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 (7 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
But I wasn't discussing the emails. I was discussing whether or not Congress would impeach Hillary, which is a different issue and largely political (even the "legal" part I mentioned is essentially political in nature). 
Click to expand...
And, how can you possibly pontificate on this possibility if you don't know even the 101 basics of what congress would contemplate in an impeachment proceeding?

 
cobalt_27 said:
And, how can you possibly pontificate on this possibility if you don't know even the 101 basics of what congress would contemplate in an impeachment proceeding?
Click to expand...
Because I know about impeachments, which tells me that there will not be any impeachment proceeding for Hillary Clinton. Therefore your question is entirely irrelevant. 

 
timschochet said:
Because I know about impeachments, which tells me that there will not be any impeachment proceeding for Hillary Clinton. Therefore your question is entirely irrelevant. 
Click to expand...
There were two that were almost impeached. Nixon resigned first, and an impeachment resolution was brought against John Tyler. Betcha didn't know about Tyler.

 
timschochet said:
Because I know about impeachments, which tells me that there will not be any impeachment proceeding for Hillary Clinton. Therefore your question is entirely irrelevant. 
Click to expand...
No, Tim.  You think you know what you are talking about, but as usual, you don't.  And, you admit to it.  Without making the effort to understand the gravity of what the FBI is investigating, knowing full well that your favorite President Nixon would have been impeached and Bill Clinton was impeached for their crimes, rarity of occurrence is sort of secondary to the crimes committed.  Since your head is very deliberately devoured by sand, you have foreclosed on having a meaningful discussion about HRC's prospects in this arena.  Your self-proclaimed knowledge of impeachments will not help you navigate the actual issues that might have to be contemplated because you don't know them.

 
cobalt_27 said:
No, Tim.  You think you know what you are talking about, but as usual, you don't.  And, you admit to it.  Without making the effort to understand the gravity of what the FBI is investigating, knowing full well that your favorite President Nixon would have been impeached and Bill Clinton was impeached for their crimes, rarity of occurrence is sort of secondary to the crimes committed.  Since your head is very deliberately devoured by sand, you have foreclosed on having a meaningful discussion about HRC's prospects in this arena.  Your self-proclaimed knowledge of impeachments will not help you navigate the actual issues that might have to be contemplated because you don't know them.
Click to expand...
OK. 

I stand by my prediction that Hillary Clinton will never be impeached by Congress. Am I 100% certain of this? Of course not. But I'm reasonably confident based on the reasons I offered. I notice that neither you nor anyone else here has chosen to specifically refute those reasons, only arguing that I don't know enough. So that's fine. As I already mentioned, I'm confident enough of my beliefs on this to put money on it if anybody's interested. 

And one correction: Richard Nixon is nowhere near my favorite President. I didn't like him as a person, and I don't respect him at all. He WAS a criminal and deserved to be removed from office. That being said I rank him highly as a President (though not as high as Ronald Reagan for example.) In my rankings, he fell right outside of my top 10. My personal favorite President is Harry Truman. My least favorite is Woodrow Wilson. 

 
timschochet said:
OK. 

I stand by my prediction that Hillary Clinton will never be impeached by Congress. Am I 100% certain of this? Of course not. But I'm reasonably confident based on the reasons I offered. I notice that neither you nor anyone else here has chosen to specifically refute those reasons, only arguing that I don't know enough. So that's fine. As I already mentioned, I'm confident enough of my beliefs on this to put money on it if anybody's interested. 

And one correction: Richard Nixon is nowhere near my favorite President. I didn't like him as a person, and I don't respect him at all. He WAS a criminal and deserved to be removed from office. That being said I rank him highly as a President (though not as high as Ronald Reagan for example.) In my rankings, he fell right outside of my top 10. My personal favorite President is Harry Truman. My least favorite is Woodrow Wilson. 
Click to expand...
And, it is important to summarize that you do not believe HRC will be impeached--not because of the evidence or what she did or didn't do, but based on behavioral trends in congress, nevermind the fact that 1 in 4 of the most recent 8 presidents have been impeached (or would have been impeached if the one--your favorite--hadn't resigned).  Criminals seem to be getting impeached with regularity.  so, maybe the content of the crime is important.  

 
timschochet said:
You would have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she deliberately used a private server in order to hide secrets from the public. 
Click to expand...
We already know that. What we don't know (yet) is how many and what those secrets are. We know she deleted emails - the concern is the content of those emails. Spare me the "yoga routines and wedding plans" nonsense. This could very well be worse than Watergate. Of course the details will be different, but at it's core, Watergate left us with the old "The cover up was worse than the crime" problem for the president. I think Hillary will have the same problem - only plural.

