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 (8 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
NorvilleBarnes said:
Just curious - is there anything else that will do it? Does it have to be an outright indictment? What if there's overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing and poor judgment - but no actual crime - would that do it? If there were, say, a repeated pattern of deception and underhanded dealings?
Click to expand...
Sure. Any one of those would cause me drop my support- though I would still vote for her vs Trump or Cruz. 

 
Henry Ford said:
...and now one of the Panama Papers players is the guy who wrote the Georgian memo Blumenthal sent to Clinton.  Hooray.
Click to expand...
Chaser:

SaintsInDome2006 said:
And as a reminder Blumenthal was also working for businessmen connected to Putin:

Did Clinton's Backdoor Adviser Illegally Lobby for Putin Ally?

Quote
As Gawker reported last week in collaboration with ProPublica, emails from Blumenthal's hacked account revealed that he was running what amounts to a private, off-the-books intelligence operation for Clinton, sending her detailed reports on goings-on in Libya, Europe, and elsewhere. Among these memos is one urging Clinton to consider re-examining the State Department's posture toward the opposition in Georgia.
Click to expand...
Quote
Kornblum wasn't just a geopolitical hobbyist. He was a lobbyist for a pro-Putin politician who was exploiting a connection to the secretary of state. Blumenthal, perhaps eager to get a chance to play diplomat after being rejected for an official State gig, happily played middle-man. The memo clearly constitutes evidence that Kornblum sought to influence U.S. policy on behalf of a foreign political leader, and that he enlisted Blumenthal for help in that project.

Generally speaking, it's fine to lobby U.S. officials on behalf of a foreign power, as long as you register with the U.S. Department of Justice. If you don't register, it's a crime.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

 
Gawker attempted to reach Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon to ask whether the department intended to launch an investigation into Blumenthal and Kornblum's failure to register. The maximum penalty for willfully violating FARA is up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Fallon did not return repeated phone calls or emails. On April 1, he will leave the Justice Department to join Clinton's presidential campaign as press secretary.
Click to expand...
:lol: Give me a ^*@!#*^&* break.

http://cryptome.org/2013/09/usa-today-doj.pdf

 
Last edited by a moderator:
NorvilleBarnes said:
timschochet said:
If the FBI recommends an indictment against Hillary Clinton I will at once drop my support of her.  
Click to expand...
Just curious - is there anything else that will do it? Does it have to be an outright indictment? What if there's overwhelming evidence of wrongdoing and poor judgment - but no actual crime - would that do it? If there were, say, a repeated pattern of deception and underhanded dealings?
Click to expand...
Obviously that's not enough.

 
timschochet said:
OK. I don't know precisely how the law works BUT IN MY OPINION:

If Hillary Clinton, as Secretary of State, had classified data in her possession which was marked as classified data at the time she possessed it and which she knew was classified data at the time she possessed it and if she herself knowingly placed the classified data in an unclassified email server and sent it herself to another party who was not classified to receive it, OR if she knowingly placed the classified data in such a manner as it could be easily hacked because it was not secure, OR if any of the above was done with Hillary Clinton's direct knowledge and/or direction, then she is guilty of a crime and should be indicted. 

Now in terms of the Commish's last point: I don't understand the distinction between "secure data" and "classified data", so at this time I'm not willing to replace one with the other in the above paragraph. 
Click to expand...


Tim, please read this.  This is from Romald J Sievet, who served as an attorney with the DOJ for 20 years.  You'd agree his opinion is qualified?

(Published yesterday in USA Today).

"Since the beginning of the Clinton email scandal, the nation has been subjected to a political and criminal defense generated smokescreen. The Clinton campaign has attempted to make the public believe that she is not guilty of anything because the information on her very unprotected server was not “marked as classified” or “classified at the time.”

The applicable statute, 18 USC 793, however, does not even once mention the word “classified.” The focus is on “information respecting the national defense” that potentially “could be used to the injury of the United States or to the advantage of any foreign nation.” 793 (f) specifically makes it a crime for anyone “entrusted with … any document ... or information relating to the national defense … through gross negligence (to permit) the same to be removed from its proper place of custody.” A jury (not a Democrat or Republican political administration) is, of course, the best body to determine gross negligence on the facts of this case."

"

 
Henry Ford said:
So? That doesn't mean it requires knowledge of the statute 

The only possible exception (and it's a possible exception, not a certainty) is (g) for conspiracy, because it could be interpreted as a willful conspiracy to violate the statute rather than a conspiracy to commit the acts that violate the statute.
Click to expand...
I think we are talking past each other.  When Petraeus pled guilty they required him to recite that he knew the material was classified (paraphrasing; yes the statute does not use the word classified) and he was willfully disclosed it to someone he knew was not authorized to see it.  It is not knowledge of the statute, it is knowledge that it is classified material and is willfully given to someone unauthorized to see it.   

