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 (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
IvanKaramazov said:
It's cute that you believe that, but she gains no competitive advantage and actually subjects herself to further scrutiny by taking speaking fees from third parties that sure look like clear-cut attempts to buy access.  That has nothing to do with campaign finance.  
Click to expand...
You fail to understand that her goal was to become President - can't 'buy access' from someone who doesn't need anything from you anymore.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
No, trust me on this.  Providing a legitimate reason why we should let felons hold office ("The people should be able to elect who they want") does not prove the non-existence of legitimate points on the other side.

And "The people should be able to elect who they want" is very clearly question-begging when the guy on the other side is explicitly taking the other position and doesn't accept that as a premise.
Click to expand...
Proving a negative, really?  You want me to exhaust the English language on a message board?  

That's not question begging.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713 said:
Proving a negative, really?  You want me to exhaust the English language on a message board?  
Click to expand...
Yeah, really.  You denied the existence of any legitimate arguments in favor of barring felons from office.  It's on you to back that up.  

To be clear, you didn't you just stake out the position that felons should be able to hold office.  You argued that felons should be able to hold office and there are no reasonable arguments on the other side.  That's a way more extreme and hard-to-defend position than simply thinking that the arguments in favor of letting felons hold office are more compelling than those against.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Yes. She has said this all along. Not sure why it's so surprising. She takes advantage of the system that's there, but that doesn't mean she doesn't want to clean it up.

And it's extremely important to note how she followed up that comment- by promising to nominate SC justices who will overturn Citizens United. Even if you don't believe Hillary at all on the issue of money in politics, all you need to know is that she will appoint liberal judges and Trump will appoint conservative judges. So if you want to restrict money in politics in the future, Hillary is the only choice. 
Click to expand...
I'm really not sure what kind of judges Trump will appoint.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Yeah, really.  You denied the existence of any legitimate arguments in favor of barring felons from office.  It's on you to back that up.  

To be clear, you didn't you just stake out the position that felons should be able to hold office.  You argued that felons should be able to hold office and there are no reasonable arguments on the other side.  That's a way more extreme and hard-to-defend position than simply thinking that the arguments in favor of letting felons hold office are more compelling than those against.  
Click to expand...
I'm happy to refute any arguments presented, I'm just not going to make them up for him.  It's not like I'm refuting specific points with a blanket assertion.  I'm refuting a blanket assertion with a blanket assertion.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Yes. She has said this all along. Not sure why it's so surprising. She takes advantage of the system that's there, but that doesn't mean she doesn't want to clean it up.

And it's extremely important to note how she followed up that comment- by promising to nominate SC justices who will overturn Citizens United. Even if you don't believe Hillary at all on the issue of money in politics, all you need to know is that she will appoint liberal judges and Trump will appoint conservative judges. So if you want to restrict money in politics in the future, Hillary is the only choice. 
Click to expand...
You realize Citizen United has nothing to do with anything you are talking about.  

 
dparker713 said:
No there aren't.  The people should be allowed to elect who they want.
Click to expand...
So this is pretty funny on it's face given your being terrified of Trump and doing whatever you can to stop him, but I want to make sure I understand you correctly.  

True/False:  "The American people should be allowed to elect a convicted serial killer who wants to blow up the world if that's what they want"

 
jon_mx said:
You realize Citizen United has nothing to do with anything you are talking about.  
Click to expand...
Well, it does, but to overturn it, it's more than just electing SC justices as TF pointed out to me a while back.  It requires legislation from her that would have to be taken up by the court, so yeah, she can appoint the most liberal people she can find, but if she's not going to propose and help get passed the legislation to overturn CU, it doesn't really matter.  At one point I thought TF had a compelling argument, but then I realized not so much.  In my pessimistic view (yes, I fully admit that), the best we have here is that she might appoint liberal justices that someday (after she's long gone) would overturn it should the legislation get written.

