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 (17 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
SaintsInDome2006 said:
1. No duh. However you have to admit that it has been reported and conceded that Heather Samuelson, Cheryl Mills and David Kendall and his attorneys went through and purposefully deleted emails as a deliberate process over roughly 4-5 months. That's not controverted.

2. Ok that much has been established. So already you should have a problem with it.

3. see 1. How would she not deliberately do this? Right now I think the number is 14,000. The FBI says it's tens of thousands. How do you think she went about destroying them, not deliberately? Why lie about them being about yoga, funerals, and weddings?

4. Who knows. We will see what's in them when they're rolled out slowly over the next 2 years. So part of the glory of Hillary is this constant controversy and scandal machine which will just grind away as revelations are dropped one by one over time. I have no idea why people have ever wanted this aspect of the Clintons, it's of their own making.
Click to expand...
And I have no idea why you think it would be any different if this was another Democrat.  Only difference is Hillary has 30+ years of work and philanthropy to smear her with innuendo and smoke.  Younger cats like Obama with less experience still get demonized, just less to work with.  If Obama was 65, he'd be pillared.   

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Folks - please accept this: the State Department does not and will not release personal emails. Doesn't happen. If someone has a Foia request for Hillary's deleted emails then IF they are ALL private the response will be "None". Everyone, understand this, right?
Click to expand...
Then what happens when a special House committee led by Gowdy & Chaffetz subpoena those records so that they can do their own review?  Think any of the personal mails will get reviewed, leaked, and used to smear?  

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
3. see 1. How would she not deliberately do this? Right now I think the number is 14,000. The FBI says it's tens of thousands. How do you think she went about destroying them, not deliberately?
Click to expand...
The lawyers who deleted the emails didn't read them first. They divided them into work versus personal based on header information. It's not impossible that the sorting would be unintentionally imperfect.

 
tommyGunZ said:
Then what happens when a special House committee led by Gowdy & Chaffetz subpoena those records so that they can do their own review?  Think any of the personal mails will get reviewed, leaked, and used to smear?  
Click to expand...
How are you defining "personal" - when you are SOS, I expect that most emails you get are a result of your position as SOS.  As such, I think those are work related communications.

 
tommyGunZ said:
And I have no idea why you think it would be any different if this was another Democrat.  Only difference is Hillary has 30+ years of work and philanthropy to smear her with innuendo and smoke.  Younger cats like Obama with less experience still get demonized, just less to work with.  If Obama was 65, he'd be pillared.   
Click to expand...
Not true at all.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
The lawyers who deleted the emails didn't read them first. They divided them into work versus personal based on header information. It's not impossible that the sorting would be unintentionally imperfect.
Click to expand...
The public or private nature of the emails is not determined by sender or receiver. It's determined by the nature of the email's subject.

So Pres. Obama could write Hillary a condolence email about the death of her mother and that is not public, it's private.

And Hillary could write Chelsea about her theory about what Putin might do in Crimea, and that would not be private, it would be public.

 
timschochet said:
Thousands of emails, stuff gets confused. Again, were work emails deliberately destroyed? 
Click to expand...
Wait, back up.

First acknowledge that public or private Hillary (or her staff and attorneys) did not produce more than half her emails in December 2014, and that included deleting electronic versions of all her emails.

Hillary technically deleted all her emails. She printed what she thought or wanted to be thought of as public.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
tommyGunZ said:
Then what happens when a special House committee led by Gowdy & Chaffetz subpoena those records so that they can do their own review?  Think any of the personal mails will get reviewed, leaked, and used to smear?  
Click to expand...
Your version of things is the extreme conservative view of things. You think Hillary was trying to hide from Foia. You just think she was right to do so.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
It's true. Please deal in reality. State is not producing emails about yoga, funerals or weddings. They already returned like a thousand emails to Hillary as private for this reason.
Click to expand...
Reality?  You're still hung up on an email "scandal" that over the past year has proven to be zilch.  Nothing.  Nada.  And I'm the one who needs to "deal in reality"?

 
tommyGunZ said:
And I have no idea why you think it would be any different if this was another Democrat.  Only difference is Hillary has 30+ years of work and philanthropy to smear her with innuendo and smoke.  Younger cats like Obama with less experience still get demonized, just less to work with.  If Obama was 65, he'd be pillared.   
Click to expand...
Obama has never done anything like this. Not remotely. He has led an ethical administration.

