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 (12 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Nope, I did not!  I said that none of this suggested any wrong doing. ...
Click to expand...
Ok good we agree then, he may have been working for Teneo in January 2011 and judging by the fact that he copied Doug Band at that time I'd say he definitely was.

- eta - Personally to me having the SOS's server used for official US gov correspondence administered by an employee of a private investment firm and having that server shared with that firm as well is really absolutely wrongdoing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok good we agree then, he may have been working for Teneo in January 2011 and judging by the fact that he copied Doug Band at that time I'd say he definitely was.

- eta - Personally to me having the SOS's server used for official US gov correspondence administered by an employee of a private investment firm and having that server shared with that firm as well is really absolutely wrongdoing.
Click to expand...
By now it should be clear that I don't start with a conclusion and work backwards.  Nor do I rush to connect dots.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
- eta - Personally to me having the SOS's server used for official US gov correspondence administered by an employee of a private investment firm and having that server shared with that firm as well is really absolutely wrongdoing.
Click to expand...
What is the recommended punishment for such wrongdoing?

 
[scooter] said:
What is the recommended punishment for such wrongdoing?
Click to expand...
If the truth is punishment then I'd start by broadcasting that Hillary had her server literally controlled by a firm literally registered on Wall Street and let the FBI handle the rest, but I'm sure this falls under the same penalties for mishandling of public and classified data that have been under consideration already. My guess is Cooper is dealing with his own criminal investigation on this front also. Regardless of classification I'd have to think there is some penalty for granting a private firm total unfettered access to government communications.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I believe that every other response (except the first one) to Saints and you I have included the real risks of this action.  And I'm not sure about "the" standard at State, but the clearly stated opinion was that restoring communication of the second or third (depending on administration) most important person in the executive branch  "should trump all other activities".   Seems about right!  Go ahead and argue that restoring such communication should not have required such an approach (I'll agree), but that is an indictment of our investment in IT within the government (including staff) and says nothing about Hillary's server.
Click to expand...
Well, other than if there was no Hillary server and she stayed on State managed equipment the likelihood of having to expose State computers even more than normal probably wouldn't have happened.  Of course, none of this addresses the differences between a hacker taking control of, or snooping on, a server vs a laptop/pc.  Many more ways to disguise one's self on a server than a laptop/pc.  It's why default security rules are different on a laptop/pc than a server.  There's plenty of blame to go around.  It's well documented how poorly the State networks were connected and how little they did to fix them.  And while I agree that it's very important to get the SoS online and communicating as quickly as possible, it's pretty evident that the decision making on how to do that was suspect at best (I'd argue downright negligent given what could have potentially happened) and a display of incredibly poor judgment.

 
Will be interesting to see if today's Post poll (Clinton +12) is another outlier, or if it's backed up by additional polls in the next few days.  .

Clinton leading ~6.5% in polling averages right now either way.

 
wdcrob said:
Will be interesting to see if today's Post poll (Clinton +12) is another outlier, or if it's backed up by additional polls in the next few days.  .

Clinton leading ~6.5% in polling averages right now either way.
Click to expand...
Actually you may have missed it but the Post -12 number follows on a Reuters poll showing Trump down -14.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Was just reminiscing this morning about the dire warnings that Sanders voters weren't going to shift to Hillary and all the hand-wringing about polls. Good times.

 
Donor promised to make Clinton ‘look good’ if appointed to board


Rajiv Fernando lobbied top Clinton aide for a seat on sensitive intelligence board

He had little experience in the field and resigned after appointment was scrutinized

The Chicago businessman donated to Clinton, Obama and the Clinton Foundation
 
A major Democratic donor personally lobbied then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s office for a seat on a sensitive government intelligence board, telling one of her closest aides that if appointed he would make Clinton “look good.”


Rajiv Fernando acknowledged that he may not have the experience to sit on a board that would allow him the highest levels of top secret access, but assured deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin in newly released 2009 emails that he’s talking to two professors who are “getting me up to speed on the academics behind the field.”

Fernando, who contributed to Clinton, her family’s foundation and Barack Obama, described himself as one of “Hillary’s people” and mentioned that he recently sent an ailing Clinton flowers to wish her a speedy recovery.

The emails shed new light on how Fernando got a spot on the International Security Advisory Board. He resigned in 2011, days after his appointment and after his selection was questioned.

