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 (13 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Henry Ford said:
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.
Click to expand...
Be patient with me here as I haven't been following this closely. Who is Fonseca, and why would it be bad if the Clinton Foundation was connected to him/her?

 
Henry Ford said:
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.
Click to expand...
Be patient with me here as I haven't been following this closely. Who is Fonseca, and why would it be bad if the Clinton Foundation was connected to him/her?

 
Gr00vus said:
Be patient with me here as I haven't been following this closely. Who is Fonseca, and why would it be bad if the Clinton Foundation was connected to him/her?
Click to expand...
The Panama Papers - the largest data leak in the history of the world that's currently going on, and it shows world leaders hiding their money in tax havens using Mossack Fonseca, a Panama based law firm using shell corporations and falsified documents, among other things.

 
Henry Ford said:
The Panama Papers - the largest data leak in the history of the world that's currently going on, and it shows world leaders hiding their money in tax havens using Mossack Fonseca, a Panama based law firm using shell corporations and falsified documents, among other things.
Click to expand...
https://panamapapers.icij.org/

the above link is a good starting place.  In 2011, Hillary and her State Department pushed hard for a free trade agreement with Panama despite lack of support from other Democrats (Obama also was heavily in favor of it) and lots of warnings that the deal would make money laundering easier.  

 
Baloney Sandwich said:
https://panamapapers.icij.org/

the above link is a good starting place.  In 2011, Hillary and her State Department pushed hard for a free trade agreement with Panama despite lack of support from other Democrats (Obama also was heavily in favor of it) and lots of warnings that the deal would make money laundering easier.  
Click to expand...
I know.  Which is why if the Foundation or Clinton get linked even tenuously, it's going to explode.

 
wdcrob said:
I got that, just haven't seen the Clinton angle.
Click to expand...
There is no Clinton angle right now - other than the free trade policies she pursued as SOS led to opening up Panama to this type of activity for Americans.

Absolute worst case scenario for her is that she has several donors, or Foundation donors who are taking advantage of the set-up in Panama.  I don't think she, or her family, or the Foundation are hiding assets.  But, I suppose there is always the possibility that this shows some path to some untoward donations to the Foundation or herself.

 
Henry Ford said:
So.  Mossack Fonseca.  Is Clinton's campaign sweating today, or what?
Click to expand...
That data was released several months ago to a network of global investigative journalists.  I am certain there are pearls to be found, but any apparent link to Clintons would have been outed by now.  

I think it would have been discovered if any direct Clinton donors were connected.  But who knows...

 
Last edited:
Ok, the Google has nothing about Clinton in this story. Seems kind of hard to believe that a worldwide team of journalists covering this story for a year would bury the lede.

Is this all just wishful speculation by Sanders' folks or is there something real I'm not seeing?

 
Henry Ford said:
I know.  Which is why if the Foundation or Clinton get linked even tenuously, it's going to explode.
Click to expand...
I can't see how they don't get linked in some fashion, this is affecting a large portion of the global elite.  Can you think of another couple more part of the global elite than the Clintons?

 
Sinn Fein said:
There is no Clinton angle right now - other than the free trade policies she pursued as SOS led to opening up Panama to this type of activity for Americans.

Absolute worst case scenario for her is that she has several donors, or Foundation donors who are taking advantage of the set-up in Panama.  I don't think she, or her family, or the Foundation are hiding assets.  But, I suppose there is always the possibility that this shows some path to some untoward donations to the Foundation or herself.
Click to expand...
Thanks Sinn.  Sounded like people were referencing something concrete upstream.

 
Mr. Ham said:
That data was released several months ago to a network of global investigative journalists.  I am certain there are pearls to be found, but any apparent link to Clintons would have been outed by now.  
Click to expand...
Really?  Links to Putin weren't even outed until yesterday.  It's 11 TB of documents.  There will be more to come about a number of people, no doubt.

 
wdcrob said:
Ok, the Google has nothing about Clinton in this story. Seems kind of hard to believe that a worldwide team of journalists covering this story for a year would bury the lede.

