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 (10 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
SaintsInDome2006 said:
- Who do you think the top advisor is? Jennifer Palmieri? Brian Fallon? Mook? Podesta?
Click to expand...
No, see, when a Sanders spokesperson told Politico that Clinton was qualified to be secretary of state, that means Sanders is contradicting himself saying Clinton isn't qualified to be President.  But when a top advisor tells CNN what the campaign strategy is, that's just idle speculation by CNN.

 
timschochet said:
Not sure where you getting this from his most recent posts. He's absolutely correct. Neither Hillary nor her surrogates ever said Bernie was unqualified. The media added that, Bernie apparently read only the headlines, and went over the top in response, which is why he had to backtrack the next day. It's not that big a deal though. 
Click to expand...
I implied he's an idiot, sure. But technically I never said it. See the difference? It's meaningless. To pretend you neither see nor understand the difference is being deliberately obtuse. 

 
AnonymousBob said:
I implied he's an idiot, sure. But technically I never said it. See the difference? It's meaningless. To pretend you neither see nor understand the difference is being deliberately obtuse. 
Click to expand...
Well, it certainly displays all the characteristics of it.  To the point that I wouldn't support anyone who said he isn't deliberately obtuse.  And if someone asked me if he was not deliberately obtuse I wouldn't answer affirmatively.  

But I wouldn't directly say he's deliberately obtuse.

 
I might leak a campaign statement through an advisor that I plan to highlight Tim's deliberate obtuseness.  Again, that doesn't mean I believe he is.

 
Not saying she hasn't but has Hillary done any published editorial board meetings with the WaPo or NYDN yet, like Sanders, Trump and Cruz? She may have, I just don't recall it. Maybe it was so damned excellent it received no controversy so it hasn't been discussed? -eta - Not sure I am remembering this right, I think I remember published transcripts by WaPo with Trump and Cruz and NYDN with Sanders, any others?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu said:
How many times do I have to repeat that caucuses do not report the actual number of people who attended caucuses?
Click to expand...
That's not entirely true. Iowa reports the number of people who caucus but they do not release raw vote totals of each candidate. (A lot of that has to do with viability and the general ####ery of caucuses)

 
Trey said:
That's not entirely true. Iowa reports the number of people who caucus but they do not release raw vote totals of each candidate. (A lot of that has to do with viability and the general ####ery of caucuses)
Click to expand...
Link? Would love to find this out for all the caucus states so I can put it to rest.

 
Mr. Ham said:
www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/04/08/obama-will-address-hillary-s-email-scandal-on-first-ever-fox-news-sunday.html

Obama will appear on Fox News Sunday tomorrow.  His previously recorded interview is under embargo until tomorrow, but he spoke about Clinton's emails.  I have a feeling we'll have a much better sense tomorrow if this will progress.  If he takes the same line as Clinton (not even a remote chance), then I'd expect it's not going to move towards indictment.  But if he takes the line that the FBI will operate independently without political interference, then I'd read that to mean that things look dicey at best for H.  That probably means he knows there's a case with substance brewing and it's far from settled, and he needs to hedge. :popcorn:
Click to expand...
It is inappropriate for him to make any comments on it.

 
timschochet said:
It's a security review. 
Click to expand...
So I've been trying to figure this out what this means. It gets constantly repeated. I think we all think we know what this means when Hillary constantly repeats she is undergoing a "security review." But I'm not sure.

Well it turns out it's in one of the actual NDA's she herself signed, in Part 4.



