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.
 


State Department wants limits on questioning of Clinton aides


Top aides to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton should not be questioned about an ongoing FBI investigation into the presence of classified information on her private email server or about the substance of the messages that were exchanged, as part of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit, the State Department said in a court filing Tuesday night.

... State is not specifically urging Sullivan to scratch anyone from that list, apparently clearing the way for each person to be called to appear at a deposition that could last up to seven hours. However, State asked Sullivan to cabin the questioning to details about why the server was created.

...Judicial Watch has said it does not intend to seek Clinton's testimony at this time, but may do so in the future. The FBI, meanwhile, is reportedly seeking to interview many or all of the same aides in connection with its probe of the classified information in Clinton's account.

The FOIA suit at issue sought records about Abedin's employment arrangements. Judicial Watch contends it may not have gotten all the records it was entitled to because of the email arrangement Clinton put in place.

State is also asking Sullivan to order that the transcripts of any depositions be kept secret for three days after they are given, so that classified information or any disclosures about the investigation can be edited out, if necessary. ...
Click to expand...
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/04/clinton-emails-state-department-221612

 
Mr. Ham said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sorry I missed this earlier. I have no problem with the stuff here that's critical of Clinton herself, but I disagree on your assessment of the media's treatment of Clinton. The Times, for example, was very critical of some of the ties between Clinton Foundation money and State Department dealings. I'd even say that at times they are overly critical- IIRC at one point they seemed to allege wrongdoing in a nuclear permitting decision when State wasn't even the lead agency in the decision and basically had a rubber stamp role, which they didn't bother to mention in the article. As I said before they go after her with as much or more vigor than with any non-president in my lifetime, so I just don't see this idea of trading access for kid glove treatment.

 
???  

It says at the top it was classified on 8/27/15.  

I am sure there are some documents that are classified when created, without labeling.  If Hillary wrote to someone "I just talked with the President today and we are going to fly into Pakistan and take out Bin Laden tomorrow" it obviously would warrant secrecy and she could not argue that it was lawful to send to someone without clearance because it was not marked "classified."  But the example you attach is simply an AP news report.  It appears her comment and one of the recipients' email address are redacted.  Without knowing the content of what was redacted, I don't see how you could argue that the criminal statute was violated.  Part of proof of the crime would be showing that it was so obvious it was secret under the Executive Order's terms that she had the requisite criminal intent.     

 
pettifogger said:
I am sure there are some documents that are classified when created, without labeling.  If Hillary wrote to someone "I just talked with the President today and we are going to fly into Pakistan and take out Bin Laden tomorrow" it obviously would warrant secrecy and she could not argue that it was lawful to send to someone without clearance because it was not marked "classified."  But the example you attach is simply an AP news report.  It appears her comment and one of the recipients' email address are redacted.  Without knowing the content of what was redacted, I don't see how you could argue that the criminal statute was violated.  Part of proof of the crime would be showing that it was so obvious it was secret under the Executive Order's terms that she had the requisite criminal intent.     
Click to expand...
Ok thanks, yeah I was just picking something simple to show that the email had been examined for reasons which would adhere to the regulations. That's all I was saying. Now if Hillary wants to battle those classifications out, that's fine. However, as I understand it, classifications are never successfully challenged as a defense.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Wrong place, look further below, should see a Declassify By date which says "2025".
Click to expand...
It looks like the document was reviewed and retroactively classified on 8/27/15, to the date it was first sent.  That does mean someone later took the position it was classified.  

So the criminal question would be, was it obvious at the time sent, and was it sent to someone without clearance.

 
pettifogger said:
It looks like the document was reviewed and retroactively classified on 8/27/15, to the date it was first sent.  That does mean someone later took the position it was classified.  

So the criminal question would be, was it obvious at the time sent, and was it sent to someone without clearance.
Click to expand...
Or, was it stored in an unsecure location for 4+ years...

 
pettifogger said:
It looks like the document was reviewed and retroactively classified on 8/27/15, to the date it was first sent.  That does mean someone later took the position it was classified.  

