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 (6 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
SaintsInDome2006 said:
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.
Click to expand...
My take is that there will be absolutely findings of non compliance and process violations, and that there were no crimes committed.   I'd bet that she has already been deposed (or interviewed, etc) by the FBI.   Wouldn't it be way late in the game for that?

 
tone1oc said:
My take is that there will be absolutely findings of non compliance and process violations, and that there were no crimes committed.   I'd bet that she has already been deposed (or interviewed, etc) by the FBI.   Wouldn't it be way late in the game for that?
Click to expand...
That's true, she may have already been interviewed by the FBI. She says no though and actually she says she hasn't even been contacted.

Since supposedly everyone else has been interviewed my only thought is if they haven't yet they may have been waiting for the IG report and also to see if they get any free testimony out of the depositions. And that may not happen anyway.

Things are going well for Hillary so yeah if the DOJ came out and said at the end of this week they have ruled, and done so in her favor, I guess that could happen. On the other hand if she was totally free and clear then why not do that in February or March after the Foia rollout had ended? - I just don't understand how they can keep pushing it closer to the convention without being cognizant of the chatter around what they are doing.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
That's true, she may have already been interviewed by the FBI. She says no though and actually she says she hasn't even been contacted.

Since supposedly everyone else has been interviewed my only thought is if they haven't yet they may have been waiting for the IG report and also to see if they get any free testimony out of the depositions. And that may not happen anyway.

Things are going well for Hillary so yeah if the DOJ came out and said at the end of this week they have ruled, and done so in her favor, I guess that could happen. On the other hand if she was totally free and clear then why not do that in February or March after the Foia rollout had ended? - I just don't understand how they can keep pushing it closer to the convention without being cognizant of the chatter around what they are doing.
Click to expand...
I think that it would behoove the Obama administration (DoJ) to allow the process to take it's course.   The IG report led to an FBI investigation of some sort, and those findings will be brought to the DoJ, and if there is a recommendation for criminal complaint, it would be on them to pursue it.   The only way I see a situation of DoJ not following through is if the FBI findings were overzealous and limited to process violations that have been interpreted criminal, if that makes sense.

Obama has a lot riding on this.  IMO he would not want to stake his legacy on HRC if there was some actual fire to all the smoke.  I'd imagine the last thing he wants is to be involved in a massive investigation into his administration's handling of the probe and that we wouldn't be hearing of an imminent Obama endorsement of HRC.   But I'm sure someone will argue that Obama is in the same crony circle and is committing high crimes to protect her.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I expect Hillary clinching will give her a good bump in the polls and she will pull away for good from Trump.  Race about to get very boring now.

 
Would it be a disappointment for hillary to be anything less than up double digits in the polls vs trump over the next week?

 
Riversco said:
Would it be a disappointment for hillary to be anything less than up double digits in the polls vs trump over the next week?
Click to expand...
It may take longer than a week for the Democrats to coalesce. I'm hoping the Mexican judge thing will also have an effect but we'll see. 

 
Riversco said:
Reuters has it +5 hillary but that was before the clinch.
Click to expand...
Trump has had an awful week.  Coupled with Hillary being the presumptive nominee, I suspect this gets into double digits soon.

It's early, but I hope Trump continues doing whatever this is that he's doing.  I was worried he'd reign it in, look a little more even-tempered, go on the aggressive with Hillary, and make it a rough ride for her.  But, personal preferences aside, there is NO way he distinguishes himself as the better candidate and pulls in independent votes by chirping about his lawsuit and making obvious, overt, disgusting racist comments.  He can't win doing this, so I hope he keeps doing exactly what he's doing.

 
This thread has, as usual, been dominated by discussion of Hillary's emails today, but it's not a subject matter that's getting a second of discussion on the news (apart maybe from Andrew Napolitano's obsession on FOX). 

Unless there's an indictment it's a dead issue IMO. 

 
timschochet said:
This thread has, as usual, been dominated by discussion of Hillary's emails today, but it's not a subject matter that's getting a second of discussion on the news (apart maybe from Andrew Napolitano's obsession on FOX). 

