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 (11 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Clinton in Total Denial About FBI Director’s Conclusions About Private Email Server


Hillary Clinton was still very much in denial about what FBI Director James Comey said about her private email server earlier this month in an interview with CBS host Charlie Rose.

Rose asked if she considered potential national security concerns when she set up her personal, home-brewed server.

“And some say, what were you thinking about the national security risk when you made this decision?” Rose asked.

Clinton said there was no evidence of anyone hacking into her server. Rose did not agree with her assessment.

“Some would suggest that the reason they were very good at it, there’s no evidence of it and that you exposed–,” Rose rebutted.

Clinton reiterated that there is no evidence of hacking and that she takes classified information very seriously.

“That’s not even the question,” Rose fired back.

Clinton said that is the issue at hand before Rose repeated the question.

“The question is, did you put stuff?” he said. “Not about classification–”

“No,” she replied.

Rose paused and looked at her.

Clinton explained that there has been confusion around this topic and “what has been found.” She added that when a government system gets hacked, there is “great evidence” of when it occurs.

Rose reminded Clinton that Comey called her “careless” with her handling of classified material over her private email server while at the State Department,

Clinton deflected this accusation and said that she hoped Rose, as well as the public, would focus on what Comey said when he testified in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform earlier this month.

“He clarified much of what he said in his press conference,” she said.

“But he said it was sloppy,” Rose shot back.

“He did not,” she replied.

Clinton then shifted the blame to say that “at least 300” people were on the email chains. She pointed out to Rose that she was not emailing herself.

“It has now been clarified that there were no markings of classified material,” she said.

Comey testified under oath that there were three partial markings to signify that there was classified information in emails on her server. The Washington Free Beacon reported at the time about a specific exchange between Comey and Rep. Mark Meadows (R., N.C.).


“Director Comey, come on,” Meadows said. “I mean, I’ve only been here a few years and I understand the importance of those markings. So, you’re suggesting that a long length of time she had no idea what a classified marking would be. That’s your sworn testimony today?”

Comey immediately said no.

“No, no, not that she would have no idea what a classified marking would be, but, it’s an interesting question as to whether she—this question about sophistication came up earlier—whether she was actually sophisticated enough to understand what a C in parenthesis means,” he said.



Comey then said that due to her tenure as first lady, senator, and then secretary of state, she should have known what those markings meant.

Clinton referred to these accusations as a “flurry,” in which she downplayed the fact that there were, indeed, markings indicating classified information.

“There was a little flurry about three little documents that had a little C, but that’s been clarified by the State Department,” she said to Rose.

Rose asked Clinton directly if what she did was careless. She deflected the question and said that if what she did was careless, then the 300 people on the email chains were also careless. Rose asked why Comey used that specific term then.

“I don’t know,” Clinton said.
Click to expand...
http://freebeacon.com/politics/clinton-total-denial-fbi-conclusions-email-server/

Video.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
She was clearly careless by the standards of classified info. And it's dumb to argue about that.

OTOH State did explain the three docs marked classified at the time she received them and IMO Comey mischaracterized their significance.

 
wdcrob said:
She was clearly careless by the standards of classified info. And it's dumb to argue about that.

OTOH State did explain the three docs marked classified at the time she received them and IMO Comey mischaracterized their significance.
Click to expand...
Thing is, arguing about the appropriateness of the classifications is completely different from accepting or denying they were actually there. The appropriateness of the classifications can be argued for all 2000+ classified emails, well except for the roughly 100+ which were born classified, which to my mind were way more important than these 3 marked documents.

Hillary has such a huge problem with being confronted with the truth though. So: They were marked, Comey said you did not understand what they meant or did not know enough to look for them. Instead of accepting that yes they were marked and maybe explaining that they were easy to miss, there were just 3, or that the information in them was insignificant, oh no Hillary denies it ever happened. It's plain they were marked.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Thing is, arguing about the appropriateness of the classifications is completely different from accepting or denying they were actually there. The appropriateness of the classifications can be argued for all 2000+ classified emails, well except for the roughly 100+ which were born classified, which to my mind were way more important than these 3 marked documents.