 
The Commish said:
So this is pretty funny on it's face given your being terrified of Trump and doing whatever you can to stop him, but I want to make sure I understand you correctly.  

True/False:  "The American people should be allowed to elect a convicted serial killer who wants to blow up the world if that's what they want"
Click to expand...
True - you don't ever see me claiming people should not be allowed to vote for Trump.  I advocate strongly against Trump precisely because its the means to prevent his Presidency.  We chose our leaders.  There's nothing preventing the populace from repealing the Bill of Rights, passing Sharia Law, or socializing all industry if the proper laws/amendments are enacted.  

 
dparker713 said:
The Commish said:
So this is pretty funny on it's face given your being terrified of Trump and doing whatever you can to stop him, but I want to make sure I understand you correctly.  

True/False:  "The American people should be allowed to elect a convicted serial killer who wants to blow up the world if that's what they want"
Click to expand...
True - you don't ever see me claiming people should not be allowed to vote for Trump.  I advocate strongly against Trump precisely because its the means to prevent his Presidency.  We chose our leaders.  There's nothing preventing the populace from repealing the Bill of Rights, passing Sharia Law, or socializing all industry if the proper laws/amendments are enacted.  
Click to expand...
:lmao:   fair enough

 
The Commish said:
Well, it does, but to overturn it, it's more than just electing SC justices as TF pointed out to me a while back.  It requires legislation from her that would have to be taken up by the court, so yeah, she can appoint the most liberal people she can find, but if she's not going to propose and help get passed the legislation to overturn CU, it doesn't really matter.  At one point I thought TF had a compelling argument, but then I realized not so much.  In my pessimistic view (yes, I fully admit that), the best we have here is that she might appoint liberal justices that someday (after she's long gone) would overturn it should the legislation get written.
Click to expand...
Citizen United was about Private spending on speech relating to candidates and not on contributions to candidates, which is where the corruption is.  

 
The Commish said:
So this is pretty funny on it's face given your being terrified of Trump and doing whatever you can to stop him, but I want to make sure I understand you correctly.  

True/False:  "The American people should be allowed to elect a convicted serial killer who wants to blow up the world if that's what they want"
Click to expand...
Well in 2020 when the GOP faithful determine that Trump just didn't really reflect true "conservative" values they should be free to nominate who they want.

 
timschochet said:
Why are we discussing felons in this thread? 
Click to expand...
Because here:

Clinton IT specialist invokes the Fifth 100-plus times


The man believed to have set up and maintained the private server in the basement of then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s New York home invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination more than 125 times during a deposition as part of a civil court case on Wednesday.

Fox News reported that Bryan Pagliano’s sworn testimony with conservative organization Judicial Watch lasted roughly 90 minutes, during which the IT expert repeatedly read a carefully worded statement off of an index card while refusing to answer questions.

Pagliano’s deposition on Wednesday was originally scheduled to occur more than two weeks ago but was postponed when his lawyers notified the court that the former State Department employee would be pleading the Fifth.

The IT official could have provided important information in the case, which might have resolved lingering questions about the state of Clinton’s private server, how information was preserved and the security protocols used to protect her data.

But he declined to answer questions, his lawyers said, in part due to the federal government’s decision to grant him limited immunity as part of its ongoing criminal probe related to the server and the possibility that classified information was mishandled.

...

Unlike in criminal cases, judges in civil suits are allowed to draw inferences from a witness’s decision not to answer questions, potentially increasing the likelihood that Clinton herself is asked to testify as part of the Judicial Watch lawsuit. Clinton’s campaign would surely vigorously oppose any request for her to appear, and the event could dramatically shake up the presidential race.  

