What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (8 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
She has already made her position clear on this issue. She won't try to hide anything from the FBI. 
Click to expand...
and if she did have something to hide, wouldn't this be the place and time to do it, with virtually zero repercussions if she believes Lynch won't go forward with an indictment if recommended? 

 
Quint said:
Q: if HRC is [eventually] called in to be interviewed by the FBI/DoJ, does she retain the option to "plead the 5th" or otherwise refuse to answer their questions?
Click to expand...
I think its been reported that the interview will not be under oath.  It will be a lot of "I don't know", "I don't remember", "Someone else was in charge of that" and "What, like with a cloth?"

 
timschochet said:
Sure but then her campaign is over. And then if she's already elected and this happens she'd be impeached or forced to resign. 

So it will never happen. 
Click to expand...
Well, we agree on that.

Tim, I'm guessing you never thought it would reach this far.

 
timschochet said:
I need to read more about the dangers of fracking. With regard to climate change, the vast majority of the world's brightest people believe it is a major threat to mankind's future existence. jon's comment about "settled science" is absurd. 
Click to expand...
I'm just curious why you rely on the word of Hillary and her energy industry insiders and not DeSmog blog and Greenpeace when it comes to things like industry influence.

 
jon_mx said:
"The State Department had been reviewing the 22 Clinton emails, which were housed on her private email server, to determine whether the information in them was classified when the messages were first sent."

Read more:  http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/01/breaking-state-dept-pauses-its-review-of-hillarys-22-top-secret-emails/#ixzz44byJPqJhFrom the Daily Caller:

I am not sure what is to investigate?  BFS has already told us nothing Hillary sent was classified at the time  
Click to expand...
No worries, Sgt. Schulz will be at the interview.

 
timschochet said:
She has already made her position clear on this issue. She won't try to hide anything from the FBI. 
Click to expand...
It's been clear as mud actually. If she tells the FBI what she tells the people then they have her in several potential perjury traps, with the exception of what the DOJ decides.

 
jon_mx said:
"The State Department had been reviewing the 22 Clinton emails, which were housed on her private email server, to determine whether the information in them was classified when the messages were first sent."

Read more:  http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/01/breaking-state-dept-pauses-its-review-of-hillarys-22-top-secret-emails/#ixzz44byJPqJhFrom the Daily Caller:

I am not sure what is to investigate?  BFS has already told us nothing Hillary sent was classified at the time  
Click to expand...
Couple more bits out of that report:

- So the State IG will issue its report on Hillary in about a month / May, which is around when the DOJ decision on Hillary & Co. is expected.
 

But as Trudeau said on Friday, the State Department reached out to the FBI in late February. The bureau responded in March and suggested that the agency “pause” its review of the sensitive emails.

It is unclear why the State Department waited until Friday to share news of its hiatus with reporters.

“The FBI communicated to us that we should follow our standard practice which is to put our internal review on hold while there is an ongoing law enforcement investigation under way,” Trudeau said.

She was not asked why the State Department contacted the FBI but said that the agency does “not want our internal review to complicate or impede the progress of their ongoing law enforcement investigation.”

Reporters at the State Department briefing were critical of the announcement as well as with State’s rationale for its decision.
Click to expand...

 
- So - State halted its investigation of its work so that FBI could take over and they did that at the FBI's instruction. - Maybe this was the kind of shoe which Ham was talking about but we never got to learn. I think he deserves a little credit here because this was likely the kind of news that Hillary did not want affecting the debates or the big earlier primaries.
 
Henry Ford said:
Hey, did anyone ever find out if Heather Samuelson had the security clearance to view the classified information in those documents?
Click to expand...
Her resume doesn't include anything suggesting she would.

- Grassley was also trying to figure this out and he even directed a letter towards her. This is one name which has really flown under the radar.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quint said:
Q: if HRC is [eventually] called in to be interviewed by the FBI/DoJ, does she retain the option to "plead the 5th" or otherwise refuse to answer their questions?
Click to expand...
I will point to this...