 
Last edited by a moderator:
pettifogger said:
I think we are talking past each other.  When Petraeus pled guilty they required him to recite that he knew the material was classified (paraphrasing; yes the statute does not use the word classified) and he was willfully disclosed it to someone he knew was not authorized to see it.  It is not knowledge of the statute, it is knowledge that it is classified material and is willfully given to someone unauthorized to see it.   
Click to expand...
Sounds exactly like what Hillary did.

 
MaxThreshold said:
Sounds exactly like what Hillary did.
Click to expand...
Statue 18 USC 793 apparently says this need not even be the case.  She merely needs to be responsible for making it vulnerable to exposure outside of its place of custody.  I highly suspect she did more than just that, but it's enough under the law to indict.  

Having Heather Samuelson review it, putting it on a flash drive, backing it up in a public sector data center...  Even having it on a private server all qualify.  

Per her NDA, she alone is responsible for all information passing through her control.

Taking politics out of it, it's not even a hard decision to indict IMO.

 
Last edited:
pettifogger said:
I think we are talking past each other.  When Petraeus pled guilty they required him to recite that he knew the material was classified (paraphrasing; yes the statute does not use the word classified) and he was willfully disclosed it to someone he knew was not authorized to see it.  It is not knowledge of the statute, it is knowledge that it is classified material and is willfully given to someone unauthorized to see it.   
Click to expand...
"Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations.... classified information is marked or unmarked..."

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-classified-NDA1.pdf

s/ HRC

"(f) ... permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody ..."

= a private server in one's basement, operated on a private unauthorized network, backed up to another server in an apartment bathroom manned by random schlubs 2000 miles away, should qualify.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
Statue 18 USC 793 apparently says this need not even be the case.  She merely needs to be responsible for making it vulnerable to exposure outside of its place of custody.  I highly suspect she did more than just that, but it's enough under the law to indict.  
Click to expand...
Respectfully disagree there.  

 
pettifogger said:
Yes, as the sentence continues, if it meets the standards of the Executive Order that is cross referenced.    
Click to expand...
Those are the little codes shown in all the documents that she has been producing.

For example here is a classified email sent by Hillary. It will not be declassified until 15 years after the date it was classified and it was classified from the moment it was sent, 7/1/10.

1.4(D) means it pertains to information on “foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources...”

B1 means it contains information "which reasonably could be expected to cause damage to the national security..."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Gawker attempted to reach Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon to ask whether the department intended to launch an investigation into Blumenthal and Kornblum's failure to register. The maximum penalty for willfully violating FARA is up to 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. Fallon did not return repeated phone calls or emails. On April 1, he will leave the Justice Department to join Clinton's presidential campaign as press secretary.
Click to expand...
:lol: Give me a ^*@!#*^&* break.

http://cryptome.org/2013/09/usa-today-doj.pdf
Click to expand...


That's the world we live in.  He'll probably have a cabinet position.

 
Alright. So now crunch time begins for Team Clinton. Obviously Sanders is staying through until the end, but the campaign has to be ready to roll these next 3 weeks. You've got states tailor made for Clinton and they are almost all closed primaries. Sweep NY, PA, NJ, and MD is the bar. Anything less is unacceptable. 

 
Circling back, whole thing doesn't smell of "security review" as much as building a case.  

 
Trey said:
Alright. So now crunch time begins for Team Clinton. Obviously Sanders is staying through until the end, but the campaign has to be ready to roll these next 3 weeks. You've got states tailor made for Clinton and they are almost all closed primaries. Sweep NY, PA, NJ, and MD is the bar. Anything less is unacceptable. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, so...  People don't like Hillary Clinton.  

usuncut.com/politics/bernie-destroys-hillary-panama-papers/

And Bernie has real fuel with the Panama Papers, and he's going to use it and get lots of media play.  

 
Last edited:
MaxThreshold said:
WI primary called for Sanders.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna admit I thought Hillary had this wrapped up a while back. NY is really huge now. Again she should win.... but she has got so much stuff dragging her down.

This has really been weird stuff in the Dem and the GOP parties. The GOP has definitely been weirder but this has been like an old fashioned boxing match.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I'm gonna admit I thought Hillary had this wrapped up a while back. NY is really huge now. Again she should win.... but she has got so much stuff dragging her down.

This has really been weird stuff in the Dem and the GOP parties. The GOP has definitely been weirder but this has been like an old fashioned boxing match.
Click to expand...
He's got a horseshoe in his glove with the new Panama Papers narrative.  

 
pettifogger said:
I think we are talking past each other.  When Petraeus pled guilty they required him to recite that he knew the material was classified (paraphrasing; yes the statute does not use the word classified) and he was willfully disclosed it to someone he knew was not authorized to see it.  It is not knowledge of the statute, it is knowledge that it is classified material and is willfully given to someone unauthorized to see it.   
Click to expand...
Yes, that was my confusion.  I thought you were saying he had to say he knew it was illegal - which plays into Tim's (i think) incorrect reading that she had to know she wasn't allowed to commit the illegal acts in order to be guilty. 

 
squistion said:
Other shoe? We haven't had the first shoe drop yet.
Click to expand...
For some, the first shoe was when it was proven she had top secret information on a private sever, flash drive and private data center and lied like hell about it.  

 
pantagrapher said:
I've posted several links to critical stuff, but keep doing what you're doing. It's important work.
Click to expand...
Someone with a clear record of deception, obstruction and possibly criminal behavior is the favorite to become the leader of the world's most powerful nation.  Giving her a critical look despite media bias and spin is in fact...  pretty important work.

