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 (10 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
jon_mx said:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
She always had 100% control over the emails she sent out.  And 0% control over the emails that came in.  Her server did not change those numbers.  
Click to expand...
Oh on her computer.  But government computers are backed up where she would not have control.  She could delete her entire inbox and sent messages, but there are still backups.  That is why she did not delete any messages she sent to government computers, she would get caught and have the appearance of obstruction.
Click to expand...
Hillary had 100% control over the decision to draft and send an email.  She had 0% control over who sent her an email and where else that email went.  Assuming you have no evidence that Hillary's assertion that she sent and/or forwarded to .gov accounts has been discredited then the government backups and other reasons she had no control all still apply. 

 
IvanKaramazov said:
I only understand about a third of this.  For example, nobody disputes that Hillary Clinton was the #1 person in charge of State.  That doesn't make her exempt from the FOIA, nor does it exempt her from our ordinary expectations involving government transparency.  (Tim -- I know you disagree; let it go for the sake of argument). I also agree with you that reasonable people can disagree about whether government material is currently being over-classified.  We don't know and will probably never know whether the redacted stuff on Hillary's server falls into that category or not.  
Click to expand...
How has Hillary been exempt for FOIA request?  See here.  I answered your "I can't imagine how" post a month ago, maybe you can do better than jon.  (Ok I'm sure you can).

For the national security piece I'll link this which predates this entire mess.  How many newspaper sales, click through, TV ratings would come from such boring facts as -

It is important to understand that the executive order on classification does not require the classification of any information at all. It is permissive, not mandatory.  It consistently says that information “may” be classified under certain circumstances, not that it “must” be classified.

(Even some government officials who should know better sometimes get this wrong.  The new DoJ Inspector General report states in passing that “Section 1.4 of EO 13526… includes intelligence sources or methods as a category of information that shall be classified” (p. 23, footnote 27, emph. added).  That’s a mistake.  Section 1.4 speaks of information that may or may not be “considered for classification,” including intelligence sources of methods, but it does not dictate the classification of such information.)

But while the executive order does not require classification of anything, it allows classification of an overwhelming, practically unlimited volume of information.  And it is within this permissible range of classification, far more than outside of it, that overclassification needs to be addressed.
Click to expand...
Or 

Overclassification refers to the classification of information that should not be classified, even if it falls within the scope of the executive order, because doing so interferes with some other critical function, such as a desirable process of information sharing, or because it precludes the possibility of public consent to major national security activities.
Click to expand...
I think that this is the key here.  My reply to your "I can't imagine how emails" (in very different words with no links) was that there are 2000 or so emails back and forth where the content fell within the scope of the executive order as it was being created (not copied from other sources) within these emails but it wasn't classified because the need to share the information was more important.  Now with respect to the FOIA that need to share went away so someone else decided it should became classified because hey were erroring on the side of caution and that last piece about "public consent" wasn't considered.    That "public consent" charge of course being driven by my biases.

Could this be wrong?  Sure!   

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
She always had 100% control over the emails she sent out.  And 0% control over the emails that came in.  Her server did not change those numbers.  
Click to expand...



 


Clinton, on her private server, wrote 104 emails the government says are classified


Hillary Clinton wrote 104 emails that she sent using her private server while secretary of state that the government has since said contain classified information, according to a new Washington Post analysis of Clinton’s publicly released correspondence.

The finding is the first accounting of the Democratic presidential front-runner’s personal role in placing information now considered sensitive into insecure email during her State Department tenure. Clinton’s ­authorship of dozens of emails now considered classified could complicate her efforts to argue that she never put government secrets at risk.

In roughly three-quarters of those cases, officials have determined that material Clinton herself wrote in the body of email messages is classified. Clinton sometimes initiated the conversations but more often replied to aides or other officials with brief reactions to ongoing discussions.

...The analysis did not account for 22 emails that the State Department has withheld entirely from public release because they are “top secret,” the highest level of classification.

