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 (2 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Uwe Blab said:
Yeah, seriously no shtick...that is utterly and completely ridiculous.  You cried at a stump speech from a politician.  Eek
Click to expand...
It wasn't a stump speech. And yeah sometimes I cry; so what? I cried when I heard Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech about Jeremiah Wright. I cried when I was at the Reagan Library and they played Reagan's speech at the Berlin Wall in 1987. 

Unlike those two, Hillary is not a moving or passionate speaker. I've never gotten emotional before over one of her speeches. So this was new for me. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
I figure Squiz already posted this since it was on Twitter, but interesting nonetheless...
Click to expand...
Not really. I doubt it's "many". He would need 300 super delegates to switch. It's never going to happen. Hillary clinches on Tuesday after New Jersey, and yes that word means exactly what it's supposed to mean. 

 
timschochet said:
It wasn't a stump speech. And yeah sometimes I cry; so what? I cried when I heard Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech about Jeremiah Wright. I cried when I was at the Reagan Library and they played Reagan's speech at the Berlin Wall in 1987. 

Unlike those two, Hillary is not a moving or passionate speaker. I've never gotten emotional before over one of her speeches. So this was new for me. 
Click to expand...
Seems pretty darn silly to get emotional to what are mainly empty platitudes, but, you're right, whatever.  You popped your cherry to a Hillary speech.  She got ya.

 
timschochet said:
It wasn't a stump speech. And yeah sometimes I cry; so what? I cried when I heard Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech about Jeremiah Wright. I cried when I was at the Reagan Library and they played Reagan's speech at the Berlin Wall in 1987. 

Unlike those two, Hillary is not a moving or passionate speaker. I've never gotten emotional before over one of her speeches. So this was new for me. 
Click to expand...
Did I mention you're a grown-### man?

 
Mr. Ham said:
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.
Click to expand...
The Clinton's have never appeased the black constituency yet those old enough to remember the time before Bill's presidency are pretty damn loyal.  Maybe there is a reason for this.

 
MaxThreshold said:
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?
Click to expand...
A snapshot is the read only copy of the files and potentially other settings of a system that is used to backup active systems.   And the thing that was unknowned per the article was that the snapshot was being taken and saved to the cloud.  I made no comments about what could potentially have happened with this copy of her server.   

 
timschochet said:
Really great in depth look at Hillary Clinton from the New Yorker. Well worth reading; not a puff piece. 

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/05/hillary-clinton-candidacy.html
Click to expand...


Wow. New York Magazine has been caught editing its online piece about Hillary's avoiding press conferences for 6 months. It's a different article than the one you mentioned but just shows what goes on...

New York Magazine softens Hillary Clinton news conference item
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
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.
Click to expand...
I mean, yeah, that difficulty in deciding what is and what is not classified information is a legitimate issue. But that's precisely one of the reasons the private server issue is a big deal to me.  Emails leaving the department of state shouldn't generally have classified information in them, whatever server they are sent from.  But they sometimes do, and if they get sent out, there has to be a record, accessible to the federal government generally and security organizations specifically, to track where the information has gone, through whom, and why.  It's essential to intra- and inter-agency accountability and security, in addition to the other issues raised.

 
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...
Ideals like obeying the law?

 
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...
:lmao:

Again I ask our overlords , the mods , to perma ban this account . 

 
Henry Ford said:
I mean, yeah, that difficulty in deciding what is and what is not classified information is a legitimate issue. But that's precisely one of the reasons the private server issue is a big deal to me.  Emails leaving the department of state shouldn't generally have classified information in them, whatever server they are sent from.  But they sometimes do, and if they get sent out, there has to be a record, accessible to the federal government generally and security organizations specifically, to track where the information has gone, through whom, and why.  It's essential to intra- and inter-agency accountability and security, in addition to the other issues raised.
Click to expand...
This is very true.  When there is leakage of classified information on government servers, there is the ability for authorities to track whom all recieved it and to wipe it off each computer in a very timely manner.  This is done and it is a very expensive process, but even confidential information is treated this way.  In Hillary's case there is no idea what the extent of the damage was and it is too late to even attempt to put the cat back in the bag.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It's definitely interesting, losing CA and another month of FBI investigation would be a problem for her.
Click to expand...
At this point, I think the CA thing is overblown.  Doesn't matter if she wins or loses.  The math is not in doubt.

