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.
Mr. Ham said:
I think he'll agree to be neutral, but think he views Hillary for what she is: the high water mark in American political corruption.  
Click to expand...
Yup.  I think he'll endorse her with a focus being anti-Trump.  But, it wouldn't surprise me, either, if he just ignored her.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
That was a bribe to get you to vote for Hillary in the primary. Did you vote for Hillary? 
Click to expand...
B.S. That was a bribe you offered to all us Bernie Bros to vote for HRC in the general if she beat Bernie for the nomination. So you're a no good two faced lying punk, just like your candidate.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I have no doubts.  You are wrong!  

With a few exceptions what is classified is defined by executive order 13256.  Nothing is "born classified" under that executive order (or the one from the "W" years that governed the first portion of Hillary's term).   And the NDA explicitly states that nothing in the NDA changes this.  Finally, where the "born classified" concept does exist, The Atomic Energy Act it is widely believed to be unconstitutional with the government avoiding the only serous challenge in the Carter years,
Click to expand...
Dear Ahmad, 

Per your request, here is that chicken soup recipe. 

Oh and I am also attaching the formula for the hydrogen bomb on PDF. 

Love, Hil. 

 
Gr00vus said:
B.S. That was a bribe you offered to all us Bernie Bros to vote for HRC in the general if she beat Bernie for the nomination. So you're a no good two faced lying punk, just like your candidate.
Click to expand...
Was it? I don't recall. 

But in any case that vote hasn't happened yet has it? So I haven't broken my promise- yet. 

 
cstu said:
The NDA she signed references Executive Order 12958, which reads:

Therefore, if none of the information was classified at the time when Hillary received it and Hillary didn't classify anything herself then none of the emails contained classified information.
Click to expand...
Late to the party for this one, that 1. applies to information originating in her own department (and not everything at issue here was), and 2. that she declassified it when she was communicating it, which she did not (and would further presume that she agrees now that it was classified then before she could declassify it then, which she does not). Also Kerry or Obama could declassify all this now if they wanted to but they do not.

So, no.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I have no doubts.  You are wrong!  

With a few exceptions what is classified is defined by executive order 13256.  Nothing is "born classified" under that executive order (or the one from the "W" years that governed the first portion of Hillary's term).   And the NDA explicitly states that nothing in the NDA changes this.  Finally, where the "born classified" concept does exist, The Atomic Energy Act it is widely believed to be unconstitutional with the government avoiding the only serous challenge in the Carter years,
Click to expand...
Probably an obvious example is the recent email that came out in which Hillary asked Mills to drop their communication on a phone call from a secure line to a non-secure one because of technical problems.

Now if it wasn't marked classified (hello, it was a conversation, nothing to mark) why was it on a secure line to begin with?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
1. applies to information originating in her own department (and not everything at issue here was)
Click to expand...
There was originally four items identified that may have fit this definition. (The original security referral.)  Of course there could be more, but there seems to be no such publicly available items to consider.  Of those four one was long ago crossed off the list.  Another has been in dispute as parallel sourced.  One of the two remaining is supposedly (though who knows) the Sid email with satellite data.  And I forget the other..  So maybe there are some of these,  Maybe.   But even so the possibility of a few items which inappropriately contained classified information doesn't demonstrate the :bs:  claim that the declassification date means that the information was born classified no matter how many time right wing media outlets assert it.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Late to the party for this one, that 1. applies to information originating in her own department (and not everything at issue here was), and 2. that she declassified it when she was communicating it, which she did not (and would further presume that she agrees now that it was classified then before she could declassify it then, which she does not). Also Kerry or Obama could declassify all this now if they wanted to but they do not.

So, no.
Click to expand...
See the problem here?  Even someone with an advanced education can't figure out exactly what it is Hillary has wrong or the extent of her wrongdoing. Wouldn't be surprised if the FBI themselves are confused about it. 

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
There was originally four items identified that may have fit this definition. (The original security referral.)  Of course there could be more, but there seems to be no such publicly available items to consider.  Of those four one was long ago crossed off the list.  Another has been in dispute as parallel sourced.  One of the two remaining is supposedly (though who knows) the Sid email with satellite data.  And I forget the other..  So maybe there are some of these,  Maybe.   But even so the possibility of a few items which inappropriately contained classified information doesn't demonstrate the :bs:  claim that the declassification date means that the information was born classified no matter how many time right wing media outlets assert it.  
Click to expand...
There are more, yes.

Oh they're out there.

Why doesn't the classification date reflect the date the information was classified? Why wouldn't it be classified from the date the security review redacted/coded it, ie according to your theory?