...
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html?postshare=881457231008412&tid=ss_tw

 
Cc4I3dMXEAAH-Fh.jpg:large


- Hillary's face as she is asked about Bryan Pagliano's immunity deal.

 
timschochet said:
I'm not kidding, I thought he put it very well. 

And FYI, the "far left loonies" are just as convinced as you are that Hillary is guilty of some terrible crime, as has been demonstrated in this thread. Only reasonable people on both sides know that she very likely did nothing wrong. 
Click to expand...
Hillary better hope your track record when you're both certain of yourself and being insulting to others at the same time doesn't hold up.

 
timschochet said:
I'm not kidding, I thought he put it very well. 

And FYI, the "far left loonies" are just as convinced as you are that Hillary is guilty of some terrible crime, as has been demonstrated in this thread. Only reasonable people on both sides know that she very likely did nothing wrong. 
Click to expand...


What gets me is that she constantly says a complete, total, unadulterated lie every time she is asked about this: that she voluntarily decided to turn over her emails. Only a completely unreasonable person would believe this in face of public records laws, orders from Congress, State Department and the federal courts requiring her to turn over her emails. The FBI even seized the server they were stored on. Hillary had no option to solely and personally retain public documents.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
She always had 100% control over the emails she sent out.  And 0% control over the emails that came in.  Her server did not change those numbers.  
Click to expand...
This is ONLY true using her own server.  She has no control of coming in or out if on the State Department network.  It would be picking nits to talk about in coming emails.  It's technically wrong but practically true because I am absolutely confident she has no idea how to prevent emails from coming to her inbox.

 
timschochet said:
jon_mx said:
You are kidding, right.  BFS is completely going off the deep end into the world of the far left loonies.  That had to be shtick.
Click to expand...
I'm not kidding, I thought he put it very well. 

And FYI, the "far left loonies" are just as convinced as you are that Hillary is guilty of some terrible crime, as has been demonstrated in this thread. Only reasonable people on both sides know that she very likely did nothing wrong. 
Click to expand...
To be clear, you continue to say "do nothing wrong" when you mean "didn't technically break any laws" correct?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
What gets me is that she constantly says a complete, total, unadulterated lie every time she is asked about this: that she voluntarily decided to turn over her emails. Only a completely unreasonable person would believe this in face of public records laws, orders from Congress, State Department and the federal courts requiring her to turn over her emails. The FBI even seized the server they were stored on. Hillary had no option to solely and personally retain public documents.
Click to expand...
As her consiglieri what you have advised to do?

 
The Commish said:
timschochet said:
jon_mx said:
You are kidding, right.  BFS is completely going off the deep end into the world of the far left loonies.  That had to be shtick.
Click to expand...
I'm not kidding, I thought he put it very well. 

And FYI, the "far left loonies" are just as convinced as you are that Hillary is guilty of some terrible crime, as has been demonstrated in this thread. Only reasonable people on both sides know that she very likely did nothing wrong. 
Click to expand...
To be clear, you continue to say "do nothing wrong" when you mean "didn't technically break any laws" correct?
Click to expand...
The evidence currently available does not support any charge of wrong doing.  

 
I always love it when people say the NY Times is in the tank for Hillary.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/07/us/politics/hillary-clinton-is-riding-high-thats-the-problem.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0


Hillary Clinton Is Riding High — That’s the Problem


By ALBERT R. HUNT | BLOOMBERG VIEWMARCH 6, 2016

Hillary Clinton could be in some political peril.

Sure, by winning 11 of the 17 contests since her New Hampshire drubbing, and running away with the delegate count, she’s not far from sewing up the Democratic presidential nomination. It’s the Republicans, not the Democrats, who face bitter divides that endanger the party’s future.

Mrs. Clinton is riding high; that’s the problem.

“Her history is that whenever she gets ahead and looks in good shape, she reverts to her worst form,” said Peter D. Hart, a leading Democratic pollster, citing Mrs. Clinton’s stellar first debate performance.

