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 (4 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
OK how about

 "I made a mistake in using a private server. I'm a lot better informed now about the technology relating to security matters, and I wouldn't get caught like that again."

 
Politician Spock said:
Exactly. Which is why when they are caught lying, there has to be consequences. If there are no consequences, politicians have everything to gain and nothing to lose by lying. 
Click to expand...
Congressmen can say literally anything they want while conducting their legislative duties.  They've got Constitutionally mandated immunity.  So, good luck with that.

 
dparker713 said:
Cause you really, really, REALLY want Hillary indicted.  You've repeatedly made every inference against her.  There is plenty to attach Hillary on, yet you continue to draw the worst possible conclusion at every opportunity.    
Click to expand...
It's a bad set of facts --->>> bad conclusions.

Also DP I understand the difference between 'did it' vs what's indictable vs what's convictable. Still: You have to go into some really bad assumptions to make it work for her. But you're right, it's not *impossible that she did nothing wrong. Just be real.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cubd8 said:
If she's mis-stated (or lied) about various points in her responses to Congress, why wouldn't her statements bring into question her clear intent to not give truthful information into her actions around her handling of the security information? It seems the bar is set to her selling the information, etc., but if you're seeing up a server in your home, etc. you are clearly intending to skirt around the rules and then lying about some of the specific questions adds further questions.

None of this is going to matter in 2 weeks, but less 4 months, but this should remind people of her character (or lack of).
Click to expand...
There was nothing inherently wrong with her setting up a server in her own home.  She could have followed every law regarding classified information while using that server.  One thing has nothing to do with the other.

 
DP you used the word 'inference':

- what if you were in a case and in July your client got a request, then you took 5 months to go through your client's data, then in December  you destroyed ***everything electronic, then produced *some stuff in paper based on what *you wanted to be responsive, then *you decided to wipe all the backups and devices that previously held the data, then it takes 14 months to turn everything over, *then it turns out there's a ton of requests that have no documents to respond with. Then your client said it was all your doing.

What kind of 'inferences' would a judge then make when all that is brought to his attention? How would that go down?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Republicans have a bad habit of not being able to get out of their own way on stuff like this.  Comey's media statement and testimony to Congress were about as damning to Hillary as anybody could have imagined given that the FBI stopped short of recommending prosecution.  Everything else Comey has had to say could have been written by me.  And yet they insist on over-reaching to the point where the story becomes about GOP overreach as opposed to Hillary's paranoia, incompetence, rule-breaking, and endangerment of national security.  It's really pretty impressive how the GOP is able to divert attention from those sorts of issues. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
DP you used the word 'inference':

- what if you were in a case and in July your client got a request, then you took 5 months to go through your client's data, then in December  you destroyed ***everything electronic, then produced *some stuff in paper based on what *you wanted to be responsive, then *you decided to wipe all the backups and devices that previously held the data, then it takes 14 months to turn everything over, *then it turns out there's a ton of requests that have no documents to respond with. Then your client said it was all your doing.

What kind of 'inferences' would a judge then make when all that is brought to his attention? How would that go down?
Click to expand...
The timeline - well that's somewhat typical for discovery.  In most cases in most jurisdictions, that's not an issue.  Destroying the originals would probably pose a problem in the FOIA case, but if the opposition ultimately got the production, I've seen people get away with worse.  

To give you an idea on the timeline - 8, 9, 10 years is not uncommon to get a final resolution in a civil case.

 
timschochet said:
Actually, at this point- about anything ever. 

Just my opinion, but when you're running for President, especially if you're a woman running (the first ever to do so and to have come this far) there are certain words you cannot use in reference to yourself. Careless is one of those. Of course she's been careless but she can't ever say that. She can admit mistakes. She can say that she regrets things, and would do things differently. But she can't say "I was careless", "I was stupid", "I was wrong". 
Click to expand...
What's funny about this is Comey already established she had no clue what she was doing so you and all of us shouldn't be surprised she still doesn't have a clue. She didn't know what she was doing wrong, and she still doesn't know, and now by her own words we're getting a president who still doesn't understand how to recognize or handle classified information.

 
dparker713 said:
The timeline - well that's somewhat typical for discovery.  In most cases in most jurisdictions, that's not an issue.  Destroying the originals would probably pose a problem in the FOIA case, but if the opposition ultimately got the production, I've seen people get away with worse.  