... Two other former aides are scheduled to be interviewed before the end of the month: longtime deputy Huma Abedin and Patrick Kennedy, former undersecretary for management.
Click to expand...
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/284481-clinton-it-specialist-invokes-the-fifth-100-times

 
Last edited by a moderator:
State Dept. scrambled on trouble on Clinton's server


WASHINGTON (AP) — State Department staffers wrestled for weeks in December 2010 over a serious technical problem that affected emails from then-Secretary Hillary Clinton's home email server, causing them to temporarily disable security features on the government's own systems, according to emails released Wednesday.

The emails were released under court order Wednesday to the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch, which has sued the State Department over access to public records related to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's service as the nation's top diplomat between 2009 and 2013.

The emails, reviewed by The Associated Press, show that State Department technical staff disabled software on their systems intended to block phishing emails that could deliver dangerous viruses. They were trying urgently to resolve delivery problems with emails sent from Clinton's private server.

"This should trump all other activities," a senior technical official, Ken LaVolpe, told IT employees in a Dec. 17, 2010, email. Another senior State Department official, Thomas W. Lawrence, wrote days later in an email that deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin personally was asking for an update about the repairs. Abedin and Clinton, who both used Clinton's private server, had complained that emails each sent to State Department employees were not being reliably received.

After technical staffers turned off some security features, Lawrence cautioned in an email, "We view this as a Band-Aid and fear it's not 100 percent fully effective."

The AP initially reported Wednesday that the emails described security features being turned off on Clinton's own private server, but State Department spokesman John Kirby clarified hours later that the emails described "a series of troubleshooting measures to the department's system — not Secretary Clinton's system — to attempt to remedy the problem."

The emails were released under court order Wednesday to the conservative legal advocacy group Judicial Watch, which has sued the State Department over access to public records related to the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's service as the nation's top diplomat between 2009 and 2013.

Clinton has repeatedly denied there is any evidence her private email server ever was breached. Her campaign did not immediately provide comment Wednesday.

Days after the technical crisis, on Jan. 9, 2011, an IT worker was forced to shut down Clinton's server because he believed "someone was trying to hack us." Later that day, he wrote, "We were attacked again so I shut (the server) down for a few min." It was one of several occasions when email access to Clinton's BlackBerry smartphone was disrupted because her private server was down, according to the documents.

The AP reported last year that in the early morning hours of Aug. 3, 2011, Clinton received infected emails, disguised as speeding tickets from New York. The emails instructed recipients to print the attached tickets. Opening an attachment would have allowed hackers to take over control of a victim's computer.

In a blistering audit released last month, the State Department's inspector general concluded that Clinton and her team ignored clear internal guidance that her email setup broke federal standards and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers. Her aides twice brushed aside concerns, in one case telling technical staff "the matter was not to be discussed further," the report said.

The State Department has released more than 52,000 pages of Clinton's work-related emails, including some that have since been classified. Clinton has withheld thousands of additional emails, saying they were personal. The emails released Wednesday were not made available until after the inspector general's office published its report, and Judicial Watch asked a federal judge to force the State Department to turn them over.

The case is one of about three dozen lawsuits over access to records related to Clinton's time as secretary, including one filed by the AP. As part of its ongoing suit, lawyers from Judicial Watch on Wednesday questioned Bryan Pagliano, a former IT staffer for Clinton who helped set up the server, under oath. According to the group, Pagliano repeatedly responded to questions by invoking his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as he did last year before a congressional committee.

The FBI is also investigating whether Clinton's use of the private email server imperiled government secrets. It has recently interviewed Clinton's top aides, including former chief of staff Cheryl Mills and Abedin.

...
Click to expand...
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/7006105d422740f0b4b8675c90f9a154/emails-key-security-features-disabled-clintons-server

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Pagliano's resume shows no actual experience or history in setting up or managing servers.

eta - reminder:

Responsibility for setting up and maintaining the server that handled personal e-mail communications for Bill and Hillary Clinton passed through a number of different hands, starting with Clinton staffers with limited training in computer security and eventually expanding to Platte River.

