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 (7 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
With regards toHenry Ford's argument- I don't think it would fly no matter who Hillary is running against. 

No question that Hillary is having trouble currently with young women but if she is the Democratic candidate they will vote for her at the end of the day. And most women in general, according to polling, have never bought into the Republican meme that Hillary was an enabler or excuser of her husband's affairs; they have always regarded her as a victim of those affairs. Part of this is because, outside of conservatives, most Americans have never believed that Bill was an abuser or rapist, just an adulterer. 
Click to expand...
I guess I think Juanita Broaddrick is getting more play than you do.

 
Henry Ford said:
I disagree.  Trump's general misogyny is a significantly different issue from Hillary's "I've been fighting for women for 40 years, except when I wanted them to shut up for accusing my husband of sexual assault." Not to me, but to a lot of people.  And more importantly, Clinton can't hit back at Trump with that stuff because of Bill.  

A small percentage of people know about Trump's history with Ivana and everyone knows about Bill.  And Trump will do what he always does - "That's not true, that never happened.  You must be confusing me with your husband."

Also, Trump doesn't need to get people to come vote for him.  They just have to stay home, and it's half as good.  I'm very concerned about that happening in the general election.
Click to expand...
Why exactly can Hillary not counter with "I'm pretty sure I'm not, because my husband is still by my side while you abandoned your wife and the mother of your children after cheating on her."  Seems like that would play pretty well to women, no?  At least the ones that see themselves as more than just arm candy. Admittedly she might lose a few golddigger votes with that line of attack.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Why exactly can Hillary not counter with "I'm pretty sure I'm not, because my husband is still by my side while you abandoned your wife and the mother of your children after cheating on her."  Seems like that would play pretty well to women, no?  At least the ones that see themselves as more than just arm candy. Admittedly she might lose a few golddigger votes with that line of attack.
Click to expand...
There are an awful lot of women who will never forgive her for staying with Bill after the cheating.  She doesn't want to make that her anti-Trump platform.

I'm not saying it's right, but it's a thing.

 
TobiasFunke said:
Huh, I did not know that. Gonna have to check it out, thx.
Click to expand...
My concerns are these:

"Trump is a racist"

"You and your husband created the bill that put two generations of black men in prison, and it's your husband's immigration bill that you backed as First Lady that is the source of the immigration racism charges currently levied against our government"

"Trump is a philanderer and possibly a rapist"

"You don't seem to have a real problem with those kinds of people.  Speaking of which, how are you, Bill?"

"Trump doesn't have any experience in elected government"

"You mean like you don't have the 40 years in elected government that your primary opponent had?"

"Trump changes positions all the time"

"Hahahaha"

 
Arsenal of Doom said:
pantagrapher said:
After running as the candidate of ideological purity and having so much success at it, I seriously doubt Bernie would hitch his brand to Clinton for four years. He's in his final act as a politician and I just can't see him wanting to have that little control over it. Also: that ticket would be way too old. Hillary might go with a liberal democrat, but likely one much younger.
Click to expand...
I think the problem is that the Democrat bench sucks right now, which is why you have Bernie as a major player in the first place. 

Is there anyone else who can energize the young base and extended base the way Bernie can? 
Click to expand...
And he's not really on the "democrat bench"...he joined for the exposure.

 
I don't like it, but I recognize what's going on in the Trump campaign.  It's a set of tactics I use in every trial.  He appeals to the Reptile brain - the part of the brain that wants to be safe, and keep your family safe, and works solely on whether or not you believe the person speaking.  

The Reptile hates things it doesn't understand and can't understand.  It throws them away and stops thinking about them.  You can't fight these arguments with logic and reasoning, however sound it is.

The Reptile hates hypocrisy.  It brings uncertainty and danger. It wants to punish hypocrisy.

The big problem with the Reptile is it is very hard to turn it off once once it's been turned on.  It's why it's so effective for a plaintiff attorney - we get to go first.  

I am extremely concerned about him in the general election.  And I think Clinton is poorly positioned to deal with him.  Hopefully, I'm wrong and everything goes according to plan.  You know, like it did for Bush, Rubio, Cruz, Kasich, etc.

 
Henry Ford said:
My concerns are these:

"Trump is a racist"

"You and your husband created the bill that put two generations of black men in prison, and it's your husband's immigration bill that you backed as First Lady that is the source of the immigration racism charges currently levied against our government"

"Trump is a philanderer and possibly a rapist"

"You don't seem to have a real problem with those kinds of people.  Speaking of which, how are you, Bill?"

