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 (11 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
So today Wapo who had a source on record giving the very specific figure of 147 investigators corrects based on a source close to the investigation (likely FBI) saying no, it was as few as 12.

...could be speculation and sources were wrong.  

But...  With Hillary and Aides set to be interviewed within days, could it be that the latter is a calculated leak to make sure Hillary is less on guard?  I'm guessing Hillary may have to make some calculated gambles.

Regardless, this is top grade political theater.  If you think she's going to just waltz in and explain a misunderstanding away, you're deluded.  You're also deluded if you think she can give vague answers and it'll suffice.  And if you think she can throw out an odd lie or three like the many excuses she's given publicly and disintegrated under light, well...

 
Last edited:
I'm guessing you're saying release everything else because Hillary had authority over that. Well if she argues that she is going to have to acknowledge she knew they were classified to begin with, which she seems very reluctant to do.
Sort of.  I'm saying that from my perspective if

  • the information which is now classified originates within the state department and
  • the information was not "marked" classified at the time and/or purposely placed in a classified systems  
then I don't think the Secretary of State can "mishandle it".  There is nothing for her to acknowledge.  The information was never classified until the FOIA request. It did fit the executive order definition of what could be classified if Hillary or those she delegated that authority to so decided - but she did not classify it.  Now for FOIA request Hillary is no longer the authority and the competing interest she prioritized over classifying the information no longer exist so those that have delegated that authority in State retroactively classified the information.  This is not an unusual occurrence, though I have read that the State Department seems to be especially bad at only classifying when FOIA request happen, Her judgment could be questioned in how she prioritized things, but other than in the court of public opinion she needs to only answer to the president here.  As voters we can only use our biases to fill in the blanks as to whether we trust that judgment.  My biases should be clear in that I have no issue prioritizing most anything over the perceived need to keep secrets. That I don't trust Hillary's judgment, but I think Hillary would classify much more easily than I would.  Maybe the FBI will list cases (in general terms) where even I think it should have been treated as classified, but I suspect not.

So for me the question that matters criminally is are there any emails that clearly contain information that Hillary should have suspected was classified by other agencies.  As of now there are none that I am aware of.   I don't think information sent to Hillary from a private citizen would qualify as it is coming from to her from the "public domain".  I don't think information that was published in the media would qualify.  I don't think information that was contained in a summary of conference call, absent a statement of source would automatically qualify.   I don't think information which was "classified" a few days after being sent to Hillary qualifies, though it should raise eyebrows.   I believe that I have already crossed off the two email threads where there was the effort taken to show that they were sourced in other systems, though this is based mostly on speculation in media reports where I have a low level of confidence.  I don't know of any others. You say there are hundreds?  I would assume there are others, but absent any specific knowledge of them how can I conclude anything based on such an unknown?  

You asked how could I be sympathetic to Hillary.  I am not.   I am not a Hillary hater who just knows she must be guilty because she is Hillary.   I am not a Hillary supporter who just knows she is pure as the driven snow.  I'm neither.   I am someone just trying to honestly evaluate the evidence.  At this point I find it lacking to support the claims of wrong doing - criminally and otherwise.  Certainly some political and "optics" mistakes.   But I suspect that there is more evidence to come in the next few months.  Maybe I'll change my view, but it isn't likely going to happen rehashing the same old evidence we already know with some degree of confidence.

 
But I suspect that there is more evidence to come in the next few months.  Maybe I'll change my view, but it isn't likely going to happen rehashing the same old evidence we already know with some degree of confidence.
I disagree that it's the same old evidence. Every time she makes a claim, new evidence disproves her claim and she herself gives the new evidence credence by modifying her statements. Rinse, repeat.

But putting aside all of her "I never sent/received classified material on my private server - I mean it wasn't classified at the time -  I mean it wasn't marked classified" - let me ask you this: The one thing that she's been pretty clear on insisting is that all of the 30,000 emails she deleted, once the investigations began, were personal. If it turns out that wasn't quite true either, would you be willing to admit that maybe there was something a little underhanded going on?

 
I disagree that it's the same old evidence. Every time she makes a claim, new evidence disproves her claim and she herself gives the new evidence credence by modifying her statements. Rinse, repeat.

But putting aside all of her "I never sent/received classified material on my private server - I mean it wasn't classified at the time -  I mean it wasn't marked classified" - let me ask you this: The one thing that she's been pretty clear on insisting is that all of the 30,000 emails she deleted...were personal. If it turns out that wasn't quite true either, would you be willing to admit that maybe there was something a little underhanded going on?
Does anyone out there really think she had 30k personal emails on that server?  That just isn't credible.  

