What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I knew if this thread was around long enough somebody would eventually accuse the Clintons of murder. Mr. Ham came awfully close with his Vince Foster nonsense, but even he wouldn't go quite that far. Congratulations MOP! You win the 1990s irrelevant conspiracy prize! 
March 3, 2016...Berta Caceras

Killed while sleeping in her home in La Esperanza, Honduras. Berta Caceres had named Hillary Clinton as responsible for the Honduran coup which toppled democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. Since the coup, Honduras has become one of the most violent places in the world. Growing awareness of Hillary's role in Honduras became a serious liability during Hillary's 2016 campaign.

We don't need to start in the 90s, we can go all the way back to the 70s Tim and then we can even see that now people mysteriously have a way of vanishing into thin air who seem to be on the verge of blabbing about the Clintons. 

Tim. there are dozens and dozens of these, maybe hundreds and when you see how folks convicted Bill Cosby and saying that all these women can't be lying...what if just 25% of these murders or all too often magic suicides are actually linked directly to them? Even if it were just a handful it's too many. 

Feb 15, 1977...Deborah Coleman...had affair with Billy when he was the Atty General of Arkansas.

Died of "suicide" with gunshot wound to the back of her head. No autopsy allowed. Was 7 months pregnant at time of her death. She had told friends it was Bill Clinton's child. (Danny Williams if you doubt it). She was 26 at the time of her death.

 
As far as bets go, I don't know what wager you were discussing but I'd be more than happy to take a bet that there will be no criminal charges brought to Hillary Clinton
There are plenty of examples where wrongdoing does not result in an indictment.

The bet I offered Squis was that her 30,000 deleted emails weren't all personal (yoga routines, emails to Bill, etc)

 
Last year we didn't have the FBI report in hand and the Washington Post condemning her simultaneously either. Things can change over 12 months, right?
Let me know when you actually have real evidence of an indictable offense.  Cause until then, there's really nothing important to discuss on this.

 
There are plenty of examples where wrongdoing does not result in an indictment.

The bet I offered Squis was that her 30,000 deleted emails weren't all personal (yoga routines, emails to Bill, etc)
I don't know the legalities of what will happen with the emails after the FBI is done with them, but I don't know that we'll ever know and I'd bet that there isn't anything deleted that was criminal.

You should review his other articles before you use his opinion as evidence

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/h-a-goodman

 
March 3, 2016...Berta Caceras

Killed while sleeping in her home in La Esperanza, Honduras. Berta Caceres had named Hillary Clinton as responsible for the Honduran coup which toppled democratically elected President Manuel Zelaya. Since the coup, Honduras has become one of the most violent places in the world. Growing awareness of Hillary's role in Honduras became a serious liability during Hillary's 2016 campaign.
Let's talk about this:  you've made a very vague and yet serious accusation: that somehow Hillary was involved in the Honduran coup, and that she was also involved in the death of Caceres.  I'm calling bull#### on your claim.

 
Is this the thread where Hillary supporters insist the most widely reported story in political history is a story people don't care about? 

 
Is this the thread where Hillary supporters insist the most widely reported story in political history is a story people don't care about? 
Yes, this the one.  It's also the one where someone actually has to be in jail with a sentence of > 20 years before they'll consider whether that person has actually done something wrong.  maybe.

 
State Department official's lawyer repeatedly objects to questions on Clinton's email during deposition


A lawyer for a top State Department official repeatedly objected to questions about Hillary Clinton's private email address during a deposition earlier this month.

The transcript, released on Monday by conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch, documented June 3 testimony from Ambassador Stephen D. Mull. The ambassador previously served as executive secretary of the State Department during Clinton's tenure.

"When did you first become aware of Mrs. Clinton — the email address Mrs. Clinton was using to conduct official government business?" asked Michael Bekesha, lawyer for Judicial Watch during the deposition.

"Objection," interjected Mull's lawyer, Steven Myers. "Value. It's vague, and it's ambiguous."

When informed by Bekesha that he could answer, Mull said it was a "difficult question to answer" because he wasn't sure he "ever really became aware" that Clinton was using a private email address for official government business.

Asked about a message where "H" was listed as the sender of an email on which he was copied, Mull said that he did not "definitively" know whom the email was from.

"Based on the body of the email, does it — it appears as though H would refer to Mrs. Clinton?" Bekesha asked.

"Objection," interjected Myers. "Is there a question?"

"Based — after reviewing the entire email, do you think that the H refers to Mrs. Clinton?" Bekesha rephrased.

"Objection," Myers said again. "Calls for speculation."

When told that he was allowed to answer the question, Mull said he wasn't quite sure if the "H" referred to Clinton.

"I — I don't know," he said. "That's a reasonable assumption, but I — I don't know for a fact who would have received something at the H email."

Bekesha next asked Mull about an email sent from then State Department legal adviser Harold Koh. The message was sent to Mull and Clinton, among others.

"So this was an email from the State Department's legal adviser. Is that correct?" the Judicial Watch lawyer asked.