So the criminal question would be, was it obvious at the time sent, and was it sent to someone without clearance.
Click to expand...
Thanks, that sounds informed and you and Henry can speak to the legal meaning of intent, I defer, and actually I appreciate it. As I've been saying I think all this does justify going before objective legal minds (and then to a jury). I mostly get in a harumph about people who bang their drums and say there's no there there.

However, one question I would ask Hillary is, didn't she know that her emails and documents could be retroactively classified at the time she was sending & receiving them? And if so didn't she know what basis that could be done on? If the answer is yes and yes I think you have knowledge (and knowing) and to me that would be intent. I also think she had training and she has herself repeatedly said she knew the rules of classification. Ok, so does the guy or team who classified that email in 2015.

About the sending it to people without clearance - it's also important I think how she sent it, part of the big deal is sending this over media which could be intercepted by foreign intelligence agencies. The issue of whether they did intercept it is a big deal, but for the purposes of the statues/regs I don't know that it matters, what matters I think is that it was done in a risky, unauthorized fashion and the goal is to essentially threaten anyone who works with this stuff that if they violate the rules even once they will be severely dealt with.

eta - as Sinn points out above, it's also important where Hillary retained it. Who she gave it to, how she she communicated or received it, and where she kept it, that's three different potential acts right there in one email.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
Sorry I missed this earlier. I have no problem with the stuff here that's critical of Clinton herself, but I disagree on your assessment of the media's treatment of Clinton. The Times, for example, was very critical of some of the ties between Clinton Foundation money and State Department dealings. I'd even say that at times they are overly critical- IIRC at one point they seemed to allege wrongdoing in a nuclear permitting decision when State wasn't even the lead agency in the decision and basically had a rubber stamp role, which they didn't bother to mention in the article. As I said before they go after her with as much or more vigor than with any non-president in my lifetime, so I just don't see this idea of trading access for kid glove treatment.
Click to expand...
In fairness (which my iPad autocorrected to sourness and I probably should have kept), a lot of this may fall under, "You can lead a horse to water, but can't make it drink."  The information largely exists, but I just find it troubling that it is being patched together in a digestible fashion here and not in exposes on Page 1.

 
Same guy wrote this article:

This is how the FBI destroys Hillary: The 10 questions that could end her White House dreams



These questions, if answered honestly, would most likely hand the Democratic nomination to Bernie Sanders


...

Imagine if you had 22 Top Secret emails on your computer?
Would you be able to claim negligence?
...

1. What was the political utility in owning a private server and never using a State.gov email address?

2. Were all 31,830 deleted private emails about yoga? 

3. Why didn’t you know that intelligence could be retroactively classified?

4. Why did you use a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA?

5. What did you say to Bryan Pagliano? 

6. Why were 22 Top Secret emails on a private server?

7. Was any information about the Clinton Foundation mingled with State Department documents? 

8. Did President Obama or his staff express any reservations about your private server?

9. Did Bill Clinton send or receive any emails on your private network?

10. How was your private server guarded against hacking attempts?
Click to expand...
http://www.salon.com/2016/04/05/this_is_how_the_fbi_destroys_hillary_the_10_questions_that_could_end_her_white_house_dreams/

- I'd say this is a good sort of FAQ style summary.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would make them less political and a lot more more open-ended; some of these below are compound but you get the idea.  And no, I do not buy that answering them would alter the nomination result.  But a proper inquiry tied to the statute on point would be a thorough set of questions, these are samples.          

1. What was the reason for using a private server for correspondence in your capacity as SoS, and who, if anyone, did you discuss the issue with?

2. What steps have been taken to ensure that all 31,830 deleted private emails did not touch on State Department or government issues, and thus are not government property? 

3. Did you know that some documents could be considered classified even if not marked as such at the time, and who if anyone discussed this with you, and what is your understanding of the standard to be applied to determine whether they are secret?

