tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Not going to get into a long, stupid, semantical argument with you today when I know in fact that you are well aware that document requests are often contentious and complicated.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (7 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
I assume this reference is to you. I'm batting 1.000 in the Hillary scandal department thus far; you and the Hillary is a lying, BenghaziEMAIL!!!!!! criminal are hitless.Some people believe in the Easter Bunny.
Keep it up, at some point one you'll beat out one of your dribblers to 3B, like Ken Starr did.
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
If you don't want to explain your nebulous standard to me, don't use my name to support it.
Henry Ford
Footballguy
Henry would agree with me
Agree about what?
### you, Henry, I'm not going to argue with you about this.
Agree about what?
### you, Henry, I'm not going to argue with you about this.
Well of course the fact that Hillary is running for president is what makes this a big story. As for everything else you said, most of it is just false. There was a ton of wrong doing. There were thousands of classified emails sent by nonclassified means. There was obstruction of justice. There was lying.
At this point it is a near certainty that Hillary and her staff will be interviewed and there will be recommended charges which could very well include Hillary. This non-story which you have called it hundreds of times in this thread over the last year, is in reality one of the biggest campaign stories of all time. You missed the boat completely and somehow still wearing rose-colored glasses despite the facts.
But he is batting 1.000 here!Henry would agree with me
Agree about what?
### you, Henry, I'm not going to argue with you about this.
Boy I would love to hear your version of the recap where you actually even got a stick on the ball.
G
Guest
Guest
Actually, FBI told State to stand down right around that last release I said had something in it. (Just revealed this week and presumably because they wanted clear sailing to pursue the CRIMINALITY of the case.) I truly don't want this to be personal. But if you care to honestly review what's occurred here, it's time for even you, Tim and Squis to look at this critically. There is undoubted a there where we said it was.
Last edited:
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Apologies. I assumed you, as virtually anyone who has worked in discovery would agree that document requests can complicated.Henry would agree with me
Agree about what?
### you, Henry, I'm not going to argue with you about this.
The fact that you're being silly about this point is exactly the reason I don't have a desire to argue about it.
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
skol asylum
Footballguy
Are your fingers cramping up from all the grasping at straws yet?
She attempted to circumvent official knowledge of government owned communication by setting up her own server and email accounts. That in itself is wrong on many levels and she can't claim ignorance there. Whether or not she did so with malicious intent to hide something is irrelevant. The fact is it looks really really bad especially given 1) the existence of the Clinton Foundation and potential quid pro quo dealings 2)the ability to keep secret any communications from routine government review and 3)the threat to national security by potentially leaving intel open to hackers.
Lack of judgment alone on this issue is enough to say she shouldn't be allowed near the Oval Office. The secretism either due to intentional hiding of inappropriate behavior or due to paranoia makes me very uncomfortable with the idea of her as leader if the free world and if you are honest with yourself it should also give you pause.
Last edited by a moderator:
AnonymousBob
Footballguy
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
Do you think Hillary "did nothing wrong" because she said so? She said that none of the emails contained classified information when they were sent and this has been proven to be a lie.
When FBI investigators searched a randomly chosen sample of 40 emails, they found four that contained classified information that originated from U.S. intelligence agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA). Their statement said that the information they found was classified when sent, remained so as of their inspection, and "never should have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system".
timschochet
Footballguy
Link to your last quote? What FBI official has said that publicly? What statement are you referring to?
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I don't have any idea what you were saying. You responded to a post that didn't give any kind of standard, and said "FOIA and discovery are more complicated than that." More complicated than what? I might agree with you, but I don't have any idea what you're talking about.
More complicated than making a peanut butter sandwich? They can be. More complicated than assembling a battle-ready F16? I wouldn't think so. More complicated than the federal government could figure out how to respond to in six months without being in violation of the FOIA? I guess if the requests are terrible, maybe.
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
Saints and I were not discussing peanut butter sandwiches or battle ready F16's. But thanks.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Tommy there was a WaPo article last week called 'the roots' of the Hillary email saga. Why not look it up and just educate yourself on the issue
tommyGunZ
Footballguy
I'm obviously pissing off the Bernie crowd, despite being a Bernie fan and pledging to support him in the general if he wins the nomination.
I guess being unwilling to buy into the Hillary is an evil, lying witch makes you guys angry. That's unfortunate. You don't have to demonize Hillary to support Bernie. It's disappointing that many of you are going that route.
