MaxThreshold
Footballguy
And it's not really Hot Sauce either.Loan Sharks said:
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 (3 Viewers)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
Henry Ford
Footballguy
No, they fill it with whatever your favorite hot sauce is, but by the time you get home with it it's transformed into a Republican.Loan Sharks said:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
On your second point, no kidding, Hillary's contention is she needed one device for one email. Stupid, huh?
eta - and she had 4 devices including an iPhone.
http://m.townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2015/03/31/surprise-hillary-clinton-lied-about-using-only-one-device-for-email-n1978830
Last edited by a moderator:
Willie Neslon
Footballguy
Just right in this campaign she flip flopped on universal healthcare. I honestly don't know where she stands on it. I do know that she's taken a ton of dough from healthcare/health insurance so whatever she pushes for will be in their interest. Going to have a tough time finding a democrat who isn't pro women's issues. As far as guns she's slightly changed her position from campaign to campaign. Again, being pro gun control not going to hurt her with the base. As far as campaign finance reform a direct quote from her on that issue is that "it would do little to improve the lives of Americans". She's also attacked Sanders repeatedly on it by calling him a one issue candidate. Bottom line is this: before elections she's for whatever will help her win. After that is anyone's guess but you need money to keep winning so appeasing that money would make the most sense given her history.
bueno
In a class by himself
NorvilleBarnes
Footballguy
It's not. It's opinion. There are valid reasons for your (and Tims) opinion, that's cool, I just disagree.
So for the Clintonites - what exactly do you think the FBI is doing, and has been doing for the last 9 months?
If the facts were as clear cut as you seem to think - how could this investigation/review continue to drag out? I am not saying she must be indicted, but I am saying this is a lot murkier than it should be for a presidential nominee.
And, if I am a Democratic Super Delegate, and this has not been resolved prior to the convention - it has to weigh on your mind. Dems simply cannot afford any do-overs in a post-convention shake-up.
If the facts were as clear cut as you seem to think - how could this investigation/review continue to drag out? I am not saying she must be indicted, but I am saying this is a lot murkier than it should be for a presidential nominee.
And, if I am a Democratic Super Delegate, and this has not been resolved prior to the convention - it has to weigh on your mind. Dems simply cannot afford any do-overs in a post-convention shake-up.
Riversco
Footballguy
Honestly I'm very close to saying Trump can't win. The reason is no one like Trump has won a national election before. I didn't believe it all all until he got a pop from everyone else dropping out.
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
bueno
In a class by himself
shadrap
Footballguy
My take on Hillary:
Got crapped on by her husband.
Ran for President & got beat by a new guy that had a real good delivery.
Dem's felt bad and felt it's her turn for 2016 and screw you Bernie, regardless of how you do.
Hillary does better when she doesn't speak. Her voice & mannerisms are a nightmare.
She may be qualified & may actually not hurt the United States of America.
Her association with the Clinton Foundation, speaking fees( approx. $21,000,000-could be wrong) is a pay per play anyway you look at it. Harry Truman left office & lived in his & his wife's original house for the rest of their lives. Despite many offers he said the office of President is not for sale.
She is not "brilliant", nor a "brilliant attorney".
She has become a robot of the Democratic party.
While not attractive, that should not disqualify anyone from anything. Won't go there, just like family, etc
She lies a lot. I mean come on: "sniper fire in Bosnia when she got off the plane", Chealsa walking around the Trade center when the planes crashed in, Hillary's mom named her after Sir Edmond Hillary. These are just lies, can you imagine the stuff she is coming up with now?
If she is elected President she is going to need a lot of help.
I don't think she will do much damage to our country.
It will be same o, same o.
I'm hoping for something different.
Got crapped on by her husband.
Ran for President & got beat by a new guy that had a real good delivery.
Dem's felt bad and felt it's her turn for 2016 and screw you Bernie, regardless of how you do.
Hillary does better when she doesn't speak. Her voice & mannerisms are a nightmare.
She may be qualified & may actually not hurt the United States of America.
Her association with the Clinton Foundation, speaking fees( approx. $21,000,000-could be wrong) is a pay per play anyway you look at it. Harry Truman left office & lived in his & his wife's original house for the rest of their lives. Despite many offers he said the office of President is not for sale.
