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.
Yeah, he's feelin' it today.

It's one degree of separation. I mean this stuff is close. It's kind of like whether the feds have Hillary's deleted stash. If they have it, then that's a big difference. If Lazar does indeed have Hillary's emails and he was reading them in real time while having his Cheerios, and then posting it up on the web, like he claimed, and he's doing all this while using a Russian server (which apparently has been established). then that's a massive difference in Hillary's case.

And he's coming in just when the FBI is supposedly teeing up interviews?
I've also read that Gufficer posted a screen shot with an email from Hillary to Bluemthal, proving it existed -- but it may not have been turned over.

It certainly looks like the timing is curious at worst.  We just don't know a whole lot about what's going on.  Blumenthal looks to have possibly broken a lot of laws, and had unauthorized access to NSA reports that we was sharing over the public Web.  It's conceivable that he's a target and Hillary isn't.  What's clear is that someone is in the crosshairs here, and it would be hard to punish them without rebuking Hillary.

Spoke with a friend yesterday in the midst of upping his clearance.  He said you wouldn't believe the open hostility in that community.  The argument is that if Hillary isn't punished, why even have clearances?  They are PISSED beyond belief in the IC.

 
That's not all I've read on the matter.  I've been following this, including the Gufficer connection for months.  
But you fail to see how the article undercuts your point?  Here's a hint.  They wouldn't be going forward with Guccifer's criminal trial (on an indictment from 2014), including all but identifying Blumenthal as a victim, if this were part of an ongoing investigation of Blumenthal. 

 
This is interesting. Clinton broke laws related to campaigning on a subway. 

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/08/hillary-clinton-broke-campaigning-rules-new-york-city-subway

in this case, I take the view Tim and others do that some laws are beneath the circumstance.  I would not extend this so far as mishandling government secrets and open government regulations, however.  

Maybe Tim sees this as all the same?

 
But you fail to see how the article undercuts your point?  Here's a hint.  They wouldn't be going forward with Guccifer's criminal trial (on an indictment from 2014), including all but identifying Blumenthal as a victim, if this were part of an ongoing investigation of Blumenthal. 
What's to say he couldn't be offered immunity later?

 
What's to say he couldn't be offered immunity later?
On what?  They've had this information for two years.  Whatever memos Guccifer had were hacked off of Blumenthal's AOL account.  Under what possible scenario would they start prosecuting Guccifer based on this information while still investigating Blumenthal?  It has nothing to do with immunity.  It has to do with basic standards of minimum competence when conducting an investigation. 

 
Maybe Tim sees this as all the same?
If I truly believed that Hillary is guilty of deliberately mishandling government secrets, then i would stop supporting her. Not sure how many times I need to write that.

That being said, and this has nothing to do with Hillary: I have long made the argument that honesty and transparency are not especially important elements to me in terms of the Presidency. Given the choice, I would much rather have a corrupt and lying President who was competent and did good things for the country over an honest but incompetent President who screwed everything up. 

 
If I truly believed that Hillary is guilty of deliberately mishandling government secrets, then i would stop supporting her. Not sure how many times I need to write that.

That being said, and this has nothing to do with Hillary: I have long made the argument that honesty and transparency are not especially important elements to me in terms of the Presidency. Given the choice, I would much rather have a corrupt and lying President who was competent and did good things for the country over an honest but incompetent President who screwed everything up. 


If the second part is true, then why would you stop supporting her if she is charged with numerous felonies?   

 
This just indicates that there is a very small segment of the population (15% or so, generously) that really likes Hillary and has her at the top of their mind when asked about what people they admire.  That in no way refutes the fact that more people view her unfavorably than favorably. 
Not suggesting otherwise.  But in a primary against every other woman on earth, she gets 15% of the vote, that's pretty good.  

 
If I truly believed that Hillary is guilty of deliberately mishandling government secrets, then i would stop supporting her. Not sure how many times I need to write that.

That being said, and this has nothing to do with Hillary: I have long made the argument that honesty and transparency are not especially important elements to me in terms of the Presidency. Given the choice, I would much rather have a corrupt and lying President who was competent and did good things for the country over an honest but incompetent President who screwed everything up. 
Thought we'd covered this.  Deliberately is not the standard for a crime in this domain.  Gross negligence is.

 
On what?  They've had this information for two years.  Whatever memos Guccifer had were hacked off of Blumenthal's AOL account.  Under what possible scenario would they start prosecuting Guccifer based on this information while still investigating Blumenthal?  It has nothing to do with immunity.  It has to do with basic standards of minimum competence when conducting an investigation. 
We haven't actually had a blip about Blumenthal in terms of whether he is being investigated. No word he is on the interview list, no word that his data has been seized. I do think the idea that the feds may have a whole cache of his emails unfiltered has to be unnerving, I don't know that we know when the feds got Lazar's data, maybe it had to be extradited with him. - However what the feds could get from Guccifer is his testimony on the original data he pulled from Blumenthal and also the data he possibly could have pulled from Hillary. Collecting evidence would be a first step towards investigating and then interviewing Blumenthal (and Hillary). Having said that, as previously indicated, they likely would not start just now getting evidence on Blumenthal directly from him but rather more likely that would have happened some time ago, and yet then again we don't know they haven't. Otoh it seems hard to believe given the environment that if they had it wouldn't have been leaked by now. But what good would any data previously gathered from Lazar be without any way to authenticate its derivation? Now they would have that. And like I said maybe they are just getting it.

eta - one more thought, maybe they do not need the data he pulled in any event, or to authenticate it, perhaps Lazar will just be used to show how easy it was to crack Blumenthal's email, and maybe from there how easy it was to get into Hillary's account (ohhhh say by emailing Hillary a file from Blumenthal's account?... or maybe just by guessing whatever kind of password a computer-illiterate grandma would use?...) and thereby show how negligent Hillary was in handling classified information. If they can do that, with someone who did it for private gratification, they can show how it easy it was for the best foreign intelligence services in the world to do the same.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So let me get this straight: you're OK with skipping the general election if Clinton is the candidate, and thus contributing to the increased possibility of rollback of abortion rights, gay rights, the voting rights act, and any number of other things that might occur if someone like Ted Cruz gets to appoint the next few Supreme Court justices, not to mention the cancellation of the Clean Power Plan and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, not to mention countless other clear policy issues on which Clinton is more progressive than Cruz or Trump.

