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 (10 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
squistion said:
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/fbi-director-james-comey-has-concluded-the-investigation-into-clintons-emails.html

FBI's Comey says 'no reasonable prosecutor' would bring a case against Clinton for emails
Click to expand...
Amazing how many unreasonable people we have here if they were prosecutors.
Click to expand...
Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.
Click to expand...


- He's saying they do not bring charges for the negligence crime as a matter of practice.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
George Jefferson Airplane said:
No it isn't!  That is what Comey just explained!  :lmao:  
Click to expand...
Is her entire job basically dealing with classified information?

did she set this up to do her job?

Someone hires and fires Comey. 

How often do you think the fbi conducts interviews on holiday weekends?  Who and what power makes that possible. 

So pardon me if I wonder aloud about the pressure brought to bear on him. 

Anyway, it will be interesting to see how the assertion that prosecution is married to intent holds up when some journalists look into this. 

 
If there was ever a time for a candidate from a 3rd party to rise up and win the election, this is it.

In fact, I'd imagine that if Bernie Sanders ran for president as an independent.....he may actually have a chance.

Hilary is obviously incompetent and has no business being in charge of an entire country.  Trump is just as bad as Hilary. 

 
Jayrok said:
I believe he would say that but how can he say it can be proven that she did it to cover up?  I'm with him.  Unless there is proof of a coverup, they got nothing.  That doesn't mean she didn't have them deleted to cover something up.  Just that the FBI can't prove it.  
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, that's the standard we have in 'Murica.  We require proof - you don't get to criminally charge someone simply because FoxNews says so.  

 
This just irks me to no end.  Facebook feed blowing up with posts sticking it to the "Republicans" for wasting tax payer money on another "failed investigation."  These are the disciples that will elect Hillary President and would be happy to totally unlesh her to do as she pleases.  They will never absorb what was done, let alone what's wrong with it.  

 
Another thing that bugs me is that he says, essentially, that they chose not to indict her because they couldn't find previous similar cases where individuals were indicted.

But that begs 2 questions:

1) Has anyone else really done something like this before?

2) If so, how many, and exactly what were the consequences?

I would love to know how many individuals setup private email servers after being told that they weren't allowed by State or any US Intelligence/Military Agency and then sent classified info over that server.

 
tommyGunZ said:
Unfortunately, that's the standard we have in 'Murica.  We require proof - you don't get to criminally charge someone simply because FoxNews says so.  
Click to expand...
Does it surprise you at all what was revealed (well, for most of us confirmed) today?

If you stop reading at no charges, you're missing that there was an indictment after all.  I just wish it would register a bit with you.  Too much to ask, though.  

 
Last edited:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Just in time for Obama to meet Hillary on the campaign trail in a couple hours. No I guess BC didn't think it would be that obvious. They needed Comey to announce the findings, now.
Click to expand...
That's the beauty of conspiracy theories - the facts don't matter. 

Sorry for your loss today Saints.  Those thousands of hours you spent scowering the depths of right wing blogs and laying out "what if's" we're all for naught. 

On to the next fake scandal!  

 
Bottom Line: In any other election vs almost any normal candidate this would likely sink her even without charges pressed but with Trump being the nominee, Clinton can almost shoot someone dead in the street with cameras rolling and people would still elect her over Donald Trump. 

On one hand you have 2 candidates that are hated by a decent number of folks in both parties.  And so you might be left to think low voter turnout but instead the opposite seems to be happening. 

Is there a real 3rd party candidate that could get all of the fallout votes and folks who feel there is no choice and perhaps gather 20-30% of the vote for those that don't want to participate in this charade? Maybe Clinton or Trump wins with less than 40% of the vote, has anyone taken office with less than say 45% of the vote?  :oldunsure:

 
tommyGunZ said:
That's the beauty of conspiracy theories - the facts don't matter. 

Sorry for your loss today Saints.  Those thousands of hours you spent scowering the depths of right wing blogs and laying out "what if's" we're all for naught. 

On to the next fake scandal!  
Click to expand...


I think Comey did a great job today. The FBI does not indict and I believe what Comey says. And frankly there is room for both you and me to be right here.