 
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton held imaginary conversations with Eleanor Roosevelt and Mahatma Gandhi as a therapeutic release, according to a new book written by Bob Woodward, says a report in Sunday's edition of The Chicago Sun-Times.
Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]


I missed this ages ago. You guys ok with this?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu said:
See the problem here?  Even someone with an advanced education can't figure out exactly what it is Hillary has wrong or the extent of her wrongdoing. Wouldn't be surprised if the FBI themselves are confused about it. 
Click to expand...
Ok I like this argument better. My main complaint is that people farther down the food chain risk losing their jobs and careers on this stuff even if it's not criminal. The 'confusing' or 'overclassification' excuses never fly for the rank and file. Add taking everything from work home with them and not telling anyone yeah that would be a very serious problem for most people. But I think what you point out is the best argument and I'm sure Kendall is wielding it.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok I like this argument better. My main complaint is that people farther down the food chain risk losing their jobs and careers on this stuff even if it's not criminal. The 'confusing' or 'overclassification' excuses never fly for the rank and file. Add taking everything from work home with them and not telling anyone yeah that would be a very serious problem for most people. But I think what you point out is the best argument and I'm sure Kendall is wielding it.
Click to expand...
Yes the rules are different for those that do not have the discretion to decide what was classified and what is not classified as opposed to the person where the authority to classify anything to begin with resides.  (I didn't say the authority to declassify - though that is true also,)

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Yes the rules are different for those that do not have the discretion to decide what was classified and what is not classified as opposed to the person where the authority to classify anything to begin with resides.  (I didn't say the authority to declassify - though that is true also,)
Click to expand...
If you want to shake on the premise that she knew it was classified in the first place to do this (for the State stuff) I will too, but then the person who counts on that score is Hillary and she hasn't copped to this once.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Speaking of Obama's endorsement, I believe it's time for Jon to pay up. 
Click to expand...
I don't remember the bet, but I do remember telling you guys (especially Jon) to get the requirements in detail because, well......

Wasn't the bet that he doesn't say anything until she wins?  Or was it just enough to have an advantage in pledged delegates?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
If you want to shake on the premise that she knew it was classified in the first place to do this (for the State stuff) I will too, but then the person who counts on that score is Hillary and she hasn't copped to this once.
Click to expand...
Why would I agree to your faulty conclusion?  It was only classified (for State stuff) if Hillary said so.  Period!   The real likely exceptions for State is when it comes to information from or under an arrangement with foreign governments which needs to be protected under that government's requirements, .  ( 5 FAM 482.6)

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Why would I agree to your faulty conclusion?  It was only classified (for State stuff) if Hillary said so.  Period!   The real likely exceptions for State is when it comes to information from or under an arrangement with foreign governments which needs to be protected under that government's requirements, .  ( 5 FAM 482.6)
Click to expand...
Ok so back to the point, this bit means what?

 
The Commish said:
I don't remember the bet, but I do remember telling you guys (especially Jon) to get the requirements in detail because, well......

Wasn't the bet that he doesn't say anything until she wins?  Or was it just enough to have an advantage in pledged delegates?
Click to expand...
Not worried about this. jon is a standup dude. He'll pay. 

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
I don't remember the bet, but I do remember telling you guys (especially Jon) to get the requirements in detail because, well......

Wasn't the bet that he doesn't say anything until she wins?  Or was it just enough to have an advantage in pledged delegates?
Click to expand...
Not worried about this. jon is a standup dude. He'll pay. 
Click to expand...
That's great, but as usual you didn't answer either of the questions.

 
The Commish said:
He JUST did :lol:

Because you don't like the conclusion doesn't mean it's not a conclusion.  It's :bs:  like this that leads people to believe you and Toni Tony Tone are the same person.
Click to expand...
If we are the same person, use the report button and let the mods know. We will be permanently banned like LHUCKS or johnjohn. If not, then shut the hell up. I am getting really tired of these accusations started by Willie Neslon who says the alias of me being Tone has been confirmed but offers no proof of who confirmed it, when it was confirmed, or how.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok so back to the point, this bit means what?
Click to expand...
Nothing.  The relevant piece isn't what is highlighted but on the next line.  The standards are in the W era Executive order CSTU posted 12958 or the Obama version 13256 which are close to being identical in what can and cannot be classified.  Obama mostly took the VP out of the loop and added language to try to reduce over classification and the W era reclassification.

 
Bernie was supposed to send a letter this morning to the Superdelegates asking them to change their support to him. His campaign has been promising to do this for a few weeks. 

The letter was never sent. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Sometimes I imagine if we were having this argument in a pub you'd throw the pint glass at the wall at this point. Which would be ok, I enjoy that kind of eccentric performance.
Click to expand...
Your imagination is more interesting than reality.

You know that wasn't meant to be a loaded statement but as I moved towards the submit button I started to realize it might be.  And while not a "pint glass" I did throw you a pretty big bone if you could figure out how to run with it.  

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Your imagination is more interesting than reality.

You know that wasn't meant to be a loaded statement but as I moved towards the submit button I started to realize it might be.  And while not a "pint glass" I did throw you a pretty big bone if you could figure out how to run with it.  
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm dreaming of beer, I'm avoiding real work, and admittedly slow on your points sometimes. I will re-read when I get a chance.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Nothing.  The relevant piece isn't what is highlighted but on the next line.  The standards are in the W era Executive order CSTU posted 12958 or the Obama version 13256 which are close to being identical in what can and cannot be classified.  Obama mostly took the VP out of the loop and added language to try to reduce over classification and the W era reclassification.
Click to expand...
He did all that?

What is TS/SCI is relevant to the national defense and vice versa. You have a determination by the security officers that it is, so it is. :shrug: If Hillary wants to litigate whether those classifications are correct she may do so but she would be the first to do so and most likely a court would never let her.

 
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
254K
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