To give you an idea on the timeline - 8, 9, 10 years is not uncommon to get a final resolution in a civil case.
Click to expand...
You're skipping the part where the court was told everything had already been produced and where the court was lied to all that time. This is the timeline: The suit had already been filed. And you get a request in July and destroy everything in December. And you've got nothing on some of the most important requests. And you think a judge would be ok with that?

What are some of the possible inferences if a judge is not happy with that? Some defenses are stricken. Some facts are assumed into evidence. Sanctions. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This is the timeline: The suit had already been filed. And you get a request in July and destroy everything in December. And you've got nothing on some of the most important requests. And you think a judge would be ok with that?

What are some of the possible inferences if a judge is not happy with that? Some defenses are stricken. Some facts are assumed into evidence. Sanctions. 
Click to expand...
It's a FOIA case - there's no real consequences.  She can't be fined or imprisoned for it.  And a judge can't hold her in civil contempt, because if the evidence is destroyed there would be nothing for her to comply with.  The FOIA law has no teeth.

 
dparker713 said:
It's a FOIA case - there's no real consequences.  She can't be fined or imprisoned for it.  And a judge can't hold her in civil contempt, because if the evidence is destroyed there would be nothing for her to comply with.  The FOIA law has no teeth.
Click to expand...
Ok DP you very well see what I'm saying but you won't take it head on. You've brought this back into Foia, fine. You understand how this works in the real world very well. The 'inferences' I'm making are very much the norm. Hillary may very well be deposed too, and I'm sure that will be a hoot if so. I'm guessing 'bad faith' is going to be one of the 'inferences' to come out of one of the Foia proceedings you're referencing. Good lord, 50 federal suits alone from Hillary's foul up.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I kinda hate I'm gonna be on vacation and away from this thread.  The mental gymnastics have been top notch the last 24 hours.  I can only imagine what the conventions will bring.  I feel like I'm at a bad performance of Midieval Knights.  The red and blue knight are jousting it out within their buffoonery echo chamber while the green knight is sitting there laughing at them.  

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Yes, he would have given the same answer if somebody had asked him if they are investigating whether Hillary orchestrated the Orlando shooting. When he says "I won't confirm or deny whether we're investigating x," it is not evidence for or against the idea that they are investigating x.
Click to expand...
I suspected as much, but the way he responded made me think there was more to it.  I'd have to watch again to remember what got my attention.  Obviously could be totally off base there since it was just an impression.

 
dparker713 said:
wdcrob said:
Comey's answer has understandably gotten very little play given subsequent events, but I found it interesting that he obliquely suggested there might be additional investigations happening when asked about the Foundation.  Obviously any additional investigations could be on any number of subjects but his dodge was specifically tied to the Q about the Foundation.

No secret that I think it's 100% safe to dismiss anything about Hillary that comes out of the Republican House, but something criminal re: the Foundation and originated by the FBI would be very different IMO.
Click to expand...
That's a stock standard answer.
Click to expand...
Why is that a stock standard answer?

Hillary's the incoming president. 'No the Foundation and Teneo are not under investigation.' That's just a factual issue. Either it's happening or it's not.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok DP you very well see what I'm saying but you won't take it head on. You've brought this back into Foia, fine. You understand how this works in the real world very well. The 'inferences' I'm making are very much the norm. Hillary may very well be deposed too, and I'm sure that will be a hoot if so. I'm guessing 'bad faith' is going to be one of the 'inferences' to come out of one of the Foia proceedings you're referencing. Good lord, 50 federal suits alone from Hillary's foul up.
Click to expand...
I don't think taking her actions out of context is all that helpful.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Why is that a stock standard answer?

