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 (1 Viewer)

Status
Not open for further replies.
dparker713 said:
There were plenty of people in control of the money supply that were ####ting in their pants.  But I'm sure you were in a better position than Paulson and Geithner to know we were all good.
Click to expand...
Bush gave us TARP.  Once the banks started reporting better than expected numbers early first quarter, the biggest worries were over.  Everything Obama did was a bandaid fix. 

 
tommyGunZ said:
Sorry cobalt, but if you're going to argue that Hillary hasn't been an outspoken advocate for women and children's rights around the globe, it's hard to take your views seriously.  That's a point that shouldn't be at issue, and if you are arguing otherwise, you're simply uninformed.  
Click to expand...
Worry not, I am acutely aware of her mixed efforts in advancing women's rights.  When it serves a political interest to stand by women and kids, she has.  When it has served other political interests, her posture has been antithetical to women and kids.  As Tim has reminded us many times, she is not an ideologue.  She is not driven by any core issue, but uses political capital and opportunity to make "incremental" steps.  If that is Hillary being a 'champion' of women's/kids rights, I sure hope people would look elsewhere, as women and children deserve a lot more than her. 

 
jon_mx said:
Bush gave us TARP.  Once the banks started reporting better than expected numbers early first quarter, the biggest worries were over.  Everything Obama did was a bandaid fix. 
Click to expand...
Yep, an economy that was hemorrhaging jobs with a banking system completely over leveraged and lacking any liquidity had nothing but smooth sailing ahead.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
No. Honestly I'm not sure, but In skeptical that it's a serious violation. Let the FBI and Justice Department decide that. 
Click to expand...
I didn't ask if it was a "serious" violation.  I asked if you were aware that her setting up a private email server and failing to provide 100% of her emails for archiving at least violates 36 CFR 1236.22, as a starting point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bananafish said:
So we have to hash out his role in the financial crisis and how qualified/unqualified he is/was while running himself?

Nevermind, I get it now. I'd bring up anything to not have to talk about Hillary if I was in her camp too.
Click to expand...
It's called a tangent.  They happen from time to time.

 
timschochet said:
I don't know. Sounds like it. 
Click to expand...
And, of course, that those CFRs are promulgated under legal authority from corresponding USCs, and therefore have legal effect?  I'm not asking if you think she should be in prison for the rest of her life, just if you acknowledge that she was, at the very least, running the squad car 110 mph down the freeway with the lights on despite the fact that there was no emergency, as it were.

 
And, I guess, that virtually every thing she has said about her email server and emails to this point is either unprovable so far, or proven to be false. Other than I assume she admitted that it was in her house.

 
Sorry Henry Ford, I can't go there with you. Despite all that I've read about this I'm not qualified to reach the conclusion that you've made here. And frankly I'm skeptical that you are as well. 

I remain skeptical that she did anything deliberately wrong. 

 
By the way, they definitely should have taken that witness through her credentials and then qualified her as an expert in legal matters before questioning her.  Not that it would have worked, but I would have laughed my ### off at the deposition as the defense attorneys fell all over themselves to argue that she isn't a legal expert.

 
timschochet said:
Sorry Henry Ford, I can't go there with you. Despite all that I've read about this I'm not qualified to reach the conclusion that you've made here. And frankly I'm skeptical that you are as well. 

I remain skeptical that she did anything deliberately wrong. 
Click to expand...
I didn't ask you if she did something deliberately wrong. 

 
This isn't hard.  I mean, it clearly is for her and for you, but she failed to comply with record requirements that have the force of law.  That's really not in dispute since the IG report.

Is that important enough to keep someone from running for president? I don't think so, in a vacuum.  I suspect you don't either. But why is it so hard to admit that she did it?

 
Henry Ford said:
By the way, they definitely should have taken that witness through her credentials and then qualified her as an expert in legal matters before questioning her.  Not that it would have worked, but I would have laughed my ### off at the deposition as the defense attorneys fell all over themselves to argue that she isn't a legal expert.
Click to expand...
Eh, you'd probably need to qualifty her as more than just a legal generalist.

 
Henry Ford said:
This isn't hard.  I mean, it clearly is for her and for you, but she failed to comply with record requirements that have the force of law.  That's really not in dispute since the IG report.

Is that important enough to keep someone from running for president? I don't think so, in a vacuum.  I suspect you don't either. But why is it so hard to admit that she did it?
Click to expand...
Because it's confusing. Because I'm not sure what exactly happened. And because the truth is I find it so incredibly dull and unimportant that I haven't bothered to spend enough time on it. 

 
dparker713 said:
Eh, you'd probably need to qualifty her as more than just a legal generalist.
Click to expand...
Sure, but either her knowledge specifically covers whether records are kept and provided properly in connection with applicable FOIA/NARA guidelines, or what the hell was she doing deciding what qualified to be turned over by Clinton?

 
I love that Tim a concedes a point from Politifact - and people still pile on.

I still say all this stuff about FOIA, Blackberry's, classified after the fact, etc is all window dressing. The real story will be what's in the 30,000 deleted emails. They were deleted on purpose, they were deleted for a reason - and the reason wasn't "yoga routines".

 
Henry Ford said:
By the way, they definitely should have taken that witness through her credentials and then qualified her as an expert in legal matters before questioning her.  Not that it would have worked, but I would have laughed my ### off at the deposition as the defense attorneys fell all over themselves to argue that she isn't a legal expert.
Click to expand...
The 7 attorneys representing her objected to her bio in government, then claimed she was an attorney after they had pettifogged any attempt to establish what she did in government.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
I love that Tim a concedes a point from Politifact - and people still pile on.