 
I disagree that it's the same old evidence. Every time she makes a claim, new evidence disproves her claim and she herself gives the new evidence credence by modifying her statements. Rinse, repeat.

But putting aside all of her "I never sent/received classified material on my private server - I mean it wasn't classified at the time -  I mean it wasn't marked classified" - let me ask you this: The one thing that she's been pretty clear on insisting is that all of the 30,000 emails she deleted, once the investigations began, were personal. If it turns out that wasn't quite true either, would you be willing to admit that maybe there was something a little underhanded going on?
"New evidence" is not rehashing the same old evidence.  I also disagree that her claims have changed in any significant way.  When facts change, like retroactively classifying some of the content in the emails of course her statements need to change.  (FYI - I still don't know  what you were referencing a week or so ago that happened in November to suggest that how I just characterized this is wrong.)

I'm not a fan of asking people "will you admit if", but I trust that you don't mean it the way I read it.  I have stated a few times that some of the key questions for me are-

  • Is there any email that unquestionably should be classified no matter what  (I disagree with the notion that because some FOIA clerk (or whatever the tirle is) says so that all 2000 or so fit this category.  Do any?)
  • Is there any email that is obviously from a classified system other than the State Department  (the post you replied to)
  • Assuming the entire email store can be recovered, would the FBI come to roughly the same set of "personal" and "work" emails if they follow the same criteria she (or her lawyers) claimed to use to sort them.   (I wouldn't expect the numbers to be exact, but ballpark.)
  • Assuming the answer to the above is "yes" or they find less, are there any obvious filters which would have found any significant number of additional work emails
  • What percentage of emails can be found on State Department servers now that they know how to look for them (Hillary stated she was told 90%)
  • Whether factually correct or not, was the perception that sending to a .gov account was sufficient to satisfy data retention requirements prevalent - or is it just a coincidence that Hillary and Colin Powell said the same thing  (If this is yes, I think it eliminates most discussion of thwarting FOIA requests unless there is evidence that Hillary or her staff - possibly the IT guy knew otherwise).
I'm sure there are others I'm drawing blanks on   I didn't list issues about the Clinton Foundation simply because I'm not sure that the FBI could legitimately go off in that direction without hearing something more official about it.  Of course that would be of interest. 

 
Does anyone out there really think she had 30k personal emails on that server?  That just isn't credible.  
Maybe she's like Bubba Gump, but instead of shrimp she emailed about each Yoga pose.  

Email 1:  Downward Dog with my left leg up.

Email 2:  Downward Dog with my right leg up.

Email 30,000:  Well, that's about it.

 
"New evidence" is not rehashing the same old evidence.  I also disagree that her claims have changed in any significant way.  When facts change, like retroactively classifying some of the content in the emails of course her statements need to change.  (FYI - I still don't know  what you were referencing a week or so ago that happened in November to suggest that how I just characterized this is wrong.)

I'm not a fan of asking people "will you admit if", but I trust that you don't mean it the way I read it.  I have stated a few times that some of the key questions for me are-

  • Is there any email that unquestionably should be classified no matter what  (I disagree with the notion that because some FOIA clerk (or whatever the tirle is) says so that all 2000 or so fit this category.  Do any?)
  • Is there any email that is obviously from a classified system other than the State Department  (the post you replied to)
  • Assuming the entire email store can be recovered, would the FBI come to roughly the same set of "personal" and "work" emails if they follow the same criteria she (or her lawyers) claimed to use to sort them.   (I wouldn't expect the numbers to be exact, but ballpark.)
  • Assuming the answer to the above is "yes" or they find less, are there any obvious filters which would have found any significant number of additional work emails
  • What percentage of emails can be found on State Department servers now that they know how to look for them (Hillary stated she was told 90%)
  • Whether factually correct or not, was the perception that sending to a .gov account was sufficient to satisfy data retention requirements prevalent - or is it just a coincidence that Hillary and Colin Powell said the same thing  (If this is yes, I think it eliminates most discussion of thwarting FOIA requests unless there is evidence that Hillary or her staff - possibly the IT guy knew otherwise).
I'm sure there are others I'm drawing blanks on   I didn't list issues about the Clinton Foundation simply because I'm not sure that the FBI could legitimately go off in that direction without hearing something more official about it.  Of course that would be of interest. 
Sorry, I read this and it's cogent... I just think why are you trying so damn hard to defend the indefensible?  That 90% figure was pure spin. No one told her that and it isn't true.  She made it up.  She's been proven a liar at every turn.  The truth is not her friend.  She thought she could set up shop, run half (almost literally by emails) State Business and Clinton Foundation fronted political muscling and that no one would be the wiser, so stacked the deck she thought she'd provided to the dealer.  She's a fraud and she's been outed.  As more trickles of truth emerge, it will continue to become clear that she abused power.  Hopefully it will be enough to sideline her -- and good riddance.

