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 (5 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Oh ok he's just an intelligence official who reported classified material definitely being on Hillary's server.
Click to expand...
Why do you continue to play his game?  He's constantly moving the goalposts on you.  Listen, squiz wouldn't believe it if there was an actual video of all of this.

He, like the others, don't want to the truth.  They want the talking points and spin.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
He. Wasn't. In. The. Article. You. Quoted.
Click to expand...



 


Hillary Clinton Emails Said to Contain Classified Data


...But the inspectors general of the State Department and the nation’s intelligence agencies said the information they found was classified when it was sent and remains so now. Information is considered classified if its disclosure would likely harm national security, and such information can be sent or stored only on computer networks with special safeguards.

“This classified information never should have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system,” Steve A. Linick, the State Department inspector general, said in a statement signed by him and I. Charles McCullough III, the inspector general for the intelligence community. ...
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-information-inspector-general-intelligence-community.html?_r=0

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold said:
Why do you continue to play his game?  He's constantly moving the goalposts on you.  Listen, squiz wouldn't believe it if there was an actual video of all of this.

He, like the others, don't want to the truth.  They want the talking points and spin.
Click to expand...
Course I would. That would be a smoking gun. But all we have ever been shown is smoke and no fire.

In over 30 years of supposed criminal activity, Hillary has never been charged by any prosecutor in any jurisdiction for anything, not even a misdemeanor, not even a parking ticket.

And no, you don't have to be in a jail cell to be a criminal, but sitting in a jail cell assumes someone was indicted or convicted of something, anything.

Hillary has never, ever, been charged with anything. It is not like she was indicted and charged, but somehow beat the rap. She has never been charged with anything and try as you might, you can't get around that fact.

 
squistion said:
Course I would. That would be a smoking gun. But all we have ever been shown is smoke and no fire.

In over 30 years of supposed criminal activity, Hillary has never been charged by any prosecutor in any jurisdiction for anything, not even a misdemeanor, not even a parking ticket.

And no, you don't have to be in a jail cell to be a criminal, but sitting in a jail cell assumes someone was indicted or convicted of something, anything.

Hillary has never, ever, been charged with anything. It is not like she was indicted and charged, but somehow beat the rap. She has never been charged with anything and try as you might, you can't get around that fact.
Click to expand...
Even if she were charged you would find an excuse.  You would move the goal posts and then say, "well, she never served prison time".

 
MaxThreshold said:
Even if she were charged you would find an excuse.  You would move the goal posts and then say, "well, she never served prison time".
Click to expand...
But she never has been charged with anything even a misdemeanor. And you just can't get around that fact, can you?

And you keep moving the goalposts with talking about the "serving prison time" straw man. You are accusing me of future hypothetical arguments that I will supposedly make in a parallel universe for things that hasn't happened yet. And that is really pathetic.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
But she never has been charged with anything even a misdemeanor. And you just can't get around that fact, can you?
Click to expand...
 Couldn't you say the same thing about Al Capone, until they finally got him for tax invasion.  Not having charges is not a sign of innocence, it could just be a sign of knowing the system and how to stay out of trouble.  In both cases, you would have to be pretty naive to think they were innocent.  

 
CcbgiMnWAAEVdYB.jpg:large


- "Hillary was always more hawkish on Iran" and suggested a security umbrella for allies in the Gulf.

 
jon_mx said:
 Couldn't you say the same thing about Al Capone, until they finally got him for tax invasion.  Not having charges is not a sign of innocence, it could just be a sign of knowing the system and how to stay out of trouble.  In both cases, you would have to be pretty naive to think they were innocent.  
Click to expand...
Capone was charged with all kinds of crimes over several years and even served jail time before being convicted for good of tax evasion. 

Nice try though. 

 
timschochet said:
Capone was charged with all kinds of crimes over several years and even served jail time before being convicted for good of tax evasion. 

Nice try though. 
Click to expand...
It doesn't change the fact he commited thousands of crimes before he was ever cinvicted.  The lack of someone being charged is hardly proof of innocence.  The fact is, the vast majority of crimes in this country there is not enough proof to bring charges.   That does not mean s crime did not happen. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Has the self appointed keeper of the facts posted that the July 3, 2009 "top secret" email that was withheld a month ago was released today as with a provisional  "secret" status?

Because of course it is impossible for reasonable people to disagree about these statuses!
Click to expand...


“Based on subsequent review, the intelligence community revisited its earlier assessment,”
Click to expand...
- The key here is that it's still the intelligence community making the determination. That has not changed. No one else has a say on information that originates with them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
It doesn't change the fact he commited thousands of crimes before he was ever cinvicted.  The lack of someone being charged is hardly proof of innocence.  The fact is, the vast majority of crimes in this country there is not enough proof to bring charges.   That does not mean s crime did not happen. 
Click to expand...
But it doesn't mean it did either. 