The emails were provided to McClatchy by the conservative group Citizens United, which obtained them through a lawsuit filed after its Freedom of Information Act requests went unanswered.

Clinton, now the 2016 presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, continues to face questions about whether she helped the Clinton Foundation collect millions of dollars from questionable countries and organizations when she served as the nation’s top diplomat. Clinton's campaign and Fernando's company did not respond to messages seeking comment.

As a member of the board, Fernando 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.

In May 2009, Fernando sent an email to Abedin, a longtime aide so close to Clinton she has been described as her “second daughter,” explaining that he had met with another staffer about the board appointment and had written a letter about why he would be a valuable member.

“Everybody on that board is a top level defense expert, yet, I feel like I can add a lot to the group,” he wrote. “I have two professors from Northwestern and one from University of Chicago who are international security experts and are getting me up to speed on the academics behind the field.”

“I know we had you well into our process here,” responded Abedin, who now serves as vice chairman of Clinton’s campaign.

Later in June 2009, Fernando said he recently met with Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill., who told him that when he traveled on Air Force One he noticed that the first speed dial button had Clinton’s name on it. “That is very cool! I didn’t know that,” Abedin responded.

Abedin asked if Fernando recently sent Clinton flowers as she was unsure who sent them. When he responds yes, she said “So nice of u.”

Months later, in September 2009, Fernando emailed Abedin again after meeting with another staffer referred to only as Tauscher – presumably Ellen Tauscher, a former congresswoman from California who was undersecretary of state for Arms Control and International Security Affairs. He said Tauscher told him that she may be able to include him as a possible choice for the board.

“They will have their list and Hillary will have hers and at the end of the day as long as they don’t have opposition to any of Hillary’s people, they should get in,” he wrote.

“In addition to my previous experiences listed in my resume, I have been meeting with professors from Northwestern, University of Chicago and Yale for the past 6 months,” he wrote to Abedin. “I know I will be able to hold my own and be valued contributor to this board. I promise I will make the Secretary look good.”

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

In recent weeks, emails obtained by Citizens United show the appointment perplexed the State Department’s professional staff, according to ABC News, and that dozens of State Department officials worked overtime to quickly obtain Fernando's security clearance, according to FOX News.

In September 2012, after ABC News again questioned the State Department about Fernando’s appointment, senior adviser Heather Samuelson sent Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Philippe Reines a response provided to ABC News explaining why he was chosen.

Reines appeared to mock the appointment by responding 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 founded Chopper Trading, a high frequency trading firm that was acquired by the Chicago firm DRW Trading Group in 2015. In an economic speech last year, Clinton criticized high frequency traders. Providence, R.I., sued Chopper Trading and other financial companies for defrauding the city, which managed funds for its employees.

Since 2003, Fernando has contributed more than $650,000 to federal Democratic candidates and organizations, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks campaign money. That includes Clinton's Senate and presidential campaigns, her leadership political action committee and the group Ready for Hillary, which laid the groundwork for her second presidential run. Employees of Chopper Trading contributed $34,000 to Clinton’s presidential campaigns.

He served as a voluntary fundraiser or bundler for Clinton's first presidential campaign and later for 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 2015, Clinton attended a fundraiser at Fernando's home for her second presidential campaign. About 170 people each paid $2,700 to get into the event, according to the campaign. Hosts each raised $27,000 or more.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Gopher State said:
timschochet said:
Hillary is campaigning with Elizabeth Warren today. 
Click to expand...
Big boost for Hillary, with Watten with her it gives her instant liberal credibility
Click to expand...
not really....it's interesting to watch the speeches and the :hophead:  though.  Warren's spent a significant amount of time telling everyone how Trump is a bully and Hillary isn't Trump.  I've also noticed she really doesn't talk up many of Hillary's positions outside the woman issues (which almost everyone agrees on today anyway).  Hell the SC just struck down the absurdness coming out of Texas, but don't tell Tim....it'll take one of his fear boogie men away from him.  

 
Gopher State said:
Big boost for Hillary, with Warren with her it gives her instant liberal credibility
Click to expand...
It's nice, and good for Hillary, but I would cringe while watching it if Hillary so much as mentions Wall Street or financial regulation in front of Warren. Warren's tone has seemed like a lot of Democrats (and others) in that she is saying "Stop Trump" much more than being pro-Hillary.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It's nice, and good for Hillary, but I would cringe while watching it if Hillary so much as mentions Wall Street or financial regulation in front of Warren. Warren's tone has seemed like a lot of Democrats (and others) in that she is saying "Stop Trump" much more than being pro-Hillary.
Click to expand...
Of course. It's how Obama will campaign as well.