[SIZE=11.5pt]1. Intending to be legally bound, I hereby accept the obligations contained in this Agreement in consideration of my being granted access to information or material protected within Special Access Programs, hereinafter referred to in this Agreement as Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI). I have been advised that SCI involves or derives from intelligence sources or methods and is classified or in the process of a classification determination under the standards of Executive Order 12356 or other Executive order or statute. I understand and accept that by being granted access to SCI, special confidence and trust shall be placed in me by the United StatesGovernment.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11.5pt]2. I hereby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination concerning the nature and protection of SCI, including the procedures to be followed in ascertaining whether other persons to whom I contemplate disclosing this information have been approved for access to it, and I understand these procedures. I understand that Imay be required to sign subsequent agreements upon being granted access to different categories of SCI. I further understand that all my obligations under this Agreement continue to exist whether or not I am required to sign such subsequent agreements.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=11.5pt]3. I have been advised that unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation. I hereby agree that I will never divulge anything marked as SCI or that I know to be SCI to anyone who is not authorized to receive it without prior written authorization from the United States Government department or agency (hereinafter Department or Agency) that last authorized my access to SCI. I understand that it is my responsibility to consult with appropriate management authorities in the Department or Agency that last authorized my access to SCI, whether or not I am still employed by or associated with that Department or Agency or a contractor thereof, in order to ensure that I know whether information or material within my knowledge or control that I have reason to believe might be SCI, or related to or derived from SCI, is considered by such Department or Agency to be SCI. I further understand that I am also obligated by law and regulation not to disclose any classified information or material in an unauthorized fashion.[/SIZE]

4. (U) In consideration of being granted access to SCI and of being assigned or retained in a position of special confidence and trust requiring access to SCI, I hereby agree to submit for security review by the Department or Agency that last authorized my access to such information or material, any writing or other preparation in any form, including a work of fiction, that contains or purports to contain any SCI or description of activities that produce or relate to SCI or that I have reason to believe are derived from SCI, that I contemplate disclosing to any person not authorized to have access to SCI or that I have prepared for public disclosure. I understand and agree that my obligation to submit such preparations for review applies during the course of my access to SCI and thereafter, and I agree to make any required submissions prior to discussing the preparation with, or showing it to, anyone who is not authorized to have access to SCI. I further agree that I will not disclose the contents of such preparation with, or show it to, anyone who is not authorized to have access to SCI until I have received written authorization from the Department or Agency that last authorized my access to SCI that such disclosure is permitted.

5. (U) I understand that the purpose of the review described in paragraph 4 is to give the United States a reasonable opportunity to determine whether the preparation submitted pursuant to paragraph 4 sets forth any SCI. I further understand that the Department or Agency to which I have made a submission will act upon it, coordinating within the Intelligence Community when appropriate, and make a response to me within a reasonable time, not to exceed 30 working days from date of receipt.

9. (U) Unless and until I am released in writing by an authorized representative of the Department or Agency that last provided me with access to SCI, I understand that all conditions and obligations imposed on me by this Agreement apply during the time I am granted access to SCI, and at all times thereafter.

...[SIZE=11.5pt]11. I have read this Agreement carefully and my questions, if any, have been answered to my satisfaction. I acknowledge that the briefing officer has made available Sections 793, 794, 798, and 952 of Title 18, United States Code, and Section 783(b) of Title 50, United States Code, and Executive Order 12356, as amended, so that I may read them at this time, if I so choose.[/SIZE]
Click to expand...


This appears to be a similar but more easily readable form (I take it the language is the same but I have not checked).

State is no longer doing its security review since early February, right after the 22 above Top Secret emails were withheld, since then it's been the FBI and just the FBI. Why would the FBI take over this review unless they had determined that Sec. 11 at the bottom had been triggered?


 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
So I've been trying to figure this out what this means. It gets constantly repeated. I think we all think we know what this means when Hillary constantly repeats she is undergoing a "security review." But I'm not sure.

Well it turns out it's in one of the actual NDA's she herself signed, in Part 4.





This appears to be a similar but more easily readable form (I take it the language is the same but I have not checked).

