Official Hillary Clinton 2016 thread (11 Viewers)

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I really don't want to relitigate this here in this thread. You and I have spun round the dance floor plenty on this. Let's just stick to the original point which is that Bill is trying to pretend like this whole thing was about 3 marked emails. That clearly is not true as our conversations have shown.

You could have stopped at the comma...

Which words of his specifically? The marked classified part seems to be true from everything we've read before.

There's more to Comey's statement, he also made clear that some emails were born classified. Marking has never been a requirement for classification. This was never about markings.

...but you had to go back to the "born classified" nonsense.  

 

[Politician Spock]

Yet hundreds of people participated and failed to recognize the classified information in these emails.    Should be lots of job opening right now.

I completely agree with that statement, despite knowing you said it sarcastically. A good chunk of Hillary's protection for her sloppiness is how many others she would drag down with her. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

You could have stopped at the comma...

...but you had to go back to the "born classified" nonsense.  

And we covered that. You have Comey's language now. I'm fine with his statement. This was originally about Bill's statement.

 

[Politician Spock]

No he did not!

He said he asked the sources of the information contained in the emails if the information in the emails was classified when the emails were sent and the sources said it was. 

 

[cosjobs]

This.  And people need to get this through their heads.  Clintons are the king and queen of gaslighting and straw man arguments.  What she did was wildly improper and yet she finds a way to absolve herself based on semantic arguments that were not nearly the substance of what she did wrong.  These people truly disgust me, but not as much as those who fall for their BS.

I think she was being sarcastic

 

[IvanKaramazov]

This.  And people need to get this through their heads.  Clintons are the king and queen of gaslighting and straw man arguments.  What she did was wildly improper and yet she finds a way to absolve herself based on semantic arguments that were not nearly the substance of what she did wrong.  These people truly disgust me, but not as much as those who fall for their BS.

Nobody intelligent "falls" for their BS.  Intelligent people voluntarily choose to go along with their BS, usually but not always out of tribal loyalty.  Partisanship very literally poisons your brain -- cognitive dissonance makes people accept positions that they would never choose if their personal identity wasn't tied up with their tribe. 

 

[Guest]

Nobody intelligent "falls" for their BS.  Intelligent people voluntarily choose to go along with their BS, usually but not always out of tribal loyalty.  Partisanship very literally poisons your brain -- cognitive dissonance makes people accept positions that they would never choose if their personal identity wasn't tied up with their tribe. 

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

 

Jake Tapper Verified account ‏@jaketapper


Sources tell me that GOP Reps who requested info on H. Clinton’s interview with the FBI may get it as soon as tomorrow. Notes not transcript

Whooopp, there it....

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I completely agree with that statement, despite knowing you said it sarcastically. A good chunk of Hillary's protection for her sloppiness is how many others she would drag down with her. 

Or, maybe there is just nothing to get upset about in all of this.  Nothing that was so obviously secret.  Nothing  obviously threatening national security.  Nothing that would raise an eyebrow among hundreds of people trained to handle classified information.  Nothing that would get anyone fired, yet alone put in jail.  

 

[Politician Spock]

Or, maybe there is just nothing to get upset about in all of this.  Nothing that was so obviously secret.  Nothing  obviously threatening national security.  Nothing that would raise an eyebrow among hundreds of people trained to handle classified information.  Nothing that would get anyone fired, yet alone put in jail.  

Of course there is. Comey made it clear that if she were still SoS, she would face repercussions for what she did, such as having access to classified information revoked, and being terminated a possibility. Since she is no longer SoS, the only repercussions she could face would be criminal charges, and he advised that would be extreme. The fact that she may get promoted instead of punished is insane.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Of course there is. Comey made it clear that if she were still SoS, she would face repercussions for what she did, such as having access to classified information revoked, and being terminated a possibility. Since she is no longer SoS, the only repercussions she could face would be criminal charges, and he advised that would be extreme. The fact that she may get promoted instead of punished is insane.

Remember when you thanked me for calling your posts for what they were?  

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Or, maybe there is just nothing to get upset about in all of this.  Nothing that was so obviously secret.  Nothing  obviously threatening national security.  Nothing that would raise an eyebrow among hundreds of people trained to handle classified information.  Nothing that would get anyone fired, yet alone put in jail.  