 
Ministry of Pain said:
Bottom Line: In any other election vs almost any normal candidate this would likely sink her even without charges pressed but with Trump being the nominee, Clinton can almost shoot someone dead in the street with cameras rolling and people would still elect her over Donald Trump. 

On one hand you have 2 candidates that are hated by a decent number of folks in both parties.  And so you might be left to think low voter turnout but instead the opposite seems to be happening. 

Is there a real 3rd party candidate that could get all of the fallout votes and folks who feel there is no choice and perhaps gather 20-30% of the vote for those that don't want to participate in this charade? Maybe Clinton or Trump wins with less than 40% of the vote, has anyone taken office with less than say 45% of the vote?  :oldunsure:
Click to expand...
If she offed Sheldon Adelson, I would vote for her.

 
tommyGunZ said:
That's the beauty of conspiracy theories - the facts don't matter. 

Sorry for your loss today Saints.  Those thousands of hours you spent scowering the depths of right wing blogs and laying out "what if's" we're all for naught. 

On to the next fake scandal!  
Click to expand...
Dude, are you serious?  This isn't a conspiracy theory or a fake scandal.  She did something that would get most people fired or heavily disciplined and would get 99.9% of people stripped of their security clearances.  Yeah, she's not going to jail, but no serious person ever thought that.

But it's proof that she shouldn't be in charge of classified material.  

 
tommyGunZ said:
That's the beauty of conspiracy theories - the facts don't matter. 

Sorry for your loss today Saints.  Those thousands of hours you spent scowering the depths of right wing blogs and laying out "what if's" we're all for naught. 

On to the next fake scandal!  
Click to expand...
We got the 30 foot billboard side of the road TG today I see. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
This just irks me to no end.  Facebook feed blowing up with posts sticking it to the "Republicans" for wasting tax payer money on another "failed investigation."  These are the disciples that will elect Hillary President and would be happy to totally unlesh her to do as she pleases.  They will never absorb what was done, let alone what's wrong with it.  
Click to expand...
Which is what Tim and I have been saying for over a year in this thread.  And we were right. This was just one more nothingburger.

 
I just watched Comey's statement. He presented it very well.

He actually exonerated her to a greater extent than I would have expected, and I would actually feel better about voting for her today than I would have yesterday.

We already knew that she was careless at best. But we also might have thought that this email situation involved corruption or deviousness aside from just lying about it. For example, we might have thought that she withheld work-related emails (claiming that they were personal) on purpose because there was something particularly bad in them that she didn't want revealed. That doesn't appear to have been the case. Those emails seem to have been innocently miscategorized by her attorneys, and didn't contain anything worse than the emails that were turned over.

Overall, she doesn't come out looking great, obviously, but it's not nearly as bad as many had suspected.

 
shader said:
Dude, are you serious?  This isn't a conspiracy theory or a fake scandal.  She did something that would get most people fired or heavily disciplined and would get 99.9% of people stripped of their security clearances.  Yeah, she's not going to jail, but no serious person ever thought that.

But it's proof that she shouldn't be in charge of classified material.  
Click to expand...
Sadly he is serious. 

 
What was confirmed today was all of the worst of what those of us dubbed "Hillary haters" have said since at least January.  We were right, about all of it.  Sadly, it didn't matter.  

 
squistion said:
Which is what Tim and I have been saying for over a year in this thread.  And we were right. This was just one more nothingburger.
Click to expand...
Now that's ridiculous. In a normal universe the FBI director holding a press conference about an investigation of a presidential nominee 2 hours before she was to campaign with the president would be a big deal. Actually I think Tim thankfully backed off his prior statements earlier and he always said he would take it straight from Comey and he did, kudos to him.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
GroveDiesel said:
Another thing that bugs me is that he says, essentially, that they chose not to indict her because they couldn't find previous similar cases where individuals were indicted.

But that begs 2 questions:

1) Has anyone else really done something like this before?

2) If so, how many, and exactly what were the consequences?