If people want to get into the IRS thing or whatever fine, it still does not involve him personally destroying records.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
The public or private nature of the emails is not determined by sender or receiver. It's determined by the nature of the email's subject.

So Pres. Obama could write Hillary a condolence email about the death of her mother and that is not public, it's private.

And Hillary could write Chelsea about her theory about what Putin might do in Crimea, and that would not be private, it would be public.
Click to expand...
You asked how work emails could be accidentally deleted. I explained how work emails could be accidentally deleted if they were accidentally categorized as personal. I don't understand the relevance of your most recent response. Do you contend that categorizing emails based on header information (most prominently including the subject line, I imagine) cannot be unintentionally imperfect -- that any inaccuracy must necessarily be intentional? If not, the possibility that some of the emails may have been accidentally miscategorized should be obvious.

 
tommyGunZ said:
And I have no idea why you think it would be any different if this was another Democrat.  Only difference is Hillary has 30+ years of work and philanthropy to smear her with innuendo and smoke.  Younger cats like Obama with less experience still get demonized, just less to work with.  If Obama was 65, he'd be pillared.   
Click to expand...
Obama would never be in this situation to begin with.  He promised transparency, and by and large he's followed through on that promise.  Setting up his own email server to skirt public records laws isn't the kind of thing he would do. 

 
timschochet said:
What? No it isn't. 

Chelsea didn't work for the State Department. What Hillary writes her is none of our business. 
Click to expand...
Ok you're just mistaken here. If Hillary writes someone outside the State Dept about a public issue it's a public record.

 
Maurile Tremblay said:
You asked how work emails could be accidentally deleted. I explained how work emails could be accidentally deleted if they were accidentally categorized as personal. I don't understand the relevance of your most recent response. Do you contend that categorizing emails based on header information (most prominently including the subject line, I imagine) cannot be unintentionally imperfect -- that any inaccuracy must necessarily be intentional? If not, the possibility that some of the emails may have been accidentally miscategorized should be obvious.
Click to expand...
I think it's a good point. That's true. It's also true that one could purposefully choose that route to purposefully destroy public records in an arguably defensible way.

 
BeaverCleaver said:
Like telling her she knew why the attack happened in Benghazi that night?
Click to expand...
That's a good example.

It also calls into question the whole sorting by sender/receiver method because you'd think the first thing to be deleted would be emails with her daughter. Hillary specifically referred to emails about her mother's funeral and her daughter's wedding as what she deleted so that should have been first to go. Yet there it was. I don't think Hillary was really worried about her personal emails with Chelsea.

However I'm guessing Chelsea also had a Foundation email address, I bet those got totally deleted.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
If that's right I don't think it should be. IMO whatever Hillary tells a member of family should be off limits to the public. 
Click to expand...
"Chelsea, tell Dad to deposit the latest Foundation donation into my personal account, and then we'll arrange for Bill Gates to get that tax break he's been asking for."

 
timschochet said:
If that's right I don't think it should be. IMO whatever Hillary tells a member of family should be off limits to the public. 
Click to expand...
You're not dealing in reality. The State Department produces it it's because it's a public matter, that's teh whole test.

Same goes with Sidney Blumenthal, he didn't work for State and all those emails with him are public record if they deal with public issues. If Hillary writes Blumenthal and asks him how his wife is then that's not a public record.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
[scooter] said:
"Chelsea, tell Dad to deposit the latest Foundation donation into my personal account, and then we'll arrange for Bill Gates to get that tax break he's been asking for."
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. 

And anyhow, if she was corrupt as some of you guys claim that sort of message would not have been delivered by email. 

 
timschochet said:
Doesn't matter. 

And anyhow, if she was corrupt as some of you guys claim that sort of message would not have been delivered by email. 
Click to expand...
It matters. Because that's how it actually works.

Then Hillary has nothing to worry about. Why would she care if emails showing her warm, glowing mother/wife/friend side come out. That would only help her.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Last edited by a moderator:
But the Benghazi email Beaver mentioned is a prime example of why such private emails should never be subject to FOIA. At the time Hillary wrote that it was her best guess about what was going on. Within hours of writing it she was given different information by the CIA and reached a different conclusion. Her original guess was never meant to be given to the public; it was part of a private discussion she was having with Chelsea. She was not prepared to go public on the matter until the CIA and other authorities weighed in. Once they did, Hillary and State went public with the video story because that's what they were told the evidence pointed to at the time. 