State is no longer doing its security review since early February, right after the 22 above Top Secret emails were withheld, since then it's been the FBI and just the FBI. Why would the FBI take over this review unless they had determined that Sec. 12 at the bottom had been triggered?
Click to expand...
just so i've got it straight:

Hillary signed an NDA in which she agrees to a "security review" to be conducted by the Agency or Department to last issue her access to SCI material. and the last Agency or Department is The State Department. and that same State Department halted their "security review," and the only current inquiry is being conducted by the FBI.

the FBI is not an Agency or Department by which Hillary could have been granted access to SCI material, therefore the current investigation must be of criminal nature, as the FBI does not conduct "security reviews."

about right?

 
bananafish said:
I wonder how many emails Hillary deleted on this:

Clinton Foundation Donors Got Weapons Deals From Hillary Clinton's State Department

"Under Clinton's leadership, the State Department approved $165 billion worth of commercial arms sales to 20 nations whose governments have given money to the Clinton Foundation, according to an IBTimes analysis of State Department and foundation data. That figure -- derived from the three full fiscal years of Clinton’s term as Secretary of State (from October 2010 to September 2012) -- represented nearly double the value of American arms sales made to the those countries and approved by the State Department during the same period of President George W. Bush’s second term."

"The State Department formally approved these arms sales even as many of the deals enhanced the military power of countries ruled by authoritarian regimes whose human rights abuses had been criticized by the department. Algeria, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Oman andQatar all donated to the Clinton Foundation and also gained State Department clearance to buy caches of American-made weapons even as the department singled them out for a range of alleged ills, from corruption to restrictions on civil liberties to violent crackdowns against political opponents."

She is so, so qualified.
Click to expand...
It is so bizarre she can get away with such a huge conflict of interest.  

 
Quint said:
just so i've got it straight:

Hillary signed an NDA in which she agrees to a "security review" to be conducted by the Agency or Department to last issue her access to SCI material. and the last Agency or Department is The State Department. and that same State Department halted their "security review," and the only current inquiry is being conducted by the FBI.

the FBI is not an Agency or Department by which Hillary could have been granted access to SCI material, therefore the current investigation must be of criminal nature, as the FBI does not conduct "security reviews."

about right?
Click to expand...
Yes, and the same NDA signed by Hillary provides for criminal penalties if the agreement is violated.

One other thing, I had thought that "security review" referred to all classified" information, apparently it's a term which specifically refers to SCI. Even by saying "security review" Hillary is acknowledging she may have disclosed, retained or mishandled the highest kinds of classified information, the sort which she herself acknowledged [SIZE=11.5pt]"could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation." [/SIZE]

 
jon_mx said:
It is so bizarre she can get away with such a huge conflict of interest.  
Click to expand...
Conflict of interest regulations are for little people.  Great People like Hillary can't be bound by silly little restrictions like these.

Edit: Tim will be along soon to remind you that what appears on the surface to be outright bribery is actually not even evidence of bribery at all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
jon_mx said:
That would not stop him from commenting.  But Obama has been like-warm to Hillary at best, so it will be interesting to see the spin he puts on it. 
Click to expand...
What I think is most interesting will be to gauge his passion I spinning it, given what he knows and how it affects him, his party and his legacy.

 
Last edited:
AnonymousBob said:
You get the impression squistion is regularly in over his head and when forced to do more than copy/paste articles or tweets and hasn't thought very much about how to make good arguments for anything. 
Click to expand...
Squis doesn't have to worry about making good arguments, the facts are in his favor.  

Let's be clear, the Hillary guys aren't demagoguing Bernie; in general, we like the guy and will be excited to support him in the fall if he is the nominee. The reason these threads are contentious is due to the demagoguing and outright lying about Hillary and her record.  It's one thing to support Bernie, but quite another to openly root for an indictment and make up a bunch of bull####.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ said:
Squis doesn't have to worry about making good arguments, the facts are in his favor.  

Let's be clear, the Hillary guys aren't demagoguing Bernie; in general, we like the guy and will be excited to support him in the fall if he is the nominee. The reason these threads are contentious is due to the demagoguing and outright lying about Hillary and her record.  It's one thing to support Bernie, but quite another to openly root for an indictment and make up a bunch of bull####.  
Click to expand...
I'm really hoping that all this amounts to on HRC's part was an episode of bad judgement and/or technology cluelessness in pursuit of expediency. But even if that's the truth, it's not exactly a selling point.

 
tommyGunZ said:
Squis doesn't have to worry about making good arguments, the facts are in his favor.  

