Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (3 Viewers)

[SaintsInDome2006]

- re the Timquote....

Then nothing matters. What of any of these 800 pages affects Hillary winning? She has her dream opponent. She was favored to win to begin, she kept all promising establishment DNC candidates out the race, what's difference does any of it - policies, strategies, controversies - make?

Tim takes this stance now because it makes him uncomfortable, in March he was posting Hillary Briefing propaganda in totality.

And obviously it does matter because it matters very much to Hillary, judging by how much time and attention she has devoted to it.

 

[[scooter]]

Why don't you guys have the guts to post that she'll be indicted?? Because you know deep down that she won't be, that this is all a sham? That's my guess.

Just because something doesn't rise to the level of "indictable", that doesn't mean that the investigation or accusation is a sham.

 

[Sinn Fein]

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. 

bump

 

[Guest]

I agree that her deceptions are worse than Trump's, but I don't think her Presidency would be worse than Trump's.

On this we agree.  However, I am not sure that the best thing for the country is to elect Hillary, even considering this.  Because a Clinton loss would shift the party towards more ethical future candidates.  We could weather the Trump storm.

 

[cstu]

On this we agree.  However, I am not sure that the best thing for the country is to elect Hillary, even considering this.  Because a Clinton loss would shift the party towards more ethical future candidates.  We could weather the Trump storm.

This unethical candidate is only being accepted right now because she has the Clinton name recognition and women are obsessed with having her become the first woman President.  I don't her winning or losing will have any impact on the ethics of future candidates.

 

[Mister CIA]

On this we agree.  However, I am not sure that the best thing for the country is to elect Hillary, even considering this.  Because a Clinton loss would shift the party towards more ethical future candidates.  We could weather the Trump storm.

While it's virtually impossible to know to what extent Hillary is compromised, I firmly believe that her interests have little to do with our country's best interest.

Because I love America, I cannot vote for Hillary.

 

[cstu]

While it's virtually impossible to know to what extent Hillary is compromised, I firmly believe that her interests have little to do with our country's best interest.

Because I love America, I cannot vote for Hillary.

List of Democrats you have voted for?

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

Somehow we ended up with a choice of Claude Robichaux or Lana Lee for President

 

[cobalt_27]

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. 

 Geezus, Tim.  This is a whole new level of wishful thinking.  

 

[Sinn Fein]

I will say this, somewhere Tricky **** is looking down (or up) and nodding approvingly.

 

[The Commish]

It was allowed, she thought it was allowed, who cares? 

I only care about those who are setting the bar at "ignorance" as a defense.  Those are the people screwing the country up.

 

[The Commish]

Went to a party last night with a dozen people and guess what none of them cared about?

Did you really go around asking people if they cared about this?  I bet THAT was a blast...were these people you already knew or were you THAT guy at the party??   

 

[cobalt_27]

Tim's journey this election season reminds me of the movie Falling Down. Tim starts out as the SJW righting the wrongs of society and backing Clinton only to realize at the end he and Hillary have been the bad guys all along. 

This is a fantastically

 

[Riversco]

Some of you guys need dual citizenship because I think once every 4 years is clearly not frequent enough to satisfactorily indulge in this sport known as election bickering.  Tim should have gotten canadian citizenship years ago.  He could have driven himself crazy with the Stephen Harper vs Justin Trudeau bout.  Still Tim could get dual citizenship before the next election in Canada (which must be held before October 21st, 2019), then he can bicker about Pierre Trudeau vs whomever for all of 2019 and then follow that up by going right into the 2020 election.

 

[sho nuff]

While it's virtually impossible to know to what extent Hillary is compromised, I firmly believe that her interests have little to do with our country's best interest.

Because I love America, I cannot vote for Hillary.

Agree...then id also agree to the same thing if you switch her name and Trump's. 

 

[Guest]

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. 

 How do you think the conversation went with that assistant about whether or not they needed an Inspector General for oversight? 

"I don't see why?"

 

[Mister CIA]

List of Democrats you have voted for?

Lloyd Doggett. Top that!

 

[cubd8]

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. 

Rigged wouldn't be the right word, but the deck was certainly stacked against any competition to Clinton.

 

[cobalt_27]

If the FBI report is bad for Hillary, I don't think it matters whether or not she's formally indicted (which I assume would take a while)...she's pretty-well cooked at that point.  Damaged goods beyond repair.  The DNC will step in, tell her to step aside, and put someone else up to face Trump.  

It all comes down to what the FBI has or doesn't have.  If they've got nothing more to add to the OIG report, I think she skates by on Tim's hope and a prayer that people will buy that she just didn't know any better.  But, if they've got more to add (which, writing on the wall is they do), she won't survive this.

