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.
Mr. Ham said:
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.  
Click to expand...


The STATE DEPARTMENT disabled their own security features because Hillary's email server was hacked. FFS. Really.

 
saintfool said:
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. 
Click to expand...
With due respect, you don't understand the case of this is your take.  Hillary and Hillary alone was sworn to protect the classified secrets under her control.  The NDA she signed is unambiguous in that regard.  In parallel, there were established protocols she ignored, including basic encryption.  It was he duty and she was trained.  She simply ignored that training and responsibility.

 
Mr. Ham said:
With due respect, you don't understand the case of this is your take.  Hillary and Hillary alone was sworn to protect the classified secrets under her control.  The NDA she signed is unambiguous in that regard.  In parallel, there were established protocols she ignored, including basic encryption.  It was he duty and she was trained.  She simply ignored that training and responsibility.




 
Click to expand...
this is what i hear...

you can want all that to happen. i doubt it does but whatever. if - and that is a huge leap there - it will amount to little more than a long show trial that will prove to be a distraction and political theater. we have better things to do than indulge in a circle jerk from the Right, don't we?

 
TobiasFunke said:
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?
Click to expand...
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf

Lets start with Paragraphs 2 & 3 of her NDA.  

Paragraph 2 warrants that she received indoctrination (training)

Paragraph 3 establishes two things.  One -- she and she alone was responsible to recognize classification and if unsure consult with experts.  Two -- don't share or make that information vulnerable.  Heather Samuelson, her aide, didn't have clearance.  Hillary allowed her to read everything to separate work from personal.  Her office also backed that data up in private data centers, and had no visibility or understanding of where that data was hosted.  Security was weak, data unencrypted and the server was attacked if not hacked.  She violated all of this.  Did she seek written permission to have the private server?  Did she seek written permission for Samuelson to read the SCI?

The penalties are listed below as possible violations of several statues, and removal from position of trust.  

Open to analysis of the statues, one of which is a violation of the Espionage Act.

But can we at least agree that she violated the NDA?

 
Doc Dump Reveals Hillary Clinton’s Five-Star Demands for Gulfstream, “Presidential Suite”


Clinton’s “rider” of her requirements for a $225,000 Las Vegas speaking engagement was full of Hollywood star-level demands including:


• a round trip on a private jet (“Gulfstream 450 or larger”)

• first class, round-trip airfare for one of her aides

• business class, round-trip airfare for two advance aides

• a “presidential” hotel suite for Mrs. Clinton at the five star Bellagio, plus “up to three adjoining or contiguous rooms for her travel aides and up to two additional single rooms for the advance staff”.

The hacker who calls himself “Guccifer 2.0” released a second treasure trove of documents allegedly stolen from the Democratic National Committee on Tuesday.


In what perhaps was a defensive move, the DNC appears to have been looking into Clinton’s notorious 2014 speaking engagement at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas in 2014, which prompted an uproar because of her $225,000 fee. The DNC retained copies of demands for perquisites her staff made to the University. These demands have been made public before, but their resurfacing Tuesday indicates that the DNC may have persistent concerns about their propriety.


In addition to the controversial fee, we now know for certain that Hillary Clinton has near Jennifer Lopez-level tastes. Unlike the pop star, however, who famously requested white couches, white candles and only white foods, Clinton requested luxury air travel on a private jet – a Gulfstream 450 or better. The future Presidential candidate also requested to prepare herself for the White House treatment with a “Presidential suite” at the posh Bellagio Las Vegas hotel.

UNLV was also responsible for all of then-former-Secretary Clinton’s meals and ground transportation, as well as lodging and transportation for her staff, and to pay for a stenographer who could transcribe Clinton’s words as she said them at the event.

Guccifer 2.0, taking credit for the hack, blogged that his revelation was “a big folder of docs devoted to Hillary Clinton that I found on the DNC server.”

In addition to the dossier on UNLV, the document stash contains the candidate’s detailed policy development materials  on everything from ISIS and Libya to Hillary’s involvement the Clinton Foundation, tracking in detail the positions of her fellow Democratic candidates, as well as opposing, Republican ones – and what they all said about Hillary Clinton in the media. The documents also outline crisis communications strategies and give detailed instructions on how to respond to specific attacks. ...
Click to expand...

http://heatst.com/politics/doc-dump-reveals-hillary-clintons-five-star-demands-for-gulfstream-presidential-suite/

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-SCI-NDA1.pdf

Lets start with Paragraphs 2 & 3 of her NDA.  