Let's be clear, the Hillary guys aren't demagoguing Bernie; in general, we like the guy and will be excited to support him in the fall if he is the nominee. The reason these threads are contentious is due to the demagoguing and outright lying about Hillary and her record.  It's one thing to support Bernie, but quite another to openly root for an indictment and make up a bunch of bull####.  
Click to expand...
I thought Squiz was talking about what Hillary's top advisor told CNN about going nuclear and disqualifying Sanders, not about the FBI investigation?

 
Henry Ford said:
No, see, when a Sanders spokesperson told Politico that Clinton was qualified to be secretary of state, that means Sanders is contradicting himself saying Clinton isn't qualified to be President.  But when a top advisor tells CNN what the campaign strategy is, that's just idle speculation by CNN.
Click to expand...
Got the quote from the top advisor?  

 
timschochet said:
Not looking good for Bernie and Wyoming won't make any difference: 

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/bernie-sanders-is-even-further-behind-in-votes-than-he-is-in-delegates/
Click to expand...
The math has been this way for a looooong time.  "Momentum" hasn't really been momentum, but instead demographics.  Bernie can't just nip Hillary in NY and CA, he has to trounce her.  And we know that isn't going to happen. 

Remember Karl Rove on Fox News on election night 2012?  It's like we are seeing a replay.  

 
tommyGunZ said:
The math has been this way for a looooong time.  "Momentum" hasn't really been momentum, but instead demographics.  Bernie can't just nip Hillary in NY and CA, he has to trounce her.  And we know that isn't going to happen. 

Remember Karl Rove on Fox News on election night 2012?  It's like we are seeing a replay.  
Click to expand...
Then why has Hillary gotten so aggressive with Sanders after WI? The thinking should then go, let him go out easily, express his message, and Hillary should already have turned to the Republicans. Why hasn't she done this?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Fyi I just tried to Like Henry's Like of your post.

Uhm, let's see if I can find it.... it's in the actual article you were discussing.
Click to expand...
I figured you have some type of program that organizes all of the articles you cite on a daily basis.  Please tell me you're not doing this straight from the hip.  Are you some kind of genius??? :)

 
tommyGunZ said:
Remember Karl Rove on Fox News on election night 2012?  It's like we are seeing a replay.  
Click to expand...
Silliness. Few, if any, of us Sanders supporters are flat out expecting him to win. We're hopeful that if things break right for him that it's conceivable that he has a chance to win. We recognize that HRC is still the heavy favorite. We're not going to quit until all hope is gone, but it's nothing like Rove's delusional denial of what was happening right in front of him on election night.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 11m11 minutes ago

Sanders likely to win Wyoming caucus but margin is narrower than I would have expected: http://bit.ly/1TIDxEG

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 8m8 minutes ago


Maybe "momentum" is actually a negative in the Democratic race since it can make your supporters complacent.

Nate Silver ‏@NateSilver538 4m4 minutes ago


Also some Dems who like what Bernie stands for but would prefer Clinton as nominee. May flip back to Clinton when she looks more vulnerable.


 
Looks like being investigated by the FBI is the new cool thing to do for Democrats.  Hillary looks like she may have started a fad.

FBI probing Mayor de Blasio’s fundraising activities

US Attorney Preet Bharara now has Mayor de Blasio in his cross hairs — investigating his campaign fund-raising activities as part of a widening probe into NYPD corruption, sources said yesterday...
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ said:
Got the quote from the top advisor?  
Click to expand...
It was originally a live feed of CNN following the Wisconsin win, in which a reporter stated that he was told that the next phase of the campaign would be called: "Disqualify Him. Defeat Him." And that they would unify the party later.