Hillary has such a huge problem with being confronted with the truth though. So: They were marked, Comey said you did not understand what they meant or did not know enough to look for them. Instead of accepting that yes they were marked and maybe explaining that they were easy to miss, there were just 3, or that the information in them was insignificant, oh no Hillary denies it ever happened. It's plain they were marked.
Click to expand...
I'm not arguing the "appropriateness".  I'm arguing that "sending and receiving documents marked classified" is a mischaracterization (or at least misleading) when the documents were declassified and had no classified headers, but the removal of a ((c)) in the body of the document was overlooked.  That's my understanding of the issue -- though I admit I haven't done as much homework on it as I might have.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wdcrob said:
I'm not arguing the "appropriateness".  I'm arguing that "sending and receiving documents marked classified" is a mischaracterization (or at least misleading) when the documents were declassified and the classified headers were removed, but a similar removal of a ((c)) in the body of the document was overlooked.  That's my understanding of the issue -- though I admit I haven't done as much homework on it as I might have.
Click to expand...
Most importantly it's irrelevant.  As we've heard (correctly) over and over it's the content that matters.  

 
With all the #### we face as a nation, shame on you if a priority is Hillary's emails or Benghazi for both the fact that each has been vetted at ridiculous taxpayer cost and resource and more importantly, the context of what each represents in terms of issues of real value.

As a GJ guy, just stop with your petty political hatchet job pandering and actually show you give a #### about the many far, FAR more important issues we face. If you have no decency, at least have some respect... for yourselves and our nation and people.

 
wdcrob said:
I'm not arguing the "appropriateness".  I'm arguing that "sending and receiving documents marked classified" is a mischaracterization (or at least misleading) when the documents were declassified and had no classified headers, but the removal of a ((c)) in the body of the document was overlooked.  That's my understanding of the issue -- though I admit I haven't done as much homework on it as I might have.
Click to expand...
Ok. I think Hillary could acknowledge Comey's characterization at a minimum.

 
Koya said:
With all the #### we face as a nation, shame on you if a priority is Hillary's emails or Benghazi for both the fact that each has been vetted at ridiculous taxpayer cost and resource and more importantly, the context of what each represents in terms of issues of real value.

As a GJ guy, just stop with your petty political hatchet job pandering and actually show you give a #### about the many far, FAR more important issues we face. If you have no decency, at least have some respect... for yourselves and our nation and people.
Click to expand...
The reason why the email story got so much traction is specifically because it does an awesome job of illuminating the #### we face as a nation if and when we elect Hillary.  

Basically, the way Hillary handled her emails demonstrates malice (avoiding FOIA requests that apply to everybody else but not to her), incompetence (mishandling classified information and most likely having her email hacked by foreign governments), and terrible judgment (thinking that this was all somehow going to fly).  Many of us have been saying for years that Hillary is a weak candidate with a padded resume who's had a mostly unremarkable political career, with few accomplishments and quite a few failures.  This story is important because it's essentially a perfect storm for hitting every little note in that narrative in a manner that's undeniable except to dead-enders like squistion and tim, God rest his soul.

In other words, it's not really fair to say that Hillary's emails represent our top priority.  She's not shady and incompetent because of the email story.  The email story just illustrates her shadiness and incompetence, which really is a pretty big deal.  With the standard disclaimer that she's running against an even bigger catastrophe-in-waiting. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
IvanKaramazov said:
To reiterate, I have no problems with this.  Any law that ostensibly prohibits a politician from endorsing the candidate of his party is a stupid law that needs to be re-written.
Click to expand...
The law is to prevent underlings from being forced to campaign for their bosses. Gives them protection.

 
Koya said:
With all the #### we face as a nation, shame on you if a priority is Hillary's emails or Benghazi for both the fact that each has been vetted at ridiculous taxpayer cost and resource and more importantly, the context of what each represents in terms of issues of real value.