In 2008, responsibility for the system was held by Justin Cooper, a longtime aide to the former president who served as a personal assistant and helped research at least two of his books. Cooper had no security clearance and no particular expertise in safeguarding computers, according to three people briefed on the server setup. Cooper declined to comment.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-looks-into-security-of-clintons-private-e-mail-setup/2015/08/04/2bdd85ec-3aae-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html

- In January 2011 Cooper was still involved.

According to who.is, www.clintonemail.com was registered on January 13, 2009. Justin Cooper was listed as registrant, Administrative Contact and Technical Contact. As the Washington Post's "Fact Checker" noted, "Hillary Clinton [began] her confirmation hearings the same day." She was confirmed as Secretary of State by the Senate on January 21, 2009.

"Mr. Cooper, whose name is on the clintonemail.com domain registration, now works at Teneo Holdings, a corporate advisory firm with a broad array of global business clients partly run by Douglas J. Band, a former adviser to Bill Clinton," Chozick and Eder noted.

However, the New York Post reported on May 26, 2013, that Cooper is "a former employee of strategy group Teneo." Cooper's bio was scrubbed from Teneo's website, but a cache link reveals it once noted, "In addition to his role with Teneo, Mr. Cooper serves as Senior Advisor to President William J. Clinton. Mr. Cooper advises President Clinton on a broad range of issues, including finances, business matters, public affairs and politics. Additionally, Mr. Cooper advises and assists in operating the Clinton Foundation, Clinton Global Initiative and the Clinton Family Foundation. As a key member of his inner-most team, Mr. Cooper's advice and influence is unrivalled."
Click to expand...
http://ronbryn.blogspot.com/2015/03/associated-press-lawsuit-against-state.html

- eta - And guess what, Cooper has a JD, he is also a lawyer.

Conclusion: Hillary's server was being run out of Teneo.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
Citizen United was about Private spending on speech relating to candidates and not on contributions to candidates, which is where the corruption is.  
Click to expand...
We already limit contributions directly to candidates to $2700 per race. Private spending on elections/candidates through workarounds like SuperPACs and electioneering by corporations is where the corruption is, and the latter what Citizens United protected.

 
Interesting development...  AP reported yesterday that when Hillary's server was under attack, it was beyond Bryan Pagliano (with his six figure salary's) capabilities.  So they undertook a series of troubleshooting steps.  Originally AP reported that email security features were disabled on the private server.

State corrected that.  They actually modified the entire State email system so it could accommodate Hillary's server, making it more vulnerable.  What happens when you have a monarch to whom rules don't apply. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
Interesting development...  AP reported yesterday that when Hillary's server was under attack, it was beyond Bryan Pagliano (with his six figure salary's) capabilities.  So they undertook a series of troubleshooting steps.  Originally AP reported that email security features were disabled on the private server.

State corrected that.  They actually modified the entire State email system so it could accommodate Hillary's server, making it more vulnerable.  What happens when you have a monarch to whom rules don't apply. 
Click to expand...
The way it reads to me now it sounds like State was trying to protect itself from Hillary's server.

 
If anyone is willing to take politics out of it, Hillary's practices of handling classified information were a violation of the Espionage Act.  It's firmly established and now there is just piling on of examples of how it further compromised other systems, and exposed secrets through more private channels.  She must be disqualified from running for President, and must be indicted. 

 
Last edited:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The way it reads to me now it sounds like State was trying to protect itself from Hillary's server.
Click to expand...
One may argue that prior to these events, the setup was a matter of convenience.  It's a ludicrous argument, but one could make it relatively straight faced.  After this, the practice was done in full light of the risks and vulnerabilities -- and according to the IG report, after multiple warnings from State.  The many channels through which this data was exposed is criminal, and gross negligence (the standard) isn't even hard to establish.  Nor, for that matter, is intent.  

