The fact that Clinton met with Lynch creates an appearance of impropriety. We will never know what was discussed. Just the fact that you put yourself in the position where there is an appearance of impropriety makes it the wrong action and thus unethical by most definitions. It is kind of like going into another woman's hotel room. Your wife is going to view that as unethical whether or not you actually did anything wrong. You should have never put yourself in such a situation where you invite such speculation.
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)
- Thread starter timschochet
- Start date
- Status
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Except in this instance there's no opponent, there's no judge, and there's no case. That's the whole point. All the ethical rules you cite, and all the analogies you've come up with, deal with fairness towards and protection of an absent party. There's no absent party here.Tobias I deleted my prior response to you.
My point was I would think you could well imagine being in an emotional high stakes legal case and the politically connected spouse of your opponent emerges from a private meeting with the judge, and a friend tells you about that. You would not in the least bit be upset or cry foul? You think being completelywould be a normal, reasonable response to that?
G
Guest
Guest
She is the arbiter for whether charges are brought. She will judge.
And this week brought new revelations. Substantial ones, if you care to pay attention. You don't. Through FOIA requests brought by Judicial Watch, the Associated Press found 160 emails Hillary deleted and didn't turn over that were work-related.
Many relate to acknowledgment of non-compliance of records regulations and discussion of record keeping... Germaine to the mindset that led to the mishandling of secrets. Hillary hand selected emails to delete because they portrayed the truth--that she conspired to shield emails from open records laws. Huma confirmed this under oath yesterday. And it's the subject of a criminal investigation that's spanned 14 months or so. And the sole arbiter is meeting with the subject's husband in the final stretches to talk golf.
Yeah. Nothing to see.
Last edited:
timschochet
Footballguy
No it isn't. And when the FBI finally issues their report on this, I predict it will say that nothing criminal took place.
cobalt_27
Footballguy
You think this because you rely on magic fairy dust for your information. You have already said you don't know what's going on with this, that you're too bored to find out, so you were essentially just making things up out of thin air. Again, you should probably check out of this part of the discussion since you have nothing to contribute but vacuous blather
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
But Tim in order to do that they need to investigate whether or not actions were criminal. While the I agree that the report will likely state that all of this is overblown taking a nugget of truth and running with it, I'd be surprised if there aren't numerous technical violations of various procedures that implement various policies that implement various laws.
G
Guest
Guest
Nothing troubling to you about any of the behavior and lies surrounding this? Nothing -- at all?
pantagrapher
Footballguy
You guys generated four pages of content on this nonsense since yesterday? Get a grip!
timschochet
Footballguy
Oh I agree with you. But that's very different from the implication here, which is that the FBI believes some serious crime took place here and the only question is whether or not Hillary Clinton is guilty of it.
timschochet
Footballguy
I've already written, in detail, exactly the level of my concern about the emails and how it would impact my support for Hillary. Clinton.
timschochet
Footballguy
well that Rassmussen poll is scary. Other polls show Hillary increasing her lead. Not sure what's going on.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
You all realize you sound exactly like Donald Trump, right? You can't point to any rules that were broken, or facts demonstrating impropriety, and your "connect the dots" arguments fall apart when you actually attempt to connect the dots ... but something just doesn't "feel" right (because you're starting from the assumption of guilt and corruption and working backwards, as conspiracy theorists do) and "they" (not clear who "they" are) are up to "something" (not clear what and no actual theory or wrongdoing makes any sense or is supported by any evidence), and we have to do something about it.
This kind of thinking is exactly where Cheeto Jesus came from All that's missing is the scapegoating of brown people- the unwarranted criticism of Lynch could fit I guess, but that's kind of a stretch. Anyway, you deserve him. Enjoy.
This kind of thinking is exactly where Cheeto Jesus came from All that's missing is the scapegoating of brown people- the unwarranted criticism of Lynch could fit I guess, but that's kind of a stretch. Anyway, you deserve him. Enjoy.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
That rule was posted by MT, I merely quoted from it. - I think I've explained the metaphor since then and even agreed with MT to put it in the context of a DA instead. - However my point to you was to explain the easily relatable position in which someone felt they were expecting impartiality only to see that the person making that decision was not acting in a visibly completely impartial way. I disagree with another point though, as I explained above there is very much another party in this thing and the AG is supposed to be representing them, the people, or at least those of us who would like to see this decision made without even the appearance of impropriety. I'm guessing in my analogy which you never did respond to you would acknowledge you would be disappointed and rather disturbed if you did so address it.
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I don't know if there is a technical definition of "criminal investigation" but I have to assume that the question "is this criminal" is part of every FBI investigation, including those that are initiated by a security referral. While I agree with you that those that believed Hillary was guilty long before the actual issue to investigate was determined are throwing around "criminal investigation" as if that alone is proof enough "to disqualify Hillary" - a ridiculously ignorant position to take if one gives the future implications even a second of thought , I don't think the appropriate rebuttal is that there is not a "criminal investigation".
Bottomfeeder Sports
Footballguy
I'd be greatly disappointed with the former President if he and Lynch didn't have a big laugh over all of this when they met.
timschochet
Footballguy
Well we disagree on that specific point then. But overall I agree with you.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
The Commish
Footballguy
Well, if they aren't investigating potential criminal actions (as you charge by saying it's not a criminal investigation) how could they? They aren't even looking for that, which begs the question, what exactly ARE they looking for?