Unless there's an indictment it's a dead issue IMO. 
Click to expand...
:lmao:

Nothing to see here, folks.  Move along, please.

 
cobalt_27 said:
Trump has had an awful week.  Coupled with Hillary being the presumptive nominee, I suspect this gets into double digits soon.

It's early, but I hope Trump continues doing whatever this is that he's doing.  I was worried he'd reign it in, look a little more even-tempered, go on the aggressive with Hillary, and make it a rough ride for her.  But, personal preferences aside, there is NO way he distinguishes himself as the better candidate and pulls in independent votes by chirping about his lawsuit and making obvious, overt, disgusting racist comments.  He can't win doing this, so I hope he keeps doing exactly what he's doing.
Click to expand...
I know we'll never agree on Hillary, but I do appreciate your ability to see the forest through the trees.  As bad as you might think she is, a Trump Presidency would be an unmitigated disaster that could set this country back for decades.  

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
You mean the investigation based on the security referral?
Click to expand...
You'll have to read through it all....there was a back peddle and everything after the post you quoted, but when I made the comment the phrase of "hypothetical investigation" and general question of "If there was even an investigation" were thrown around.  That's what I responded to, so you'll have to get with the brain trust who made the comments I replied to because my reply was specific to those comments.

 
This was the first election in my state that I purposely did not take part in in my life. Just couldn't bring myself to sign anything that said I'm a Republican today nor give this party any support for anything it stands for right now.

 
cobalt_27 said:
Trump has had an awful week.  Coupled with Hillary being the presumptive nominee, I suspect this gets into double digits soon.

It's early, but I hope Trump continues doing whatever this is that he's doing.  I was worried he'd reign it in, look a little more even-tempered, go on the aggressive with Hillary, and make it a rough ride for her.  But, personal preferences aside, there is NO way he distinguishes himself as the better candidate and pulls in independent votes by chirping about his lawsuit and making obvious, overt, disgusting racist comments.  He can't win doing this, so I hope he keeps doing exactly what he's doing.
Click to expand...
He's throwing it all away with both hands. He's got senate republicans calling him a racist and withdrawing their support. It's pretty astonishing to watch, and I wonder if he's doing it on purpose. I know he's clueless about most issues and has never run for office before, but it would not have been difficult or complicated to walk the judge comments back, apologize and move on. I hate him with every fiber of my being, but I don't consider him a complete moron, and that's how he looks right now. 

Lately he does seem to be coming unglued though (more than usual), so maybe the Alzheimer's stuff has some merit. Certain symptoms start to appear before someone is in full-on dementia, including poor judgment and disorganized thinking.  He's 69 years old, and his dad had Alzheimer's.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Big group of Superdelegates flying in, huh?
Click to expand...
Yet another friendly reminder...

2,383 needed for nomination
HRC Pledged: 1,812
Bernie Pledged: 1,521
813 pledged delegates still available

Being generous to Bernie based on poling,  let's assume they split the remaining pledged delegates evenly, Bernie gets 406 and Hillary gets 405 in the remaining contests.   The count of pledged delegates would be.. 

HRC: 2,217
Bernie: 1,927

Now circling back to the super delegates, HRC would only need 166 out of 719 total super delegates, or about 23%.  By any stretch in this contested primary, it would be hard to cry foul based on the super delegates.  She has earned far more than 23% of them based on the will of the voters in the districts to which those super delegates belong.  Bottom line....

Bernie could get 76% of the super delegates and would still lose.   

 
tone1oc said:
Yet another friendly reminder...

2,383 needed for nomination
HRC Pledged: 1,812
Bernie Pledged: 1,521
813 pledged delegates still available

Being generous to Bernie based on poling,  let's assume they split the remaining pledged delegates evenly, Bernie gets 406 and Hillary gets 405 in the remaining contests.   The count of pledged delegates would be.. 

HRC: 2,217
Bernie: 1,927

Now circling back to the super delegates, HRC would only need 166 out of 719 total super delegates, or about 23%.  By any stretch in this contested primary, it would be hard to cry foul based on the super delegates.  She has earned far more than 23% of them based on the will of the voters in the districts to which those super delegates belong.  Bottom line....

