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 (6 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Click to expand...
- Comey

@Commish will love this: -> So the line by Hillary that her server was guarded by Secret Service wasn't even true.

-eta - also btw in Abedin's deposition she said that they were just logging in through web mail, Safari, So the claim that there were the same technical protections as at State was not true either, they had less.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Oh God not this nonsense again!   How many devices did Hillary use in January of 2009?   The fact that she upgraded her Blackberry (all of those 2010 emails about its failures), obtained and was intrigued by the jPad (sic)  when they  came out, upgraded servers, eventually had staff lugging around several other devices. etc. doesn't make her statement concerning her decision in 2009 false.  
Click to expand...
Bring it up with Mr. Comey.
Click to expand...
Comey is discussing the scope of the work his agents had to perform in order to recreate as close as possible the environment in which these e-mails resided 

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.
Click to expand...
Nowhere here does Comey reference Hillary's statements on why she made the decision to use a private server, and I'm pretty certain he doesn't mention it elsewhere either.   So why am I blaming Comey for his words being misrepresented?
Click to expand...
I just quoted that same passage to you.

Hillary said she used one device and that was her reason.

Comey made a finding of fact that she used multiple.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27 said:
I don't think Behnghazi has much legs, except for the most devoted/delusional.  The emails, on the other hand...legally in the clear, but politically this hurts.
Click to expand...
its hurting less every moment since its been finished. and you dont "think" benghazi has much legs? its dead as dirt.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27 said:
I don't think Behnghazi has much legs, except for the most devoted/delusional.  The emails, on the other hand...legally in the clear, but politically this hurts.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. Everyone pretty much knew the facts. But with her not being indicted, Bernie's support will dry up and head to Hillary. End result will be a net positive for her.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Yes, she used multiple devices over the four year period.  We have known that forever.    Again, completely irrelevant to the decision being made in January of 2009 unless you suspect that Hillary was able to see into the future when making that decision.
Click to expand...
That's fine, glad to hear Comey confirm that fact even though it's been oft reported. No Comey did not directly address Hillary's reason/motive but obviously Hillary did and her stated reason has (IMO only) been proved false. Motive is purely internal and speculative, always, the only way this would have been resolved is through a trial.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill said:
its hurting less every moment since its been finished. and you dont "think" benghazi has much legs? its dead as dirt.
Click to expand...
I haven't followed your talking points this afternoon. I understand there's been much manufactured exuberance that she acted with recklessness and incompetence, but not with criminal intent. Whatever helps you sleep at night. 

 
GroveDiesel said:
I doubt it. Everyone pretty much knew the facts. But with her not being indicted, Bernie's support will dry up and head to Hillary. End result will be a net positive for her.
Click to expand...
Compared to an indictment?  Of course it's a positive. This ordeal exposed her as reckless and a liar. That's not a good day at the office. 

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Yes, she used multiple devices over the four year period.  We have known that forever.    Again, completely irrelevant to the decision being made in January of 2009 unless you suspect that Hillary was able to see into the future when making that decision.
Click to expand...
BFS, you were responding to my post. I accepted her convenience explanation because it made the most sense to me. But now I think she did it to skirt the FOIA. I don't blame that impulse (I despise groups like Judicial Watch) but it's dishonest and I sense s little paranoid as well. 

 
 


John Bresnahan ‏@BresPolitico


House Intel Cmte Chairman @DevinNunes says Clinton aides involved in email case ought to have problems getting security clearances in future
Click to expand...
- Well Hillary's aides will be wanting to work in the WH but getting a security clearance from the intelligence community will be no sure thing.

- The IC may very well get their little punishments in individually. For everyone but Hillary of course.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
 


- Well Hillary's aides will be wanting to work in the WH but getting a security clearance from the intelligence community will be no sure thing.

- The IC may very well get their little punishments in individually. For everyone but Hillary of course.
Click to expand...
This was a partisan statement Saints. 

 
timschochet said:
BFS, you were responding to my post. I accepted her convenience explanation because it made the most sense to me. But now I think she did it to skirt the FOIA. I don't blame that impulse (I despise groups like Judicial Watch) but it's dishonest and I sense s little paranoid as well. 
Click to expand...
Did Comey say something to lead to this belief?  If so what?

 
bigbottom said:
I listened to Comey's statement and here's what I came away with: most every recitation of a fact was damning for Clinton. The parts of the statement that were helpful to Clinton were more along the lines of conclusions or opinions (and I thought at least a couple of the conclusions were contradictory to the facts cited immediately prior).
Click to expand...
Basically this, aside from the "deleted emails" part that I personally found persuasive.  