The Democrats’ confidence is based on the perceived folly of Republicans’ nominating Donald J. Trump. But a lot can change in a few months and the Democrats’ own house has some needs. There is a demonstrable lack of enthusiasm about Mrs. Clinton, the likely nominee, underscored by the low turnouts in most contests. She is identified as part of the establishment by a restless electorate, and she is neither especially liked nor trusted by many swing voters, and even some Democrats.


“She seems out of sync with the electorate,” J. Ann Selzer said after looking at the surveys conducted by her firm, Selzer & Company, for Bloomberg, as well as primary exit polls. “For someone who started her campaign on a listening tour she doesn’t seem to be listening.”

Mrs. Clinton’s likability issues go back a ways. In New Hampshire eight years ago, Barack Obama cracked, “You’re likable enough, Hillary.” The lack of trust is more recent.

Her shortcomings, as perceived by voters, would change little.

“She laps the field on competence and skills to do the job,” Mr. Hart said. “What she needs to do is neutralize the personal distaste.”

He suggested that “she needs an event most days that is personal, human, sometimes even light.” He added that the public needs to see more of the emotional side she displayed at a town hall in December, when she comforted a girl with asthma who had been bullied.

David Plouffe, who managed Mr. Obama’s winning campaign against Mrs. Clinton eight years ago, concurs, noting that it’s a myth that voters know all about her given that she has been around for a quarter century: “The key in this race is to define the race, her opponent and herself.” Mr. Plouffe said this definition has to be “authentic” and “tied to her sense of advocacy, which would reveal interesting sides of herself.” If she did this well, he added, it could offer a comparative advantage with Mr. Trump — “this is a place he can’t go.”

The trustworthiness problem is deeper, more difficult. It stems from some issues that are unfair to her, such as the 2012 terrorist attack on a United States diplomatic installation in Benghazi, Libya, in which four Americans were killed. Capitol Hill Republicans tried and failed to use the incident to tarnish her. But some of her wounds are self-inflicted, such as her use of a private email server as secretary of state and the huge speaking fees she received for private talks to Wall Street companies.

Democratic strategists suggest that there’s no easy way to deal with it. [...]


 
cstu said:
As her consiglieri what you have advised to do?
Click to expand...
When her emails were demanded in summer of 2014? I'd tell her she is obligated by law to turn over everything, that she had no choice in the matter. Most likely Kendall did tell her that.

Create a pst and hand it over the State Department and National Archives for searching and processing, asked them to return the original pst and hold it and retain it for future requests. That would have taken maybe an hour. As it was it took her 6 months to turn over documents in paper and then she destroyed everything electronic.

Every government employee has to endure having their personal emails searched through by archives, so do people in the corporate world. Most people have the sense to email their personal stuff on their personal email and their work stuff on their work email.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
The evidence currently available does not support any charge of wrong doing.  
Click to expand...
The server disagrees....and so do I.  It's just wrong regardless of whether it was "technically against the law".  It was wrong of Rice and Powell to use private email addresses with other services and this takes it to a new level.

 
What was that again about Hillary not being likable?

Joan Walsh ‏@joanwalsh 3h3 hours ago

You'd never know that Clinton has 4.2M votes to Trump's 3.5M, so far, by media coverage. Yes, he has more rivals. Still: it's crazy
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Exactly. Rich and Ivan and jon and others have been doing this all along. They dislike Hillary so much that they are willing to buy into false narratives about her. But why do they dislike her so much? Because they have bought into false narratives about her all along. And on it goes...
Click to expand...
Which false narrative is that?  Here's what I believe about Hillary.  Tell me which part is untrue.

