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 (5 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wasn't discovered until after Statute of Limitations were up.  I mean what's your explanation for what occurred?  Think it went how she claimed -- despite an economic journal running a model staying it was 1:31 trillion that she'd have gotten the 100x return in that period?  Or was there maybe another explanation for how trades at the daily peak were consistently attributed to her time after time and she was handed over $100k after shelling out $1k? 

It was quite clearly laundering of a bribe, if you look at it objectively.

Wondering if you care - and if so what's the explanation?

If it was criminal - would even that matter?
How convenient. Hillary dodges another bullet just because the clock ran out. It just so happened no one became aware of it while charges could have been brought.  Amazing how often this supposedly happens with Hillary. It appears that when Hillary engages in criminal acts that can be charged, they are never discovered until it is too late to do anything about it. I guess whoever regulated this kind of thing (the SEC?) wasn't paying attention at the time.

And yes, if it actually was criminal (which has never been proven, this is just another allegation) it would matter, as Tim and I have stated numerous times. But as with everything else, nothing to see here.

 
How convenient. Hillary dodges another bullet just because the clock ran out. It just so happened no one became aware of it while charges could have been brought.  Amazing how often this supposedly happens with Hillary. It appears that when Hillary engages in criminal acts that can be charged, they are never discovered until it is too late to do anything about it. I guess whoever regulated this kind of thing (the SEC?) wasn't paying attention at the time.

And yes, if it actually was criminal (which has never been proven, this is just another allegation) it would matter, as Tim and I have stated numerous times. But as with everything else, nothing to see here.
Do me a favor.  Look into it.  Just it.  I have a handful of issues with Hillary, and when you shine a spotlight on those things and don't look at it from a partisan perceptive - but on facts - they are damning.

I frankly defy you to look at Cattle Futures and come back and tell me that the most logical conclusion is not that your hero committed a crime.  I ask you to think for yourself. 

And the only way this was discovered (happened in 1978) was in 1994 when reporters saw smoke with Whitewater and looked at the Clinton's publicly released finances saw this 100x return on $1k in 9 months and delved in.

Just asking you to spend 20 minutes on it, as a character background. Start with Wikipedia.

 
Last edited:
Do me a favor.  Look into it.  Just it.  I have a handful of issues with Hillary, and when you shine a spotlight on those things and don't look at it from a partisan perceptive - but on facts - they are damning.

I frankly defy you to look at Cattle Futures and come back and tell me that the most logical conclusion is not that your hero committed a crime.  I ask you to think for yourself. 

And the only way this was discovered (happened in 1978) was in 1994 when reporters saw smoke with Whitewater and looked at the Clinton's publicly released finances saw this 100x return on $1k in 9 months and delved in.

Just asking you to spend 20 minutes on it, as a character background. Start with Wikipedia.
That's ask a LOT of squiz.  You're probably going to be disappointed.

 
Then to save any misunderstanding in the future, please do not again refer to a prosecutor's draft, which led to no charges ever being filed, as an indictment that was drawn up.
Huh? Drawn up = drafted. If you misunderstood, fine I'm sorry, certainly not my intention because drawn up is literally the same thing as drafted. But ok I really want you to know I did not intend 'filed'. If anyone else was confused by this I am sure they can let me know.

- eta - btw has there ever been a presidential nominee who had a prosecutor's draft indictment prepared against them?

Go back to Washington, I don't care. Burr is the closest I might think, can't even recall if he was ever a major nominee.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm really torn on Hillary.
Me too.

On the one hand, I look at all of her poor decisions  - everything from being FOR the Iraq war to being AGAINST marriage equality and I think she would be a truly horrible President.

Then on the other hand, I look at all of her underhanded dealings, like deleting 30,000 emails while she is being investigated, and I think she would be the worst President ever. 

Really torn. Could go either way here.

 
I'm really torn on Hillary.

I've come to accept that Bill was really just a moderate Republican / moderate Democrat mix.  And that's not bad.  I think more good was done than bad while he was president.  I don't like the privatization of prisons.  I really, really, really don't like it.  Or the power that we seem to be giving the police (i.e., the impounding property without trial, police brutality, etc.).  I don't like the ties to wall street.  Both of those things I don't love.  And I'm not sure Hillary wouldn't be more of the same here.

And I don't love her seemingly hawkish behavior about foreign policy.

That being said, I'm sure she'd be better (to me, at least) than any of the non-moderate Republicans running.  So she's not a horrible choice.

