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.
dparker713 said:
She's not being promoted. She's seeking to be elected. 
Click to expand...
I think you could concede the point here - the woman couldn't get hired as a desk jockey near classified information after an FBI investigation for mishandling class info, instead we're making her president. This isn't a complicated point.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I think you could concede the point here - the woman couldn't get hired as a desk jockey near classified information after an FBI investigation for mishandling class info, instead we're making her president. This isn't a complicated point.
Click to expand...
In addition we have several checks and balances in place between the executive, legislative and judicial branches so no one can do anything too extreme with out some quick actions  :mellow: . Although now anyone can do whatever they want with private servers and confidential data and not face any consequences.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't Noonan said:
I am amazed that folks would still vote for her to be President.   She has been caught lying red handed by denying she never sent anything marked classified.  This is a major character flaw and you simply can not trust her yet she is the favorite for the white house?  Wow.
Click to expand...
The other option doesn't even know when he's lying and he lies every time he opens his mouth.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
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.
Click to expand...
This all may be true, but now, in November actually, there will be 2 relevant names to choose from. That's a lot of "what-ifs" there to sway me over to my man, Donald Trump, who I personally like way better than Hillary. Reason being, Donald Trump is a narcissistic lunatic with no clue how to run anything that doesn't say "Trump" on it, and even then it's a 50/50 proposition. Hillary has way less chance at screwing the pooch here, let's be honest. Trump could wildly f things up, his erratic behavior should easily indicate that (not going out on a limb here). If Hillary is more Obama, I'll hold my nose. And that's not tough to understand. F all this server noise.

 
Mr. Ham said:
So ridiculous.  Beyond it being her obligation to recognize classified data, she had an extra burden because she had a private, unsecure setup.  The context cannot be ignored.  She created this extra burden!  And she did so with intent to skirt FOIA.  Context is everything here.  
Click to expand...
No she didn't - .gov accounts are also unsecure.

 
Jayrok said:
I realize the Department of State is set up differently than the Department of Defense, but I wish they'd collaborate when lines can be blurred between the two (e.g. classified information regarding national security).  The DoD has generals and top officials who have secure phones/tablets where they can conduct briefings, etc.  They can even do it from a commercial hotel in some situations using VPN technology, with the right equipment.  
Click to expand...
If you recall, Hillary asked for a secure phone and was denied.

 
dparker713 said:
Mr. Ham said:
So ridiculous.  Beyond it being her obligation to recognize classified data, she had an extra burden because she had a private, unsecure setup.  The context cannot be ignored.  She created this extra burden!  And she did so with intent to skirt FOIA.  Context is everything here.  
Click to expand...
No she didn't - .gov accounts are also unsecure.
Click to expand...
yeah, it's EXACTLY the same to have a .gov account on servers in the fed network as a server sitting behind a Time Warner Cable cable modem :lmao:   For those of you banging that comparison drum on a multitude of things, you're forgetting to do that here.

ETA:  But to her credit, there was a secret service detail at the house that probably wasn't in the server room at State, so it might be a wash :lmao:  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Phil Elliott said:
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.
Click to expand...
He said no such thing.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I think you could concede the point here - the woman couldn't get hired as a desk jockey near classified information after an FBI investigation for mishandling class info, instead we're making her president. This isn't a complicated point.
Click to expand...
This country has re-elected a mayor that was video taped doing crack cocaine.  We've failed people up before, and will do so again.

 
Lyin' Hillary! She lies, lies, lies!

So incredible that she's going to be our next President and is the better option of the two!

 
The Commish said:
yeah, it's EXACTLY the same to have a .gov account on servers in the fed network as a server sitting behind a Time Warner Cable cable modem :lmao:   For those of you banging that comparison drum on a multitude of things, you're forgetting to do that here.

