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 (8 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
dparker713 said:
How the #### do you make an inference about the FBI's case from this? 
Click to expand...
In my estimation, Lynch "backing off" has one of three implications.

1. She already knows the case won't lead to charges 

2. She's engaging in creative semantics and nothing has changed relating to what she does after she "accepts" the recommendations (i.e. I accept this ugly sweater, and I will now place it in the fireplace)

3. The case is too well developed and substantial for Obama to play whack a mole, so he's preparing for the system to proceed with charges 

I would have indexed to #1, because otherwise it's unlikely Obama pulls his goalie.  Unless it's #3, or enough doubt exists in #1 that it's not seeming like it's the front runner.  

 
Mr. Ham said:
What's super interesting is that one would think if Clinton were out of the woods, and this was pure grandstanding, she wouldn't need to back off here.  Certainly looks like the FBI may have a meaty bone after all.  
Click to expand...
She restated her position to make it consistent with how she handles every case (showing deference but reserving the right to overrule).

 
Lynch should have been Obama's original appointment.  Holder was by far Obama's worst appointment.  Although there is always going to be politics in a political appointed position, Lynch has done a good job at appearing impartial.  Holder consistently had a bias and a political agenda, and really was not all that intelligent in making decisions. 

 
timschochet said:
So question for the anti-Hillary crowd: you now know that Lynch is not going to interfere, she'll do whatever Comey recommends. 

So if Comey recommends no indictment, will you accept that Hillary is not a criminal? Or will you come to believe that Comey is himself corrupt? 
Click to expand...
I'm not sure if I qualify as "anti-Hillary"  ;)  but I haven't thought about Comey that much. If he recommends "no indictment", that would not lead me to believe he himself is corrupt. Hillary, however, has an entire career of self-serving, influence-peddling, favor trading corruption. I've said for the record: I'm much more concerned about the contents of her deleted emails than I am over the mis-handling of classified info and "poor judgment".

 
TobiasFunke said:
If this is your logic then your vote only makes sense if you write in the one person you think is best for the job among the 150 million or so who are eligible for it.  Any other vote, be it for Johnson or Clinton or anyone else, is a compromise between your actual preference and a strategic decision based on the likely behavior of other voters.

Do you think that Gary Johnson would literally be the best possible choice for president among all natural-born citizens of the United States over the age of 35 who have not already served two terms?
Click to expand...
Let me give a bit of a fuller answer to this.

First, I would not vote for anybody who has not told me, in one form or another, that she wants me to vote for her. That eliminates all but a handful of people right there.

Second, I would not vote for anybody who I don't believe is prepared for the very difficult job. Normally, I think an indispensable part of preparing for the job happens during the campaign process. Candidates are normally cramming right now to learn everything relevant that they don't already know. Governors are cramming to learn foreign policy and federal domestic policy. Senators are cramming to learn about executive governance. Etc. (Clinton and Trump seem to be exceptions who may not need to cram much. Clinton because she already knows foreign policy from her time as Secretary of State; she already knows domestic policy from her time as Senator; and she already knows executive governance from watching Bill up close. So she's probably brushing up more than cramming. And Trump doesn't need to cram because he's already figured out that it makes no difference whether he remains ignorant about public policy as long as the voters do as well.) So that also eliminates most of the same people who were eliminated in Step 1.

Between the two of those things, that narrows the list down to the presumptive nominees and maybe just a few others. Maybe Kasich. I'd have to PM Romney to see if he'd want me to vote for him. Sanders qualifies for now, but once he endorses Clinton I'll take it as a sign that he no longer wants my vote. If Michelle Obama wanted my vote, I'd give her due consideration.

With all of that in mind, I think Johnson is the best candidate in the whole world that I've looked into so far.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
What regulation did she violate?  Looking for a specific link or citation to the CFR or a State Department policy document here.
Click to expand...
I'm referring to DoD Information Security Program and manuals such as DoD 5200.01 which is composed of several other volumes with each containing its own purpose as outlined in the overall program.  I've never worked for the State Department and do not know if it has policies and procedures that are different than all of the DoD components. 