Then years later Hillary's private conversation with Chelsea was used to discredit her, and make her appear as a liar, which is false. The public and Congress had no business reading that email. 

 
timschochet said:
But the Benghazi email Beaver mentioned is a prime example of why such private emails should never be subject to FOIA. At the time Hillary wrote that it was her best guess about what was going on. Within hours of writing it she was given different information by the CIA and reached a different conclusion. Her original guess was never meant to be given to the public; it was part of a private discussion she was having with Chelsea. She was not prepared to go public on the matter until the CIA and other authorities weighed in. Once they did, Hillary and State went public with the video story because that's what they were told the evidence pointed to at the time. 

Then years later Hillary's private conversation with Chelsea was used to discredit her, and make her appear as a liar, which is false. The public and Congress had no business reading that email. 
Click to expand...
You only know all this because all the documents - which we know of - have been made available. It's not up to some noob or bureaucrat buried in a cubicle in the Pentagon to determine what the people should see. If it's responsive they follow the law and provide it to Foia.

If the email - in YOUR opinion - makes Hillary look like a liar, that's Hillary's problem.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
Who knows? Must have been something worthwhile. 
Click to expand...
He doesn't do charity work. He does political work.

Also he did private birdogging of private intelligence for Hillary (at State) and her friends engaged in for-profit business ventures.

btw - It's been confirmed that Blumenthal was interviewed by the FBI. I'm sure they were interested in his charity work.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
But the Benghazi email Beaver mentioned is a prime example of why such private emails should never be subject to FOIA. At the time Hillary wrote that it was her best guess about what was going on. Within hours of writing it she was given different information by the CIA and reached a different conclusion. Her original guess was never meant to be given to the public; it was part of a private discussion she was having with Chelsea. She was not prepared to go public on the matter until the CIA and other authorities weighed in. Once they did, Hillary and State went public with the video story because that's what they were told the evidence pointed to at the time. 

Then years later Hillary's private conversation with Chelsea was used to discredit her, and make her appear as a liar, which is false. The public and Congress had no business reading that email. 
Click to expand...
But according to your position in the NSA thread, it's okay for the NSA to have her personal emails in their database. 

 
Dinsy Ejotuz said:
I suspect they were 'work e-mails' much like she had 'documents marked classified' in her in box.
Click to expand...
What cracks me up about this is that we have gone from Comey saying Hillary wasn't sophisticated enough to know what was classified to now the explanation will be Hillary wasn't sophisticated to know what was public and what was private.

I will happen, that's the defense that will be made as this stuff will be rolled out. It's already happening.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
What cracks me up about this is that we have gone from Comey saying Hillary wasn't sophisticated enough to know what was classified to now the explanation will be Hillary wasn't sophisticated to know what was public and what was private.

I will happen, that's the defense that will be made as this stuff will be rolled out. It's already happening.
Click to expand...
Nothing she and her campaign do shock me anymore.

It's like the Browns organization and their fans. Extremely careless leadership that continues to have tens of thousands buy their tickets. 

 
timschochet said:
Thanks for the question. Despite Mr. Ham's assertion, it has NOT been established that work emails were deliberately deleted. So here are my answers: 

1. If it is established that only private emails were deleted in this fashion, I have no problem whatsoever. 

2. If it is established that some work emails were deleted but not deliberately so, I would have a mild problem with it. 

3. If it is established that some work emails were deliberately deleted then I would have a big problem with it. 

4. If it is established that some work emails were deliberately deleted, and those were done in order to hide some form of corruption or illegal activity, I would have a huge problem with it. 

However, NONE of these would cause me to lessen my support for Hillary Clinton, as I regard the alternative as untenable. And for the record, I strongly doubt items 3 or 4 will ever be established. I don't believe they happened. 
Click to expand...
Define "some".  Better yet, define "established" and "deliberate".  Exactly what would constitute proof of deliberate deletion in your world?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I have a question:

- What charity work was Sidney Blumenthal doing for the Foundation at $200,000 per year?
Click to expand...
Who knows? Must have been something worthwhile. 
Click to expand...
Well, this pretty well illustrates the difference between you and normal people.  You assume her intentions are pure.  Others want her to answer a question like this.  I'd be quite curious to know exactly what work he was performing for the foundation (assuming he did, in fact, receive a salary from the foundation).  Given his history with the Clintons, it's a fair question.