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you, and Rich, and Saints: my common sense does not make me believe that Hillary is guilty of a crime. The evidence that Saints has related is not conclusive enough for me to believe that Hillary is guilty of a crime. In addition, I find her explanation completely plausible. 

But who I am? I'm no prosecutor. I'm not pouring over the evidence. Neither are you. That's why I trust the FBI and the Justice Department. If they're something there, they'll find it. 

You mock me for trusting in experts. Well when I'm a plane I don't question the pilot. When I'm having surgery, I don't question the doctor. I don't see why this is any different. 

 
jon_mx said:
 Couldn't you say the same thing about Al Capone, until they finally got him for tax invasion.  Not having charges is not a sign of innocence, it could just be a sign of knowing the system and how to stay out of trouble.  In both cases, you would have to be pretty naive to think they were innocent.  
Click to expand...
When you are ignorant about history you should keep your mouth shut instead talking about something you know nothing about. Unlike Hillary, Capone was charged with crimes and convicted of some before the IRS charges put him away:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone

Capone was arrested by FBI agents on March 27, 1929 as he left a Chicago courtroom after testifying to a grand jury investigating violations of federal prohibition laws, on charges of having committed contempt of court by feigning illness to avoid an earlier appearance.[47] In May 1929, Capone was sentenced to a prison term in Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary, having been convicted within 16 hours of being arrested for carrying a gun during a trip there. A week after he was released, in March 1930, Capone was listed as the number one "Public Enemy" on the unofficial Chicago Crime Commission's widely publicized list.






 
Mug shot of Capone in Miami, Florida, 1930




In April 1930, Capone was arrested on vagrancy charges when visiting Miami Beach, the governor having ordered sheriffs to run him out of the state. Capone claimed that Miami police had refused him food and water and threatened to arrest his family. He was charged with perjury for making these statements, but was acquitted after a three-day trial in July.[48] In September, a Chicago judge issued a warrant for Capone on charges of vagrancy, and then used the publicity to run against Thompson in the Republican primary.[49][50] In February 1931, Capone was tried on the contempt of court charge. In court, Judge James Herbert Wilkerson intervened to reinforce questioning of Capone's doctor by the prosecutor. Wilkerson sentenced Capone to six months, but he remained free while on appeal of the contempt conviction.[51][52]

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
- The key here is that it's still the intelligence community making the determination. That has not changed. No one else has a say on information that originates with them.
Click to expand...
You left out the fact that intelligence community was wrong in making that original determination, that State still disagrees with even the secret status, and lastly just because an intelligence agency claims ownership does not mean something is classified.  

"The information available to diplomats and the judgments they form do not necessarily need to be classified just because there are parallel intelligence sources "

 
timschochet said:
But it doesn't mean it did either. 

I'm sorry, but I disagree with you, and Rich, and Saints: my common sense does not make me believe that Hillary is guilty of a crime. The evidence that Saints has related is not conclusive enough for me to believe that Hillary is guilty of a crime. In addition, I find her explanation completely plausible. 

But who I am? I'm no prosecutor. I'm not pouring over the evidence. Neither are you. That's why I trust the FBI and the Justice Department. If they're something there, they'll find it. 

You mock me for trusting in experts. Well when I'm a plane I don't question the pilot. When I'm having surgery, I don't question the doctor. I don't see why this is any different. 
Click to expand...
Even a doctor you should get a second opinion.  But we are talking politicians here.  This isn't a pilot whose life is just as dependant on his landing the plane safely as your is.  This is a politician who has political friends and has political interests in the outcome of this investigation.  And I agree, Lynch as far more integrity than Holder does, but that does not mean her opinion is not going to be biased towards not prosecuting.  She will attempt to find every excuse possible not to prosecute Hillary.  The bar to bring charges against Hillary is a thousands times higher than an ordinary citizen, but you are OK with that.  I am not.  

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
You left out the fact that intelligence community was wrong in making that original determination, that State still disagrees with even the secret status, and lastly just because an intelligence agency claims ownership does not mean something is classified.  

"The information available to diplomats and the judgments they form do not necessarily need to be classified just because there are parallel intelligence sources "
Click to expand...
Actually I thought you had already made that point.