4. Why did you use a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA?

5. What discussion did you have with Bryan Pagliano? 

6. Why were 22 Top Secret emails on a private server?

7. Was any correspondence relating to the Clinton Foundation among the deleted emails, and were any of them addressed to, or received from, foreign officials? 

8. Did President Obama or staff of any government agency, at any time during your tenure in office, express any reservations about your private server or the method of protection of email correspondence?

9. How was your private server guarded against hacking attempts? 

10. Are you aware of any hacking attempts against the server, and if so, whether any were successful?    

 
Hillary Clinton ‏@HillaryClinton 44m44 minutes ago

Only one Democratic candidate has voted for the NRA's "most important piece of legislation in 20 years."

You.




 





Bernie Sanders @BernieSanders 

Only one Democratic candidate takes gun lobby money to fund her campaign. https://theintercept.com/2016/03/01/nra-lobbyist-will-co-host-clinton-fundraiser/ …
Click to expand...

 
pettifogger said:
I would make them less political and a lot more more open-ended; some of these below are compound but you get the idea.  And no, I do not buy that answering them would alter the nomination result.  But a proper inquiry tied to the statute on point would be a thorough set of questions, these are samples.          

1. What was the reason for using a private server for correspondence in your capacity as SoS, and who, if anyone, did you discuss the issue with?

2. What steps have been taken to ensure that all 31,830 deleted private emails did not touch on State Department or government issues, and thus are not government property? 

3. Did you know that some documents could be considered classified even if not marked as such at the time, and who if anyone discussed this with you, and what is your understanding of the standard to be applied to determine whether they are secret?

4. Why did you use a Blackberry that wasn’t approved by the NSA?

5. What discussion did you have with Bryan Pagliano? 

6. Why were 22 Top Secret emails on a private server?

7. Was any correspondence relating to the Clinton Foundation among the deleted emails, and were any of them addressed to, or received from, foreign officials? 

8. Did President Obama or staff of any government agency, at any time during your tenure in office, express any reservations about your private server or the method of protection of email correspondence?

9. How was your private server guarded against hacking attempts? 

10. Are you aware of any hacking attempts against the server, and if so, whether any were successful?    
Click to expand...
I don't recall.   I'm not sure.  Not sure of your question.  Oh, in that regard my staff would have handled that.

 
Mr. Ham said:
That's going to get some play.
Click to expand...
It shouldn't. Hillary never said Bernie wasn't qualified to be President, although Joe Scarborough kept goading her trying to make her say that, but she didn't take the bait. Bernie acted as if she did:

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/04/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-not

[...]

Rachel Maddow came back and tried to figure out why Bernie said what he did.

"What we think this is about is, what we think he's referencing there, Secretary Clinton saying today in an interview that Bernie Sanders has not done his homework on some issues that have come up in the campaign, in a sort of rough interview that he had with the editorial board of the NY Daily News in the last few days. Sanders is responding to that characterization tonight by saying, 'Hillary Clinton is not qualified to serve as president of the United States."

I agree with Rachel Maddow. Clinton was on Morning Joe earlier today, and he kept pressuring her to say that Bernie wasn't qualified to be president, which she didn't.

Scarborough: We've been talking about Bernie Sanders' New York Daily News interview. And I want to start with that. And ask you in light of the interview, in light of the questions he had problems with, do you believe this morning that Bernie Sanders is qualified and ready to be President of the United States?

CLINTON: Well, I think the interview raised a lot of really serious questions and I look at it this way. The core of his campaign has been ‘break up the banks,’ and it didn’t seem in reading his answers that he understood exactly how that would work under Dodd-Frank, exactly who would be responsible, what the criteria were, and you know, that means you can’t really help people if you don’t know how to do what you are campaigning on saying you want to do.”

Scarborough: So is he, is he qualified? ...I know there are a lot of examples where he came up short and the interviewers were having to repeat questions and so the question, and I’m serious, if you weren’t running today and you looked at Bernie Sanders, would you say, ‘This guy is ready to be president of the United States’?”

