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 (12 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
dparker713 said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, most many lawyers are ####ty at their job.   Welcome to the real world. HTH.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Johnny Franklin Lawhon Died March 29, 1998 In the spring of 1997, a tornado ripped through some junked cars at Johnny's Transmission shop and opened up the trunk of a car that proved to have a box of Whitewater records in it, including a copy of a $27,000 cashier's check drawn on Madison and payable to Bill Clinton. Lawhon realized what he was looking at and turned the box of documents over to the FBI. According to police, Lawhon and a friend hit a telephone pole at a high rate of speed after their car had become airborne and left the road. They had driven less than a quarter mile at the time of the impact.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I'm not sure I understand your post.  Are you saying that high-profile people don't have those things?
Click to expand...
For Hillary it would be more than half of all the things she had and for Lynch it would fill the 30 minutes of time she spent with her future boss' chief advisor who was also her former boss who was also the former president who also is the spouse of someone she is investigates.... but yes, that's all the things they talked about, that, and golf, and Brexit. You know "mostly" and "primarily" and as they were "mentioned."

Btw even if nothing investigation related was discussed a sense of good will is enough of a reason for Clinton to try to create influence in the case, also inappropriate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ministry of Pain said:
Johnny Franklin Lawhon Died March 29, 1998 In the spring of 1997, a tornado ripped through some junked cars at Johnny's Transmission shop and opened up the trunk of a car that proved to have a box of Whitewater records in it, including a copy of a $27,000 cashier's check drawn on Madison and payable to Bill Clinton. Lawhon realized what he was looking at and turned the box of documents over to the FBI. According to police, Lawhon and a friend hit a telephone pole at a high rate of speed after their car had become airborne and left the road. They had driven less than a quarter mile at the time of the impact.
Click to expand...
Interesting legal loophole is that when a person who finds records is killed the records become inadmissible.

 
dparker713 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Great, let's have a cynic-off where we determine which is more cynical: expecting rules that absolutely ensure there will be no appearance of inappropriate behavior to ensure faith in the judicial system, no matter how innocuous the motive or decent and upstanding the actors. or the argument that defeating such appearances is futile so don't attempt it at all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
For Hillary it would be more than half of all the things she had and for Lynch it would fill the 30 minutes of time she spent with her future boss' chief advisor who was also her former boss who was also the former president who also is the spouse of someone she is investigates.... but yes, that's all the things they talked about, that, and golf, and Brexit. You know "mostly" and "primarily" and as they were "mentioned."

Btw even if nothing investigation related was discussed a sense of good will is enough of a reason for Clinton to try to create influence in the case, also inappropriate.
Click to expand...
If that's her only or primary email account, more than half seems low.  I'd say 95% of my emails are exchanges with family and friends about the minutiae of daily life.

I'm not doing the Lynch-Slick Willie thing with you any more. As you said we've talked it to death. I think your perspective (assuming the worst in the absence of facts to the contrary, rather than demanding facts to support allegations of impropriety) has a lot on common with the perspective of Trump and his followers. There's nothing you can articulate from that perspective that's going to make me think it is a reasonable and helpful one.

 
tommyGunZ said:
Lynch isn't a judge.  The rest of this sounds like it could have been cut and pasted from a Glenn Beck fan forum.  

I think my favorite part is where you suggest that there are "new revelations that clarify her intent".  As if Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch should be monitoring Drudge to keep up with the latest fake Republican scandal so that they can tip toe around it.  
Click to expand...
The thought that Lynch doesn't know that there are two criminal investigations ongoing is laughable.  They aren't scandals - they're actual cases the FBI is working as we speak.

 
bueno said:
There is this target you have painted on your back Tim.
Click to expand...
And he painted it on by himself.  He has declared from day 1 this is a non-story, but yet media of all types have widely reported on this story.  He says this story bores him, but yet he discusses it daily.  He tells us he does not pay attention to the story, but then he talks like he knows all about it.  He is nearly the last person on the planet who does not realize there is a criminal investigation going on.  Even the White House acknowledged such.  He only seems to remember the facts which support his viewpoint.  Otherwise it is like talking to Dory where you have to explain the same facts to him every few minutes because he has no memory of it.  I could go on and on, but it is pointless.     