It was downgraded to Secret, it's still redacted, is still classified from the moment sent, and IIRC this decision was actually announced last December.

 
squistion said:
When you ignorant about history you should keep your mouth shut instead talking about something you know nothing about. Unlike Hillary, Capone was charged with crimes and convicted of some before the IRS charges put him away:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Capone

Capone was arrested by FBI agents on March 27, 1929 as he left a Chicago courtroom after testifying to a grand jury investigating violations of federal prohibition laws, on charges of having committed contempt of court by feigning illness to avoid an earlier appearance.[47] In May 1929, Capone was sentenced to a prison term in Philadelphia's Eastern State Penitentiary, having been convicted within 16 hours of being arrested for carrying a gun during a trip there. A week after he was released, in March 1930, Capone was listed as the number one "Public Enemy" on the unofficial Chicago Crime Commission's widely publicized list.






 
Mug shot of Capone in Miami, Florida, 1930




In April 1930, Capone was arrested on vagrancy charges when visiting Miami Beach, the governor having ordered sheriffs to run him out of the state. Capone claimed that Miami police had refused him food and water and threatened to arrest his family. He was charged with perjury for making these statements, but was acquitted after a three-day trial in July.[48] In September, a Chicago judge issued a warrant for Capone on charges of vagrancy, and then used the publicity to run against Thompson in the Republican primary.[49][50] In February 1931, Capone was tried on the contempt of court charge. In court, Judge James Herbert Wilkerson intervened to reinforce questioning of Capone's doctor by the prosecutor. Wilkerson sentenced Capone to six months, but he remained free while on appeal of the contempt conviction.[51][52]
Click to expand...
You probably have a point.  Hillary is less of a criminal than Al Capone.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
BFS this might be the released email:

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/DOCUMENTS/HRCEmail_Feb29thWeb/O-2015-08641FEB29/DOC_0C05951358/C05951358.pdf

Heavily redacted.

SECRET.

Classified from the date of sending, it can't be declassified for 25 years, which is near the max 30 years.

Do you think this should have been on Hillary's unsecure server?
Click to expand...
I think it should be released fully - you know that.  And if it was OK for Shelby Smith-Wilson to send the email at all then it was OK for Hillary to have it on her server up until the time she informed it was deemed classified.     I also assume that Shelby Smith-Wilson wasn't manually copying classified documents so she could remove the marking under Hillary's direct orders while sitting on the conference call.  

So now we have the worst of the worst of these emails being a discussion of a news article about the drone program (the dreaded SAP) that eventually makes it to Hillary and a summary of a conference call that eventually makes it to Hillary.  Egregious!  

 
Mr. Ham said:
About this unclassified email held back by an unnamed law enforcement agency...  Oh ####, that vault has a huge mother####ing DIAMOND in it.
Click to expand...
Here's your game changing, smoking gun:

Another email on an unidentified law enforcement matter was also withheld from Monday’s release which was done in accordance with Freedom of Information Act standards. Kirby said that one also is unclassified.
Click to expand...
Looks like it's time to move the boogie man to a new closet.  

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I think it should be released fully - you know that.  And if it was OK for Shelby Smith-Wilson to send the email at all then it was OK for Hillary to have it on her server up until the time she informed it was deemed classified.     I also assume that Shelby Smith-Wilson wasn't manually copying classified documents so she could remove the marking under Hillary's direct orders while sitting on the conference call.  

So now we have the worst of the worst of these emails being a discussion of a news article about the drone program (the dreaded SAP) that eventually makes it to Hillary and a summary of a conference call that eventually makes it to Hillary.  Egregious!  
Click to expand...
BFS, as usual thanks for your independent thoughts. Bass asked earlier what I was looking for, really it's that.

 
Do we have proof that "H" is really Hillary?  It could totally be another H.  Seems like you're just making assumptions without any real proof.

 
At the very least Hillary should have her clearances revoked.  

Hillary and Trump, my god the Christians must be right and Satan is taking over.

 
"Trustworthiness has been an issue for the Clinton campaign. Some 32% of Democratic voters say that it’s the most important quality a candidate can have, according to a recent national NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. In that poll, Clinton leads Sanders by 11 points."

This is why Hillary supporters are clearly morons.

 
Henry Ford said:
Does anyone who's a firm supporter of Clinton have a viewpoint on what her supporters would/should do if she's indicted based on the email issue?  Or if her top staffer(s) are?  I haven't really seen from anyone who supports her what the plan is/should be if that happens before - or after - the nomination is set.
Click to expand...
I'm not a Hilary supporter (at least not yet), but would Hillary be indicted for?   Or her aids?

