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 (4 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clinton-declared-winner-guam-democratic-caucuses/story?id=38951463

Hillary Clinton Declared Winner of Guam Democratic Caucuses

The Guam Democratic Party has declared Hillary Clinton the winner of the party's presidential caucuses in the U.S. territory.

Counting superdelegates, Clinton has amassed just over 93 percent of the necessary total to clinch the Democratic nomination, according to ABC News projections. To get to the magic number of 2,383, the former secretary of state needs to win 16 percent of all remaining delegates and 73 percent of pledged delegates.

Meanwhile, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders needs to win 97 percent of all remaining delegates. He cannot reach 2,383 on pledged delegates alone; to win the Democratic nomination, he would need the support of the superdelegates.

Guam marks Clinton’s 26th victory in the primary season. Sanders has won 19 contests.

 
squistion said:
Hasn't there been enough talk about wieners already?  :hophead:

I don't think attacking Hillary for the sexting of the husband of one of her aides is going to play well with women. He will be on shaky ground if he keeps blaming Hillary for Bill infidelities (which most people at the time saw Hillary being a victim - outside of her haters, of course).

But Trump has been so tone deaf it wouldn't surprise me if he goes there.
Click to expand...
They're both women who obviously married to acquire power without giving a #### what their husband does.  That is what real female empowerment is about, right?

 
Sand said:
Sorry - this just doesn't hold water.  No doubt classified information leaks out into the public.  However, public officials with these kind of clearances aren't suddenly allowed to share this information in the public arena.  There is a hard restriction on these folks from confirming that this information is true - i.e. they may well validate the classified info.  This is a big no no.

So a huge difference between private citizen Joe Blow sharing classified info publicly and the SoS doing the same thing.  
Click to expand...
Of course.  No way that any of the information that Sydney "Joe Blow" Blumenthal shared should be considered as evidence of mishandling anything.  Likewise no way that newspaper articles and "innocuous" discussions of newspaper articles should be damning  

 
Slapdash said:
They're both women who obviously married to acquire power without giving a #### what their husband does.  That is what real female empowerment is about, right?
Click to expand...
No, the facts don't suggest that.

Bill and Hillary were married in 1975. 

In 1974 in Washington, she "was viewed as someone with a bright political future" and "followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas, rather than staying in Washington, where career prospects were brighter" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton  He was teaching law whenthey first married and wasn't elected to public office until 1976.

Maybe she saw some potential in this guy from Arkansas that no one else did, but if she wanted to acquire power, she would have stayed in Washington, where her own career prospects were better and the likelihood of finding some one to marry and thus acquire power were much greater.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
No, the facts don't suggest that.

Bill and Hillary were married in 1975. 

In 1974 in Washington, she "was viewed as someone with a bright political future" and "followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas, rather than staying in Washington, where career prospects were brighter" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton  He was teaching law whenthey first married and wasn't elected to public office until 1976.

Maybe she saw some potential in this guy from Arkansas that no one else did, but if she wanted to acquire power, she would have stayed in Washington, where her own career prospects were better and the likelihood of finding some one to marry and thus acquire power were much greater.
Click to expand...
Hillary confesses to Bill on her deathbed that she almost ran away before they married with some huckleberry, who was a little bit simple, limited prospects, charming though and had a gleam in his eye.  

"Ever wonder what would have become of you," he asks.

"No.  I have no doubt.  I'd have been First Lady, and then President."

 
squistion said:
No, the facts don't suggest that.

Bill and Hillary were married in 1975. 

In 1974 in Washington, she "was viewed as someone with a bright political future" and "followed Bill Clinton to Arkansas, rather than staying in Washington, where career prospects were brighter" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton  He was teaching law whenthey first married and wasn't elected to public office until 1976.

Maybe she saw some potential in this guy from Arkansas that no one else did, but if she wanted to acquire power, she would have stayed in Washington, where her own career prospects were better and the likelihood of finding some one to marry and thus acquire power were much greater.
Click to expand...
I'm sure Washington in the 70s was just crawling with future presidents.

 
Slapdash said:
They're both women who obviously married to acquire power without giving a #### what their husband does.  That is what real female empowerment is about, right?
Click to expand...
LOL.  Some of you guys are becoming so unhinged it's almost as if the Tea Party comparisons have merit. 

Facts usually matter with you Slapdash.  Surprised to see you typing this silliness.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
1. They seized her server. That's actual evidence.

And if anyone in the world has classified data on a private server they have broken the law. Might as well be caught with a gun and a bag of coke in your car, no questions asked, do not pass go, you've broken the law.