I just wish she didn't bring the ick factor with her.  Sure, Bill had (has) it too, but he's got just enough Joe-Biden-awe-shucks-happy-go-lucky that I can at least stomach it.  Particularly if there are good results.  

I wish she wasn't making it so hard to support her.
I'm not supporting her at all if she wins - I'm supporting someone who will push the Democratic platform more than the Republican one and will nominate liberal Supreme Court Justices.

 
Hence you were being misleading in your terminology. One of the few times you haven't quoted extensively from an article and just paraphrased and it is obvious why.  When you say an indictment was "drawn up" most people would assume that it was filed, not just a draft that went nowhere. It appears you intentionally neglected to mention that it was a draft.  What I don't get is why you always do this, you should have enough legitimate things to point to about Hillary without having to try to resort to these tactics - geez you must be really desperate.
He's commenting to a group of people in the FFA, not the general public.  Most of us (including yourself) know exactly what he meant.

 
9 June 2015

Guccifer Letter from Prison

....A fast "query" on Google returned contradictory answers about the Blumenthal character, and another inquiry on the search engine of the F.B.I. helped to complete the profile of the "****".

Breaking into his email address took me a few minutes.

It wasn't necessary to use viruses that I made with some programmes – CAIN and ABEL/ SUBLEGEND SEVEN. These viruses I had kept safe from detection by the big antivirus companies – Kaspersky, Bitdefender, Symantec – for about two weeks, by modifying their structure with a hexadecimal table.
By utilising a complex kit of social engineering and deeply accessing open-source information, a vulnerability of the email account permits the possibility of resetting the password.


Once into the core of the communications of the man who had been supporting the Clintonian crime syndicate for decades, I modified the passwords of the email accounts associated with the main account. Masked by the Russian elite proxy servers, I performed a search of possible accounts on Google, Yahoo, Verizon, Comcast, Cox, Dropbox, Hotmail – associated wiith the AOL account. Then I copied the I.P. addresses from where the journalist and C.I.A. covert agent, Syd Blumenthal, accessed the email server.

With an I.P. scanner – IP Scanner/ Angry IP – I scanned the hosts and portsrts that proved dead at that time. In Chicago it was barely past midnight. In my hands, the timezone was – beyond the most powerful programmees for hacking such as Xerxes, Zeus or Black Shadows – the most terrible weapon for taking down a cunning and diabolical enemy. A Wireshark network scan returned inconclusive results.

Not having perspectives to access hard drives or units for mobile connection of my "victim" I went to sorting and reading the circa 30 thousand emails in his folders.

The exhaustive downloading of such a massive email box – AOL doesn't offer Drive or Cloud – several Gigabytes, was limited by the speed and reduced traffic of the proxy servers through which my communication was rooted. On the other hand, intense traffic automatically encrypted by the email server would have aroused the "suspicion" of NSA control servers, authorised as they are to operate with DIP protocols (Deep Inspection Packets). Such a server is operating illegally in Romania at least since 2009! So I went over to copying relevant emails together with the headers containing other crucial information – IP addresses, useful to future atttacks over tertiary targets.

As far as the content of the emails is concerned, apart from the charts of ultra-secret CIA operations in Europe and North Africa – Libya's entropy was in full progress – and substantantial dialogues between Blumenthal and various decision factors in the Near Orient and leaders of the Arab Brotherhood, by far the most fruitful "prey" I got my hands on were the CIA briefings that Sid <<unofficially>> transmitted to Hillary Clinton, then sitting on the chair of state secretary.

Before moving on, I want to say a few words about the clandestine network of secret agents that Sid developed for Hillary.

...Tyler Drumheller, the chief of CIA operations in Europe, which he directed from the fifth floor in a secret building in Central London, has left "THE COMPANY" in 2005 to lay the basis of an intelligence consulting company, named after himself, Tyler Drumheller, LLC.

This obese character with the docile face of an accountant, who appears on his personal Facebook page accompanied by a beautiful and loving daughter, is the coordinator of the clandestine network of secret agents under the veil of the consulting firm and of another company – DMC Worldwide – co-founded together with Donny MurMurray, a known lawyer in Washington political circles, and John Caulfield, the former chief of Capitol Police.

Tyler would report the information his agents picked from all corners of the world directly to Blumenthal. ...
https://cryptome.org/2015/06/guccifer-letter-01.htm

- Uhm, whil this guy (Lazar/Guccifer) has some ugly views and is an outright conspiracist (like a real one, he believes in the Illuminati,  but then again we are talking about an autodidact living in very poor rural Romania...) he sounds like he was accessing information directly. When he talks about what he read and saw, that seems real, when he says what he concludes from it, well that's often unreal.