ETA:  But to her credit, there was a secret service detail at the house that probably wasn't in the server room at State, so it might be a wash :lmao:  
Click to expand...
If she had sent the exact same emails over her .gov account it would have been just as much of a violation of protocol.  

 
dparker713 said:
If she had sent the exact same emails over her .gov account it would have been just as much of a violation of protocol.  
Click to expand...
But they are not equivalent violations. The addition of the server and the blackberry, the lack of physical security and software security, plus putting it all on the open net ramps it up considerably.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigSteelThrill said:
Gowdy is angry, little else.  He has been way too exposed and has stunted his career over her.
Click to expand...
Come on.  Listen to it.  He was spot on.

 


Here's a full transcript of the exchange:

Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?

Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.

Gowdy: It was not true?

Comey: That's what I said.

Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?

Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?

Comey: There was classified information emailed.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?

Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.

Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?

Comey: No.

Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?

Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

Comey: That is right?




Alex Wong | Getty Images
U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy


Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.

You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether

They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.

Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.

This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.

She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.

So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.

And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.

You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'

It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.

My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there's no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.

And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.

 
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-trump-pew-poll-225255

Clinton tops Trump by 9 points in new Pew poll

Voters are highly interested in the presidential contest between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, but they're also largely dissatisfied with their options, according to a national Pew Research Center poll released Thursday.

Clinton leads Trump in a head-to-head matchup, 51 percent to 42 percent, with 7 percent undecided, according to the poll.

In a three-way race among Clinton, Trump and Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson, Clinton maintains her margin of victory over Trump, topping both candidates with 45 percent support. Trump follows at 36 support, with Johnson at 11 percent and 8 percent remaining undecided.

Trump holds a nine-point advantage over Clinton among white voters, 51 percent to 42 percent, but Clinton dominates among African-American (91 percent to 7 percent) and Hispanic (66 percent to 24 percent) voters.

Both candidates have high negatives, and only 43 percent of Democrats and leaners and 40 percent of Republicans and leaners are satisfied with their choices for president.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
But they are not equivalent violations. The addition of the server and the blackberry, the lack of physical security and software security, plus putting it all on the opennet ramps it up considerably.
Click to expand...
I disagree.  The act of not using secure transmissions is the issue.  Consider this - she could have hired a top notch cyber security team and had a significantly more secure setup than what was at State.  That still wouldn't matter because there is only one legal method for transmitting classified information.

 
Boston said:
Simple question...if she didn't do anything wrong why does she lie?
Click to expand...
She did do something wrong. It wasn't bad enough to prosecute, but it was wrong nonetheless. She lied (actually per the Politifact article stretched the truth) because she didn't want to look bad. 

 
I feel like there are a lot of butt hurt people out there over this from what I can gather. Sorry that the bubble you live in lied to you guys yet again. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Boston said:
Simple question...if she didn't do anything wrong why does she lie?
Click to expand...
A: to hide things she believes she did wrong.

There really is something in this for everyone:

  • Hillary supporters: no indictment. But you don't get to claim VRWC.
  • Hillary opponents: everything she did was a lie, almost every fact falls your way, but the final call by Comey is Hillary was "negligent", even extremely so, but not enough to prove out criminal intent in court. What QB would you have sent in to win this thing if not Comey? He's the man. Grand jury was not possible.
  • Citizens: news alert, when it comes to the upper echelon of power they do not enforce the laws against themselves. Confirmation of what we already knew.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dparker713 said:
I disagree.  The act of not using secure transmissions is the issue.  Consider this - she could have hired a top notch cyber security team and had a significantly more secure setup than what was at State.  That still wouldn't matter because there is only one legal method for transmitting classified information.
Click to expand...
Ok - she did not hire a cyber team and she did not hire even a team to guard the server. You're talking about breaking teh law is breaking the law is breaking the law, ok yeah I agree, but the magnitude of what she did was affected by the recklessness of it. Surely you understand that.

