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.
jon_mx said:
Darn, I was under the impression that you were cool. 

What is you opinion on why the FBI seems to be allocating so many resources to this investigation? 
Click to expand...
Don't get me wrong, I think she should be charged, and I think the FBI wants it done.  But I don't think an uninvolved former prosecutor has the insight to say there's already a grand jury because he's a "super lawyer."

 
DiGenova has turned being a US Attorney under Reagan into being a conservative legal gadfly and pundit (along with his wife, Victoria Toensing).  Among other things, they represent the right wing media groups who have tried to sue the State Department over Benghazi.  I wouldn't put a lot of stock in his opinion. 

 
I never know what to say about diGenova but.... certain aspects of what he has said have been borne out. In particular the IG letter subpoenaing records from the Foundation was a shocker for me. That came after diGenova had said the Feds were looking at the Foundation. IGs refer cases out, they don't reach conclusions, those are for DAs and US Attorneys. The grand jury seems like an awfully huge leap though. That's either a thing or it's not. I don't think you can rely on diGenova only to establish that is going on.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I never know what to say about diGenova but.... certain aspects of what he has said have been borne out. In particular the IG letter subpoenaing records from the Foundation was a shocker for me. That came after diGenova had said the Feds were looking at the Foundation. IGs refer cases out, they don't reach conclusions, those are for DAs and US Attorneys. The grand jury seems like an awfully huge leap though. That's either a thing or it's not. I don't think you can rely on diGenova only to establish that is going on.
Click to expand...
I read that article in AmericanThinker earlier and resisted posting because of the murky source.  But the one thing that stood out and makes sense is that 100-150 agents doesn't parse with an investigation just into classified material.  I don't have experience to say one way or another, but it at least suggests that there's a deeper investigation into bribery and the Foundation, and if Hillary played as fast and loose  with what's permitted by law and what she felt was "right" by her standard, then it's at least conceivable that she misstepped.  Or Huma misstepped, or the FBI thinks Huma did so in a way that at least has the appearance of being on Hillary's behalf.  Any way you read it, we may only be privy to a sliver of what's really intimately going to be buried by the DOJ.

 
jon_mx said:
Odds of a Hillary email grand jury underway just went much higher


By Thomas Lifson
I have speculated that, given the immunity offered to Bryan Pagliano, it is possible that a grand jury has been convened.  But I am not a lawyer, much less a former U.S. attorney.  Joseph E. diGenova, 
Click to expand...
Joseph diGenova :lol:   I stopped reading right there. Talk about credibility issues:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/01/07/right-wing-media-cite-discredited-republican-la/207839
 

Right-Wing Media Cite Discredited Republican Lawyer To Claim Hillary Clinton Committed "Numerous Federal Crimes"  [...]


Joseph DiGenova Is A Discredited Republican Activist Who Pushed False Benghazi Claims And Suffered Criticism For Unprofessional Conduct


DiGenova Falsely Claimed Members Of The Military Were "Relieved Of Their Duty Because They Insisted That There Be A Military Response" To Benghazi Attacks. On October 28, 2013, diGenova claimed on WMAL that some members of the military were "relieved of their duty because they insisted that there be a military response" the night of the September 2012 Benghazi attacks, despite the fact that a military response was ordered by then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. These military forces included a Marine anti-terrorism team deployed from Spain and special operations forces that were stationed in Croatia and the United States, but they did not arrive until after the attacks were over. [Media Matters, 10/29/13; Media Matters, 10/28/13]

DiGenova Baselessly Alleged That Obama Administration Tried To Cover Up Theft Of Hundreds Of Surface-To-Air Missiles In Benghazi. In October 2013, diGenova claimed on WMAL that the Obama administration was trying to cover up the theft of 400 surface-to-air missiles that were somehow linked to the American presence in Benghazi. While diGenova told WMAL that he didn't whether the missiles were physically at the CIA annex the night of the attack, "it is clear that the annex was somehow involved in the process of the distribution of those missiles." DiGenova did not name his sources for this claim, acknowledged that some of his information is not "verifiable," and provided no evidence to back up the allegation. [Media Matters, 8/13/13; CNS News, 8/13/13]

DiGenova Has Been Criticized By Lawmaker For "Non-Stop Mugging" For The Press And For Lacking "Impartiality, Non-Partisanship, And Professionalism." In 1998, Joseph DiGenova and his wife and legal partner Victoria Toensing, who were working as outside counsel for the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, were criticized for their actions in connection with the Monica Lewinsky scandal. A February 5, 1998, Roll Call article "Rep. Bill Clay (D-Mo) launched a stinging attack on the two lead attorneys investigating the Teamsters campaign finance scandal yesterday, alleging that the attorneys have lost their objectivity because of their frequent television appearances and 'participation' in the scandal involving ex-White House intern Monica Lewinsky." [...]