"Objection," Myers said. "The document speaks for itself. And I also object for lack of personal knowledge and foundation."

"You may answer the question," Bekesha said.

"It appears so, yes," Mull replied.

"OK. Would email sent by the legal — the legal adviser to the State Department usually get lost? Are those emails you would usually read?" Bekesha pressed.

"Objection," Myers said. "Vague. It calls for speculation."

Bekesha rephrased slightly, asking Myers if he would "tend to read" an email from the agency's legal adviser, given the fact the "Executive Secretariat was fast paced" and he "may have received a lot of emails."

"Objection," Myers said again. "Vague."

Mull said that he would "make an effort" to read an email from the department's legal adviser.

"But you don't recall seeing this specific email when it came in?" Bekesha asked.

"Objection," Myers said. "Asked and answered."

"You may answer the question," Bekesha advised.

"No," Mull said.

"OK. And you don't recall seeing HDR22@Clintonemail.com when you received it?" Bekesha asked.

"Objection," Myers interjected. "Also asked and answered."

Mull ultimately said that he didn't recall seeing the address.

The questioning came as a result of Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act request for records regarding top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. Last week, the conservative watchdog group released the deposition transcript of Cheryl Mills, Clinton's former chief of staff. Her lawyer also objected to questions pertaining to Clinton's use of a private email server.

Abedin is scheduled to testify on June 28.

...
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-deposition-stephen-mull-2016-6

- More "Cooperation" in the form of constant blocking and interference from a team of 7 lawyers.

- This was the Under-secretary of State under Hillary. Mull had no idea what her email address was. He had no idea who "H" was.

- Mull is now overseeing the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Per the DNC rules, actually, the thread title is inaccurate.

i don't really care.  Just reinforces how much Tim can't be bothered by facts when they interfere with his narrative.
I'm frankly amazed at how much power I have over Associated Press, NBC News, CNN, etc. 

My narrative indeed. 

 
I'm frankly amazed at how much power I have over Associated Press, NBC News, CNN, etc. 

My narrative indeed. 
Well, Tim, I put no limits on your capacity to think its all about you.  Nonetheless, I was speaking to your narrative as expressed by the inaccurate thread title.

 
I've got a list of issues a mile long with Hillary.  How is it that her opposition in this election cycle only really ever talks about this email stuff, where we're missing the most critical information?  It's pretty odd.
So talk about them :shrug:   That's what a lot of us do, but the answer you will receive, in this thread anyway, is along the lines of "Meh, nothing to see here....move along".  This group isn't big on talking about character, ethics and judgment.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Presumptive <> Clinches

She is no more and no less the presumptive nominee today than she was in December.
Question: when the media uses exit polls to declare a winner on election night, do you say to yourself, "Exit polls mean nothing; I'm going to wait until every vote has been counted and the winner is officially declared"?

 
We don't know for sure that the FBI is even investigating.  But no, they are not bored.  There could be any number of reasons why they are investigating, the Clinton's have never had a shortage of people trying to take them down. 

My guess is that any investigation is searching for nefarious activity or possible intelligent leaks associated with the "widespread" and "systemic" violations of the FRA that spanned several administrations, per the IG's report.
ummm....wut?? :confused:  

 
Question: when the media uses exit polls to declare a winner on election night, do you say to yourself, "Exit polls mean nothing; I'm going to wait until every vote has been counted and the winner is officially declared"?
The exit polls can mean something, such as a tentative, guarded snapshot of what might happen--or even what the likely result will be.  And they have been wrong and had to do reversals before.  It's a media mechanism that serves a purpose, with both positive and negative elements.  What it is not is an authoritative ***official*** result.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/08-sanders-endorsed-obama-clinton-formally-exited-race-n586556

As Bernie Sanders and his supporters argue that Hillary Clinton can't clinch the Democratic nomination on Tuesday - because superdelegates don't count until the convention - it is worth noting that Sanders endorsed Barack Obama two days after Obama crossed the magic number (pledged + superdelegate), saying he had become Democratic nominee.

And Sanders' endorsement of Obama came before Clinton had officially exited the 2008 presidential race.
We're going to have to move the goal posts again people.
What does this matter given Bernie was a registered Independent at the time?  What point do you THINK you're making here :confused:  

 
572 Superdelegates.  Very impressive.  Those things cost a fortune.
This argument is kinda silly considering that she's going to secure a majority of the pledged delegates tonight, and that subsequently Sanders' sole argument for remaining in the race is that all those corrupt party elite superdelegates whose role he and his follower have been (rightly) questioning for months should subvert the will of the people for political gain. How progressive!

At least you're getting in your last shots while you can before pulling a 180 tomorrow!  Maybe the BernieBros can roll out a new slogan tomorrow morning:  "Black Votes Don't Matter." 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
the first thing I thought when I heard- "I guess the checks cleared"

:yes: such a phony

I'm glad Bernie see's through her, which is why he isn't quitting and going all the way to the convention (barring a huge loss in CA)

 
Right, but she didn't.  And she hasn't. Not according to the DNC's own rules. She doesn't have enough delegates to clinch.  That will probably happen in late-July.  But, it wasn't yesterday and it wasn't today.