 
Rich Conway said:
Well, this pretty well illustrates the difference between you and normal people.  You assume her intentions are pure.  Others want her to answer a question like this.  I'd be quite curious to know exactly what work he was performing for the foundation (assuming he did, in fact, receive a salary from the foundation).  Given his history with the Clintons, it's a fair question.
Click to expand...
We know what he was doing there; being a lickspittle and hatchet man.  It's what he is.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
I have a question:

- What charity work was Sidney Blumenthal doing for the Foundation at $200,000 per year?
Click to expand...
Blumenthal spoke on this in 2015, although he gave no specifics:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/blumenthal-i-had-a-real-job-at-the-clinton-foundation/article/2591138

"I had a real job at the Clinton Foundation working on educational projects, that was a separate matter."

Politico went into a little more detail, but was also rather vague:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359

Blumenthal’s foundation job focused on highlighting the legacy of Clinton’s presidency

 
 

 
squistion said:
Blumenthal spoke on this in 2015, although he gave no specifics:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/blumenthal-i-had-a-real-job-at-the-clinton-foundation/article/2591138

"I had a real job at the Clinton Foundation working on educational projects, that was a separate matter."

Politico went into a little more detail, but was also rather vague:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359

Blumenthal’s foundation job focused on highlighting the legacy of Clinton’s presidency
 
Click to expand...


Same piece has this subtitle:

Some officials at the charity grumbled that his hiring was a favor from the Clintons.
Click to expand...
http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359#ixzz4IZWoTdy1
 
 
But Blumenthal’s work for American Bridge and Media Matters is described as ongoing, even as those groups come to Clinton’s defense by trying to neutralize attacks on her related to Benghazi and her use of a private email account and server for official business, while assailing the prospective Republican rivals leveling those attacks.

One source familiar with the work said Blumenthal regularly reaches out to suggest ways in which the groups can inject themselves into ongoing political fights.

“I’m not sure if his ideas are very helpful,” said the source, suggesting Blumenthal’s value comes more from his connection to the Clintons. “This is all about helping someone who is a friend of the Clintons.”
Click to expand...

 
IIRC he was also doing the work for Osprey and the Larry Johnson, Troy Drumheller coordination while he was working for the Foundation, right?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Blumenthal spoke on this in 2015, although he gave no specifics:

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/blumenthal-i-had-a-real-job-at-the-clinton-foundation/article/2591138

"I had a real job at the Clinton Foundation working on educational projects, that was a separate matter."

Politico went into a little more detail, but was also rather vague:

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/clinton-foundation-sidney-blumenthal-salary-libya-118359

Blumenthal’s foundation job focused on highlighting the legacy of Clinton’s presidency

 
 
Click to expand...
Here is more on the covert stuff SB took care of.

https://www.propublica.org/article/private-emails-reveal-ex-clinton-aides-secret-spy-network

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Your version of things is the extreme conservative view of things. You think Hillary was trying to hide from Foia. You just think she was right to do so.
Click to expand...
First time I've ever been accused of having "extreme conservative" views.

I think Hillary wanted to put up a wall as thick as possible to protect the possibility of House Republicans gaining access to her private email.  In retrospect, I think she has been proven correct.  

 
tommyGunZ said:
First time I've ever been accused of having "extreme conservative" views.

I think Hillary wanted to put up a wall as thick as possible to protect the possibility of House Republicans gaining access to her private email.  In retrospect, I think she has been proven correct.  
Click to expand...
Is there some way Chaffetz would disagree with you aside from the issue of she was wrong to do it?

 
Rich Conway said:
Well, this pretty well illustrates the difference between you and normal people.  You assume her intentions are pure.  Others want her to answer a question like this.  I'd be quite curious to know exactly what work he was performing for the foundation (assuming he did, in fact, receive a salary from the foundation).  Given his history with the Clintons, it's a fair question.
Click to expand...
And yet folks wonder why Clinton didn't want non-work emails publicized.  This is exactly why.  Saints makes a post and gets the facts wrong, but no one bothers to even look at the facts, they jump straight into the theory that Blumenthal was making 200k per yr by the Clinton Foundation to do nothing. 

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Obama has never done anything like this. Not remotely. He has led an ethical administration.

If people want to get into the IRS thing or whatever fine, it still does not involve him personally destroying records.
Click to expand...
And yet the Right has spent the last 8 years questioning everything from the legitimacy of his presidency to creating fake scandals and investigations for purely political reasons, all the while suggesting he hasn't been ethical or transparent.

 
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: 16 (members: 0, guests: 16)
Back
Top