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 (15 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
RBM said:
Nobody should be surprised by this outcome. She has proven to be completely incompetent in almost every decision making role she's ever held, but, she also happens to be royalty in the party of corruption. She is next in line to the throne. Obama and Lynch were never going to let something like this take them off course. 
Click to expand...
Again, if you believe that, you have to include the FBI in your "party of corruption." I mean, that was one hell of a press conference if the FBI is in on it.

 
timschochet said:
Personally, I'm not relieved by this; I'm disappointed. I honestly never thought this story was as big a deal as other people, like Saints did. Hillary said on several occasions that she never sent or received classified information. Obviously that was an untrue statement. Some of my respect for her has been lost. 
Click to expand...
It's bigger than just her lying though. There's a very real chance that her info was compromised and that US security or policy was negatively affected by that info being compromised. Either by sources/agents being compromised, or by info being used by enemy states or actors. It's further possible that some of our sources/informants were compromised and either imprisoned or murdered. 

She had no legitimate reason for what she did except to protect herself politically and that selfishness may have had a very real negative impact on both our country and very brave individuals' lives. 

I can forgive decisions that end up being bad that were well intentioned. I can not forgive bad decisions that were selfishly made. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll ever know the full extent of the damage from her selfish recklessness.

The shame of this election is that our choice basically comes down to two individuals that have both proven time and time again that they will put their own self interests over that of the public and our country.

 
NREC34 said:
Didn't the man specifically say the opposite of your next to last sentence? Or did I watch something different than you?
Click to expand...
My next to last statement was:  "But she did willingly have many messages deleted/destroyed."

Did she not have some of the emails deleted?  If she didn't then I apologize.  I didn't say anything about willingly having "classified" info deleted..  Like I said, she didn't know they were classified.... incompetent.   

 
Amazing in that over 30 years of alleged continual and habitual criminal conduct, Hillary has never been charged with even a misdemeanor by any prosecutor in any jurisdiction. And the response from the Hillary haters from every nothingburger is always that the system is rigged.

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump 28m28 minutes ago

FBI director said Crooked Hillary compromised our national security. No charges. Wow! #RiggedSystem
 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Here's the transcript of Comey's statement.
Click to expand...
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
Click to expand...
Security or administrative sanctions. Not "she would be fired".

 
GroveDiesel said:
It's bigger than just her lying though. There's a very real chance that her info was compromised and that US security or policy was negatively affected by that info being compromised. Either by sources/agents being compromised, or by info being used by enemy states or actors. It's further possible that some of our sources/informants were compromised and either imprisoned or murdered. 

She had no legitimate reason for what she did except to protect herself politically and that selfishness may have had a very real negative impact on both our country and very brave individuals' lives. 

I can forgive decisions that end up being bad that were well intentioned. I can not forgive bad decisions that were selfishly made. Unfortunately, I doubt we'll ever know the full extent of the damage from her selfish recklessness.

The shame of this election is that our choice basically comes down to two individuals that have both proven time and time again that they will put their own self interests over that of the public and our country.
Click to expand...
murdered?

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
Security or administrative sanctions. Not "she would be fired".
Click to expand...
That's among the sanctions available.

A federal employee who took all her work emails home and then destroyed all the electronic data and turned over whatever x/y/z her lawyers had gone through, followed by a security review, two IG reports, and an FBI investigation? No, I don't think a normal would survive that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RBM said:
Nobody should be surprised by this outcome. She has proven to be completely incompetent in almost every decision making role she's ever held, but, she also happens to be royalty in the party of corruption. She is next in line to the throne. Obama and Lynch were never going to let something like this take them off course. 
Click to expand...
Really?  They're both corrupt.  Claiming one is and the other isn't is baffling.  

 
In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.
Click to expand...

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
That's among the sanctions available.

A federal employee who took all her work emails home and then destroyed all the electronic data and turned over whatever x/y/z her layers had gone through, followed by a security review, two IG reports, and an FBI investigation? No, I don't think a normal would survive that.
Click to expand...
I am not too sure about analogies to Joe Federal Employee. To start, would the FBI even investigate?

 
JerseyToughGuys said:
I am not too sure about analogies to Joe Federal Employee. To start, would the FBI even investigate?
Click to expand...
A federal employee has zero emails on state.gov? Assuming someone was stupid enough to do that, maybe not the FBI, but obviously it depends on the substance of what was removed and destroyed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's truly frightening that this piece of lying, idiotic, criminal garbage will probably be running this country. The rest of the world getting a good laugh at our expense.

 
irish eyes said:
It's truly frightening that this piece of lying, idiotic, criminal garbage will probably be running this country. The rest of the world getting a good laugh at our expense.
Click to expand...
Because the rest of the world has such brilliant, pristine, ethical politicians?

