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 (8 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
Suppose Hillary was actually the nefarious crook that Mr. Ham and others assumes she is. Wouldn't it make more sense for her to use a .gov email account for official business, and then to use a private separate account in order to conduct all her criminal activities? That way, nobody would ever have demanded to see her private emails, right? By combining the two, didn't she put her entire corruption at risk? 
Click to expand...
Why did Nixon record his meetings?  Because he could never imagine her would lose control.

 
bueno said:
Stepping back another pace or so, I look at this election as a potential turning point in American history.

It comes down to this: are we a nation read governed by a political elite or a nation of laws?  If our leaders are as immune to the consequences of law-breaking as a medieval Duke, then we have become a nation of sheep ruled by an elite. If we are a nation of laws, then we must reject law-breakers in political office. In fact, we must hold them to a higher standard than we hold ourselves - it is the price of leadership.  During the final days of the Nixon presidency, we were still a nation of laws. What are we today?

You can obfuscate and make excuses all you want, but if laws are broken here, Hillary should be disqualified. Same is true of Trump.
Click to expand...
What percentage of the population over 35 has never technically broken a law?  I'm pretty sure I broke the law in my 5 minute drive home from work.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Tellyawhat, indict her or not, but I'm guessing Hillary & Campaign are none too happy it is taking this long.

I'm really wondering where the prior reported unsourced claims of the DOJ decision coming down by mid-May came from. `Cuz I'm guessing this was not part of the planned program.
Click to expand...
Why would Hillary and her campaign want to be completely and officially exonerated, have those trashing her  look like complete fools prior to about October?   (No this is not a prediction in any way.)

 
timschochet said:
Do you believe that if there had been a Freedom of Information Act at the time, Nixon would have recorded his meetings? 
Click to expand...
Yes if he thought no one knew he had a personal off the grid recording device. - I think one of the things that has truly amazed me is to hear people who I would call good hearted well intentioned liberals argue for trashing documentation and avoiding transparency laws, it's really been something.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
- IG report, p. 36.

- eta - "DS" is The Bureau of Diplomatic Security.

So it's been an open question and part of the mystery how information could have leapt off the secure SIPRNET network on to Hillary's emails.

Hypothetically typing or taking pictures and re-transcribing information is one way.

Because, again, it's not the marking it's the information which is classified.

 -Think of it this way, say you tell your friend a secret that you know no one else in the world knows. Then one day maybe a year later a total stranger walks up starts speaking to you and what do you know, they know your secret. How did the stranger find out?
Click to expand...
Something like this...

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
What percentage of the population over 35 has never technically broken a law?  I'm pretty sure I broke the law in my 5 minute drive home from work.
Click to expand...
I'm just hoping it remains as abundantly clear that Hillary "technically" broke a law related to SAP data.  That's not a fix it ticket.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Why would Hillary and her campaign want to be completely and officially exonerated, have those trashing her  look like complete fools prior to about October?   (No this is not a prediction in any way.)
Click to expand...
I'm guessing so they can get on with their campaign, trash them early and put it behind them in May as they pivot towards the general?

 
Mr. Ham said:
Did I mention Hillary is getting indicted?

http://bients.com/unbeknownst-clinton-firm-emails-stored-cloud-now-fbis-hands/

Yet another cloud backup of the emails emerges, and was handed over to the FBI Tuesday (and presumably contains the highly classified data).  Oh, and in case they don't already have them - 31,000 "private" ones.

"Platte River spokesman Andy Boian said the firm bought a device from Datto that constantly snaps images of a server’s contents and connected it to the Clinton server at a New Jersey data storage facility. Platte River never asked Datto to beam the images to an off-site cloud storage node and never was billed for that service, he said. Company officials were bewildered when they learned of the cloud storage, he said."

Wow that's bad!!!!
Click to expand...
So Hillary is guilty because a vendor to a vendor did unknown things with her data?

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
So Hillary is guilty because a vendor to a vendor did unknown things with her data?
Click to expand...
Because she mishandled secrets and didn't even know where the data resided.  It speak to WHY you don't roll your own private shadow server to begin with!  

 
Last edited:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
So Hillary is guilty because a vendor to a vendor did unknown things with her data?
Click to expand...
Well, this is why you don't set up a private server, so... maybe. Probably depends on what is in the emails.  Classified data (removed to her private server and then taken by a third party) would be very very bad.

 
Mr. Ham said:
Just realized the Datto revelation was in October.  I'd missed just how sloppy that was.  No idea even where the data was stored! 

