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 (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anthony Borbely said:
I have to give huge props to Bottomfeeder Sports and Saints. They have debated this issue in depth with mostly opposing viewpoints and have been respectful of each others opinions and have left the hack jobs and name calling out of it. Of course they aren't the only ones but it really stands out because it has been a very long discussion. Well done guys.  :thumbup:
Click to expand...
jerk!

 
There is one source, Al Jazeera America, which is reporting that it has inside information that Hillary will be questioned by the FBI. Nobody else has any direct sourcing. And the "inside information" has been proven wrong quite a bit, the last time being the 147 investigators working on this case. I have no reason to believe this latest info is true, despite nearly everyone in this thread assuming it is. 

So we'll see. All along Hillary has maintained she did nothing wrong. She never sent not received classified info on her server or emails; the classifications were all made after the fact. She says she broke no laws. 

I believe this is true. I believe the FBI is investigating this only as a result of competing government bureaucracies deciding after the fact that they want to hide information from the FOIA, which has nothing to do with Hillary. I predict nobody will be indicted, but that the more conspiracy minded among you will simply assume it's all a coverup. 

We'll find out how right I am...

 
Everything for the last year Tim believed about this email story has been proven wrong over time.  I am liking the odds of this current amazing streak to continue. :thumbup: . 

 
timschochet said:
There is one source, Al Jazeera America, which is reporting that it has inside information that Hillary will be questioned by the FBI. Nobody else has any direct sourcing. And the "inside information" has been proven wrong quite a bit, the last time being the 147 investigators working on this case. I have no reason to believe this latest info is true, despite nearly everyone in this thread assuming it is. 

So we'll see. All along Hillary has maintained she did nothing wrong. She never sent not received classified info on her server or emails; the classifications were all made after the fact. She says she broke no laws. 

I believe this is true. I believe the FBI is investigating this only as a result of competing government bureaucracies deciding after the fact that they want to hide information from the FOIA, which has nothing to do with Hillary. I predict nobody will be indicted, but that the more conspiracy minded among you will simply assume it's all a coverup. 

We'll find out how right I am...
Click to expand...
The FBI got some part time help with the investigation and the total number of agents has gone up and down.  Getting the current count does not really mean much.

The more interesting part is how people who did not have security clearance gained access to secured servers in the State Dept.  You will find out more when the FBI recommends an indictment...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
Everything for the last year Tim believed about this email story has been proven wrong over time.  I am liking the odds of this current amazing streak to continue. :thumbup: . 
Click to expand...
It's not looking good for Hillary when the only person speaking up for her is timchochet.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
There is one source, Al Jazeera America, which is reporting that it has inside information that Hillary will be questioned by the FBI. Nobody else has any direct sourcing. And the "inside information" has been proven wrong quite a bit, the last time being the 147 investigators working on this case. I have no reason to believe this latest info is true, despite nearly everyone in this thread assuming it is. 

So we'll see. All along Hillary has maintained she did nothing wrong. She never sent not received classified info on her server or emails; the classifications were all made after the fact. She says she broke no laws. 

I believe this is true. I believe the FBI is investigating this only as a result of competing government bureaucracies deciding after the fact that they want to hide information from the FOIA, which has nothing to do with Hillary. I predict nobody will be indicted, but that the more conspiracy minded among you will simply assume it's all a coverup. 

We'll find out how right I am...
Click to expand...
We'll know soon enough, but you never thought it would get this far, and you know the fact the presumptive nominee is being questioned means that at least the FBI thinks it's much more serious than the bull#### talking points you seem to think represents any semblance of truth. They have a case and they're checking facts against it to bolster it.  Try to at least recognize some reality. Whether it gets prosecuted or sticks is another issue, but the investigations has broken somewhere way outside of your vision.  

 
bananafish said:
Plenty of sources are reporting that the FBI is preparing to interview Hillary and her compatriots, not just Al Jazeera.