'Heather Samuelson has been and is one of former Secretary Clinton's personal attorneys,' Clinton attorney David Kendall told DailyMail.com 
Click to expand...
...to say that I have previously considered that Hillary will attempt to and also have Kendall, Mills and (now) Samuelson object (or have their attorneys object) that they will not answer questions on the grounds of attorney-client privilege in terms of the who/what/why/how of the server setup, email searching and the data destruction and server decisions. I'd maybe keep an eye out for that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Her resume doesn't include anything suggesting she would.

- Grassley was also trying to figure this out and he even directed a letter towards her. This is one name which has really flown under the radar.
Click to expand...
I can't imagine Clinton had her separate emails that had classified information in them without her having clearance.  That would be ridiculous.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Her resume doesn't include anything suggesting she would.


 


- Not sure who this guy is or his source, but he seems to be citing the Defense Security Service there.

- Grassley was also trying to figure this out and he even directed a letter towards her. This is one name which has really flown under the radar.
Click to expand...
that letter was sent c/o Beth Wilkinson....had she set up her own shop yet? and i wonder what the enumerated response to those questions looks like. 

 
Henry Ford said:
I can't imagine Clinton had her separate emails that had classified information in them without her having clearance.  That would be ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Literally in-credible right? As in not credible? Yeah that would be bad, if true, and it could be. Regardless, even if Samuelson had some clearance (and  based on her cv I have no idea why she would...) there is no way she had clearance for the top level stuff that Hillary had. Samuelson was never cc'd on most of this stuff to begin with.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Quint said:
that letter was sent c/o Beth Wilkinson....had she set up her own shop yet? and i wonder what the enumerated response to those questions looks like. 
Click to expand...
Good catch.

Wilkinson just this January left Paul, Weiss Rifkind, Warton and Garrison LLP to set up her own boutique firm, telling The Wall Street Journal that her company would ditch the billable hour setup typically used by big law firms in favor of flat fees that are intended to reward efficiency.
Click to expand...
- Politico

That sound like a big ol' retainer and one major open checkbook client to me.

I don't know if they responded to Grassley's letter, I'm going to say doubt it or one full of objections.

 
bananafish said:
The FBI's Interview of Hillary Clinton Will Save Obama's Legacy and Nominate Bernie Sanders

"The most damaging aspect of Clinton’s email server is the fact most Americans believe that if they were in Clinton’s shoes, they’d already be in jail. There’s a widespread viewpoint that Hillary Clinton is above the law, and this mentality has spread to Democrats as well as Republicans."

Surprising that Americans would object to The TimDefense.
Click to expand...
- Regardless of outcome, I don't think this situation is going to improve the mood of the American people at all.

 
On page 14 and 15 of the evaluation, your report provides an example of a misleading response provided by the Department to a FOIA requester. In December 2012, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) submitted a FOIA request for records “sufficient to show the number of email accounts of, or associated with, Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton, and the extent to which those email accounts are identifiable as those of or associated with Secretary Clinton.” The Department responded, stating “no records responsive to your request were located.”

At that time, and as the evaluation notes, Secretary Clinton’s senior staff and several senior officials throughout the Department knew that Secretary Clinton was using a personal email address to conduct official business. According to a briefing by your staff, Mr. Brock Johnson, a spokesman at the Department in 2012, emailed CREW’s FOIA request to Ms. Cheryl Mills, Secretary Clinton’s Chief of Staff. After Ms. Mills received the request, she transmitted it to Ms. Heather Samuelson, a Senior Advisor and White House Liaison at the Department, instructing her to make queries as to the status of the Department’s response to the FOIA request. Ms. Samuelson then tasked it to Mr. Josh Dorosin, a State Department attorney. According to the briefing provided by your staff, when State IG attorneys investigating this matter approached Ms. Mills, she, through her attorney, refused to speak with them. Mr. Dorosin did speak with the investigating State IG attorneys, but when asked about the specific CREW-FOIA tasking he reportedly claimed that he had no recollection of the matter. It is not clear whether Ms. Samuelson or Mr. Johnson were interviewed. In fact, Ms. Mills and senior Department officials knew about Secretary Clinton’s use of private email for official correspondence because they were sending official emails to her non-government email address. They would have known instantly of records responsive to that request. Yet, it was approximately five months later before the Department officially responded to CREW’s request for email accounts associated with Secretary Clinton. And its response was misleading, at best: “no records responsive to your request were located.”
Click to expand...
http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/judiciary/upload/2016-01-27%20CEG%20to%20State%20IG%20%28CREW%20FOIA%29.pdf

- It takes a special kind of arrogance to refuse to speak with an Inspector General.