She is not "brilliant", nor a "brilliant attorney".
She has become a robot of the Democratic party.
While not attractive, that should not disqualify anyone from anything. Won't go there, just like family, etc
She lies a lot. I mean come on: "sniper fire in Bosnia when she got off the plane", Chealsa walking around the Trade center when the planes crashed in, Hillary's mom named her after Sir Edmond Hillary. These are just lies, can you imagine the stuff she is coming up with now?
If she is elected President she is going to need a lot of help.
I don't think she will do much damage to our country.
It will be same o, same o.
I'm hoping for something different.
Dignan_
Footballguy
Apparently a Bernie supporter submitted an article to HuffPo that was published this afternoon. It didn't take long for HuffPo to pull the article.
Hillary Clinton to be Indicted on Federal Racketeering Charges
His twitter for anyone who is into that: https://twitter.com/Frank_Huguenard
I am sure there are no facts in his article and he is just attempting to tarnish Hillary's reputation heading into the final primaries. It is pretty funny how fast HuffPo was to pull the article and make it go away. I never realized they were such guardians of truth.
Hillary Clinton to be Indicted on Federal Racketeering Charges
His twitter for anyone who is into that: https://twitter.com/Frank_Huguenard
I am sure there are no facts in his article and he is just attempting to tarnish Hillary's reputation heading into the final primaries. It is pretty funny how fast HuffPo was to pull the article and make it go away. I never realized they were such guardians of truth.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Another piece by the same guy.
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/has-hillary-learned-nothing-from-the-other-republican_us_5744cc78e4b0b52ee7769650
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/has-hillary-learned-nothing-from-the-other-republican_us_5744cc78e4b0b52ee7769650
squistion
Footballguy
cobalt_27
Footballguy
He certainly seems unstable. At minimum, he can't be regarded as credible. I anxiously await the FBI findings, but this guy has a few screws loose.
You make a fair point, but how do you know what is a change of positions based on new information/re-thinking vs. a political posture?
We should stop listening to pundits on Trump. CNN hosts are in dis-believe still and talk down on him from my own personal experience while most of Fox hosts love the change that he's behind. One thing both networks have in common is plenty of pundits who don't really know what's going to happen, but pretend they do.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
http://lawnewz.com/politics/hillary-clintons-emails-now-might-finally-take-her-down/
Hillary Clinton’s Emails Now Might Finally Take Her Down
This past week has been a milestone of sorts for those who closely follow the continuing saga ofHillary Clinton’s wrongful use of email systems during her tenure as Secretary of State. But the kind of milestone it was depends on where you stood when the week began.
For those of us who recognized from the outset that Ms. Clinton’s exclusive use of a personal email system for all her official business (not to mention her unprecedented use of a private server atop that) was a clear violation of the Federal Records Act (“FRA”), the finding of the State Department’s Inspector General (“IG”) to that effect in his May 25 report were no surprise. In fact, on the admitted facts of the case, no other conclusion was possible, and it was simply another “shoe waiting to be dropped.”
To us, knowing that there are no applicable penalties within the FRA(or in the FOIA, for that matter, which Ms. Clinton also blatantly circumvented), the primary significance of the IG report is that it so flatly and persuasively belies nearly every public “defense” that she has uttered on the matter, from her extraordinary news conference at the United Nations on March 10 of last year to even her initial stunned reactions to the IG report itself this past week.
No, her self-serving email set-up was not “allowed” under the State Department’s rules. No, she was not “permitted” to use a personal email system exclusively as she did. No, what she did was hardly just a matter of her “personal convenience.” No, there is no evidence that any State Department attorney (other than perhaps Secretary Clinton herself) ever gave “legal approval” to any part of her special email system. No, everything she did was not “fully above board” or in compliance with the “letter and spirit of the rules,” far from it. Yes, she was indeed required by the FRA to maintain all official e-mails in an official system for proper review, delineation, and retention upon her departure. Yes, her private server equipment was in fact the subject of multiple attempted intrusion attempts (i.e., hacks), including by foreign nations. The list goes on and on. (Note that this does not even include Ms. Clinton’s many serious “misstatements” about her handling of classified or potentially classified information.)