 
So today Wapo who had a source on record giving the very specific figure of 147 investigators corrects based on a source close to the investigation (likely FBI) saying no, it was as few as 12.

...could be speculation and sources were wrong.  

But...  With Hillary and Aides set to be interviewed within days, could it be that the latter is a calculated leak to make sure Hillary is less on guard?  I'm guessing Hillary may have to make some calculated gambles.

Regardless, this is top grade political theater.  If you think she's going to just waltz in and explain a misunderstanding away, you're deluded.  You're also deluded if you think she can give vague answers and it'll suffice.  And if you think she can throw out an odd lie or three like the many excuses she's given publicly and disintegrated under light, well...
I think it's more likely that there are a dozen agents and dozens of analysts working on this than that there are 147 special agents.

 
I think it's more likely that there are a dozen agents and dozens of analysts working on this than that there are 147 special agents.
Agreed.  But I also think:

1) FBI is holding cards close to the vest

2) They are very carefully building a facts based case

3) They have used every resource they need 

4) They salivate at the thought of taking Hillary down 

 
Last edited:
Agreed.  But I also think:

1) FBI is holding cards close to the vest

2) They are very carefully building a facts based case

3) They have used every resource they need 

4) They salivate at the thought of taking Hillary down 
I think someone's original number was for number of employees working on the case, not number of special agents.

 
BFS seems to have great insight into things which no one outside the FBI has insight into.  Why would a state department which is currently under Democrat control, over-classify Hillary's emails?  

 
BFS seems to have great insight into things which no one outside the FBI has insight into.  Why would a state department which is currently under Democrat control, over-classify Hillary's emails?  
I gather from one friend in particular who holds clearance that the answer is cultural.  Those who are privileged with secret information respect that privilege and have a disproportionate reaction to the very concept of someone who does not.  They haven't run into anyone who doesn't, mind you, which is the cultural divide between they and Madam Clinton.

 
Op Ed piece in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel - hardly a conservative leaning newspaper:

Clinton's abysmal record on open government

...The issue immediately at hand — and under investigation by the FBI — is Clinton's use of a private email server for State Department communications. Clinton may have violated national security laws by making top secret documents vulnerable to hackers and available to people without proper security clearance. Violating those laws rightly ended the public service career of Gen. David Petraeus when he was President Barack Obama's CIA director. The FBI and Justice Department must be free to fully investigate and, if warranted, prosecute Clinton in this matter without any political interference from the Obama administration.

In addition, regardless of Clinton's excuses, the only believable reason for the private server in her basement was to keep her emails out of the public eye by willfully avoiding freedom of information laws. No president, no secretary of state, no public official at any level is above the law. She chose to ignore it, and must face the consequences...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BFS seems to have great insight into things which no one outside the FBI has insight into.  Why would a state department which is currently under Democrat control, over-classify Hillary's emails?  
BFS is a certified Defender of Hillarytm.  Like TGunz, he refuses to believe anything other than what comes directly from Hillary.

 
Can we have a separate thread about how many FBI agents are on the case? This is really big and I don't want it to get lost in here.
I agree. The important take away isn't the fact there's even an investigation. If she only has a dozen or so agents investigating it's not a big deal anymore and not really newsworthy. 

 
Couple updates, albeit from Al Jazeera America, though by a former Msnbc reporter:


 


David Shuster@DavidShuster


Sources: Clinton investigation has reached "critical phase." FBI done examining emails/server. DOJ prosecutors involved. More 7p


 


David Shuster@DavidShuster


Repeating 7pm report at 8p @ajam. Sources: Clinton email investigation has reached critical stage. DOJ involved. Clinton intvw coming.



Per Shuster: ...

While Hillary Clinton fights for the Democratic presidential nomination, law enforcement officials tell Al Jazeera America the Federal Investigation into her personal email system while she was Secretary of State has reached a critical stage.