 
The Commish said:
not really....it's interesting to watch the speeches and the :hophead:  though.  Warren's spent a significant amount of time telling everyone how Trump is a bully and Hillary isn't Trump.  I've also noticed she really doesn't talk up many of Hillary's positions outside the woman issues (which almost everyone agrees on today anyway).  Hell the SC just struck down the absurdness coming out of Texas, but don't tell Tim....it'll take one of his fear boogie men away from him.  
Click to expand...
:P It did. But there's plenty left! 

 
The Commish said:
not really....it's interesting to watch the speeches and the :hophead:  though.  Warren's spent a significant amount of time telling everyone how Trump is a bully and Hillary isn't Trump.  I've also noticed she really doesn't talk up many of Hillary's positions outside the woman issues (which almost everyone agrees on today anyway).  Hell the SC just struck down the absurdness coming out of Texas, but don't tell Tim....it'll take one of his fear boogie men away from him.  
Click to expand...
I sometimes wonder about the validity of that boogie man in the first place. Today Souter and Kennedy voted with the liberal majority. In the past Roberts has sided with them. 

I don't think I can recall a single Dem appointed justice siding with a major conservative decision. On the other hand GOP appointed justices have often sided with liberal majorities. And Trump isn't conservative, I think in reality he'd be appointing justices based on their likelihood to support his own power in the executive branch which quite often as a practical matter would be in favor of liberal decisions. I think with Trump the USSC risk is less with a GOP win than any time since the 70s.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The Commish said:
not really....it's interesting to watch the speeches and the :hophead:  though.  Warren's spent a significant amount of time telling everyone how Trump is a bully and Hillary isn't Trump.  I've also noticed she really doesn't talk up many of Hillary's positions outside the woman issues (which almost everyone agrees on today anyway).  Hell the SC just struck down the absurdness coming out of Texas, but don't tell Tim....it'll take one of his fear boogie men away from him.  
Click to expand...
I sometimes wonder about the validity of that boogie man in the first place. Today Souter and Kennedy voted with the liberal majority. In the past Roberts has sided with them. 

I don't think I can recall a single Dem appointed justice siding with a conservative decision. On the other hand GOP appointed justices have often sided with liberal majorities. And Trump isn't conservative, I think in reality he'd be appointing justices based on their likelihood to support his own power in the executive branch which quite often as a practical matter would be in favor of liberal decisions. I think with Trump the USSC risk is less with a GOP win more than any time since the 70s.
Click to expand...
The boogie man I was referring to was the fear induced suggestion that abortion would be taken away and that is was something that still needed to be fought for during elections.  It's accepted now....time to move on.  This is no longer a feather in anyone's "liberal" cap...at least in the context which we were speaking.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It's nice, and good for Hillary, but I would cringe while watching it if Hillary so much as mentions Wall Street or financial regulation in front of Warren. Warren's tone has seemed like a lot of Democrats (and others) in that she is saying "Stop Trump" much more than being pro-Hillary.
Click to expand...
I hope they do better all season than just "Stop Trump". I need to know why I should vote for you, if I'm undecided. Stop telling me how bad the other guys is, I get that already.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I sometimes wonder about the validity of that boogie man in the first place. Today Souter and Kennedy voted with the liberal majority. In the past Roberts has sided with them. 

I don't think I can recall a single Dem appointed justice siding with a conservative decision. On the other hand GOP appointed justices have often sided with liberal majorities. And Trump isn't conservative, I think in reality he'd be appointing justices based on their likelihood to support his own power in the executive branch which quite often as a practical matter would be in favor of liberal decisions. I think with Trump the USSC risk is less with a GOP win more than any time since the 70s.
Click to expand...
I tend to agree with this. People always talk about appointing Supreme Court justices who don't turn out the way the President at the time intended. But it seems to me that 100% of these cases are Republican Presidents who appointed conservative justices who didn't turn out as advertised. I can't think of a Democratic example, can you? 

I was kidding a little with The Commish. I don't have a boogie man fear of the Supreme Court under Trump. I have a lot of fears about a Trump presidency, but this isn't one of them. Since I am such a social liberal (and in some ways an economic liberal at this point as well)I would prefer a liberal dominated Supreme Court, and that's another good reason, for me, to vote FOR Hillary.  