Perhaps it is all ok to set up private servers and send/receive emails containing classified material if you are the Sec of State.  Since she was not part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Joint Staff, or another department of the DoD, do you think she is free from any violations from her branch of the government?  

I'm not going to spend time digging up State Department regulations and policies.  But it seems Executive Order 13526 would apply.  If she deleted or told someone to delete emails that contain classified material, she may be in violation of 18 US Code 2071 as well.  I guess it would depend on what a "record" is in that situation.  Are official emails considered records?  It seems they were records in as far as they were considered evidence in the investigation.  They were records housed in a public government office, hers.  Albeit on a private, non-SoS appropriated server.  

Again, she violated known DoD information security handling regulations.  But her office wasn't a component of the DoD.  So I get where you are coming from.  

 
Mr. Ham said:
In my estimation, Lynch "backing off" has one of three implications.

1. She already knows the case won't lead to charges 

2. She's engaging in creative semantics and nothing has changed relating to what she does after she "accepts" the recommendations (i.e. I accept this ugly sweater, and I will now place it in the fireplace)

3. The case is too well developed and substantial for Obama to play whack a mole, so he's preparing for the system to proceed with charges 

I would have indexed to #1, because otherwise it's unlikely Obama pulls his goalie.  Unless it's #3, or enough doubt exists in #1 that it's not seeming like it's the front runner.  
Click to expand...
Ahh, wild speculation with no basis in logic or fact.  So, par for the course.  Gotcha.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Let me give a bit of a fuller answer to this.

First, I would not vote for anybody who has not told me, in one form or another, that she wants me to vote for her. That eliminates all but a handful of people right there.

Second, I would not vote for anybody who I don't believe is prepared for the very difficult job. Normally, I think an indispensable part of preparing for the job happens during the campaign process. Candidates are normally cramming right now to learn everything relevant that they don't already know. Governors are cramming to learn foreign policy and federal domestic policy. Senators are cramming to learn about executive governance. Etc. (Clinton and Trump seem to be exceptions who may not need to cram much. Clinton because she already knows foreign policy from her time as Secretary of State; she already knows domestic policy from her time as Senator; and she already knows executive governance from watching Bill up close. So she's probably brushing up more than cramming. And Trump doesn't need to cram because he's already figured out that it makes no difference whether he remains ignorant about public policy as long as the voters do as well.) So that also eliminates most of the same people who were eliminated in Step 1.

Between the two of those things, that narrows the list down to the presumptive nominees and maybe just a few others. Maybe Kasich. I'd have to PM Romney to see if he'd want me to vote for him. Sanders qualifies for now, but once he endorses Clinton I'll take it as a sign that he no longer wants my vote. If Michelle Obama wanted my vote, I'd give her due consideration.

With all of that in mind, I think Johnson is the best candidate in the whole world that I've looked into so far.
Click to expand...
You've stated that the purpose of your vote isn't to elect someone, but to make you feel good about yourself.  So why would the person's readiness or willingness be important?

 
dparker713 said:
You've stated that the purpose of your vote isn't to elect someone, but to make you feel good about yourself.  So why would the person's readiness or willingness be important?
Click to expand...
Because I wouldn't feel good voting for someone who doesn't even want the job, or is unprepared for it?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jayrok said:
I'm referring to DoD Information Security Program and manuals such as DoD 5200.01 which is composed of several other volumes with each containing its own purpose as outlined in the overall program.  I've never worked for the State Department and do not know if it has policies and procedures that are different than all of the DoD components. 

Perhaps it is all ok to set up private servers and send/receive emails containing classified material if you are the Sec of State.  Since she was not part of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the Joint Staff, or another department of the DoD, do you think she is free from any violations from her branch of the government?  

I'm not going to spend time digging up State Department regulations and policies.  But it seems Executive Order 13526 would apply.  If she deleted or told someone to delete emails that contain classified material, she may be in violation of 18 US Code 2071 as well.  I guess it would depend on what a "record" is in that situation.  Are official emails considered records?  It seems they were records in as far as they were considered evidence in the investigation.  They were records housed in a public government office, hers.  Albeit on a private, non-SoS appropriated server.  

