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 (5 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I do want to add that, purely from a tactical issue of politics, I think it was a major error to call Comey to testify only 2 days after his announcement. Far better to have this hearing a month from now, or 2 or 3, that way you keep reminding the public about the emails. The Republicans have expended their best ammo far too early IMO. 

 
So, two days?  That was all it took for timschochet to forget that Hillary has lied all throughout this process and get right back to "best ever" and "did nothing wrong"?

 
timschochet said:
I do want to add that, purely from a tactical issue of politics, I think it was a major error to call Comey to testify only 2 days after his announcement. Far better to have this hearing a month from now, or 2 or 3, that way you keep reminding the public about the emails. The Republicans have expended their best ammo far too early IMO. 
Click to expand...
Well I'm glad you're saying they're avoiding politics here.

I know it's a shtshow but overall I think there was more info than what we got at the presser and in general I can see everyone is more informed, which is good.

Realy lots for both sides to chew on.

 
timschochet said:
That's not my take, but I admit I'm biased. 
Click to expand...
I admit I am biased, but he said Hillary broke the law, destroyed evidence, lied and was very reckless with confidential information, but he decided not to recommend conviction. Comey did not close the gap between the evidence presented and the decision not to recommend conviction. They probably should have interviewed Hillary under oath. The big winners are all the people that don't protect government data "properly", which doesn't matter because there are no consequences.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The embarrassing grasping at straws in her defense and those trying to demonize her are tiresome.  She lied.  This isn't in dispute and it only shocks one person in the entire world.  It was proven she displayed incredibly poor judgment.  Again, only one person in the world is surprised by this.  The spin is absurd.  If done correctly, the GOP has a path to bash her over the head with it making Tim's fear factor of Trump rise exponentially.  This is the horse the Dems have hitched their wagon to.  Time to see how it unfolds.

 
Will be interesting to see how many people who jumped on "SHE SENT E-MAILS MARKED CLASSIFIED" people admit that the claim is weak now that we know what actually happened.

Kidding!  It will be the least interesting thing in the history of things.

 
I admit I am biased, but he said Hillary broke the law, destroyed evidence, lied and was very reckless with confidential information, but he decided not to recommend conviction.
Click to expand...
Did he actually use the words "broke the law" and "destroyed evidence"?

 
wdcrob said:
Will be interesting to see how many people who jumped on "SHE SENT E-MAILS MARKED CLASSIFIED" people admit that the claim is weak now that we know what actually happened.

Kidding!  It will be the least interesting thing in the history of things.
Click to expand...
Well to be fair she likely deleted the ones marked classified. 

 
Haven't previously had much praise for Chaffez, but excellent line of questioning with respect to Comey's consideration or seeming lack thereof regarding her attorneys reviewing and destroying classified material absent clearance. 

 
MaxThreshold said:
squistion said:
Jasper‏@JSavoly 1m1 minute ago

Grilling of Comey on Emails Even More Humiliating for GOP Than Benghazi Hearing #ComeyHearing
http://bluenationreview.com/grilling-of-comey-on-emails-even-more-humiliating-for-gop-than-benghazi-hearing/
Click to expand...
Yeah, because a site called "bluenationreview" seems really unbiased.
Click to expand...
Yeah that is explicitly a site owned and run by David Brock. One of many shadow sites pretending to be something when they're really just another media arm directly run by her.

 
The Commish said:
The embarrassing grasping at straws in her defense and those trying to demonize her are tiresome.  She lied.  This isn't in dispute and it only shocks one person in the entire world.  It was proven she displayed incredibly poor judgment.  Again, only one person in the world is surprised by this.  The spin is absurd.  If done correctly, the GOP has a path to bash her over the head with it making Tim's fear factor of Trump rise exponentially.  This is the horse the Dems have hitched their wagon to.  Time to see how it unfolds.
Click to expand...
Let's be honest.  It's going to be long in the rear view by November.   It'll still be brought up, but will fade into background noise with all the other Clinton scandals.  She'll successfully avoid any consequences and will play the victim and deflect.  Her tactic of deceiving worked and is validated.   People really are this stupid.  

 
MaxThreshold said:
No it wasn't.  You're wrong about 99% of the time and you're wrong here as well.
Click to expand...
:mellow:  Can't be wrong here as I never stated or suggested my link was to an unbiased source.