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
I hope they do better all season than just "Stop Trump". I need to know why I should vote for you, if I'm undecided. Stop telling me how bad the other guys is, I get that already.
Click to expand...
I agree. Hillary has a detailed platform, but she needs to do a better job of spelling it out. Essentially her message should be:

Third term of Obama plus I can work with Congress better. 

 
Tim:

I tend to agree with this. People always talk about appointing Supreme Court justices who don't turn out the way the President at the time intended. But it seems to me that 100% of these cases are Republican Presidents who appointed conservative justices who didn't turn out as advertised. I can't think of a Democratic example, can you?
Click to expand...
Hugo Black and Byron White.

 
The Commish said:
The boogie man I was referring to was the fear induced suggestion that abortion would be taken away and that is was something that still needed to be fought for during elections.  It's accepted now....time to move on.  This is no longer a feather in anyone's "liberal" cap...at least in the context which we were speaking.
Click to expand...
Well, tell that to women in the states actively trying to limit access to abortion by restricting abortion clinics from existing. Texas is hardly the only one. And if abortion was so generally accepted then why would the SC have to deal with cases such as they just decided on?

 
msommer said:
The Commish said:
The boogie man I was referring to was the fear induced suggestion that abortion would be taken away and that is was something that still needed to be fought for during elections.  It's accepted now....time to move on.  This is no longer a feather in anyone's "liberal" cap...at least in the context which we were speaking.
Click to expand...
Well, tell that to women in the states actively trying to limit access to abortion by restricting abortion clinics from existing. Texas is hardly the only one. And if abortion was so generally accepted then why would the SC have to deal with cases such as they just decided on?
Click to expand...
If you're looking for a more provocative answer than "because there's a lot of dumb people still left in this country and they don't have a problem wasting money" then I'm going to be disappointing you.  These kinds of idiots will be around for a long time, but there is no real threat that abortion rights are going anywhere.  Same goes for gay marriage.

 
More deleted emails released today, by way of Huma's inbox.  More indication that the damning stuff was carefully weeded.  Should be a crime in itself.

These concerned Hillary acknowledging that her record keeping was an issue, and she had no idea if and how it was being done properly, if at all. 

The bigger concern is that there in fact was other stuff in the 31k deleted emails than Yoga routines.  

How anyone could actually support this liar is crazy.

 
Here is a question for the constitution lawyer types.

Let us assume that Hillary is impeached and convicted. Can her V.P. also be impeached and convicted for covering up her crimes?

 
bueno said:
Here is a question for the constitution lawyer types.

Let us assume that Hillary is impeached and convicted. Can her V.P. also be impeached and convicted for covering up her crimes?
Click to expand...
Impeached has nothing to do with being charged and convicted with a crime. An impeached politician or judge can be removed from office with 2/3rds of the Senate vote. 

 
timschochet said:
Impeached has nothing to do with being charged and convicted with a crime. An impeached politician or judge can be removed from office with 2/3rds of the Senate vote. 
Click to expand...
No #### Sherlock. Try reading what I wrote - and I'll break it down for you.

1. The House impeaches her - high crimes and misdemeanors.

2. The Senate convicts her - she is removed from office.

3. The V.P. is impeached for covering up her high crimes and misdemeanors. The assumption is that, as a member of her party, he would have been part of the vetting process.

4. The V.P. is convicted by the Senate and removed from office.

Can it happen as described?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
bueno said:
No #### Sherlock. Try reading what I wrote - and I'll break it down for you.

1. The House impeaches her - high crimes and misdemeanors.

2. The Senate convicts her - she is removed from office.

3. The V.P. is impeached for covering up her high crimes and misdemeanors. The assumption is that, as a member of her party, he would have been part of the vetting process.

4. The V.P. is convicted by the Senate and removed from office.

Can it happen as described?
Click to expand...
Congress can impeach a President for any reason they concoct.  

 
bueno said:
No #### Sherlock. Try reading what I wrote - and I'll break it down for you.

1. The House impeaches her - high crimes and misdemeanors.

2. The Senate convicts her - she is removed from office.

3. The V.P. is impeached for covering up her high crimes and misdemeanors. The assumption is that, as a member of her party, he would have been part of the vetting process.

4. The V.P. is convicted by the Senate and removed from office.

Can it happen as described?
Click to expand...
Of course. Why not? 