 
Abedin is being deposed today and Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy tomorrow.

Apparently the Dems Benghazi report has some useful points in it - one discussed above was that per Abedin Teneo employee Justin Cooper managed Hillary's server. Another is that per Kennedy Hillary was required to turn over all her work related emails upon leaving office and further that the existence of her personal email account was not commonly known.

I think with all the objections and 5th pleading we've seen we may likely be headed towards seeing Hillary herself deposed.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Abedin is being deposed today and Undersecretary Patrick Kennedy tomorrow.

Apparently the Dems Benghazi report has some useful points in it - one discussed above was that per Abedin Teneo employee Justin Cooper managed Hillary's server. Another is that per Kennedy Hillary was required to turn over all her work related emails upon leaving office and further that the existence of her personal email account was not commonly known.

I think with all the objections and 5th pleading we've seen we may likely be headed towards seeing Hillary herself deposed.
Click to expand...
Sounds like it is possible Hillary could be indicted as the FBI and others are ready to leak info that could lead to a Watergate type of situation. This is getting crazy.  Can a person still run for president while indicted for crimes? 

 
Da Guru said:
Sounds like it is possible Hillary could be indicted as the FBI and others are ready to leak info that could lead to a Watergate type of situation. This is getting crazy.  Can a person still run for president while indicted for crimes? 
Click to expand...
The depositions that Saints is referring to is for the Judicial Watch court case. They have nothing to do with the FBI. 

 
Da Guru said:
Sounds like it is possible Hillary could be indicted as the FBI and others are ready to leak info that could lead to a Watergate type of situation. This is getting crazy.  Can a person still run for president while indicted for crimes? 
Click to expand...
I find it hard to believe the DOJ (Lynch, the 3 or so Deputy AGs, Jarrett, Obama) will indict her. It would take something beyond extreme. Anything that is a jury decision they would not send to a jury or grand jury even. What comes out from the investigation could lead to other problems IMO.

 
Final Benghazi report greeted with expected collective yawns.

Once FBI wraps up and Bernie gives his we need Hilary to stop Trump speech it'll be smooth sailing.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
They look like children.  So desperate and so political.
Click to expand...
Said at the very beginning, the whole thing is a farse and I can't agree with this more.  From the clowns running around like Keystone Cops trying to pin something on her to the people stumbling over themselves to pleasure her it's a disgusting waste of our tax dollars.  The best thing that came out of this hearing was the mental gymnastics...pretty entertaining....from the faux outrage to the terrible fishing trips.

 
800 page report, all that money spent, and nothing new. No smoking gun. No evidence that Hillary lied. No evidence of wrongdoing. Such a waste of time. 

Let's move on to the next investigation, shall we? Time's a wasting! 

 
timschochet said:
800 page report, all that money spent, and nothing new. No smoking gun. No evidence that Hillary lied. No evidence of wrongdoing. Such a waste of time. 

Let's move on to the next investigation, shall we? Time's a wasting! 
Click to expand...
how would you characterize her "official story", told to family members, this siege was due to a video that ruffled feathers while emails show conclusively that a few hours after she knew it was a terror attack related to 9/11?  

Thats not a lie?

 
BigSteelThrill said:
They look like children.  So desperate and so political.
Click to expand...
They look like incompetent morons for having spent all this time and energy, so anything to deflect from that reality. Frankly, I'd have gone with an announcement of a new investigation but obviously they're holding that card for a little closer to the election.

 
Hillary Clinton’s email story continues to get harder and harder to believe


On Monday night, the Associated Press published a piece noting the release of an additional 165 pages of emails Hillary Clinton sent from her private email address while serving as secretary of state. These were emails that had never been previously released and only were made public because of a court order in response to a request from a conservative group.

And  yet again, the emails poke holes in Clinton's initial explanation for why she decided to exclusively use a private email server for her electronic correspondence while serving as the nation's top diplomat.

Let's start with this from the AP story: "The emails were not among the 55,000 pages of work-related messages that Clinton turned over to the agency in response to public records lawsuits seeking copies of her official correspondence."

Remember that Clinton and a small group of people working for her reviewed all of the emails she sent from her private server and made the decision about what was solely personal and what was work-related. She handed over the work-related email and permanently deleted those that she and her team decided were purely personal.  She wound up deleting more emails than she turned over to State.

The latest batch of emails suggest that Clinton's filter to decide between the personal and the professional was far from foolproof. That these emails never saw the light of day before Monday — or before a conservative legal advocacy group petitioned for their release — opens up the possibility that there are plenty more like them that Clinton chose to delete but shouldn't have.

