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.
To all those insisting those 31k emails unilaterally deleted were (as we now know Hillary blatantly lied about), roughly half (14,900) were in fact work related and belong to the American people.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/fbi-uncovered-at-least-14900-more-documents-in-clinton-email-investigation/2016/08/22/36745578-6643-11e6-be4e-23fc4d4d12b4_story.html

This is yet another thing that by itself should disqualify her from the Presidency.  What a shocking degree of out and out lying!!!

Hoping these are released in time to be sorted through before the election!


There is a difference between conspiracies and something being the most logical explanation.  In the case of Samuelson, it is almost inconceivable that she wasn't given orders to deleted work related emails.  (You don't accidentally misclassify 15k!!!).  Since this is not abundantly clear, who ordered it?  Did it roll up to Hillary or stop at Mills and Huma.

This is not just "more of the same," it's suggestive of a campaign to destroy government records.  


Clinton deleted more emails than she turned over. Her team never actually read all of the emails, skimming subject lines instead. And there was never anyone outside of Clinton's direct orbit brought in to oversee the process. The essence of Clinton's argument regarding this email-sorting process was: Trust me. As in, my team of lawyers found all of the emails that were even tangentially tied to my day job as the nation's top diplomat and turned them over to the State Department.


- This has always pointed to an intent to deleted whole classifications of emails. Delete by subject, delete by sender, delete by recipient, delete by date. That's the only way this works.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Justice Department lawyers said last week that the State Department would review and turn over Clinton’s work-related emails to a conservative legal group. The records are among “tens of thousands” of documents found by the FBI in its probe and turned over to the State Department, Justice Department attorney Lisa Ann Olson said Monday in court.

 
Hopefully when she is President they can start the impeachment process immediately and send her packing. That would be even better than her losing to Trump.

 


“Judy rodin,” he wrote to Abedin in the shorthand email. “Huge foundation/cgi supporter and close pal of wjc[.] Teneo reps her as well[.] Can you help?”
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/huma-abedin-teneo-clinton-foundation-email-213965

- The Teneo connection is a much bigger problem IMO. Teneo was for profit and Bill Clinton (and therefore Hillary) made money from it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think she's careless at all. Her private email server created a system that turned out to be careless, but that was a deliberate decision on her part (unfortunately.) 
You also didn't think the NSA was doing anything wrong. You've got a history of being really wrong about these things. By the way the "extremely careless" is a quote from the Director of the FBI. You disagree with him. Shocking.  :yawn:

 
You also didn't think the NSA was doing anything wrong. You've got a history of being really wrong about these things. By the way the "extremely careless" is a quote from the Director of the FBI. You disagree with him. Shocking.  :yawn:
I knew it was a quote. But it never made any sense to me, still doesn't. 

If you watched Hillary's 11 hours of testimony, if you've at all followed her career, the one thing about her that everybody who's known her, critics and fans alike, is that she is an EXTREMELY detailed policy wonk. Carelessness doesn't fit her history at all. I simply don't believe it. 

 
I knew it was a quote. But it never made any sense to me, still doesn't. 

If you watched Hillary's 11 hours of testimony, if you've at all followed her career, the one thing about her that everybody who's known her, critics and fans alike, is that she is an EXTREMELY detailed policy wonk. Carelessness doesn't fit her history at all. I simply don't believe it. 
You've got problems, Tim. Seriously.

 
So just so I understand, these additional 15K emails have already been seen by the  FBI? Who said no charges would be brought against Clinton?

 
I knew it was a quote. But it never made any sense to me, still doesn't. 

If you watched Hillary's 11 hours of testimony, if you've at all followed her career, the one thing about her that everybody who's known her, critics and fans alike, is that she is an EXTREMELY detailed policy wonk. Carelessness doesn't fit her history at all. I simply don't believe it. 
That's fine, but then the alternative is deliberately corrupt.