Comey confirmed Hillary's critics' arguments on lack of authorization and the NatSec content, and he agreed with her supporters on intent.

But you're not gonna split the cake and rely on Comey, right? You've got to have the whole cake?

 

[Politician Spock]

Remember when you thanked me for calling your posts for what they were?  

I'm no longer a christian indoctrinated bigot. Not sure what issue you have with my posts in this thread. You on the other hand seem to have no idea how damning Comey's findings of Hillary were. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I'm no longer a christian indoctrinated bigot. Not sure what issue you have with my posts in this thread. You on the other hand seem to have no idea how damning Comey's findings of Hillary were. 

Who sends the Secretary of State to HR?

Who, among the hundreds still employed by the government has been sent to HR?

And Comey's finding certainly seemed to resonate with the "everybody can agree" crowd.

 

[Guest]

Of course there is. Comey made it clear that if she were still SoS, she would face repercussions for what she did, such as having access to classified information revoked, and being terminated a possibility. Since she is no longer SoS, the only repercussions she could face would be criminal charges, and he advised that would be extreme. The fact that she may get promoted instead of punished is insane.

No repercussions.  The Clinton Way (tm)

 

[Politician Spock]

Who sends the Secretary of State to HR?

Who, among the hundreds still employed by the government has been sent to HR?

And Comey's finding certainly seemed to resonate with the "everybody can agree" crowd.

The SoS reports to the POTUS. Since Hillary is no longer SoS, she doesn't report to anyone right now.

The hundreds still employed by the government ultimately report to the POTUS too, but not directly like a Secretary does. If Obama did anything to the hundreds still employed, he would validate what Hillary did was wrong. Of course he's not going to do that. It should be obvious why.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

The SoS reports to the POTUS. Since Hillary is no longer SoS, she doesn't report to anyone right now.

The hundreds still employed by the government ultimately report to the POTUS too, but not directly like a Secretary does. If Obama did anything to the hundreds still employed, he would validate what Hillary did was wrong. Of course he's not going to do that. It should be obvious why.

Both the above and the below are supposed to be simultaneously true? 

Of course there is. Comey made it clear that if she were still SoS, she would face repercussions for what she did, such as having access to classified information revoked, and being terminated a possibility. Since she is no longer SoS, the only repercussions she could face would be criminal charges, and he advised that would be extreme. The fact that she may get promoted instead of punished is insane.

 

[Politician Spock]

Both the above and the below are supposed to be simultaneously true? 

Yes. Why do you think they can't. It's not Comey's job to do HR work for the executive branch or litigation for the judicial branch. He does investigation and sometimes advises. That's it. Nothing more. He advised the judicial branch to not press charges against her. And since she is no longer employed by Obama, he had no advice for her former employer. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Yes. Why do you think they can't. It's not Comey's job to do HR work for the executive branch or litigation for the judicial branch. He does investigation and sometimes advises. That's it. Nothing more. He advised the judicial branch to not press charges against her. And since she is no longer employed by Obama, he had no advice for her former employer. 

You stated that it was clear that Hillary would face repercussions if she was still Secretary of State from the employer who refuses to validate that she did anything wrong.   That seems pretty muddy.  Certainly not clear.    More importantly you stated that Comey stated this.   He did not.  At the 03:57:47 mark in his testimony he speculated on what he might do under a similar circumstance.  None of this supports the idea that Hillary would have faced any consequences (other than politically motivated) if she was still Secretary of State.  

 

[Politician Spock]

You stated that it was clear that Hillary would face repercussions if she was still Secretary of State from the employer who refuses to validate that she did anything wrong.   That seems pretty muddy.  Certainly not clear.    More importantly you stated that Comey stated this.   He did not.  At the 03:57:47 mark in his testimony he speculated on what he might do under a similar circumstance.  None of this supports the idea that Hillary would have faced any consequences (other than politically motivated) if she was still Secretary of State.  

When he testified before congress, he said if she was still SoS he would advise her employer that she receive typical repercussions an employee receives for doing what she did. Since she's no longer employed as SoS, there's no employer for him to advise. I really don't understand what you think is not clear there.

Even if she was still SoS, Comey is just advising. Ultimately it would be up to Obama to take his advise or not. Just like it's up to the DoJ whether or not to take his advice on prosecuting Hillary or not. 