I just posted a tweet with a link to an article with someone's take on Benghazi, the Comey hearing, and Hillary. You were the one having the hissy fit I posted something that was not in your view unbiased. If my posts continue to disturb you this much, perhaps you should put me on ignore rather than waste everyone's time in the future continually pointing out the obvious that what I post is not completely objective (which I have never claimed it was).

 
timschochet said:
I do want to add that, purely from a tactical issue of politics, I think it was a major error to call Comey to testify only 2 days after his announcement. Far better to have this hearing a month from now, or 2 or 3, that way you keep reminding the public about the emails. The Republicans have expended their best ammo far too early IMO. 
Click to expand...
This is only the beginning. .

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Yeah that is explicitly a site owned and run by David Brock. One of many shadow sites pretending to be something when they're really just another media arm directly run by her.
Click to expand...
You hit the trifecta. You get to mention the emails, Sidney Blumenthal and David Brock all in the same day.

 
What she's going to say is, "When I said there were no emails marked as classified, I meant that they didn't say 'CLASSIFIED' in the header." Her defenders will accept it, her detractors will go ballistic, and eventually everything will settle down and we'll return to our regularly scheduled episode of The Donald Trump Sideshow.

 
Joe Summer said:
What she's going to say is, "When I said there were no emails marked as classified, I meant that they didn't say 'CLASSIFIED' in the header." Her defenders will accept it, her detractors will go ballistic, and eventually everything will settle down and we'll return to our regularly scheduled episode of The Donald Trump Sideshow.
Click to expand...
 . . . which is actually more meaningful in terms of determining who will be the next chief executive of the country.

Meanwhile, the GOP Congresscritters shot themselves in the foot yet again.  I wonder what good works they could have been doing with their time today instead of this (bad) "emergency" theater.     

 
Few more things out of this:

- Comey said that Clinton's use of email was very different from Powell's and Rice's.

- Hillary was not put under oath, and was not recorded or transcribed, and thus the FBI never put her in the position of facing perjury for lying.

- Comey also would not confirm that Hillary did not lie.

- Comey discussed the email where HDR22 asked her aides to remove the headers and resend the information as "nonpaper" - basically he said that "nonpaper" meant a request to "remove the classified info."

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
You hit the trifecta. You get to mention the emails, Sidney Blumenthal and David Brock all in the same day.
Click to expand...
I don't think I mentioned Blumie today. Glad to tee that up if you like though, especially his son's awful statements about Elie Wiesel.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here's a further bit of help for those who say Hillary had no clue how to identify classified information:

- Hillary never served a day in her life in a federal administration where she would have been near classified communications.

- In the Senate she was never on any kind of foreign relations or intelligence committee either.

So that's who we put in charge of the State Department and this was the result.

 
BigSteelThrill said:
Mr. Ham said:
Seriously -- why wasn't she under oath?
Click to expand...
Because they dont want the standard Ronald Reagan legacy answer. "I don't recall", "I cant remember".
Click to expand...
Er, that's usually when the FBI starts moving towards indicting people in most cases.

And actually TBH I don't think Hillary would have done the interview without a guarantee it would not be under oath or that she could even face a charge.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mr. Ham said:
She may have taken the 5th and we won't know?
Click to expand...
Like I just said they probably assured her she would not face a charge. The only way she would submit to interview was 1. no oath (so no danger of perjury) and 2. no charge (so no fear of taking the 5th).

I really kind of think that's why Bill went on the plane, to confirm that via personal assurance, or to say thank you for same. Which Lynch may not have given him personally but he probably couldn't help himself.

 
dparker713 said:
It's a case with national security concerns. A grand jury would not have been better. 
Click to expand...
Yeah you may be right, and I think one underlying dark spot here is 1. the government doesn't enforce the negligence statute against themselves (or at least not the elites) and 2. they don't want their classification rules challenged in court. And after all, no normal jury could ever look at this stuff, it's all radioactive.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
badmojo1006 said:
My question is, how quickly after Hillary is inaugurated will the GOP start impeachment hearings? 10 minutes? 15? 
Click to expand...
Oh I'm going to say this will go away, the GOP will lose the Senate and maybe the House in 2016 and then get it back in 2018 with a huge sweep and then Hillary or Bill will do something else abundantly stupid to get us all at each others' throats again. And then they will impeach. Just part of the Clinton Magic.

eta - And THEN when their administration is over the country will elect another George Bush Jr. to supposedly ensure we do not "besmirch" the White House again. And repeat. We are all incredibly stupid.

 
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
254K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
Back
Top