AnonymousBob
Footballguy
Bernie has nothing to do with my comment. Feel free to continue with your meltdown, MoP.tommyGunZ said:
Henry Ford
Footballguy
I'm not pissed, I'm confused. All I asked for was clarification on what you think I agree with because your post was unclear.tommyGunZ said:
G
Guest
Guest
I don't know what qualifies as demonization. But it is crystal clear that she has a record of overtly lying. She is complicit with the DNC in rigging the democratic primary process. She has a legacy of shady dealings with donors and sponsors (public and private wealth). She has shown arrogance and a belief that she is above the law. She was reckless with national secrets. These are truths, before you even get into the use of the Clinton Foundation as a lever to build political influence.tommyGunZ said:
What the Clintons have done is to create a money and power spewing engine, and they have managed to consolidate power and corrupted fair process to the degree that it is undemocratic, and manipulative for the benefit of a ruling class. They have also interfered with free press, buying it and openly determining content published about them.
Now stir in the specific charges related to the classified information and deleted "personal" emails. It all fits a pattern of abuse of the system that is supposed to protect against -- them.
pettifogger
Footballguy
You make it sound as if using a government issued email account was the norm and she somehow deviated from it. John Kerry is the first Secretary of State to use a .gov email account. Before we had emails, Secretaries of State would go through their records and decide what to turn over for archives. Kissinger even sent his tapes to the Library of Congress to get them out of State Department custody and exempt them from public records requests.cap'n grunge said:
Are your fingers cramping up from all the grasping at straws yet?
She attempted to circumvent official knowledge of government owned communication by setting up her own server and email accounts. That in itself is wrong on many levels and she can't claim ignorance there. Whether or not she did so with malicious intent to hide something is irrelevant. The fact is it looks really really bad especially given 1) the existence of the Clinton Foundation and potential quid pro quo dealings 2)the ability to keep secret any communications from routine government review and 3)the threat to national security by potentially leaving intel open to hackers.
Lack of judgment alone on this issue is enough to say she shouldn't be allowed near the Oval Office. The secretism either due to intentional hiding of inappropriate behavior or due to paranoia makes me very uncomfortable with the idea of her as leader if the free world and if you are honest with yourself it should also give you pause.
The notion that everything has to be backed up so that Judicial Watch and the Republican National Committee can rummage through it is of recent origin.
This article goes back a year but the analysis seems to be on point still.
http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/04/02/396823014/fact-check-hillary-clinton-those-emails-and-the-law
Henry Ford
Footballguy
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
The hole you're digging just gets bigger and bigger. It's kind of fun to watch. I especially like the way Henry Ford is making you look more foolish than you already are - and I don't even think he's trying that hard either.tommyGunZ said:
Henry and I don't normally agree on much but he's doing a bang up job on you. You probably should just stop posting at this point.
Last edited by a moderator:
G
Guest
Guest
This is obviously so damning that the Queen is leaking documents on world leaders as a shot across the bow.
"Hey Congress, you're next. Have a word with Comey."
(Half kidding).
"Hey Congress, you're next. Have a word with Comey."
(Half kidding).
Last edited:
pettifogger
Footballguy
That's a lot to chew on, but I do wonder about the "rigging" the Democratic process comment. Sanders is not even a registered Democrat and packs the open caucuses with supporters who are not registered Democrats either. He does not seem interested in helping down ballot candidates or state parties the way Clinton does. Yes, she has super delegate support, but she did not write the rules. And her support is the product of years of work within the party. If Sanders can win the insurgency while calling the Democratic Party "the establishment" and part of the problem, OK then, he will be the D nominee, but I would not expect any party to set up rules to make that kind of approach easier.
I have a lot of respect for Sanders but I also like having a political party that works together and can raise money and win campaigns. What you are calling a ruling class I would look at as a governing coalition.
G
Guest
Guest
Go back and read the Margot Kidder article about buying the DNC, bypassing (albeit legally) caps on individual donations and securing Super Delegates with said donations last August --- way before the process even began. That's the definition of rigging the democratic process.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
A party nominee being interviewed by the FBI is a big deal. I'm sure there has never been a major party nominee interviewed by the FBI during the campaign or who appeared before a grand jury during their career, much less both like Hillary.I read it last week. I still do not think Hillary's sloppiness w/re to email warrant this "scandal".
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
skol asylum
Footballguy
Because past leaders engaged in questionable behavior it's OK for current ones to do so. We should accept the status quo and never accept more from civil servants who are supposed to be representing all of our interests. That's kind of the whole point of Bernie's candidacy.
No we can't won't cut it anymore. If Bernie doesn't break thru this time someone soon will. And i hope it's someone like Sanders instead of Trump who is preying on the darker side of voter discontent.