Now, even the general public is left with the unavoidable conclusion that Ms. Clinton either is ignorant of the law (which too many people know is not so) or else feels blithely untethered to reality in a way that necessarily serves her secretive interests regardless of any truth — the technical legal term for which is “pathological lying,” or perhaps merely “psychosis.” Not a pretty picture for a voter of any stripe at any stage of the electoral process.
So what is a voter to do? If you’re a supporter of Donald Trump, you rejoice at the IG report, rightfully thinking that no matter what other shoe drops for Ms. Clinton, at least this one heavily resounds in your candidate’s favor and can be used against her quite potently from now on. (Though you might also want to have your head examined for supporting such a cartoonish candidate in the first place.)
If you’re Bernie Sanders, you view the IG report with a tinge of regret (i.e., for having stretched so far to take the high road on the issue rather than drilling into it as much as the law and facts beckoned) and then embrace it as both a viable wedge with super delegates and a potential bludgeon to be used more broadly at the Democratic National Convention. Yes, it could conceivably be just enough to make the difference for you and your ardent supporters.
If you’re a do-or-die Clinton supporter on the other hand, you look at the IG report as a damning blow to your candidate, as you must, but you console yourself with the fact that it is in effect a “civil law indictment” of her, not a criminal law one. After all, only the Department of Justice can take that latter step and it is clear to you that Ms. Clinton had no intent to break any criminal law — so she’s still got that going for her, right?
But what if you’re a more mainstream member of the Democratic Party, one who views him- or herself as a “keeper of the flame” and cares above all else about a Democratic victory in November — both nationwide and locally, “up and down the ticket,” so to speak. You, my friend, are simply scared to death, terrified even, for reasons that are truly unprecedented.
First, you view Mr. Trump as probably the biggest electoral threat to our Nation’s stability ever (with most recent apologies to H. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, the latter of whose neo-Bolshevism actually did change the outcome in 2000), one who, it has been shrilly opined,“might just nuke Europe.” Sure, you want to see a Democrat elected to the presidency, every four years if possible, but this year it is especially imperative, vitally so, that the presumptive Republican nominee loses.
Second, you fear Bernie Sanders as your party’s potential standard bearer. Why? Well, let’s start with the fact that he’s a 75-year-old (by Election Day) Socialist, the type of candidate who would have seemed inconceivable to you as a presidential one not so long ago. Is he infinitely more worthy of trust and respect than Ms. Clinton? Yes, you bet he is. Does he have enormous appeal? He sure does, just as candidates such as Howard Dean and (going back to the turbulent ‘60s) Eugene McCarthy did for long stretches of time. But do you fear that running him as a candidate against Donald Trump might be the rare circumstance that actually could allow the latter to prevail? Yes, you do, because you should.
More to the point, though, you fear that the most likely Democrat nominee, having just been seriously wounded by this week’s IG report, is manifestly vulnerable to a much greater wound in the form of a criminal indictment for misconduct that far transcends what the IG report dealt with. Specifically, as a sophisticated observer, you are aware that Former Secretary Clinton’s intent (known in criminal law as mens rea), or lack of same, is not what matters in this case. Rather, the applicable legal standard is a mere “gross negligence” one, as specified in the standard national security non-disclosure agreement that she signed and its underlying criminal statutes.
And when you marry that to the fact that (among other things) her admitted failure to use the State Department’s special classified email system for classified (or potentially classified) information constituted a clear violation of a criminal prohibition, you start worrying big-time. And this is especially so given that Ms. Clinton did not just violate such laws inadvertently or even only occasionally — she did so systemically. In other words, her very email scheme itself appears to have been a walking violation of criminal law, one with the mens rea prosecution standard readily met.
It also is especially so given that the ongoing investigation of Ms. Clinton’s misconduct is being conducted by the FBI, under the leadership of FBI Director James Comey. Those of us who worked under him when he was the deputy attorney general during the George W. Bush Administration know him to be an exceptional man of utmost integrity, one who can be counted on to recommend a criminal prosecution when the facts and the law of a case warrant it, regardless of political circumstances. Given that the facts and law are so clear in Ms. Clinton’s case, it is difficult to imagine her not being indicted, unless Jim Comey’s expected recommendation for that is abruptly overruled at “Main Justice” (i.e., by Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, or by Attorney General Loretta Lynch) or at the White House by President Obama (who customarily does not intervene in such things and would do so here either secretly or at no small political peril).