Paragraph 2 warrants that she received indoctrination (training)

Paragraph 3 establishes two things.  One -- she and she alone was responsible to recognize classification and if unsure consult with experts.  Two -- don't share or make that information vulnerable.  Heather Samuelson, her aide, didn't have clearance.  Hillary allowed her to read everything to separate work from personal.  Her office also backed that data up in private data centers, and had no visibility or understanding of where that data was hosted.  Security was weak, data unencrypted and the server was attacked if not hacked.  She violated all of this.  Did she seek written permission to have the private server?  Did she seek written permission for Samuelson to read the SCI?

The penalties are listed below as possible violations of several statues, and removal from position of trust.  

Open to analysis of the statues, one of which is a violation of the Espionage Act.

But can we at least agree that she violated the NDA?
Click to expand...
Dunno. I'm not really an expert in what is or is not SCI, or what she did or didn't share with this Heather Samuelson person. I don't really care, TBH.  I don't like what she did with her email, and was among the first people here to criticize her for it. I consider it a negative in her column- every politician has them, of course, and this is one of hers.

What I care about is your previous claim that it is "firmly established" that she violated the Espionage Act.  To back up that claim you have to be able to articulate what statutory provision she violated and how she violated it, clause by clause. Otherwise you haven't firmly established anything. And I have yet to see a convincing argument that she did violate a criminal statute (an NDA is not itself a criminal statute and I'm not aware of anything in that NDA or elsewhere providing that any violation constitutes a crime). To me there's a pretty substantial difference between "she should have been more careful with her work-related electronic communications" and "she's a criminal and she should be in jail."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clinton’s Email Security Procedures Won’t Be Released Until After the Election


The State Department says it won’t release any documents relating to Hillary Clinton’s email security procedures and protocol until after the November presidential election.

In March 2015, soon after Clinton’s secret personal email account was reported by the New York Times, I filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the State Department asking for “communications, presentations, and procedures created by the State Department to secure Hillary Clinton’s email from electronic threats.”

...

The agency has emailed me a few times, saying that it’s working to “make the maximum number of records available in the shortest amount of time,” and in October told me that it would respond to my request in January. That date came and went, and I finally got another update earlier this week: The new deadline for the request is December 2016.

December 2016, of course, is just after the election for the next president of the United States. The FOIA process is a notorious mess, but it is patently ridiculous that records pertaining to the security practices of someone who stands a very good chance of running the country—and thus being in possession of highly sensitive documents at all times—won't be made available to the public a year and a half after they were requested.

... The question of whether her emails were secure while on her personal server has repeatedly been raised, and any specific security measures and protocols the State Department drew up would be a pretty good place to start. ...
Click to expand...


- Old report, but it seems more relevant than ever now. This documentation cannot be very much, seems very basic.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
This level of celebrity, special interest and Monarchial behavior is unhealthy for a political leader in a representative government.  Why do some need to be told this?  
Click to expand...
How dare she! Room, board and airfare for her staff?! Who does she think she is? The first lady?! A former member of the President's cabinet? Traveling to a city that prides itself on how it takes care of players?!! Doesn't she know that those comforts are reserved for the degenerate gamblers and celebrities!!

 
saintfool said:
How dare she! Room, board and airfare for her staff?! Who does she think she is? The first lady?! A former member of the President's cabinet? Traveling to a city that prides itself on how it takes care of players?!! Doesn't she know that those comforts are reserved for the degenerate gamblers and celebrities!!
Click to expand...
How dare she demand $225k and up from corporations for which she will surely have a conflict of interest with as a leader?  Clintons are a pay-to-play operation and have been since Arkansas.  It's a horrible precedent and has enriched them personally while having unknown consequences for the country.  

 
How dare she demand $225k and up from corporations for which she will surely have a conflict of interest with as a leader?
Click to expand...
I'm trying to imagine a world where future politicians are afraid to ever hold a job because it could someday create the appearance of a conflict of interest.

 
Joe Summer said:
I'm trying to imagine a world where future politicians are afraid to ever hold a job because it could someday create the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Click to expand...
Not that hard.  If you go on the speaking circuit and takes money from private corporations, you should have a 5 year ban on running for office from the date of the last speech.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
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.
Click to expand...
So, 1 or 2 speeches?

 
Mr. Ham said:
How dare she demand $225k and up from corporations for which she will surely have a conflict of interest with as a leader?  Clintons are a pay-to-play operation and have been since Arkansas.  It's a horrible precedent and has enriched them personally while having unknown consequences for the country.  