"Trump doesn't have any experience in elected government"

"You mean like you don't have the 40 years in elected government that your primary opponent had?"

"Trump changes positions all the time"

"Hahahaha"
Click to expand...
These are valid concerns, but I think they underestimate Clinton (and overestimate Trump to some extent).  To take them in turn:

- She doesn't have to and won't make a broad "Trump is a racist" allegation. Instead she can campaign on a message of inclusiveness and outreach to the black and Latino communities. She and her people are clearly very skilled in this respect and well-liked in those communities already. Obviously there will be some negative campaigning aimed at Trump as well, but she can nullify his ability to counter by using surrogates in the community ... say for example the Central Park Five, or previous tenants/employees claiming racial discrimination, or simply respected community leaders and celebrities who find him appalling (there are plenty, and if there's one thing the Clintons can do it's shmooze celebrities). Also, if you think Trump can put together a sentence as informed as "the source of the immigration racism charges currently being levied against our government" we must be watching different candidates.

- I thought she could sell the "my family stayed together, you bailed on your wife and kids" argument, but if you're correct that lots of women don't like her for it, maybe she just drops that line of attack or lets others make it sparingly.  Regardless, at least Trump can't attack her or Bill for it, unlike say Ted Cruz, who despite his general loathsomeness and his late 60s-early 70s bay area body count, does have the Norman Rockwell family values thing in his corner vs Clinton.

- On experience and changing positions: I think her best plan here is to let it come up in debate and allow the people to judge for themselves rather than pushing that narrative. In other words, rather than highlight his lack of experience and the way he contradicts himself in the span of a few months/days/minutes, let it manifest on TV for the public to see. You can't hide behind name-calling and empty answers in a one on one debate the way you can in a big group.

You don't need to convince me that Sanders is the better general election candidate.  I've already been convinced, thanks in part to this message board (and they say nobody changes their minds about stuff in the FFA political threads!).  But that doesn't make Clinton a bad candidate to face Trump, or mean she's not positioned to exploit his many weaknesses.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
I'm telling you an issue that resonates with women I know with respect to Clinton's candidacy.  It's not a "likeability" issue, it's a trustworthiness/hypocrisy issue.  And the broader issue of hypocrisy is the most likely thing to trip her up in the general election.

If the Clinton campaign is as dismissive of that issue as many of her supporters seem to be, we could be looking at President Trump. That's a big problem.
Click to expand...
I see what you did there.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Poll: 33% of Sanders Supporters Wouldn't Vote for Clinton

I'm sure the Dems are going to blame Bernie when they lose the November - but really its their own fault for ignoring overwhelming evidence that Clinton cannot win a general election.
Click to expand...
:bs:

If you don't vote for Clinton over Trump or Cruz it is fair to conclude that you don't care enough about the very real and significant differences between Clinton and those two on issues like environmental regulation, immigration, gay rights, health care, and so on to motivate you to go to the polls.  That's a fair statement, yes?  It's really just a rephrasing of the decision to stay home.

So if Trump or Cruz wins, and those differences manifest themselves as policy shifts, there will be plenty of blame to go around, including some for Sanders supporters who didn't care about those things.  Not as much as the people who actually vote for those dooshbags, of course, and not to the exclusion of the Democratic power brokers who will also bear some blame to the extent they favored a flawed candidate over an open and fair nomination process, but certainly some.

And by the way, spouting unsupported fatalistic nonsense about "overwhelming evidence that Clinton cannot win a general election" ain't helping either.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Poll: 33% of Sanders Supporters Wouldn't Vote for Clinton

I'm sure the Dems are going to blame Bernie when they lose the November - but really its their own fault for ignoring overwhelming evidence that Clinton cannot win a general election.
Click to expand...
I think it's easy for people to say that right now while Bernie is still alive and we're emotionally caught up in rooting for our team. But I think if HRC is the nominee, a decent amount of those people will change their tune when presented with the more imminent possibility of a Trump or Cruz Presidency. Kasich might not have that effect though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Personally, I think the best thing for the country is for Hillary to drop out and let meaningful change happen.  This is the best thing that could happen for the country.  

 
pantagrapher said:
What is this overwhelming evidence again?
Click to expand...
She is losing young voters

She is losing new voters

She is losing Independent voters

She has historically bad favorability ratings

She has trustworthiness issues

She will lose working-class voters (A sizable ***** of the old working-class electorate which had been democrats will support Trump over Clinton).