I would love to know how many individuals setup private email servers after being told that they weren't allowed by State or any US Intelligence/Military Agency and then sent classified info over that server.
Click to expand...
I always found the "no precedent" thing odd, too.  This may be a first.  There had to be a "first" at some point in any criminal case where there is a precedent.  There had to be the first precedent.  

 
Ramblin Wreck said:
So any state dept employee can setup a private email server now right?
Click to expand...
Yes, but they have to show incompetence when they claim "should I not have done that?... I have to plead ignorance here, because if I had known this type of thing was frowned upon, I wouldn't have done it."  

 
shader said:
Dude, are you serious?  This isn't a conspiracy theory or a fake scandal.  She did something that would get most people fired or heavily disciplined and would get 99.9% of people stripped of their security clearances.  Yeah, she's not going to jail, but no serious person ever thought that.

But it's proof that she shouldn't be in charge of classified material.  
Click to expand...
TG likes to troll and thump his Lib chest on days like today. He is a walking talking points memo for the Left and when he can get under folks skin doing it he goes for the throat. It's like a cartoon character or a Greek theater mask he grabs when the news hits his fancy. Don't get bothered by it, doesn't change the fact Clinton looks terrible today and Trump will still run her thru the mud on this for weeks and months. HC might have beaten an indictment charge but that doesn't spare her the American citizens and the way they sift thru information. 

Look how guilty OJ was and they let him walk because they wanted to stick it to the white man despite evidence. A lot fo folks don't need Clinton to be arrested, they heard everything they needed to hear today and most news outlets worth a salt are going to have people on today discussing that this is not a slam dunk win for her camp. 

 
tommyGunZ said:
That's the beauty of conspiracy theories - the facts don't matter. 

Sorry for your loss today Saints.  Those thousands of hours you spent scowering the depths of right wing blogs and laying out "what if's" we're all for naught. 

On to the next fake scandal!  
Click to expand...
Poor Saints. :violin:

 
shader said:
Dude, are you serious?  This isn't a conspiracy theory or a fake scandal.  She did something that would get most people fired or heavily disciplined and would get 99.9% of people stripped of their security clearances.  Yeah, she's not going to jail, but no serious person ever thought that.

But it's proof that she shouldn't be in charge of classified material.  
Click to expand...
Brad ThorVerified account‏@BradThor

Per Catherine Herridge: If you look at 18USC793 sub section F - gross negligence is gross negligence. No requirement of intent/willfulness.
Click to expand...

 
"Hillary, you were just confirmed to have been 'extremely careless' with the highest category of national secrets, what are you going to do?"  

"I'll think about it.  Just let me buckle into my seat on Air Force One."

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I just watched Comey's statement. He presented it very well.

He actually exonerated her to a greater extent than I would have expected, and I would actually feel better about voting for her today than I would have yesterday.

We already knew that she was careless at best. But we also might have thought that this email situation involved corruption or deviousness aside from just lying about it. For example, we might have thought that she withheld work-related emails (claiming that they were personal) on purpose because there was something particularly bad in them that she didn't want revealed. That doesn't appear to have been the case. Those emails seem to have been innocently miscategorized by her attorneys, and didn't contain anything worse than the emails that were turned over.

Overall, she doesn't come out looking great, obviously, but it's not nearly as bad as many had suspected.
Click to expand...
Careless doesn't matter, MT. See 18USC793 sub section F

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
I just watched Comey's statement. He presented it very well.

He actually exonerated her to a greater extent than I would have expected, and I would actually feel better about voting for her today than I would have yesterday.

We already knew that she was careless at best. But we also might have thought that this email situation involved corruption or deviousness aside from just lying about it. For example, we might have thought that she withheld work-related emails (claiming that they were personal) on purpose because there was something particularly bad in them that she didn't want revealed. That doesn't appear to have been the case. Those emails seem to have been innocently miscategorized by her attorneys, and didn't contain anything worse than the emails that were turned over.