The three statues that have been mentioned are -

 I don't see a case for any of them based on the information that has been released, especially since the Feds only seems to pursue slam dunks and/or cases where they can ge a plea bargain.    Sure if you believe that Hillary ordered her staff to go grab classified documents and copy them into emails, but none of the examples look like that and it is pretty ridiculous idea.  (Though there is one case of Hillary seemingly suggesting such a thing.)   Or if the content was so clearly classified that no reasonable person could have overlooked it.  Again the evidence suggests otherwise,  

Even if you think the worst of Hillary the "intent" and "knowingly" parts of those statues seems like too high of a hurdle. 

 I don't think Hillary's aids being deposed for FOIA lawsuits is evidence of some grand conspiracy to thwart FOIA request.  Hillary's utilization of a different account was front and center on her emails for anyone that looked at the From box. Her master plan was to hide her evil intentions in plain site?   I think the lack of urgency and attention by the State Department responding to these cases is obvious, a conspiracy however seems like a reach.  

Is there something else?   As for in the court of public opinion, I think there could be "charges" that aren't really criminal that could "stick a fork" into Hillary, but I think that the appraisal of those that seen them that the emails were "relatively innocuous" is more likely than not the case.   And I believe should be the default position until there is reason to believe otherwise.   

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Here to me it's pretty clear that:

- 1. Hillary recognizes that her emails may indeed include classified information even if not marked.

- 2. She has no clue how to recognize classified information herself.
Click to expand...
1, The content in question is not in the actual email.

2. ETA:  It does show ignorance though.  The ignorant belief that classified status is always readily apparent.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
jon mx compares Hillary to Al Capone. Mr. Ham is talking about a vault. 

Where is Geraldo Rivera? 
Click to expand...


Aren't you the one who just pullyed the McCarthy card on me earlier?

Anyways I do appologize.  It was not correct to compare Al Capone to a corrupt liar like Hillary Clinton and I appologize to any living member of the Capone family for even implying such.  

 
squistion said:
For the hundredth time, yes. If it wasn't considered important enough to be deemed classified at the time it was sent to Hillary, then, no harm no foul.  The fact that some agency is overly cautious about making it public years after the fact and retroactively classifies it, doesn't make Hillary guilty of not be prescient enough to realize that at the time.

Now that is not to say that there is information that is so obviously top secret or classified that anyone who views it should be aware of that, so the actual classification date may be irrelevant - however at this time we don't know if anything Hillary received falls into that category.
Click to expand...
This really isn't how it works even though that's how you think it should work.  There is an issue of over classification within the system.  I doubt anyone would question that.  However that doesn't give people the green light to pick and choose on their own.  This is one of those black/white areas that the political lens is attempting to turn gray.  It's a big part of the reason I didn't feel email content was all that important.  The damage was done when her judgment allowed her to think a work server off the government network was a good idea.

 
squistion said:
And the names of these intelligent officials who are going on the record to say this was classified are?
Click to expand...


squistion said:
Nice try, but he was not mentioned as the source in the article quoted.  
Click to expand...
I have to admit, this shtick is a bit more strange than the "Hillary isn't being investigated, her server is" shtick.  Is all the information floating around invalid until you have a specific person's name attached to every quote?  Are you really suggesting that "FBI officials say....." doesn't work anymore?  I can't remember the last time someone balked at an FBI report because the grunts doing the research weren't specifically named.

 
timschochet said:
Capone was charged with all kinds of crimes over several years and even served jail time before being convicted for good of tax evasion. 

Nice try though. 
Click to expand...
"Al Capone" may be an unfortunate example, but jon's point is obviously right: just because somebody has not been charged with a crime does not mean that they are innocent of that crime.  That's a general principle that's true all the time, and it's worth remembering when you want to argue for having high standards for criminal convictions, robust use of prosecutorial discretion to filter out charges that aren't worth pursuing socially, etc.  

And of course, in the specific case of Hillary Clinton, some of us don't particularly care whether she broke any laws with her private email server.  I don't, for example.  The fact that she thought that this was a good idea at all shows such incompetence, poor judgment, and deceptiveness that is should disqualify her from office even if it was 100% legal.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I suspect today is going to be a big day for Hillary.  Bernie is obviously going to win Vermont and realistically the only other states that are in play are Oklahoma, Colorado, Minnesota and Massachusetts. I think Bernie wins Oklahoma but at best only gets one more state.  

 
How many other moderate Republicans will follow the lead of Christine Todd Whitman? Unlikely most of those who reject Trump will vote for Hillary, but so long as they refuse to vote for him it's the same thing. 

Of course there will also be some progressives who refuse to vote for Hillary, but not nearly so many IMO. 

 
Trump over Hillary if Dems are dumb enough to put a criminal up over Sanders.  Call it a vote for trump or against Hillary doesn't matter to me but I don't want Clinton in the Oval Office. 

 
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
262K
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