As for the 100+ others in the email strings, the FBI was investigating Hillary. The conclusions about their investigation are about Hillary. They haven't concluded anything about the 100+ others. Obviously the investigation into Hillary revealed evidence about others. If you would like them to investigate and conclude about any of them, make an FBI request.  From what I understand, Congress made a lot of FBI requests following the Hillary conclusion. 

 

[Ditka Butkus]

Did the Clinton's have another person bumped off?

 

[Megaton]

Did the Clinton's have another person bumped off?

You mean like with a cloth?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

When he testified before congress, he said if she was still SoS he would advise her employer that she receive typical repercussions an employee receives for doing what she did. Since she's no longer employed as SoS, there's no employer for him to advise. I really don't understand what you think is not clear there.

Even if she was still SoS, Comey is just advising. Ultimately it would be up to Obama to take his advise or not. Just like it's up to the DoJ whether or not to take his advice on prosecuting Hillary or not. 

As for the 100+ others in the email strings, the FBI was investigating Hillary. The conclusions about their investigation are about Hillary. They haven't concluded anything about the 100+ others. Obviously the investigation into Hillary revealed evidence about others. If you would like them to investigate and conclude about any of them, make an FBI request.  From what I understand, Congress made a lot of FBI requests following the Hillary conclusion. 

You didn't assert that Comey would "advise" anything.  

Of course there is. Comey made it clear that if she were still SoS, she would face repercussions for what she did, such as having access to classified information revoked, and being terminated a possibility. Since she is no longer SoS, the only repercussions she could face would be criminal charges, and he advised that would be extreme. The fact that she may get promoted instead of punished is insane.

 

[Rove!]

"Pay to Play"

has as any national figure been this reckless?  Reckless with national security, reckless with foreign policy and even reckless with her bribery schemes...just plain unhinged

 

[Politician Spock]

You didn't assert that Comey would "advise" anything.  

Of course I did. I said she would FACE repercussions for what she did. I didn't say she would RECEIVE repercussions for what she did. Whether she receives them or not is up to her boss, not Comey. Comey just advises.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Of course I did. I said she would FACE repercussions for what she did. I didn't say she would RECEIVE repercussions for what she did. Whether she receives them or not is up to her boss, not Comey. Comey just advises.

The same repercussions that the hundreds of others that were actually involved in the email conversations faced? 

 

[Politician Spock]

The same repercussions that the hundreds of others that were actually involved in the email conversations faced? 

Unlikely.

First of all, it was Hillary that was being investigated. The FBI's concluded about Hillary. The FBI didn't conclude about the hundreds of others. As I said prior, if you want the FBI to investigate and conclude about the others, make an FBI request. Wait in line though, as Congress had a lot of requests following the Hillary conclusion. 

And second of all, assuming the FBI investigates the hundreds of others, it's unlikely any of them set up their own personal server like Hillary did. I doubt Comey would come to the same conclusion for the hundreds of others as he did for Hillary, but it really depends on how much he weighs that part in his conclusions about Hillary.

 

[badmojo1006]

538's latest Polls-only forecast gives Clinton an 89% chance of winning, with 369 EV votes, including Arizona and Georgia

 

[MaxThreshold]

538's latest Polls-only forecast gives Clinton an 89% chance of winning, with 369 EV votes, including Arizona and Georgia

So we get a bad case of diarrhea instead of a bad case of vomiting.  Fantastic.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Unlikely.

First of all, it was Hillary that was being investigated. The FBI's concluded about Hillary. The FBI didn't conclude about the hundreds of others. As I said prior, if you want the FBI to investigate and conclude about the others, make an FBI request. Wait in line though, as Congress had a lot of requests following the Hillary conclusion. 

And second of all, assuming the FBI investigates the hundreds of others, it's unlikely any of them set up their own personal server like Hillary did. I doubt Comey would come to the same conclusion for the hundreds of others as he did for Hillary, but it really depends on how much he weighs that part in his conclusions about Hillary.

This specific conversation is about whether or not that the 52 email threads were anything to get upset about.  The server is irrelevant at this point.  You claimed that Comey made it clear that participating in these emails would mean Hillary, if still employed by the government as Secretary of State would face repercussions as an employee as evidence that these emails could not be nothing.  That conclusion doesn't change for any of the others.  No further investigation should required.  If not for as you stated Obama and company "protecting" Hillary heads would roll.