 
Click to expand...
While it bothers you and others, I'm content to let the voting public decide the matter. If the voting public really feels that it disqualifies her as a candidate - or any candidate - then they shouldn't vote for her. Moralizing about politics, like this, is just lame. 

 
Not that hard. If you go on the speaking circuit and takes money from private corporations, you should have a 5 year ban on running for office from the date of the last speech.
Click to expand...
Why 5 years and not 6, or 7, or a million? Is there some sort of "corruption code of conduct" that expires after exactly 5 years?

Would Donald Trump's salary from NBC be subject to the same 5-year window? He's certainly in position to pass legislation that would favor his former employer.

 
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Joe Summer said:
Why 5 years and not 6, or 7, or a million? Is there some sort of "corruption code of conduct" that expires after exactly 5 years?

Would Donald Trump's salary from NBC be subject to the same 5-year window? He's certainly in position to pass legislation that would favor his former employer.
Click to expand...
Maybe we should require future candidates to spend 5 years in a monastery or convent before running.  No wait, I've got it.  That's what we can use Gitmo for!

 
Top Clinton aide mocks donor’s appointment to board


A top aide to then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared to mock the appointment of a major Democratic donor with little experience to a sensitive government intelligence board allowing him the highest levels of top secret access.


Rajiv Fernando, who contributed to Clinton, her family’s foundation and Barack Obama, was named to the International Security Advisory Board in 2011, though he resigned days later after his appointment was questioned.

“Couldn’t he have landed a spot on the President’s Physical Fitness Council?” Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philippe Reines wrote in a State Department email in 2012 to two other Clinton aides.

...

Fernando, appointed to the International Security Advisory Board, was to advise Clinton on nuclear weapons and other security issues alongside nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and former lawmakers, including former Defense Secretary William Perry, Lt. Gen. Brent Scowcroft, a former National Security Adviser to two presidents; and former Sen. Chuck Robb of Virginia.

After ABC News contacted the State Department to ask about his qualifications, which includes no international security background, Fernando announced that he had stepped down.

In September 2012, after ABC News again questioned the State Department about Fernando’s appointment, senior adviser Heather Samuelson sent Reines a response provided to ABC News explaining why he was chosen. Chief of staff Cheryl Mills was copied on the emails.

“As president and CEO of Chopper Trading, Mr. Fernando brought a unique perspective to ISAB. He has years of experience in the private sector in implementing sophisticated risk management tools, information technology and international finance,” the response said.

Reines responded to Samuelson: “Not the most compelling response I’ve ever seen since it’s such a dense topic the board resolves around. Couldn’t he have landed a spot on the President’s Physical Fitness Council?”



 
...

Fernando, who heads a trading firm he founded in 2002, served as a voluntary fundraiser or bundler for Clinton's first presidential campaign and later Obama. He also gave $30,000 to a political advocacy group, WomenCount, that has indirectly helped Clinton.

He contributed between $1 million and $5 million to the Clinton Foundation, according to records released by the foundation. Between $100,000 and $250,000 was donated before his board appointment. He once traveled with former President Bill Clinton to Africa.

In July, Clinton attended a fundraiser at Fernando's home for her second presidential campaign. About 170 people paid $2,700 to get into the event, according to the campaign. Hosts raised $27,000 or more. ...
Click to expand...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/politics-government/election/article85387472.html
 


 
 
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
Except this

SaintsInDome2006 said:
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.
Click to expand...
doesn't say that all!

SaintsInDome2006 said:
The STATE DEPARTMENT disabled their own security features because Hillary's email server was hacked. FFS. Really.
Click to expand...
Nor this!

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Always love your adamance, BFS. I'll pick this up later.
Click to expand...
No amount of cutting and pasting is going to make your interpretation correct.   The Secretary of States e-mails (among others) were being caught by the spam filters,  That is the "delivery problem" with Hillary's secret server that no one at State, especially in IT was aware of  that is being discussed by State IT.  Turning off these spam filters meant that State was vulnerable to having its employee receive phishing emails.  That created the potential that someone would click on something that would infect the network.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
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...
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.
Click to expand...
Citizens United was about whether a movie could be censored because it was about politics. It was not about campaign contributions.

 
I've been asking for years from anyone who says they're against Citizens United to please explain why Michael Moore should be allowed to advertise "Fahrenheit 9/11" yet the guys who made the Hillary movie shouldn't be allowed to. 

Nothing but crickets. 

People opposed to Citizens United plain don't understand it. All they're doing is parroting talking points from their "side" who's only issue they don't like laws that work against them when they don't win, despite loving the same laws when they work in their favor. 