 
So just so I understand, these additional 15K emails have already been seen by the  FBI? Who said no charges would be brought against Clinton?
The FBI. There is no implication of charges here for Hillary on her email investigation. That book is closed. Whether the Foundation or Teneo or certain people working for them are still under investigation, we have no idea. That's per Comey who refused to say.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nah. Deliberately paranoid. She was trying to avoid FOIA. Deliberately sleazy, on the edge of the law, I'll buy that. But big deal. And corrupt? No evidence whatsoever of corruption. 
No?  Deliberately breaking one law to avoid another law?  Doesn't qualify as corrupt, I guess.

 
I knew it was a quote. But it never made any sense to me, still doesn't. 

If you watched Hillary's 11 hours of testimony, if you've at all followed her career, the one thing about her that everybody who's known her, critics and fans alike, is that she is an EXTREMELY detailed policy wonk. Carelessness doesn't fit her history at all. I simply don't believe it. 
You should stick with extremely careless, "extremely detailed" and meticulous returns this back to intent and that issue was settled in her favor in that she did not intend any of it. You should let that one go.

 
:lmao:

Well, we can't gauge that for sure until she's been in office, but I can't recall, other than perhaps George H. W. Bush, a candidate in my lifetime more prepared to competent in the role of President. 
IN what world do you live in where Hillary's history of failure is called "competent"?

 
So just so I understand, these additional 15K emails have already been seen by the  FBI? Who said no charges would be brought against Clinton?
The FBI. There is no implication of charges here for Hillary on her email investigation. That book is closed. Whether the Foundation or Teneo or certain people working for them are still under investigation, we have no idea. That's per Comey who refused to say.

Edited just now by SaintsInDome2006
So I am guessing it is a whole bunch of nothing.

I am kinda irked she is trying to pin this on Colin Powell. Just let it go.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
In 2008, McCain got 31% of the Latino vote. In 2012, Romney got 27% of the Latino vote. In 2016, it appears that Trump will get around 20% of the Latino vote (or maybe 19% or 14% or 12%).

The rate at which Latinos are turning into Republicans is stunning.
I expect a lot better from you, Tremblay.  That's blatantly twisting words for no good reason.  3rd generation latinos aren't going to become a huge portion of the electorate in 3 months.  What you DO have is a bubble of democrat voters that isn't going to last forever.  The democrats need to figure out how to score big with this while they have it.  "Destroying Trump in the correct way" is a nonsense phrase that really doesn't provide any direction.  I think its a bad idea to begin with.  The correct move is to move to the right in order to pick off enough rural voters to win the House.  THEN we can implement a comprehensive agenda for change.  

We sit here way off to the far left and its gonna ruin everything, and "destroying Trump' ain't gonna help.

 
Nah. Deliberately paranoid. She was trying to avoid FOIA. Deliberately sleazy, on the edge of the law, I'll buy that. But big deal. And corrupt? No evidence whatsoever of corruption. 
She's sleazy and skirts the edges of the law, but how could anybody think that she's corrupt?  I mean, it's not as if she and her husband collect eight-figure (?) incomes from people who would like favors from the government or anything crazy like that.

 
Nah. Deliberately paranoid. She was trying to avoid FOIA. Deliberately sleazy, on the edge of the law, I'll buy that. But big deal. And corrupt? No evidence whatsoever of corruption. 
Pretty much sums up the bar setting problems in this country that have allowed our main party options to be Trump and Hillary.  And it does so in almost perfect fashion...well done Tim :thumbup:  

 
I can't recall, other than perhaps George H. W. Bush, a candidate in my lifetime more prepared to competent in the role of President. 


Her private email server created a system that turned out to be careless, but that was a deliberate decision on her part (unfortunately.) 
These two posts occurring nearly back-to-back on the same page is pretty awesome.
He was certainly on a roll last night.  My favorite though was squis and his suggestion that someone be fired over lying.  That's probably to the leader in the clubhouse right now.  Tim has some work to do

 
He was certainly on a roll last night.  My favorite though was squis and his suggestion that someone be fired over lying.  That's probably to the leader in the clubhouse right now.  Tim has some work to do
Good point.  I usually skim past squistion's posts so I had to go back and look for this one, but yeah you're right that it's tough to beat that one for pure humor value.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top