No we can't won't cut it anymore. If Bernie doesn't break thru this time someone soon will. And i hope it's someone like Sanders instead of Trump who is preying on the darker side of voter discontent.
Rohn Jambo
Footballguy
Hillary's email trouble started with her Blackberry envy. She was not happy that the NSA rejected her request when Obama had one.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/23/heres-everything-we-know-so-far-about-hillarys-shady-blackberry-use/
http://dailycaller.com/2016/03/23/heres-everything-we-know-so-far-about-hillarys-shady-blackberry-use/
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
urbanhack
Fight The Power!
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
tommyGunZ said:
I never realized how entertaining you were.Anybody who claims to know what the FBI has found and what the FBI is looking for, is just speculating. The FBI has been tight-lipped so far, and the reporting thus far is based on leaks and sources 'close to the investigation'.
Last edited by a moderator:
pettifogger
Footballguy
This is from the article I linked: Clinton allies argue that she is not the first secretary of state to use a private account. In fact, State Department spokeswoman Marie Harf said last month, "For some historical context, Secretary Kerry is the first secretary of state to rely primarily on a state.gov email account."
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
primarily
I still don't think that's accurate. Powell used gov and personal, and Rice used gov but really almost never emailed at all.
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/condoleezza-rice-emails-state-department-115941
In addition IIRC Powell did not use blackberry of any kind, and the NSA and State phased out secure blackberry under Rice.
So the last precedent that existed before Hillary came in was no personal email use and no blackberry of any kind.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Just to clear up something about "targets" and "subjects" - no Hillary is neither, those are really terms for grand jury investigations and RICO style probes which usually employ GJ's.
However - note - if Hillary is the last person interviewed, that would be a problem for her because the last interviewee is usually chosen as such because all other statements and versions of events are gathered in the best attempt possible to build the groundwork to determine if such a person is lying. If others are interviewed and not her first, then no news is not good news for her, ie assuming we do expect her to be ultimately interviewed. Otoh if they all do it roughly on the same day or so then I think that's a tell that Hillary has little to worry about, then they are not really gunning for her.
However - note - if Hillary is the last person interviewed, that would be a problem for her because the last interviewee is usually chosen as such because all other statements and versions of events are gathered in the best attempt possible to build the groundwork to determine if such a person is lying. If others are interviewed and not her first, then no news is not good news for her, ie assuming we do expect her to be ultimately interviewed. Otoh if they all do it roughly on the same day or so then I think that's a tell that Hillary has little to worry about, then they are not really gunning for her.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Organizations which have sued for Hillary's records include AP, Washington Post, Vice News, DeSmogBlog, and the Boston Globe. There are currently ~50 Foia suits. The lead suit (either alongside of or ahead of JW) driving the release of emails has been by Vice News led by a reporter named Jason Leopold.
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Yeah, I still don't get why the Hillary supporters continue to trot this meme out that it's a VRCtm. It's been proven over and over and over that it's not.
Is it just that they don't want to face reality? It's very frustrating because whenever something doesn't go their way, they always fall back to this tired old excuse.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I think they find it uncomfortable and don't read the news about it for that reason. Tim saying last year the thing would end in a couple weeks over and over again is probably typical.
- eta - It's worth reminding that Hillary's server issues came to light originally in the NYT because State had to reveal that the AP had discovered that they had not had their Foia request on Hillary answered since 2010, they had waited 5 years and got bupkis and it was just a growing impossible to ignore problem. Gawker also had a suit.
- eta2 - my guess also is everything many Hillary fans read is either from the campaign or DK or MM or the like. Many not all of course.
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
So, can we all agree this is NOT a VRC?SaintsInDome2006 said:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
This is the actual AP lawsuit detailing its attempts to get records since 2010.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/258380802/Case-No-1-15-cv-345-Complaint-00816399
More here:
http://www.ap.org/content/ap-in-the-news/2015/ap-sues-state-department-seeking-access-to-clinton-records
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
No it's absolutely a vast right wing conspiracy.
Every supposed leak from the FBI is coming from Republican sources, and they're leaking to the major newspapers. The newspapers have to compete with each other so they report these sources without any confirmation, and often as not they don't turn out to be true, and they're coming from the exact same people every time. So yeah, this exactly the same way the various Clinton scandals in the 90s went on and on and on.
Every supposed leak from the FBI is coming from Republican sources, and they're leaking to the major newspapers. The newspapers have to compete with each other so they report these sources without any confirmation, and often as not they don't turn out to be true, and they're coming from the exact same people every time. So yeah, this exactly the same way the various Clinton scandals in the 90s went on and on and on.
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
- Status
Similar threads