 
timschochet said:
So now I'm lazy
Click to expand...
You're worse than lazy. You're admittedly willfully ignorant, and yet keep providing uninformed arguments as though you have looked into the matter. It's one of the reasons people keep accusing you of trolling. You exert the worst kind of effort.

 
dparker713 said:
There are no criminal penalties for violating the FOIA.   
Click to expand...
And they know this. Why anyone would think the 4 long miserable secretive years of her presidency would be any different is beyond me. Time and time again the true colors are shown.

 
timschochet said:
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. 
Click to expand...
That's a change in tune. When did you decide to invest time in this, because this seems like a sudden shift. 

 
timschochet said:
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. 
Click to expand...
Ignorance is the direct consequence of boredom and laziness when those two things prevent you from understanding the very topic about which you openly admit ignorance. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
If that's her only or primary email account, more than half seems low.  I'd say 95% of my emails are exchanges with family and friends about the minutiae of daily life.

I'm not doing the Lynch-Slick Willie thing with you any more. As you said we've talked it to death. I think your perspective (assuming the worst in the absence of facts to the contrary, rather than demanding facts to support allegations of impropriety) has a lot on common with the perspective of Trump and his followers. There's nothing you can articulate from that perspective that's going to make me think it is a reasonable and helpful one.
Click to expand...
It's already been proven she withheld emails.  That was part of the suspicion.  It's been confirmed.  The other part was that she was running a pay for play operation out of the Foundation, and that her personal correspondence would at least touch on some of the shady dealings occurring around that vehicle.  We're 1/2.  The other has yet to be decided.  What has been firmly established is that she was not a trustworthy arbiter of what belonged to the state. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
It's already been proven she withheld emails.  That was part of the suspicion.  It's been confirmed.  The other part was that she was running a pay for play operation out of the Foundation, and that her personal correspondence would at least touch on some of the shady dealings occurring around that vehicle.  We're 1/2.  The other has yet to be decided.  What has been firmly established is that she was not a trustworthy arbiter of what belonged to the state. 
Click to expand...
Hmmm

 
TobiasFunke said:
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.
Click to expand...
People are so well trained to believe everything they hear (and claim that they already know about it).  "Nothing about Hillary Clinton surprises me"  :hophead:

 
cobalt_27 said:
Ignorance is the direct consequence of boredom and laziness when those two things prevent you from understanding the very topic about which you openly admit ignorance. 
Click to expand...
Don't you think it's rather patronizing to suggest that because I don't share your opinion on this subject that indicates my lack of understanding? 

 
timschochet said:
TobiasFunke said:
Yup. Or that time the Republican Party nominee for President of the United States said "all I know is what's on the internet."
Click to expand...
The difference is I'm not running for President. 
Click to expand...
Interesting.  You hold Trump to a higher standard than you do the average person, but when people try to hold Hillary to a higher standard than the average person your response is essentially that she can't be bothered by such things that are so far beneath her.  Good stuff :thumbup:  

 
jon_mx said:
And he painted it on by himself.  He has declared from day 1 this is a non-story, but yet media of all types have widely reported on this story.  He says this story bores him, but yet he discusses it daily.  He tells us he does not pay attention to the story, but then he talks like he knows all about it.  He is nearly the last person on the planet who does not realize there is a criminal investigation going on.  Even the White House acknowledged such.  He only seems to remember the facts which support his viewpoint.  Otherwise it is like talking to Dory where you have to explain the same facts to him every few minutes because he has no memory of it.  I could go on and on, but it is pointless.     
Click to expand...
This placement of this post is ironic- it was made only a few minutes after MOP once again accused the Clintons of murder in this thread- yet Jon finds my attititude irrational. 

Oh and here are a few other people on this planetwho do not realize that the FBI is undergoing a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton: 

James Comey

Loretta Lynch

the FBI agents conducting the investigation. 

Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton.  

 
timschochet said:
Don't you think it's rather patronizing to suggest that because I don't share your opinion on this subject that indicates my lack of understanding? 
Click to expand...
It would be, but he's not using that reason.  He's using your words that you said you don't understand it (because it bores you) as his reason.  He's taking you at your word :shrug:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
Interesting.  You hold Trump to a higher standard than you do the average person, but when people try to hold Hillary to a higher standard than the average person your response is essentially that she can't be bothered by such things that are so far beneath her.  Good stuff :thumbup:  
Click to expand...
I think it depends on the subject matter. If Donald Trump served as Secretary of State (what a disaster that would be!) I wouldn't care how he handled his emails. In fact if he did the exact same thing Clinton did I would defend him. Since this campaign began I have defended Trump on a variety of issues when I thought the criticism of him was unfair. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
Hmmm Indeed
Click to expand...
We've done this like 18 times already. The connection between the money (which I think came from a bank supporting the purchaser) to the transaction is tangential  and the State Department's "approval" was really just a single vote among many on a panel conducting a supplemental review, with the NRC acting as the primary agency on review and oversight. 

