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.


A bill to designate a portion of United States Route 20A, located in Orchard Park, New York, as the "Timothy J. Russert Highway".

A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, as the "Major George Quamo Post Office Building".

Kate Mullany National Historic Site Act

She really knows how to get things done :oldunsure:     A real go-getter....
What he said.

- As for Bernie he passed:

Veterans' Compensation Cost-of-Living Adjustment Act of 2013 - Directs the Secretary of Veterans Affairs (VA) to increase, as of December 1, 2013, the rates of veterans' disability compensation, additional compensation for dependents, the clothing allowance for certain disabled veterans, and dependency and indemnity compensation for surviving spouses and children.
And he passed:

After six weeks of contentious, closed-door negotiations, the House and Senate have reached a deal to overhaul the Veterans Affairs (VA) health care system — just in time for senators to vote on a bill before they leave Washington for a monthlong break.

The compromise bill will include $17 billion in spending, with $12 billion of that as entirely new funding. Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Jeff Miller, Democratic and Republican chairmen of the Senate and House Veterans Affairs Committees, respectively, worked through the weekend to come to an agreement.

The bipartisan deal, which Sanders and Miller unveiled at a press conference Monday, will include both long- and short-term fixes aimed at making VA “more accountable and to help the department recruit more doctors, nurses, and other health care professionals,” according to a release from Sanders and Miller. The bill will also make it easier and faster to fire or demote VA employees, although there will be a 21-day window to review appeals.
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/sanders-miller-reach-deal-reform-va-health-care-system

Over overall he chaired the 113th's Veterans Affair Committee and they passed 13 laws. That's a lot of work.

 
A bill to designate a portion of United States Route 20A, located in Orchard Park, New York, as the "Timothy J. Russert Highway".

A bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 2951 New York Highway 43 in Averill Park, New York, as the "Major George Quamo Post Office Building".

Kate Mullany National Historic Site Act

She really knows how to get things done :oldunsure:     A real go-getter....
She did dodge gunfire in Bosnia...

 
Bernie Sanders in his almost 30 years in congress has sponsored 41 amendments that were agreed to, in 8 years HRC sponsored 57 amendments that were agreed to.
This list I provided above all supposedly became law. I think it's a substantive list.

I don't mean to make this one of those homework threads where we both have to do research, maybe we learn this way, but I just haven't seen a listing like the one above for Bernie done for Hillary, if it's easy enough to find I'd be glad to look at it, I've been impressed by Bernie's rep for hard work and speaking as someone who has had Congressmen do jacksquat for 30 years, as in practically no amendments, no bills in 30 years (Bill Jefferson now thankfully long gone) I can only look at such a list with envy.

 
In fairness to Hillary's pedestrian Senatorial career she probably wanted to keep a low-profile because she really wasn't from New York...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What is going on the with the server investigation(s) that Hillary supporters and those without a presumption of guilt are missing?  Besides that presumption of guilt that is?
I point no further than Tim who admitted he hadn't looked into it much because it bored him and tone1 and squiz who clearly have no grasp of even the most rudimentary details.  They don't represent all Hillary folks, but it's been a pattern.
While I'm not a Hillary supporter, what about me?  What am I missing such that I believe that you and others are delusional if you believe that the evidence that is currently publicly available points to an indictment?  Am I misreading the laws?  Am I misreading the willingness of prosecutors to "go for it"?  Am I setting the hurdles too high?  Am I giving the Secretary of State too much discretion as the "Classification Authority" for State from a legal sense?  You seem so certain.  What facts which I can go see right now am I missing?

The OIG report (which I read) does not suggest an indictment over NARA unless 80% of the government is being indicted.  Nor do the FOIA depositions.  There was that odd RICO story over the weekend, but in the ones I read they somehow equated Hillary's usage of a private server and classified information to racketeering without any explanation as to how they could relate.  There could be content in the redacted emails which we can't see that could kick in the Espionage Act stuff assuming a prosecutor would want to call it "national defense" related whether technically classified or not but it is currently redacted and there have been no leaks to suggest that such an email existed.  I skimmed the CIA act and don't see how it would apply - did I miss something?  I also doubt the Atomic Energy Act (the only place where the it seems that the likely unconstitutional concept of "born classified" actually exists) applies.

So what makes you (and others) so sure that an indictment is coming?  What am I missing because my head is :censored: ?

 
Hillary Clinton’s email: Is the FOIA security review endangering CIA officers?

In short, it does seem likely that some of Secretary Clinton’s homebrew emails mentioned Agency officials whose names are protected by law.