Again, the DNC has been very clear about this and told media outlets not to do this.  It's a gimmick.

 
That would be a lie. 

No matter how one analyzes the Democratic nomination race, Hillary Clinton is the clear winner. She did not cheat in order to get the most votes; nothing was rigged. She has won fair and square. 
I've said it's not rigged, but what I said is true - unnamed party officials have named Hillary the nominee as 'anon sources' through the media without a public vote on the eve of the biggest primary. I think they should at least be required to show at the convention and vote as named delegates from their respective states.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've said it's not rigged, but what I said is true - unnamed party officials have named Hillary the nominee as 'anon sources' through the media without a public vote. I think they should at least be required to show at the convention and vote as named delegates from their respective states.
And until such time, nothing has been clinched or secured.  Had she won enough contests and bound delegates, we wouldn't be having this discussion.  But, as of now, she does not have the requisite number of delegates to win the nomination.  The DNC is not ambiguous about this.

 
Let's talk about this:  you've made a very vague and yet serious accusation: that somehow Hillary was involved in the Honduran coup, and that she was also involved in the death of Caceres.  I'm calling bull#### on your claim.
Another mysterious death surrounding the Clintons and its 2016...this is not a 30 year old conspiracy theorist, nothing conspiracy about it, pretty much out in the open. 

I admit some of the stories are a little loose but way too many folks who were intimately involved or even just business related have ended up dead...if this was anyone else they would have an FBI investigation and the public would be demanding some answers. There are like hundreds who have died who were connected one way or another to the Clintons, creepy and scary, believe what you like. 

 
Tim has complete editorial liberty to make up whatever thread title he wants.  That's his prerogative.  And his consistent disregard of the facts all,with the express interest of selling a false narrative are more instructive and revealing than anything.

We knew this about Tim, already.

 
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/--100724

Bernie Sanders may win California today, but whether or not he does, he won’t have enough delegates to deny the nomination to Hillary Clinton. But Sanders says he is going to carry the fight to the convention, and his campaign talks of prying loose super-delegates and waging platform battles. I voted for Sanders in the primary, so perhaps I can offer advice that rises above the partisan clamor: drop out of the race, give Clinton your full support, and train your sights on Donald Trump, who thinks a judge whose parents were from Mexico, and who was born in Indiana, is not an American.

Sanders had a commendable political agenda, and he can return to it with some authority after November if Clinton wins and he becomes the Budget Chair. But a convention battle over delegates and platform won’t help him or her. The clearest precedents are 1976 and 1980. In 1976, Ronald Reagan took the nomination with Gerald Ford to the convention in Kansas City; and in 1980 Ted Kennedy battled Jimmy Carter at the Democratic convention in New York. Ford lost in November, and so did Carter. They might well have lost anyway, but the convention battles certainly did not help their campaigns.

I was at the 1980 convention. Kennedy dominated it. Kennedy had staged a late comeback in the primaries and had won California and New Jersey, but Carter had won the majority of delegates. At the convention, Kennedy tried to get the Rules Committee to allow delegates to repudiate their own voters on the first ballot. He predictably failed. Then Kennedy’s supporters staged a 17-hour marathon battle over the platform, winning support for federal funding for abortions and $12 billion in jobs spending. Then after Carter gave his acceptance speech, Kennedy snubbed him on the stage. What did it accomplish? Well, Carter came out of the convention with less of a bounce than he might have, and after he lost the election to Ronald Reagan, the platform planks for which Kennedy’s supporters fought—and which I had to explore the internet to recall -- became footnotes in a doctoral thesis on party conventions.

Fractious conventions can definitely hurt a nominee. I certainly can’t think of an example where a bitter convention battle helped the nominee. And a well-run convention that puts the candidate forward and gets the campaign’s message across can help. Think of Ronald Reagan in 1980, Bill Clinton in 1992, George W. Bush in 2000, and Barack Obama (thanks to Hillary Clinton’s concession after the primaries) in 2008. After the results come in tonight, the Sanders’ campaign can rejoice in whatever success the candidate achieves. But then it will be time to move off the stage and move on.

 
Tim has complete editorial liberty to make up whatever thread title he wants.  That's his prerogative.  And his consistent disregard of the facts all,with the express interest of selling a false narrative are more instructive and revealing than anything.

We knew this about Tim, already.
:lmao:

 
http://www.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-deposition-stephen-mull-2016-6

- More "Cooperation" in the form of constant blocking and interference from a team of 7 lawyers.

- This was the Under-secretary of State under Hillary. Mull had no idea what her email address was. He had no idea who "H" was.

- Mull is now overseeing the implementation of the Iran nuclear deal.
Are we expecting Clinton to cooperate with Judicial Watch?  That seems... odd.  

And really, that just reads like Judicial Watch has crappy counsel.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top