Is this all just wishful speculation by Sanders' folks or is there something real I'm not seeing?
Click to expand...
This may be hard to believe, but I hope more than anything right now that there is zero link whatsoever to Hillary, Bill, and/or the Clinton Foundation.

 
Henry Ford said:
This may be hard to believe, but I hope more than anything right now that there is zero link whatsoever to Hillary, Bill, and/or the Clinton Foundation.
Click to expand...
There's a huge speculation leap between what's going on with the link and the Clintons.  I doubt there's anything of real substance.  Maybe a donor or two get caught up and it's tarnishing, but I wouldn't suspect a direct link between a shell corp or any of its dealings.  It would surprise me.

 
Henry Ford said:
The Panama Papers - the largest data leak in the history of the world that's currently going on, and it shows world leaders hiding their money in tax havens using Mossack Fonseca, a Panama based law firm using shell corporations and falsified documents, among other things.
Click to expand...
This is the same story that's tied to all these FIFA athletes who have been hiding their money offshore, yes?

 
Mr. Ham said:
There's a huge speculation leap between what's going on with the link and the Clintons.  I doubt there's anything of real substance.  Maybe a donor or two get caught up and it's tarnishing, but I wouldn't suspect a direct link between a shell corp or any of its dealings.  It would surprise me.
Click to expand...
Me, too.  But it's an election year, and if 2-3 of Clinton's big donors are linked, it's going to be a firestorm.

 
Henry Ford said:
Me, too.  But it's an election year, and if 2-3 of Clinton's big donors are linked, it's going to be a firestorm.
Click to expand...
Just a comment - shadow banks in Switzerland have already been verified as funneling money to the Foundation. Obviously this Panama story is huge, maybe the awareness would just be greater for that reason if it happened that the CF got connected to it.  I'm not sure what it would take, but I am sure this will just stir feelings further about the supposedly rigged global system even without a connection right now.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/10/hillary-clinton-foundation-donors-hsbc-swiss-bank

For goodness sake, Marc Rich was a global arms dealer who got pardoned by the Clintons for what to him was a bucket of loose change including $75,000 in furniture. But hey by all means let's look for some more evidence of the global underbelly touching the Clintons.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
Me, too.  But it's an election year, and if 2-3 of Clinton's big donors are linked, it's going to be a firestorm.
Click to expand...
The ICJI (International Consortium of Investigative Journalists) is partially funded by Soros' OSF (Open Society Foundation).

Soros already spent big bucks on this Presidential election: $8 million to Hillary's super PAC, $1.46 million to activist group MoveOn which endorsed Bernie Sanders, $700K for John Kasich to stay in the race, and probably many more less obvious donations.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-03-15/soros-alarmed-by-trump-pours-money-into-2016-race

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
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/
Click to expand...
This really is something, March 11, 2009:

Hillary was told personally and by memo that "we (DS) [the diplomatic security office] have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia.”

That underlining is original to the Diplomatic Security Service at State. The memo on this information was so high level that it was on the secure JWICS system.

Hillary confirmed she "gets it" and she was instructed to provide a "due date" - that must have been for her to establish a new email connection, likely the new email address, which she claims she started exactly one week later, or perhaps to get the extra security.

Nonetheless we know she was using HDR22 back in January:

Thanks to FOIA lawsuits, the State Department has released a few documents from this early period.  They show that Clinton began using the clintonemail.com server as early as January 28, 2009, just after her inauguration.  Other messages from Cheryl Mills used the server in early February.
Click to expand...
On the next day, March 19th Hillary met with the NSA, perhaps to confirm. I'm guessing the rest of that memo told her to not use blackberry for anything sensitive at all.

As one of the comments states:

This explains why Hillary lied about when she started using the server. She didn't want to admit that she was using email without encryption.
Click to expand...
Hillary was hacked.

timschochet said:
...Clinton used one email account during her tenure at State (with the exception of her initial weeks in office while transitioning from an email account she had previously used). In March 2013, a month after she left the Department, Gawker published the email address she used while Secretary, and so she had to change the address on her account.

