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 (14 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
dparker713 said:
We're never going to have three viable parties.  Our government is designed to prevent it.  So while its a romantic notion, its also fairly quixotic.  Parties can rise and fall, and the Democrats or the Republicans may fade into history, but they'd be replaced with another party similar in structure if not in policy positions.
Click to expand...
I'm good with one of them dying off as a result of 2016.

 
timschochet said:
No matter what source says it, it's laughable. 

A Secretary of State who provides Congress and the American public false information about WMDs in order to justify an invasion- that's irresponsible. A Secretary of State who covertly authorizes the sale of weapons to our enemies without consulting Congress, that's irresponsible. A Secretary of State who tells the American people that we are winning the war in Vietnam while the body counts keep getting higher and higher, that's irresponsible. Using your own email server? Give me a break.

When did we stop discussing serious issues? This crap is unbelievable. 
Click to expand...
Hillary's lying and complete disregard for national security information is a serious issue. Beyond that, it is pointless to discuss political proposals when neither candidate can be trusted to live up to their promises at all

 
ShamrockPride said:
timschochet said:
When did we stop discussing serious issues? This crap is unbelievable. 
Click to expand...
Tim, name your top 3 issues you would like addressed and thoroughly discussed this election cycle. I'm curious.
Click to expand...
This was covered about 30 pages ago when he wanted the subject switched to why Hillary has to yell in large venues  -- "The Things That Are Important!"  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
The bolded is entirely untrue. Dulles moved from George Kennan's containment policies and actually prolonged the Cold War. And he is directly responsible for the tragedy of the Hungarian rebellion of 1956. And the reason I brought this up is because Hillary's email server was called the most irresponsible act by a Secretary of State in modern American history, which is simply untrue, and laughable. 

Hillary did not "lie about every single thing." The emails are a minor issue, and have no relevance on how she conducts foreign policy. 
Click to expand...
maybe the NYT was talking about more modern than 1956...

 
JerseyToughGuys said:
Good summary here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/clinton-campaign-trump.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0
Click to expand...


Worst of all was the totality of Mr. Comey’s judgment about Mrs. Clinton’s judgment.

She is running as a supremely competent candidate and portraying Mr. Trump, in essence, as irresponsible and dangerous. Yet the director of the F.B.I. basically just called her out for having committed one of the most irresponsible moves in the modern history of the State Department.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Commish said:
In my experience, here and other message boards, if the words aren't verbatim, there's an argument for "difference" even though the phrases illustrate the same thing.  It's like asking if "royal blue" and "dark blue" are the same.  Lawyers will say, yeah, it's two different words so two different meanings can exist even though in practical terms it's the same effin' thing.
Click to expand...
Rudy Giuliani speaks with Brian Williams

Giuliani makes the case that when it comes to laws surrounding handling classified data, intent is irrelevant. "The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness," he said. The FBI "clearly found a direct violation of 18 United States code section 793 which does not require intent -- it requires only gross negligence in the handling of anything relating to the national defense."

"It's the first definition that comes up in the law dictionary," he said. "It's the definition the judges give to juries when they charge injuries on gross negligence. Negligence equals carelessness. Gross negligence equals extreme carelessness. So that is a clear absolutely unassailable violation of 18 United States Code, section 793, which is not a minor statute, it carries ten years in prison."
Click to expand...


He's a lawyer and was the associate attorney general for the US.   :shrug:

 
timschochet said:
It is very very difficult to impeach and remove a President. It's only been tried twice in our history, and both attempts failed. I would not be relying on this as means of controlling Donald Trump were he to be elected. 
Click to expand...
At least in modern history, one reason it's so difficult is due to the red vs. blue dynamic, where each side feels compelled to defend "their team" regardless of circumstances.  I don't think that would apply with Trump, as both parties pretty much despise him.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Worst of all was the totality of Mr. Comey’s judgment about Mrs. Clinton’s judgment.

She is running as a supremely competent candidate and portraying Mr. Trump, in essence, as irresponsible and dangerous. Yet the director of the F.B.I. basically just called her out for having committed one of the most irresponsible moves in the modern history of the State Department.
Click to expand...
Very nice but Comey never said that, bolded is a distorted paraphrase of what he did say.

 
George Jefferson Airplane said:
Coeur de Lion said:
JerseyToughGuys said:
maybe the NYT was talking about more modern than 1956...
Click to expand...
Colin Powell's UN speech down?
Click to expand...
That whole thing was like in horror movies when you know the black guy is going to be first to die.  /directedbydickcheney
Click to expand...
Again highlighting the importance of honesty and trustworthiness in the presidency.

- eta - This country is nuts. Bush Sr. lied about taxes so we went and hired the Clintons. The Clintons lied about a bunch of things, so we decided we must have someone who will uphold the decency of the office. Bush Jr. lied about Iraq, so we must turn to Obama, who initially ran on change away from the Clintons. Now what do we do? Why we go back to the Clintons.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TobiasFunke said:
He's also a crackpot far right talking head. 