Next time stick with the one about the Rand Corporation, the saucer people and the reserve vampires. Or the Vince Foster murder crap that his sister enjoys so much.  You're doing great work here.

 
The Commish said:
It would be, but he's not using that reason.  He's using your words that you said you don't understand it (because it bores you) as his reason.  He's taking you at your word :shrug:  
Click to expand...
What I don't understand is the connection between what we in the public know about this issue and Hillary's supposed criminality. 

 
timschochet said:
I think it depends on the subject matter. If Donald Trump served as Secretary of State (what a disaster that would be!) I wouldn't care how he handled his emails. In fact if he did the exact same thing Clinton did I would defend him. Since this campaign began I have defended Trump on a variety of issues when I thought the criticism of him was unfair. 
Click to expand...
:bs:

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
Interesting.  You hold Trump to a higher standard than you do the average person, but when people try to hold Hillary to a higher standard than the average person your response is essentially that she can't be bothered by such things that are so far beneath her.  Good stuff :thumbup:  
Click to expand...
I think it depends on the subject matter. If Donald Trump served as Secretary of State (what a disaster that would be!) I wouldn't care how he handled his emails. In fact if he did the exact same thing Clinton did I would defend him. Since this campaign began I have defended Trump on a variety of issues when I thought the criticism of him was unfair. 
Click to expand...
I am not one that uses the words always and never very often.  I feel comfortable doing it here.  You can ALWAYS assume the person is an idiot if their response is "I heard it on the radio" or "I read it on the internet".  It doesn't matter their title in life or job or the subject matter.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
I am not one that uses the words always and never very often.  I feel comfortable doing it here.  You can ALWAYS assume the person is an idiot if their response is "I heard it on the radio" or "I read it on the internet".  It doesn't matter their title in life or job or the subject matter.
Click to expand...
Except that when I have written "I heard this on the radio," it wasn't to make some claim. I wrote it as "Hey I just heard this but I have no idea if it's true." 

 
timschochet said:
The Commish said:
I am not one that uses the words always and never very often.  I feel comfortable doing it here.  You can ALWAYS assume the person is an idiot if their response is "I heard it on the radio" or "I read it on the internet".  It doesn't matter their title in life or job or the subject matter.
Click to expand...
Except that when I have written "I heard this on the radio," it wasn't to make some claim. I wrote it as "Hey I just heard this but I have no idea if it's true." 
Click to expand...
My comment was general...not about you specifically Tim.  I won't go into the instances where this is playing fast and loose ;)  

 
timschochet said:
Don't you think it's rather patronizing to suggest that because I don't share your opinion on this subject that indicates my lack of understanding? 
Click to expand...
The reason you lack understanding isn't because we disagree...it's because you admitted a lack of understanding of the issues because you didn't look into it much and it bored you.  

You foreclosed on ability to contribute to an informed discussion once you admitted this--and then repeated for weeks, almost with pride.   Everyone took note.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
This placement of this post is ironic- it was made only a few minutes after MOP once again accused the Clintons of murder in this thread- yet Jon finds my attititude irrational. 

Oh and here are a few other people on this planetwho do not realize that the FBI is undergoing a criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton: 

James Comey

Loretta Lynch

the FBI agents conducting the investigation. 

Barack Obama

Hillary Clinton.  
Click to expand...
is it safe to assume Josh Earnest, the Whitehouse spokesman, represents President Obama?

“No. I think those career prosecutors understand that they have job to do, and that that job they are supposed to do — which is to follow the facts, to pursue the evidence to a logical conclusion — that’s a job that they are responsible for doing without any sort of political interference. And the president expects them to do that job, this is the reason that we actually ask career federal prosecutors to take the lead on these kinds of matters. They don’t have political jobs. They have career jobs as law enforcement officers and as prosecutors and investigators. That’s what their responsibility is. And that’s why the President when discussing this issue in each stage has reiterated his commitment to this principle that any criminal investigation should be conducted independent of any sort of political interference and that people should be treated the same way before the law regardless of their political influence, regardless of their political party, regardless of their political stature and regardless of what political figure has endorsed them.”