Guy leaves his dog in the car. Guy leaves his dog in the car in the heat. Guy leaves his dog in the heat and goes into a bar. Guy leaves his dog in the heat and goes into a bar.for 3 hours. Guy leaves his dog in the heat and goes into a bar.for 3 hours and gets drunk. Guy leaves his dog in the heat and goes into a bar.for 3 hours and gets drunk and passes out.  Guy leaves his dog in the heat and goes into a bar.for 3 hours and gets drunk and passes out and catches a ride home, doesn't wake up until next evening. Guy leaves his dog in the heat and goes into a bar.for 3 hours and gets drunk and passes out and catches a ride home, doesn't wake up until next evening and dog dies. - These are all the same "crime"?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I still claim VRWC dammit. They didn't create this mess, but as usual they have revved it up and exaggerated its seriousness far beyond they would do with any body else. The Bush Administration destroyed millions of emails and not a peep. (Just as they also lost many lives in embassies and there weren't any investigations, much less dozens). 

Yeah the way this case has blown up is absolute proof of the vast right wing conspiracy which has always sought to destroy the Clintons. (Note- I use the phrase because it's in common parlance but it is NOT really a conspiracy by the common definition of that word- it would be more apt to call it a vast right wing movement). 

 
timschochet said:
I still claim VRWC dammit. They didn't create this mess, but as usual they have revved it up and exaggerated its seriousness far beyond they would do with any body else. The Bush Administration destroyed millions of emails and not a peep. (Just as they also lost many lives in embassies and there weren't any investigations, much less dozens). 

Yeah the way this case has blown up is absolute proof of the vast right wing conspiracy which has always sought to destroy the Clintons. (Note- I use the phrase because it's in common parlance but it is NOT really a conspiracy by the common definition of that word- it would be more apt to call it a vast right wing movement). 
Click to expand...
Ok well you can outright drop that crap. Comey, Lynch and the IGs are not part of the VRWC. :tinfoilhat:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok - she did not hire a cyber team and she did not hire even a team to guard the server. You're talking about breaking teh law is breaking the law is breaking the law, ok yeah I agree, but the magnitude of what she did was affected by the recklessness of it. Surely you understand that.

Guy leaves his dog in the car. Guy leaves his dog in the car in the heat. Guy leaves his dog in the heat and goes into a bar. Guy leaves his dog in the heat and goes into a bar.for 3 hours. Guy leaves his dog in the heat and goes into a bar.for 3 hours and gets drunk. Guy leaves his dog in the heat and goes into a bar.for 3 hours and gets drunk and passes out.  Guy leaves his dog in the heat and goes into a bar.for 3 hours and gets drunk and passes out and catches a ride home, doesn't wake up until next evening. - These are all the same "crime"?
Click to expand...
It's because information is either transmitted securely, or it may as well be openly broadcast.  It's a pretty binary situation.

 
It's a little shocking to hear that the head of the FBI believes that mens rea is constitutionally required for something to be a crime.

Even in a case dealing with this very statute, a military court ruled that intent to do harm was not a requirement in applying the law.

 
dparker713 said:
It's because information is either transmitted securely, or it may as well be openly broadcast.  It's a pretty binary situation.
Click to expand...
Hardly. the argument by whether Hillary was hacked is something she personally views very importantly. There's a reason for that. The easier it was to hack/eavesdrop the more extreme the recklessness. In that sense what Petraeus did was far less reckless. He had materials in a safe and gave them to one person he knew and trusted. Hillary basically just put it out there for anyone and everyone. Beyond nuts.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Getzlaf15 said:
Come on.  Listen to it.  He was spot on.

 


Here's a full transcript of the exchange:

Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?

Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.

Gowdy: It was not true?

Comey: That's what I said.

Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?

Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?

Comey: There was classified information emailed.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?

Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.

Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?

Comey: No.

Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?

Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

Comey: That is right?




Alex Wong | Getty Images
U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy


Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.

You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether

They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.

Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.

This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.

She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.

So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.

And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.

You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'

It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.

My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there's no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.

And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.
Click to expand...
You'll notice he saved his ranting until his time was up, and then yielded back rather than asking a question at the end which would have allowed the witness to tell him he was full of crap and a mile off the mark.

 
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
255K
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