Again, she violated known DoD information security handling regulations.  But her office wasn't a component of the DoD.  So I get where you are coming from.  
Click to expand...
DoD manuals are not binding to her. If you think she should answer for violating regulations I just want to know what regulations she should answer for violating.

Forgive my laziness, but EO 13526 is long.  What section did she violate?  At first glance it seems to set up a classification system, not place obligations on individuals, but like I said it's long and I'm lazy.

As for 18 USC 2071, that would require her to have willfully concealed or destroyed particular types of legal documents. I haven't heard any evidence that she did so so it doesn't seem fair to ask her to answer for violating that statute (although if she had she'd have much bigger problems than just owing us an explanation).

 
TobiasFunke said:
Rich Conway said:
1. I disagree with "seems like a pretty good gig".  Have you seen how much the last several seem to have aged over eight years?

2. IMO, the greatest impact I can have is to offer a "none-of-the-above" vote that gets taken seriously by "the powers that be".  I don't believe a write-in accomplishes that, as it gets tossed in the "non-serious votes" pile as if it were a vote for Mickey Mouse or Lizard People.  A vote for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein connotes a level of dissatisfaction that can be taken much more seriously.  It also offers the added benefit of contributing to getting those parties onto ballots automatically in the future.
Click to expand...
1.  Good point. You get to make boatloads of cash for doing nothing when you get through those eight years, though. Plus the house and the plane are pretty sweet, and I've always wanted to throw out a first pitch at a baseball game.

2.  The bolded is only true if you assume others will do the same, which is my point. Almost all voting decisions, even third party ones, depend on assumptions of what other voters will do. So a vote for a third party candidate is not as effective of an anti-Trump vote as a vote for Hillary Clinton. And that's fine if people are OK with that and they think supporting a third party candidate is more important than voting to keep Trump out of office.  My only quarrel is with the people who think their third party vote is just as effective as a Trump protest vote as a vote for Clinton because "I can't control how other people vote."  That doesn't make sense to me because all of us vote in part based on how we think other people will vote. 

Although Commish and MT do make some good arguments about not having write-in options in some states and write-in options not being good choices because they don't have VP nominee and whatnot. Maybe we need a FFA ticket to write in.  Tremblay/SWC?

ETA: Tremblay wants out.  Bump SWC to the top of the ticket I guess.
Click to expand...
1. Yeah, there is that.  My kids would have to move away from their friends, though, and the Secret Service might get annoying after a while.

2. You responded before my edit: #2 above is offered literally, with the obvious qualifier that my one vote doesn't make any difference whatsoever in the final outcome of anything, be it the actual election, who takes what seriously, etc.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Because I wouldn't feel good voting for someone who doesn't even want the job, or is unprepared for it?
Click to expand...
But your belief is your vote is irrelevant to the outcome.  Therefore its safe to assume they're not getting the job.  And they'd have 2 months to cram for it if they did between the election and the inaugural.  Also, I don't believe anyone is ever really prepared to become the most powerful person on the planet.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
DoD manuals are not binding to her. If you think she should answer for violating regulations I just want to know what regulations she should answer for violating.

Forgive my laziness, but EO 13526 is long.  What section did she violate?  At first glance it seems to set up a classification system, not place obligations on individuals, but like I said it's long and I'm lazy.

As for 18 USC 2071, that would require her to have willfully concealed or destroyed particular types of legal documents. I haven't heard any evidence that she did so so it doesn't seem fair to ask her to answer for violating that statute (although if she had she'd have much bigger problems than just owing us an explanation).
Click to expand...
Then she would not be held to the same restrictions that I am held to.  EO 13526 lays out requirements for handling classified Nat'l security information.  But yeah, it's long.  

With 18 USC 2071, I think it is a sticky situation and may be interpreted differently by two different people.  Section A deals with destroying (among the other things listed) any record filed with any clerk or officer of any court of the US, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the US.  It wasn't a court document, I agree.  So that part doesn't apply.  But it could be considered a record filed in any public office.  Her office and staff are a part of a public office of the US.  It is an email record that is a part of her daily dealings in the execution of her duties as SoS.  I think it may apply, if she deleted those emails.  