DiGenova Was Criticized For Conflict Of Interest Over Dual Role In Separate DOJ Investigations. DiGenova and Toensing were criticized for serving as special counsel in the House Education and the Workforce Committee probe into Justice Department oversight of the Teamsters union while also representing Dan Burton, the committee's chairman at the time, in a separate Justice Department probe. A December 18, 1997, Roll Call article reported: "Rep. Bill Clay (Mo), the full committee's ranking Democrat, has raised questions about the fact that the two attorneys are also representing Burton in the Justice Department's investigation of charges that the Government Reform and Oversight chairman tried to extort campaign money from a lobbyist during the 1996 election cycle."  [...]
Click to expand...

 
jon_mx said:
So now you are complaining about me making an ad hominem arguement concerning your ad hominem arguement.  Too much gold here. :lol:  
Click to expand...
Where did I make an ad hominem attack on you personally like you did with me? Just linked an article detailing that diGenova has made multiple false charges, claims and allegations against Obama and the Clintons going back to Lewinksy scandal and has little credibility.

 
squistion said:
Joseph diGenova :lol:   I stopped reading right there. Talk about credibility issues:

http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/01/07/right-wing-media-cite-discredited-republican-la/207839
 
Click to expand...


squistion said:
DiGenova Baselessly Alleged That Obama Administration Tried To Cover Up Theft Of Hundreds Of Surface-To-Air Missiles In Benghazi. In October 2013, diGenova claimed on WMAL that the Obama administration was trying to cover up the theft of 400 surface-to-air missiles that were somehow linked to the American presence in Benghazi. While diGenova told WMAL that he didn't whether the missiles were physically at the CIA annex the night of the attack, "it is clear that the annex was somehow involved in the process of the distribution of those missiles." DiGenova did not name his sources for this claim, acknowledged that some of his information is not "verifiable," and provided no evidence to back up the allegation. [Media Matters, 8/13/13; CNS News, 8/13/13]
Click to expand...


Yaknow MM always cracks me up. Here we are discussing diGenova's lack of partiality (ok yeah I agree don't reach any conclusions based on what he says and where does he get his information if it is information to begin with? I largely agree....) but we look at it by using MM.

Let's look at what MM has on this single snip which I just picked out of curiosity. diGenova in his interview on a DC radio station says "we have learned there were 400 surface to air missiles stolen."

SEN. RAND PAUL (R), KENTUCKY: Thank you for appearing, Secretary Clinton. And I'm glad to see your health is improving.

One of the things that disappointed me most about the original 9/11 was no one was fired. We spent trillions of dollars, but there were a lot of human errors. These are judgment errors and the people who make judgment errors need to be replaced, fired, and no longer in a position of making these judgment calls.
... And the thing is is I don't suspect you of bad motives. The review board said, "Well, these people weren't willfully negligent." I don't think you were willfully. I don't suspect your motives of wanting to serve your country, but it was a failure of leadership not to be involved. It was a failure of leadership not to know these things.

And so, I think it is good that you're accepting responsibility because no one else is. And this is -- there is a certain amount of culpability to the worst tragedy since 9/11, and I'm glad you're accepting this.

Now, my question is: Is the U.S. involved with any procuring of weapons, transfer of weapons, buying, selling, anyhow transferring weapons to Turkey out of Libya?

CLINTON: To Turkey? I -- I will have to take that question for the record. Nobody's ever raised that with me. I don't...

PAUL: It's been -- it's been in news reports that ships have been leaving from Libya and that they may have weapons. And what I'd like to know is the annex that was close by, were they involved with procuring, buying, selling, obtaining weapons? And were any of these weapons being transferred to other countries, any countries, Turkey included.

CLINTON: Well, Senator, you'll have to direct -- direct that question to the agency that ran the annex. I will -- I will see what information is available and...

PAUL: You're saying you don't know.

CLINTON: I do not know. I don't have any information on that. ...
Click to expand...
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1301/23/se.01.html

At no point in his interview did diGenova claim that Hillary knew about these SAM missiles. MM totally invents that.

