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 (12 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
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. 
Click to expand...
Do you have a link to verify this?

 
timschochet said:
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. 
Click to expand...
In which a guy who alleges conspiracy mongering again constantly alleges conspiracy theories.

Tim, are Vice News, AP, Wahington Post, DeSmog blog & CREW part of the VRWC?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
In which a guy who alleges conspiracy mongering again constantly alleges conspiracy theories.

Tim, are Vice News, AP, Wahington Post, DeSmog blog & CREW part of the VRWC?
Click to expand...
No, of course not, and I don't really believe it's a "conspiracy". I don't normally believe in conspiracies, and that's not the right word. 

What I believe is that all of the the media you mentioned (and the New York Times as well) are getting their information from Republican sources in Congress who are trying to spread dirt about Hillary Clinton. 

 
timschochet said:
No, of course not, and I don't really believe it's a "conspiracy". I don't normally believe in conspiracies, and that's not the right word. 

What I believe is that all of the the media you mentioned (and the New York Times as well) are getting their information from Republican sources in Congress who are trying to spread dirt about Hillary Clinton. 
Click to expand...
Tim those are Foia plaintiffs. For instance DeSmog blog's sources are Hillary's own emails.

 
timschochet said:
Well as regards that I don't know much about DeSmog, but I do know that Judicial Watch is and always has been a right wing hit group devoted to taking out the Clintons any way they can. 
Click to expand...
Ok Tim that's one plaintiff, there are 50 cases. Many are news organizations and liberal groups like DeSmog  . CREW helped uncover this mess, they were taken over by David Brock. They won't be causing Hillary any more trouble though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
According to Hillary, she didn't impede any of those cases. She wants everything released, but she's being thwarted by the State Department and other agencies. 
Click to expand...
Well, there you go.  I guess that settles it.

For the rest of us, due to her track record, Hillary's word isn't good enough.

 
timschochet said:
The email story has legs, somewhat, because Hillary is going to have to appear before Congress, and that will make news. And there will be further requests for information which will be refused, and there will be court hearings and decisions, and all of THAT will make news.

But at the same time, the story really doesn't have any legs, unless some revealing document is discovered. Those who want to compare this to Nixon: the major difference is that there is evidence that Nixon knew about the Watergate break in and paid people to cover it up. John Dean's testimony to Congress about this skewered him. The fact that Nixon destroyed tapes was perceived as incriminating only AFTER Dean's testimony which indicated to the public that there was wrongdoing. In Hillary's case, that smoking gun isn't there so far. What you would need is either some document or someone to testify that Hillary did something wrong with regards to Benghazi or some other situation. Lacking that, this story still won't go anywhere no matter how much it stays in the news for a short time.
Click to expand...


- Where are we on this now?

- About the Watergate comparison - I don't think Dean was the key, it was Jeb Magruder. Sloan -> Magruder -> Nixon.

- Supposedly Heather Samuelson is on tap for interview by the FBI. The only thing she knows about was the decision to hide Hillary's system from State/Foia in early 2013 and the destruction of Hillary's emails, which she personally handled along with Bryan Pagliano, whom of course got immunity.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Clinton's abysmal record on open government


Nothing matters more to leadership in a democracy than support for an open, honest government in which citizens are informed and in charge. It is the foundational building block of the republic upon which all else rests. And any candidate vying for the votes of the American people needs to have demonstrated a firm commitment not only to the ideal but to the reality of open government.

As we noted Tuesday, Republican front-runner Donald Trump is not one of those candidates. But neither is Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton. Her horrible track record on transparency raises serious concerns for open government under a Clinton administration — so serious we believe they may disqualify her from public office. We hope Wisconsin voters give this issue the consideration it deserves when they go to the polls on Tuesday.

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.

...This is hardly the first time Clinton has tried to sidestep the public eye. Last year, Pro Publica noted five such episodes:

In 1992, during Bill Clinton's first run for office, the Clintons declined to release all of their tax returns because, it turned out, a few of the returns showed Hillary Clinton's incredible success in commodities trading when Bill Clinton was attorney general and then governor of Arkansas. She made almost $100,000 from an initial investment of $1,000 in a matter of months — a return of 10,000% — under the guidance of a lawyer who was also outside counsel to Tyson Foods Inc., Arkansas' largest employer. The returns weren't made public until 1994.

In 1993, Hillary Clinton led a presidential task force to overhaul the U.S. health care system. The effort ultimately failed but the group came under intense criticism from lawmakers and interest groups for meeting behind closed doors. Several court challenges were brought in an attempt to open the process.