As a GJ guy, just stop with your petty political hatchet job pandering and actually show you give a #### about the many far, FAR more important issues we face. If you have no decency, at least have some respect... for yourselves and our nation and people.
Click to expand...
Okay Tim.

 
IvanKaramazov said:
The reason why the email story got so much traction is specifically because it does an awesome job of illuminating the #### we face as a nation and when we elect Hillary.  

Basically, the way Hillary handled her emails demonstrates malice (avoiding FOIA requests that apply to everybody else but not to her), incompetence (mishandling classified information and most likely having her email hacked by foreign governments), and terrible judgment (thinking that this was all somehow going to fly).  Many of us have been saying for years that Hillary is a weak candidate with a padded resume who's had a mostly unremarkable political career, with few accomplishments and quite a few failures.  This story is important because it's essentially a perfect storm for hitting every little note in that narrative in a manner that's undeniable except to dead-enders like squistion and tim, God rest his soul.

In other words, it's not really fair to say that Hillary's emails represent our top priority.  She's not shady and incompetent because of the email story.  The email story just illustrates her shadiness and incompetence, which really is a pretty big deal.  With the standard disclaimer that she's running against an even bigger catastrophe-in-waiting. 
Click to expand...
Fair and detailed response, but with all the facts that have come to bear, compared with actions of past presidents alone (Bush's crusade to enter a full blown invasion for no good reason,  Iran contra just to name the first two that come to mind) and the ultimate findings, it just seems way overblown. ESPECIALLY considering what we could expect from a Trump pres. with his litany of purposefully screwing people over and other super shady business dealings, multiple business failures and selfish and vindictive nature (not to mention a penchant for making fun of others like a child and inciting hate and bigotry).  Maybe I just have low expectations to begin with for our executive branch.

 
Koya said:
Productive response.  No wonder Ive spent less and less time here.

Appreciate your take, however, Ivan. As usual. Unlike the helium that takes up so many posts and whatever 'thought' that went into it.
Click to expand...
I'm sure you are missed. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry 'Hank' Paulson, chairman and CEO of Goldman Sachs Group, Inc., left, shakes hands with New York Senator Charles Schumer during a groundbreaking ceremony for the new Goldman Sachs world Headquarters in New York, Tuesday, November 29, 2005. Goldman Sachs Group Inc. broke ground this morning on its new $2.4 billion, 43-story headquarters building across from the World Trade Center site in lower Manhattan. The location across from Ground Zero may help lure tenants who want to be close to Goldman Sachs to the office buildings that will rise on the trade center site, helping to maintain lower Manhattan's role as a leading world financial capital, state and local officials have said. Pictured from left are: Assembly speaker Sheldon Silver, Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Paulson, New York Governor George Pataki, Schumer, Chairman of the Battery Park City Authority James Gill, and Senator Hillary Clinton.
Click to expand...


- Shovel Ready.

 
Koya said:
Bush's crusade to enter a full blown invasion for no good reason,
Click to expand...


In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.

In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.

In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.

It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.

Now this much is undisputed. ...

But if we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 UN resolution, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998.

If we get the resolution that President Bush seeks, and if Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition. ...

And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.
Click to expand...
- Guess Who.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Koya said:
Fair and detailed response, but with all the facts that have come to bear, compared with actions of past presidents alone (Bush's crusade to enter a full blown invasion for no good reason,  Iran contra just to name the first two that come to mind) and the ultimate findings, it just seems way overblown. ESPECIALLY considering what we could expect from a Trump pres. with his litany of purposefully screwing people over and other super shady business dealings, multiple business failures and selfish and vindictive nature (not to mention a penchant for making fun of others like a child and inciting hate and bigotry).  Maybe I just have low expectations to begin with for our executive branch.
Click to expand...
To be clear, I agree with you that Trump is qualitatively worse than Hillary.  Hillary is a terrible candidate and will probably be a terrible president, but she'll be terrible within the usual margin of error.  Trump's lower bound is really horrific, in a completely not-at-all-hyperbole sense.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
:pickle:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288285-most-retweeted-tweet-of-first-day-of-gop-convention

Most retweeted GOP convention tweet was written by Clinton

The most retweeted tweet during the first day of the Republican National Convention was posted by the GOP's chief opponent.