Sounds like Feds have the 31k emails though, which is awesome.  Probably why it's taken so long, to build the case.
Click to expand...
While unlike some I take those "close to the investigation" with a great grain of salt has there been a leak since the one in the beginning of May that stated Hillary;s aids had multiple interviews and Hillary's interview would like be soon?   Because if I did not miss one in the interim the latest gossip was that the investigation was not  looking into matters other than security.  Again, this is all unconfirmed gossip either way.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
While unlike some I take those "close to the investigation" with a great grain of salt has there been a leak since the one in the beginning of May that stated Hillary;s aids had multiple interviews and Hillary's interview would like be soon?   Because if I did not miss one in the interim the latest gossip was that the investigation was not  looking into matters other than security.  Again, this is all unconfirmed gossip either way.
Click to expand...
Never heard that.  Only that there was "scant" evidence of "intentional" wrongdoing.  Which means there is evidence - and intent is not the standard, so those leaks were meaningless and not good for Hillary despite the intent to paint it such.  Never addressed other facets of the investigation.

 
Last edited:
timschochet said:
I hope not. I'm sure you like it, but it hurts Hillary without helping Bernie. I have a feeling he'll bow out long before. 
Click to expand...
Sanders already won what he wanted all along.   A role in shaping the platform.  The stated ideals that most democratic candidates will be expected to at the very least give lip service for the immediate future.  The "we" not "I" part of the "political revolution". 

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Sanders already won what he wanted all along.   A role in shaping the platform.  The stated ideals that most democratic candidates will be expected to at the very least give lip service for the immediate future.  The "we" not "I" part of the "political revolution". 
Click to expand...
Which Hillary will throw out as assuredly as she will the Black constituency, as soon as she doesn't need to appease it any longer.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
timschochet said:
Suppose Hillary was actually the nefarious crook that Mr. Ham and others assumes she is. Wouldn't it make more sense for her to use a .gov email account for official business, and then to use a private separate account in order to conduct all her criminal activities? That way, nobody would ever have demanded to see her private emails, right? By combining the two, didn't she put her entire corruption at risk? 
Click to expand...
Tim, try using a fact. Any fact will do.
Click to expand...
He just did.  And Tim is correct.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
He just did.  And Tim is correct.
Click to expand...
:rolleyes: - That was an assumption (if Hillary had used a .gov email account for official business) followed by a conclusion (then Hillary would have truly been trying to hide something).

I guess the stated fact was she combined the two into her personal email, so yeah that's progress on Tim's part. He managed to squeeze one fact in there, it's a basic one but it will do.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I'm guessing so they can get on with their campaign, trash them early and put it behind them in May as they pivot towards the general?
Click to expand...
So the silliness that she endured and overcame is long forgotten?  Hillary only wants damning stuff to come out sooner rather than later.  The good stuff, like the glowing FBI report is most effective a few weeks before the election.   Now it can't come so late that all it does is remind everyone of how bad things have been like the "relatively" good economic data just prior to the '80 election, but coming out now will be worthless to the average voter's attention span.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
So the silliness that she endured and overcame is long forgotten?  Hillary only wants damning stuff to come out sooner rather than later.  The good stuff, like the glowing FBI report is most effective a few weeks before the election.   Now it can't come so late that all it does is remind everyone of how bad things have been like the "relatively" good economic data just prior to the '80 election, but coming out now will be worthless to the average voter's attention span.
Click to expand...
I'm gonna totally disagree. The chatter and constant drain and weight of the FBI investigation is something they very much wish to put behind them IMO (and it's just opinion). I say that regardless of the DOJ's or FBI findings.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
So Hillary is guilty because a vendor to a vendor did unknown things with her data?
Click to expand...
Here we go with the excuses already.  You have any idea what a snapshot is?  Tell me what you think these "unknown" things could be done to the snapshot besides deleting them or making it so it couldn't be opened?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've been getting a lot of leasing calls this week from guys who want to open up medicinal marijuana dispenceries. 

Thats apropos of nothing in this thread; just thought I'd mention it. 

 
It really was a tremendous speech, Poppa. As Saints notes in another thread, Scoop Jackson would have been proud. It was not an isolationist or pacifist speech; it was not a speech Bernie fans might approve of (among other things she said that the USA has a moral duty to defend Israel and to use military force if we have to to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons). 