At the time the printed copies were provided to the Department in 2014, because it was the same account, the new email address established after she left office appeared on the printed copies as the sender, and not the address she used as Secretary. In fact, this address on the account did not exist until March 2013. This led to understandable confusion that was cleared up directly with the Committee after its press conference.
Click to expand...


In March 2013 Hillary changed her email address because she found out it had been compromised - just like March 2009
.

Done and done. If Hillary turned over emails from before that NSA meeting she would be handing over evidence that she had committed a crime. She probably never anticipated that she was handing over evidence of it after that date as well because even her post 3/18/09 emails contain classified data going all the way up to the highest levels above Top Secret.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
wdcrob said:
I got that, just haven't seen the Clinton angle.
Click to expand...


There is none.  With all the reporters cooperating on this you'd think the first search terms that they'd put into this once they OCRed everything would be Obama, Clinton, Trump, Romney, Putin, etc.  

 
Mr. Ham said:
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/
Click to expand...


What a DA will indict in a week, and a U.S. Attorney in a month, will take Justice more than a year if they ever pull the trigger at all. They tend to be hamstrung by endless memos, briefs, meetings and approvals from multiple levels and divisions. There sometimes appears to be an institutional fear of losing, however minimal the chance. This is an endemic characteristic of many bureaucracies. Unfortunately, it is likely that, at this very moment, many good lawyers at DOJ may be using all sorts of sophistry and rationalization to try to avoid applying the plain language of the law to Hilary Clinton. A jury, which should make the final decision, may never get the chance.
Click to expand...
Yep.

Locally, we have had politicians who have had clear evidence against them (IMO) and the DOJ has refused to indict because of the political implications. It's not just Hillary, it happens.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
This really is something, March 11, 2009:

Hillary was told personally and by memo that "we (DS) [the diplomatic security office] have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia.”

That underlining is original to the Diplomatic Security Service at State. The memo on this information was so high level that it was on the secure JWICS system.

Hillary confirmed she "gets it" and she was instructed to provide a "due date" - that must have been for her to establish a new email connection, likely the new email address, which she claims she started exactly one week later, or perhaps to get the extra security.

Nonetheless we know she was using HDR22 back in January:

On the next day, March 19th Hillary met with the NSA, perhaps to confirm. I'm guessing the rest of that memo told her to not use blackberry for anything sensitive at all.

As one of the comments states:

Hillary was hacked.

In March 2013 Hillary changed her email address because she found out it had been compromised - just like March 2009
.

Done and done. If Hillary turned over emails from before that NSA meeting she would be handing over evidence that she had committed a crime. She probably never anticipated that she was handing over evidence of it after that date as well because even her post 3/18/09 emails contain classified data going all the way up to the highest levels above Top Secret.
Click to expand...
Got to hand it to you.  You have followed it & stayed above the fray so to speak with your links & opinion.  You have kept you head when all those around you have lost there's.

 
irishidiot said:
Got to hand it to you.  You have followed it & stayed above the fray so to speak with your links & opinion.  You have kept you head when all those around you have lost there's.
Click to expand...
Great admiration for Saints.  Been dogged, but measured.

 
Bidzina Ivanishvill, Prince Salman, Sultan Al-Nahyan, Petro Poroshenko.

In the Panama Papers.  My understanding is they're all Clinton Foundation donors. None Americans, yet, that I've seen. 441 Americans allegedly in the next leaked set.  Guess we all better buckle up.

 
FBI director: No rush to finish Clinton email probe before convention


FBI Director James Comey said he feels no urgency to wrap up the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s email server before the political conventions this summer.

Comey was speaking on Monday to representatives of local law-enforcement agencies in Buffalo, New York, when he was asked about the FBI’s probe of the former secretary of state’s email system, according to the Niagara Gazette.

Making sure the inquiry is done "well" is more important than speed, he responded, even as the Democratic primary season draws to a close.