 
Between herself, Warren, Slick Willy and the O, she has a pretty well respected attack apparatus in place.  All she needs is the Bern. That's going to keep Trump on his toes especially considering he's doing it pretty much alone. 

 
dparker713 said:
Congress can impeach a President for any reason they concoct.  
Click to expand...
The House can impeach. The Senate convicts.

From Article 2, Section 3:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

 
dparker713 said:
Congress can impeach a President for any reason they concoct.  
Click to expand...
Article 2

Section 4 - Disqualification

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

 
Hillary is the second biggest liar in politics, but that could change depending upon what your definition of "is" is.

 
bueno said:
I'm thinking the case against the VP might be weak. Of course getting 2/3 vote to remove is probably impossible.
Click to expand...
:lmao:

Forget the case against the VP; first you have to have w case against the P! 

If Hillary Clinton is elected, she will not be impeached, since she has not and will not commit any impeachable offenses. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
More deleted emails released today, by way of Huma's inbox.  More indication that the damning stuff was carefully weeded.  Should be a crime in itself.

These concerned Hillary acknowledging that her record keeping was an issue, and she had no idea if and how it was being done properly, if at all. 

The bigger concern is that there in fact was other stuff in the 31k deleted emails than Yoga routines.  

How anyone could actually support this liar is crazy.
Click to expand...


More previously unreleased Clinton emails emerge


Nearly three dozen new email messages to or from Hillary Clinton were released to the public on Monday, raising additional questions about the scope of the messages she had preserved for safekeeping.

The conservative organization Judicial Watch released 34 emails to or from Clinton’s personal email account that appear not to have been among the roughly 30,000 messages handed over to the State Department nearly two years ago.

The Clinton emails are among a larger cache of 165 pages of new State Department records obtained by Judicial Watch as part of an open records lawsuit.

In one message, then-Secretary Clinton appeared to raise explicit questions about her record keeping obligations and the difference between personal and official messages.

“I have just realized I have no idea how my papers are treated at State. Who manages both my personal and official files?” she asked deputies Huma Abedin and Lauren Jiloty.  

“I am sending out material the way I did w Lauren in the Senate, but I don’t know what’s happening w it all,” she added.

“Are there personal files as well as official ones set up? If I don’t write anything on paper – as I mostly don’t – Lauren knew how to file it all in the Senate,” Clinton wrote. “I’m sending out a mix which sometimes Claire and other times Lauren picks up from the out box. What happens then is a mystery to me!

“So, I think we need to get on this asap to be sure we know and design the system we want.”

In response, Abedin said she and other officials had “discussed this” and would talk with Clinton about it later in the day.

It's unclear whether Clinton was referring to her email setup in particular.

...

Toner confirmed that the email was not handed over by Clinton, but that the department nonetheless obtained it from Abedin following a request last March to hand over any documents she and other aides may have.

The emails also show that Clinton made an effort to give a State Department job to former British Prime Minister Tony Blair by forwarding his resume to Abedin and then-chief of staff Cheryl Mills. ...
Click to expand...
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/285063-more-unreleased-clinton-emails-emerge

- One thing is Hillary is referred to as "Evergreen" in some of her emails. How someone at State would know to search and find these I have no idea. Apparently they only turned up because everything from Abedin was gone through.

- There is an email about Abedin's blackberry being down - again.

- These emails with and from Hillary are from that very early March-April 2009 time period (Hillary's previous earliest sent email was April 12, 2009). For instance, one email from Hillary is from March 20, 2009, so obviously Hillary was using her email before that 4/12/09 date which is the earliest Sent date she delivered.

- eta - Some of it seems innocuous, but there are a bunch of redactions. For instance, on Page 62, from Mills to Hillary, would love to know what this is about:

[Redacted] will not go quietly into the night - we should talk when convenient.
Click to expand...


- Page 63 Abedin is writing to Doug Band of Teneo, who writes:

Is she mtg next week w Nayla Muswad from Lebanon?
Click to expand...


- This was the president of Lebanon. - Here it looks like Teneo is getting info from within State about Hillary's planning.

- Page 84 she is emailing Doug Band (Teneo) and Laura Graham (Clinton Foundation) info on whether Hillary will be in Haiti.

- There are other redactions of sections and names and email addresses.

- Hillary is in a bit of a perjury trap considering that she filed an affidavit saying that she had turned over everything.

 
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: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
Back
Top