- I'm pretty sure this will be covered.

eta - just one more thought on Samuelson:

The source, who is not authorized to speak on the record due to the sensitivity of the ongoing investigation, said Pagliano has provided information allowing investigators to knit together the emails with other evidence, including images of Clinton on the road as secretary of state.

The cross-referencing of evidence could help investigators pinpoint potential gaps in the email record. "Don't forget all those photos with her using various devices and it is easy to track the whereabouts of her phone," the source said. "It is still boils down to a paper case. Did you email at this time from your home or elsewhere using this device? And here is a picture of you and your aides holding the devices."  
Click to expand...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/11/source-clinton-it-specialist-revealing-server-details-to-fbi-devastating-witness.html

- I wonder if metadata like IP addresses could also be captured in logs, that could be traced to specific computers and sites.

- The only conclusion to be reached from Samuelson's role is that the FBI would want to know the how and why of Hillary's email deletion/destruction, and they may be trying to trace back what got destroyed, or why what they know what was destroyed (which they must have recovered) was so.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Paulymaggs said:
Wow.  When did you become a liberal?  :shock:
Click to expand...
What science says is not liberal or conservative.  What the spin says might be.  Tim listens to the left-wing spin which overstates the science especially with regard to global warming.  He is ducking clueless on the topic, but talks like a know it all. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Good catch.

- Politico

That sound like a big ol' retainer and one major open checkbook client to me.

I don't know if they responded to Grassley's letter, I'm going to say doubt it or one full of objections.
Click to expand...
Why wasn't Pagliano included under this Wilkinson umbrella from the get-go?

 
Just dropped in to check out the more recent few pages of this quite lengthy post.  It seems to have been inundated with anti-Hillary vitriol.  

On the issue of donations to Hillary, lobbyists like attorneys typically have a variety of clients.  I don't buy the logic that you can pick one client off the lobbyist's list and say "aha, this proves she's in the pocket of the oil industry."  And unlike Sen. Sanders I don't want a D nominee whose goal is to "break up the big banks" and "take on Wall Street" and forswears any support from anyone connected to industry or finance.  I want a D nominee who aims to balance economic success with reasonable regulation, and advance progressive goals, someone who actually supports the Democratic Party and is not too holy to actually belong to it.    

As for all this email stuff, I would ask the Hillary critics: doesn't it bother you at all that we allow partisan groups with apparently unlimited resources to inundate the government with serial FOIA requests, oppressive discovery, etc.?  These same guerilla tactics can be used against future Republican administrations, too.  As far as I can tell the entire email episode has been a monumental waste of time and resources.  It seems to line up with Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewater, and the mountain of partisan horse manure that has been flung at Hillary for almost 30 years now.  Always with the promise that just around the corner, we'll find something.  

If you don't like her policies, fine, don't vote for her.  BTW making fun of her name or repeatedly calling her a liar is unlikely to sway anyone who is on her side to come over to yours.  

 
pettifogger said:
I would ask the Hillary critics: doesn't it bother you at all that we allow partisan groups with apparently unlimited resources to inundate the government with serial FOIA requests, oppressive discovery, etc.?
Click to expand...
No. What bothers me is the need for it all to begin with. It really shouldn't take a FOIA request for a transparent public servant. It shouldn't take legal action for compliance with a FOIA request. And discovery. All of these are the results of wrongdoing and obstruction - that's what bothers me.