It’s possible to make too much of this. While this story confirms how insouciant Hillary Clinton was about endangering classified information on the poorly secured server, we already knew that. And insouciance isn’t necessarily a knowing violation of law. Secretary Clinton may say that she didn’t know the people named in the messages were CIA officers.

Actually, there’s something more troubling and more urgent buried in this story: It could be the FOIA security reviewers themselves who are disclosing CIA identities.

Here’s how: Start with the entirely plausible view that foreign intelligence services discovered and rifled Hillary Clinton’s server. If so, those services already have copies of all her emails. But the emails don’t tell the foreign service which people named in her traffic are Agency officers. For CIA officers serving abroad as State Department officials, being named in the Secretary of State’s email traffic won’t necessarily blow their cover.


Sure wish someone would have thought of this...

and most of the rest are just names having their pictures taken, or being brought to a meeting, or "having done a good job" which were outed to those that may have unredacted copies of the emails when they were redacted and marked.   
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hillary Clinton’s email: Is the FOIA security review endangering CIA officers?

In short, it does seem likely that some of Secretary Clinton’s homebrew emails mentioned Agency officials whose names are protected by law.

It’s possible to make too much of this. While this story confirms how insouciant Hillary Clinton was about endangering classified information on the poorly secured server, we already knew that. And insouciance isn’t necessarily a knowing violation of law. Secretary Clinton may say that she didn’t know the people named in the messages were CIA officers.

Actually, there’s something more troubling and more urgent buried in this story: It could be the FOIA security reviewers themselves who are disclosing CIA identities.

Here’s how: Start with the entirely plausible view that foreign intelligence services discovered and rifled Hillary Clinton’s server. If so, those services already have copies of all her emails. But the emails don’t tell the foreign service which people named in her traffic are Agency officers. For CIA officers serving abroad as State Department officials, being named in the Secretary of State’s email traffic won’t necessarily blow their cover.
Sure wish someone would have thought of this...

and most of the rest are just names having their pictures taken, or being brought to a meeting, or "having done a good job" which were outed to those that may have unredacted copies of the emails when they were redacted and marked.   


- First of all good WaPo story.

- I think the lesson here is that they should have been withheld, not redacted and produced.

- I think it again makes clear that Hillary's emails were being read by FIS and yes they do pose a danger to IC sources/agents/officers.

- I have to laugh seeing WaPo do a story on a Breitbart report, that is something. I am almost certain those b3 codes had been previously posted upon before the BB story as well, so I kind of thought this was old news anyway. It is really funny that this merited a reaction from WaPo though.

And insouciance isn’t necessarily a knowing violation of law.
- Again: negligence/gross negligence is pretty damned close to insouciance. That is a really phunny euphemism.

- The IC reviewers do not have a choice in this. State and the IC could choose to withhold which would have been the better course of action.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't forget whoever was question the idea that an investigation was even going on.
You mean the investigation based on the security referral?

Link

In a separate filing Monday, the Justice Department refused to detail the nature of the FBI probe connected to Clinton’s machine, except that it was based on a “security referral” from inspectors general at the State Department and federal intelligence agencies.
We know that there is an investigation.  We know it was triggered by the "security referral".  We can assume that they have the servers and the backups and all that such along with the interviews that have been reported.  We don't know much of anything else.  The big thing we don't really know is the "scope".  There have been contradictory reports on this.  Some say that the scope has expanded to cover such things as potential corruption with the foundation while others say the scope is still just concerning the classified emails.  In some ways it doesn't seem logical that if they have all of this that human nature wouldn't have them going fishing around, but then again these are professionals who I'd hope can remain focus.  So one of the things I'm most curious about is what was investigated.  And while I obviously don't know anymore than anyone else, I have a suspicion that when the results are released (officially or leaked) the conversation is going to be as much about what was not even considered as much as the finding for what was within scope.

 
You mean the investigation based on the security referral?

Link

We know that there is an investigation.  We know it was triggered by the "security referral".  We can assume that they have the servers and the backups and all that such along with the interviews that have been reported.  We don't know much of anything else.  The big thing we don't really know is the "scope".  There have been contradictory reports on this.  Some say that the scope has expanded to cover such things as potential corruption with the foundation while others say the scope is still just concerning the classified emails.  In some ways it doesn't seem logical that if they have all of this that human nature wouldn't have them going fishing around, but then again these are professionals who I'd hope can remain focus.  So one of the things I'm most curious about is what was investigated.  And while I obviously don't know anymore than anyone else, I have a suspicion that when the results are released (officially or leaked) the conversation is going to be as much about what was not even considered as much as the finding for what was within scope.
The same pleading is using a discovery exception reserved for criminal investigations. So the DOJ - not the FBI - is trying to have their cake and snack on it too. When the FBI has submitted letters (twice) they have referred to the "law enforcement" activities.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As an independent, without the strength of a party behind him, he has focused on legislation using small changes to passing legislation to attain lofty goals through amendment, and been extremely successful.