Overall, she doesn't come out looking great, obviously, but it's not nearly as bad as many had suspected.
Click to expand...
I'd take issue with the emails that weren't turned over.  Several dealt directly with her acknowledgement of loose record keeping.  That was no coincidence.

 
squistion said:
Poor Saints. :violin:
Click to expand...
More like poor you and TG, it's obvious the trolling you all want to try and create today. Saints is always fair with folks even when some are pretty rude to him. I don't always agree with him, in fact much of the time I don't but your obvious display of classlessness is duly noted. 

 
Ministry of Pain said:
TG likes to troll and thump his Lib chest on days like today. He is a walking talking points memo for the Left and when he can get under folks skin doing it he goes for the throat. It's like a cartoon character or a Greek theater mask he grabs when the news hits his fancy. Don't get bothered by it, doesn't change the fact Clinton looks terrible today and Trump will still run her thru the mud on this for weeks and months. HC might have beaten an indictment charge but that doesn't spare her the American citizens and the way they sift thru information. 

Look how guilty OJ was and they let him walk because they wanted to stick it to the white man despite evidence. A lot fo folks don't need Clinton to be arrested, they heard everything they needed to hear today and most news outlets worth a salt are going to have people on today discussing that this is not a slam dunk win for her camp. 
Click to expand...
I am no fan of Trump, but I agree this gives him a ton to work with.  Most Americans, however, don't understand what setting an email server up means, and will assume that she was just exonerated.

So yeah, he'll have a lot to work with, but people that like Hilary will laugh at the email server stuff, and people that don't like Hilary will hate her even more.  

Such is politics.

 
Ministry of Pain said:
More like poor you and TG, it's obvious the trolling you all want to try and create today. Saints is always fair with folks even when some are pretty rude to him. I don't always agree with him, in fact much of the time I don't but your obvious display of classlessness is duly noted. 
Click to expand...
When MoP calls you out, it's a bad day for you.

 
Mr. Ham said:
What was confirmed today was all of the worst of what those of us dubbed "Hillary haters" have said since at least January.  We were right, about all of it.  Sadly, it didn't matter.  
Click to expand...
Comey has turned over his cards, and he has shown that everything Clinton has said about this is a pack of lies from the start. I don't think there is one claim by her on this which has held up to be true. I feel I can say that and completely agree with Comey's conclusion of no indictment today at the same time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Maurile Tremblay said:
I just watched Comey's statement. He presented it very well.

He actually exonerated her to a greater extent than I would have expected, and I would actually feel better about voting for her today than I would have yesterday.

We already knew that she was careless at best. But we also might have thought that this email situation involved corruption or deviousness aside from just lying about it. For example, we might have thought that she withheld work-related emails (claiming that they were personal) on purpose because there was something particularly bad in them that she didn't want revealed. That doesn't appear to have been the case. Those emails seem to have been innocently miscategorized by her attorneys, and didn't contain anything worse than the emails that were turned over.

Overall, she doesn't come out looking great, obviously, but it's not nearly as bad as many had suspected.
Click to expand...
And what about the emails she and her camp destroyed that were to be turned over? 

Just her emailing from outside of this country or within countries that tried to hack it, poor judgement for someone who was acting Sec of State, not sure it offers warm fuzzies about someone who is now in line to be President. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
What was confirmed today was all of the worst of what those of us dubbed "Hillary haters" have said since at least January.  We were right, about all of it.  Sadly, it didn't matter.  
Click to expand...
Dude you kept predicting she would be indicted and went so far to say there was better than a 50/50 chance it would happen. But you wouldn't bet a penny on it, which spoke volumes of how certain you really were. And despite your months of ranting and raving about this, once again your dire predictions of doom for Hillary were completely wrong.

 
This has wasted way too much of my time and attention.  If the GOP can somehow wise up and dump Trump, I'll cast my vote to a hand puppet.  In lieu of that, I'm reluctantly resigned to President Hillary Clinton.  I will never like it, nor her, and hope these events will ensure the requisite amount of wing clipping when she assumes the role.  She never deserves to be fully accepted, and I hope she is treated accordingly.  It will be a bad era for our country.  Already looking towards whose next, and how the populace can gain back more control and demand more integrity.

 
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
259K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 8 (members: 0, guests: 8)
Back
Top