Jerry Brown urges Democrats not to run against Hillary

[Mac1958]

.

Interesting, especially given her current problems:

Jerry Brown Leave Hillary Clinton alone - Edward-Isaac Dovere - POLITICO

Would it be smart for the Democrats to keep her isolated until the general, or would doing that give the Republicans an advantage?

.

 

[DriftingSand]

Surely there's at least a couple of Liberal egomaniacs who desire the power and prestige of the Presidency. Why would Dems, in general, listen to that drip, Jerry Brown, in the first place? And why would anyone in America want that empty suit, Hillary Clinton, to ascend to the Presidency?

Her resumé:

a) I'm great at deceiving ignorant folks.
b) I'm good at memorizing lofty, semi-inspirational speeches.

The end.

 

[Freewill]

.

Interesting, especially given her current problems:

Jerry Brown Leave Hillary Clinton alone - Edward-Isaac Dovere - POLITICO

Would it be smart for the Democrats to keep her isolated until the general, or would doing that give the Republicans an advantage?

.

What it indicates to me is that Brown doesn't think much of democrats if Hillary is the best in his opinion.

I also think Hillary is being paid back for the ass whooping the democrats gave her in 2008. Why they care I am not sure.

Could be they think that by parading minority, or women, up for election it makes up for their past sins.

 

[Nyvin]

The email thing is minor and not really going to carry much into next year.

Hillary is the most well known (by far) of any candidate (GOP or Dem), and also has some of the highest favorability ratings (GOP or Dem).

She also has a gigantic donor network that no Dem could possibly match and pretty much only Jeb Bush could on the GOP side.

The reason you don't see a plethora of gimpy candidates trying to run like you do on the GOP side with Carson, Paul, Jindal, Perry, Huckabee, Rubio, and others is because the Dem field is so intimidating, because of Hillary.

No one was saying in 2008 that the GOP field was weak since McCain locked up the primary in March, no one said the GOP pool was shallow in 2000 when George Bush pretty much knocked out all competition the year before. The same situation is playing out in 2016 on the Dem side, one candidate leads the way and scares off any competitors, for good reason.

All that's left to know now is whether Clinton is a George Bush or a John McCain....

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What is going to be fun is watching the liberal media.
The same media that blistered her when running against Obama, will now treat her like a queen. It will be fun to watch the same cast of characters start fawning all around her like suckling babes - and then watch old videos of those same people who hated on her repeatedly.

 

[Nyvin]

What is going to be fun is watching the liberal media.
The same media that blistered her when running against Obama, will now treat her like a queen. It will be fun to watch the same cast of characters start fawning all around her like suckling babes - and then watch old videos of those same people who hated on her repeatedly.

Not really, there are a lot of media outlets that are not fond at all of Hillary, as can be seen by how much coverage the email thing is getting.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

What is going to be fun is watching the liberal media.
The same media that blistered her when running against Obama, will now treat her like a queen. It will be fun to watch the same cast of characters start fawning all around her like suckling babes - and then watch old videos of those same people who hated on her repeatedly.

Not really, there are a lot of media outlets that are not fond at all of Hillary, as can be seen by how much coverage the email thing is getting.

The "email thing" is a very serious violation of transparency and rules,
It is too bad most people don't even know what a private email server actually is, and what abilities it gives you over a controlled email server.

 

[Nyvin]

What is going to be fun is watching the liberal media.
The same media that blistered her when running against Obama, will now treat her like a queen. It will be fun to watch the same cast of characters start fawning all around her like suckling babes - and then watch old videos of those same people who hated on her repeatedly.

Not really, there are a lot of media outlets that are not fond at all of Hillary, as can be seen by how much coverage the email thing is getting.

The "email thing" is a very serious violation of transparency and rules,
It is too bad most people don't even know what a private email server actually is, and what abilities it gives you over a controlled email server.

Apparently the rules weren't all that important considering they just went into effect in 2009 after almost 20 years of the government using email.

