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 (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
timschochet said:
Yeah I know, I keep getting this. But I didn't buy into the whole "Hillary is a corrupt and dishonest person" meme. Mostly I still don't, though today has been very disappointing. 
Click to expand...
Do you have such a peachy view of all politicians or is she the only one that gets...ahem...preferential treatment?

 
MaxThreshold said:
Hey, if the shoe fits...
Click to expand...
I know you are a super GOPer but your argument is weak. There's no need to make it. All the GOP has to do is play sound bites from Comey's talk. That's way damning enough.

Why focus on a hypothetical conspiracy of corruption for which there is no evidence?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Smack Tripper said:
I don't even see how it hurts her base.  It literally has no effect.  The vast majority of these people either do not care or are not bright enough to understand the substance of things.  Its a cult of personality.  I would put that at about 40 percent of the electorate.

Another 40 percent are people that are in the exact same boat for Trump, equally uninformed and ignorant.  And I really hate to bandy terms like that, but my goodness, you simply can't break it down any other way.  10 years ago, she would be run out on a rail, 5 years ago this fool Trump wouldn't have seen September 2015.  And here we are.

An election to be decided by 20 percent of voters who are not voting FOR anyone but AGAINST their worst fear or instinct.  Right now, that Group is probably 75-25 against a reality of Trump. 

Its a time like we've never seen and hopefully never see again but I feel like this is the future of elections in my lifetime.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

As the shock of today wears off, I agree this probably has close to zero lasting effect. I am very interested to see if the poll numbers move very much over the next week, but it probably amounts to a temporary blip. The conventions and VP picks will overshadow this moment. And I think by now, with two very polarizing candidates, there are fewer undecided voters at this point than in a normal election year. Add to that Trump's disinterest in running anything resembling a political campaign with things like TV ads and staff on the ground at the state level, a lasting surge in his favor seems unlikely.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Hillary's and Comey's statements do not contradict each other.

I personally carry around only one phone at a time, never two or more, but I have gone through more than one phone over the last several years.
Click to expand...
Ask yourself, if you were in her position, would you only have one phone, one SIM card, no secondary or backup devices? Most people only carry around only one phone at a time. She is not most people. Cost is not an issue and other people on her team can actually carry it for her. I find it very hard to believe that she only had one device connected to her account at a time. Like any VIP, it's far more likely that she had multiple devices, for ease of use, backup, battery life, and accessibility to different cellular networks when traveling. I would be far more surprised to learn she only had one phone, than finding out she hosted her own email server.

I honestly don't care how many phones she had, but it seems like a stupid thing to lie about.

 
As someone familiar with HIPAA, I laugh at Hilary's arguments.  She'd get the maximum fine if this was confidential medical info.

Fortunately for Hilary it's only top secret info!

 
I guess the Washington Post article from a month or so ago that the scope of the investigation was limited to the "security" issues and didn't  creep into investigating corruption, specifically with donations to the foundation being used to buy State Department favors was correct,   I asked back then if the FBI could legitimately pursue such angles if they happened across emails that hinted at such and was told (in different words) that it was stupid question.  So I guess this means....

 
Mr. Ham said:
Interested if she could face a civil suit...  Couldn't Bernie donors claim fraud and demand their donations back?  She lied about facts that influenced the election... And leaked emails showed collusion between the DNC and media.  Maybe Bernie donors need to threaten to bankrupt the DNC and Hillary personally... $48 at a time.  
Click to expand...
So you think Hillary lied in order to get people to give money to Bernie?

 
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....

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

 
otello said:
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....

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.
Click to expand...


That's the odd part - it reads like a DOJ statement plopped down at the end of his summary.

eta - It's funny, if Comey had said here 'even though we can find no case exactly like this, the unique set of facts at issue here more than justify an indictment under sec. 793' it could have made just as much sense.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
BFS, you were responding to my post. I accepted her convenience explanation because it made the most sense to me. But now I think she did it to skirt the FOIA. I don't blame that impulse (I despise groups like Judicial Watch) but it's dishonest and I sense s little paranoid as well. 
Click to expand...
You've never really explained why you dislike Judicial Watch.  If records such as Hillary's e-mails are supposed to be public, but government makes attempts to hide them, then we specifically need groups like JW to bring those e-mails into the open (via lawsuits).