ETA: I actually like most of her policies - it's Hillary herself I can't stand.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
pettifogger said:
As for all this email stuff, I would ask the Hillary critics: doesn't it bother you at all that we allow partisan groups with apparently unlimited resources to inundate the government with serial FOIA requests, oppressive discovery, etc.?  These same guerilla tactics can be used against future Republican administrations, too.  As far as I can tell the entire email episode has been a monumental waste of time and resources.  It seems to line up with Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewater, and the mountain of partisan horse manure that has been flung at Hillary for almost 30 years now.  Always with the promise that just around the corner, we'll find something.  
Click to expand...
Fwiw, the groups that have been suing have included AP, Washington Post, Vice News, Boston Globe.

To me, personally, I think of this in terms of all political institutions, local and state included. Here in New Orleans public records requests on seemingly simple matters have led to the conviction of public officials for corruption. To me, it is the epitome of liberal, good government reform.

Anything public, anything done public or said by public officials, absent some showing that there is a reason for privilege or secrecy, should in fact be public and people have a right to know about it. State would not be hit by the burden it has been experiencing if Hillary had been on a gov account. IT and Archives would have gathered her emails and responded in the usual late but responsible fashion, not the stone cold zero response which citizens and press got over the course of 5+ years.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
pettifogger said:
Just dropped in to check out the more recent few pages of this quite lengthy post.  It seems to have been inundated with anti-Hillary vitriol.  

On the issue of donations to Hillary, lobbyists like attorneys typically have a variety of clients.  I don't buy the logic that you can pick one client off the lobbyist's list and say "aha, this proves she's in the pocket of the oil industry."  And unlike Sen. Sanders I don't want a D nominee whose goal is to "break up the big banks" and "take on Wall Street" and forswears any support from anyone connected to industry or finance.  I want a D nominee who aims to balance economic success with reasonable regulation, and advance progressive goals, someone who actually supports the Democratic Party and is not too holy to actually belong to it.    

As for all this email stuff, I would ask the Hillary critics: doesn't it bother you at all that we allow partisan groups with apparently unlimited resources to inundate the government with serial FOIA requests, oppressive discovery, etc.?  These same guerilla tactics can be used against future Republican administrations, too.  As far as I can tell the entire email episode has been a monumental waste of time and resources.  It seems to line up with Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewater, and the mountain of partisan horse manure that has been flung at Hillary for almost 30 years now.  Always with the promise that just around the corner, we'll find something.  

If you don't like her policies, fine, don't vote for her.  BTW making fun of her name or repeatedly calling her a liar is unlikely to sway anyone who is on her side to come over to yours.  
Click to expand...
Seems to me that her being thought of as a liar is hurting her more than anything at this point.

 
pettifogger said:
As far as I can tell the entire email episode has been a monumental waste of time and resources.  It seems to line up with Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewater, and the mountain of partisan horse manure that has been flung at Hillary for almost 30 years now.  Always with the promise that just around the corner, we'll find something.       
Click to expand...
And yet she has a near unfettered path to the billionaire-dom, built exclusively on political connections. It's Putin-esque.

 
pettifogger said:
Just dropped in to check out the more recent few pages of this quite lengthy post.  It seems to have been inundated with anti-Hillary vitriol.  

On the issue of donations to Hillary, lobbyists like attorneys typically have a variety of clients.  I don't buy the logic that you can pick one client off the lobbyist's list and say "aha, this proves she's in the pocket of the oil industry."  And unlike Sen. Sanders I don't want a D nominee whose goal is to "break up the big banks" and "take on Wall Street" and forswears any support from anyone connected to industry or finance.  I want a D nominee who aims to balance economic success with reasonable regulation, and advance progressive goals, someone who actually supports the Democratic Party and is not too holy to actually belong to it.    

As for all this email stuff, I would ask the Hillary critics: doesn't it bother you at all that we allow partisan groups with apparently unlimited resources to inundate the government with serial FOIA requests, oppressive discovery, etc.?  These same guerilla tactics can be used against future Republican administrations, too.  As far as I can tell the entire email episode has been a monumental waste of time and resources.  It seems to line up with Filegate, Travelgate, Whitewater, and the mountain of partisan horse manure that has been flung at Hillary for almost 30 years now.  Always with the promise that just around the corner, we'll find something.  