Or, just maybe there was nothing to really get upset about in any of those threads.  

 

[badmojo1006]

So we get a bad case of diarrhea instead of a bad case of vomiting.  Fantastic.

We are slightly different...I see it as a bad case of gas instead of Ebola

 

[Politician Spock]

This specific conversation is about whether or not that the 52 email threads were anything to get upset about.  The server is irrelevant at this point.  You claimed that Comey made it clear that participating in these emails would mean Hillary, if still employed by the government as Secretary of State would face repercussions as an employee as evidence that these emails could not be nothing.  That conclusion doesn't change for any of the others.  No further investigation should required.  If not for as you stated Obama and company "protecting" Hillary heads would roll.

Or, just maybe there was nothing to really get upset about in any of those threads.  

Comey's testimony is about the entirety of the Hillary investigation. If the server issue is removed, we can only speculate as to what he would advise.

And ultimately it's a dumb ####### conversation to have, as it basically says "Look, Hillary isn't really all that bad if we ignore some of the stuff she's done!" If that's the conversation you want to have, I'm out!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

"Pay to Play"

has as any national figure been this reckless?  Reckless with national security, reckless with foreign policy and even reckless with her bribery schemes...just plain unhinged

I dunno. Watergate was reckless. If you take away all the allegations of criminality over the years the Clintons have a trail of dumb decisions which just invited scrutiny over and over again.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Comey's testimony is about the entirety of the Hillary investigation. If the server issue is removed, we can only speculate as to what he would advise.

And ultimately it's a dumb ####### conversation to have, as it basically says "Look, Hillary isn't really all that bad if we ignore some of the stuff she's done!" If that's the conversation you want to have, I'm out!

So your original claim, even if it was true could not be used to support that the 52 threads contained information which anyone trained to handle classified information should have recognized and raised concerns about its inappropriate appearance in non secured emails.

The server might make "mishandling classified information" worst.  The server might be identified as a tool that was used for the express purpose of thwarting freedom of information requests.  There have been a few other absurdities expressed such as the server being used as a repository of classified information that Hillary instructed to be copied from their appropriate places.      

For Comey it was established to his satisfaction that using non secured email was "extremely careless" because the information in question should not have been communicated on unclassified systems.  And that it was "especially concerning" being on a private server without full time security (IS) staff.    

But even accepting Comey's conclusion doesn't establish that Hillary did anything inappropriate receiving and responding to these emails - assuming she didn't author them.  It doesn't establish any recklessness beyond the generic one that she should have expected some classified information would from time to time inappropriately slip into such conversations.    

Finally I don't think that there being a long list of accusations against Hillary is evidence that the emails were so egregious that anyone trained to handle classified information "should have known".  Nor should one's opinion of Hillary in general mean that there should be a "presumption of guilt". 

So given the choice of interpreting the lack of repercussions against anyone except Hillary and her inner circle for the exchange of the 110 emails as

1. there was nothing really worthy of repercussions - especially four to eight years after the fact
   
2. there is an effort among the executive branch to protect Hillary and no one cares to stand up to it
   

I'll take stick with the default explanation that should always exist for anyone until there is evidence to the contrary.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So your original claim, even if it was true could not be used to support that the 52 threads contained information which anyone trained to handle classified information should have recognized and raised concerns about its inappropriate appearance in non secured emails.

The server might make "mishandling classified information" worst.  The server might be identified as a tool that was used for the express purpose of thwarting freedom of information requests.  There have been a few other absurdities expressed such as the server being used as a repository of classified information that Hillary instructed to be copied from their appropriate places.      

For Comey it was established to his satisfaction that using non secured email was "extremely careless" because the information in question should not have been communicated on unclassified systems.  And that it was "especially concerning" being on a private server without full time security (IS) staff.    

But even accepting Comey's conclusion doesn't establish that Hillary did anything inappropriate receiving and responding to these emails - assuming she didn't author them.  It doesn't establish any recklessness beyond the generic one that she should have expected some classified information would from time to time inappropriately slip into such conversations.    