 
Pretty devastating press conference.  It would be a lot worse if the candidate was anybody other than Trump.  Hard to see the guy with no filter as the more trustworthy person when it comes to protecting confidential information.  It will be interesting to see if can keep his mouth shut once he starts receiving such information after the convention.  

 
Why two full paragraphs there at the end to make sure everyone knows the investigation was done correctly without outside influence.  Isn't that supposed to be a given?  Weird.  

 
JerseyToughGuys said:
my point is your vague hypothetical really doesn't support much of anything.
Click to expand...
Here's what Comey said.

It's not a hypothetical. This was raised by Comey. That's the real world. If you take his statement as true then yeah I think a firing would happen if a federal employee had the same thing happen. She would lose clearance - including a future ban from clearance - her job, future federal work, and would be fined.

You think differently? Ok.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Poor form, amigo. That issue hasn't entered this thread from my end. It was raised once between us when you raised it.
Click to expand...
I think it has numerous times, but I don't feel like going through 900+ pages to prove it. So you have talked about every other nonthingburger such as Cattle Futures, Vince Foster, Whitewater, Bill's alleged sexual misconduct, et al, yet you claim to have never once mentioned Benghazi in this thread except when I raised it. Okie Dokie Pokie. :hophead:

 
squistion said:
I think it has numerous times, but I don't feel like going through 900+ pages to prove it. So you have talked about every other nonthingburger such as Cattle Futures, Vince Foster, Whitewater, Bill's alleged sexual misconduct, et al, yet you claim to have never once mentioned Benghazi in this thread except when I raised it. Okie Dokie Pokie. :hophead:
Click to expand...
Yeah that's right. Thanks. We've also talked about Hillary's Libyan policy and how she persuaded Obama to go in there. The one time Benghazi came up you raised Napolitano I think and MM and that link cited Hillary's testimony before Congress. - eta - I agree let's not go down the rabbit hole. And Benghazi has zero to do with this.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seems really weird to say that Clinton and her staff were extremely reckless but then not recommend charges after opening his statement with:

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.
Click to expand...

Maybe he should explain what the difference is between "extremely reckless" and "grossly negligent."

 
George Jefferson Airplane said:
Then I guess you don't understand the definition of intent.  :shrug:  
Click to expand...
Intent implies a purposeful act. 

Lack of intent, to me, implies action done without purpose. 

There are rules and a chain of command for handling the sort of material in question.  Including using a governmental email structure.  She was aware of this, as she put in requests to operate outside of prescribed procedures. When she was denied that clearance for security concerns, she did it anyway.  

That is intent to mishandle classified information. 

Or do you want to talk about what the definition of "is" is?

 
Smack Tripper said:
George Jefferson Airplane said:
Then I guess you don't understand the definition of intent.  :shrug:  
Click to expand...
Intent implies a purposeful act. 

Lack of intent, to me, implies action done without purpose. 

There are rules and a chain of command for handling the sort of material in question.  Including using a governmental email structure.  She was aware of this, as she put in requests to operate outside of prescribed procedures. When she was denied that clearance for security concerns, she did it anyway.  

That is intent to mishandle classified information. 

Or do you want to talk about what the definition of "is" is?
Click to expand...
No it isn't!  That is what Comey just explained!  :lmao:  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Summary:

- Hillary did send and receive emails that were classified at the time.

- Hillary's email server was negligently insecure.

- Hillary did not archive or provide public records as she was supposed to.

- Hillary's attorneys did delete and destroy emails they were supposed to turn over.

- Hillary was in contact with people who were hacked by other countries.

-Hillary sent classified emails unencrypted from within hostile countries .

- Hillary  sent TS/SCI emails from her account and "knew, or should have known" that unclassified email was "not appropriate" for that conversation or means of communication.
Click to expand...
So they basically confirmed all of the bad behavior we suspected, yet chose not to indict for political reasons.  Not at all shocking.

 
Grace Under Pressure said:
It was devastating that he said there was no intent, and that they're recommending no charges?
Click to expand...
He called her "extremely careless" and revealed that there were over 100 e-mails with confidential information (including 8 top secret).  And he stated that she violated a criminal statute, but relied on prosecutorial discretion to recommend no charges.  Sure, it could be worse, but it's basically a Three Mile Island instead of a Chernobyl.

 
She's above the law...he even stated - this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences."

 
Saints:

Summary:

- Hillary did send and receive emails that were classified at the time.
Click to expand...
The emails themselves weren't classified, but they contained information (whether sent by Clinton or received by Clinton) that was classified. It may seem like a distinction without difference, but I think it provides insight into what Comey considers the minimum threshold for prosecution (i.e., "willful mishandling", etc.).

 
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
259K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 14 (members: 0, guests: 14)
Back
Top