 

[cubd8]

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. 

Stop with the Colin Powell comparisons. That's a ridiculous defense.

 

[cubd8]

She has been the odds on favorite for a long time.  But the looming investigation is getting worse, her stories keep failing apart and Trump seems to be even with her in the polls.  So yes, things are getting worse.

It hasn't been a good week or so for Clinton - she comes off very bad on these emails, but it's still doubtful (to me) that she'll be indicted, and Trump has essentially tied the race. Clinton just needs to hang in there for now, and, finish off Bernie and she'll get her own 3 point bump in the polls, so after this is said or done, she should be back up by 3-5 points if you think she's wining now or back up by a slimmer margin, if you believe the Fox/CBS poling.

 

[Ghost Rider]

If the FBI report is bad for Hillary, I don't think it matters whether or not she's formally indicted (which I assume would take a while)...she's pretty-well cooked at that point.  Damaged goods beyond repair.  The DNC will step in, tell her to step aside, and put someone else up to face Trump.  

No chance.  Hillary's best friend is the head of the DNC, so there is no way she is asked to step aside, and given that she feels entitled to it at this point, there is no way she steps aside for anything.  She could be indicted tomorrow and she'd still take the nomination. 

 

[jon_mx]

It hasn't been a good week or so for Clinton - she comes off very bad on these emails, but it's still doubtful (to me) that she'll be indicted, and Trump has essentially tied the race. Clinton just needs to hang in there for now, and, finish off Bernie and she'll get her own 3 point bump in the polls, so after this is said or done, she should be back up by 3-5 points if you think she's wining now or back up by a slimmer margin, if you believe the Fox/CBS poling.

Anything within about 5 points at this point of the race points to a tossup.  

 

[squistion]

No chance.  Hillary's best friend is the head of the DNC, so there is no way she is asked to step aside, and given that she feels entitled to it at this point, there is no way she steps aside for anything.  She could be indicted tomorrow and she'd still take the nomination. 

No, if that happened she would drop out as there would be no way she could win the general election with a sitting indictment against her. I wouldn't vote for her if that happened and I think most of supporters would feel the same way (Tim being the exception, not the rule).

 

[timschochet]

Some of you guys need dual citizenship because I think once every 4 years is clearly not frequent enough to satisfactorily indulge in this sport known as election bickering.  Tim should have gotten canadian citizenship years ago.  He could have driven himself crazy with the Stephen Harper vs Justin Trudeau bout.  Still Tim could get dual citizenship before the next election in Canada (which must be held before October 21st, 2019), then he can bicker about Pierre Trudeau vs whomever for all of 2019 and then follow that up by going right into the 2020 election.

#### Canada. I don't like anything about Canada. Well wait I like Joni Mitchell and Robbie Robertson, but Rush makes it still a net negative. I like Gordon Liightfoot but that Edmund Fitzgerald song goes on too long. Raptors suck, Blue Jays suck, all the hockey teams, Steve Nash ruined the Lakers. 

I cant live in Canada. 

 

[cubd8]

Anything within about 5 points at this point of the race points to a tossup.  

I don't agree - for any Republican, this is a tough electoral map. Trump has to win pretty much every swing state and maybe that's not even enough. Much easier path for Clinton.

 

[Warsteinner]

Went to a party last night with a dozen people and guess what none of them cared about?

It was a "fun" party wasn't it? 

 

[timschochet]

Emails schmemails.  

 

[timschochet]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/26/opinions/hillary-clinton-erica-jong/index.html

Why I trust Hillary Clinton by Erica Jong

 

[cobalt_27]

No chance.  Hillary's best friend is the head of the DNC, so there is no way she is asked to step aside, and given that she feels entitled to it at this point, there is no way she steps aside for anything.  She could be indicted tomorrow and she'd still take the nomination. 

Ugh.  I suppose you're right.  What a cluster####.

 

[cobalt_27]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/26/opinions/hillary-clinton-erica-jong/index.html

Why I trust Hillary Clinton by Erica Jong

Yeah, my dad sent this to me the other day with a parenthetical that read "Why In My Heart I Really Want to Trust Hillary Clinton, But My Brain Just Can't.")

 

[Guest]

It hasn't been a good week or so for Clinton - she comes off very bad on these emails, but it's still doubtful (to me) that she'll be indicted

People's conventional wisdom is that she won't be indicted.  But based on what?  

All speculation as to whether the breeches were intentional have been settled.  The case for gross negligence related to the top secret (and above) mails is clear, in absence of anything else the Feds have -- which seems likely given the lack of cooperation from Hillary's camp.  