2. Pretty weird claim to think that the FBI would seize Hillary's server and not see what's on it.
Click to expand...
There has been a lot of speculation about what is in her email inbox or outbox, but we just don't know.  It seems quite unlikely to me that HRC would have attached a secret document to an outgoing email addressed to someone who did not have clearance.  (If she did, it would of course implicate the criminal statutes.)  We know that the State Dept. traditionally uses cables for field reports, that do not go through email but through the Department's own cable system.  It also seems hard to imagine that the CIA or Defense Department sent reports to her personal email address.  My recollection from past reading is that the SoS got in person briefings, and reports hand delivered.     

I am not buying the idea that the legal test for criminal liability is that I can send you an email with a secret document attached, and suddenly you have committed a crime, functionally the same as if you downloaded the information yourself from a file and took it home.  

 
pettifogger said:
There has been a lot of speculation about what is in her email inbox or outbox, but we just don't know.  It seems quite unlikely to me that HRC would have attached a secret document to an outgoing email addressed to someone who did not have clearance.  (If she did, it would of course implicate the criminal statutes.)  We know that the State Dept. traditionally uses cables for field reports, that do not go through email but through the Department's own cable system.  It also seems hard to imagine that the CIA or Defense Department sent reports to her personal email address.  My recollection from past reading is that the SoS got in person briefings, and reports hand delivered.     

I am not buying the idea that the legal test for criminal liability is that I can send you an email with a secret document attached, and suddenly you have committed a crime, functionally the same as if you downloaded the information yourself from a file and took it home.  
Click to expand...
She authored 104 of the classified emails.

And here is the criminality.  She authorized the private server. She was trained on what's sensitive. She signed an NDA indicating penalties if she mishandled.  Hosting classified material on a private (at one point unsecured) sever is mishandling. 104 of the emails originated with her.

She doesn't have to have intended to harm America to be convicted.  Intending to have the private server and then mishandling secrets by hosting it there (and a private backup facility) is more than enough.

 
Last edited:
pettifogger said:
Which apparently means someone retroactively classified her own comments, I gather.      
Click to expand...
The problem is, her NDA clearly puts the onus on her to recognize and properly handle information regardless of markings.  And when the classified emails originate with you, well now.  You are legally obligated to know without the retroactive bull.

 
Last edited:
Hillary is like one of those really fancy cupcakes at the high end stores.  She really must be tried.

 
Mr. Ham said:
The problem is, her NDA clearly puts the onus on her to recognize and properly handle information regardless of markings.  And when the classified emails originate with you, well now.  You are legally obligated to know without the retroactive bull.
Click to expand...


The problem is that the "erring on the side of caution" approach that those that might see classified information takes in their job duties s far different from the authority that the Secretary of State exercises (delegates) that allows documents containing information originating in the State Department to be classified at all.  

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Of course.  No way that any of the information that Sydney "Joe Blow" Blumenthal shared should be considered as evidence of mishandling anything.  Likewise no way that newspaper articles and "innocuous" discussions of newspaper articles should be damning  
Click to expand...
Another set of two standards.  If Joe Blow (Blumenthal) knew that the information was classified then he should also be held accountable.  However, if it was "awesome journalist" Joe Blow who dug up a story with no idea it was in classified records, then obviously he's fine.  

 
Mr. Ham said:
She authored 104 of the classified emails.

And here is the criminality.  She authorized the private server. She was trained on what's sensitive. She signed an NDA indicating penalties if she mishandled.  Hosting classified material on a private (at one point unsecured) sever is mishandling. 104 of the emails originated with her.

She doesn't have to have intended to harm America to be convicted.  Intending to have the private server and then mishandling secrets by hosting it there (and a private backup facility) is more than enough.
Click to expand...
Wanna bet?

$100, straight up says no indictment.  You want the other side?

 
Sand said:
Another set of two standards.  If Joe Blow (Blumenthal) knew that the information was classified then he should also be held accountable.  However, if it was "awesome journalist" Joe Blow who dug up a story with no idea it was in classified records, then obviously he's fine.  
Click to expand...
I believe Blumenthal was/is a CIA operative, or there would be more reporting on how he got those classified NSA reports.  I think the media outlets know it and have stood down.

 
tommyGunZ said:
Wanna bet?

$100, straight up says no indictment.  You want the other side?
Click to expand...
To be honest...  I'll honor the $100 charity check if she's on the ballot on Election Day, but the reporting the last couple of days has chilled me....  How quickly the media picked up the sword for the false "no intent to harm" narrative without a word on the statutes and that's it's false.  Plus the assault (albeit warranted) on Trump.  State obstructing, leaks from DOJ or State sabotaging.  This is utterly corrupt, and laws are being changed on the fly, but this is a power war and the depths of the effort to distort and thwart justice run deep.