"Republicans have a lot of nice things to say — when it's not an election year. Thanks, Mayor Giuliani. #RNCinCLE," presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton
Click to expand...


CRUZ: So I’d like to ask Donald, why did you write checks to Hillary Clinton to be president in 2008? It wasn’t for business. And how can you stand on a debate stage now with her and say you don’t think she should be president?

TRUMP: Actually, it was for business. It was. It was. It was for business. I pride myself, including outside of the United States. I’m doing almost 120 deals outside of the — which I hope to be able to stop very soon and let my children handle it — but we’re doing many, many deals outside of the United States.

I support politicians. In 2008, I supported Hillary Clinton. I supported many other people, by the way. And that was because of the fact that I’m in business. ...
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/us/politics/transcript-of-the-republican-presidential-debate-in-detroit.html?_r=0

- Trying to understand how Hillary could help Trump with his deals outside the US. Any ideas?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
:pickle:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288285-most-retweeted-tweet-of-first-day-of-gop-convention

Most retweeted GOP convention tweet was written by Clinton

The most retweeted tweet during the first day of the Republican National Convention was posted by the GOP's chief opponent.

✔ @HillaryClinton

Republicans have a lot of nice things to say—when it's not an election year. Thanks, Mayor Giuliani. #RNCinCLE


7:10 PM - 18 Jul 2016
Click to expand...
Congratulations on your favorite candidate getting the most retweets on the first night of the Republican National Convention.  This must have been a magical night for you & your family.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
:pickle:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288285-most-retweeted-tweet-of-first-day-of-gop-convention

Most retweeted GOP convention tweet was written by Clinton

The most retweeted tweet during the first day of the Republican National Convention was posted by the GOP's chief opponent.

✔ @HillaryClinton

Republicans have a lot of nice things to say—when it's not an election year. Thanks, Mayor Giuliani. #RNCinCLE


7:10 PM - 18 Jul 2016
Click to expand...
What does this mean?

 
squistion said:
:pickle:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/288285-most-retweeted-tweet-of-first-day-of-gop-convention

Most retweeted GOP convention tweet was written by Clinton

The most retweeted tweet during the first day of the Republican National Convention was posted by the GOP's chief opponent.

✔ @HillaryClinton

Republicans have a lot of nice things to say—when it's not an election year. Thanks, Mayor Giuliani. #RNCinCLE


7:10 PM - 18 Jul 2016
Click to expand...
Are you autistic?

 
squistion said:
A better reception by people on social media (hint: those younger than you).
Click to expand...
I think you're reading into things that aren't there.  Seems a bit superficial to be claiming some kind of victory over tweet count.  But then again, I'm not so easily moved by superficial nonsense like you appear to be.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Irrelevant to her facetious "Wipe it with a cloth?" comment.
Click to expand...
Not really.

I have confirmed with the secretary’s IT support that no emails for the time period January 21, 2009 through February 1, 2013 reside on the server or on any back-up systems associated with the server. Thus, there are no hdr22@clintonemail.com e-mails from Secretary Clinton’s tenure as Secretary of State on the server for any review, even if such review were appropriate or legally authorized.
Click to expand...
http://democrats-benghazi.house.gov/sites/democrats.benghazi.house.gov/files/documents/2015_04_22_Kendall_to_Gowdy_re_Response_to_03-31-15_Letter.PDF
 
So she thought the server was and would remain private. Oh well. Happily such a review will soon be taking place.
 
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
244K
BobbyLayne
BobbyLayne
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
1K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

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