So what you must contemplate, as a leader of the Democratic Party, is the very real possibility of your likely presidential candidate actually being indicted, on criminal charges, sometime between now and, say, (a) the time of the convention at the end of July; (b) the time of the general election in early November; or (c) Inauguration Day in January. Which possibility would you prefer?
Obviously, the answer might well be possibility (d): No indictment at all. But if that were not a realistic possibility, and remembering that your absolute imperative in this election cycle is to avoid at all costs ending up with a President Donald Trump, your preference is clear: You want a Democrat other than either Clinton or Sanders to go up against Trump in November, unorthodox as that might now sound.
In short, you want a Biden/Kerry ticket, a Kerry/Biden one (less likely), or a ticket with either one of them (preferably Vice President Biden) together with whomever Hillary Clinton picks as her running mate in July.
What? An already-chosen running mate? Yes, her running mate, chosen by her as the presidential nominee — because you want Clinton to be replaced as your nominee (i.e., after the convention), but not with Senator Sanders, for all the reasons stated above.
And you get that only one way: (1) Clinton gets indicted as she ought to, but not until shortly after the convention; (2) the evidence presented in the indictment (as well as that proffered to her and her attorney privately) overwhelmingly proves to her that she in fact has bigger concerns in the coming months than running for the presidency; (3) Clinton is thereby forced to step down as the nominee (a difficult prospect to conceive of, to be sure); (4) the Democratic Party (translation: President Obama, as its leader) declares an “unprecedented” emergency and asks everyone to rally around a replacement ticket; and (5) slyest of all, the Democratic Party asks Senator Sanders to please not fight this, which he could not so easily do anyway once his “clout” is dissipated upon the convention’s conclusion. (Do you remember the seemingly “odd” statements from both Jim Comey and Attorney General Lynch that their ongoing investigation would not necessarily be concluded by the time the convention is held? Not at all inconsistent with the above, are they?)
And as for putative nominee Hillary Clinton in this fanciful scenario, she would receive an absolutely irresistible benefit in exchange for her totally shocking agreement to withdraw: Either minimal prosecution, if at all (see, for example, what was done with a “nolo” plea in the case of then-Vice President Spiro T. Agnew in October 1973), or a presidential pardon, or both. Yes, it could happen, all because Ms. Clinton was unable to envision ever being held to account for her hubris-driven email chicanery. Just as no one could ever envision a possible scenario like this.
Dan Metcalfe is a registered Democrat who has long said that he will vote for Hillary Clinton in November “if she escapes indictment and manages to become the Democratic presidential nominee.” He served as Director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy for more than 25 years, during which time he handled information-disclosure policy issues on the dozens of Clinton Administration scandals that arose within public view, as well as two that did not. Since retiring in 2007, he has taught secrecy law at American University’s Washington College of Law.
Hillary Clinton’s Emails Now Might Finally Take Her Down
This past week has been a milestone of sorts for those who closely follow the continuing saga ofHillary Clinton’s wrongful use of email systems during her tenure as Secretary of State. But the kind of milestone it was depends on where you stood when the week began.
For those of us who recognized from the outset that Ms. Clinton’s exclusive use of a personal email system for all her official business (not to mention her unprecedented use of a private server atop that) was a clear violation of the Federal Records Act (“FRA”), the finding of the State Department’s Inspector General (“IG”) to that effect in his May 25 report were no surprise. In fact, on the admitted facts of the case, no other conclusion was possible, and it was simply another “shoe waiting to be dropped.”
To us, knowing that there are no applicable penalties within the FRA(or in the FOIA, for that matter, which Ms. Clinton also blatantly circumvented), the primary significance of the IG report is that it so flatly and persuasively belies nearly every public “defense” that she has uttered on the matter, from her extraordinary news conference at the United Nations on March 10 of last year to even her initial stunned reactions to the IG report itself this past week.