Clinton Email Probe Enters New Phase as FBI Interviews Loom

"Federal prosecutors investigating the possible mishandling of classified materials on Hillary Clinton’s private email server have begun the process of setting up formal interviews with some of her longtime and closest aides, according to two people familiar with the probe, an indication that the inquiry is moving into its final phases.

Those interviews and the final review of the case, however, could still take many weeks, all but guaranteeing that the investigation will continue to dog Clinton’s presidential campaign through most, if not all, of the remaining presidential primaries.

No dates have been set for questioning the advisors, but a federal prosecutor in recent weeks has called their lawyers to alert them that he would soon be doing so, the sources said. Prosecutors also are expected to seek an interview with Clinton herself, though the timing remains unclear."

-The Los Angeles Times
Click to expand...
That's the same article that says any indictment or prosecution is deemed very unlikely, right? 

 
timschochet said:
There is one source, Al Jazeera America, which is reporting that it has inside information that Hillary will be questioned by the FBI. Nobody else has any direct sourcing. And the "inside information" has been proven wrong quite a bit, the last time being the 147 investigators working on this case. I have no reason to believe this latest info is true, despite nearly everyone in this thread assuming it is. 

So we'll see. All along Hillary has maintained she did nothing wrong. She never sent not received classified info on her server or emails; the classifications were all made after the fact. She says she broke no laws. 

I believe this is true. I believe the FBI is investigating this only as a result of competing government bureaucracies deciding after the fact that they want to hide information from the FOIA, which has nothing to do with Hillary. I predict nobody will be indicted, but that the more conspiracy minded among you will simply assume it's all a coverup. 

We'll find out how right I am...
Click to expand...
I think you're wrong on the bolded. Hillary kept revising her statement on whether she sent/received classified info after the Inspector General determined she had. The FBI is investigating this as a result of the IGs findings. 

Either way I think it's going to come down to what's in the deleted emails. IF it turns out worse than the Petraeus violations, I think we'll see an indictment. If it's only what the IG has found so far, then it will probably just be a stain on her otherwise sterling reputation

 
timschochet said:
That's the same article that says any indictment or prosecution is deemed very unlikely, right? 
Click to expand...
one of these days you will stop relying on what legal experts predict.  It seems they are spinning facts in an incredible rosey way for Hillary.  Besides, there is a lot more going on in this case than a simple mishandling of classified data, which is all the LA Times experts seemed to care about. 

 
www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/

Don't know this source, but it seems well researched and is certainly in line with the rank and file corruption one would associate with Hillary and the DNC -- you know, outside of the crimes the FBI is investigating her for. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
www.counterpunch.org/2016/04/01/how-hillary-clinton-bought-the-loyalty-of-33-state-democratic-parties/

Don't know this source, but it seems well researched and is certainly in line with the rank and file corruption one would associate with Hillary and the DNC -- you know, outside of the crimes the FBI is investigating her for. 
Click to expand...
You may not know the source, but you know the writer.  Even Superman trusts her. 

 
"What do billionaires like Esprit Founder Susie Buell of California, and Sri Lankan lobbyist Imaad Zuberi of California, and media mogul Fred Eychaner of Chicago, and Donald Sussman hedgefund manager from New York and Chicago real estate mogul J.B Pritzker, and gay activist Jon Stryker of NY, and NRA and Viacom lobbyist Jeffrey Forbes and entertainment mogul Haim Saban all have in common?

They all appear to be brilliant business people who have all given millions to Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign and to her various PACS. And they all gave the Montana State Democratic Party $10,000 each in 2015.  It is doubtful that many of them have any interest in Montana politics, or that they have even bothered to visit.

None of these are awful people; they are simply awfully rich.  And they like their friend Hillary and want her to be the president. And if some of their millions will buy her way into the White House then so be it. None of this is illegal. But it makes a mockery of Ms. Clinton’s pledge to further the cause of campaign finance reform."