And for the record, I couldn't give two ####s what you call it. Felt like highlighting the mental gymnastics people are willing to jump through to deflect for "their side"....pretty entertaining.
timschochet
Footballguy
When Obama campaigns with Hillary next week he should take Lynch and Comey with him. Imagine how crazy that would make some of the people here.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
There is no other party, no matter how much you pretend otherwise. The AG is the people's attorney. If you start from the assumption that the prosecutor is not the people's attorney, you're assuming corruption without evidence of it. And if you don't start from that assumption you have no argument.
Maybe you guys can join up with the BLM protesters? "Prosecutors refuse to be diligent in prosecuting cops and other people who kill black men!" "Yeah, and also the Attorney General met with Hillary Clinton's husband on a tarmac for a half-hour which is totally legal but I'm worried he might have said or done something to discourage her from bringing charges under the Espionage Act that I think maybe should apply to her private email server!" It's like you're two peas in a pod.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
- HIllary: represented by defense counsel.
- People of the US: represented by Lynch. The people here - us, all of us - are a party.
Yes, that was precisely my point.
I'm guessing that the officers in Baltimore, currently 3-0, probably feel the same way about the visible role of politics in prosecutorial decisions.
Last edited by a moderator:
cobalt_27
Footballguy
Your level of concern is inversely correlated with the laziness and/or cowardice with which you have approached your study of the issue.
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Well you're not really a "party" since there's no matter to be litigated, but yes. The AG is your lead attorney and DOJ is your law firm.
If you don't like having attorneys from your law firm having casual happenstance meetings with people who are related to people who aren't being prosecuted, I don't know what to tell you. Other than pretty soon you're gonna have the crappiest law firm on earth, because no attorney can live and work under such needless and absurd restrictions that assume their corruption without evidence of it. Good luck with that.
Also you got the Baltimore analogy backwards- you're in the role of the Baltimore protesters who demanded prosecution and pressured the state's attorney, not the other way around. Except you're also saying that she shouldn't have had any contact with any off the record conversations with the officers or their families or friends prior to her decision to prosecute, which is a needless and counterproductive and silly restriction.
Boston
Footballguy
I hate those old-timers who feel their leaders should have ethics and play by the same rules as the little people...they should just shut-up and let the ruling elites run their lives...
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
I think the expectation of prosecutors being free of political influence - and being visibly above such - applies to both defendants and the victims and the people alike.
I think we've talked it out. We can obviously disagree on what we think is appropriate, but I think the contention that such arguments are unreasonable and emotional are themselves unreasonable and outlandish.
timschochet
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
That could be said when you write certain subjects bore you.....meaning you don't want to take the time to actually read up on that subject and don't want to face the facts.
i keep getting new insults thrown at me here. So now I'm lazy and a coward?
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet
Footballguy
No it doesn't mean that. I've read a whole lot about the email scandal. I certainly believe I know as much about it as you or Cobalt. Boredom is not the same as ignorance.
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
Tim you have personally expressed your
Last edited by a moderator:
BeaverCleaver
Footballguy
Ignorance wasn't the word used Tim. It was lazy. You have a proven track record here of saying things bore you when you they go against what is going on in Tim's World.
Baloney Sandwich
Footballguy
timschochet
Footballguy
My supposed inability to comprehend this is actually a strong disagreement with you over your interpretation of what little facts there are.
Not really. Quinnipac down to 2% yesterday, now the Rassmusen up 4%. Trend is the other direction right now.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
That's not how you put it before. This must be change no. 22 in approach since March 2015. Very Hillary-like, can't wait to see the next rollout.
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713
Footballguy
Those "revelations" are not at all substantial to whether Hillary should be indicted. There are no criminal penalties for violating the FOIA.
dparker713
Footballguy
How would they know nothing criminal took place unless they were undergoing an investigation into actions that could be criminal?
timschochet
Footballguy
dparker713
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Exactly. You want to complain about undue influence on arbiters of justice, let's start with the fact that many of them are elected officials, which is up there with the craziest #### going in our system of government. When it comes to political influence on the administration of justice that's a 100 on a 1-100 scale, and it happens constantly and nobody really seems to give a ####. The AG meeting with Bill Clinton on the tarmac to talk grandkids and Brexit is like a 0.05 on that same scale.
As you'd expect John Oliver did a great bit about it.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
The cynicism is amazing.
The argument is that impartiuality can't be had, so don't try it, don't ask for it, don't adhere to rules that call for it. Check. These sentiments are incredibly not liberal.
SaintsInDome2006
Footballguy
- Awe, look it's babiezzzzz!
And who doesn't love weddings? Or cry at funerals? Or love a grandma trying to stay healthy? Or fam-pics on the beach?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
I'm not sure I understand your post. Are you saying that high-profile people don't have those things?
dparker713
Footballguy
You're the cynic. Being unable to believe that people will follow the rules of ethics and do their jobs despite their personal feelings. Most lawyers are up to the task however. Few lawyers get to only represent people they want to win. However, it's still their responsibility to represent those people to the best of their ability.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Right on time, this Jimmy Kimmel bit is fantastic.
We should play match the FFA poster with the interview subject. Mr Ham is obviously the anrgy woman in the pink polo who calls her a traitor for accepting a LinkedIn request for Osama Bin Laden.
We should play match the FFA poster with the interview subject. Mr Ham is obviously the anrgy woman in the pink polo who calls her a traitor for accepting a LinkedIn request for Osama Bin Laden.
- Status
Similar threads