If you're looking for opinions on this matter from respected GOP lawyers who held prestigious positions in the US attorney general's office you can start with James Comey :shrug:
Click to expand...
That sounds good.  I would love to ask Mr. Comey the same question.  And it doesn't have to be GOP lawyers.  The question I asked in a previous post was to any lawyer.  Is there a legal difference between those two statements?  I'm hoping James Comey talks about his distinction when he meets the board tomorrow.  

 
Hillary Clinton’s Email Was Probably Hacked, Experts Say


When the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, said on Tuesday that his investigators had no “direct evidence” that Hillary Clinton’s email account had been “successfully hacked,” both private experts and federal investigators immediately understood his meaning: It very likely had been breached, but the intruders were far too skilled to leave evidence of their work.

...
Click to expand...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/hillary-clintons-email-was-probably-hacked-experts-say.html?_r=0

 - Aside from outright hacking there is also electronic eavesdropping / signals intelligence.

- In addition Huma Abedin has testified (in deposition) that they were accessing their email through the web, so that's less protection that whatever was on the server or the State network.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jayrok said:
So he is incorrect in his statements?  
Click to expand...
You tell us.  Here's what he said, per your quote:
 

"The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness,"

...

"It's the first definition that comes up in the law dictionary," he said. "It's the definition the judges give to juries when they charge injuries on gross negligence. Negligence equals carelessness. Gross negligence equals extreme carelessness.
Click to expand...
Here's the Black's Law Dictionary definition of gross negligence.  Let me know where you see the phrase "extreme carelessness" or even the word "extreme" or "careless."

Also FWIW Comey didn't say what exactly she was "extremely careless" about.  For there to be a violation of 793(f) she would have to exhibit gross negligence in permitting particular documents to be removed from a proper place of custody or lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed, not just carelessness in her decision to set up a private server (which is what I suspect he meant). I haven't seen a single example of someone interpreting this language to include the receipt of an email at a private email address as "removal from a proper place of custody," and it seems Comey hasn't seen that either.

 
timschochet said:
And I failed to mention the most irresponsible Secretary of State in modern history: John Foster Dulles. In a famous speech, he told the people of Eastern Europe that if they rose up and rebelled against the Soviets, the United States would have their backs. Hungary listened and believed. They revolted, and the Soviets drove tanks into Budapest and slaughtered thousands of innocent people, including women and children. We did nothing. Dulles barely registered a complaint at the United Nations. It was one of the most shameful moments in the history of American foreign policy.

And what Hillary did with a private email server is comparable to this? Or worse? The New York Times should be ashamed for writing this crap. Grove Diesel should be ashamed for repeating it. 
Click to expand...
You really need to get off your high horse.   You call Trump a dictator, bigot, dangerous, to name a few.  You can't then get all in a huff when someone dare calls out Hillary's action.  Well, you can, you just look ridiculous I'm doing so.  

 
TobiasFunke said:
You tell us.  Here's what he said, per your quote:
 

Here's the Black's Law Dictionary definition of gross negligence.  Let me know where you see the phrase "extreme carelessness" or even the word "extreme" or "careless."

Also FWIW Comey didn't say what exactly she was "extremely careless" about.  For there to be a violation of 793(f) she would have to exhibit gross negligence in permitting particular documents to be removed from a proper place of custody or lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed, not just carelessness in her decision to set up a private server (which is what I suspect he meant). I haven't seen a single example of someone interpreting this language to include the receipt of an email at a private email address as "removal from a proper place of custody," and it seems Comey hasn't seen that either.
Click to expand...
Actually the law is much broader than removal of documents, it includes information.  So yes, what Hillary did would qualify.  

 
jon_mx said:
Actually the law is much broader than removal of documents, it includes information.  So yes, what Hillary did would qualify.  
Click to expand...
I know that.  The problem is gross negligence in allowing for removal from a proper place of custody, not whether emails themselves qualify.  It's a yuuuuuuge stretch IMO, but if you can find me an example of it being applied to someone who received emails on a private server let me know.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
another good article

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/07/us/politics/on-hillary-clintons-rough-day-republicans-rue-missed-chance.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

There were not even any talking points sent to leading Republican members of Congress offering guidance on the best lines of attack against Mrs. Clinton in the aftermath of what was a remarkably harsh assessment of her conduct.

“Instead we’re relying on somebody who’s tweeting with exclamation points,” said Mr. Walsh, referring to Donald J. Trump’s initial response to Mr. Comey’s news conference.
Click to expand...
Yet for many in his own party, there was deep angst over the possibility that they could lose to a Democratic candidate who was just deemed by one of the country’s most highly respected law enforcement officials to have presided over a State Department whose lackadaisical security culture invited foreign hackers.

“He’s making somebody who should be sitting in a jail cell look like the sane choice for president,” said John Noonan, a former Air Force officer who served as a national security aide to Mitt Romney in 2012 and in Mr. Bush’s campaign this year. “This should have been a two-foot putt. But Republicans never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And that’s what we’ve done.”
Click to expand...


just incredible times folks

 
TobiasFunke said:
I know that.  The problem is gross negligence in allowing for removal from a proper place of custody, not whether emails themselves qualify.  It's a yuuuuuuge stretch IMO, but if you can find me an example of it being applied to someone who received emails on a private server let me know.
Click to expand...
I got something to ask you because I am not sure, so I will be blunt.  Are you a Hildo? 