 
So what if...  Comey outsmarted the DOJ?  Because a reasonable proscutor would file charges under such circumstances.  He laid out the case and isn't a prosecutor.  I have a feeling more than a few able bodied prosecutors will take serious issue with his assertion, as will Congress.  Intent is not the standard and now Lynch has to argue that it is.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
The Commish said:
I'm disappointed. I think it's probable that Hillary lied, both about her reason for having the private email server, and about receiving classified material.
Click to expand...
What did Comey say with respect to the "reason for having the private server"?   As for "receiving classified material" I don't think anything today changed anything.  Maybe the exact number (56 threads/110 emails) is new, but we knew that at least two were in question.

Oh, and I skipped 12 pages of posts in case it comes from there..
Click to expand...
Dude....this isn't remotely funny....get my name off that garbage.

 
TwinTurbo said:
Ask yourself, if you were in her position, would you only have one phone, one SIM card, no secondary or backup devices? Most people only carry around only one phone at a time. She is not most people. Cost is not an issue and other people on her team can actually carry it for her. I find it very hard to believe that she only had one device connected to her account at a time. Like any VIP, it's far more likely that she had multiple devices, for ease of use, backup, battery life, and accessibility to different cellular networks when traveling. I would be far more surprised to learn she only had one phone, than finding out she hosted her own email server.

I honestly don't care how many phones she had, but it seems like a stupid thing to lie about.
Click to expand...
If I were an old lady, I'd probably have only one mobile phone and one tablet. In 2009, I may have had only a phone and no tablet.

In any case, the following issues are distinct from one another:

Did Comey's statement contract Hillary's on this issue? No.

Did Hillary lie about her motivation for setting up her own server? I don't know. Quite possibly, but Comey didn't publicly take a position on that.

Did Hillary have more than one mobile device in 2009? I don't know. I'd guess probably not, but again, Comey didn't tell us.

 
bigbottom said:
I listened to Comey's statement and here's what I came away with: most every recitation of a fact was damning for Clinton. The parts of the statement that were helpful to Clinton were more along the lines of conclusions or opinions (and I thought at least a couple of the conclusions were contradictory to the facts cited immediately prior).
Click to expand...
Probably the best post of this thread.

 
Rich Conway said:
You've never really explained why you dislike Judicial Watch.  If records such as Hillary's e-mails are supposed to be public, but government makes attempts to hide them, then we specifically need groups like JW to bring those e-mails into the open (via lawsuits).
Click to expand...
I believe JW misuses both the FOIA and the legal system as a means to weaken the Democratic Party. Their purpose is to embarrass and smear. If there is an equivalent on the liberal side I'm unaware of it. 

 
Mr. Ham said:
So what if...  Comey outsmarted the DOJ?  Because a reasonable proscutor would file charges under such circumstances.  He laid out the case and isn't a prosecutor.  I have a feeling more than a few able bodied prosecutors will take serious issue with his assertion, as will Congress.  Intent is not the standard and now Lynch has to argue that it is.
Click to expand...
Would be nice, but any prosecutors arguing that there is a reasonable case for negligence will simply be dismissed as part of the VRWC.  Honestly, the VRWC idea may be Hillary's best creation ever.  It has basically immunized her to any and all charges of incompetence, corruption, dishonesty, or anything else, despite whatever evidence exists.

 
timschochet said:
I believe JW misuses both the FOIA and the legal system as a means to weaken the Democratic Party. Their purpose is to embarrass and smear. If there is an equivalent on the liberal side I'm unaware of it. 
Click to expand...
I get that you dislike their motivations.  However, by what other method should information such as this be made public?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
Click to expand...
- Comey

@Commish will love this: -> So the line by Hillary that her server was guarded by Secret Service wasn't even true.

-eta - also btw in Abedin's deposition she said that they were just logging in through web mail, Safari, So the claim that there were the same technical protections as at State was not true either, they had less.
Click to expand...
I told you guys at the beginning this was my beef and that this server wasn't even as good as an AOL server.  I didn't have to know anything beyond that to come to my conclusion on her judgment, which STILL no one wants to discuss other than Tim essentially saying "that sort of stuff is beneath her"  which we all know is complete and utter bull####.  Don't think I need to bring the admiral up again do I?

Comey summed up my issues with this event perfectly and reaffirmed every single thing I said in this thread for why I take issue with her.  The only difference is I disagree 100% with this philosophy is a defense.

 
Rich Conway said:
I get that you dislike their motivations.  However, by what other method should information such as this be made public?
Click to expand...
Well if emails are subject to FOIA request, post them all online a week or two after they are sent.   The week or two to allow for those exceptions, including "spillage" of classified information to be addressed.   I realize that the infrastructure for even archiving of all emails won't be in place until the end of the year (at least for State), but it seems to me to be a small step from archiving to making links to those archives.  And I think such a system would be much cheaper than responding to individual request and, in general lead to better government.  Of course this is neither here nor there when it comes to Hillary's actions from 2008 through 2013.