... Then there's this quote from a newly released March 2009 email between Clinton and her top aide Huma Abedin about the email setup: "I have just realized I have no idea how my papers are treated at State. Who manages both my personal and official files? ... I think we need to get on this asap to be sure we know and design the system we want."

Hmmm.

Remember that Clinton said that her main/only reason for using a private email server while at State was "convenience." She didn't want to carry around multiple devices for email, she explained.

But this email to Abedin — which came at the start of her four-year term in office — suggests a bit more active agency than Clinton has previously let on. "I think we need to get on this asap to be sure we know and design the system we want," doesn't strike me as Clinton simply wanting convenience and following the instructions of her IT people on how to make that happen. It reads to me as though Clinton is both far more aware of the email setup and far more engaged in how it should look than she generally lets on publicly.

There's nothing in these emails that changes the basic political dynamic of the email controversy as Clinton seeks to win the White House this fall. Everything still depends on whether the Justice Department decides to indict Clinton or those close to her for purposely keeping information that the public had a right to know away from them. We've been waiting on the results of that FBI investigation for months now and, in truth, no one really knows when they will finally come.

But revelations like Monday's — a chunk of previously undisclosed emails that are clearly professional in nature — lend further doubt to the story Clinton had told about why she set up a private server and how she handled it after leaving office. For a candidate already struggling to convince voters she is honest and trustworthy enough to be president, stories like this one are deeply problematic.
Click to expand...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/28/hillary-clintons-email-story-continues-to-get-harder-and-harder-to-believe/?postshare=8881467131783471&tid=ss_tw

 
Last edited by a moderator:
'Phone Spies' 
16/08/2015
by Ross Coulthart, reporter, 60 Minutes, @rosscoulthart 

A massive security hole in modern telecommunications is exposing billions of mobile phone users in the world to covert theft of their data, bugging of their voice calls, and geo-tracking of their location  from by hackers, fraudsters, rogue governments and unscrupulous commercial operators using hundreds of online portals across the planet.

In a world-first, 60 Minutes has proven the worst nightmares of privacy advocates around the world: that mobile phone calls and data are wide open to interception because of flaws in the architecture of the signalling system – known as SS7 - used to enable mobile phone roaming across telecommunications providers. Despite this concern, the Australian Government’s own Cyber Security Threat Report, published in June, makes no mention of what is probably the biggest threat to this country’s commercial secrets and individual privacy.

60 Minutes’ story shows how German hackers working from Berlin, given legal access to SS7 for the purposes of the demonstration, were able to intercept and record a mobile phone conversation between 60 Minutes reporter Ross Coulthart while he was speaking from Germany to Independent Australian Senator Nick Xenophon in Australia’s Parliament House.  As further proof of the hack, Coulthart then made another phone call from London, England, to the Senator in Australia which the Berlin hackers were also able to intercept and record, even though they were in Germany 1000 kilometres distant. The Berlin hackers from SR Labs, who first warned of the vulnerability in SS7 in 2008, were also able to intercept and read the Senator’s SMS’ from Australia to Coulthart in London.  The hackers were also then able to geo-track the Senator as he travelled to Japan on official business, mapping his movements around Tokyo and Narita down to the nearest cell tower (within a few hundred metres), and later precisely tracking around the streets of his South Australian home suburb when he returned to Australia. 

The demonstration also shows how the key fraud protection relied on by banks to protect banking transactions from fraud – verification by SMS message – is useless against a determined hacker with access to the SS7 portal because they can intercept and use the SMS code before it gets to the bank customer. The same technique can also be used to take over someone’s online email account.

...
Click to expand...
http://www.9jumpin.com.au/show/60minutes/stories/2015/august/phone-hacking/

- This is a very long and (for anyone tech interested) interesting article describing how mobile phones' communications can be intercepted by hackers and foreign intelligence agencies without actual hacking. This would apply to any data transferred, including calls, emails or texts.

I think this is as good of an explanation as any as to why Hillary's private server communications were almost certainly obtained by foreign intelligence, and really it would be almost wrong to call it "hacking" because it's not, it is more in the way of eavesdropping via signals intelligence. This has been around since 1975 in one form or another.