She will not energize her base, and she will energize the GOP base.  

Look at her key support:  Loyal democratic establishment types, older women, and minority voters in the south.  She can't win a general election with that coalition.  The democratic base is about 35% of the public - and she will only get 80% tops of that.  That puts her in the 28-30% range.  She would need to get 50% of the independent vote - and she is nowhere close to that number.

 
Gr00vus said:
I think it's easy for people to say that right now while Bernie is still alive and we're emotionally caught up in rooting for our team. But I think if HRC is the nominee, a decent amount of those people will change their tune when presented with the more imminent possibility of a Trump or Cruz Presidency. Kasich might not have that effect though.
Click to expand...
Republicans seem ignorant to the fact that Kasich is the one and only lock against Clinton.  

He'd get the establishment vote.  He'd get the Christian-conservative vote.  He'd get the anti-Clinton vote...and he'd get the independent vote.  You can't say that about any of the other three candidates.  

 
Gr00vus said:
I think it's easy for people to say that right now while Bernie is still alive and we're emotionally caught up in rooting for our team. But I think if HRC is the nominee, a decent amount of those people will change their tune when presented with the more imminent possibility of a Trump or Cruz Presidency. Kasich might not have that effect though.
Click to expand...


We will see.  I think there are a sizable number of people like me, who won't vote for her under any circumstance, and an even bigger chunk of Bernie supporters who simply become disengaged from the political process.  None of whom are going to vote for Trump or the GOP candidate - but the low turnout, in the face of record breaking GOP turnout will sink Clinton just the same.

 
Sinn Fein said:
We will see.  I think there are a sizable number of people like me, who won't vote for her under any circumstance, and an even bigger chunk of Bernie supporters who simply become disengaged from the political process.  None of whom are going to vote for Trump or the GOP candidate - but the low turnout, in the face of record breaking GOP turnout will sink Clinton just the same.
Click to expand...
Understood. I just don't think ultimately the number will be as high as 33% - I could see 10, maybe 15, maybe maybe 20. I think there would be some support coming in from those who'd want to get in on voting for the 1st woman President too.

 
Lynch indicates DOJ not required to charge Clinton


Attorney General Loretta Lynch indicated Wednesday that the law doesn't require the Justice Department to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email system, even if the FBI recommends criminal charges.

Lynch was asked in a hearing by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, what her department would do if the FBI were to recommend that step. "If the FBI were to make a referral to the Department of Justice to pursue a case by way of indictment and to convene a grand jury for that purpose, the Department of Justice is not required by law to do so, are they — are you?" Cornyn asked.

Lynch didn't answer directly, but seemed to indicate the department has some wiggle room, and can consult with officials before deciding what to do.

"It would not be an operation of law, it would be an operation of procedures," Lynch said in reply. She added that the decision to pursue a criminal case would be "done in conjunction with the agents" involved in the investigation. "It's not something that we would want to cut them out of the process."

...Lynch also dodged questions about the decision to grant immunity to a former staffer of Hillary Clinton at the State Department who helped her set up her own private email system at home.

Cornyn pressed Lynch on the Justice Department's role in reportedly granting immunity to Bryan Pagliano, a former Clinton staffer involved in the set-up of her "homebrew" email server.

"If in fact this was immunity granted by a court, that had to be done under the auspices and with the approval of the Department of Justice, which you head," Cornyn said to Lynch.

But Lynch declined to talk about that part of the case.

"We don't discuss the specifics of any ongoing investigation," Lynch said. "With respect to the procedure relating to any specific witness, I would not be able to comment."

"With respect to Mr. Pagliano or anyone who has been identified as a potential witness in any case, I'm not able to comment on the specifics," Lynch added.

Later on in response to a question from Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., Lynch said she has never discussed the Clinton email investigation with Present Obama, spokesman Josh Earnest or anyone else at the White House. Graham asked that question in order to ask how Earnest would have any information about the case that he would use to downplay its importance.

"It's my hope, when it comes to ongoing investigations, that we all would stay silent," she said.
Click to expand...
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/lynch-indicates-doj-not-required-to-charge-clinton/article/2585342?custom_click=rss

Well we knew this.

kabuki.jpg


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
She is losing young voters

She is losing new voters

She is losing Independent voters

She has historically bad favorability ratings

She has trustworthiness issues

She will lose working-class voters (A sizable ***** of the old working-class electorate which had been democrats will support Trump over Clinton).

She will not energize her base, and she will energize the GOP base.  