This is long but it's interesting.... like a Hunter Thompson story....

However, more to the point:

 
Jonathan Langdale@jlangdale Apr 13
Sub7 RAT would have worked on @HillaryClinton's Windows 2008 R2 server. Guccifer used it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub7

 
Last edited by a moderator:
https://cryptome.org/2015/06/guccifer-letter-01.htm

- Uhm, whil this guy (Lazar/Guccifer) has some ugly views and is an outright conspiracist (like a real one, he believes in the Illuminati,  but then again we are talking about an autodidact living in very poor rural Romania...) he sounds like he was accessing information directly. When he talks about what he read and saw, that seems real, when he says what he concludes from it, well that's often unreal.

This is long but it's interesting.... like a Hunter Thompson story....

However, more to the point:

 
My suspicion here is that Guccifer doesn't exactly seem restrained. If he had Clinton's emails, I think he'd have posted them.

 
My suspicion here is that Guccifer doesn't exactly seem restrained. If he had Clinton's emails, I think he'd have posted them.
Yep, agree, that makes sense.

eta - It's possible that when Lazar ws saying he was reading Hillary's emails he meant the ones he was reading from Bumenthal's account, and when he was saying he was reading CIA memos he meant Drumheller's reports.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Please update the title to Official Hillary Clinton(She knows Obama) 2016 thread- It's Hillary vs. Donald Trump- well, maybe...

 
Yep, agree, that makes sense.

eta - It's possible that when Lazar ws saying he was reading Hillary's emails he meant the ones he was reading from Bumenthal's account, and when he was saying he was reading CIA memos he meant Drumheller's reports.
This is what I've always assumed.

 
These are all terrible options.  Truly. 

Clinton is the one least likely to set America back IMO.  I wish she was not running, as that probably would have opened the door for better alternatives to Sanders.  He is a voice and opinion that we need to hear to be a check and balance, but he has no business setting foot in the White House.  Trump and Cruz would be much worse.  Kasich just does not have "it" and seems almost like a local politician at times. 

 
She'll release them this summer after the primary is wrapped up and Republicans are tearing each other apart at their convention. 

 
She'll release them this summer after the primary is wrapped up and Republicans are tearing each other apart at their convention. 
Well that's the point. The only people with transcripts are Republicans and her, and actually she may be the only one nuts enough to have had them transcribed.

 
Yeah I just watched her answer on that. It was unconvincing. 
So what. Have you noticed no one ever asks that of the GOP candidates? Have any of them said in response to Hillary, "Yes I will be glad to have transcripts of all my speeches to private donors/groups released?" They don't want to go there and have something taken out of context and become an internet YouTube meme that could cost them the Presidency.  

 
So what. Have you noticed no one ever asks that of the GOP candidates? Have any of them said in response to Hillary, "Yes I will be glad to have transcripts of all my speeches to private donors/groups released?" They don't want to go there and have something taken out of context and become an internet YouTube meme that could cost them the Presidency.  
I think everyone is quite certain that Clinton said something that would amount to a Romney "47%" moment  

 
So what. Have you noticed no one ever asks that of the GOP candidates? Have any of them said in response to Hillary, "Yes I will be glad to have transcripts of all my speeches to private donors/groups released?" They don't want to go there and have something taken out of context and become an internet YouTube meme that could cost them the Presidency.  
Squiz, Hillary has been asked to do this by Sanders in a Democratic campaign. The fact that she is like the Republicans is the point.