Clinton: Well, I think he hadn’t done his homework, and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions. And really what that goes to is for voters to ask themselves, Can he deliver what he is talking about, can he really help people, can he help our economy, can he keep our country strong?

She never said Bernie wasn't qualified to be president even though Scarborough was begging for it. Did she play rough? Absolutely. [...]

 
BassNBrew said:
Once again she's wrong.  Seriously, she makes Trump look like a beacon of intellect.  At this rate she'll need Timmy as her chief of staff to assist her at being wrong this often.
Click to expand...
It's insane how wrong she is so often.  She's made flip flopping an Olympic sport.

And the new campaign strategy will clearly back fire again.

 
BassNBrew said:
Once again she's wrong.  Seriously, she makes Trump look like a beacon of intellect.  At this rate she'll need Timmy as her chief of staff to assist her at being wrong this often.
Click to expand...
These insults are so stupid. I'd say they're beneath you but sadly I'd  be wrong. 

If all you're capable of is insulting other people (such as calling anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton a moron, which you've done several times now) you ought to take a break from posting. Your hatred of her is apparent and pathetic and you're adding nothing to the conversation. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
These insults are so stupid. I'd say they're beneath you but sadly I'd  be wrong. 

If all you're capable of is insulting other people (such as calling anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton a moron, which you've done several times now) you ought to take a break from posting. Your hatred of her is apparent and pathetic and you're adding nothing to the conversation. 
Click to expand...
Translation: i'm tired of defending her poor judgment and i'm getting dizzy spinning the never ending litany of said examples into some sort of absurd bizarro world candidate that is the superior candidate.

 
timschochet said:
These insults are so stupid. I'd say they're beneath you but sadly aid be wrong. 

If all you're capable of is insulting other people (such as calling anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton a moron, which you've done several times now) you ought to take a break from posting. Your hatred of her is apparent and pathetic and you're adding nothing to the conversation. 
Click to expand...
adding nothing to your conversation.   Your conversation is now over.  People are pissed and they don't want bought off people in office.

 
cap'n grunge said:
Iraq, trade deals, secretive personal servers, etc etc.
Click to expand...
Iraq was one vote over several years. Most of her decisions as Senator I approve of. 

I think her positions on almost every trade deal has been examples of good judgment, and long term vision. 

I don't care about the server. Minor issue, unworthy of notice. 

 
squistion said:
It shouldn't. Hillary never said Bernie wasn't qualified to be President, although Joe Scarborough kept goading her trying to make her say that, but she didn't take the bait. Bernie acted as if she did:

http://crooksandliars.com/2016/04/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-not

[...]

Rachel Maddow came back and tried to figure out why Bernie said what he did.

"What we think this is about is, what we think he's referencing there, Secretary Clinton saying today in an interview that Bernie Sanders has not done his homework on some issues that have come up in the campaign, in a sort of rough interview that he had with the editorial board of the NY Daily News in the last few days. Sanders is responding to that characterization tonight by saying, 'Hillary Clinton is not qualified to serve as president of the United States."

I agree with Rachel Maddow. Clinton was on Morning Joe earlier today, and he kept pressuring her to say that Bernie wasn't qualified to be president, which she didn't.

Scarborough: We've been talking about Bernie Sanders' New York Daily News interview. And I want to start with that. And ask you in light of the interview, in light of the questions he had problems with, do you believe this morning that Bernie Sanders is qualified and ready to be President of the United States?

CLINTON: Well, I think the interview raised a lot of really serious questions and I look at it this way. The core of his campaign has been ‘break up the banks,’ and it didn’t seem in reading his answers that he understood exactly how that would work under Dodd-Frank, exactly who would be responsible, what the criteria were, and you know, that means you can’t really help people if you don’t know how to do what you are campaigning on saying you want to do.”

Scarborough: So is he, is he qualified? ...I know there are a lot of examples where he came up short and the interviewers were having to repeat questions and so the question, and I’m serious, if you weren’t running today and you looked at Bernie Sanders, would you say, ‘This guy is ready to be president of the United States’?”