  • She has a long history of playing loose with the truth, and in many cases, outright lying.
  • She has a long history of sketchy ethics and the appearance of impropriety.
  • She has a tendency to base her views on political expediency (e.g. gay marriage).
You have admitted that every single of these things is accurate.  Now, I also happen to believe that her actual accomplishments are limited, at best, while you believe she's our greatest S.O.S. ever, but that's entirely a matter of opinion (well, if we exclude the part where you can't actually name any specific accomplishments).

 
timschochet said:
Exactly. Rich and Ivan and jon and others have been doing this all along. They dislike Hillary so much that they are willing to buy into false narratives about her. But why do they dislike her so much? Because they have bought into false narratives about her all along. And on it goes...
Click to expand...
Which false narrative is that?  Here's what I believe about Hillary.  Tell me which part is untrue.

  • She has a long history of playing loose with the truth, and in many cases, outright lying.
  • She has a long history of sketchy ethics and the appearance of impropriety.
  • She has a tendency to base her views on political expediency (e.g. gay marriage).
You have admitted that every single of these things is accurate.  Now, I also happen to believe that her actual accomplishments are limited, at best, while you believe she's our greatest S.O.S. ever, but that's entirely a matter of opinion (well, if we exclude the part where you can't actually name any specific accomplishments).

 
timschochet said:
No I mean I don't think she did anything wrong. 
Click to expand...
Good ####### god, man.  Even SHE acknowledges she did something wrong.  Best comment in this thread is that you would have defended King George to the hilt.  I honestly don't fault it.  We're wired as a tapestry.  Our collective views and behavior beget a reality.  But just know that you're a type that history hasn't always shown as the most kind to the evolution of the human condition.

 
Mr. Ham said:
Good ####### god, man.  Even SHE acknowledges she did something wrong.  Best comment in this thread is that you would have defended King George to the hilt.  I honestly don't fault it.  We're wired as a tapestry.  Our collective views and behavior beget a reality.  But just know that you're a type that history hasn't always shown as the most kind to the evolution of the human condition.
Click to expand...
Yep.  She made a decision without thinking through the political narrative that it would create.  Then she responded to the "scandal" as a lawyer would, rather than as a politician should.  

 
Rich Conway said:
Which false narrative is that?  Here's what I believe about Hillary.  Tell me which part is untrue.

  • She has a long history of playing loose with the truth, and in many cases, outright lying.
  • She has a long history of sketchy ethics and the appearance of impropriety.
  • She has a tendency to base her views on political expediency (e.g. gay marriage).
You have admitted that every single of these things is accurate.  Now, I also happen to believe that her actual accomplishments are limited, at best, while you believe she's our greatest S.O.S. ever, but that's entirely a matter of opinion (well, if we exclude the part where you can't actually name any specific accomplishments).
Click to expand...
I haven't admitted any of this things are accurate: 

1. I never said she was loose with the truth or in many cases outright lying. I wrote that she is a typical politician. I don't believe Hillary is a dishonest person. 

2. I wrote that she has a long history of being on the edge of ethical behavior- but not outside of it. 

3. Like many politicians she has a tendency to conceal her real views from the public for political expediency- that's not the same as what you wrote. 

As for false narratives, BFS spelled it out. Your willingness to believe that she was trying to conceal stuff from FOIA flies in the face of common sense. 

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Hillary had 100% control over the decision to draft and send an email.  She had 0% control over who sent her an email and where else that email went.  Assuming you have no evidence that Hillary's assertion that she sent and/or forwarded to .gov accounts has been discredited then the government backups and other reasons she had no control all still apply. 
Click to expand...
This isn't difficult to understand.

A. Let's say that Sydney Blumenthal, for example, sends an e-mail to Hillary's private server.  Hillary reads it and deletes it.  When the FOIA request comes, this e-mail is not provided, because Hillary determines which e-mails are provided and which are not.

B. Let's say that same e-mail comes to a .gov address.  Hillary reads and deletes it.  When the FOIA request comes, the government provides the e-mail.