In 1994, U.S. investigators subpoenaed Clinton's billing records from her years at the Rose Firm in Little Rock, Ark. — documents that also had been sought by reporters. Of key interest was Clinton's legal work for a failing savings and loan, but records of those billings weren't found. Pro Publica: "Much later, Clinton's longtime assistant, Carolyn Huber, said she found in the White House residence an additional box of records that contained the billing memos. They were turned over to the independent counsel in 1996. Clinton testified she had no knowledge of how the records wound up where they did."

As a senator in 2006, Clinton set up an energy task force that produced a 40-page report. That by itself is not unusual, but this was: The existence of the group, its members and its work product were all kept secret. Turned out the leader of the task force headed an investment firm with major holdings in the energy sector.

...This is hardly the first time Clinton has tried to sidestep the public eye. Last year, Pro Publica noted five such episodes:

In 1992, during Bill Clinton's first run for office, the Clintons declined to release all of their tax returns because, it turned out, a few of the returns showed Hillary Clinton's incredible success in commodities trading when Bill Clinton was attorney general and then governor of Arkansas. She made almost $100,000 from an initial investment of $1,000 in a matter of months — a return of 10,000% — under the guidance of a lawyer who was also outside counsel to Tyson Foods Inc., Arkansas' largest employer. The returns weren't made public until 1994.

In 1993, Hillary Clinton led a presidential task force to overhaul the U.S. health care system. The effort ultimately failed but the group came under intense criticism from lawmakers and interest groups for meeting behind closed doors. Several court challenges were brought in an attempt to open the process.

In 1994, U.S. investigators subpoenaed Clinton's billing records from her years at the Rose Firm in Little Rock, Ark. — documents that also had been sought by reporters. Of key interest was Clinton's legal work for a failing savings and loan, but records of those billings weren't found. Pro Publica: "Much later, Clinton's longtime assistant, Carolyn Huber, said she found in the White House residence an additional box of records that contained the billing memos. They were turned over to the independent counsel in 1996. Clinton testified she had no knowledge of how the records wound up where they did."

As a senator in 2006, Clinton set up an energy task force that produced a 40-page report. That by itself is not unusual, but this was: The existence of the group, its members and its work product were all kept secret. Turned out the leader of the task force headed an investment firm with major holdings in the energy sector.

Public officials keep secrets because they have something to hide — something they don't want the people they are supposed to be serving to know anything about.

Last year, the Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton Foundation became an issue. Donors are identified but not the exact amount of each donation or the date of those contributions. And donations to the foundation from foreign governments have raised conflict of interest questions for Clinton as secretary of state, an office with power over foreign affairs and favors second only to the president's.

Then there are the closed-door speeches to Wall Street financial investment firms, for which she received hundreds of thousands of dollars apiece.

These off-the-record speeches were delivered after Clinton left the State Department and was preparing for her second bid for the White House. Clinton has refused to release transcripts of the speeches, saying she would do so only if other politicians released transcripts of their speeches. But that, as The New York Times noted in a February editorial, is a child's excuse.

"Voters have every right to know what Mrs. Clinton told these groups.... By refusing to release them all, especially the bank speeches, Mrs. Clinton fuels speculation about why she's stonewalling," the Times editorial said.

Sen. Bernie Sanders has used the fees she was paid for the speeches by the most powerful firms on Wall Street against Clinton in their race for the nomination. Of equal concern is the secrecy involved and Clinton's continuing refusal to release the transcripts of what she told the investment bankers.

Clinton has a long track record of public service but an equally long record of obfuscation, secrecy and working in the shadows to boost her power and further her ambition. We encourage voters to think long and hard about that record when choosing the next president.
Click to expand...
http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/clintons-absymal-record-on-open-government-b99696012z1-374014501.html

- MILWAUKEE Journal Sentinel editorial board, cited by Chuck Todd in his interview of Hillary yesterday.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'You know these things that happen in your life that just stick? She walked by and she shook my hand and our eyes connected and I just remember having this moment where I thought; "Wow, this is amazing,"' said Abedin.

'And it just inspired me. You know, I still remember the look on her face. And it’s funny, and she would probably be so annoyed that I say this, but I remember thinking; "Oh my God, she’s so beautiful and she’s so little!"'
Click to expand...


:oldunsure:
 

 
Couple of very interesting articles out there today.

25 year veteran of DOJ (as an attorney) gives opinion piece in USA Today saying Hillary plainly broke the law.  Also suggests that the media is so in the bag they haven't bothered to call her out on the actual language of the law, which says nothing about marked classified.  