Its a battle now for the FBI to overcome all of this outright corruption and one they will likely lose. I hope the truth can prevail, but am dubious.  And truthfully, sad.  

We are living through the complete solidification of the Oligarchy and a shameful period of opacity at the top of the broken system.  There are two sets of laws.  Hillary should be tried, but the big guns have her crooked back.

 
Mr. Ham said:
To be honest...  I'll honor the $100 charity check if she's on the ballot on Election Day, but the reporting the last couple of days has chilled me....  How quickly the media picked up the sword for the false "no intent to harm" narrative without a word on the statutes and that's it's false.  Plus the assault (albeit warranted) on Trump.  State obstructing, leaks from DOJ or State sabotaging.  This is utterly corrupt, and laws are being changed on the fly, but this is a power war and the depths of the effort to distort and thwart justice run deep.

Its a battle now for the FBI to overcome all of this outright corruption and one they will likely lose. I hope the truth can prevail, but am dubious.  And truthfully, sad.  

We are living through the complete solidification of the Oligarchy and a shameful period of opacity at the top of the broken system.  There are two sets of laws.  Hillary should be tried, but the big guns have her crooked back.
Click to expand...
No interest in "charity checks".  I prefer direct PayPal wagers.  Let me know if you change your mind.

Conspiracy theories never die. When investigations end and no wrongdoing is found, it's always "laws being changed on the fly" and "obstruction" and "State sabotaging".  Just like Benghazi.  And Whitewater. And (insert every fake political scandal over the past 2 decades).  It's so lame.

 
lod01 said:
Mr. Ham said:
Perfect summation.

Intent not the standard
Click to expand...
Bottom line is worst case, she's incompetent. Our next president. She will carry on the tradition. Stupid, old, lying, pear shaped, bag.
Click to expand...
The operative legal issue is not whether she intended to break the law, but whether she knowingly and intentionally stored classified information on her unauthorized server.
Click to expand...
There were zero classified emails on the server while it was operational.    Admittedly random day to day emails to and from a  hodgepodge of government employees all trained in handling classified materials would be a pretty incompetent method to create this repository of "knowingly removed" classified information. 

 
tommyGunZ said:
No interest in "charity checks".  I prefer direct PayPal wagers.  Let me know if you change your mind.

Conspiracy theories never die. When investigations end and no wrongdoing is found, it's always "laws being changed on the fly" and "obstruction" and "State sabotaging".  Just like Benghazi.  And Whitewater. And (insert every fake political scandal over the past 2 decades).  It's so lame.
Click to expand...
Me too.

Mr. Ham is just full of hot air and doesn't believe himself she will be indicted. And that is why he won't make a real bet that can be verified (if I get a PayPal payment I know the money was paid). Saying you gave $100 to charity sounds nice but it is means absolutely nothing since it can't be disproven by anyone here (we would just to take this joker's word for it).

 
tommyGunZ said:
No interest in "charity checks".  I prefer direct PayPal wagers.  Let me know if you change your mind.

Conspiracy theories never die. When investigations end and no wrongdoing is found, it's always "laws being changed on the fly" and "obstruction" and "State sabotaging".  Just like Benghazi.  And Whitewater. And (insert every fake political scandal over the past 2 decades).  It's so lame.
Click to expand...
It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Every conspiracy theory I've witnessed my entire life, from JFK to Vince Foster to 9/11 Truthers to the Birther movement to Benghazi to this one has the exact same elements- the people who buy into it are 100% sure it's all going to come out soon- they predict a date a few days from now, a week, a month away when it's all going to explode. Then when it doesn't happen they blame the corrupt media and the corrupt government for covering it all up. It never fails. 

 
squistion said:
Me too.

Mr. Ham is just full of hot air and doesn't believe himself she will be indicted. And that is why he won't make a real bet that can be verified (if I get a PayPal payment I know the money was paid). Saying you gave $100 to charity sounds nice but it is means absolutely nothing since it can't be disproven by anyone here (we would just to take this joker's word for it).
Click to expand...
Here's the difference between me and Hillary.  I have integrity.  Tell you what, I'll make it out to Myocarditis, which is what my 8yo died of less than 2 years ago. (Think I'd lie about that?)  So ####### strange that you'd doubt my writing a $100 check, but you protect every degree of bull#### from Clintons.  Bizarre behavior.

 
squistion said:
Me too.