The FBI, led by Director James Comey, has now finished examining Clinton’s private emails and home server. And the sources add that Comey’s FBI team has been joined by the Justice Department prosecutors. Together, they are now examining the evidence, analyzing relevant laws, and attempting to arrange interviews with key figures in the investigation.

Those interviews, according to attorneys, will include former State Department aides Philippe Reines, Former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, and Clinton herself.

Soon after those interviews — in the next few days and weeks — officials expect Director Comey to make his recommendation to Attorney General Loretta Lynch about potential criminal charges.

... Shuster finishes his report this way (emphasis mine): “Because there is now every sign the Clinton email investigation is quickly headed towards a conclusion, whether it’s her exoneration or indictment. In terms of timing, sources expect the conclusion to come in weeks, not months. And they add that Hillary Clinton’s interview with the FBI, which could come in days, could be crucial.”  ...
http://www.mediaite.com/online/ajams-shuster-exclusive-hillary-clinton-to-be-interviewed-by-fbi-director-comey-in-mere-days/



- The keys here being that the DOJ and its attorneys will be involved in the interviews and that Hillary's interview will be scheduled.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
pantagrapher said:
Can we have a separate thread about how many FBI agents are on the case? This is really big and I don't want it to get lost in here.
"LOOK!  A SQUIRREL!"

I completely understand you wanting to throw up smoke screens.  I'm guessing your fragile psyche wouldn't be able to handle the reality of the situation.

 
MaxThreshold said:
BFS is a certified Defender of Hillarytm.  Like TGunz, he refuses to believe anything other than what comes directly from Hillary.
BFS is not quite in the TGunz, Tim, and Squisy category.  He at least understands the issue and is just not mindlessly repeating Hillary's latest talking points.  He is just very presumptuous on things which are not publicly known.  

 
Hillary is sick and tired of Bernie lying about her...

:oldunsure:   Also a bit sexist with the way she is jabbing her finger at the poor girl who asked the question...Imagine if a man had treated a woman that way...


http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/


Hillary Clinton’s Connection to the Oil and Gas Industry


Research compiled by Greenpeace USA

Contact: Perry Wheeler, perry.wheeler@greenpeace.org

Hillary Clinton’s campaign has been backed by the fossil fuel industry in a number of ways.

First there are the direct contributions from people working for fossil fuel companies to Hillary Clinton’s campaign committee. According to the most recent filings, the committee has received $309,107 (as of 3/21/16; source:Center for Responsive Politics) from such donors

Next are the fossil fuel lobbyists, many of whom have also bundled contributions. These donations also flow to Hillary Clinton’s campaign committee. Greenpeace has tracked $1,259,280 in bundled and direct donations from lobbyists currently registered as lobbying for the fossil fuel industry. This number excludes donations from lobbyists who are employed directly by a fossil fuel companies, as those donations would have been included in the previous number.

Last are contributions from fossil fuel interests to Super PACs supporting Hillary Clinton. Greenpeace has found $3,250,000 in donations from large donors connected to the fossil fuel industry to Priorities Action USA, a Super PAC supporting Secretary Clinton’s campaign.

All told, the campaign to elect Hillary Clinton for president in 2016 has received more than $4.5 million from lobbyists, bundlers, and large donors connected the fossil fuel industry.

Number of oil, gas and coal industry lobbyists that have made direct contributions to Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign: 57

  • 57 registered oil, coal and gas lobbyists have personally given $126,200 to the Hillary campaign
  • Of those 57, 11 are bundlers.
  • 11 lobbyists have bundled $1,140,930 in contributions to the Hillary campaign
  • 43 lobbyists have contributed the maximum allowed ($2700).
This includes:

  • Lobbyists who have reported lobbying for the oil and gas industry – both in-house company lobbyists and hired lobbyists from “K-Street firms.”
This does not include:

  • Industry executives
  • Other employees of the oil and gas industry
  • Board members
  • Corporate PAC contributions
  • Contributions by major investors
  • Donations to Super PACS or non-profit groups
  • Contributions made by trade associations to Super PACs
Hillary takes more from lobbyists in general than any other candidate

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/select-industries.php

Total Amount bundled from O&G lobbyists: $1,140,930


Examples:


  • 3 Enbridge lobbyists contributed to HRC’s campaign. While she was Secretary of State, Clinton signed off on the Enbridge pipeline (the alternative to KXL).
  • Ben Klein (Heather Podesta and Associates) lobbied on behalf of Oxbow Carbon on petcoke and other issues. Petcoke is a byproduct of refining. Communities in Detroit and Chicago have complained about piles of petcoke blowing into the community. Bill Koch (the estranged brother of Charles and David) owns controlling interest of Oxbow.  Klein also lobbied on restrictions of ivory imports for Oxbow.
  • Fracking company and gas industry trade association lobbyists have also contributed to Clinton’s campaign, including Former Rep. Martin Frost (D-TX), who lobbied for the Domestic Energy Producers Alliance, and Martin Durbin of the American Natural Gas Association (now merged and part of the American Petroleum Institute – API), the nephew of Senator **** Durbin (D-IL).  Another donor is Elizabeth Gore, a lobbyist for WPX energy (fracking).  A lobbyist for FTI Consulting, creator of an industry front group called Energy In Depth, also contributed to Clinton;s campaign. Although Clinton has said she would require FERC to consider climate change before granting any new gas pipeline permitsshe recently told activists she would not ban fracking as president, and has a pro-fracking track record which has been well-documented by numerous groups, including pro-Clinton Super PAC Correct the Record.
  • Marty Streett, a lobbyist for BP, gave Clinton’s campaign the maximum allowable amount ($2700). Her sister, Stephanie S. Streett, is the Executive Director of the William J. Clinton Foundation and former ED of the Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation (Bill Hillary & Chelsea Clinton Foundation, 990 report 2013).  The Podesta Group (Tony Podesta) also lobbied for BP, on issues including the Gulf of Mexico spill response and recovery.
  • While Secretary of State, Clinton pushed fracking in countries around the world, through the department’s Global Shale Gas Initiative.  According to Grist,  after the Bulgarian government signed a five-year deal with Chevron, major public protests led the Bulgarian parliament to pass a fracking moratorium. Clinton traveled to Bulgaria and then dispatched her special envoy for energy in Eurasia, Richard Morningstar, to push back against the fracking bans, which were eventually overturned.
  • Clinton’s State Department played a major role in negotiating a bilateral oil agreement with Mexico. Her former special envoy for international energy affairs, David Goldwyn, has donated the maximum allowable amount to the campaign ($2700). Since leaving State, Goldwyn has consulted  for companies wishing to profit from Mexico’s decision to allow private oil services contractors into the country in order to expand PEMEX’s ability to produce shale oil and tap deep offshore reserves.
  • David Leiter (ML Strategies lobbyist for Exxon and a HRC bundler), the former Senate chief of staff to John Kerry, is also a lobbyist for Burisma Holdings, a private Ukrainian natural gas and uranium mining company with many connections to the Democratic Party.  Biden’s son Hunter joined Burisma’s board in 2014, right before Leiter was hired to lobby members about the role of the company in Ukraine (arguing for its role in helping Ukraine be independent of Russia).  Another board member, Devon Archer, is a HRC donor (2700) and Democratic bundler (I don’t see any record of him bundling for HRC).  FTI’s Lawrence Pacheco does communications for Burisma.  Burisma is owned by a Cypriot holding firm, Brociti Investments Ltd, which is controlled by Nikolai Zlochevskyi, a former Ukrainian gov. minister. 
  • Although Clinton has said she supports an investigation into Exxon’s early concealment of what it knew about the risks of climate change and subsequent financing of climate denier front groups, her campaign has taken contributions from at least 7 lobbyists working for Exxon, including one in-house lobbyist – Theresa Fariello – who has bundled and additional $21,200 for the campaign.
  • Companies invested in LNG projects with lobbyists that have given to HRC’s campaign include Freeport LNG(Elizabeth Gore – Brownstein Hyatt, $500); LNG Allies (Michael Smith – Cornerstone Gov. Affairs – 2700 and a bundler of $59,400); Dominion Resources (Tom Lawler – Lawler Strategies, 2700); Oregon LNG  (Robert van Heuvelen VH Strategies – 2700). Exxon also has LNG projects. Cheniere Energy’s Ankit Desai not only gave the maximum allowed, but also bundled $ 139,300 for the campaign. Another donor ($2700) to Clinton’s campaign is Heather Zichal, Obama’s former energy advisor, who joined the board of Cheniere (LNG export company) afterleaving the administration.
  • Former Rep. Richard (“****”) Gephardt’s firm lobbies for Peabody Energy (coal), Prairie State (coal-fired power plant and adjacent mine), Ameren Services Co.  Gephardt and his wife, son and daughter Chrissy all contributed the maximum allowed to Clinton’s campaign (**** is the only fossil fuel lobbyist in the family). Gephardt, a Democratic Party super delegate, has pledged to support Clinton.  In February, the DNC rolled back its previous commitment to not take any contributions from federally registered lobbyists. Clinton’s campaign has also received contributions from lobbyists representing big mining companies — Westmoreland Coal, Arch Coal and Rio Tinto.