One might say that would be the best possible precursor to attempting to influence domestic policy as President.

It does require reading the link I supplied you with in response to your question about accomplishments, though.
Which is funny in that as president being able to achieve "small incremental changes" has been used as criticism of "no big ideas" Hillary. 

 
Which is funny in that as president being able to achieve "small incremental changes" has been used as criticism of "no big ideas" Hillary. 
Yeah, I think the problem many have is that she appears to have "small incremental change" as her end goal, which means we're likely to get absolutely nothing done at all.

Anyone thinking realistically knows that the next President can maybe get one big thing done, and the rest will need to be small changes.  Lots of people don't like that she didn't seem to want any big things until she realized how popular Sanders' big things are.

 
The same pleading is using a discovery exception reserved for criminal investigations. So the DOJ - not the FBI - is trying to have their cake and snack on it too. When the FBI has submitted letters (twice) they have referred to the "law enforcement" activities.
Do you disagree in any significant manner with my "what we know", "what is a safe assumption", and "where we are in the dark" about the investigation?  

 
So a couple things happened today:

- Pagliano filed his immunity agreement with the court handling the JW case..... but tried to keep it under seal. So we do not get to know the details. The only way this makes sense to me is he should not be made to testify if he has a real risk of self-incrimination, which would mean that he has a limited immunity agreement, which would mean the Feds are just getting him in the door to talk and haven't made any grand bargain. However if the immunity is full then he has nothing to risk and pleading the 5th makes no sense and he should be made to testify. --- I have no idea if this is correct according to those who understand such things.

- The DOJ files a briefing under seal with the court in the Vice News case explaining why its prior motion under seal should indeed be under seal. You can probably read this one any way you want, good for Hillary or bad for Hillary. I think it's just important to keep in mind the distinction between the DOJ and the FBI. Probably four times - two court letters, Comey saying the FBI does not do security reviews, and in the discovery exception at issue here which is for criminal investigations - "law enforcement" activities have been referenced by the FBI. This filing though is by the DOJ which seeks to keep what the FBI is reporting to support that exception under wraps. - I will post that story below.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FBI Reveals 'Additional Details' About Clinton Email Probe in Secret Declaration


The FBI is seeking permission to file a second, secret declaration in US District Court in Washington, DC describing its search for documents related to the bureau's probe of Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state.

The declaration is to be submitted in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit filed against the bureau by VICE News seeking the contents of Clinton's email server and the FBI's correspondence with the State Department. It contains "additional details" about the ongoing investigation, according to a court filing submitted to US District Court Judge Randolph Moss Monday night asking him to accept the secret document, which came on the eve of major Democratic primary contests in California, New Jersey, and four other states,

The details of the declaration pertain, in part, to the bureau's search for documents about Clinton's server and how the public release of the records could harm the FBI's investigation, Justice Department lawyers wrote in a court filing, seeking dismissal of VICE News' lawsuit.

"These details supplement defendant's showing that it conducted a reasonable search, but cannot be disclosed on the public record without compromising information that the FBI seeks to protect," the filing said.

Attorneys representing VICE News had objected to the government's filing of a classified declaration last March, saying the government failed to ask the court's permission to file the "ex parte" declaration and provide advance notice to them.

... The secret declaration was written by FBI FOIA chief David Hardy, who also wrote the classified one last March. Hardy also wrote a new, public declaration that was submitted to the court Monday. In it, Hardy said the bureau cannot even disclose the "to, from, dates and their contents" in "two pieces of correspondence from the FBI to the Department of State," nor could the FBI reveal the "total volume of responsive information" about Clinton's server without compromising the probe.

'This is an active and ongoing investigation.'

Government attorneys also steadfastly refused to characterize the nature of the FBI's probe into Clinton's use of a private email server as criminal. In the court filing, attorneys would only say that the probe is based on a "security referral" from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State, and "made for counterintelligence purposes."

Attorneys Ryan James and Jeffrey Light, who are handling the FOIA lawsuit on behalf of VICE News, argued in a motion filed last month that the FBI has not provided enough information to justify withholding entire documents related to Clinton's email server.

The FBI "should be able to identify a particular individual or a particular incident as the object of its investigation and the connection between that individual or incident and a possible security risk or violation of federal law," James and Light wrote. "The FBI has not cited, at least in its public filings, to any 'statutes whose violation could reasonably have been thought evidenced by' Ms. Clinton's use of a private email server."