Look at her key support:  Loyal democratic establishment types, older women, and minority voters in the south.  She can't win a general election with that coalition.  The democratic base is about 35% of the public - and she will only get 80% tops of that.  That puts her in the 28-30% range.  She would need to get 50% of the independent vote - and she is nowhere close to that number.
Click to expand...
It is weird to present so much secondary evidence to contradict the primary evidence that shows her beating both Trump and Cruz in a general election.

I also find it very odd that you don't mention the African-American or Hispanic vote at all, especially considering the changing demographics, the tone and likely candidate coming out of the GOP, and the clear evidence that Clinton strongly appeals to both groups.

 
TobiasFunke said:
It is weird to present so much secondary evidence to contradict the primary evidence that shows her beating both Trump and Cruz in a general election.

I also find it very odd that you don't mention the African-American or Hispanic vote at all, especially considering the changing demographics, the tone and likely candidate coming out of the GOP, and the clear evidence that Clinton strongly appeals to both groups.
Click to expand...
Not according to RCP.  Cruz is ahead of Hillary in 5 of the last 6 polls, although all are within the MoE. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
It is weird to present so much secondary evidence to contradict the primary evidence that shows her beating both Trump and Cruz in a general election.

I also find it very odd that you don't mention the African-American or Hispanic vote at all, especially considering the changing demographics, the tone and likely candidate coming out of the GOP, and the clear evidence that Clinton strongly appeals to both groups.
Click to expand...


Ok - she will win 100% of the minority vote in the south.

And, she will lose every state in the south.

The GOP is significantly out-performing the Dems in primary turnout in every state.  Now, certainly, some of that has to do with the 10,000 Maniacs running in the GOP primary.  But two things stand out - those are still registered voters who are turning out to vote - and given the chance to vote against Clinton - they will turn out again.  And, the Dems have not been motivated to get out the vote - and there is nothing to suggest that Clinton will motivate/energize them to the polls in November.

 
TobiasFunke said:
:bs:

If you don't vote for Clinton over Trump or Cruz it is fair to conclude that you don't care enough about the very real and significant differences between Clinton and those two on issues like environmental regulation, immigration, gay rights, health care, and so on to motivate you to go to the polls.  That's a fair statement, yes?  It's really just a rephrasing of the decision to stay home.

So if Trump or Cruz wins, and those differences manifest themselves as policy shifts, there will be plenty of blame to go around, including some for Sanders supporters who didn't care about those things.  Not as much as the people who actually vote for those dooshbags, of course, and not to the exclusion of the Democratic power brokers who will also bear some blame to the extent they favored a flawed candidate over an open and fair nomination process, but certainly some.

And by the way, spouting unsupported fatalistic nonsense about "overwhelming evidence that Clinton cannot win a general election" ain't helping either.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's fair to conclude "you don't care enough".  I'll be honest, I don't know the real differences between Cruz, Trump and Clinton on any of those issue, primarily because I am not confident I really know Hillary's position on those issues.  The comparison politics between them is always going to be tough because you never really know which set of positions of Hillary's to use in those comparisons.

 
Lynch is making it clear she has no plans to indict Hillary even if it is shown she massed killed 100 children and ate their livers.  It is a partisan position and has been for awhile, which is really horrible.  And Lynch was a major improvement over Holder. 

 
The Commish said:
I'm not sure it's fair to conclude "you don't care enough".  I'll be honest, I don't know the real differences between Cruz, Trump and Clinton on any of those issue, primarily because I am not confident I really know Hillary's position on those issues.  The comparison politics between them is always going to be tough because you never really know which set of positions of Hillary's to use in those comparisons.
Click to expand...
After this eye-roll-worthy nonsense I think it's pretty fair to conclude that you don't care enough.

 
Sinn Fein said:
Ok - she will win 100% of the minority vote in the south.

And, she will lose every state in the south.

The GOP is significantly out-performing the Dems in primary turnout in every state.  Now, certainly, some of that has to do with the 10,000 Maniacs running in the GOP primary.  But two things stand out - those are still registered voters who are turning out to vote - and given the chance to vote against Clinton - they will turn out again.  And, the Dems have not been motivated to get out the vote - and there is nothing to suggest that Clinton will motivate/energize them to the polls in November.
Click to expand...
You know there's minorities in places other than the South, right? 