Section B goes further to say that whoever has custody of any such record, proceeds to destroy (among other things listed) the record shall forfeit his/her office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.  If she is found guilty under that US code, it would make her ineligible to be president.  So was it an official record?  maybe time will tell.

 
Jayrok said:
Then she would not be held to the same restrictions that I am held to.  EO 13526 lays out requirements for handling classified Nat'l security information.  But yeah, it's long.  

With 18 USC 2071, I think it is a sticky situation and may be interpreted differently by two different people.  Section A deals with destroying (among the other things listed) any record filed with any clerk or officer of any court of the US, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the US.  It wasn't a court document, I agree.  So that part doesn't apply.  But it could be considered a record filed in any public office.  Her office and staff are a part of a public office of the US.  It is an email record that is a part of her daily dealings in the execution of her duties as SoS.  I think it may apply, if she deleted those emails.  

Section B goes further to say that whoever has custody of any such record, proceeds to destroy (among other things listed) the record shall forfeit his/her office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.  If she is found guilty under that US code, it would make her ineligible to be president.  So was it an official record?  maybe time will tell.
Click to expand...
The qualifications for President are laid out in the Constitution and cannot be supplemented/superseded by the US Code. 

 
dparker713 said:
The qualifications for President are laid out in the Constitution and cannot be supplemented/superseded by the US Code. 
Click to expand...
Read the code.  It states "any office under the United States."  If the office of President does not fall in the category of "any office under the United States", then it's moot.  

 
Jayrok said:
Then she would not be held to the same restrictions that I am held to.  EO 13526 lays out requirements for handling classified Nat'l security information.  But yeah, it's long.  

With 18 USC 2071, I think it is a sticky situation and may be interpreted differently by two different people.  Section A deals with destroying (among the other things listed) any record filed with any clerk or officer of any court of the US, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the US.  It wasn't a court document, I agree.  So that part doesn't apply.  But it could be considered a record filed in any public office.  Her office and staff are a part of a public office of the US.  It is an email record that is a part of her daily dealings in the execution of her duties as SoS.  I think it may apply, if she deleted those emails.  

Section B goes further to say that whoever has custody of any such record, proceeds to destroy (among other things listed) the record shall forfeit his/her office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.  If she is found guilty under that US code, it would make her ineligible to be president.  So was it an official record?  maybe time will tell.
Click to expand...
I don't know what "it" is here, but reading this provision to apply to deleted emails is strained at best, most obviously because receiving an email doesn't constitute "filing a record" under any reasonable interpretation of the phrase.

Convicting or even indicting people based on readings of statutes that are strained at best is a really really really bad thing.  Like a full-on dictator type move that basically nullifies the separation of powers. We shouldn't do it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jayrok said:
Read the code.  It states "any office under the United States."  If the office of President does not fall in the category of "any office under the United States", then it's moot.  
Click to expand...
I think dparker is right. I don't think anything in the Constitution gives Congress the authority to place restrictions on who is eligible to be President. If some statute says that you can't be elected if you're a felon, that statute would seem unconstitutional.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
seems like the groundwork is being laid for the "just because she was indicted doesn't make her ineligible for office"  defense..

 
https://www.balloon-juice.com/

Here’s how I’m betting this will play out. The FBI is not going to recommend any charges for several reasons. First, I don’t think she did anything criminal. Second, the FBI is not going to charge a major political candidate in the middle of an election cycle, because to do so would forever taint the FBI as a partisan organization, and no Democrat would ever have any faith in them to be independent whatsoever. Also, their budget comes from elected office, and they aren’t going to stretch the rules or bend over backwards to find some bull#### reason to charge her. They just aren’t.

If the FBI does anything, it will issue some long report with a bunch of mealy mouthed bull####, the investigative version of “mistakes were made,” and say that while she did not do anything illegal or criminal she did something improper. This will then give them defense against the right, who also fund their budget and do not want to be left with nothing. They will then recommend a bunch of changes to policy regarding this to all levels of government in regards to email protocols and security.