Finally I don't think that there being a long list of accusations against Hillary is evidence that the emails were so egregious that anyone trained to handle classified information "should have known".  Nor should one's opinion of Hillary in general mean that there should be a "presumption of guilt". 

So given the choice of interpreting the lack of repercussions against anyone except Hillary and her inner circle for the exchange of the 110 emails as

1. there was nothing really worthy of repercussions - especially four to eight years after the fact
   
2. there is an effort among the executive branch to protect Hillary and no one cares to stand up to it
   

I'll take stick with the default explanation that should always exist for anyone until there is evidence to the contrary.

Amigo you lost on the content issue, you won on the intent issue. The baby's been split, and you can't glue it back together. Bring it up with the Director. 

 

[Politician Spock]

So your original claim, even if it was true could not be used to support that the 52 threads contained information which anyone trained to handle classified information should have recognized and raised concerns about its inappropriate appearance in non secured emails.

The server might make "mishandling classified information" worst.  The server might be identified as a tool that was used for the express purpose of thwarting freedom of information requests.  There have been a few other absurdities expressed such as the server being used as a repository of classified information that Hillary instructed to be copied from their appropriate places.      

For Comey it was established to his satisfaction that using non secured email was "extremely careless" because the information in question should not have been communicated on unclassified systems.  And that it was "especially concerning" being on a private server without full time security (IS) staff.    

But even accepting Comey's conclusion doesn't establish that Hillary did anything inappropriate receiving and responding to these emails - assuming she didn't author them.  It doesn't establish any recklessness beyond the generic one that she should have expected some classified information would from time to time inappropriately slip into such conversations.    

Finally I don't think that there being a long list of accusations against Hillary is evidence that the emails were so egregious that anyone trained to handle classified information "should have known".  Nor should one's opinion of Hillary in general mean that there should be a "presumption of guilt". 

So given the choice of interpreting the lack of repercussions against anyone except Hillary and her inner circle for the exchange of the 110 emails as

1. there was nothing really worthy of repercussions - especially four to eight years after the fact
   
2. there is an effort among the executive branch to protect Hillary and no one cares to stand up to it
   

I'll take stick with the default explanation that should always exist for anyone until there is evidence to the contrary.

You are all over the place here, and I'm not sure I could follow it if I hadn't had two drinks and am ready to crash.

It seems to me you want to take Comey's conclusion that HIllary is pregnant and say "yes, but she's only a little bit pregnant and that's not as bad as being entirely pregnant".

Honestly I don't care to get a debate of degrees. As a country we are about to promote a person who in their last job was more likely to have earned a demotion than a promotion. It's the country that's insane. Hillary is just being Hillary.

 

[Rove!]

I dunno. Watergate was reckless. If you take away all the allegations of criminality over the years the Clintons have a trail of dumb decisions which just invited scrutiny over and over again.

But watergate didnt't put our national security at risk...it didn't see foreign policy for donations.

this absolutely disqualifies her to hold any office; it would be difficult to imagine a worse crime or a bigger scandal than this.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Hillary the wicked witch

 

[Guest]

We are slightly different...I see it as a bad case of gas instead of Ebola

Can we meet in the middle at a bad case of vomiting and diarrhea instead of Ebola?

 

[TobiasFunke]

So Hillary appoints some unqualified Clinton Foundation donor to the International Security Advisory Board and it elicits a collective yawn because: Trump.

Awesome.

No, because the "International Security Advisory Board" itself elicits a collective yawn. I guarantee you that not one person who pretended to be upset about this (the story is two months old) knew there was an "International Security Advisory Board" until the story broke. It doesn't have any particular influence, it doesn't have any authority to craft laws, regulations or policy, and has likely included friends and acquaintances of the SoS or the administration since it came into existence.

And in any event, what's the argument here?  That some guy gave millions to charity to secure a position on an anonymous government board that pays maybe $100,000 a year?  If you think that's what's happening the real story is "world's dumbest rich person," not "quid pro quo."  And that Clinton was so motivated to get money for a charity that she broke the law to accommodate it?  Come on.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

"quid pro quo."

Not the actual claim.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

A porous ethical wall between the Clinton Foundation and the State Department


...