I do agree with Comey though that the bar for indicting the nominee of a major party ought to be pretty high.  If the facts of this case didn't meet that bar, so be it.  Doesn't change my opinion of Hillary.

 
Trump's response is to go overboard as usual. Comey's statement was filled with legitimate criticisms of Hillary, and Trump could have a real impact quoting these, and arguing them. 

Instead Trump is attacking Comey, and arguing that Hillary would be in jail right now except that the "system is rigged". That will play very well with the folks who are already supporting him. But I doubt it will convince any undecideds. 

 
timschochet said:
Trump's response is to go overboard as usual. Comey's statement was filled with legitimate criticisms of Hillary, and Trump could have a real impact quoting these, and arguing them. 

Instead Trump is attacking Comey, and arguing that Hillary would be in jail right now except that the "system is rigged". That will play very well with the folks who are already supporting him. But I doubt it will convince any undecideds. 
Click to expand...
I agree. He doesn't need to take that route. Just quote Comey directly. The findings raise some very serious questions about whether she's fit to be President.

 
timschochet said:
BFS, you were responding to my post. I accepted her convenience explanation because it made the most sense to me. But now I think she did it to skirt the FOIA. I don't blame that impulse (I despise groups like Judicial Watch) but it's dishonest and I sense s little paranoid as well. 
Click to expand...
What's wrong with Judicial Watch?

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Did Comey say something to lead to this belief?  If so what?
Click to expand...
Yes and no. He didn't say anything specific about it. But by disputing Hillary's explanation about the classified emails, which appears to make Hillary either completely dishonest or at best lawyerly disingenuous, it has made me question her whole explanation for this affair from start to finish. 

 
cobalt_27 said:
I haven't followed your talking points this afternoon. I understand there's been much manufactured exuberance that she acted with recklessness and incompetence, but not with criminal intent. Whatever helps you sleep at night. 
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about sleeping at night. Or my disdain for Hillary.

I'm stating that these scandals are finished. Except for the gnashing of teeth by some.

 
cobalt_27 said:
I don't think Behnghazi has much legs, except for the most devoted/delusional.  The emails, on the other hand...legally in the clear, but politically this hurts.
Click to expand...
I don't even see how it hurts her base.  It literally has no effect.  The vast majority of these people either do not care or are not bright enough to understand the substance of things.  Its a cult of personality.  I would put that at about 40 percent of the electorate.

Another 40 percent are people that are in the exact same boat for Trump, equally uninformed and ignorant.  And I really hate to bandy terms like that, but my goodness, you simply can't break it down any other way.  10 years ago, she would be run out on a rail, 5 years ago this fool Trump wouldn't have seen September 2015.  And here we are.

An election to be decided by 20 percent of voters who are not voting FOR anyone but AGAINST their worst fear or instinct.  Right now, that Group is probably 75-25 against a reality of Trump. 

Its a time like we've never seen and hopefully never see again but I feel like this is the future of elections in my lifetime.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
I'm not talking about sleeping at night. Or my disdain for Hillary.

I'm stating that these scandals are finished. Except for the gnashing of teeth by some.
Click to expand...
Right.  From a legal standpoint, it's over.  Politically, however, the damage is not insignificant.  She is reduced by findings, not elevated.  I don't believe it's enough for Trump to win.  But, she compromised her position, and the stakes are immense.  If I'm a democrat--or just someone who doesn't want a crazy person in office--today sucked.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Yes and no. He didn't say anything specific about it. But by disputing Hillary's explanation about the classified emails, which appears to make Hillary either completely dishonest or at best lawyerly disingenuous, it has made me question her whole explanation for this affair from start to finish. 
Click to expand...
:lmao: honestly, what had she done previously to establish the kind of trust previously?

 
No Cobalt, because the result actually alleviated the issue. Not exasperate it.