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2016/04/04/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-legal-definition-national-defense-information-classification-column/82446130/

Washington Post pointing out that it's very likely based on correspondence that Hillary's unencrypted correspondence was intercepted (or at least was unsecure traversing foreign networks) prior to March 2009, when she installed an encryption certificate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/04/04/was-an-asian-government-reading-hillary-clintons-emails-in-february-2009/

 
Last edited:
Good articles. That WaPo piece links to this which I think has been posted here before as well.

https://www.venafi.com/blog/post/new-data-confirms-venafi-analysis-on-clinton-email-server/

We know Hillary used her private email at least twice before 3/18/09, both times revealed from outside sources. A Wednesday middle of the week 2 months into her term seems like an odd day to pick as a beginning cutoff for her email.

eta - Here's Hillary's first email which she has provided, at 3/18/09 at 11:07 pm, seemingly about a job reference. Obviously whoever that is they had her email before that date and knew to use it. So the first time her email is used someone emails her before midnight before anyone official or Hillary has used the address?

The domain name was registered on January 13th. Hillary started as SOS on January 22nd. Why get the digital certificate on Sunday, March 29th?

The Petraeus emails, first discovered by the Defense Department and then passed to the State Department's inspector general, challenge that claim. They start on Jan. 10, 2009, with Clinton using the older email account. But by Jan. 28 — a week after her swearing in — she switched to using the private email address on a homebrew server that she would rely on for the rest of her tenure. There are less than 10 emails back and forth in total, officials said, and the chain ends on Feb. 1.
Click to expand...
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/f80adbe482e14366ad1cec38f597db86/officials-more-work-emails-clintons-private-account

- We also know there was a meeting with the NSA on March 19th. And we know how the NSA felt about things.

- Meanwhile we know Hillary was still using her ATT (HR15@att) blackberry address in April 2009, May 2009 and August 2009. - Mills also appears to have been working under two different addresses.

We know Hillary emailed on her server the week of her January 22nd inaugural. We know she was emailing with Mills in the second week of February and so it's obvious that Hillary was using her email server prior to March 18th, the question is why did she choose to hide everything before that date?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish said:
So I keep hearing how we have to let things go because Hillary apologized. Does her apology give the black community back it's young men who lost years to prison? Does her apology bring thousands of Americans and 100s of thousands of Iraqis back from the dead? Does it put trillions back in our coffers from a war we should have never been in? Does it put money back in my parents retirement fund after her and Bills disastrous killing of Glass/Stegall? Does her apology help alleviate the poverty her and Bills rending of the social safety net help acerbate? No it doesn't. The apologies are nice and all but that's all they are. The poor judgement is the thing.
Click to expand...
To piggyback on NCC's post from the Bernie thread...

Prior to this campaign, the primary reasons I didn't care for Clinton were integrity/transparency issues, questions about her judgment, and, if you want to separate it from integrity, pay-to-play issues.  She has done nothing to address any of those in this campaign.  If anything, she's raised more questions in each of those areas.

 
timschochet said:
What did Clinton provide to the State Department?

On December 5, 2014, 30,490 copies of work or potentially work-related emails sent and received by Clinton from March 18, 2009, to February 1, 2013, were provided to the State Department. This totaled roughly 55,000 pages. More than 90% of her work or potentially work-related emails provided to the Department were already in the State Department's record-keeping system because those e-mails were sent to or received by "state.gov" accounts.

Early in her term, Clinton continued using an att.blackberry.net account that she had used during her Senate service. Given her practice from the beginning of emailing State Department officials on their state.gov accounts, her work-related emails during these initial weeks would have been captured and preserved in the State Department's record-keeping system. She, however, no longer had access to these emails once she transitioned from this account.
Click to expand...


Regarding the bolded/highlighted - why would this be?

Does this make sense to anybody? Are they saying Hillary lost access to her ATT account in March of 2009?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rich Conway said:
To piggyback on NCC's post from the Bernie thread...

Prior to this campaign, the primary reasons I didn't care for Clinton were integrity/transparency issues, questions about her judgment, and, if you want to separate it from integrity, pay-to-play issues.  She has done nothing to address any of those in this campaign.  If anything, she's raised more questions in each of those areas.
Click to expand...
Great summary. In 2008 we lucked out with a good alternative. 

 
Gr00vus said:
Why?
Click to expand...
Because the narrative of this campaign has put her in a position where, even if a tenuous connection comes up that really shouldn't be her or the Clinton Foundation's fault, the media is going to go ape#### if something connected her or the Foundation to MF is found.

 
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
260K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 11 (members: 0, guests: 11)
Back
Top