For those of you in this forum with an isolationist bent (and that seems to be a lot of you from both left and right), there's a lot in this speech you won't like. Hillary essentially defended the traditional role of American foreign policy since 1945 to defend freedom around the world, to promote justice and liberty, to stay committed to our allies, to try to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. She contrasted herself with Donald Trump certainly, but though never by name she also contrasted herself with Bernie Sanders and the leftist pacifist approach that many Democrats have adopted ever since the Vietnam War. Hillary positioned herself as an older style Democrat in the image of FDR, Truman, JFK and Scoop Jackson. I loved it. 

 
timschochet said:
It really was a tremendous speech, Poppa. As Saints notes in another thread, Scoop Jackson would have been proud. It was not an isolationist or pacifist speech; it was not a speech Bernie fans might approve of (among other things she said that the USA has a moral duty to defend Israel and to use military force if we have to to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons). 

For those of you in this forum with an isolationist bent (and that seems to be a lot of you from both left and right), there's a lot in this speech you won't like. Hillary essentially defended the traditional role of American foreign policy since 1945 to defend freedom around the world, to promote justice and liberty, to stay committed to our allies, to try to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. She contrasted herself with Donald Trump certainly, but though never by name she also contrasted herself with Bernie Sanders and the leftist pacifist approach that many Democrats have adopted ever since the Vietnam War. Hillary positioned herself as an older style Democrat in the image of FDR, Truman, JFK and Scoop Jackson. I loved it. 
Click to expand...
Sorry, I'm going to need someone that's NOT a sycophant to give me the real scoop.  You're the guy that hasn't spent much time looking over the FBI investigation (your words) and doesn't even care but yet has declared her completely innocent.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
And the reason I cried is because she ended the speech with a statement about American exceptionalism, and why we are such a great country. I suppose a critic could call this nationalism, but if so it was a statement of thoughtful, reasoned nationalism, and not the mindless nationalism that Trump is promoting. Hillary says we are great because of our ideals and that we will only remain great so long as we stay loyal to those ideals. That is EXACTLY my philosophy. And when she spoke of those ideals and why it was so important to be the country that we are, I cried. And I'm not at all ashamed of it. 

 
timschochet said:
And the reason I cried is because she ended the speech with a statement about American exceptionalism, and why we are such a great country. I suppose a critic could call this nationalism, but if so it was a statement of thoughtful, reasoned nationalism, and not the mindless nationalism that Trump is promoting. Hillary says we are great because of our ideals and that we will only remain great so long as we stay loyal to those ideals. That is EXACTLY my philosophy. And when she spoke of those ideals and why it was so important to be the country that we are, I cried. And I'm not at all ashamed of it. 
Click to expand...
C'mon, Tim, you're  a grown-### man.  Seriously, you need to be put in another time out for a week with this drivel.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MaxThreshold said:
Sorry, I'm going to need someone that's NOT a sycophant to give me the real scoop.  You're the guy that hasn't spent much time looking over the FBI investigation (your words) and doesn't even care but yet has declared her completely innocent.
Click to expand...
Her speech is online. Find it and read it and make up your own mind. You don't need my opinion or anyone else's. 

 
Henry Ford said:
Well, this is why you don't set up a private server, so... maybe. Probably depends on what is in the emails.  Classified data (removed to her private server and then taken by a third party) would be very very bad.
Click to expand...
How does information owned, produced, and/or under the control of the State Department become classified in the first place?   And if it was classified information that was owned, produced, and/or under control of another government agency how would a recipient of such information be expected to identify this distinction?   Unless the really bad emails are not the ones that have leaked out...

  • Newspapers articles are not owned, produced, and/or under the control of the government
  • Private "Intelligence" is not owned, produced, and/or under the control of the government
  • I guess the Secretary's schedule is owned, produced, and/or under the control of the government, but I don't think an intelligence officer wanting to have his picture taken rises to a crime 
...there is nothing that seem close to be meeting the "up to a jury to decide" standards of the espionage act.  Thus no indictment, yet alone guilt in a legal sense.  

And as someone with an acknowledged bias that almost everything that is marked classified falls into the far more dangerous to our national security category of over classified the burden of proof for me at least is on the one arguing that the information needs to be secret.  Though I of course need to acknowledge that this would be difficult for you not actually seeing the emails.  So absent some trustworthy new evidence in my own mind not guilty of any serious wrong doing, though guilty of some misguided judgment to place her campaign in this position.

So as you said the other day this seems simple.  The hurdles needed to clear to make a case against Hillary legally are rather high and the leaked evidence, assuming it is even accurate comes nowhere close to clearing those hurdles.  And my hurdles might actually be higher.  But of course we are all still taking stabs at this in the dark.

 
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
263K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Back
Top