office." He still would have been confirmed because it would still be a party line vote.
The you asked>>>Your- new Attorney General, either lied or is incompetent.
How can that possibly sit well with you?<<<<
But, I had said this:>>>Still, I want my Attorney General to be beyond competent and in full command of his thoughts and comments. Sessions, like Trump has been quite disappointing
Does that sound like it is sitting well with me?
Is my conversational method so obtuse that you can't even tell when I'm complaining? :-)
@Red Shift >>He has done neither. Why?
I don't know. Why do you think?
Is it a Jewish thing - answer a question with a question? :-) Ever watch 'Frasier'?
You said earlier, 'you might assume she is trying to hide something' in the context of Hillary's email investigations.
Bingo. Pence won't release all (God only knows how many) emails, because he wants to hide something.
Pence's Congressional records are sealed until 2022. Presumably, because he wants to hide something.
Trump won't release his tax records. Presumably because he wants to hide something.
@Red Shift I answered your question with an answer. I said, "I don't know."
Then I asked a question which you then answered with two questions.
Your first question, is it a Jewish thing? Not that I am aware of.
Did I ever watch Frasier? Yes, I did.
So, now answer my question. Why do you think Pence didn't say" I didn't do anything wrong, I'm not going to give any emails' or say 'I will give everything because I don't believe there was anything compromising'.
@Red Shift So what do you think Hillary was trying to hide?
if you read the thread title, I grant you the permission (not you, specifically) to 'lock her up' (because that is what it seems will keep Trump supporters mental peace, though not Trump's).
Let us focus on the hypocrisy of denying us the level of standard you were aspiring to, when pillorying and witch hunting for the last couple of years. Futililely, I might add.
Curious that those with a penchant for standing on formality and using full names such as Barack Hussain Obama have yet to utter Jefferson Beauregard Sessions. Just saying
@redshift. It is not a Jewish thing. It's a JT thing
@JT. No I dont think Hillary had anything to hide. Except possibIy some personal stuff that was of no consequence to our security. I think she was stupid to use a private server although it is obvious everybody does it. We do not know if there is anything going on with the Russians but the cover ups here make one want to find out. Hillary had investigation after investigation for far less.
@SCCRENDO >>>>@JT. No I dont think Hillary had anything to hide.
Of course you don't. Your whole belief system would crumble if you admitted that she did.
@RedShift I don't want Hillary locked up,
I'd like to see Trump and Pence gone, just as long as Hillary doesn't take their place.
@Bh A rose, by any other name . . .
Hilary would be tough on Russia but since she is a woman the Russian propaganda seems to have worked. The spineless Congress is easily compromised it seems and they love their bank accounts funded by fossil fuel interests.
Sessions should definitely be charged with Felony Perjury. There are two theories:
1. Plain English. His statement is false on its face.
2. Even agreeing to General Session's definition of surrogate, his meeting with the Ambassador at the GOP nomination was clearly "political" and absolutely ZERO to do with his role in Armed Services Committee. His payment of travel expenses out of fundraising rather than Senate funds makes this beyond argument.
Ergo, Sessions should be charged. In the alternative, Congress can impeach. The Senate can convict. Sessions can be removed. Should be removed.
Jefferson Beauregard Sessions, Neo-confederate Racist Misogynist PERJURER.http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/jeff-sessions-alabamas-neo-confede...
"@NKYTA I LOVE parsing. Parsing and being pedantic and using hyperbole to point out inconsistencies in arguments is great fun. But, this is a different conversation because I do not want to be at odds with the man who is raising my baby, little OMC."
Nice jab! :-). It's actually grown up a bit. :-)
"As to this part: >>>"The thing is that if it was in his mind that he did, what was the downside of saying so? So it would have been 52-48 instead of 53-47, what's the diff?"
My point here is that his comment was doubly stupid because it wouldn't have mattered to anyone if he had said, "I met with Kisleyev during the campaign in my office." He still would have been confirmed because it would still be a party line vote."
Ok, point taken. It is the fact that he wasn't truthful that gets my goat. I agree it wouldn't have changed the outcome.