No, her self-serving email set-up was not “allowed” under the State Department’s rules. No, she was not “permitted” to use a personal email system exclusively as she did. No, what she did was hardly just a matter of her “personal convenience.” No, there is no evidence that any State Department attorney (other than perhaps Secretary Clinton herself) ever gave “legal approval” to any part of her special email system. No, everything she did was not “fully above board” or in compliance with the “letter and spirit of the rules,” far from it. Yes, she was indeed required by the FRA to maintain all official e-mails in an official system for proper review, delineation, and retention upon her departure. Yes, her private server equipment was in fact the subject of multiple attempted intrusion attempts (i.e., hacks), including by foreign nations. The list goes on and on. (Note that this does not even include Ms. Clinton’s many serious “misstatements” about her handling of classified or potentially classified information.)
Now, even the general public is left with the unavoidable conclusion that Ms. Clinton either is ignorant of the law (which too many people know is not so) or else feels blithely untethered to reality in a way that necessarily serves her secretive interests regardless of any truth — the technical legal term for which is “pathological lying,” or perhaps merely “psychosis.” Not a pretty picture for a voter of any stripe at any stage of the electoral process.
So what is a voter to do? If you’re a supporter of Donald Trump, you rejoice at the IG report, rightfully thinking that no matter what other shoe drops for Ms. Clinton, at least this one heavily resounds in your candidate’s favor and can be used against her quite potently from now on. (Though you might also want to have your head examined for supporting such a cartoonish candidate in the first place.)
If you’re Bernie Sanders, you view the IG report with a tinge of regret (i.e., for having stretched so far to take the high road on the issue rather than drilling into it as much as the law and facts beckoned) and then embrace it as both a viable wedge with super delegates and a potential bludgeon to be used more broadly at the Democratic National Convention. Yes, it could conceivably be just enough to make the difference for you and your ardent supporters.
If you’re a do-or-die Clinton supporter on the other hand, you look at the IG report as a damning blow to your candidate, as you must, but you console yourself with the fact that it is in effect a “civil law indictment” of her, not a criminal law one. After all, only the Department of Justice can take that latter step and it is clear to you that Ms. Clinton had no intent to break any criminal law — so she’s still got that going for her, right?
But what if you’re a more mainstream member of the Democratic Party, one who views him- or herself as a “keeper of the flame” and cares above all else about a Democratic victory in November — both nationwide and locally, “up and down the ticket,” so to speak. You, my friend, are simply scared to death, terrified even, for reasons that are truly unprecedented.
First, you view Mr. Trump as probably the biggest electoral threat to our Nation’s stability ever (with most recent apologies to H. Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, the latter of whose neo-Bolshevism actually did change the outcome in 2000), one who, it has been shrilly opined,“might just nuke Europe.” Sure, you want to see a Democrat elected to the presidency, every four years if possible, but this year it is especially imperative, vitally so, that the presumptive Republican nominee loses.
Second, you fear Bernie Sanders as your party’s potential standard bearer. Why? Well, let’s start with the fact that he’s a 75-year-old (by Election Day) Socialist, the type of candidate who would have seemed inconceivable to you as a presidential one not so long ago. Is he infinitely more worthy of trust and respect than Ms. Clinton? Yes, you bet he is. Does he have enormous appeal? He sure does, just as candidates such as Howard Dean and (going back to the turbulent ‘60s) Eugene McCarthy did for long stretches of time. But do you fear that running him as a candidate against Donald Trump might be the rare circumstance that actually could allow the latter to prevail? Yes, you do, because you should.
More to the point, though, you fear that the most likely Democrat nominee, having just been seriously wounded by this week’s IG report, is manifestly vulnerable to a much greater wound in the form of a criminal indictment for misconduct that far transcends what the IG report dealt with. Specifically, as a sophisticated observer, you are aware that Former Secretary Clinton’s intent (known in criminal law as mens rea), or lack of same, is not what matters in this case. Rather, the applicable legal standard is a mere “gross negligence” one, as specified in the standard national security non-disclosure agreement that she signed and its underlying criminal statutes.
And when you marry that to the fact that (among other things) her admitted failure to use the State Department’s special classified email system for classified (or potentially classified) information constituted a clear violation of a criminal prohibition, you start worrying big-time. And this is especially so given that Ms. Clinton did not just violate such laws inadvertently or even only occasionally — she did so systemically. In other words, her very email scheme itself appears to have been a walking violation of criminal law, one with the mens rea prosecution standard readily met.