 
TobiasFunke said:
You tell us.  Here's what he said, per your quote:
 

Here's the Black's Law Dictionary definition of gross negligence.  Let me know where you see the phrase "extreme carelessness" or even the word "extreme" or "careless."

Also FWIW Comey didn't say what exactly she was "extremely careless" about.  For there to be a violation of 793(f) she would have to exhibit gross negligence in permitting particular documents to be removed from a proper place of custody or lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed, not just carelessness in her decision to set up a private server (which is what I suspect he meant). I haven't seen a single example of someone interpreting this language to include the receipt of an email at a private email address as "removal from a proper place of custody," and it seems Comey hasn't seen that either.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the link and your comments.  I have to run for now but will take a look later this evening or in the morning.  But I will say I disagree with your belief on what Comey meant when is said "extremely careless."  I believe he was talking, not about the server itself, but the fact that she stored/received/transmitted emails containing classified information on the private, non-appropriated server.  This information (relative to 793-f) isn't limited to a document or hard copy of something.  Information in a letter or email also applies.  The "proper place of custody" of those emails is an appropriate, cleared, information system (e.g. the appropriate server configured, cleared, and accredited to handle the information).  What she did does apply to that US Code, imo.  But more tomorrow.  

 
Jayrok said:
So he is incorrect in his statements?  
Click to expand...
Yes he is.  Jury instructions are not uniform and negligence and gross negligence are terms of art that are not synonyms with anything, including carelessness or extreme carelessness.  And if the FBI had clearly found a violation of a federal statute, the head of the FBI would have said so.  Like usual, Rudy has his head up his own ###.

 
Jayrok said:
Thanks for the link and your comments.  I have to run for now but will take a look later this evening or in the morning.  But I will say I disagree with your belief on what Comey meant when is said "extremely careless."  I believe he was talking, not about the server itself, but the fact that she stored/received/transmitted emails containing classified information on the private, non-appropriated server.  This information (relative to 793-f) isn't limited to a document or hard copy of something.  Information in a letter or email also applies.  The "proper place of custody" of those emails is an appropriate, cleared, information system (e.g. the appropriate server configured, cleared, and accredited to handle the information).  What she did does apply to that US Code, imo.  But more tomorrow.  
Click to expand...
Comey is a lawyer.  He wouldn't have made a veiled reference to gross negligence, he would have stated it.  

 
dparker713 said:
He's got way too much power for a non-elected official.  He also benefits greatly from the policies he backs.  He may also be doing some good.  
Click to expand...
Norcross has done more damage to Atlantic city present and future than trump ever could. He's also the most powerful dem in the region. I really hate parsing along party lines, I have equal if not greater contempt for Christie and things like the revel but norcross is the reason the state money went into that white elephant. To somehow paint the failure of Atlantic city on trump is a shot to her credibility. He  at least had some vision with taj. And I say that as a guy that is anti trump 

she rolled into and made a city on its heels look like a bunch of chumps with no plan for the future. 

 
TobiasFunke said:
Jayrok said:
So he is incorrect in his statements?  
Click to expand...
You tell us.  Here's what he said, per your quote:
 

"The definition of gross negligence under the law is extreme carelessness,"

...

"It's the first definition that comes up in the law dictionary," he said. "It's the definition the judges give to juries when they charge injuries on gross negligence. Negligence equals carelessness. Gross negligence equals extreme carelessness.
Click to expand...
Here's the Black's Law Dictionary definition of gross negligence.  Let me know where you see the phrase "extreme carelessness" or even the word "extreme" or "careless."

Also FWIW Comey didn't say what exactly she was "extremely careless" about.  For there to be a violation of 793(f) she would have to exhibit gross negligence in permitting particular documents to be removed from a proper place of custody or lost, stolen, abstracted or destroyed, not just carelessness in her decision to set up a private server (which is what I suspect he meant). I haven't seen a single example of someone interpreting this language to include the receipt of an email at a private email address as "removal from a proper place of custody," and it seems Comey hasn't seen that either.
Click to expand...


1) Clinton did send and receive emails that were classified at the time;

2) Hillary's email server was negligently insecure;

3) Hillary did not archive work emails as she was required to do;

4) Hillary and her attorneys did delete emails they were required to turn over;

5) Some of the people Hillary was in regular contact with were hacked by nation states;

6) Hillary herself was almost certainly hacked/eavesdropped;

7) Hillary sent classified emails unencrypted from within hostile countries; and

8) Hillary sent TS/SCI emails from her account and "knew, or should have known" that unclassified email was "not appropriate" for that means of communication, ie it was all  unauthorized.

- These things could probably add up to gross negligence. She did this for 4 years then maybe 2013-14, so up to 6 years of this. There is more. Throw in the continual lying at State and then the post-SOS period I think there's definitely argument for a GN case. I'm not saying it's open and shut but we can put an end to 'there's no freakin' way there was a statute broken.'

 

 
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
258K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 12 (members: 0, guests: 12)
Back
Top