Publicly stating that the FBI's investigation is criminal in nature would satisfy the withholding of records compiled for law enforcement purposes under FOIA, James and Light argued. But in Monday's court filing, government attorneys said "the FBI is not required to identify a particular federal statute that it alleges has been violated in connection with the pending investigation, or the target(s) of the investigation, to meet the ... threshold" for withholding documents compiled for law enforcement purposes.

In the latest court filing, government attorneys would only say that the FBI "is working on a referral from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State in connection with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail server." The referral was "a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes," and the investigation is "being conducted under the FBI's assigned law enforcement authorities."

In a separate, public declaration filed by Hardy in March, he said any documents the FBI retrieved from Clinton's email server, which would be responsive to VICE News' FOIA request, "are potential evidence in the FBI's investigation, or may provide leads to or context for potential evidence" and are exempt from disclosure under FOIA because they would be deemed law enforcement records.

"As this is an active and ongoing investigation, the FBI is continuing to assess the evidentiary value of any materials retrieved for the investigation from any such server equipment/related devices," the filing said. "Disclosure of evidence, potential evidence, or information that has not yet been assessed for evidentiary value while the investigation is active and ongoing could reasonably be expected to undermine the pending investigation by prematurely revealing its scope and focus."

...
https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-additional-details-hillary-clinton-email-probe-secret-declaration?utm_source=vicenewstwitter

- To me this reflects continuing tension between the FBI - investigation, law enforcement, etc. - and the DOJ, 'there's no investigation going on here, what investigation?...'

Same day you have an immunity agreement being filed in another civil case and while the DOJ is saying it's not necessarily criminal in nature gosh they'd really like to take advantage of that exemption for criminal investigations.

- eta1 - the DOJ also reports the number of FBI agents on the case as "limited" because of the extreme sensitivity of the investigation.

- eta2 - In case it's not obvious, this is different from the JW case, as the Vice case is trying to obtain public records found from Hillary's deleted emails - if any.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
 


https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-additional-details-hillary-clinton-email-probe-secret-declaration?utm_source=vicenewstwitter

- To me this reflects continuing tension between the FBI - investigation, investigation, aw enforcement, etc. - and the DOJ, 'there's no investigation going on here, what investigation?...'

Same day you have an immunity agreement being filed in another civil case and while the DOJ is saying it's not necessarily criminal in nature gosh they'd really like to take advantage of that exemption for criminal investigations.
To me this sounds like the FBI has no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and any investigation of criminal wrongdoing by FBI is grasping at straws at this point, and they need more time to grasp as straws before they can show us the straws.  

Witch hunt.

 
To me this sounds like the FBI has no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and any investigation of criminal wrongdoing by FBI is grasping at straws at this point, and they need more time to grasp as straws before they can show us the straws.  

Witch hunt.
:lol:   too funny.  

 
To me this sounds like the FBI has no evidence of criminal wrongdoing, and any investigation of criminal wrongdoing by FBI is grasping at straws at this point, and they need more time to grasp as straws before they can show us the straws.  

Witch hunt.
Ok fair enough. Sounds to me like they may have Hillary's deleted emails though.

 
https://news.vice.com/article/fbi-additional-details-hillary-clinton-email-probe-secret-declaration?utm_source=vicenewstwitter

- To me this reflects continuing tension between the FBI - investigation, investigation, aw enforcement, etc. - and the DOJ, 'there's no investigation going on here, what investigation?...'

Same day you have an immunity agreement being filed in another civil case and while the DOJ is saying it's not necessarily criminal in nature gosh they'd really like to take advantage of that exemption for criminal investigations.

- eta1 - the DOJ also reports the number of FBI agents on the case as "limited" because of the extreme sensitivity of the investigation.

- eta2 - In case it's not obvious, this is different from the JW case, as the Vice case is trying to obtain public records found from Hillary's deleted emails - if any.
I kind of think it is mostly the FBI guarding its ability to not be responsive to FOIA request while an investigation is still active.  I'd think they take on this fight no matter where the investigating is leading.  They'd probably take on this fight even if they were essentially finish and no real harm could come from the release in order to prevent a precedent from being established.  Does my thinking seem unlikely?

 
Government attorneys also steadfastly refused to characterize the nature of the FBI's probe into Clinton's use of a private email server as criminal...the probe is based on a "security referral"...

So in other words, a security review! 

 
Ok fair enough. Sounds to me like they may have Hillary's deleted emails though.
They probably do, and they probably got nothing criminal..  That they will not comply with the FOIA request is at best them keeping it close to the vest until the investigation is over.