 
Mr. Ham said:
Someone with a clear record of deception, obstruction and possibly criminal behavior is the favorite to become the leader of the world's most powerful nation.  Giving her a critical look despite media bias and spin is in fact...  pretty important work.
Click to expand...
You guys are the guardians of democracy. I bow in respect.

 
Mr. Ham said:
Someone with a clear record of deception, obstruction and possibly criminal behavior is the favorite to become the leader of the world's most powerful nation.  Giving her a critical look despite media bias and spin is in fact...  pretty important work.
Click to expand...
Alleging media bias in favor of Hillary Clinton is incredibly silly. Other than sitting presidents she is the most scrutinized and criticized politician of our lifetimes by a country mile. Some of it is warranted, of course, but that doesn't make your statement any less ridiculous.

 
Henry Ford said:
If she gets charged, the DNC will drop her so fast it'll make your head spin.
Click to expand...
Sanders can make all of it moot by winning New York and PA.  He does that and no one's turning to Biden.  If Sanders wins it proves there's been a real shift in the race even if he runs out of time to catch her with delegates, and I think he'd be the fallback.  If he doesn't win the race is officially over and they'd probably turn to Biden if Clinton faces charges.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
GLENN THRUSH: The one thing I will tell you I remember very distinctly about 2007 and 2008 was your airplane--were the airplane trips I took with you. I was not a happy flier, and nothing ever seemed to bother you. I mean, we were in some really hairy situations and you would sleep your way through it.

SEC. CLINTON: Right. That is the answer to everything. When you're facing a difficult issue that you absolutely can do nothing about--in this case--

GLENN THRUSH: Right.

SEC. CLINTON: --I can't fly the plane; I can't change the weather--falling asleep, you'll either wake up and things will be fine or you won't.

[Laughter.]

GLENN THRUSH: Well, I didn't expect you to get existential this quickly.

SEC. CLINTON: Well, but fly on an airplane, the whole thing makes no sense to me. Does it make sense to you?

GLENN THRUSH: No. Not at all.

SEC. CLINTON: I mean, how it works, how the whole, you know, science of it, you know, aerodynamics, you know, actually manages to keep us afloat. I'm constantly amazed.
Click to expand...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/transcript-politicos-glenn-thrush-interviews-hillary-clinton-221512#ixzz453SxP5ml
 
- This is not a metaphor for anything. At all.
 
- Just wait `til she sees an actual subway.
 
 
 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Alleging media bias in favor of Hillary Clinton is incredibly silly. Other than sitting presidents she is the most scrutinized and criticized politician of our lifetimes by a country mile. Some of it is warranted, of course, but that doesn't make your statement any less ridiculous.
Click to expand...
The entirety of my beef with Hillary can be summed up by two things, where there is real substance and the mainstream media has done a shameful job of probing.  

1. I never felt like the People want Hillary, reenforced by her fighting tooth and nail and beginning to lose while essentially running unopposed.  In 2014, I observed that the DNC was stacked with Clinton insiders who made it clear that they would destroy all comers who dared interfere with Hillary's turn.  I've never felt this was Democratic, and the DNC's behavior has been consistently corrupt and shameful -- if one cares about representative government and basic fairness.  I like transparency and competition -- I think both are healthy -- and whether it's last minute changes to the finance rules, buying Superdelegates with back room deals or overtly telling the press what to print (all documented by barely covered), I find all of this awful and only tangentially covered.

2.  I've been amazed and disheartened that Hillary aggregated enough influence and power to even entertain the thought of opaque correspondence while a cabinet member.  That alone really bothers me, but the fact that it has now been documented that she put lives at stake to avoid transparency has really irked me.  Still, the best factual chronology (as well as the most balanced analysis of laws and statues considering all viewpoints) was not done by the hard hitting New York Times or Washington Post...  It was done by a university student.  I have found that most news outlets defer to Hillary's talking points and are extremely cautious with anything else.  (We certainly aren't seeing by-and-large real investigative journalism).  I believe media outlets worry about losing access, and as a result the basic hygiene of building a timeline, leading the discussion of what does not gel with the talking points, and sincerely delving into details is left to industrious individuals like Saints -- who has proven that there is real substance and not just wild speculation behind her many "mistakes" related to this matter.

 
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
259K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Back
Top