I suppose the other option is that CNN lied about that quote, though they have used it repeatedly since.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Then why has Hillary gotten so aggressive with Sanders after WI? The thinking should then go, let him go out easily, express his message, and Hillary should already have turned to the Republicans. Why hasn't she done this?
Click to expand...
I haven't seen the hyper aggressiveness that you guys are seeing.  It's NY, so the media scrutiny is going to get dialed way up. Obviously the Daily News interview was a debacle for Bernie, and Hillary had no choice but to exploit that.  But I don't see that as aggression. :shrug:

 
Henry Ford said:
It was originally a live feed of CNN following the Wisconsin win, in which a reporter stated that he was told that the next phase of the campaign would be called: "Disqualify Him. Defeat Him." And that they would unify the party later.

I suppose the other option is that CNN lied about that quote, though they have used it repeatedly since.
Click to expand...
Thanks.

 
tommyGunZ said:
I figured you have some type of program that organizes all of the articles you cite on a daily basis.  Please tell me you're not doing this straight from the hip.  Are you some kind of genius??? :)
Click to expand...
Ha. Well I'm a Saints fan so I have a very high tolerance for aggravation and unrealistic thinking. So I'm willing to go through the trouble of using the search function and then to believe people might read the stuff.

The article is just on the prior page, it was posted by Squiz..

As Sanders took a victory lap following a 14-point triumph in Wisconsin, Clinton took fresh aim at the Vermont senator as part of a three-part strategy before the New York primary on April 19: Disqualify him, defeat him, and unify the party later.  ...

The Clinton campaign has refrained from going nuclear on Sanders, aides say, in large part to keep at least some good will alive in hopes of unifying the party at the end of the primary fight. No more, a top adviser told CNN. The fight is on. Extending an olive branch to Sanders' supporters "will come later," an adviser said.

It's a new moment in this Democratic primary fight, with the Clinton campaign poised to dramatically escalate its criticism of Sanders in the coming days.
Both sides are bracing for a rough-and-tumble contest in New York, with the Sanders campaign already telegraphing its plan to aggressively go after Clinton and her policies. Aides to Clinton said they were simply going on defense, a step needed even more in the wake of their double-digit loss in Wisconsin.
A Clinton campaign fundraising appeal after the Wisconsin primary offered a glimpse into the new approach. ...
Click to expand...
 
So the CNN reporter talked to a "top advisor" and "aides" to Clinton, in saying things like the campaign was going "nuclear" and would be trying to "disqualify" Sanders.

Btw the Hillary campaign has not said this is false or demanded that CNN retract this in anyway.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ha. Well I'm a Saints fan so I have a very high tolerance for aggravation and unrealistic thinking. So I'm willing to go through the trouble of using the search function and then to believe people might read the stuff.

The article is just on the prior page, it was posted by Squiz..

 
So the CNN reporter talked to a "top advisor" and "aides" to Clinton, in saying things like the campaign was going "nuclear" and would be trying to "disqualify" Sanders.

Btw the Hillary campaign has not said this is false or demanded that CNN retract this in anyway.
Click to expand...
I see.  This is how this "hyper aggression" narrative begins.  No where in that piece does the Clinton campaign, or aides, say that the campaign was going "nuclear". They said they have "refrained from going nuclear".  
 

 
tommyGunZ said:
Squis doesn't have to worry about making good arguments, the facts are in his favor.  

Let's be clear, the Hillary guys aren't demagoguing Bernie; in general, we like the guy and will be excited to support him in the fall if he is the nominee. The reason these threads are contentious is due to the demagoguing and outright lying about Hillary and her record.  It's one thing to support Bernie, but quite another to openly root for an indictment and make up a bunch of bull####.  
Click to expand...
Don't worry about immunity or the hacker extradited.  Don't worry about Comey saying he will ensure he is resourced to continue a stretched out investigation.  Facts are all with the ostriches, under the sand.

 
Gr00vus said:
Silliness. Few, if any, of us Sanders supporters are flat out expecting him to win. We're hopeful that if things break right for him that it's conceivable that he has a chance to win. We recognize that HRC is still the heavy favorite. We're not going to quit until all hope is gone, but it's nothing like Rove's delusional denial of what was happening right in front of him on election night.
Click to expand...
That said, if Sanders somehow takes NY, well, then I'm starting to think it's winnin' timetm .

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
258K
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