 
Mr. Ham said:
If anyone is willing to take politics out of it, Hillary's practices of handling classified information were a violation of the Espionage Act.  It's firmly established and now there is just piling on of examples of how it further compromised other systems, and exposed secrets through more private channels.  She must be disqualified from running for President, and must be indicted. 
Click to expand...
Then why wasn't she arrested and charged when this news came out last year? 

 
jon_mx said:
The Commish said:
Well, it does, but to overturn it, it's more than just electing SC justices as TF pointed out to me a while back.  It requires legislation from her that would have to be taken up by the court, so yeah, she can appoint the most liberal people she can find, but if she's not going to propose and help get passed the legislation to overturn CU, it doesn't really matter.  At one point I thought TF had a compelling argument, but then I realized not so much.  In my pessimistic view (yes, I fully admit that), the best we have here is that she might appoint liberal justices that someday (after she's long gone) would overturn it should the legislation get written.
Click to expand...
Citizen United was about Private spending on speech relating to candidates and not on contributions to candidates, which is where the corruption is.  
Click to expand...
Isn't this already addressed by the $2500 limit an individual can make :oldunsure:   Corruption is in the loopholes provided via PACs and Super PACs as best I understand it, which is a direct result of CU.

 
Mr. Ham said:
Interesting development...  AP reported yesterday that when Hillary's server was under attack, it was beyond Bryan Pagliano (with his six figure salary's) capabilities.  So they undertook a series of troubleshooting steps.  Originally AP reported that email security features were disabled on the private server.

State corrected that.  They actually modified the entire State email system so it could accommodate Hillary's server, making it more vulnerable.  What happens when you have a monarch to whom rules don't apply. 




 
Click to expand...
i love that you think HRC's skillset includes, but not limited to, IT. did she take classes at the Leanring Annex to get her certification? or was it at school for professional studies? this line of thinking totally reminds me of that old SNL sketch with Reagan running the whole Iran-Contra show himself. 

 
timschochet said:
My question had to do with the several pages of discussion about whether or not a felon should be eligible to run for President. Is this IT guy running for President? 
Click to expand...
Tim you've plainly stated you are bored by the issue, you don't understand it, you purposefully avoid learning about it or otherwise gaining information about it, and I could swear you had said you would not comment on it anymore. Just stick with that. - To answer your question, pretty simple matter of criminal investigations that people who commit crimes at the behest of others inculpate those other persons they are working for.

 
Mr. Ham said:
If anyone is willing to take politics out of it, Hillary's practices of handling classified information were a violation of the Espionage Act.  It's firmly established and now there is just piling on of examples of how it further compromised other systems, and exposed secrets through more private channels.  She must be disqualified from running for President, and must be indicted. 




 
Click to expand...
Someone switched from decaf to regular coffee this morning, I see. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
If anyone is willing to take politics out of it, Hillary's practices of handling classified information were a violation of the Espionage Act.  It's firmly established and now there is just piling on of examples of how it further compromised other systems, and exposed secrets through more private channels.  She must be disqualified from running for President, and must be indicted. 
Click to expand...
I've taken the politics out of it repeatedly and analyzed the actual language in the act word by word, asking for explanations of how Clinton's alleged actions might satisfy each of the necessary elements.  Some have tried to provide an explanation and have (IMO) failed to do so, eventually trying to fit square pegs into round holes and changing the common sense definitions of words due to their gut feelings about what she did instead of undertaking dispassionate analysis of the actual words of 18 USC 793(f) or other potential violations.

To my recollection you haven't bothered to try this.  Which makes it kinda weird for you to now claim that her violation of the Act is "firmly established."  Any interest in trying it now?

 
pantagrapher said:
Guys this email thing is going places keep your noses to the grindstone.
Click to expand...
Considering Hillary is likely picking up legal bills for maybe 4-6 people (Abedin, Mills, Samuelson, Reines, Sullivan, maybe Cooper, maybe Pags) plus herself at DC's most powerful firms I would not be surprised if this criminal investigation has cost her a few hundred thousand dollars in legal fees. So, yeah.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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