The Republicans, having just demanded that Loretta Lynch recuse herself for… reasons, will then have no way to demand that she do something additional to HRC, because, as we know, she has recused herself and has nothing to do with the process. And thus, E-Mail Benghazi: Electric Boogaloo, will come to an end with some short term yelling and fauxtrage on Fox, some hysterics among the Infowars sect, and some smug tweets coming from secure pockets of true progressive Bernistan. I’ll note for posterity that these are increasingly overlapped areas in a Venn diagram. Who knows, maybe Dan Burton will videotape himself shooting a server in his backyard.

A very cynical person might even think that Bill Clinton intentionally publicly met with AG Lynch in a private airplane. Someone has spent some time perfecting their Kung Fu under our swarthy Jedi overlord.

 
TobiasFunke said:
I don't know what "it" is here, but reading this provision to apply to deleted emails is strained at best, most obviously because receiving an email doesn't constitute "filing a record" under any reasonable interpretation of the phrase.

Convicting or even indicting people based on readings of statutes that are strained at best is a really really really bad thing.  Like a full-on dictator type move that basically nullifies the separation of powers. We shouldn't do it.
Click to expand...
No schtick here.  Do you work in a government agency?  One that has security clearances and handles classified information?

 
Mr. Ham said:
I will accept the recommendation, provided there are not leaks and resignations because there was tampering.  Remember, the "career prosecutors" that Lynch referenced are DOJ.  But I believe we would hear if there is interference, and if there isn't I will not pound the drum that she should be in jail.

However, there's criminality and there's poor character / poor judgment.  She has demonstrated the latter two, and her fundamental lack of honesty has been mind-boggling throughout.  So I will never come to a belief that she is pure.  She's been a sleaze throughout the scandal.  But I'll accept the recommendation.

I still cannot vote for her, as much as I revile Trump.  

Best analogy that comes to mind in electing Hillary would be like having an inspector come in to look at a house you've made an offer on, and finding major foundation issues.  Then you bring in engineers and they tell you they may be able to fix it, but unless they raze the the thing they can guarantee you'll have more issues in the next four years.  Then you find out the owners aren't willing to provide any discount whatsoever on the price.  And then it dons on you...  Holy ####, we really need to buy a different house.  

"Sorry, there aren't any other houses on the market," you say.  "#### you then.  I'm not buying this house."  
Click to expand...
Yes. It is exactly like that. 

 
I am confused.  Is Balloon-Juice a legitimate source or some kind of slang for diarrhea?  From the content, I would go with the later.  

 
Mr. Ham said:
You are going to be in such a #### mood when she is charged.  
Click to expand...
I will be in a panicked mood if she is charged.  I would hope at that point Clinton withdraws and the nomination goes to someone with a better shot at beating Trump.  However, if she doesn't, I'd still vote for her, provided she doesn't pick a Palin-like VP.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I don't think anything in the Constitution gives Congress the authority to place restrictions on who is eligible to be President. If some statute says that you can't be elected if you're a felon, that statute would seem unconstitutional.
Click to expand...
The qualifications in the Constitution are exclusive, not minimum qualifications (us citizen, at least 35 years old, etc.)?   So if she becomes a felon, she is still eligible to be voted into the office of the President of the US.  I could see a scenario where she is elected and soon after targeted for impeachment for the same code violation.  

 
Jackstraw said:
First, I don’t think she did anything criminal.

Second, the FBI is not going to charge a major political candidate in the middle of an election cycle, because to do so would forever taint the FBI as a partisan organization, and no Democrat would ever have any faith in them to be independent whatsoever.
Click to expand...
1. Uhm, ok, who is this?

2. You know, I might agree with that. They could wait until after the election or even January 2017.

 
Jayrok said:
The qualifications in the Constitution are exclusive, not minimum qualifications (us citizen, at least 35 years old, etc.)?   So if she becomes a felon, she is still eligible to be voted into the office of the President of the US.
Click to expand...
I think that is correct.

I could see a scenario where she is elected and soon after targeted for impeachment for the same code violation.  
Click to expand...
I think the impeachable offense must occur while the President is in office serving as President, so (if I'm right) it wouldn't be for Benghazi email stuff.

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