It also is especially so given that the ongoing investigation of Ms. Clinton’s misconduct is being conducted by the FBI, under the leadership of FBI Director James Comey. Those of us who worked under him when he was the deputy attorney general during the George W. Bush Administration know him to be an exceptional man of utmost integrity, one who can be counted on to recommend a criminal prosecution when the facts and the law of a case warrant it, regardless of political circumstances. Given that the facts and law are so clear in Ms. Clinton’s case, it is difficult to imagine her not being indicted, unless Jim Comey’s expected recommendation for that is abruptly overruled at “Main Justice” (i.e., by Criminal Division Assistant Attorney General Leslie Caldwell, by Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates, or by Attorney General Loretta Lynch) or at the White House by President Obama (who customarily does not intervene in such things and would do so here either secretly or at no small political peril).
So what you must contemplate, as a leader of the Democratic Party, is the very real possibility of your likely presidential candidate actually being indicted, on criminal charges, sometime between now and, say, (a) the time of the convention at the end of July; (b) the time of the general election in early November; or (c) Inauguration Day in January. Which possibility would you prefer?
Obviously, the answer might well be possibility (d): No indictment at all. But if that were not a realistic possibility, and remembering that your absolute imperative in this election cycle is to avoid at all costs ending up with a President Donald Trump, your preference is clear: You want a Democrat other than either Clinton or Sanders to go up against Trump in November, unorthodox as that might now sound.
In short, you want a Biden/Kerry ticket, a Kerry/Biden one (less likely), or a ticket with either one of them (preferably Vice President Biden) together with whomever Hillary Clinton picks as her running mate in July.
What? An already-chosen running mate? Yes, her running mate, chosen by her as the presidential nominee — because you want Clinton to be replaced as your nominee (i.e., after the convention), but not with Senator Sanders, for all the reasons stated above.
And you get that only one way: (1) Clinton gets indicted as she ought to, but not until shortly after the convention; (2) the evidence presented in the indictment (as well as that proffered to her and her attorney privately) overwhelmingly proves to her that she in fact has bigger concerns in the coming months than running for the presidency; (3) Clinton is thereby forced to step down as the nominee (a difficult prospect to conceive of, to be sure); (4) the Democratic Party (translation: President Obama, as its leader) declares an “unprecedented” emergency and asks everyone to rally around a replacement ticket; and (5) slyest of all, the Democratic Party asks Senator Sanders to please not fight this, which he could not so easily do anyway once his “clout” is dissipated upon the convention’s conclusion. (Do you remember the seemingly “odd” statements from both Jim Comey and Attorney General Lynch that their ongoing investigation would not necessarily be concluded by the time the convention is held? Not at all inconsistent with the above, are they?)
And as for putative nominee Hillary Clinton in this fanciful scenario, she would receive an absolutely irresistible benefit in exchange for her totally shocking agreement to withdraw: Either minimal prosecution, if at all (see, for example, what was done with a “nolo” plea in the case of then-Vice President Spiro T. Agnew in October 1973), or a presidential pardon, or both. Yes, it could happen, all because Ms. Clinton was unable to envision ever being held to account for her hubris-driven email chicanery. Just as no one could ever envision a possible scenario like this.
Dan Metcalfe is a registered Democrat who has long said that he will vote for Hillary Clinton in November “if she escapes indictment and manages to become the Democratic presidential nominee.” He served as Director of the Justice Department’s Office of Information and Privacy for more than 25 years, during which time he handled information-disclosure policy issues on the dozens of Clinton Administration scandals that arose within public view, as well as two that did not. Since retiring in 2007, he has taught secrecy law at American University’s Washington College of Law.
Poppa
Footballguy
Sorta like us in the FFA...
(Except the "unhinged" Ham - with whom I'm a *Clinton will be indicted* fellow.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Poppa
Footballguy
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
And the above bolded is one of the main relevant points despite what the Hillary supporters say. THAT is the standard that applies to National Security, not the same standard you need in criminal court.