 
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Well if emails are subject to FOIA request, post them all online a week or two after they are sent.   The week or two to allow for those exceptions, including "spillage" of classified information to be addressed.   I realize that the infrastructure for even archiving of all emails won't be in place until the end of the year (at least for State), but it seems to me to be a small step from archiving to making links to those archives.  And I think such a system would be much cheaper than responding to individual request and, in general lead to better government.  Of course this is neither here nor there when it comes to Hillary's actions from 2008 through 2013.
Click to expand...
And I thought Mr. Ham's post above was wishful thinking...  Back in the real world, I'm still curious how timschochet thinks that records government wants to hide should be brought to light, if not by groups such as Judicial Watch?

 
Rich Conway said:
And I thought Mr. Ham's post above was wishful thinking...  Back in the real world, I'm still curious how timschochet thinks that records government wants to hide should be brought to light, if not by groups such as Judicial Watch?
Click to expand...
You asked Tim for another method, you didn't ask for one with a realistic shot of being on anyone's agenda.  And it won't be if no one asks for it.

 
Rich Conway said:
timschochet said:
I believe JW misuses both the FOIA and the legal system as a means to weaken the Democratic Party. Their purpose is to embarrass and smear. If there is an equivalent on the liberal side I'm unaware of it. 
Click to expand...
I get that you dislike their motivations.  However, by what other method should information such as this be made public?
Click to expand...
Post it for the world to see by default...seems simple enough :shrug:  

 
Rich Conway said:
And I thought Mr. Ham's post above was wishful thinking...  Back in the real world, I'm still curious how timschochet thinks that records government wants to hide should be brought to light, if not by groups such as Judicial Watch?
Click to expand...
This wouldn't be all that difficult....not with the NSA technology already in place.

 
randall146 said:
So you think Hillary lied in order to get people to give money to Bernie?
Click to expand...
Not what he said. 

Ham is saying that had people known that Hilary Clinton could legally get away with murder or close to it that they might not have given money to Sanders. If you know the system is rigged then why bet against the casino is what he is saying.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
That's the odd part - it reads like a DOJ statement plopped down at the end of his summary.
Click to expand...
Yes, I thought that was a bit of an odd statement by him. Statements about what a reasonable prosecutor might do should probably be left to a prosecutor, not an FBI official. Especially because prosecutorial discretion is complicated, and reasonable people will disagree on how it should be applied. Look at the controversy surrounding Obama's immigration policy. Even peaceful, hardworking, non-rapey illegal immigrants have violated the law and could legally be deported. Should we deport all of them that we can find? College kids smoke pot in their dorms. If they get caught, should we always press charges? If we don't, some will argue that prosecutors are rewriting laws rather than enforcing them as they were enacted by the legislature. If we do, some will argue that we're subverting the spirit of legal pragmatism by overreacting to ticky-tack offenses.

In this case, there's a statute that makes gross negligence a violation. According to Comey, that statute has generally been treated a bit like criminal laws against pot-smoking (in states that treat that leniently) -- charges aren't brought without the presence of other factors, and those other factors weren't present in this case.

But should a prosecutor nonetheless bring charges in a case with a profile this high? The FBI can give its reasons for recommending that no charges be brought. But to say that no reasonable prosecutor would disagree with that recommendation seems like an overstep, IMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ministry of Pain said:
Not what he said. 

Ham is saying that had people known that Hilary Clinton could legally get away with murder or close to it that they might not have given money to Sanders. If you know the system is rigged then why bet against the casino is what he is saying.
Click to expand...
So people giving money to the "system is rigged" candidate can sue because they just now come to believe that "the system is rigged".

 
Ministry of Pain said:
Not what he said. 

Ham is saying that had people known that Hilary Clinton could legally get away with murder or close to it that they might not have given money to Sanders. If you know the system is rigged then why bet against the casino is what he is saying.
Click to expand...
I pulled for Bernie in every debate and I'd be voting for him today vs Trump. He earned my respect. Unfortunately though I don't think he would get a do-over here because he didn't make the point that Hillary's email actions here reflected on her integrity and her fitness like he did with the contributions and transcripts. 