Bernie could get 76% of the super delegates and would still lose.   
Click to expand...
In other words, come July, it's highly likely Hillary has the requisite number of delegates to win the nomination.  Still not seeing how this is any different than May, April, March, or February.

 
tone1oc said:
Yet another friendly reminder...

2,383 needed for nomination
HRC Pledged: 1,812
Bernie Pledged: 1,521
813 pledged delegates still available

Being generous to Bernie based on poling,  let's assume they split the remaining pledged delegates evenly, Bernie gets 406 and Hillary gets 405 in the remaining contests.   The count of pledged delegates would be.. 

HRC: 2,217
Bernie: 1,927

Now circling back to the super delegates, HRC would only need 166 out of 719 total super delegates, or about 23%.  By any stretch in this contested primary, it would be hard to cry foul based on the super delegates.  She has earned far more than 23% of them based on the will of the voters in the districts to which those super delegates belong.  Bottom line....

Bernie could get 76% of the super delegates and would still lose.   
Click to expand...
Ok ok you don't have to convince me but it was poor move to drop the Superdelegate supersecret primary result the night before the biggest vote of the year via the media in a year and time when people feel all suspicious.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok ok you don't have to convince me but it was poor move to drop the Superdelegate supersecret primary result the night before the biggest vote of the year via the media in a year and time when people feel all suspicious.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the Clinton campaign's doing. As you pointed out, the timing couldn't have been worse. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok ok you don't have to convince me but it was poor move to drop the Superdelegate supersecret primary result the night before the biggest vote of the year via the media in a year and time when people feel all suspicious.
Click to expand...
The timing sucks for everyone, why would Hillary want it to be released the night before and only fuel the fire of Bernie supporters that she has to try and bring in?  Working backwards one could assume you are saying that the AP was working as an operative of Clinton to sway the vote today even though she was polling well and under any realistic outcome would have her clenching (in the context that all other D primaries have been clenched since 1968).  

I think the obvious reason is that the AP was in a race with NBC News (who finished a closed second in breaking it) and other outlets to break the story.  I think it's just more wild speculation and hyper paranoia that will not help us unite as a party. 

 
cobalt_27 said:
So, what would the attorneys and those steeped in this speculate on what limited immunity agreement means?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/justice-dept-granted-limited-immunity-to-staffer-in-clinton-email-probe/2016/06/07/a1a46d2c-2ce8-11e6-b5db-e9bc84a2c8e4_story.html
Click to expand...
Ok as always I'll speculate.

There's a good post further up by DParker explaining the difference between limited/qualified and transactional/full immunity. It would be good to hear from Henry.

And I realize this is not at all authoritative but I thought these two comments from the WaPo article sounded somewhat authentic or at least interesting:

The type of immunity given Pagliano incentivizes an individual to reveal everything in order to avoid future prosecution based on new found evidence or testimony from others. The FBI clearly offered limited use immunity to Pagliano in order to gain evidence on a much bigger target. However, Pagliano's testimony to the FBI may have covered different aspects of "emailgate" than what is being explored in the civil case. Therefore, his legal team acted logically by having him plead the "Fifth" in the civil case in order to avoid any potential prosecution or culpability.
Click to expand...


In a criminal case, the judge and the prosecutor may not tell a jury “that it may draw an inference of guilt from a defendant’s failure to testify about facts relevant to his case.” But that’s not so in a civil case.
Click to expand...
This is also good from Andrew McCarthy (NRO):

...For present purposes, the most significant difference between the two forms of immunity is that only statutory immunity necessarily signals that a grand jury investigation is ongoing. A proffer agreement, to the contrary, signals that a grand jury may have been convened or probably will be soon, but does not necessarily mean this is the case.
Click to expand...
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/432301/hillary-clinton-grand-jury

- I guess we know now that there is no grand jury underway.


There is no requirement that there be a grand-jury investigation underway in order for the prosecutor to give a witness (and the witness’s lawyer) a “queen for a day” letter. Nevertheless, the whole point of this letter is to set up an interview of the witness by the FBI and the prosecutor. In that interview, the government hopes to find out (a) what the witness knows, (b) what other conspirators the witness is in a position to provide testimony about, and (c) whether it is worth signing a formal cooperation agreement with the witness. If a cooperation agreement is signed, the witness is permitted to plead guilty to one or more offenses he has committed in exchange for his cooperation and testimony in cases involving other participants in the criminal transaction. Obviously, the idea is to cut a deal with the less culpable player in order to make the case against the more culpable player(s).