I really don't see it becoming an issue, the government is still so inept when it comes to cybersecurity. It's certainly not like it's something people will consider when thinking about whether or not to vote for her. She probably barely knows what she was doing either, I don't see a 67 year old woman being all that tech-savy.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I really don't see it becoming an issue, the government is still so inept when it comes to cybersecurity. It's certainly not like it's something people will consider when thinking about whether or not to vote for her. She probably barely knows what she was doing either, I don't see a 67 year old woman being all that tech-savy.

OK now you are just being deliberately obtuse yourself.
You think the Clintons setup this server themselves???
It is ok to say you don't really know what a private server is, or what that really means. Most people don't.
Allow me to illuminate..

With a private server you can.....

1) Delete emails without a trace, with no ability to recover even using FBI methods of recovery.
2) You can alter past emails without altering the modification date of the email. This is impossible to do on a controlled server. In other words you can edit messages, add/remove/alter what you typed previously.
3) Have complete control of what is sent to the government, and filter out anyting you don't want to report.

And more...it is 100% unacceptable for any public official to use a private server because the only purpose of doing so is the ablities it gives you, there is no other advantage. PERIOD.

 

[Nyvin]

I really don't see it becoming an issue, the government is still so inept when it comes to cybersecurity. It's certainly not like it's something people will consider when thinking about whether or not to vote for her. She probably barely knows what she was doing either, I don't see a 67 year old woman being all that tech-savy.

OK now you are just being deliberately obtuse yourself.
You think the Clintons setup this server themselves???
It is ok to say you don't really know what a private server is, or what that really means. Most people don't.
Allow me to illuminate..

With a private server you can.....

1) Delete emails without a trace, with no ability to recover even using FBI methods of recovery.
2) You can alter past emails without altering the modification date of the email. This is impossible to do on a controlled server. In other words you can edit messages, add/remove/alter what you typed previously.
3) Have complete control of what is sent to the government, and filter out anyting you don't want to report.

And more...it is 100% unacceptable for any public official to use a private server because the only purpose of doing so is the ablities it gives you, there is no other advantage. PERIOD.

Then apparently it was unacceptable for Carl Rove, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Colin Powell, Rick Perry, and even VP DICK CHENEY to all use private emails.

And if you want talk about unacceptable, Carl Rove, George Bush, and Asshole, I mean, Dick Cheney all used private emails on an RNC server and apparently 22,000 of them were "lost" just in time for an investigation into the torture of terror suspects. But we never once heard of any charges for that issue.

The rules (*rules* not laws...) on private email use are very lean and hardly ever enforced. The government has so much to learn on cyber-security it's kinda sad.

What's more important (especially since Clinton isn't in office anymore...) is that no one is going to look at this issue and see it as something that will sway their vote, and that's pretty much going to be it's only value, because you're batsh!t crazy if you think this is going to lead to actual charges.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

I really don't see it becoming an issue, the government is still so inept when it comes to cybersecurity. It's certainly not like it's something people will consider when thinking about whether or not to vote for her. She probably barely knows what she was doing either, I don't see a 67 year old woman being all that tech-savy.

OK now you are just being deliberately obtuse yourself.
You think the Clintons setup this server themselves???
It is ok to say you don't really know what a private server is, or what that really means. Most people don't.
Allow me to illuminate..

With a private server you can.....

1) Delete emails without a trace, with no ability to recover even using FBI methods of recovery.
2) You can alter past emails without altering the modification date of the email. This is impossible to do on a controlled server. In other words you can edit messages, add/remove/alter what you typed previously.
3) Have complete control of what is sent to the government, and filter out anyting you don't want to report.

And more...it is 100% unacceptable for any public official to use a private server because the only purpose of doing so is the ablities it gives you, there is no other advantage. PERIOD.

Then apparently it was unacceptable for Carl Rove, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Colin Powell, Rick Perry, and even VP DICK CHENEY to all use private emails.

