Chuck Todd: "Because of This Breach, I Don't Think She Could Get Confirmed For Attorney General..."

For Chuck!

Andrea has good reason to cry... like everybody else....

It will be interesting to see Tweety in a few minutes.

But, as many of us in DU know, there's a lot more where that came from.

The TRUTH Is Scary for some people...

Chuck, have you noticed how the Republican Senate is handling a Supreme Court appointment?

Plus he's probably, you know, a misogynist.

Hmmmmm?

But why not? We've learned the FBI is a right wing organization. Along with the IG, John Kerry etc.....

Crumble.... Much more to come over the next couple of weeks to be sure...

I had just joined du and was a Clinton supporter when Todd called the primary for Obama.

Todd was the second coming around here. He was called "The Professor" by his fans - with photoshopped gifs and all.

"Full bullshit"?

...and that the surrogates are lying as well. They were as disgusted as the talking heads on Mika/Joe, reporting this with a lot of unhappiness.

She just can't lie the way her husband does. She feels uncomfortable. The viewers feel uncomfortable. A good liar makes you laugh at their foolishness.

I have no idea why so many feel so compelled to support her obvious attempts at deception. Not even Andrea Mitchell can support this round.

It's pretty common postural communication of people trying to dissuade people of believing an accusation.

It quite frequently begins before the person speaks and continues until after they've made their case, sometimes it continues in silence as to underscore the message of -no no that's not true about me-.

I do appreciate the explanation about non-verbal communication, though.
Thanks HereSince1628!

However, your explanation underlines the meme that she is stage acting, and she's not very good at it. Unlike her husband, I think she has a guilty conscience.

the attempt to deal with a little detail is what she said.

It's to bad she doesn't have a BIG message that's verbal, and convincing, needing only a little bit of body language

That, to me, is more telling than what the RW morons in Congress would do to her if she were an AG nominee. But the truth is that, even in a normal, representative and elected** Congress, she simply couldn't be okayed for Sec of State or any office that involved national security. That much is clear from the OIG report. She cavalierly and knowingly endangered national security documents and information, and furthermore took measures to avoid scrutiny of what she was doing.

But what barfs up the works really badly for her is that she couldn't even work as a janitor in the Secretary of State's office. Given what's in some of her emails, that went through her privately installed, insecure server, and her obstruction of inquiry about it, and her lies about it, she would never get any level of security clearance.

Who cares what the RW morons in Congress would say? This is Obama's OIG and John Kerry's cleanly run State Department. They wouldn't give her a security clearance, knowing what they know now. Or if they did, it would be malfeasance on their part. She can't be trusted. She broke all the rules. She probably broke laws. She was communicating with a guy on national security issues whom Obama had forbidden to work in the State Department. He had no security clearance. He was passing her NSA documents (and where he got them nobody knows). She encouraged him. And he was working as a private consultant at the private Clinton Foundation!

Not even as a janitor.

--------------------------------

**(Most of our 8%-approval-rating Congress was not elected, in my opinion. That's what all those 'TRADE SECRET' voting machines all over the land have been used for, along with s/electing some real RW low-lifes to a number of state houses.)

for ANYONE who does not have cognitive dissonance...

Access to classified information comes with the job of POTUS.

The question is will she be this careless as POTUS?

...U.S. intelligence agencies, by the U.S. military, by the U.S. State Department and diplomatic corps, by U.S. agents out in the field? By U.S. soldiers?

That's the deeper question that you are trying to evade. It's not just that almost anyone else in the U.S. government who did what Clinton did would have their security clearance yanked, would be fired, and might well find themselves in jail; it's that no one in government could trust the President, who might casually flip off their security concerns, who might put their lives in peril, who might casually destroy years of effort on a project, because she doesn't give a damn what she says, what she reveals, who she says it to, and who might be listening.

You forget that the President has to work with others--tens of thousands of others in multiple agencies. You forget that they all know the rules. You forget that they all know the penalties for violating security rules. And they all know why security is important.

What you seem to be okay with is a government in chaos, a government of profound distrust within itself, a government in which sloppy security procedures and even crimes and blackmail and backstabbing can run rampant, because the person at the top of the chain is perceived as not giving a damn about anything but her own power.

What does security of others mean to her? Nothing. So why should anybody else care? Some will still care, of course--and, like the lower level IG employees, who spoke out because Clinton had failed to appoint an IG for the State Department, and who warned Clinton about her insecure email server, they will be told to "never speak of it again."

You are talking about George W. Bush's government--a chaos of illegality and callousness and rule breaking and law breaking starting at the top.

I have no love for the "national security state," but, as long as we have one, I want there to be rules and laws that are important to all participants. I want it to be run the way Obama is running it, and the way John Kerry is running the State Department. With rules. Without scandals. With respect for laws like the FOIA and respect for sworn oaths about the handling of documents. With respect for the law.

I strongly disagree with some Obama actions and policies--and agree with others--but I have faith that, if a national security advisor comes to him with his "hair on fire" about a serious threat from Osama bin Ladin, Obama will not say, "never speak of this again," which is essentially what Bush, Cheney & Co. said to Richard Clarke. Further, I would not suspect Obama or Kerry of participating in 9/11, or permitting it to happen, as I do of Bush, Cheney & Co. Clinton is more like Bush-Cheney than she is like Obama or Kerry. She seems to have no principles and just does what she likes that is in her own interest. She gave no thought to the security of her email server and brushed all warnings aside, and then told lies about it. It's what she wanted to do, for her own purposes. Many suspect that those purposes were the corrupt use of the U.S. State Department to extract large donations to the Clinton Foundation, from entities like the Saudis who wanted war planes with which to bomb and acquire Yemen. But even if her purpose wasn't so venal, the point of her character is that she didn't think of others, she didn't think of consequences, and she didn't care about rules or laws. She acted like a law unto herself.

The presidency is rather kinglike or queenlike, but it is not yet completely lawless, which we came very close to with Bush-Cheney. Clinton, in this email server scandal, tends toward lawless, and may have committed crimes. The issue is not, would she need a security clearance as president; the issue is, would she scoff at others needing to have one, as she did by exchanging national security documents with Sydney Blumenthal, a private citizen, whom Obama had banned from the State Department, who had no security clearance? If she scoffs at authority (Obama), how can she exercise authority wisely? If she won't follow the rules, when her duty requires her to, how can she be a good leader and lay down good rules for others?

Clinton's actions in Honduras and Libya mean that I can never vote for her. The consequences of her decisions there were just too horrible. But good government is also important, whatever you think of government policy. Crimes against good government lead to other, worse crimes. Bush-Cheney started with a scofflaw attitude toward good government and were soon "shock and awe" bombing Iraq and torturing prisoners, and setting the example for U.S. soldiers to torture prisoners, and a giving billion dollar war contract to Cheney's company. They became a law unto themselves.

Thanks for the thread, CorporatistNation.

Powell did not do what she did, he turned over his records and so much more. Damn.

Andrea Mitchell! Poor Judgement over "convenience" vs... just cloaking her actions from public scrutiny... Not a very transparent policy as a public servant...

In future years, that's what they'll say about this presidential nominee, if it's Hillary.