At no point has the information coming out abated the March towards charges.  It's been quite the opposite. Each new drip makes things worse.  Until that ceases, there's no reason to think this doesn't go towards a recommendation to indict, and if that happens I think people overestimate how much Obama is willing to dig in to protect a candidate who might lose, while destroying his legacy.  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/26/opinions/hillary-clinton-erica-jong/index.html

Why I trust Hillary Clinton by Erica Jong

Being a fiction writer is definitely a requirement here.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

No, if that happened she would drop out as there would be no way she could win the general election with a sitting indictment against her. I wouldn't vote for her if that happened and I think most of supporters would feel the same way (Tim being the exception, not the rule).

This doesn't ring true to me.  I voted against Hillary in the primary and I wish there were a different nominee.  But if my choices are an indicted Hillary or Trump, there's no doubt I'm voting Hillary.  

Why should an indictment even matter to me?  We already have a pretty good idea about what she actually did, why should my vote change based upon whether DOJ happens to think her conduct was worthy of a criminal charge?

 

[cubd8]

People's conventional wisdom is that she won't be indicted.  But based on what?  

All speculation as to whether the breeches were intentional have been settled.  The case for gross negligence related to the top secret (and above) mails is clear, in absence of anything else the Feds have -- which seems likely given the lack of cooperation from Hillary's camp.  

At no point has the information coming out abated the March towards charges.  It's been quite the opposite. Each new drip makes things worse.  Until that ceases, there's no reason to think this doesn't go towards a recommendation to indict, and if that happens I think people overestimate how much Obama is willing to dig in to protect a candidate who might lose, while destroying his legacy.  

I am not assuming that the FBI is in the tank for Hillary, and I'd be the first to admit that I'm not making my prediction based on my vast knowledge of this investigation. I just would be shocked if they went after her. 

 

[squistion]

This doesn't ring true to me.  I voted against Hillary in the primary and I wish there were a different nominee.  But if my choices are an indicted Hillary or Trump, there's no doubt I'm voting Hillary.  

Why should an indictment even matter to me?  We already have a pretty good idea about what she actually did, why should my vote change based upon whether DOJ happens to think her conduct was worthy of a criminal charge?

Um, I don't know about you, but most people would not like to see their President sitting behind bars.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Um, I don't know about you, but most people would not like to see their President sitting behind bars.

An indictment does not mean she goes to prison.  

 

[Guest]

I am not assuming that the FBI is in the tank for Hillary, and I'd be the first to admit that I'm not making my prediction based on my vast knowledge of this investigation. I just would be shocked if they went after her. 

Just to clear up the semantics here.  The FBI is going after her.  A year plus investigation makes that evident.  The FBI does not indict, however.  That is done at the discretion of the Department of Justice.  That's where most people assume the scales will be tipped.  However, let's table that assumption and look just at whether the FBI will make that recommendation.  That's seeming more and more likely as the investigation goes on.  If that does happen, look out.  The DOJ will be extremely hard pressed, and scrutinized as much as anything else in American History, if they act against that judgement of the FBI.

Do you think a year plus criminal investigation, surrounding which we've already had a preview of damning facts, is going to lead to "we got nothing?"  I think it's more likely the case is airtight, and has layers to it beyond what we see on the surface.  

 

[Guest]

An indictment does not mean she goes to prison.  

By the way, as one of the most ardent critics here, I do not want to see her in prison.  I would support a pardon, as long as she drops out and helps the party to unify around a replacement.  If they want to make her pick some trash up off the side of the road, that'd be good too.

 

[Baloney Sandwich]

An indictment does not mean she goes to prison.  

Would you still vote for her if she is charged under RICO related to bribes and money laundering at The Clinton Foundation?

 

[Riversco]

If Hillary got indicted, I wonder if Bernie would change his mind and run a third party campaign.  He's said he won't, but...

 

[squistion]

An indictment does not mean she goes to prison.  

No, but the practical effect would be the same, as she would not be able to get anything done until it was resolved. You think the Republicans have been obstructionist with Obama - just wait until there is President with an indictment against them. Any legislation she proposed or SCOTUS nominees would be DOA, she would get no cooperation from the other side at all and the argument would be she has no right to govern this country with that hanging over her.

 

[cobalt_27]

Stop with the Colin Powell comparisons. That's a ridiculous defense.

It is.  There may be other reasons -- and @SaintsInDome2006 might be able to add to this -- but the gist of the important differences are:

1.  State emails at the time around the turn of the millennium only went to other State employees, so Powell consulted with State and IT to establish a line in his office to use us aol account -- not a home-cooked server literally located at his private residence.