This had such huge coverage and push by too many previously, like Benghazi. There was no money-shot.  Now its just gnashing of teeth.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Yes and no. He didn't say anything specific about it. But by disputing Hillary's explanation about the classified emails, which appears to make Hillary either completely dishonest or at best lawyerly disingenuous, it has made me question her whole explanation for this affair from start to finish. 
Click to expand...
Well I never believed that Hillary told the whole truth with her pretty narrow responses.  While Comey was blunt at times I didn't read anything today that made anything different from what some of us expected a year ago.  

 
Smack Tripper said:
I don't even see how it hurts her base.  It literally has no effect.  The vast majority of these people either do not care or are not bright enough to understand the substance of things.  Its a cult of personality.  I would put that at about 40 percent of the electorate.

Another 40 percent are people that are in the exact same boat for Trump, equally uninformed and ignorant.  And I really hate to bandy terms like that, but my goodness, you simply can't break it down any other way.  10 years ago, she would be run out on a rail, 5 years ago this fool Trump wouldn't have seen September 2015.  And here we are.

An election to be decided by 20 percent of voters who are not voting FOR anyone but AGAINST their worst fear or instinct.  Right now, that Group is probably 75-25 against a reality of Trump. 

Its a time like we've never seen and hopefully never see again but I feel like this is the future of elections in my lifetime.
Click to expand...
I agree with this.  All of it.  It just pisses me off that (a) she is in this position on her own doing for whatever reason(s) and (b) that some people are actually out there crowing about the outcome as though it's a great day for Hillary.  Yes, it's great in the sense that she wasn't dealt an immediate, fatal blow to her presidential aspirations, but that sort of downward comparison misses the point of how awful she comes off and that it could have a negative impact on her in the general.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
No Cobalt, because the result actually alleviated the issue. Not exasperate it.

This had such huge coverage and push by too many previously, like Benghazi. There was no money-shot.  Now its just gnashing of teeth.
Click to expand...
We'll have to disagree on he alleviation piece.  Again, compared to an indictment, of course that's a huge load off.  And, she can survive being seen as deceitful and a liar, she has for years.  But, she is reduced by today...just not as bad as she could have been.

 
Hi, haven't caught up with the last 54 or so pages from today, sorry if this was answered already:

Is Tim going to jail now or what?

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Hillary's and Comey's statements do not contradict each other.

I personally carry around only one phone at a time, never two or more, but I have gone through more than one phone over the last several years.
Click to expand...
Ok ok I'll stand down on this point: to me one device vs multiple devices as a factual matter is pretty clear but yeah Comey did not directly address the motive/reason for Hillary. -eta - (Though I think the IG did).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
Basically this, aside from the "deleted emails" part that I personally found persuasive.  

I do agree with Comey though that the bar for indicting the nominee of a major party ought to be pretty high. If the facts of this case didn't meet that bar, so be it.  Doesn't change my opinion of Hillary.
Click to expand...
I don't think he ever said that, did he? If so, that's incredibly alarming. Applying different legal standards based on someone's social or political status is pretty much the opposite of everything America is supposed to be based on.

 
timschochet said:
Trump's response is to go overboard as usual. Comey's statement was filled with legitimate criticisms of Hillary, and Trump could have a real impact quoting these, and arguing them. 

Instead Trump is attacking Comey, and arguing that Hillary would be in jail right now except that the "system is rigged". That will play very well with the folks who are already supporting him. But I doubt it will convince any undecideds. 
Click to expand...
He will probably get there.  First you fire up the looneys, then swing back and attack her logically. (And there's plenty of "on-the-record" lying that he can now use)

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok ok I'll stand down on this point: to me one device vs multiple devices as a factual matter is pretty clear but yeah Comey did not directly address the motive/reason for Hillary. -eta - (Though I think the IG did).
Click to expand...
He didn't specify whether she used multiple devices at one time, just that she used multiple devices.  I could see it argued either way, but the truth is that he didn't clarify it enough to answer whether she used multiple devices at one time (though I'd say it's 95% likely that she did)

 
jabarony said:
I'm shocked that someone with money and power may have received preferential treatment.
Click to expand...
I can't believe anybody is surprised by this outcome.  The Clintons have made a sport of squirming their way out of being held accountable for criminal behavior, and this is another fine example. I never thought she would actually be indicted.  

 
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
261K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Back
Top