But it suggests that some donors to the Clinton Foundation may have seen their gifts as means to buy access — and it points to much bigger potential problems. Should Ms. Clinton win in November, she will bring to the Oval Office a web of connections and potential conflicts of interest, developed over decades in private, public and, in the case of her family’s philanthropic work, quasi-public activities. As secretary, she pledged to keep her official world and her family’s foundation separate, and she failed to keep them separate enough. Such sloppiness would not be acceptable in the White House.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-porous-ethical-wall-between-the-clinton-foundation-and-the-state-department/2016/08/14/f068899e-60b8-11e6-af8e-54aa2e849447_story.html?hpid=hp_no-name_opinion-card-c%3Ahomepage%2Fstory&utm_term=.1c90dae8e2db

- "Sloppiness".

 

[TobiasFunke]

Not the actual claim.

What is the actual claim?  That a guy who wasn't qualified got a spot on a board that nobody knows about that doesn't have any real power and has like 30 members?

I can see the complaint, but if you want to know why it's elicited nothing more than a yawn, there's your answer.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

What is the actual claim?  That a guy who wasn't qualified got a spot on a board that nobody knows about that doesn't have any real power and has like 30 members?

I can see the complaint, but if you want to know why it's elicited nothing more than a yawn, there's your answer.

The claim is people pay for access. You pay in, you get something out. Once in you receive benefits. I only say this because this kind of thing ahs been prosecuted here. People who get money out of government access usually don't put money in one hand and then get cash back in the other. That is very rare.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

And in any event, what's the argument here?  That some guy gave millions to charity to secure a position on an anonymous government board that pays maybe $100,000 a year?

Ok, so what is the counter argument then?

International Security Advisory Board (ISAB)



The Secretary of State's International Security Advisory Board (ISAB) provides the Department with independent insight and advice on all aspects of arms control, disarmament, nonproliferation, international security, and related aspects of public diplomacy. The ISAB is sponsored and overseen by the Under Secretary for Arms Control and International Security. The Board provides its recommendations to the Secretary of State. Board members are national security experts with scientific, military, diplomatic, and political backgrounds. The Board meets in a plenary session on a quarterly basis.

http://www.state.gov/t/avc/isab/index.htm
 
- What is the logical, normal reason why a political bundler and securities broker wants to be on this advisory board?

 

[TobiasFunke]

The claim is people pay for access. You pay in, you get something out. Once in you receive benefits. I only say this because this kind of thing ahs been prosecuted here. People who get money out of government access usually don't put money in one hand and then get cash back in the other. That is very rare.

That still sounds like quid pro quo to me "give me money I'll give you access." 

I guess I can see why it would bother people even though the position is meaningless and anonymous  ... but hasn't this been going on for years with ambassadorships and whatnot? Make friends with the candidates, maybe make a donation or three, and then maybe get a cushy job on the administration if you play your cards right. I understand why that bothers people in general, but why does it seem to bother people so much more when it's Clinton?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

That still sounds like quid pro quo to me "give me money I'll give you access." 

I guess I can see why it would bother people even though the position is meaningless and anonymous  ... but hasn't this been going on for years with ambassadorships and whatnot? Make friends with the candidates, maybe make a donation or three, and then maybe get a cushy job on the administration if you play your cards right. I understand why that bothers people in general, but why does it seem to bother people so much more when it's Clinton?

That's not quid pro quo.

Arguably, yes, it's a thin line.

I think one normative answer might be the husband/wife thing and this goes back to AR. Rarely do you see a spouse playing in the same pool where the other spouse is a government official. I think that aspect is very rare though I could be wrong.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Ok, so what is the counter argument then?


http://www.state.gov/t/avc/isab/index.htm
 
- What is the logical, normal reason why a political bundler and securities broker wants to be on this advisory board?

He wants to be the Lord of War?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

He wants to be the Lord of War?

TBH I think the Chagoury / Rich stuff maybe touches on the real life version of that.

But reallI don't know what Fernando's angle was - I can only think some very insightful, forward looking findings are made on that board by some extremely brilliant people which could help him in his securities business. Otherwise I have no idea why he would feasibly want to be on that board.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

The claim is people pay for access. You pay in, you get something out. Once in you receive benefits. I only say this because this kind of thing ahs been prosecuted here. People who get money out of government access usually don't put money in one hand and then get cash back in the other. That is very rare.

And the benefit here, is...