Other points relevant to lobbyist contributions:


During the NH debate Clinton said donations are not evidence of favors, but in 2008 Clinton suggested the contributions Obama took from the industry were evidence of a quid pro quo.

“But in April 2008, Clinton’s campaign aired a television ad portraying Obama’s support for a 2005 energy bill as a quid pro quo for campaign donations. The ad said Obama had “accepted $200,000 from executives and employees of oil companies,” while criticizing him for voting “for the Bush-Cheney energy bill that that put $6 billion in the pocket of big oil.” The clear message: Obama backed the bill as a favor to donors.” 

It’s worth noting that Obama didn’t take any $ from lobbyists or PACs in 2008 and pledged to not take contributions from lobbyists in 2012, too, and gave some donations back.  

Note:

While mostly true, critics did point out after the 2012 campaign that Obama did take some K St. money.

Other oil/gas industry contributions:

Total direct contributions to the Clinton campaign from industry employees and executives: $267,970

For more information:

Fossil Fuel Funding of 2016 Presidential Candidates (blog by Jesse Coleman).

 
Hillary is sick and tired of Bernie lying about her...

:oldunsure:   Also a bit sexist with the way she is jabbing her finger at the poor girl who asked the question...Imagine if a man had treated a woman that way...
It's hard to believe a person who has spent so much of their life in politics can be such an atrocious candidate. 

But she's regularly serving up great meme material. 

I'm so tired of these allegations that timschochet posts a lot.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yaknow. As much as the natives have been restless on the left and the right this season a Hillary presidency probably isn't going to help the situation much.

 
Now would really be the perfect time for Bernie to hit Hillary hard on her potential indictment by the FBI.  He needs to break her as she seems to be close to a full meltdown.  Bernie shouldn't complete a sentence that doesn't include at least one of the following: email, FBI, Foundation, classified, top secret.  

If Hillary can't handle Greenpeace going after to her about Big Oil, how the heck will she react when Bernie and his supporters bring up the FBI and mishandling of classified information.  She will fly off the handle, Bill will lose his #### and it would be Bernie's best bet to win the nomination.  At this point it is clear the only plausible scenario for Trump to be President is Hillary being an indicted nominee.  Hammer that message all day, every day.  Time for Bernie to go big or go home.

 
Now would really be the perfect time for Bernie to hit Hillary hard on her potential indictment by the FBI.  He needs to break her as she seems to be close to a full meltdown.  Bernie shouldn't complete a sentence that doesn't include at least one of the following: email, FBI, Foundation, classified, top secret.  

If Hillary can't handle Greenpeace going after to her about Big Oil, how the heck will she react when Bernie and his supporters bring up the FBI and mishandling of classified information.  She will fly off the handle, Bill will lose his #### and it would be Bernie's best bet to win the nomination.  At this point it is clear the only plausible scenario for Trump to be President is Hillary being an indicted nominee.  Hammer that message all day, every day.  Time for Bernie to go big or go home.
It's not him.  I have a feeling he spends an hour every day explaining to his team tat he won't do it.

 
Wow...she is not a nice person. She is pathetic.
Sometimes when I'm really upset about one thing, I take it out on another thing.  Hillary has had a terrible week of spiraling events in the criminal investigation.  Nothing is breaking her way.  I think she knows the curtain is closing, because she knows what she did and that its all pinned up on a timeline and she can't use her best weapon, her lying mouth, to get out of it. 

 
In all fairness I don't he much of anything.  Right??


Asked:

high probability? - no answer

highly likely? - no answer

any evidence such a penetration took place? - no answer

do you know an answer? - no answer

The NSA is involved on a few levels:

- they shot down Hillary's efforts to work around the SIPRNET/SCIF system.

- their own intelligence may have been compromised.

- they do signals intelligence themselves.

He knows way more than almost anyone. He's essentially a witness and an investigator at the same time in this whole thing. So I guess to the extent he can't answer for those reasons, yeah.

However I'm sure if the answer was "no" he would be really happy to say "no". ... He doesn't look happy.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The one constant from Saints is legit information, although I saw you/him get somewhat involved.  It's tough to toe the line forever.  Sometimes enough is enough.