I also think the comment further up about the VRWC is really spot on because it has indeed inoculated her against almost all criticism within her own party for any serious scandal. It's sad, it's bizarre, and in the end electorally Hillary blew the whistle and a good part of the party stood down, including sadly Bernie.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Bottomfeeder Sports said:
Rich Conway said:
And I thought Mr. Ham's post above was wishful thinking...  Back in the real world, I'm still curious how timschochet thinks that records government wants to hide should be brought to light, if not by groups such as Judicial Watch?
Click to expand...
You asked Tim for another method, you didn't ask for one with a realistic shot of being on anyone's agenda.  And it won't be if no one asks for it.
Click to expand...
Well, I also asked timschochet what method he thinks is appropriate.  Given that he likes his government couched in secrecy, I doubt your suggestion is one he'd pick.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
Yes, I thought that was a bit of an odd statement by him. Statements about what a reasonable prosecutor might do should probably be left to a prosecutor, not an FBI official. Especially because prosecutorial discretion is complicated, and reasonable people will disagree on how it should be applied. Look at the controversy surrounding Obama's immigration policy. Even peaceful, hardworking, non-rapey illegal immigrants have violated the law and could legally be deported. Should we deport all of them that we can find? College kids smoke pot in their dorms. If they get caught, should we always press charges? If we don't, some will argue that prosecutors are rewriting laws rather than enforcing them as they were enacted by the legislature. If we do, some will argue that we're subverting the spirit of legal pragmatism by prosecuting ticky-tack offenses.

In this case, there's a statute that makes gross negligence a violation. According to Comey, that statute has generally been treated a bit like crimes against pot-smoking (in states that treat that leniently) -- charges aren't brought without the presence of other factors, and those other factors weren't there in this case.

But should a prosecutor nonetheless bring charges in a case with a profile this high? The FBI can give its reasons for recommending that no charges be brought. But to say that no reasonable prosecutor would disagree with that recommendation seems to overstep his bounds, IMO.
Click to expand...
...which is why it's so odd.  I recognize that chances of this being prosecuted are nil, but with those remarks, Comey certainly puts the DOJ on its heels to defend what is beyond his role.  Now the DOJ has to argue that no reasonable prosecutor would pursue such a case, which seems a hell of a lot less plausible coming from them.  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I pulled for Bernie in every debate and if be voting for him today vs Trump. He earned my respect. Unfortunately though I don't think he would get a do-over here because he didn't make the point that Hillary's actions here reflected on her integrity and her fitness like he did with the contributions and transcripts. 

I also think the comment further up about the VRWC is really spot on because it has indeed inoculated her against almost all criticism within her own party for any serious scandal. It's sad, it's bizarre, and in the end electorally Hilkary blew the whistle and a good part of the party stood down.
Click to expand...
I wonder if Bernie regrets his comment about her damn e-mails.

 
dead on

In the end, the FBI made their case.  She did this to avoid public accountability, which is the irony.  And she somehow validated the behavior without consequence.  

 
Last edited:
Could someone who actually understands the law and, more generally, WTF they're talking about comment on how Trump's accusation that Clinton bribed Lynch and/or Comey does or doesn't qualify as libel?

 
Mr. Ham said:
dead on

In the end, the FBI made their case.  She did this to avoid public accountability, which is the irony.  And she somehow validated the behavior without consequence.  
Click to expand...
Actually I think upon reflection Comey's litany of facts grows stronger, But BFS's issue about motivation is a very big deal indeed. Comey did not affirmatively state what it was. Doesn't mean he doesn't know or have a theory, he obviously must. Old lady who can't turn on a computer hooked on her single 'berry' vs purposeful attempt to keep national secrets and exclude her business dealings from the legal transparency framework is quite a range. Have to prove that in court.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ministry of Pain said:
Not what he said. 

Ham is saying that had people known that Hilary Clinton could legally get away with murder or close to it that they might not have given money to Sanders. If you know the system is rigged then why bet against the casino is what he is saying.
Click to expand...
Ham said Bernie donors should sue Hillary for fraud. Under your theory Hillary is the last person they should be suing - she assured them the whole time she wouldn't be charged, and that's what happened.

 
randall146 said:
Ham said Bernie donors should sue Hillary for fraud. Under your theory Hillary is the last person they should be suing - she assured them the whole time she wouldn't be charged, and that's what happened.
Click to expand...
She also said she didn't send any classified emails either, and she most certainly did.  She lied every step of the way and got away with it.

And what was she supposed to say, "Yes, I think I'll be charged."?

 
randall146 said:
Ham said Bernie donors should sue Hillary for fraud. Under your theory Hillary is the last person they should be suing - she assured them the whole time she wouldn't be charged, and that's what happened.
Click to expand...
The FBI said she acted "extremely careless"...how many potential Presidents has that ever been muttered towards at this stage of the election cycle that you can think of?

Bueller? Bueller?

 
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
261K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top