Hillary's the incoming president. 'No the Foundation and Teneo are not under investigation.' That's just a factual issue. Either it's happening or it's not.
Click to expand...
You don't comment whether you're investigating anything.  If you are investigating someone, you don't want them covering their tracks.  And there's no reason to foreclose an investigation on something.  

Plus, if you're never going to admit that you are investigating someone, then all your answers need to be uniform, incase someone happens to ask about something you are investigating.  So rather than always lying and saying no, the preferred response is no comment.  

 
dparker713 said:
I don't think taking her actions out of context is all that helpful.  
Click to expand...
I think it is, inferences happen in legal cases everywhere, but as you say here they are probably still in play specifically in the multiple Foia cases involving Hillary. Bad faith is on the table. If you want to keep it within that specific context well that book has not been written yet but it's already starting to be:

- "constantly shifting admissions" -> "Plaintiff is not relying on 'speculation' or 'surmise'" -> "Where there is evidence of government wrong-doing and bad faith, as here, limited discovery is appropriate, even though it is exceedingly rare in FOIA cases" -> discovery granted.

That's happened in two cases so far.

In your specific "context", this is well under way.

http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000153-c30e-d9f0-a173-f7efb4660000
 
-

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713 said:
You don't comment whether you're investigating anything.  If you are investigating someone, you don't want them covering their tracks.  And there's no reason to foreclose an investigation on something.  

Plus, if you're never going to admit that you are investigating someone, then all your answers need to be uniform, incase someone happens to ask about something you are investigating.  So rather than always lying and saying no, the preferred response is no comment.  
Click to expand...
You comment if you're not investigating someone. It's patently wrong to do otherwise.

Yeah the second point applies when you are investigating someone.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Politician Spock said:
I'm not talking legal consequences. I talking don't f'ing vote for politicians who got caught lying. 
Click to expand...
Like said, "we the people" don't want politicians that are truthful  (such as " Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?") but instead want politicians that say what they want to hear ("Let me tell you: the miners in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, which was so great to me last week and Ohio and all over, they’re going to start to work again, believe me. You’re going to be proud again to be miners.") 

 
Joe Summer said:
I would want to know where the (C) was located. Was it in the subject line? Was it in the top of the email? Or was it buried somewhere in a 200 page attachment in 7-point font?
Click to expand...
Located next to a specific paragraph(s) within the body of an email, often down in the forwarded email chain. Not in the subject line. Not at the top of the email. Just in the body of the text somewhere.   In 3 emails. Out of 30,000. 

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Like said, "we the people" don't want politicians that are truthful  (such as " Because we're going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business, right?") but instead want politicians that say what they want to hear ("Let me tell you: the miners in West Virginia and Pennsylvania, which was so great to me last week and Ohio and all over, they’re going to start to work again, believe me. You’re going to be proud again to be miners.") 
Click to expand...
I agree with what you are saying. But the solution is to stop looking at what "we" do and to start looking at what "I" do. This wouldn't be a "it's Hillary or Trump" choice if people stopped believing there is more power in being a lemming than there is in being an individual. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
You comment if you're not investigating someone. It's patently wrong to do otherwise.

Yeah the second point applies when you are investigating someone.
Click to expand...
"Are you investigating x?"

"No."

"Are you investigating y?"

"No."

"Are you investigating z?"

"I can't comment."

Do you see the problem here?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713 said:
The other option is that the information never should have been classified, so it's neither careless nor intentional.
Click to expand...
It was careless to set up and use an unsecure private server for State Department business regardless of whether any emails she sent or received actually contained classified information.

 
Politician Spock said:
I agree with what you are saying. But the solution is to stop looking at what "we" do and to start looking at what "I" do. This wouldn't be a "it's Hillary or Trump" choice if people stopped believing there is more power in being a lemming than there is in being an individual. 
Click to expand...
I'm curious, how would you select between these choices: 

1. An honest and forthright politician, but one which you profoundly disagree with on issues important to you. 

2. A sleazy and even possibly corrupt politician, who has been known to lie from time to time, yet who has been reliably consistent and "on your side" on issues important to you. 

Personally I would vote for #2 given such a choice. What would you do? 