I'm saying you are good force here, you actually see through the rage & disputes.  You are a somewhat settling person.  Make any sense?

 
On Donald Trump, Shrillary said:

"When someone shows you who they are, believe them." 

What she fails to realize is that that applies to her as well, which is why her disapproval ratings are almost as bad as Trump's.  She has shown herself to be a horrible person, and many of us believe her. :yes:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clinton aides unite on FBI legal strategy


Four of Hillary Clinton’s closest aides appear to have adopted an unusual legal strategy, hiring the same ex-Justice Department attorney to represent them in the FBI’s investigation of Clinton's private email server.

Beth Wilkinson, a well-connected former assistant U.S. attorney best known for prosecuting Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, is listed as representing three of Clinton’s top State Department staffers, according to a congressional letter obtained by POLITICO and dated Feb. 10. A fourth Clinton aide, Philippe Reines, is also represented by Wilkinson, according to sources familiar with their representation.

The united front suggests they plan to tell investigators the same story — although legal experts say the unusual joint strategy still presents its own risks, should the interests of the four aides begin to diverge as the probe moves ahead.

The quartet includes Clinton’s former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, who counseled Clinton politically and legally; deputy chief of staff Jake Sullivan, whom sources say authored a number of emails to Clinton that are now considered “top secret”; Heather Samuelson, Mills’ deputy who initially sorted Clinton’s work-related emails from personal messages that were then deleted; and Reines, who served as Clinton’s spokesman and also used personal email for work purposes at State.

Wilkinson and the four staffers, as well as the Clinton campaign, did not respond to requests for comment for this story.

The FBI is investigating whether classified information was ever mishandled or put at risk by the former secretary of state’s unusual, home-based email arrangement. Mills, Sullivan and Reines all regularly emailed Clinton's personal account.

And following reports that the FBI plans to start interviewing top Clinton staffers in the coming weeks, many expect at least some of Wilkinson’s four clients to sit for questioning.

Hiring the same attorney allows Clinton’s advisers to have one gatekeeper for most of the DOJ's inquiries — and it likely indicates that they expect to offer substantially similar testimony if they're questioned. Lawyers are barred from simultaneously representing people who may have conflicting interests in an investigation, or who would say something negative or potentially legally harmful about the lawyer’s other clients, experts say, although some such conflicts can be waived by the clients.

Thus, the aides' decision to use a so-called “joint-representation” or a “common-defense” strategy suggests the staffers believe they’re in this together and are unlikely to turn on each other.

On the other hand, if one of the aides ends up in criminal jeopardy as part of the probe, choosing a “common-defense” strategy could mean trouble for that staffer, who may need to say something adverse about his or her attorney’s other clients.

“The premise of employing the same counsel is that they believe there is not likely to be a situation where they start pointing a finger at one another to save their own skins — or perhaps at Secretary Clinton,” said Dan Metcalfe, founding director of the DOJ's office of information and privacy. “And there’s a sense that if one of them goes down, they all go down. It shows they think they can coordinate the defense to everyone’s benefit.”

Metcalfe, now a law professor at American University, called it an “optimistic approach”: “They must believe prosecutors don’t have that much.”

Legal experts said it's possible the staffers will change their strategy and decide to get their own, separate legal counsel if they feel like their risks are increasing.

By tapping Wilkinson, the Clinton confidants have selected someone with deep ties to Washington politics and the DOJ. The 53-year-old wife of former “Meet the Press” host David Gregory is a Clinton donor and Democratic contributor, according to Federal Election Commission filings.

She cut her teeth on classification issues early in her career, serving as a captain and assistant to the Army general counsel for intelligence and special operations.

As a former assistant U.S. attorney in New York, counsel to the deputy attorney general and principal deputy to the Justice office on terrorism and violent crime, Wilkinson is the only two-time recipient of the DOJ’s highest honor, the exceptional service award.

And she’s no stranger to high-profile cases. She prosecuted former Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega and Colombian drug cartel kingpin Dandeny Muñoz Mosquera for bombing a civilian airliner and killing U.S. citizens.

“They’ve hired her because she knows everyone in main Justice,” said Joseph diGenova, a former U.S. attorney-turned-right-leaning legal commentator. “She has very good personal relationships with all the political and career people in the Justice Department, so that’s very smart on their part.”