 
TobiasFunke said:
After this eye-roll-worthy nonsense I think it's pretty fair to conclude that you don't care enough.
Click to expand...
Reality is what it is :shrug:

What I DO think is fair is to say I don't care enough anymore to try and figure out what she believes.  She's chosen to take this muddled approach over her career.  I'm sure it's helped her with some of the soundbyte crowd and she's gained their favor, but its also hurt her with people like me who thought, early on, that she might do good things for us.  After decades of "evolving" (I think that's the term they are using now) I don't know if she'll ever stop and I'm not a big fan of that sort of uncertainty.  

 
TobiasFunke said:
You know there's minorities in places other than the South, right? 
Click to expand...
I'm sure there is a point there, but I am missing it. Clinton is not winning Texas, nor is she losing California based on minority votes. 

Minorities are not turning out to support her in the same numbers as they turned out to support Obama. That is going to cost her in swing states. 

 
The Commish said:
Reality is what it is :shrug:

What I DO think is fair is to say I don't care enough anymore to try and figure out what she believes.  She's chosen to take this muddled approach over her career.  I'm sure it's helped her with some of the soundbyte crowd and she's gained their favor, but its also hurt her with people like me who thought, early on, that she might do good things for us.  After decades of "evolving" (I think that's the term they are using now) I don't know if she'll ever stop and I'm not a big fan of that sort of uncertainty.  
Click to expand...
Exactly.  She has a website and a voting record that shows vast differences between her and either candidate on issues like women's health, the environment, and immigration, among many others. If you choose to defend your willful ignorance of those differences because some of her current positions conflict with some statement she made a decade ago or some bill her husband signed with her support 20 years ago, so be it.  But if Ted Cruz or Donald Trump comes in, shuts down the Clean Power Plan, appoints a Scalia clone to the court and rejects immigration reform in favor of a hardline deportation approach, it is 100% fair to blame those developments on the people who couldn't motivate themselves to vote to prevent them from happening.  Maybe you don't mind those things and you're simply voting for Sanders because of his "single issue," as Clinton likes to say. In which case great, no harm done from your perspective. Your decision to stay home is rational.  But I do care about those things, which means if they happen I get to blame the people who enabled them through inaction.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sinn Fein said:
I'm sure there is a point there, but I am missing it. Clinton is not winning Texas, nor is she losing California based on minority votes. 

Minorities are not turning out to support her in the same numbers as they turned out to support Obama. That is going to cost her in swing states. 
Click to expand...
They'll turn out a lot more than they'd turn out for Sanders, that much is pretty clear.

Look, I agree with your premise that Sanders has the better chance to win in November.  You're just obscuring that decent argument with this "Hilary has no chance" nonsense is all.

 
timschochet said:
Sorry Rich, I was going to respond then got sidetracked. 

Hey Im sorry I wasn't thinking about the pardons when I wrote my line about false narratives. I was thinking about Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, FBI files, etc. etc. all the stuff that Hillary has been accused of over the years and turns out she did nothing wrong. These have all worked to create an image of her as a dishonest and corrupt person. That's an image I'm not buying and you are. 
Click to expand...
I absolutely buy the image of her as a dishonest, unethical person, but it has nothing to do with any of the items you mentioned.  To tell the truth, I know very little about any of them.  I doubt you could find a single post by me criticizing her for any of those things.  Well, I've probably cracked a "Hilary would just have him killed" joke or two a la Vince Foster, but who among us hasn't done that?

 
timschochet said:
Hillary will easily beat Trump in November. Sanders would have a 50-50 chance. Sorry but that's the truth. 
Click to expand...
You can throw out the playbook. Two ways to look at this. Either Trump is a terrible candidate as candidate who has zero shot so what the heck progressives and Democrats might as well go for the brass ring because they will never have a better chance than they do now to go all the way.... or the urgency is so great because of the obvious dangers surrounding a Trump presidency that you need a professional and someone who will play to the middle to assure a win.

Not sure. My thought right now is the former though because Trump is looking like a sure win the Democrats right now, might as well go for it and not compromise for GOP Lite.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Arsenal of Doom said:
Trump is unelectable in a national election. Either Hillary or Bernie would beat him handily. 
Click to expand...
Im not convinced of this. The problem with Bernie is what it's always been: the word socialist scares off too many people. That's unfair but it's true. And it's also true that between now and November he can't properly educate enough people about it. 

In addition all of the big corporate donors who usually support Republicans are ready to throw their support behind Hillary because they're rightfully terrified of Trump's trade policies. The one thing that would throw them behind Trump is if Bernie is on the other side. 