Basically a scheme to buy Super Delegates, get around donation caps and funnel personal donations in the order of $1.2m per individual through 33 signatory states to funnel exclusively to Hillary.  

She has no shame.  

 
Henry Ford said:
You may not know the source, but you know the writer.  Even Superman trusts her. 
Click to expand...
Sad that the only real invetigative journalism is being done on the fringe, and even then it only gets attention when it's a famous actress writing it.  This kind of pure corruption should be front and center.  Entire primary process has been a sham from before it began.  These back room transactions stacked the deck well before any of it began.  

 
Last edited:
www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/hillary-clinton-says-she-hasn-t-been-contacted-fbi-n549886

And here she says she hasn't been contacted by the FBI yet... And then has the gall to say she released her emails (unlike anyone else) because it was "the right thing to do."  Honestly!!!  Do even the staunchest Hillary supporters want to take the position that that's why she released her emails?  This woman.  Corrupt.  Dishonest.  Charlatan.

 
Mr. Ham said:
www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/hillary-clinton-says-she-hasn-t-been-contacted-fbi-n549886

And here she says she hasn't been contacted by the FBI yet... And then has the gall to say she released her emails (unlike anyone else) because it was "the right thing to do."  Honestly!!!  Do even the staunchest Hillary supporters want to take the position that that's why she released her emails?  This woman.  Corrupt.  Dishonest.  Charlatan.
Click to expand...
Yep. That's a total lie.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Either way I think it's going to come down to what's in the deleted emails. IF it turns out worse than the Petraeus violations, I think we'll see an indictment. If it's only what the IG has found so far, then it will probably just be a stain on her otherwise sterling reputation
Click to expand...
I agree with this.  If it's shown that Hillary intentionally sent information that she knew was classified to folks who were not cleared for that type of classified information, and then had her people delete those emails in an attempt to hit it, she will be indicted.  I also think the chances of this happening are less than 0.1%.  

Mr. Ham said:
www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/hillary-clinton-says-she-hasn-t-been-contacted-fbi-n549886

And here she says she hasn't been contacted by the FBI yet... And then has the gall to say she released her emails (unlike anyone else) because it was "the right thing to do."  Honestly!!!  Do even the staunchest Hillary supporters want to take the position that that's why she released her emails?  This woman.  Corrupt.  Dishonest.  Charlatan.
Click to expand...
Really?  It's that obvious?  You're 100% sure that Hillary had exhausted every possible legal means of with holding her emails at the exact point she released them?

I'm pretty sure you're full of ####, and have no idea what you are talking about. 

 
tommyGunZ said:
I agree with this.  If it's shown that Hillary intentionally sent information that she knew was classified to folks who were not cleared for that type of classified information, and then had her people delete those emails in an attempt to hit it, she will be indicted.  I also think the chances of this happening are less than 0.1%.  

Really?  It's that obvious?  You're 100% sure that Hillary had exhausted every possible legal means of with holding her emails at the exact point she released them?

I'm pretty sure you're full of ####, and have no idea what you are talking about. 
Click to expand...
Are those the options? Either you do it because it's the right thing to do or because you've exhausted every possible legal means of withholding?

 
tommyGunZ said:
How could you possibly know this?
Click to expand...
State has produced emails showing they first contacted Cheryl Mills about responding to Foia requests about Hillary's email address in late 2012. She handed it off to Heather Samuelson who eventually responded Hillary had no such information or emails in early 2013. By summer 2014 news agencies like AP and groups like CREW reported getting no emails from Hillary personally and Congress became aware of the same. Mid to late 2013 Guccifer published Blumenthal's emails with Hillary. Ultimately in summer-fall 2014 Hillary was instructed to hand over her emails by Congress and State, she never had a choice and she did nothing voluntarily. The actions by Mills and Samuelson in 2013 show she actively hid documents as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ said:
I agree with this.  If it's shown that Hillary intentionally sent information that she knew was classified to folks who were not cleared for that type of classified information, and then had her people delete those emails in an attempt to hit it, she will be indicted.  I also think the chances of this happening are less than 0.1%.  