 
This is a roundabout way to saying that a proffer agreement signals that an active grand-jury investigation may well be underway, and if it is not yet underway, it soon will be. Proffer agreements are done to figure out who should be charged in a case, and with what offenses. A grand jury is constitutionally necessary for the filing of an indictment that charges named defendants in these offenses.
Click to expand...
 
 
- I think the way this works is that the qualified/limited variety, or Queen for a Day, deal allows the feds to keep going back to the well, to sort of keep putting the heat on the witness because they can be continually pressured that if they give more they will get more. This could be valuable as interviews proceed and the FBI can keep going back and asking about new facts that arise every time.
 
- The big problem there for those expecting/hoping for indictment is that there has been zero indication that Pags is going to plead guilty to anything. And there has been no leak of a cooperation agreement.
 
- The bit I find interesting is that Pags' lawyers would have to argue that the JW depos - which are about the server setup authorization supposedly - would have to be the same matter which is the underlying reason for the immunity deal for them to successfully argue for Pags to get to plead the 5th. And also as someone mentioned in one of the comments the judge can take whatever inference he likes from the details of the plea deal he now has before him in assessing whether to hold State in bad faith or in deciding whether to make Hillary be deposed.
 
(ducks) (I'm guessing DParker corrects this somehow...)
 


 
Last edited by a moderator:
McGarnicle said:
He's throwing it all away with both hands. He's got senate republicans calling him a racist and withdrawing their support. It's pretty astonishing to watch, and I wonder if he's doing it on purpose. I know he's clueless about most issues and has never run for office before, but it would not have been difficult or complicated to walk the judge comments back, apologize and move on. I hate him with every fiber of my being, but I don't consider him a complete moron, and that's how he looks right now. 

Lately he does seem to be coming unglued though (more than usual), so maybe the Alzheimer's stuff has some merit. Certain symptoms start to appear before someone is in full-on dementia, including poor judgment and disorganized thinking.  He's 69 years old, and his dad had Alzheimer's.
Click to expand...
So Hillary has had Alzheimer's or dementia for quite some time then.

 
timschochet said:
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. 
Click to expand...
:lol:  I don't know Tim, the head of the friggin FBI confirmed it was an investigation.  You can choose to believe lie number 72 from Hillary on this email issue, or you can choose to use your brain and realize what the FBI does.  HINT:. Their name gives it away.  You would be wiser to continue with the nobody cares or the you are bored with this issue.  

 
jon_mx said:
:lol:  I don't know Tim, the head of the friggin FBI confirmed it was an investigation.  You can choose to believe lie number 72 from Hillary on this email issue, or you can choose to use your brain and realize what the FBI does.  HINT:. Their name gives it away.  You would be wiser to continue with the nobody cares or the you are bored with this issue.  
Click to expand...
But not a CRIMINAL investigation. 

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
:lmao:

You're all over the map here.
Click to expand...
Not really. All along I've given him about a 30% chance to win. 30% is pretty good. It's going to fluctuate back and forth over the next 5 months. Obviously I hope it goes down. But I don't know. There are lots of Americans like you who don't like Obama or Hillary and want change, and are willing to overlook Trump's flaws. It would be dishonest to admit otherwise. 

 
timschochet said:
But not a CRIMINAL investigation. 
Click to expand...
What else is there?   All the FBI does is criminal investigation.  Stop with the ridiculous spin and just call it what it is.  Hillary Clinton has done serious wrong doings and nearly all the elements of a crime have been established.  That is what they are investigating.  There is no other point.  It is such a ridiculous arguement. 

 
Now- regarding Hillary's speech. 

One of the best aspects about her speech in San Diego was that she stayed calm and never raised her voice. If I were one of her advisors I would tell her to NEVER raise her voice, never shout or screech. **** Cheney, for all of his flaws, was a very effective speaker because he stayed calm. 

But I don't expect her to do it. She seems to like to yell. Unlike Obama and her husband, she's not a good yeller.  

 
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
262K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top