It's all about the FBI findings.  I don't even think what the DOJ does matters much (of course, if they decide to indict, she's finished on the spot).  Even if they don't indict, if the FBI comes out with a scathing report, Hillary has serious credibility problems, even if she wins CA by 20 points.

If the FBI comes up with nothing, I'll be the first one to come in here and say I was wrong about her on this one.  I won't be that guy calling shenanigans.  I trust Comey given everything I've read.  If he's got nothing criminal, then I will accept that and applaud that in no small measure because it likely means Trump will not be our next president.

But, California would be a cosmetic victory for Bernie and nothing worse for Hillary than she's already been dealing with, losing 21 contests already when she probably should have won 49-50.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Unlike him, I have some experience with the tough calls and the hard work of statecraft. I wrestled with the Chinese over a climate deal in Copenhagen, brokered a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas, negotiated the reduction of nuclear weapons with Russia, twisted arms to bring the world together in global sanctions against Iran, and stood up for the rights of women, religious minorities and LGBT people around the world. 
Click to expand...
This all sounds vaguely familiar....

Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Lets see, off the top of my head:

  • Sanctions against Iran that led to nuclear deal
  • China's agreement at Copenhagen (?) to reduce carbon emissions
  • Ceasefire deal between Israel ad Hamas
  • START with Russia
  • Groundwork for Cuba
  • Seems by most accounts to have an elevated role in the Osama decision
  • Libya is obviously still up in the air and may turn out as a negative
  • As is Myanmar
  • Oh and rebuilt the relationships with our allies that were strained with the "your with us, or against us" nonsense..
  • ...while spreading values including but not limited to treatment of women and children around the world.
Click to expand...


Though I almost forgot the LGBT stuff...almost!

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
This all sounds vaguely familiar....

Though I almost forgot the LGBT stuff...almost!
Click to expand...
Problem for you though, is that most of that was a spectacular failure, - not something to crow about!

And "stood up for the rights of women" is especially laughable considering she led the charge to intimidate and silence Bill's assault victims (all female).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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...
Yup.  And, if she lied under oath, that would not be a good look, either.  Im no lawyer, but damn it seems there a lot of legal exposure here.

 
timschochet said:
It wasn't a stump speech. And yeah sometimes I cry; so what? I cried when I heard Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech about Jeremiah Wright. I cried when I was at the Reagan Library and they played Reagan's speech at the Berlin Wall in 1987. 

Unlike those two, Hillary is not a moving or passionate speaker. I've never gotten emotional before over one of her speeches. So this was new for me. 
Click to expand...
I wasn't emotional for me, but it was an exceptionally strong speech.  Great writing.  And, for the most part, her delivery was great.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Henry Ford said:
I mean, yeah, that difficulty in deciding what is and what is not classified information is a legitimate issue. But that's precisely one of the reasons the private server issue is a big deal to me.  Emails leaving the department of state shouldn't generally have classified information in them, whatever server they are sent from.  But they sometimes do, and if they get sent out, there has to be a record, accessible to the federal government generally and security organizations specifically, to track where the information has gone, through whom, and why.  It's essential to intra- and inter-agency accountability and security, in addition to the other issues raised.
Click to expand...
I wrote that "slippage" was the real concern with a private account (no matter the server) roughly a year ago - probably in the other thread.   That with her long experience at the federal level that Hillary should have expected that this would cause her concerns.  It was dismissed by most everyone at the time (no not you)  as an :"everyone does it" excuse.  So I don't disagree, but I have battle scars from making this very point. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Sure.

So let me get this latest conspiracy theory correct:

1. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton took bribes in return for political favors.

2. Hillary was dumb enough to confirm these bribes on emails.

3. Hillary attempted to erase these emails (a) not knowing that they could be retrieved by the FBI and (b) not realizing that whomever she sent the emails to in the first place would have evidence of her crimes.