Secondly when asked by Paul, indeed Hillary pretty much confirmed his charge that she had no clue what was going on, she said she didn't know if there were weapons shipments there or not.

However what MM doesn't mention is that diGenova represented Mark Thompson, acting deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism at the State Department, who was a legitimate whistleblower.

Now do you think it's just possible that diGenova got his information from the deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism at the State Department???

DiGenova wasn't the source of that report, Mark Thompson was.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Show me where they were wrong in what they said about diGenova.
Click to expand...
I know it's petty and I am really trying to recenter from this fantasy, but I pray Hillary has an indictment handed down and it's such a solid case that DOJ can't do a damn thing to intervene.  And I want you to ever so gradually come to the realization that a bucket of water has doused your hero witch and it's time to say your very quick goodbyes.

Then you can pick her damp black hat up off the steaming floor and have a good cry into it.

 
Last edited:
squistion said:
Show me where they were wrong in what they said about diGenova.
Click to expand...
Why don't you show us what's wrong with what diGenova said?

I don't know who this person is, nor do I care.  What I do know is that a) you can't establish that so-and-so is hopelessly biased just by linking to another hopelessly biased source and b) when somebody calls you on that, you can't then come back with "Well why don't you just address the substance of the argument?" after dismissing the substance of so-and-so's argument in the first place,

 
squistion said:
Show me where they were wrong in what they said about diGenova.
Click to expand...
Little confused here. Hillary said she did not know if the report on the weapons in the Benghazi annex was true or not, right?

And diGenova represented the deputy assistant secretary for counterterrorism at the State Department, correct?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Show me where they were wrong in what they said about diGenova.
Click to expand...
This is diGenova: "we have learned there were 400 surface to air missiles stolen."

This is Hillary Clinton in testimony:

CLINTON: Well, Senator, you're absolutely right. One of the reasons that we and other government agencies were present in Benghazi is exactly that. We had a concerted effort to try to track down and find and recover as many MANPADS and other very dangerous weapons as possible.
Click to expand...
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1301/23/se.01.html

Fyi a MANPAD is a kind of SAM:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-portable_air-defense_system

- hth

 
IvanKaramazov said:
Why don't you show us what's wrong with what diGenova said?

I don't know who this person is, nor do I care.  What I do know is that a) you can't establish that so-and-so is hopelessly biased just by linking to another hopelessly biased source and b) when somebody calls you on that, you can't then come back with "Well why don't you just address the substance of the argument?" after dismissing the substance of so-and-so's argument in the first place,
Click to expand...
The man (and his wife Victoria Toesing) has no credibility going back to the 90s. Well documented series of false charges, claims and allegations. He has been thoroughly discredited, I am not going to waste my time proving this has no more validity than anything else he has come forward with against the Clintons and then Obama. And even if I did, you think jon_mx  (or any of the other Clinton haters) would accept it? All I would get would be another :lmao:  followed by "comedy gold."

 
Redeye_Surface_to_Air_Missile_Launch.jpg


- MANPAD.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
MM. I've checked, if you follow their links they actually produce information the opposite of which they are trying to deflect. WND just makes stuff up.
Click to expand...
They are a watchdog organization of right wing media. Unlike WND they don't claim to be a news organization, just a fact checker of the right wing blogosphere. They provide links to all of their articles, your spin is those links as being opposite to what they report  but I haven't found that to be true. Unfortunately your hate of David Brock colors your interpretation of anything they publish, so I don't take seriously your fact checking of the fact checkers.

 
m.townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/03/10/video-count-hillarys-lies-n2131447

Good video of Hillary's lies around email.  In a "now imagine he was white" Time to Kill moment, imagine when she lies like this routinely as your President.

Edit: The reason she out and out lied about carrying one device for convenience is because the real reason is otherwise apparent: plotted avoidance of FOIA requests.  So she tried to lie it away.  And this is who some of you defend.  Lie on top of lie, and you don't care?!

 
Last edited:
squistion said:
They are a watchdog organization of right wing media. Unlike WND they don't claim to be a news organization, just a fact checker of the right wing blogosphere. They provide links to all of their articles, your spin is those links as being opposite to what they report  but I haven't found that to be true. Unfortunately your hate of David Brock colors your interpretation of anything they publish, so I don't take seriously your fact checking of the fact checkers.
Click to expand...
We've covered this - they were created to counter AIM. If you want a counterpart there it is.