And the straw that broke the camel's back for you is that, according to a TV reporter who posted less-than-clear audio and video on Twitter, Clinton decided to have one of her fundraisers outdoors instead of behind closed doors and thus enforced the standard "no media" policy for such events embraced by virtually every politician who has ever had one via a static noise machine as a replacement for walls?

Is that accurate?
Never pegged you for a sky-is-falling, doomsday drama queen.  Are you really that scared?  Maybe you're having a panic attack right now?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So let me get this straight: you're OK with skipping the general election if Clinton is the candidate, and thus contributing to the increased possibility of rollback of abortion rights, gay rights, the voting rights act, and any number of other things that might occur if someone like Ted Cruz gets to appoint the next few Supreme Court justices, not to mention the cancellation of the Clean Power Plan and withdrawal from the Paris Agreement, not to mention countless other clear policy issues on which Clinton is more progressive than Cruz or Trump.

And the straw that broke the camel's back for you is that, according to a TV reporter who posted less-than-clear audio and video on Twitter, Clinton decided to have one of her fundraisers outdoors instead of behind closed doors and thus enforced the standard "no media" policy for such events embraced by virtually every politician who has ever had one via a static noise machine as a replacement for walls?

Is that accurate?
I know this was directed at AnonBob but I'm also a "never vote for Hillary" and I can say I will not be skipping the election. If Hillary is the Dem candidate I will be voting GOP.

 
They were talking on  talk radio that Hillary only needs to win 36 percent of the remaining delegates, so it's over for the Sanders camp, she has 2.5 million vote lead so the super delegates will have to support her

 
They were talking on  talk radio that Hillary only needs to win 36 percent of the remaining delegates, so it's over for the Sanders camp, she has 2.5 million vote lead so the super delegates will have to support her
Her vote lead seems to be eroding with every state.  Not so sure the super delegates have to do anything.  

Besides, the vote lead is just spin because it ignores all Sanders wins in states that caucus.  The funny thing is The Hillary camp were doing the opposite spin in 2008. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We haven't actually had a blip about Blumenthal in terms of whether he is being investigated. No word he is on the interview list, no word that his data has been seized. I do think the idea that the feds may have a whole cache of his emails unfiltered has to be unnerving, I don't know that we know when the feds got Lazar's data, maybe it had to be extradited with him. - However what the feds could get from Guccifer is his testimony on the original data he pulled from Blumenthal and also the data he possibly could have pulled from Hillary. Collecting evidence would be a first step towards investigating and then interviewing Blumenthal (and Hillary). Having said that, as previously indicated, they likely would not start just now getting evidence on Blumenthal directly from him but rather more likely that would have happened some time ago, and yet then again we don't know they haven't. Otoh it seems hard to believe given the environment that if they had it wouldn't have been leaked by now. But what good would any data previously gathered from Lazar be without any way to authenticate its derivation? Now they would have that. And like I said maybe they are just getting it.

eta - one more thought, maybe they do not need the data he pulled in any event, or to authenticate it, perhaps Lazar will just be used to show how easy it was to crack Blumenthal's email, and maybe from there how easy it was to get into Hillary's account (ohhhh say by emailing Hillary a file from Blumenthal's account?... or maybe just by guessing whatever kind of password a computer-illiterate grandma would use?...) and thereby show how negligent Hillary was in handling classified information. If they can do that, with someone who did it for private gratification, they can show how it easy it was for the best foreign intelligence services in the world to do the same.
Possible that Blumenthal was a CIA operative.  Would explain a lot.  

 
They were talking on  talk radio that Hillary only needs to win 36 percent of the remaining delegates, so it's over for the Sanders camp, she has 2.5 million vote lead so the super delegates will have to support her
Don't you think that makes her hyper aggressive turn after WI all the more bizarre?

 
They were talking on  talk radio that Hillary only needs to win 36 percent of the remaining delegates, so it's over for the Sanders camp, she has 2.5 million vote lead so the super delegates will have to support her
I dare one Hillary supporter to come to your defense when I say that you are an embarrassment to Hilla's cause.

One.

 
They were talking on  talk radio that Hillary only needs to win 36 percent of the remaining delegates, so it's over for the Sanders camp, she has 2.5 million vote lead so the super delegates will have to support her
She needs over 60% if she wants to win before a convention. :coffee:

if she loses NY, it's over.  She will not get the nomination. 

 
Odd thing Rachel Maddow said to lead off her show...

Bernie Sanders, after Hillary Clinton won the first two caucuses, has won the last eight in-a-row. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Do you believe that LBJ was a transparent  President? Are you serious? 
Love when Hillary does another stupid thing and Tim immediately asks some random, stupid question that has nothing to do with anything except try and change the conversation because Hillary is looking like Hillary again.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top