Government attorneys also steadfastly refused to characterize the nature of the FBI's probe into Clinton's use of a private email server as criminal...the probe is based on a "security referral"...

So in other words, a security review! 
This is exactly what I was talking about yesterday when people were jumping on me about saying hypothetical investigation.

 
Government attorneys also steadfastly refused to characterize the nature of the FBI's probe into Clinton's use of a private email server as criminal...the probe is based on a "security referral"...

So in other words, a security review! 
The FBI does not do security reviews.  Stop doubling down on ignorance.  

 
Ok fair enough. Sounds to me like they may have Hillary's deleted emails though.
I'm sure they do.  I'm just not sure what they could legitimately do with them.  And while Hillary initially stated she wouldn't turn over the server for some independent third party review of whether she handed over all of her work emails, there never seemed to be too much fight over just handing over everything when the FBI asked for it.  Of course we don't really know how the negotiation between the FBI and Hillary's team actually went which is funny since both sides are accused by one side or another of being so porous when it comes to leaking info.

 
They probably do, and they probably got nothing criminal..  That they will not comply with the FOIA request is at best them keeping it close to the vest until the investigation is over.
Well the description of any such as "evidence" does indicate a criminal investigation in the first place, and yeah I agree, but when the investigation is over anything that is public record will have to be released if Vice News gets its way.

Note Hillary has filed a sworn affidavit saying there are no public records she did not turn over so she's in a possible perjury trap here whensoever that happens if it does.

 
The FBI does not do security reviews.  Stop doubling down on ignorance.  
Whatever jon- call it what you want. If it was a criminal investigation they would have said so. They wouldn't "steadfastly refuse" to call it that. This whole thing is a big joke. There isn't going to be any indictment and you know it as much as I do. 

 
Whatever jon- call it what you want. If it was a criminal investigation they would have said so. They wouldn't "steadfastly refuse" to call it that. This whole thing is a big joke. There isn't going to be any indictment and you know it as much as I do. 
The Director of the FBI himself said they don't do security reviews.  I'm not sure why you guys keep insisting that it is.  He literally and explicitly said the exact opposite of what you are claiming.

 
Well the description of any such as "evidence" does indicate a criminal investigation in the first place, and yeah I agree, but when the investigation is over anything that is public record will have to be released if Vice News gets its way.

Note Hillary has filed a sworn affidavit saying there are no public records she did not turn over so she's in a possible perjury trap here whensoever that happens if it does.
No it doesn't, it would indicate that they have deleted emails and they have not determined if they are evidentiary or not.  

I like you are already building up for the next witch hunt.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
"Agent Taylor, you scan the cake recipes. Agent Harris, you get the yoga exercises. 30,000 of these ####### things; this is gonna take weeks!" 
Right, so no big deal, rest easy, Tim, rest easy. The wonderful beauty of the inner Hillary which so drove her to destroy all electronic evidence of her humility and decency will be revealed to us all to our amazement and great chagrin.

 
Hundreds of millions?  I got to see this. You have a link for this outlandish number?
I was just guessing, we are at over $22M for the fruitless Benghazi witch hunt alone.  I don't want to dig up how much the Ken Starr investigation and subsequent impeachment proceedings cost, but it was a lot guaranteed.   A lot of American tax payer dollars that netted nothing but short term political gains from their enemies in government. 

The country will look at this email investigation in much the same way we look at the Lewinsky "scandal", that is a political witch hunt.

 
Which Clinton Aide Arranged the Private Email Server?


When the State Department watchdog on May 25 released a damning report on former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s lapses in email management, the footnotes added a new wrinkle to the story that could force other shoes to drop in the 2016 presidential campaign.

“In addition to Secretary Clinton, eight former Department employees declined OIG requests for interviews,” Inspector General Steve Linick wrote after itemizing by title the dozens of current and former State employees who did cooperate with investigators in the highly scrutinized controversy. Two additional individuals did not respond to the IG’s requests.

Still unanswered is the question of which State Department specialists in information technology, records management and classification law OK’d the unusual arrangement. The IG found no evidence that Clinton had sought permission for the private server, though Clinton has repeatedly said that the arrangement “was permitted.”

... Here are the main players in the multiple investigations, and the status of their interviews: ...
http://www.govexec.com/management/2016/06/which-clinton-aide-arranged-private-email-server/128792/?oref=ge-android-article-share

- Fwiw, just to differentiate, the JW depositions are about who actually authorized the server or got it set up.

- The above article has a cast of characters. I think ultimately if they do reach a conclusion, it will be either that the server was authorized, and then by whom, or they will determine that it was never authorized by anyone. Personally the way things are going I think there's a decent chance Hillary is deposed. But we shall see.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top