"The urgency is to do it well and promptly," Comey said. "And 'well' comes first" — meaning that the investigation could still be ongoing during the Democratic National Convention in July, he said.

While Comey wouldn’t divulge any details of the investigation, he did say that he is keeping close tabs on it “to make sure we have the resources to do it competently."
Click to expand...
http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/04/fbi-hillary-clinton-email-investigation-timeline-221565

- My guess: they're still recovering data and gathering intelligence about where Hillary's data went and where the details within it, the content, came from.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
Bidzina Ivanishvill, Prince Salman, Sultan Al-Nahyan, Petro Poroshenko.

In the Panama Papers.  My understanding is they're all Clinton Foundation donors. None Americans, yet, that I've seen. 441 Americans allegedly in the next leaked set.  Guess we all better buckle up.
Click to expand...
This may end up being a stupid question, but why would it matter if some donors to the Clinton Foundation were tied up in off-shore tax evasion?  I'm not seeing how that implicates Hillary, other than having some slimeballs among her financial backers (true of all candidates, I'm sure).  

 
IvanKaramazov said:
This may end up being a stupid question, but why would it matter if some donors to the Clinton Foundation were tied up in off-shore tax evasion?  I'm not seeing how that implicates Hillary, other than having some slimeballs among her financial backers (true of all candidates, I'm sure).  
Click to expand...
Because she pushed the Panama trade agreement.

I suggested earlier in the thread that I hope there's no connection between the Clinton Foundation, Clinton herself, and this leak.  Because I would bet the media is going to go ape#### about these things, particularly given that she backed the agreement as SOS and Sanders didn't.  It's going to give the appearance of quid-pro-quo even where there likely isn't any if people start popping up like that.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
Because she pushed the Panama trade agreement.

I suggested earlier in the thread that I hope there's no connection between the Clinton Foundation, Clinton herself, and this leak.  Because I would bet the media is going to go ape#### about these things, particularly given that she backed the agreement as SOS and Sanders didn't.  It's going to give the appearance of quid-pro-quo even where there likely isn't any if people start popping up like that.
Click to expand...
Got it.  Thanks.  

 
This will end up being yet another Clinton scandal (Panama Papers).  If you go back maybe two hundred pages here, there was a discussion about Clinton changing her position on the Panama Trade deal (and even cavalierly recommending how to spin it within a released email); amongst charges of quid-pro-quo.  Tim (and others) argued that she was merely falling in line with Obama, but these details are sure to be revisited...  On top of what's sure to be deep investigations into every donor with a connection and degrees of separation to Clinton dealings...  Which frankly could produce real dirt, because the Clintons and the Foundation are an engine for furthering interests of its benefactors.  

Meanwhile, as this develops and more names around Clintons surface, contrast to Bernie's position in 2011 -- and how increasingly awful this is going to play by contrast as more facts materialize. 

usuncut.com/politics/panama-papers-bernie-sanders-white-house/

If this broke in December and not now, I doubt you'd have Hillary in the hunt at all by now.  May be too late for Bernie, but add another pack of sticks to Hillary's bending back.

 
Last edited:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Mr. Ham said:
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/
Click to expand...
This really is something, March 11, 2009:

Hillary was told personally and by memo that "we (DS) [the diplomatic security office] have intelligence concerning this vulnerability during her recent trip to Asia.”

That underlining is original to the Diplomatic Security Service at State. The memo on this information was so high level that it was on the secure JWICS system.

Hillary confirmed she "gets it" and she was instructed to provide a "due date" - that must have been for her to establish a new email connection, likely the new email address, which she claims she started exactly one week later, or perhaps to get the extra security.

Nonetheless we know she was using HDR22 back in January:

Thanks to FOIA lawsuits, the State Department has released a few documents from this early period.  They show that Clinton began using the clintonemail.com server as early as January 28, 2009, just after her inauguration.  Other messages from Cheryl Mills used the server in early February.
Click to expand...
On the next day, March 19th Hillary met with the NSA, perhaps to confirm. I'm guessing the rest of that memo told her to not use blackberry for anything sensitive at all.