Clinton: Well, I think he hadn’t done his homework, and he’d been talking for more than a year about doing things that he obviously hadn’t really studied or understood, and that does raise a lot of questions. And really what that goes to is for voters to ask themselves, Can he deliver what he is talking about, can he really help people, can he help our economy, can he keep our country strong?

She never said Bernie wasn't qualified to be president even though Scarborough was begging for it. Did she play rough? Absolutely. [...]
Click to expand...


Here's the actual interview earlier.

http://on.msnbc.com/22c9SnG

Just a few observation:

  • Hillary - the campaign - formally released that they would be seeking to disqualify Sanders. That was their word. - Please don't make me play semantics on it Clinton-style.
  • Hillary on MJ is asked 3 times if she would grant that Sanders was at least "qualified" to be Potus. She refused. - Please don't do the "is is" thing, it's a game we're both forced to play by the Clintons.
  • Hillary says this:
Asked whether Sanders is a "real Democrat," Clinton first hedged, but then made clear she has doubts.

“Well, I can’t answer that,” she said in the Politico interview conducted last week. “He’s a relatively new Democrat, and, in fact, I’m not even sure he is one. He’s running as one. So I don’t know quite how to characterize him.”
Click to expand...
- What is she calling Sanders here? A socialist? Communist? Who knows, leave that up to the viewer, basically she's calling him a ******* out in the school yard. And essentially questioning his bona fides.

She clearly had a strategy to pick a fight. Well she got one.

This may inure to her benefit, because I can't imagine she does not think she profits from this, and no way did Hillary walk into this accidentally. Now the word play. Well I guess we all get played. Eight years of this kind of thing is one of the things I have always dreaded most about a Clinton II presidency.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
These insults are so stupid. I'd say they're beneath you but sadly I'd  be wrong. 

If all you're capable of is insulting other people (such as calling anyone who voted for Hillary Clinton a moron, which you've done several times now) you ought to take a break from posting. Your hatred of her is apparent and pathetic and you're adding nothing to the conversation. 
Click to expand...


Given that you are the king of calling people morons, bigots, and racists, maybe you're the one who should take a break from posting.  Given that you've been wrong on about 90% of what you've posted, maybe you're the one who adds little to the conversation.  

IMO a Trump supporter may or may not be a racist bigot based upon wanting a wall to keep illegals out.  A Hillary supporter is a racist bigot based upon supporting trade deal that create indentured servants.

 
timschochet said:
A progressive case for Hillary Clinton: 

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18942/why-progressives-should-support-hillary-Clinton
Click to expand...
Ah, the misogyny card. Does this mean I'll need to turn in my Tulsi Gabbard fan card?

ETA - did you even actually read this article? Honestly, if that's a "case for Hillary Clinton" we should immediately hand it over to Bernie. Right this second. She didn't present much of an argument outside Hillary is a woman and used to be someone worth voting for. Jesus, man. That is such a feeble argument for her I'm somewhat embarrassed. Her brief criticism of Bernie is so weak it's comical. I 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Iraq was one vote over several years. Most of her decisions as Senator I approve of. 

I think her positions on almost every trade deal has been examples of good judgment, and long term vision. 

I don't care about the server. Minor issue, unworthy of notice. 
Click to expand...
DOMA, DADT, Patriot Act, Patriot Act II, Freedom Act, Glass-Steagall, Libya, Panama.

With Progressives like her, who needs Neocons?

 
BassNBrew said:
Given that you are the king of calling people morons, bigots, and racists, maybe you're the one who should take a break from posting.  Given that you've been wrong on about 90% of what you've posted, maybe you're the one who adds little to the conversation.  

IMO a Trump supporter may or may not be a racist bigot based upon wanting a wall to keep illegals out.  A Hillary supporter is a racist bigot based upon supporting trade deal that create indentured servants.
Click to expand...
Well he did take the whole month of february off from discussing politics.  Not sure if we want that again.

 
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