~ June 9, 2016

 
Quint said:
is it safe to assume Josh Earnest, the Whitehouse spokesman, represents President Obama?

“No. I think those career prosecutors understand that they have job to do, and that that job they are supposed to do — which is to follow the facts, to pursue the evidence to a logical conclusion — that’s a job that they are responsible for doing without any sort of political interference. And the president expects them to do that job, this is the reason that we actually ask career federal prosecutors to take the lead on these kinds of matters. They don’t have political jobs. They have career jobs as law enforcement officers and as prosecutors and investigators. That’s what their responsibility is. And that’s why the President when discussing this issue in each stage has reiterated his commitment to this principle that any criminal investigation should be conducted independent of any sort of political interference and that people should be treated the same way before the law regardless of their political influence, regardless of their political party, regardless of their political stature and regardless of what political figure has endorsed them.”

~ June 9, 2016
Click to expand...
Yeah that was amisaratement. He was asked about it a day later and refused to confirm that it was a criminal investigation. 

 
Days After Private Meeting, Lynch Dropping All Semblance of Impartiaility and Protecting Clintons by Delaying Document Release 27 Months!!!!

Optics on this are insane!  You'd think Lynch was outright blackmailed on that plane!  

The docuemnts between Clinton aides and the Foundation were supposed to be public by July 21 -- and the scope went from 6k to over 30k based on an "error!"  Now Lynch wants to delay until 2018.

Our Republic has been hijacked.  Stonewalling, obstructing, lying, shielding voters from damning facts.  If you're not outraged, imagine if his had been done under Bush.

"So tell me, Bill, how are your grandkids!"  

 
Last edited:
pantagrapher said:
Guys don't look now but the optics are a huge problem for Hillary. Also: she cackles.
Click to expand...
It's disgraceful how Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch got together on a tarmac to go back in time and convince Judicial Watch and other groups to submit massive FOIA requests to the State Department and then also convinced Congress to set aside a limited budget for State's Office of the Inspector General to deal with those massive requests.  We're through the looking glass, people.

 
timschochet said:
Yeah that was amisaratement. He was asked about it a day later and refused to confirm that it was a criminal investigation. 
Click to expand...
@timschochet

amisaratement
Click to expand...
- I think you've hit on something, this sound like onomatopoeia.

From today's press briefing - Earnest:

The bottom line is simply that the president and the attorney general understand how important it is for the Department of Justice to conduct investigations that are free of political interference. And that has been a bedrock principle of our criminal justice system in this country since our founding. The rule of law if paramount and every American citizen should be held accountable to that rule of law regardless of their political affiliation, regardless of who supports them politically, regardless of what their poll numbers say. And that is a principle the president believes is one worth protecting.
Click to expand...
. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-POAXqNwIKA

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
Days After Private Meeting, Lynch Dropping All Semblance of Impartiaility and Protecting Clintons by Delaying Document Release 27 Months!!!!

Optics on this are insane!  You'd think Lynch was outright blackmailed on that plane!  

The docuemnts between Clinton aides and the Foundation were supposed to be public by July 21 -- and the scope went from 6k to over 30k based on an "error!"  Now Lynch wants to delay until 2018.

Our Republic has been hijacked.  Stonewalling, obstructing, lying, shielding voters from damning facts.  If you're not outraged, imagine if his had been done under Bush.

"So tell me, Bill, how are your grandkids!"  
Click to expand...
I agree it was really dumb for Bill Clinton to meet Lynch, but I am having trouble with your link since it references Citizen United so much.

 
badmojo1006 said:
I agree it was really dumb for Bill Clinton to meet Lynch, but I am having trouble with your link since it references Citizen United so much.
Click to expand...
This case arises under the Freedom of Information Act (“FOIA”). Plaintiff has submitted six separate FOIA requests to State, seeking emails sent or received by four current or former State employees – Michael ***hs, Melanne Verveer, Cheryl Mills, and Huma Abedin to or from individuals associated with the Clinton Foundation and Teneo Holdings.
Click to expand...
http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000155-a1fd-deee-af7f-f5fdef680001

- Better?

 
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
260K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
Back
Top