Such joint strategies are typically used in corporate cases by people who share similar job responsibilities but are not the focus of the investigation, said 30-year trial lawyer Dennis Nowak of Rumberger Kirk & Caldwell.

One upside is price: using one lawyer is often cheaper for all the clients because it saves time and is more efficient than hiring counsel for each person.

It is unclear who is paying the legal bills for the four staffers. But Wilkinson just this January left Paul, Weiss Rifkind, Warton and Garrison LLP to set up her own boutique firm, telling The Wall Street Journal that her company would ditch the billable hour setup typically used by big law firms in favor of flat fees that are intended to reward efficiency.

The strategy can also bolster the defense team as a whole, allowing the lawyer to gather information from multiple clients to help benefit another, legal experts said. Wilkinson, for instance, will get an idea of the FBI’s line of questioning after her first client's interview, which could benefit following witnesses.

But Bill Killian, former U.S. attorney for the eastern district of Tennessee, said the strategy “is fraught with danger” for the Clinton aides because “what they did, what they said, what they wrote, what their relationship was with whomever” is going to be different — potentially giving them different levels of legal exposure.

“In my 30 years as a defense attorney, almost 10 as a state or federal prosecutor, I have rarely or ever seen a situation where a lawyer can provide a common defense to multiple people without there being a conflict of interest at some point in some regard,” he said. “It’s rare that the common defense would in fact be the best defense for all the people under investigation."

Sullivan, for instance, authored now “top secret” emails, sources have told POLITICO — potentially setting him apart from the group. And Samuelson, according to testimony Mills gave to House GOP investigators, sorted Clinton’s emails as either official documents or personal issues.

Both, for example, would likely be asked about what kinds of instructions they received, which could involve Wilkinson’s other client Mills, who was senior to both.

DiGenova is questioning why the DOJ would greenlight the arraignment in the first place, arguing that it “presents an amazing conflict of interest” and allows for coordination of stories.

“If it’s a serious case, you don’t run the risk of having all sorts of collusion between people — it’s just not done,” said diGenova. “If the department has accepted that, that tells me they’re walking down the line of not bringing a case, because they’re not serious if they have accepted that arrangement … They’ve thrown in the towel.”

The DOJ did not wish to comment on this issue.

Several lawyers said the legal strategy would certainly benefit Clinton, if not the aides.

“If I were Ms. Clinton, I would want these secondary people to all say the same thing — not turn on one another, let alone me, and having one attorney represent them makes it all a hell of a lot simpler,” Metcalfe said.

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) last November asked Wilkinson, Clinton’s attorney David Kendall as well as lawyers for Bryan Pagliano — Clinton’s top IT staffer — and Huma Abedin if there was a third-party fee arrangement and joint defense coordination agreement that allowed them to share information.

The letter followed a report in a local Colorado newspaper showing that a company involved in maintaining Clinton’s server, Platte River, was planning to bill Clinton’s representatives for its legal fees.

“The invoice raises questions as to whether Secretary Clinton has similar arrangements with other people or entities associated with her email server,” the letter reads. “In light of this, it is important for the committee to know whether Secretary Clinton and her attorneys are providing financial support, legal support, or other coordination to those associates of hers who are involved in congressional committee and federal law enforcement inquiries relating to her email server.”

They declined to answer.

“I am bound by ethical obligations to maintain the confidentiality of information pertaining to my representation,” Wilkinson wrote on behalf of Mills, Sullivan and Samuelson on Feb. 10, according to a copy of her reply obtained by POLITICO. “As such, I am unable to address your questions.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/hillary-clinton-fbi-strategy-emails-221435#ixzz44ZqkVbue 
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

 
The one constant from Saints is legit information, although I saw you/him get somewhat involved.  It's tough to toe the line forever.  Sometimes enough is enough.

I'm saying you are good force here, you actually see through the rage & disputes.  You are a somewhat settling person.  Make any sense?
Irish, thanks. I try to be reasonable and I think nearly everyone typically comes from a good place and has a good reason for what they believe, whatever that may be.

 
I found the below interesting as many of the people being asked questions will be those connected to the Clinton foundation.   So it seems like the focus is establishing a quid pro quo with donations to the Clinton foundation   

Nearly a dozen people who worked with Clinton at State, as well as others linked to the Clinton family’s nonprofit foundation have received, or are expected to receive, formal interview requests from the bureau, the source told Fox News. The Los Angeles Times reported Sunday that the FBI was setting up interviews with Clinton’s closest associates and would likely seek an interview with her.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top