I still say all this stuff about FOIA, Blackberry's, classified after the fact, etc is all window dressing. The real story will be what's in the 30,000 deleted emails. They were deleted on purpose, they were deleted for a reason - and the reason wasn't "yoga routines".
Click to expand...
I do think that Clinton was a bit unclear on just how much information can be pulled from deleted files by the FBI.

 
timschochet said:
Because it's confusing. Because I'm not sure what exactly happened. And because the truth is I find it so incredibly dull and unimportant that I haven't bothered to spend enough time on it. 
Click to expand...
That makes no sense.  If you believe it won't take her down, I understand why you might find it dull and unimportant and, thus, not spend time learning about it.  But, I think any honest read of the OIG report--which I have read in full, but are available in nice summaries everywhere--paints a much more foreboding picture.

But, this all makes sense now to see where you are coming from on this issue and how, at times, you've been all over the map.  It's not something you've cared to look into.  No shame in that.  But, if all you're looking for are Erick Jong's fluff piece on CNN the other day that validate your opinions, you potentially miss out on other pieces of data that might broaden your perspective and provide some context/texture to other facets of Hillary you might not have considered.  Or want to consider because it might result in some dissonance that you'd have to resolve.

 
Henry Ford said:
Yeah, it's tough to take a deposition of a lawyer.
Click to expand...
Read the depo. Mills seems surprisingly unsharp to me, I don't give much credit for 'I don't recall' personally and it looks like Wilkinson is basically leading her own witness's responses with cooperation of typically 1-2 other attorneys chiming in. More blocking than the 68 Packers.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Read the depo. Mills seems surprisingly unsharp to me, I don't give much credit for 'I don't recall' personally and it looks like Wilkinson is basically leading her own witness's responses with cooperation of typically 1-2 other attorneys chiming in. More blocking than the 68 Packers.
Click to expand...
A good lawyer knows that nothing is gained by proving he/she is smart in a deposition. No one cares.  

 
cobalt_27 said:
That makes no sense.  If you believe it won't take her down, I understand why you might find it dull and unimportant and, thus, not spend time learning about it.  But, I think any honest read of the OIG report--which I have read in full, but are available in nice summaries everywhere--paints a much more foreboding picture.

But, this all makes sense now to see where you are coming from on this issue and how, at times, you've been all over the map.  It's not something you've cared to look into.  No shame in that.  But, if all you're looking for are Erick Jong's fluff piece on CNN the other day that validate your opinions, you potentially miss out on other pieces of data that might broaden your perspective and provide some context/texture to other facets of Hillary you might not have considered.  Or want to consider because it might result in some dissonance that you'd have to resolve.
Click to expand...
It's not dissonance if I'm not interested. 

 
cobalt_27 said:
That makes no sense.  If you believe it won't take her down, I understand why you might find it dull and unimportant and, thus, not spend time learning about it.  But, I think any honest read of the OIG report--which I have read in full, but are available in nice summaries everywhere--paints a much more foreboding picture.

But, this all makes sense now to see where you are coming from on this issue and how, at times, you've been all over the map.  It's not something you've cared to look into.  No shame in that.  But, if all you're looking for are Erick Jong's fluff piece on CNN the other day that validate your opinions, you potentially miss out on other pieces of data that might broaden your perspective and provide some context/texture to other facets of Hillary you might not have considered.  Or want to consider because it might result in some dissonance that you'd have to resolve.
Click to expand...
I think calling the report foreboding is wishful thinking.  Its politically damaging sure, but an indictment is still going to be the only way prevent her from being the nominee.  

 
timschochet said:
Really great in depth look at Hillary Clinton from the New Yorker. Well worth reading; not a puff piece. 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/hillary-clinton-candidacy.html
Click to expand...
:coffee:

Bill Clinton famously had to propose to Hillary Rodham several times before she agreed to marry him and move to Arkansas. In recent years, he’s started telling a version of the story in which he was urging her not to marry him, and instead run for office in New York or Chicago, and in which she replied that that was a ridiculous idea: She was too aggressive; no one would vote for her.

“I don’t think he said that when he actually proposed,” she told me with a smile when I brought up this version of the story.
Click to expand...

 
timschochet said:
Because it's confusing. Because I'm not sure what exactly happened. And because the truth is I find it so incredibly dull and unimportant that I haven't bothered to spend enough time on it. 
Click to expand...
This is flat out insulting to nearly everyone you've been arguing with. Some things are confusing. Including this. Nothing wrong with not having a clear opinion in the face of all this information. I can understand folks reviewing the information available and coming to various conclusions. But to have such an exceptionally strong opinion that you've maintained over the past god knows how many months, only now to finally admit you have no ### ####ed idea what you're talking about but still talk about it anyhow? 

It's utterly ridiculous. Spend less time typing and pretending to have a clue what you're blathering on about and instead actually read some links folks post instead of just often saying you'll 'read it later because you're on your phone'. It's not the first time you've done this, either. 

 
I can see a future Academy Award winning movie developing around this investigation, the cat and mouse, the lying and stonewalling.  Hillary and team will not be the protagonists.  And the movie will resonate because it will reveal how hard it is to nail the corrupt and powerful, even when they are plainly guilty and conspire as a group to obstruct justice.  Comey and team will be the Herod, most likely.  Let's hope it has a happy ending,   

Imagine the scene with Mills answering "I don't recall," then the audacity of the legal claim.  The frustration of the FBI realizing in the moment that the DOJ limited questioning because they bought into the attorney-client lie to obsfucate.

A team simply looking for the truth, and nothing else, having barrels thrown at them left and right - when they know there's a pack of crimes there.  And the Presidency on the other side.

This will be an important era in our history.

 
Last edited:
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
264K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top