Hypocrites. All of them. Blind partisans with closed minds and the blinders fully on. 

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Citizens United was about whether a movie could be censored because it was about politics. It was not about campaign contributions.
Click to expand...
It's was about the timing of the censorship - I still fail to understand why McCain-Feingold wasn't a reasonable compromise between free speech and unlimited corporate influence on elections.

 
cstu said:
It's was about the timing of the censorship - I still fail to understand why McCain-Feingold wasn't a reasonable compromise between free speech and unlimited corporate influence on elections.
Click to expand...
What is the point of free speech if you can't use it to influence elections.  Timing is everything.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
The Commish said:
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...
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.
Click to expand...
Citizens United was about whether a movie could be censored because it was about politics. It was not about campaign contributions.
Click to expand...
Apologies then.  Guess I am confused.  Which case was the one that ended up providing the loophole allowing people to donate whatever they wanted to the PACs / Super PACs who could then "support" candidate campaigns with no such restriction?

 
Holding: Political spending is a form of protected speech under the First Amendment, and the government may not keep corporations or unions from spending money to support or denounce individual candidates in elections. While corporations or unions may not give money directly to campaigns, they may seek to persuade the voting public through other means, including ads, especially where these ads were not broadcast.
Click to expand...

 
FatUncleJerryBuss said:
I got my sign ready for Wednesday's visit.   On the outside is has this pic:  https://www.google.com/search?q=hillary+clinton&client=tablet-android-samsung&prmd=niv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjluueG9b7NAhXMTCYKHS_lDIcQ_AUICCgC&biw=1280&bih=800#imgrc=GsZD1jk4c3sSUM%3A

With I'm with her, on it.   I hope to either get near the front or behind her when she starts her speech.   Under that sign will be this pic.  https://www.google.com/search?q=monica+lewinsky&client=tablet-android-samsung&prmd=inv&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjF08XR9b7NAhWB7SYKHXrCB6YQ_AUIBygB&biw=1280&bih=800#imgrc=tYrDoNrOusQXIM%3A

With "don't vote cocaine hill and playboy bill"  hope it makes the news.
Click to expand...
:thumbdown:

Don't get me wrong, I'm OK with your visual cheap shots at the Clintons.  But I can't abide you disparaging cocaine like this.

 
Mr. Ham said:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON_EMAIL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2016-06-23-17-19-35

"Yoga poses, wedding plans and missives with Bill.  That's all I deleted.  I swear it!" - Hill
Click to expand...
Hillary's statement that she turned over all  public records has always been a lie. It's just being demonstrated more and more. The server setup and the culling of the emails are definitely important, it's more important than it should be, it's remarkable the activity, investigation and cover up around those issues.

 
Hopefully the Brexit vote is a wake up call to everyone who would prefer not to see a Donald Trump presidency: we need all hands on deck. 

 
timschochet said:
Hopefully the Brexit vote is a wake up call to everyone who would prefer not to see a Donald Trump presidency: we need all hands on deck. 
Click to expand...
Not surprisingly, the Bern gets it:



 


Why Bernie Sanders Plans to Vote for Hillary Clinton


“I’m going to do everything I can to defeat Donald Trump,” the Vermont senator told MSNBC.

Bernie Sanders plans to vote for Hillary Clinton in the U.S. presidential election.

In an interview on MSNBC’s Morning Joe on Friday, the Vermont senator said “yes” without hesitation when asked if he would vote for Clinton, the Democratic Party’s presumptive nominee, in November.

“I’m going to do everything I can to defeat Donald Trump,” Sanders said. “I think Trump, in so many ways, would be a disaster for this country if he were to be elected president. We do not need a president whose cornerstone of his campaign is bigotry.” In an interview on CNN, Sanders reiterated his plan, though he left some wiggle room, saying that “in all likelihood” his vote would go to Clinton in November.

If it wasn’t clear that the Democratic primary race is effectively over, it is now. In recent days, Sanders has turned his attention away from contesting the nomination and toward an effort to shape the Democratic agenda. He even acknowledged in a C-SPAN interview released on Wednesday that he didn’t expect to win the race. “It doesn’t appear that I’m going to be the nominee,” he said. A spokesman for Sanders said that the senator is still a candidate in the presidential race, and that his remarks on MSNBC did not constitute an endorsement of Clinton.
Click to expand...
Let's hope his supporters get it too.

 
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: 4 (members: 0, guests: 4)
Back
Top