And yes, there is proof that Hillary did not, in fact, turn over all relevant e-mails.  In particular, there are e-mails from Blumenthal that should have been in the public records that were never provided.

 
timschochet said:
I haven't admitted any of this things are accurate: 

1. I never said she was loose with the truth or in many cases outright lying. I wrote that she is a typical politician. I don't believe Hillary is a dishonest person. 

2. I wrote that she has a long history of being on the edge of ethical behavior- but not outside of it. 

3. Like many politicians she has a tendency to conceal her real views from the public for political expediency- that's not the same as what you wrote. 

As for false narratives, BFS spelled it out. Your willingness to believe that she was trying to conceal stuff from FOIA flies in the face of common sense. 
Click to expand...
Sorry, but there's no other reasonable explanation for the private server in the first place.  No one but you buys the "convenience" and "single device" excuse.

 
timschochet said:
I haven't admitted any of this things are accurate: 

1. I never said she was loose with the truth or in many cases outright lying. I wrote that she is a typical politician. I don't believe Hillary is a dishonest person. 

2. I wrote that she has a long history of being on the edge of ethical behavior- but not outside of it. 

3. Like many politicians she has a tendency to conceal her real views from the public for political expediency- that's not the same as what you wrote. 

As for false narratives, BFS spelled it out. Your willingness to believe that she was trying to conceal stuff from FOIA flies in the face of common sense. 
Click to expand...
:lmao:

 
timschochet said:
Your willingness to believe that she was trying to conceal stuff from FOIA flies in the face of common sense. 
Click to expand...
Tim. You realize there are cases in which State turned over zero documents to FOIA requestors seeking her documents after 5 years? Do you realize this fact or not? That's what happened to the AP for starters. There are ~50 pending FOIA cases for her documents right now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
This isn't difficult to understand.

A. Let's say that Sydney Blumenthal, for example, sends an e-mail to Hillary's private server.  Hillary reads it and deletes it.  When the FOIA request comes, this e-mail is not provided, because Hillary determines which e-mails are provided and which are not.

B. Let's say that same e-mail comes to a .gov address.  Hillary reads and deletes it.  When the FOIA request comes, the government provides the e-mail.

And yes, there is proof that Hillary did not, in fact, turn over all relevant e-mails.  In particular, there are e-mails from Blumenthal that should have been in the public records that were never provided.
Click to expand...
If Hillary is worried about FOIA request why would she not insist that Sydney and those  like him send information to her private server while she maintains the mirage of her .gov.  Oh wait this evil genius is incompetent.  

 
Hilary pandering to the people of Flint about how the Feds should do something about what happened,  while SHE was part of the government,  is pathetic.  How is anyone buying that garbage?  The Super Delegate nonsense makes it impossible for her to be beaten,  too.  Such a joke. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
This isn't difficult to understand.

A. Let's say that Sydney Blumenthal, for example, sends an e-mail to Hillary's private server.  Hillary reads it and deletes it.  When the FOIA request comes, this e-mail is not provided, because Hillary determines which e-mails are provided and which are not.

B. Let's say that same e-mail comes to a .gov address.  Hillary reads and deletes it.  When the FOIA request comes, the government provides the e-mail.

And yes, there is proof that Hillary did not, in fact, turn over all relevant e-mails.  In particular, there are e-mails from Blumenthal that should have been in the public records that were never provided.
Click to expand...
Um I know it must seem like a silly question but if Hillary had used a gov account like you think she should have, then if she had wanted to keep a Blumenthal email from prying eyes, why not just instruct Sidney to send it to her separate personal account? That's the flaw in your theory, and it's why the only explanation for the private server that makes any sense is exactly the one she gave: convenience. 

 
flapgreen said:
Hilary pandering to the people of Flint about how the Feds should do something about what happened,  while SHE was part of the government,  is pathetic.  How is anyone buying that garbage?  The Super Delegate nonsense makes it impossible for her to be beaten.  Such a joke. 
Click to expand...
I don't understand. What should Hillary have done about Flint? Please explain. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
If Hillary is worried about FOIA request why would she not insist that Sydney and those  like him send information to her private server while she maintains the mirage of her .gov.  Oh wait this evil genius is incompetent.  
Click to expand...
As I understand it, she didn't want two separate accounts because of the convenience factor.  Therefore, the only way to use one account while dodging FOIA requests was to do what she did.