Is that right? Am I missing anything? 
Click to expand...
So let me get this innocent angel theory correct:

1. Hillary set up a private server because she wasn't trying to hide anything.

2. Every time she wrote an email relating to her official duties, she wrote a perfectly innocent one about her yoga routines.

3. Once under investigation, she deleted 30,000 of her emails because you know, shyness.

Is that right? Am I missing anything?

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I wrote that "slippage" was the real concern with a private account (no matter the server) roughly a year ago - probably in the other thread.   That with her long experience at the federal level that Hillary should have expected that this would cause her concerns.  It was dismissed by most everyone at the time (no not you)  as an :"everyone does it" excuse.  So I don't disagree. 
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't know about her "long experience at the federal level" part.  I recognize that she was first lady, but I don't know what level of briefing she got on classified information at that point.  No matter what, though, it was a stupid decision to put that server in play.

 
cobalt_27 said:
Yup.  And, if she lied under oath, that would not be a good look, either.  Im no lawyer, but damn it seems there a lot of legal exposure here.
Click to expand...
What lie do you think she has made, yet alone under oath?

I'm pretty certain that Hillary has told truth, and nothing but the truth but most certainly not the whole truth.  

Under oath, I think her most likely false statememt is saying that someone at State told her that they found 90% of her emails on their system(s).  

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
I wrote that "slippage" was the real concern with a private account (no matter the server) roughly a year ago - probably in the other thread.   That with her long experience at the federal level that Hillary should have expected that this would cause her concerns.  It was dismissed by most everyone at the time (no not you)  as an :"everyone does it" excuse.  So I don't disagree, but I have battle scars from making this very point. 
Click to expand...
The correct term in spillage and I would have agreed with your point.  And no, this is certainly not something everybody does.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Good stuff. I think was just speculating on the basis of the Msnbc report that Superdelegates might switch over if Bernie wins CA, which SF posted. That's either true or not I don't know, and I guess it still wouldn't be enough, but it's reflective of something - unease?
Click to expand...
Definitely unease, especially with respect to her inability to connect with voters in line with what was expected.  Losing CA would be an embarrassment and source of frustration.  But, it's been embarrassing and frustrating this entire primary.  She will win, but limps in without the reservoir of support she was "supposed to" have.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
What lie do you think she has made, yet alone under oath?

I'm pretty certain that Hillary has told truth, and nothing but the truth but most certainly not the whole truth.  

Under oath, I think her most likely false statememt is saying that someone at State told her that they found 90% of her emails on their system(s).  
Click to expand...
Well what has been her testimony under oath so far? Maybe 30 minutes (about emails) in front of Congress and and Affidavit in federal court. She has avoided talking with the IG, she's avoided deposition (so far) and we don't know that she has talked with the FBI. All those things as they stand now are likely not going to lead to criminal exposure (though the Affidavit may be a perjury trap if additional emails are recovered....). - When she does speak with the FBI she will have some exposure for sure however because they will have all the testimony and interviews of not just her but her staff to compare it to.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
A formerly redacted email in which Clinton directs Sullivan to strip a secure document of identifying and classifying information and send it non-secure. Because the secure fax isnt working.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Incidentally, that's the kind of thing that one would delete from one's server. Not classified emails, but emails directing one's underlings to break the law.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
At least Hillary was honest about the part that none of the emails were marked classified.....because the markings were removed!  

 
Henry Ford said:
Incidentally, that's the kind of thing that one would delete from one's server. Not classified emails, but emails directing one's underlings to break the law.
Click to expand...
She's doesn't understand all that fancy email stuff, remember?  How could she possibly have known to do that?  And besides, her predecessors sent emails too.

 
It does appear that the reply email to Sullivan was also sent from a different address than the original email from Sullivan was sent to.  That's weird, too.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Doesn't this question demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of where the authority to classify anything at State resided?

If the activity proposed in the email had occurred I'm sure there are dot the t and cross the i task that would have been required to formally legitimize it, but beyond that....
Click to expand...
I hope you didn't pull a muscle coming up with this post.

 
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: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top