G
Guest
Guest
I am pretty sure the criminal standard is either intention to do harm or gross negligence. There seemed to be some indication that the FBI did not find that Hillary was intentionally trying to do harm, which the Dems were passing out high-fives on when reported, but there is still several other areas where Hillary is in much more danger on.
G
Guest
Guest
As much as I'd love for what he wrote to be true, I doubt this one guy has special access and details into the invetigation. Probably made all of it up in his head.
The Commish
Footballguy
While I think the word "rigged" probably isn't correct, there's no question it was a SIGNIFICANT hill to climb because of the known rules and how they are written (this goes for anyone who's really not part of the "in crowd" of either party...not just Bernie). I'm also willing to bet that those using the "rigged" label probably haven't paid attention to the primary process all that closely before. I know I hadn't. If there's one thing I've learned is how completely broken and slanted the primary process is....to the point where all those
over voter ID laws should be mocked at very turn if they aren't as equally up in arms over the primary rules....and no, it doesn't matter that it's primary or general election. A person's vote is their vote and they should be allowed to vote for whomever they choose.
Last edited by a moderator:
G
Guest
Guest
Hillary had all of the big donor money, the support of the DNC and a good share of Super Delegates locked up coming in.While I think the word "rigged" probably isn't correct, there's no question it was a SIGNIFICANT hill to climb because of the known rules and how they are written (this goes for anyone who's really not part of the "in crowd" of either party...not just Bernie). I'm also willing to bet that those using the "rigged" label probably haven't paid attention to the primary process all that closely before. I know I hadn't. If there's one thing I've learned is how completely broken and slanted the primary process is....to the point where all those
Last edited:
The Commish
Footballguy
One has to believe that it is simply coincidence that the policy changes are following the public outcry. When one isn't ever head of the curve and leading, it's safe to assume that "rethinking" is probably not what's really going on. With that assumption in mind, it's tough to jump on board with a dog allowing the tail to wag it at just about every turn.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/26/politics/hillary-clinton-wolf-blitzer-interview/index.html?sr=twpol053016hillary-clinton-wolf-blitzer-interview1230PMVODtopLink&linkId=24990860
- She thought it was allowed, as opposed to it was allowed, as opposed to it was authorized, as opposed to she didn't need to seek permission.
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold
Footballguy
So it's basically not any different than a high school clique? Fantastic.While I think the word "rigged" probably isn't correct, there's no question it was a SIGNIFICANT hill to climb because of the known rules and how they are written (this goes for anyone who's really not part of the "in crowd" of either party...not just Bernie). I'm also willing to bet that those using the "rigged" label probably haven't paid attention to the primary process all that closely before. I know I hadn't. If there's one thing I've learned is how completely broken and slanted the primary process is....to the point where all those
I caught that yesterday. He spin keeps sliding. Amazing how people still defend her. I guess they feel they must. But to repeat everything her campaign puts out like gospel when in fact you know it will certainly change. Say whatever it takes to win.
G
Guest
Guest
I want to see the Daily Show-like treatment. A video compilation of her statements starting last year with each incremental shift in language. Cut together like that, it would be stunning.
timschochet
Footballguy
It was allowed, she thought it was allowed, who cares?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
It doesn't make any difference. If I had to guess, she says to one or more of her assistants, "Can I just use my own emails? Colin Powell did it, right? Isn't that allowed?" and the assistant said, "I don't see why not." And I doubt there was ever another conversation until 2015.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Ironically you posted this on the 7th anniversary of the date Hillary falsely claimed she started using her private email. Almost the whole thing is basically as valuable as a roll of TP now but it does serve the purpose of a reference to Hillary's lies.
HellToupee
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
So deliberate intent means nothing to you? Or are you simply, in the end, so eager to bring down Hillary Clinton that you'll grasp at any straw to do so? No need to respond, I know the answer already.
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
Just stop. You asked "who cares".....well Tim, while your head remains in the sand the FBI cares.
HellToupee
Footballguy
But what if you are so eager to keep Clinton propped up that you'll grasp at any straw to do so?
cstu
Footballguy
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
In any case, in terms of politics, no matter how they try to spin this, the IG report is meaningless unless she gets indicted. And I don't believe that's going to happen. So she's the nominee, and as I wrote, who cares about this stuff?
timschochet
Footballguy
- Status
Similar threads