Really?  It's that obvious?  You're 100% sure that Hillary had exhausted every possible legal means of with holding her emails at the exact point she released them?

I'm pretty sure you're full of ####, and have no idea what you are talking about. 
Click to expand...
She turned over the emails when ordered to do so.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
State has produced emails showing they first contacted Cheryl Mills about responding to Foia requests about Hillary's email address in late 2012. She handed it off to Heather Samuelson who eventually responded Hillary had no such information or emails in early 2013. By summer 2014 news agencies like AP and groups like CREW reported getting no emails from Hillary personally and Congress became aware of the same. Mid to late 2013 Guccifer published Blumenthal's emails with Hillary. Ultimately in summer-fall Hillary was instructed to hand over her emails by Congress and State, she never had a choice and she did nothing voluntarily. The actions by Mills and Samuelson in 2013 show she actively hid documents as well.
Click to expand...
she released her emails (unlike anyone else) because it was "the right thing to do."  
Click to expand...
Then turning them over at that point was the right thing to do. :lol:

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
State has produced emails showing they first contacted Cheryl Mills about responding to Foia requests about Hillary's email address in late 2012. She handed it off to Heather Samuelson who eventually responded Hillary had no such information or emails in early 2013. By summer 2014 news agencies like AP and groups like CREW reported getting no emails from Hillary personally and Congress became aware of the same. Mid to late 2013 Guccifer published Blumenthal's emails with Hillary. Ultimately in summer-fall 2014 Hillary was instructed to hand over her emails by Congress and State, she never had a choice and she did nothing voluntarily. The actions by Mills and Samuelson in 2013 show she actively hid documents as well.
Click to expand...
TGunZ - Oh.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
State has produced emails showing they first contacted Cheryl Mills about responding to Foia requests about Hillary's email address in late 2012. She handed it off to Heather Samuelson who eventually responded Hillary had no such information or emails in early 2013. By summer 2014 news agencies like AP and groups like CREW reported getting no emails from Hillary personally and Congress became aware of the same. Mid to late 2013 Guccifer published Blumenthal's emails with Hillary. Ultimately in summer-fall 2014 Hillary was instructed to hand over her emails by Congress and State, she never had a choice and she did nothing voluntarily. The actions by Mills and Samuelson in 2013 show she actively hid documents as well.
Click to expand...
She never had a choice to exhaust additional legal options to withhold?

 
tommyGunZ said:
She never had a choice to exhaust additional legal options to withhold?
Click to expand...
Hillary could file an amicus brief in the two federal lawsuits right now currently considering finding her and State in bad faith.

You tell me, when does she show up in any of the 50 Foia cases currently demanding her records? Some of these Foia requests date to 2009-10.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Hillary could file an amicus brief in the two federal lawsuits right now currently considering finding her and State in bad faith.

You tell me, when does she show up in any of the 50 Foia cases currently demanding her records? Some of these Foia requests date to 2009-10.
Click to expand...
I have no idea.  I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of FOIA requests and responses. As Henry and virtually anyone who has worked extensively in discovery will tell you, responding to document requests is a lot more complicated than that. 

In short, I don't think it's nearly as black and white as you're making it out to be.  

 
I will say that I have little doubt that Hillary was technically out of compliance with some of document retention/preservation/security policies either at State or something more broadly relating to all Federal Agencies.  I do not believe this was criminal, done maliciously, or is disqualifying for the office of President. 

 
tommyGunZ said:
I will say that I have little doubt that Hillary was technically out of compliance with some of document retention/preservation/security policies either at State or something more broadly relating to all Federal Agencies.  I do not believe this was criminal, done maliciously, or is disqualifying for the office of President. 
Click to expand...
Some people believe in the Easter Bunny. :shrug:

 
timschochet said:
And some people, like you apparently, believe in the Wicked Witch of the West. 
Click to expand...
Although, Ham isn't moving the goalposts on a daily basis like you, TGunz and few other Hillary sycophants are.