- eta - The reality is they are hers, they're private, not public, she ought to say as much and defend it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BASH: Secretary Clinton?
CLINTON: I support our continuing involvement in NATO. And it is important to ask for our NATO allies to pay more of the cost. There is a requirement that they should be doing so, and I believe that needs to be enforced.
But there's a larger question here. NATO has been the most successful military alliance in probably human history. It has bound together across the Atlantic countries that are democracies, that have many of the same values and interests, and now we need to modernize it and move it into the 21st century to serve as that head of our defense operations in Europe when it comes to terrorism and other threats that we face. So...
BASH: But, Madam Secretary... CLINTON: ... yes, of course they should be paying more, but that doesn't mean if they don't we leave, because I don't think that's in America's interests.
BASH: That's going to be part of my -- my question to you is, to that point, there are 28 countries in the alliance, and the United States gives more money to NATO's budget than 21 of those countries combined. If they don't agree to pay more, as you suggested, then what would you do as commander-in-chief?
CLINTON: I will stay in NATO. I will stay in NATO, and we will continue to look for missions and other kinds of programs that they will support. Remember, NATO was with us in Afghanistan. Most of the member countries also lost soldiers and civilians in Afghanistan. They came to our rallying defense after 9/11. That meant a lot.
And, yes, we have to work out the financial aspects of it, but let's not forget what's really happening. With Russia being more aggressive, making all kinds of intimidating moves toward the Baltic countries, we've seen what they've done in Eastern Ukraine, we know how they want to rewrite the map of Europe, it is not in our interests. Think of how much it would cost if Russia's aggression were not deterred because NATO was there on the front lines making it clear they could not move forward.
(APPLAUSE)
BLITZER: Thank you, Secretary.


- Brava, Hillary.



 
 
So what. Have you noticed no one ever asks that of the GOP candidates? Have any of them said in response to Hillary, "Yes I will be glad to have transcripts of all my speeches to private donors/groups released?" They don't want to go there and have something taken out of context and become an internet YouTube meme that could cost them the Presidency.  
You don't have to convince me that Hillary is better than the GOP candidates. But her answer was still unconvincing. It plays into the whole "she's got something to hide." I hate it. 

 
Squiz, Hillary has been asked to do this by Sanders in a Democratic campaign. The fact that she is like the Republicans is the point.
But, if the nominee, she will be running against a Republican candidate in November, who won't release his and be subject to things being taken out of context. That is an advantage she shouldn't have to give up. I wouldn't if I were her. Again, it won't be an issue in November because whoever the GOP candidate won't go there and will be dead silent on the issue.

 
But, if the nominee, she will be running against a Republican candidate in November, who won't release his and be subject to things being taken out of context. That is an advantage she shouldn't have to give up. I wouldn't if I were her. Again, it won't be an issue in November because whoever the GOP candidate won't go there and will be dead silent on the issue.
Of course which is why she is doing it. Vs the GOP it's moot.

I do think that Sanders should release his tax returns though. That is odd to me.

 
I think everyone is quite certain that Clinton said something that would amount to a Romney "47%" moment  
I doubt it. I just think she is unnecessarily secretive, and always has been. I understand it, because she's been such a target for so many years. But it's not good; it's Nixonian (not in a good way.) 

 
You don't have to convince me that Hillary is better than the GOP candidates. But her answer was still unconvincing. It plays into the whole "she's got something to hide." I hate it. 
Tim, have her enemies ever missed an opportunity to take a line out of one of her speeches completely out of context to mean something entirely different and try to use it against her? Why give them ammunition when the playing field will not be equal? It is not smart politics, as she could end up wasting time and energy trying to explain something that has been completely misrepresented.

 
I think the problem is it will be taken in context, and that's true for Trump/Cruz too, though again I seriously wonder if they were transcribing theirs.
What is the proof that she has had all her speeches transcribed? I would imagine this just refers to recordings/videos of speeches of this nature that exist, that  someone, somewhere made a copy of, not that Hillary alone was obsessively having transcripts made of every speech she made.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is the proof that she has had all her speeches transcribed? I am certain this just refers to recordings/videos of speeches of this nature that exist, that  someone, somewhere made a copy of, not that Hillary alone was obsessively having transcripts made of every speech she made.
It's in her actual contracts, the client was to pay for the transcription service as a standard rider. The contract also says they are solely her property.

My guess is it makes sense that she wanted it for her book(s) or speeches.

eta - is it so bad if she said positive things to audiences that were paying truckloads of money? Try seeing things in context. What if she actually believes in Wall Street and the financial industry as important to America's well-being, would that be so bad?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's in her actual contracts, the client was to pay for the transcription service as a standard rider. The contract also says they are solely her property.

My guess is it makes sense that she wanted it for her book(s) or speeches.

eta - is it so bad if she said positive things to audiences that were paying truckloads of money? Try seeing things in context.
If so, is that standard among politicians or public speakers to organizations of that type? If she was the only one doing it, then it would be pointless to call out others to do the same, because they could just say that no transcripts have been made or exist. Of course, that really wouldn't matter because all anyone would need to make a transcript would be a recording or video device set up in the room (like Romney) even though they were not allowed.