As one of the comments states:

This explains why Hillary lied about when she started using the server. She didn't want to admit that she was using email without encryption.
Click to expand...
Hillary was hacked.

timschochet said:
...Clinton used one email account during her tenure at State (with the exception of her initial weeks in office while transitioning from an email account she had previously used). In March 2013, a month after she left the Department, Gawker published the email address she used while Secretary, and so she had to change the address on her account.

At the time the printed copies were provided to the Department in 2014, because it was the same account, the new email address established after she left office appeared on the printed copies as the sender, and not the address she used as Secretary. In fact, this address on the account did not exist until March 2013. This led to understandable confusion that was cleared up directly with the Committee after its press conference.
Click to expand...


In March 2013 Hillary changed her email address because she found out it had been compromised - just like March 2009
.

Done and done. If Hillary turned over emails from before that NSA meeting she would be handing over evidence that she had committed a crime. She probably never anticipated that she was handing over evidence of it after that date as well because even her post 3/18/09 emails contain classified data going all the way up to the highest levels above Top Secret.
Click to expand...
I'll put this here....been a while and Beatrice needs the reminder:

What would he think if he learned that Russia’s Foreign Minister, or Iran’s, was conducting official business on a homebrew server?
 
Admiral Rogers:  "From a foreign intelligence perspective, that represents opportunity."
Click to expand...




 
Hunt for Red October: [sigh] "Adrei...  You've lost another submarine?"

Election: [sigh] "Hillary...  You've got another corruption scandal?"

 
I'm starting to think this thread may actually be an undercover operation by Clinton operatives to make Hillary a sympathetic figure who has been unfairly targeted. This Panama Papers/Clinton Foundation bit is really next level stuff.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I'm starting to think this thread may actually be an undercover operation by Clinton operatives to make Hillary a sympathetic figure who has been unfairly targeted. This Panama Papers/Clinton Foundation bit is really next level stuff.
Click to expand...
To be fair, some of us are decrying the media ####storm that's inevitably coming about this.  

And it's already started:

http://freebeacon.com/issues/panama-papers-implicate-podesta-client/

‘Panama Papers’ Implicate Client of Clinton-Linked Lobbying Firm

 
questions for people smarter than me:

is it standard practice for the FBI to conduct interviews and issue a target letter after those interviews are complete? or is it the other way around (target letter first, interview second)? or are they unrelated?

 
TobiasFunke said:
I'm starting to think this thread may actually be an undercover operation by Clinton operatives to make Hillary a sympathetic figure who has been unfairly targeted. This Panama Papers/Clinton Foundation bit is really next level stuff.
Click to expand...
With the primary over, I suspect we'll see quite a bit of bellyaching over the next couple months. By Aug or Sept, I think most of the Bernie crew will have kicked the hangover and will be on board.  

 
The fact that Comey feels no urgency to complete the investigation before the convention should tell you guys something. It tells me that there's no indictments, no criminal activity being investigated. Nothing there.

But it won't matter apparently, because by the time the FBI finally issues a report absolving Hillary of any criminal activity (though, I'm sure, criticizing her for using a private server), nearly everybody in here, after assuming cover up, will have moved on to the latest scandal: what did Hillary know about Panama and when did she know it? 

 
timschochet said:
The fact that Comey feels no urgency to complete the investigation before the convention should tell you guys something. It tells me that there's no indictments, no criminal activity being investigated. Nothing there.

But it won't matter apparently, because by the time the FBI finally issues a report absolving Hillary of any criminal activity (though, I'm sure, criticizing her for using a private server), nearly everybody in here, after assuming cover up, will have moved on to the latest scandal: what did Hillary know about Panama and when did she know it? 
Click to expand...
Tells me there is no urgency to complete the investigation before the convention :shrug:  

Anything more (whether it's positive or negative) is wishful thinking and pure speculation.

 
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: 13 (members: 0, guests: 13)
Back
Top