 
Since people keep bringing up the Hitler thing, allow me to point out that in 1933 the left in Germany far outnumbered the Nazis. But the left was divided: too many of them were Communists who would not cooperate with the Social Democrats. The big banks and the very wealthy detested Hiltler but were terrified of the Communists and decided Hitler was preferable; that's what got him into power. 

 
U.S. judge orders discovery to go forward over Clinton’s private email system


A federal judge on Tuesday ruled that State Department officials and top aides to Hillary Clinton should be questioned under oath about whether they intentionally thwarted federal open records laws by using or allowing the use of a private email server throughout Clinton’s tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan of Washington came in a lawsuit over public records brought by Judicial Watch, a conservative legal watchdog group, regarding its May 2013 request for information about the employment arrangement of Huma Abedin, a longtime Clinton aide.

...Sullivan set an April 12 deadline for parties to litigate a detailed investigative plan--subject to court approval--that would reach well beyond the limited and carefully worded explanations of the use of the private server that department and Clinton officials have given.

Sullivan also suggested from the bench that he might at some point order the department to subpoena Clinton and Abedin to return all emails related to Clinton’s private account, not just records their camps previously deemed work-related and returned.

...In granting Judicial Watch’s request, Sullivan said that months of piecemeal revelations about Clinton and the State Department’s handling of the email controversy created “at least a ‘reasonable suspicion’ ” that public access to official government records under the federal Freedom of Information Act was undermined.

Sullivan noted that there was no dispute that senior State Department officials were aware of the email set-up from time Clinton took office, citing a January 2009 email exchange including Undersecretary for Management Patrick F. Kennedy, Clinton chief of staff Cheryl D. Mills and Abedin about establishing a “stand-alone network” email system.

Sullivan said the State Department’s inspector general last month faulted the department and Clinton’s office for overseeing processes that repeatedly allowed “inaccurate and incomplete” FOIA responses, including a May 2013 reply that found “no records” concerning email accounts Clinton used, even though dozens of senior officials had corresponded with her private account.

In a statement, Judicial Watch President Thomas J. Fitton called the ruling “a major victory” for the public, and did not rule out that Clinton could become one of the current and former department officials whose testimony his group would seek.

“The court-ordered discovery will help determine why the State Department and Mrs. Clinton, even despite receiving numerous FOIA requests, kept the record system secret for years,” Fitton said. “While Mrs. Clinton’s testimony may not be required initially, it may happen that her testimony is necessary for the Court to resolve the legal issues about her unprecedented email practices.”

Sutton’s group in court filings did not ask to depose Clinton by name, but targeted requests at those who handled her transition, arrival and departure from the department and who oversaw Abedin, a direct subordinate.

...For six months in 2012, Abedin was employed simultaneously by the State Department, the Clinton Foundation, Clinton’s personal office and a private consulting firm connected to the Clintons. The department stated in February 2014 that it had completed its search of records for the secretary’s office. After Clinton’s exclusive use of a private server was made public in May, the department said that additional records probably were available.

...The State Department also has asked the FBI to turn over any of an estimated 30,000 deleted emails deemed personal by Clinton’s attorneys that the FBI is able to recover in its investigation of the security of the private email server.

...In seeking records related to Abedin’s employment, Judicial Watch asked to be allowed to depose or submit written questions to current and former State Department employees and Clinton aides, including Kennedy; John F. Hackett, director of information services; Executive Secretary Joseph E. Macmanus; Clinton’s chief of staff, Mills; lawyer David E. Kendall; Abedin; and Bryan Pagliano, a Clinton staff member during her 2008 presidential campaign who helped set up the private server.

More broadly, the group’s motion targets who oversaw State Department information systems, Clinton’s transition and arrival at the department, her communications, and her and Abedin’s departure from the agency.

...The group also asks whether any archived copies of sent or received emails on the private server existed, including correspondence with Clinton technology contractors Platte River Networks and Datto.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-judge-weighs-deeper-probe-into-clintons-private-email-system/2016/02/23/9c27412a-d997-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Since people keep bringing up the Hitler thing, allow me to point out that in 1933 the left in Germany far outnumbered the Nazis. But the left was divided: too many of them were Communists who would not cooperate with the Social Democrats. The big banks and the very wealthy detested Hiltler but were terrified of the Communists and decided Hitler was preferable; that's what got him into power. 
Click to expand...
If Trump matches the little guy's 33% (in a massive hyperinflation national meltdown no less) he won't be getting into power.

 
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
257K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 7 (members: 0, guests: 7)
Back
Top