"But, I had said this:>>>Still, I want my Attorney General to be beyond competent and in full command of his thoughts and comments. Sessions, like Trump has been quite disappointing
Is my conversational method so obtuse that you can't even tell when I'm complaining? :-)"
No, it doesn't sound like it is sitting well with you either. But, granted, maybe I was conflating with some of your other posts. On this one issue "contact with Russian officials", I'm having a hard time imagining -any- other reasons why he answered the way he did. Bad hair day??
"When you're under oath, giving testimony, you're never supposed to give extra information. If someone asks you if you know what time it is, you're supposed to say, 'yes" or "no". You're not supposed to say, "It's 12:05, because that's not what was asked.""
Right out of The West Wing, methinks. ;-)
Es tu, JT? Using The Bard to obfuscate. Is that a Jewish thing? :)
@NKYTA >>>>Right out of The West Wing, methinks. ;-) Oliver Babish to CJ. Nice!!!
@Bh As a matter of fact my literature professor was Jewish. Good guess!
It looks like you need to pay more attention to Sessions response to Al Franken's question.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BpgHcanjCQ
"just as long as Hillary doesn't take their place."
How can she. How can any democrat take their place? Republican Party alone can put someone in their place. Paul Ryan?
To reiterate, let's see conservatives show that they are interested in upholding a standard. Otherwise, it will be fair to say they lack spine, and are full of hypocrisy.
+1 Perjury 101.
And you can see why he was afraid to tell the truth, based on the set-up.
Nothing's new here. Remember Gingrich had an affair at the time when he was leading the Clinton impeachment proceedings? They are a bunch of hypocrites and it will be business as usual forever. Sadly ones who are able to be the biggest lier and most unashamed hypocrite, which most often are Republicans, still hold the advange.
Sessions had also answered a written question on whether he had Russian contact. His answer was simply "no".
@CZ @Bh I really don't know what you guys are referring to and I assure you I am not being deflective.
Franken asked, "What would you do?"
What am I missing?
I have stated previously that I thought that Sessions' did not answer truthfully and also that it was stupid not to.
I really don't know what you guys want or expect from me. Like I tell my wife, write me a script and I'll be able to say exactly what you want me to.
@RedShift It was a joke.
I was simply pointing out the obvious--not being argumentative. Now about that apostrophe...:)
@JT. Why would my belief system crumble? If Hillary was guilty she should have been charged. Same here. There is no public evidence that either Trump or his cronies did anything wrong but their cover ups and their protests sure give cause for concern. At this point I believe them to be incompetent and corrupt. At least an open public inquiry and seeing Trump's tax returns would go a long way to reassure many. I'm betting on them being guilty as hell and i think that we have another Watergate here. Do the Republicans have the guts to pursue Trump and company with the same vigor as they pursued Hillary.
@SCCRENDO How would the Republicans all of a sudden have developed guts?
What aspects of Watergate do you think are comparable to this situation? The break-in, the plumbers, the ace reporters on the story, the bags of cash, Deep Throat?
JT, it wasn't just the Franken questioning, it was also the written portion. Bundled together it seems damning to me.
@NKYTA I don't disagree, it stinks, especially considering it was under oath and about being Attorney General.
@SCCRENDO Wait, I realize why you brought up Watergate. Rosemary Woods erasing 18 1/2 minutes of tape was low tech for bitbleaching emails. My apologies!!
@JT. All the cover ups before the dominoes start falling
If this is how Dems look to get back into power, Republicans will clean house in 2018. 33 Senate seats up for grabs, Democrats are defending 25 seats. 10 seats are in states Trump win big.
We are just beginning to find out about the Obama Admin wiretapping Trump, it will be interesting to see where that goes.
Nice try at misdirection. Pay attention to the OP and try to focus.
@massimo. If Trump was wiretapped they needed a warrant. If a warrant was issued there must have been a good reason. Just saying. It is worse fro Trump if he was wiretapped. If not he has committed libel against Obama although I doubt Obama will pursue it.http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/trumps-wiretap-allegations-white...
Hope everybody realizes that normal people really hate all this political back and forth coming at them from every direction.
This is poison for the lives of most citizens, and even when we come here for some positive Tesla news, people feel that they must argue constantly and try to win their points at all costs.
@phawker I understand your objections to political discussions on a car forum but the threads containing politics usually have a clue in the title to make it easy to avoid if you want to.
Now, if there was a thread entitled TESLA IS BUYING OIL FIELDS IN CANADA and the opening post was about Trump or Clinton then I could see an objection.