And as for that last bit I just quoted Hillary herself.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Look this whole conversation is kind of silly isn't it? I mean you guys KNOW she's not going to be indicted, right? 

if there was any chance she would be indicted over this, Obama and the DNC would have approached Hillary months ago and asked her to withdraw from the race. Biden or someone like Corey Booker would have gotten in. I mean who are we kidding here? 

And no I am not suggesting there was a coverup or that the Justice Drpartment is overriding the FBI. I'm suggesting that there's nothing that Hillary has done wrong, and the powers that be all know this. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Look this whole conversation is kind of silly isn't it? I mean you guys KNOW she's not going to be indicted, right? 

if there was any chance she would be indicted over this, Obama and the DNC would have approached Hillary months ago and asked her to withdraw from the race. Biden or someone like Corey Booker would have gotten in. I mean who are we kidding here? 

And no I am not suggesting there was a coverup or that the Justice Drpartment is overriding the FBI. I'm suggesting that there's nothing that Hillary has done wrong, and the powers that be all know this. 
Click to expand...


So if the Justice Department does override the FBI, you will change your tune?

You are probably right about the first part, the Justice Department early on assured Obama they would not bring charges against Hillary under any circumstances.  Which is why Biden bowed out. 

 
timschochet said:
Look this whole conversation is kind of silly isn't it? I mean you guys KNOW she's not going to be indicted, right? 

if there was any chance she would be indicted over this, Obama and the DNC would have approached Hillary months ago and asked her to withdraw from the race. Biden or someone like Corey Booker would have gotten in. I mean who are we kidding here? 

And no I am not suggesting there was a coverup or that the Justice Drpartment is overriding the FBI. I'm suggesting that there's nothing that Hillary has done wrong, and the powers that be all know this. 
Click to expand...
Ludicrous.  FBI is leading aggressively and as of a couple months ago Obama hadn't been briefed.  Given their relationship, I'd bet Comey is holding cards close to the vest.  Look at the video of lies Hillary has told and realize that she may not have to testify under oath after key aides and Pagliano. She'll have to **gasp** tell the truth or she'll be caught in a perjury trap.  And that's downstream of where we are today.  And guess what, Tim: she did plenty wrong.  It's why she's so scrupulously lied from the beginning, why she's lying about lying and so on.

 
timschochet said:
Look this whole conversation is kind of silly isn't it? I mean you guys KNOW she's not going to be indicted, right? 

if there was any chance she would be indicted over this, Obama and the DNC would have approached Hillary months ago and asked her to withdraw from the race. Biden or someone like Corey Booker would have gotten in. I mean who are we kidding here? 

And no I am not suggesting there was a coverup or that the Justice Drpartment is overriding the FBI. I'm suggesting that there's nothing that Hillary has done wrong, and the powers that be all know this. 
Click to expand...
Just look at events - referrals from two IG's, records subpoenaed from the Foundation, a seized server, IT guy takes immunity, a federal court orders depositions, documents withheld, FBI involved.

If Hillary's aides get interviewed by the FBI maybe start to believe a little bit.

If Hillary herself is interviewed by the FBI: do you think she can avoid perjury or not?

If we don't get news they are being interviewed then you can write the whole thing off.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Go to love Squisy source on that interupting graphic, www.Vocativ.com  ....Look what is on their front page.....Trump as Hitler...Squisy, another great source there!

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Just look at events - referrals from two IG's, records subpoenaed from the Foundation, a seized server, IT guy takes immunity, a federal court orders depositions, documents withheld, FBI involved.

If Hillary's aides get interviewed by the FBI maybe start to believe a little bit.

If Hillary herself is interviewed by the FBI: do you think she can avoid perjury or not?

If we don't get news they are being interviewed then you can write the whole thing off.
Click to expand...
This.  I'd love to be a fly on the wall during a Hillary deposition.  They'll force her to acknowledge many of these lies.  And if she reverts to her lying self and it contradicts Pagliano or others, she's not going to get as kind a treatment as a video juxtaposing what she claimed and the checked facts.  

Now add the greater realization here that the investigation likely extends to abuses by the Clinton Foundation.  I seriously doubt that Obama or anyone else in a position to coach Clinton to bow out two months ago has as much control over any of this, because there's a cold war between agencies.  