 
timschochet said:
Um I know it must seem like a silly question but if Hillary had used a gov account like you think she should have, then if she had wanted to keep a Blumenthal email from prying eyes, why not just instruct Sidney to send it to her separate personal account? That's the flaw in your theory, and it's why the only explanation for the private server that makes any sense is exactly the one she gave: convenience. 
Click to expand...
Of course, the flaw in your theory is that she says the reason for the private server was that wanted to have all her e-mails on one device for convenience.  We know that A) you can have multiple e-mail accounts on one device, and B) she carried 3+ different mobile devices.  Put simply, she lied.

 
I will say I don't think Hilary purposely broke the law with the email thing.  I don't trust her telling the truth about it or believe that she will come clean,  though.  Horrible carelessness.  From the limited information I've read about,  I don't think she belongs in jail for it.  Trump saying that is silly.  I just think she's a dishonest turd. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
As I understand it, she didn't want two separate accounts because of the convenience factor.  Therefore, the only way to use one account while dodging FOIA requests was to do what she did.
Click to expand...
Didn't you just post "No one but you buys the "convenience" and "single device" excuse"?  And did you see my earlier reply?  Are you really suggesting that Hillary honestly believed that there was any way in the world to thwart FOIA request?  Oh, yes she did it so she could prescreen the content on her server when the day of reckoning finally came.  Except she just delegated this dastardly deed to her lawyers and their keyword searches.   

 
Rich Conway said:
Of course, the flaw in your theory is that she says the reason for the private server was that wanted to have all her e-mails on one device for convenience.  We know that A) you can have multiple e-mail accounts on one device, and B) she carried 3+ different mobile devices.  Put simply, she lied.
Click to expand...
A) Not on the government provided blackberry

B) Eventually.  Because she obtained a second device a year later that she found worth carrying some how make the original decision making a lie?

 
Rich Conway said:
Of course, the flaw in your theory is that she says the reason for the private server was that wanted to have all her e-mails on one device for convenience.  We know that A) you can have multiple e-mail accounts on one device, and B) she carried 3+ different mobile devices.  Put simply, she lied.
Click to expand...
But why? Why would she lie? Not to hide stuff from FOIA- that doesn't follow. Doesn't it make much more sense that for her having everything on one email account was more convenient? I think it does. 

I work with a my dad and a secretary who are both Hillary's age or a few years older. And when it comes to computer technology, they like things as simple as possible. They're not stupid people by any means but they didn't grow up with it, and any glitch that you or I could solve easily can freeze them for hours and frustrate them immensely. I see it happen all the time. Our scanner at work, for example, is super easy to run, but my secretary, who is 74, just can't get the hang of it. Now she refuses to have anything to do with because she gets so frustrated. 

So when Hillary said she wanted one email and a server she was comfortable with, it had a ring of truth to me from the beginning. 

 
Rich Conway said:
Which false narrative is that?  Here's what I believe about Hillary.  Tell me which part is untrue.

  • She has a long history of playing loose with the truth, and in many cases, outright lying.
  • She has a long history of sketchy ethics and the appearance of impropriety.
  • She has a tendency to base her views on political expediency (e.g. gay marriage).
You have admitted that every single of these things is accurate.  Now, I also happen to believe that her actual accomplishments are limited, at best, while you believe she's our greatest S.O.S. ever, but that's entirely a matter of opinion (well, if we exclude the part where you can't actually name any specific accomplishments).
Click to expand...
I think you described EVERY politician right there. They are all unethical liars. The goal is to find the one who is best suited for the job....and for our next President, it's Hillary.

 
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
260K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

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