 
Yes, but there are disturbing signs as well. Trump is close in many of the battleground states, including Ohio, Florida...and Pennsylvania. In Ohio and Pennsylvania his trade message resonates with a lot of people. So long as he stays close in those states this could be a tight election. 

 
timschochet said:
Yes, but there are disturbing signs as well. Trump is close in many of the battleground states, including Ohio, Florida...and Pennsylvania. In Ohio and Pennsylvania his trade message resonates with a lot of people. So long as he stays close in those states this could be a tight election. 
Click to expand...
And Hillary's running ahead or close in several red states.

For whatever reason the NBC/WSJ poll has been closer. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump falls into the -15-20 range in the next round in some of the others.

 
timschochet said:
Yes, but there are disturbing signs as well. Trump is close in many of the battleground states, including Ohio, Florida...and Pennsylvania. In Ohio and Pennsylvania his trade message resonates with a lot of people. So long as he stays close in those states this could be a tight election. 
Click to expand...
True, but polls give Clinton a wider lead in Florida than Obama ever had.  If she wins Florida its over, even if she loses Ohio and Pennsylvania. In fact she could conceivably lose all three and still win by taking Virginia (which seems a given to me at this point) and either North Carolina or Arizona.  Trump OTOH has no room for error, he likely needs to win all three.

IMO the best news for Clinton isn't the head to head numbers, it's the fact that she's maintained or widened her lead in the wake of the Orlando shootings and Brexit ... and that polls about preferred responses to those events have favored her. Generally you'd say that stuff like that would favor the underdog and the non-incumbent party, but the opposite seems to be taking place here.  Major events seem to be reminding people that the presidential election is a serious thing and that presidents have to respond to crises and that being well-informed and level-headed when the #### goes down is a good thing.  If that's the case it might take away the likeliest path to a Trump win, which is some sort of major event upsetting the apple cart.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
http://www.9jumpin.com.au/show/60minutes/stories/2015/august/phone-hacking/

- This is a very long and (for anyone tech interested) interesting article describing how mobile phones' communications can be intercepted by hackers and foreign intelligence agencies without actual hacking. This would apply to any data transferred, including calls, emails or texts.

I think this is as good of an explanation as any as to why Hillary's private server non-secure communications were almost certainly obtained by foreign intelligence, and really it would be almost wrong to call it "hacking" because it's not, it is more in the way of eavesdropping via signals intelligence. This has been around since 1975 in one form or another.
Click to expand...
Fixed.  

Basically, this is saying that it didn't much matter whether she was using the official server - it'd be unsecure regardless.  

 
dparker713 said:
Fixed.  

Basically, this is saying that it didn't much matter whether she was using the official server - it'd be unsecure regardless.  
Click to expand...
Okiedokie. Getting back to the point, she was being eavesdropped on.

But, also, the blackberry did not have the advantage of State IT people working on it (by ensuring it was "hardened"), and it wouldn't be a problem or as much of one if she had not had classified documentation on it. At any rate Hillary has steadfastly maintained that she was not hacked, that's a big deal to her for a reason, and this is a pretty good or obvious example that she was or foreign intelligence services obtained her communications anyway without actual "hacking."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713 said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
http://www.9jumpin.com.au/show/60minutes/stories/2015/august/phone-hacking/

- This is a very long and (for anyone tech interested) interesting article describing how mobile phones' communications can be intercepted by hackers and foreign intelligence agencies without actual hacking. This would apply to any data transferred, including calls, emails or texts.

I think this is as good of an explanation as any as to why Hillary's private server non-secure communications were almost certainly obtained by foreign intelligence, and really it would be almost wrong to call it "hacking" because it's not, it is more in the way of eavesdropping via signals intelligence. This has been around since 1975 in one form or another.
Click to expand...
Fixed.  

Basically, this is saying that it didn't much matter whether she was using the official server - it'd be unsecure regardless.  
Click to expand...
Isn't that exactly why they have rules about using the secured systems for classified and top-secret info rather than regular e-mail (private or government)?

 
Hillary Clinton’s bio at a friendly event includes unflattering details after volunteer’s 'brain freeze'


A volunteer tasked with pulling together a biography on Hillary Clinton for an event she was speaking at in Chicago on Monday had "a real brain freeze" and accidentally inserted the first three paragraphs from her Wikipedia page, which includes references to subpoenas and the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

...

The program included lines such as that Clinton is "the only first lady to have been subpoenaed," that "her marriage endured the Lewinsky scandal of 1998" and it added that "overall her role as first lady drew a polarized response from the public."

Not a great way to introduce your headline speaker.

The program was posted to social media by Mike Fourcher of the Chicago politics site Aldertrack.com, who pointed out that the biography was virtually identical to the one on Clinton's Wikipedia page.

...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
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
254K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 6 (members: 0, guests: 6)
Back
Top