2.  Powell was completely transparent with State about his internet/email use throughout his tenure, even going so far as to recommend all employees have Internet and email at their desk to conduct business.  At that time, the awareness around cybersecurity threats was not as prominent as it was 10 years later, so the use of personal email for business was not prohibited AND he involved State experts to establish appropriate security protocols. No one in Hillary's tenure--not even the POTUS--knew she was using exclusively a personal email on a home brewed server to conduct business.

3. It is unclear if there were any hack attempts (or successful hacks) against Powell, but if there had been and they were detected, State would have known about it and made recommendations/remedies to prevent future attacks.  Hillary's rig was the subject of multiple hack attempts and not once did she consult with State about this.

4.  Powell should have preserved records, even though it is unclear how fluid those rules were at the time or if he was aware he should have preserved them. What he did not do was deliberately destroy records.  Hillary claims the 30,000 emails she deleted were all personal in nature, but we know now that was a lie.  A big lie.

Please add to the list if I'm missing anything.

 

[Quint]

If Hillary got indicted, I wonder if Bernie would change his mind and run a third party campaign.  He's said he won't, but...

i think the main reasons Bernie is sticking around, at least until the convention, are to see if A) the indictment is recommended, and B) to see if the DoJ will act on it. 

if it happens pre-convention, the DNC will have a hard time not giving the nod to Sanders. if it comes after Hillary is nominated, that's a different ball game.

 

[[scooter]]

If Hillary got indicted, I wonder if Bernie would change his mind and run a third party campaign.  He's said he won't, but...

Bernie couldn't run as an independent because it would be too late for him to get on the ballot in 12 states.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

No, but the practical effect would be the same, as she would not be able to get anything done until it was resolved. You think the Republicans have been obstructionist with Obama - just wait until there is President with an indictment against them. Any legislation she proposed or SCOTUS nominees would be DOA, she would get no cooperation from the other side at all and the argument would be she has no right to govern this country with that hanging over her.

She would be removed from office and her duly elected VP would take over.  

What FGILC is saying makes perfect sense.  If Hillary is indicted, a vote for Hillary is basically a vote for Hillary's VP, who will almost surely be better than Trump.

 

[The Commish]

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. 

Rigged wouldn't be the right word, but the deck was certainly stacked against any competition to Clinton.

It's not even Clinton....it's to the establishment yahoos on either side.  The deck's stacked against any outsider that isn't part of the club.  Remember how early on many of the establishment candidates were saying things similar to "We like Bernie, but he's a bit out there".  The irony of that whole thing was he was basically reading from the Democratic platform that was established in 2012.  This is a significant reason I am 100% skeptical about the DNC allowing Bernie and X number of his selections to be on the committee to write the platform.  There's nothing to force the party to go by the platform.  For that reason, it seems like a completely meaningless gesture, but we'll see

 

[cstu]

No, but the practical effect would be the same, as she would not be able to get anything done until it was resolved. You think the Republicans have been obstructionist with Obama - just wait until there is President with an indictment against them. Any legislation she proposed or SCOTUS nominees would be DOA, she would get no cooperation from the other side at all and the argument would be she has no right to govern this country with that hanging over her.

If Hillary is indicted before the convention then Bernie is the nominee. If he's not then Bernie have a legit reason to hand this election to Trump.

 

[squistion]

If Hillary is indicted before the convention then Bernie is the nominee. If he's not then Bernie have a legit reason to hand this election to Trump.

No, that would not be a legitimate reason to hand the election to Trump, what is known as throwing the baby out with the bathwater (so to speak).

 

[Sinn Fein]

This doesn't ring true to me.  I voted against Hillary in the primary and I wish there were a different nominee.  But if my choices are an indicted Hillary or Trump, there's no doubt I'm voting Hillary.  

Why should an indictment even matter to me?  We already have a pretty good idea about what she actually did, why should my vote change based upon whether DOJ happens to think her conduct was worthy of a criminal charge?

I think for many of her supporters - an indictment matters.  They do not acknowledge that she did anything wrong here - this is just partisan politics attacking one of their own.

So, an indictment will be their first step to recovery - acknowledging that there is a problem.

Beyond that, I think people just would not want to deal with the hassle of going through the circus of a president going to trial, and/or another impeachment hearing.  And nothing getting done on top of that.  In a year, where the anti-establishment feelings are bubbling over, even she knows, deep down, that she can't win a general election under indictment.

I am of the belief that there will never be an actual indictment.  If there is sufficient evidence to warrant an indictment, it will be a political decision to present that to Clinton, and agree to table the indictment (presumably with a full presidential pardon) in exchange for Clinton quietly (yeah right) stepping down from the nomination.

I don't like her, and I am quite certain she would be a lousy President, but I am fine with going down this path, where she is never in front of a judge/jury, and simply walks away - assuming there are facts sufficient to indict.