Do all you Hillary supporters share the same Chiropractor or Yoga instructor?  It's amazing the contortions you guys do without pulling anything.

 
NorvilleBarnes said:
Either way I think it's going to come down to what's in the deleted emails. IF it turns out worse than the Petraeus violations, I think we'll see an indictment. If it's only what the IG has found so far, then it will probably just be a stain on her otherwise sterling reputation
Click to expand...
And if we get a referral from the FBI I'm rally curious to see the response from the DOJ.  During this administration we've had an outright refusal to, under any circumstances, apoint a special prosecutor.  Given that Loretta Lynch has deep ties to the Clintons (worked for Bill) this would be a compelling bit of political theatre.

 
tommyGunZ said:
I will say that I have little doubt that Hillary was technically out of compliance with some of document retention/preservation/security policies either at State or something more broadly relating to all Federal Agencies.  I do not believe this was criminal, done maliciously, or is disqualifying for the office of President. 
Click to expand...
Some people believe in the Easter Bunny. :shrug:

 
tommyGunZ said:
I will say that I have little doubt that Hillary was technically out of compliance with some of document retention/preservation/security policies either at State or something more broadly relating to all Federal Agencies.  I do not believe this was criminal, done maliciously, or is disqualifying for the office of President. 
Click to expand...
The word "technically" has very little meaning in this sentence.

 
MaxThreshold said:
Although, Ham isn't moving the goalposts on a daily basis like you, TGunz and few other Hillary sycophants are.

Do all you Hillary supporters share the same Chiropractor or Yoga instructor?  It's amazing the contortions you guys do without pulling anything.
Click to expand...
What contortions? jon mx likes to point out how wrong I've been on this issue, yet everything I wrote last night is what I wrote a year ago: if Hillary weren't running for President, this would be a non-story. There's not going to be any request for indictments of anyone, because nobody did anything criminally wrong. I will be surprised if Hillary is even interviewed by the FBI but if she is it's a colossal waste of time since she's already said everything she knows to the press, in public, and on her website. In the year since this story first broke nothing has really happened of any consequence and I predict nothing will. 

 
tommyGunZ said:
I have no idea.  I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of FOIA requests and responses. As Henry and virtually anyone who has worked extensively in discovery will tell you, responding to document requests is a lot more complicated than that. 

In short, I don't think it's nearly as black and white as you're making it out to be.  
Click to expand...
You're the one who brought up legal objections, did you have no reason for doing so? The reason she had raised none is she has and had no real legitimate objection.

As to your comment: Great  - discovery will be proceeding in two cases where Hillary herself could be deposed. She's already filed an affidavit - at the order of a federal court - swearing she turned over all her public records. No way she would have perjured herself in federal court, right? Nah, no chance.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
What contortions? jon mx likes to point out how wrong I've been on this issue, yet everything I wrote last night is what I wrote a year ago: if Hillary weren't running for President, this would be a non-story. There's not going to be any request for indictments of anyone, because nobody did anything criminally wrong. I will be surprised if Hillary is even interviewed by the FBI but if she is it's a colossal waste of time since she's already said everything she knows to the press, in public, and on her website. In the year since this story first broke nothing has really happened of any consequence and I predict nothing will. 
Click to expand...
An indictment will be the natural conclusion when the grand jury investigation wraps up.

 
tommyGunZ said:
I have no idea.  I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of FOIA requests and responses. As Henry and virtually anyone who has worked extensively in discovery will tell you, responding to document requests is a lot more complicated than that. 

In short, I don't think it's nearly as black and white as you're making it out to be.  
Click to expand...
More complicated than what?

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

mr. furley
Long Island serial killer suspect in custody
Replies
34
Views
2K
Dezbelief
Dezbelief
krista4
In this thread I rank my favorite Beatles songs: 204-1.
138 139 140
Replies
7K
Views
262K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top