If you don't like her policies, fine, don't vote for her.  BTW making fun of her name or repeatedly calling her a liar is unlikely to sway anyone who is on her side to come over to yours.  
Click to expand...
Oh, son: you're about to be shocked.  Then you'll lash out and blame.  Then maybe you'll fact check and realize she was dirty and careless all along and she just got caught despite thinking no one would have the power, no one would have the balls.

 
pettifogger said:
As for all this email stuff, I would ask the Hillary critics: doesn't it bother you at all that we allow partisan groups with apparently unlimited resources to inundate the government with serial FOIA requests, oppressive discovery, etc.?  
Click to expand...
No, not at all.  With a very limited set of exceptions, I think government records should be as open as possible.  I get that there are some things that the government has to do on our behalf that it can't tell us about, particularly on national security.  And I don't think the public should have access to communication between a president and his advisers when they're in the "bouncing ideas around" stage.  But routine communications and actions of government officials?  Absolutely.  All of us who support civil liberties and circumscribed government power should be in agreement on that one.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes said:
No. What bothers me is the need for it all to begin with. It really shouldn't take a FOIA request for a transparent public servant. It shouldn't take legal action for compliance with a FOIA request. And discovery. All of these are the results of wrongdoing and obstruction - that's what bothers me.

ETA: I actually like most of her policies - it's Hillary herself I can't stand.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not sure why it's supposed to bother me that citizens can ask for information from their government as a matter of course.

 
I like that the 2016 Presidential Election has pitted two people that don't give a #### about anyone else other than themselves.

Good work politics.

 
bananafish said:
Had you posted this in 2014 you might have found more sympathy. Heck, I might have even agreed with you.

However, there's been a lot of water under the bridge since then, almost all of it showing Hillary to be a duplicitous, self-serving, possibly corrupt, probably criminal liar and obfuscating hypocrite of the first degree.

If Bernie does nothing else, he has raised my and many others expectations of what they find acceptable in a presidential candidate, and our Republic is better off for it. If you think Hillary's lying ways have not caused many democrats to switch sides (hopefully enough to lose the nomination) you have been eating too many Hillary brownies my friend. Climb out from under your rock and smell the Bern.
Click to expand...
This is a prime example of the kind of hateful BS from Bernie supporters that makes me despise him, though I admit he is a lot more classy than his supporters.  

 
Mr. Ham said:
Oh, son: you're about to be shocked.  Then you'll lash out and blame.  Then maybe you'll fact check and realize she was dirty and careless all along and she just got caught despite thinking no one would have the power, no one would have the balls.
Click to expand...
Haters gota hate, eh?

 
pettifogger said:
Haters gota hate, eh?
Click to expand...
About half of the so-called haters on this thread probably supported her or her husband in the past.   Hillary is responsible for manufacturing most of the hate herself, Bernie just provides an example of what an honest candidate looks like to contrast her.  This thread contains very little people mocking her name, so I really doubt you even read any of it before you decided to poop on in. 

 
pettifogger said:
As for all this email stuff, I would ask the Hillary critics: doesn't it bother you at all that we allow partisan groups with apparently unlimited resources to inundate the government with serial FOIA requests, oppressive discovery, etc.?  
Click to expand...
I'm grateful for these groups and I hope they'll always be allowed these methods to uncover the truth, regardless of party. What bothers me a great deal more is when we constantly hear of Hillary stonewalling. I'm not one of the people constantly calling her a criminal and a liar, but I think her lack of transparency is troubling, and I question her judgment to have found herself in this position.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
About half of the so-called haters on this thread probably supported her or her husband in the past.   Hillary is responsible for manufacturing most of the hate herself, Bernie just provides an example of what an honest candidate looks like to contrast her.  This thread contains very little people mocking her name, so I really doubt you even read any of it before you decided to poop on in. 
Click to expand...
Teehee.  Poop.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
260K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Back
Top