And if you want talk about unacceptable, Carl Rove, George Bush, and Asshole, I mean, Dick Cheney all used private emails on an RNC server and apparently 22,000 of them were "lost" just in time for an investigation into the torture of terror suspects. But we never once heard of any charges for that issue.

The rules (*rules* not laws...) on private email use are very lean and hardly ever enforced. The government has so much to learn on cyber-security it's kinda sad.

What's more important (especially since Clinton isn't in office anymore...) is that no one is going to look at this issue and see it as something that will sway their vote, and that's pretty much going to be it's only value, because you're batsh!t crazy if you think this is going to lead to actual charges.

Haha....so once again, a liberal will use hated Republicans as an excuse for what one of "theirs" did.
Too funny.
Jeb Bush used a private email account, not server.
Rove, Bush and Cheney did indeed engage in essentially the same thing...which is why the law was clarified in 2009.
So...how again does this excuse Hillary??

 

[Nyvin]

I really don't see it becoming an issue, the government is still so inept when it comes to cybersecurity. It's certainly not like it's something people will consider when thinking about whether or not to vote for her. She probably barely knows what she was doing either, I don't see a 67 year old woman being all that tech-savy.

OK now you are just being deliberately obtuse yourself.
You think the Clintons setup this server themselves???
It is ok to say you don't really know what a private server is, or what that really means. Most people don't.
Allow me to illuminate..

With a private server you can.....

1) Delete emails without a trace, with no ability to recover even using FBI methods of recovery.
2) You can alter past emails without altering the modification date of the email. This is impossible to do on a controlled server. In other words you can edit messages, add/remove/alter what you typed previously.
3) Have complete control of what is sent to the government, and filter out anyting you don't want to report.

And more...it is 100% unacceptable for any public official to use a private server because the only purpose of doing so is the ablities it gives you, there is no other advantage. PERIOD.

Then apparently it was unacceptable for Carl Rove, Scott Walker, Jeb Bush, Colin Powell, Rick Perry, and even VP DICK CHENEY to all use private emails.

And if you want talk about unacceptable, Carl Rove, George Bush, and Asshole, I mean, Dick Cheney all used private emails on an RNC server and apparently 22,000 of them were "lost" just in time for an investigation into the torture of terror suspects. But we never once heard of any charges for that issue.

The rules (*rules* not laws...) on private email use are very lean and hardly ever enforced. The government has so much to learn on cyber-security it's kinda sad.

What's more important (especially since Clinton isn't in office anymore...) is that no one is going to look at this issue and see it as something that will sway their vote, and that's pretty much going to be it's only value, because you're batsh!t crazy if you think this is going to lead to actual charges.

Haha....so once again, a liberal will use hated Republicans as an excuse for what one of "theirs" did.
Too funny.
Jeb Bush used a private email account, not server.
Rove, Bush and Cheney did indeed engage in essentially the same thing...which is why the law was clarified in 2009.
So...how again does this excuse Hillary??

For one thing it isn't law, it's rules and regs made by the National Archiving and Records Administration and they weren't formalized until 2014, 2009 was just the first time anything at all was written about the issue.

In fact the *RULES* that are causing such a fire with Hillary were so minor and trivial at the time that the regulators never even wrote about what punishments or actions would be taken for any violations. They're directly referred to as "guidance" for government officials and the rules are extremely vague. In fact the entire regulation is pretty much one sentence:

“Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency recordkeeping system.”

That was really it, nothing else is written about it at all. There was no regs on private servers or private email at all in 2009.

Now to sum this up....should Clinton have used state.gov email? yes.
Did she break the law? No.
Did she break regulation? Hard to say, at worst I'd say yes, but there isn't any written punishment and there were no regulations on private servers, only to make sure that the Records admin has some sort of copy of the documents.

And most importantly: Will this carry into the 2016 election? Big. Fricking. No.