 
The Commish said:
I kinda hate I'm gonna be on vacation and away from this thread.  The mental gymnastics have been top notch the last 24 hours.  I can only imagine what the conventions will bring.  I feel like I'm at a bad performance of Midieval Knights.  The red and blue knight are jousting it out within their buffoonery echo chamber while the green knight is sitting there laughing at them.  
Click to expand...
Mr Comey how many man hours did it take between the FBI investigators and those you worked with in the intelligence community and other government agencies to find approximately 55 secrets on a multitude of servers and devices? 

Without getting into specifics would not our intelligence community fantasize about constructing a SAP to have our adversaries spinning their wheels for news paper articles and who is getting their picture taken with the Secretary?

At the hearing there was a long list of servers where there was evidence of being hacked including State, including the FBI.   Which server was not listed?

Without getting into specifics, our NSA seems to have access to every email being sent.  Is that from hacking servers?  ... Its not?  ... You don't say?

Mr Comey you said there was 110 turned over plus 3 not turned over but recovered  emails consisting of 52 threads turned over plus 3 recovered involving discussions by hundreds participants that was "especially careless" on an unsecured network.  Is my math correct that 113/55 is just slightly over 2 meaning that the typical Secretary's participation in these discussion was  at most one reply?

Enjoy your vacation!   

 
timschochet said:
I'm curious, how would you select between these choices: 

1. An honest and forthright politician, but one which you profoundly disagree with on issues important to you. 

2. A sleazy and even possibly corrupt politician, who has been known to lie from time to time, yet who has been reliably consistent and "on your side" on issues important to you. 

Personally I would vote for #2 given such a choice. What would you do? 
Click to expand...
None of the above. 

 
badmojo1006 said:
My usual response to people who don't vote is, Shut the Hell up. If you are sitting on the sidelines, you give up your right to comment on how the way the world is going
Click to expand...
If someone approaches you on the street and asks whether you'd prefer to be punched in the face or in the gut, you don't waive your right to complain about being punched just because you didn't answer his question.

 
Politician Spock said:
I agree with what you are saying. But the solution is to stop looking at what "we" do and to start looking at what "I" do. This wouldn't be a "it's Hillary or Trump" choice if people stopped believing there is more power in being a lemming than there is in being an individual. 
Click to expand...
If everyone voted without regard for what others might do, we'd be electing a President on like 15 votes.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
It was careless to set up and use an unsecure private server for State Department business regardless of whether any emails she sent or received actually contained classified information.
Click to expand...
I disagree.  They were going to be using an unsecure server for most of their business.  It doesn't much matter to me if it was at her residence or at State.  

 
badmojo1006 said:
My usual response to people who don't vote is, Shut the Hell up. If you are sitting on the sidelines, you give up your right to comment on how the way the world is going
Click to expand...
BS. This might be the first time I don't vote ever because I can't find a candidate worthy of my vote.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
It was careless to set up and use an unsecure private server for State Department business regardless of whether any emails she sent or received actually contained classified information.
Click to expand...
"extremely careless" was the handling classified material

"especially concerning" was her server setup

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

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.

 
Getzlaf15 said:
BS. This might be the first time I don't vote ever because I can't find a candidate worthy of my vote.
Click to expand...
IMO, Badmojo is wrong and you are right. If you choose not to vote, you still get to comment. You're likely paying taxes to the federal government, right? 

But even if you weren't paying any taxes, you would still get to comment. You do NOT have a civic duty to vote, IMO. Not voting is also exercising a valid choice. 

 
timschochet said:
IMO, Badmojo is wrong and you are right. If you choose not to vote, you still get to comment. You're likely paying taxes to the federal government, right? 

But even if you weren't paying any taxes, you would still get to comment. You do NOT have a civic duty to vote, IMO. Not voting is also exercising a valid choice. 
Click to expand...
:boatloads:

 
dparker713 said:
There is a reason that our government has had two dominant parties for nearly its entire existence.  The names might change, but absent a new Constitution the two party system isn't going anywhere.  
Click to expand...
The names don't change without people doing what I'm doing. It's time for the parties to change. 

 
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