 
If so, is that standard among politicians or public speakers to organizations of that type? If she was the only one doing it, then it would be pointless to call out others to do the same, because they could just say that no transcripts have been made or exist. Of course, that really wouldn't matter because all anyone would need to make a transcript would be a recording or video device set up in the room (like Romney) even though they were not allowed.
It might be, I don't know. I know Trump does paid speeches and it would not surprise me if he has a standard contract.

Someone has posted a loose transcription of one of her speeches to GS but it's not verifiable. Thing is people at such companies don't want those things getting out either.

 
That's not new. In Hard Choices she stated her differences with Obama on Syria. It was one of their few issues of disagreement. 

But Hillary, while desiring a more concerted approach, wasn't in favor of boots in the ground like McCain and Graham were. 

I think a reasonable question to ask her is how we reconcile our goal in Syria with our goal to defeat ISIS. But nobody ever has. Of all people, Trump could ask her this question and he might actually have the right of it on this one issue. 

 
That's not new. In Hard Choices she stated her differences with Obama on Syria. It was one of their few issues of disagreement. 

But Hillary, while desiring a more concerted approach, wasn't in favor of boots in the ground like McCain and Graham were. 

I think a reasonable question to ask her is how we reconcile our goal in Syria with our goal to defeat ISIS. But nobody ever has. Of all people, Trump could ask her this question and he might actually have the right of it on this one issue. 


Happy to be wrong but did McCain and Graham support landing US troops? How? Where? Syria is no ally. I think her position was the GOP position.

4. Syria Obama had no such appetite for intervening in Syria’s civil war, however, even as the country plunged into chaos in 2012. Clinton came to worry that the cost of inaction was outweighing the risk of intervention. So she teamed up with C.I.A. director David Petraeus to devise a plan to arm and train moderate rebel factions, which the two presented to Obama. The plan echoed the views of some leading Republicans, like John McCain and Lindsey Graham. But few in the White House agreed—including Obama, who rejected it.

Hillary never spoke publicly about the plan, although in June her husband urged Obama to be less cautious about Syria. “Some people say, ‘Okay, see what a big mess it is? Stay out!’ I think that’s a big mistake,” Bill Clinton said.

When Obama threatened air strikes last fall to punish the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, Hillary Clinton did support him with a pair of public statements. She was apparently undaunted by polling that showed more than 70 percent of Americans opposed to military action.
http://swampland.time.com/2014/01/14/hillary-clintons-unapologetically-hawkish-record-faces-2016-test/

* That article seems like a good summary of her FP.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I certainly believe a lot - if not most - of it is over the top. But to believe there's *no* truth to any of it?  That's a bit much, imo. 
OK, I meant to stay away from this, as I realized I was getting sucked into a useless internet argument, but I gotta reply to some of these comments.

1.  I do believe there's some truth to some of it- I think the cattle futures trading stinks to high hell.   I think most of the rest of the #### is ridiculous, and it speaks poorly of the anyone who touts it.   So, that said, I'm not a fan of hers, the cattle futures trading is big issue, and if it's Hillary/Kasich I'm leaning Kasich.  

 
With all due respect, her own endorsers are calling her a warrior, and she's absolutely a military interventionalist who has backed military intervention repeatedly.  That's not so good for the people whose actual boots are on the ground.

We can discuss a lot of things about Hillary Clinton and throw a lot of opinions back and forth.  Many will be right, many will be wrong.  But Clinton is well known for military intervention.  That's not fear mongering.  She will have a strong military, but she will use it.  
Her endorsers call her a warrior?   That's your lead in?    OK, list where she's backed military intervention.   Libya?   I'm fine with our involvement there.   Our European/NATO allies were hot for it, Gaddafi had it coming to him, and a civil war was already underway.   Iraq War?   I'm blaming W and his claims of hidden WMD.   Remember the mobile WMD labs?

 
Oh, just that one time she laundered bribe money.  Just that.

...In a Fall 1994 paper for the Journal of Economics and Finance, economists from the University of North Florida and Auburn Universityinvestigated the odds of gaining a hundred-fold return in the cattle futures market during the period in question. Using a model that was stated to give the hypothetical investor the benefit of the doubt, they concluded that the odds of such a return happening were at best 1 in 31 trillion.[14]

...or in Tim Land, the Journal of Economics and Finance built a model that explained how Hillary beat the odds.
Ya, I'm pretty sure I've posted repeatedly about how I think the cattle futures trading stinks to high hell.   But don't bother to read the thread.

 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top