Mr. Ham is just full of hot air and doesn't believe himself she will be indicted. And that is why he won't make a real bet that can be verified (if I get a PayPal payment I know the money was paid). Saying you gave $100 to charity sounds nice but it is means absolutely nothing since it can't be disproven by anyone here (we would just to take this joker's word for it).
Click to expand...
:rolleyes:

 
timschochet said:
It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Every conspiracy theory I've witnessed my entire life, from JFK to Vince Foster to 9/11 Truthers to the Birther movement to Benghazi to this one has the exact same elements- the people who buy into it are 100% sure it's all going to come out soon- they predict a date a few days from now, a week, a month away when it's all going to explode. Then when it doesn't happen they blame the corrupt media and the corrupt government for covering it all up. It never fails. 
Click to expand...
This has continuously progressed, Tim, and there is enough based on what's known to prosecute.  A year long investigation is not a conspiracy.  It's a fact.

The media reports this week that carried a new narrative ignored the statues entirely.  

 
Last edited:
squistion said:
Me too.

Mr. Ham is just full of hot air and doesn't believe himself she will be indicted. And that is why he won't make a real bet that can be verified (if I get a PayPal payment I know the money was paid). Saying you gave $100 to charity sounds nice but it is means absolutely nothing since it can't be disproven by anyone here (we would just to take this joker's word for it).
Click to expand...
Ham's a good dude - I've enjoyed reading him for probably over a decade now.  But he's always been one who buys into conspiracy theories hook line and sinker.

 
timschochet said:
It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Every conspiracy theory I've witnessed my entire life, from JFK ... are 100% sure it's all going to come out soon- they predict a date a few days from now, a week, a month away when it's all going to explode. Then when it doesn't happen they blame the corrupt media and the corrupt government for covering it all up. It never fails. 
Click to expand...
Assuming the next president doesn't continue the cover up, all of the JFK stuff should be publicly available sometime in 2017 per the law that the other Clinton signed.  So it won't be long...

 
The general election is probably going to be a very very boring one with Hillary running away with Florida which means Trump can't win.

Its probably more interesting to discuss 2020 at this point.  Who will run against Hillary in 2020?

 
Mr. Ham said:
This has continuously progressed, Tim, and there is enough based on what's known to prosecute.  A year long investigation is not a conspiracy.  It's a fact.

The media reports this week that carried a new narrative ignored the statues entirely.  
Click to expand...
Whitewater was investigated for 5 years. 

 
squistion said:
tommyGunZ said:
No interest in "charity checks".  I prefer direct PayPal wagers.  Let me know if you change your mind.

Conspiracy theories never die. When investigations end and no wrongdoing is found, it's always "laws being changed on the fly" and "obstruction" and "State sabotaging".  Just like Benghazi.  And Whitewater. And (insert every fake political scandal over the past 2 decades).  It's so lame.
Click to expand...
Me too.

Mr. Ham is just full of hot air and doesn't believe himself she will be indicted. And that is why he won't make a real bet that can be verified (if I get a PayPal payment I know the money was paid). Saying you gave $100 to charity sounds nice but it is means absolutely nothing since it can't be disproven by anyone here (we would just to take this joker's word for it).
Click to expand...
You two are so full of #### :lmao:   Like a donation can't be verified.  Somehow a donation bet isn't a "real bet" :rolleyes:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
You two are so full of #### :lmao:   Like a donation can't be verified.  Somehow a donation bet isn't a "real bet" :rolleyes:  
Click to expand...
To verify it, he would have to reveal his real name. Maybe he doesn't care, but most people don't want everyone on this forum having that information. That is why most people use aliases here and not their actual names.

And when I ask you to put your money where your mouth is, to put up or shut up with a wager, supposedly sending money to some charity in six months doesn't cut it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Jesus, with the bets, act like gentlemen, man says he contributed he did. Shake on it (virtually).
Click to expand...
I don't believe anything I read on this board that people claim about themselves that I can't independently verify - which means that I really don't believe much of anything I see here.  

 
squistion said:
I don't believe anything I read on this board that people claim about themselves that I can't independently verify - which means that I really don't believe much of anything I see here.  
Click to expand...
You don't believe anything from people you interact with on a daily basis, but whatever Hillary spews is gospel. Got it.

 
squistion said:
To verify it, he would have to reveal his real name. Maybe he doesn't care, but most people don't want everyone on this forum having that information. That is why most people use aliases here and not their actual names.

And when I ask you to put your money where your mouth is, to put up or shut up with a wager, supposedly sending money to some charity in six months doesn't cut it.
Click to expand...
I will black out my name and send an image of the receipt. You'll just have to believe that I'm not going to mock up documents for a $100.

 
cap'n grunge said:
You don't believe anything from people you interact with on a daily basis, but whatever Hillary spews is gospel. Got it.
Click to expand...
Delusional and paranoid clowns like Mr. Ham? No. :lol:

And stop with the Straw Man. I have said repeatedly for over a year, Hillary is a flawed candidate and I don't believe everything she says is true as she is a typical politician. Please.

 
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
253K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top