So buckle in.  And where you and I disagree is in your assumption and assertion that she did nothing wrong and mine that she did.  Liars gonna lie, Tim, and she quite possibly went a bridge too far without even realizing it.  When you're that arrogant and entitled for that long, well -- pride cometh before the fall.

 
timschochet said:
Look this whole conversation is kind of silly isn't it? I mean you guys KNOW she's not going to be indicted, right? 

if there was any chance she would be indicted over this, Obama and the DNC would have approached Hillary months ago and asked her to withdraw from the race. Biden or someone like Corey Booker would have gotten in. I mean who are we kidding here? 

And no I am not suggesting there was a coverup or that the Justice Drpartment is overriding the FBI. I'm suggesting that there's nothing that Hillary has done wrong, and the powers that be all know this. 
Click to expand...
Yeah! And then the President would have met with Bernie and had some closed door meeting that no one else knows the content of.

Wait...

 
www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-09/missing-clinton-e-mail-claims-saudis-financed-benghazi-attacks

Oh! My! God!  Mind blown.

Cross referencing the emails the hacker Gruccifer released, we now know that 3 of the 4 screenshot were real.  The forth is missing, and relates to Blumenthal telling Hillary that the Saudis funded Benghazi.  We can now reasonably assume that that email was real too.  (No one paid much attention at the time).  What's notable is that Hillary did not take action, and received millions from Saudis to the Clinton Foundation.  And the email was either redacted or is MISSING!  (Deleted and not turned over).  Oh -- and Gruccifer who was charged over seas was just extradited to the US.  Why now?  Dollars to donuts it's to testify to the Grand Jury that has been set up.  

If ANY of this is true and Hillary protected Saudis that of all people Blumenthal claimed funded Benghazi, then Hillary is absolutely toast,. 

 
Smack Tripper said:
That Benghazi mom will be everywhere during the general election 
Click to expand...
It won't make any difference. We've been through this before. Don't you remember the mom in Texas who blamed Bush for her son dying in Iraq? At the time I remember thinking I was sorry for her loss but that she was being irrational. It's the same thing here. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-09/missing-clinton-e-mail-claims-saudis-financed-benghazi-attacks

Oh! My! God!  Mind blown.

Cross referencing the emails the hacker Gruccifer released, we now know that 3 of the 4 screenshot were real.  The forth is missing, and relates to Blumenthal telling Hillary that the Saudis funded Benghazi.  We can now reasonably assume that that email was real too.  (No one paid much attention at the time).  What's notable is that Hillary did not take action, and received millions from Saudis to the Clinton Foundation.  And the email was either redacted or is MISSING!  (Deleted and not turned over).  Oh -- and Gruccifer who was charged over seas was just extradited to the US.  Why now?  Dollars to donuts it's to testify to the Grand Jury that has been set up.  

If ANY of this is true and Hillary protected Saudis that of all people Blumenthal claimed funded Benghazi, then Hillary is absolutely toast,. 
Click to expand...
Is it the smoking gun you've been counting on? 

 
timschochet said:
Is it the smoking gun you've been counting on? 
Click to expand...
Long long way from being verified, but it would explain a hell of a lot. 

And granted its a wet dream, that Hillary could essentially be prosecuted for Benghazi and public corruption, as derived from her email scandal.  But if any of that is true and she didn't reveal intelligence related to funding for the attacks, let alone took steps to withhold information and cover it up -- things would get interesting,. 

I'd be far more wary if it weren't so damn unusual that Gruciffer was extradited.  Why?!!  And makes sense now why State would be stalling.  

 
Last edited:
timschochet said:
It won't make any difference. We've been through this before. Don't you remember the mom in Texas who blamed Bush for her son dying in Iraq? At the time I remember thinking I was sorry for her loss but that she was being irrational. It's the same thing here. 
Click to expand...
It's not even close to the same thing. :rolleyes:

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/03/09/transcript-the-post-univision-democratic-debate-annotated/

- Hillary says she did not tell the family the movie played a role... and yet here she is saying it did play a role? Why wouldn't she have told the family it played a role if it did? And why would that be so awful now if she did? Isn't this bizarre self-contradiction?

- Let's say this is true. Can someone explain when Hillary did say a movie had caused spontaneous attacks? If she didn't tell the families that, and if as she told Congress she did not tell the American public that, when did she ever say it? Has she ever said that the movie caused the attack? It seems like she contradicts the administration at every turn on this issue.
Click to expand...
As I recall, there was an election coming up and they lied to buy some time.

 
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
258K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top