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 (3 Viewers)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr. Ham said:
I think this will all come out in the wash.  If it's after the election and Hillary won -- well, it'll be the first time the rabbit got caught by the foot.  This was criminal.  And once all of Mills and Cooper's (let alone Abedin and the Queen herself) are documented, it'll all come out and the right will push for RICO and it'll be competitive appropriate.  
Click to expand...
I seem to recall that you've predicted at least 3 times before that Hillary would be caught having committed criminal behavior. Each time was supposed to be within a few days. Now you are predicting it will happen after the election. When it doesn't happen as usual, nobody's going to remember what you wrote on September 4. You're getting smarter about this. 

 
timschochet said:
I seem to recall that you've predicted at least 3 times before that Hillary would be caught having committed criminal behavior. Each time was supposed to be within a few days. Now you are predicting it will happen after the election. When it doesn't happen as usual, nobody's going to remember what you wrote on September 4. You're getting smarter about this. 
Click to expand...
Eh if we want to play that game how many 'it'll all be over in a couple weeks when ___ revelation blows over' have we seen? Scores?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Eh if we want to play that game how many 'it'll all be over in a couple weeks when ___ revelation blows over' have we seen? Scores?
Click to expand...
If you're referring to me I think you'll find that I hoped this would no longer be a story several times. I still do. I might have even predicted it once or twice which unfortunately was wishful thinking. But those types of predictions are a far cry from somebody predicting Hillary will be charged with a crime. YOU, Saints, was always careful never to make such a prediction. Mr. Ham was not so careful. 

 
timschochet said:
If you're referring to me I think you'll find that I hoped this would no longer be a story several times. I still do. I might have even predicted it once or twice which unfortunately was wishful thinking. But those types of predictions are a far cry from somebody predicting Hillary will be charged with a crime. YOU, Saints, was always careful never to make such a prediction. Mr. Ham was not so careful. 
Click to expand...
I'm not being facetious here, I just know you have a good memory for history, which is great - to me Watergate is the standard for disqualification, please remind me, what was the trigger for Nixon's downfall, was it the tapes where he told Dean & Halderman to say 'I don't recall?'

 
MaxThreshold said:
It's not only Tim.  Squiz, TF, TGunz (and many more) - they are all making excuses for criminal behavior or just burying their heads in the sand and ignoring anything and everything.  

For them, it's not about Hillary - it's about them having to find a reason to feel good about themselves for supporting someone so insanely corrupt and disgusting.  If they had any morals or backbone they would stand up for what they believe in.  Hillary represents EVERYTHING Democrats rail against, yet here they are day after day excusing and defending her 30+ years of shady, questionable and criminal behavior.  And in some cases, actually condoning it because she's not like us regular citizens.

If Hillary were a Republican, you better believe these same guys would be in here raising hell on how corrupt, shady and UNQUALIFIED she would be for President.
Click to expand...
:goodposting:

:banned:

 
The Z Machine said:
Serious question: if someone has done something in their past that would normally result in being fired from the State Department or DoD, buy does not get prosecuted for those issues, does that disqualify them from being POTUS?

Obviously, it doesn't really DQ them per the Constitution, but is that person fit to hold the highest office in government? If not, could they be allowed to hold any elected office?
Click to expand...


If she were a current employee, she would have lost her security clearance, been fired from her job, and would be ineligible to work ever again in any position which required a clearance.  Elected officials do not require a clearance, but are granted access to sensitive information based on their position. 

So she would be ineligible to hold many if not most federal government jobs, but that does not prevent the people from electing her.  She likely will face impeachment though.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
timschochet said:
You don't have a good history of being excellent towards me. You have personally insulted me in the past, while I have never done so to you. So it doesn't surprise me that you will do so again. 

My point, if you wish to discuss it, is that Coney's comments may be applicable to one of his employees, or a State Department employee on a lower level, but it is not applicable to either the Secretary of State or to a former First Lady and Senator like Hillary Clinton. I have been very consistent about this. Hillary is not a normal employee. She is the very definition of VIP. She acted careless here, but she wasn't appointed by Obama to make sure emails don't have classified information. That's beneath her duties. Her role was to be the public face of America to the world, to negotiate agreements and treaties, to help shape the direction of our foreign policy and to aid the President in handling international crisis. To claim that she is disqualified for the email crises is like holding a head football coach responsible for not enough towels in the locker room. It's so far removed from her main duties that nobody would ever bother to make this argument if they weren't already trying to "get" Hillary Clinton. 
Click to expand...
:bs:

It's a fundamental part of her job!!!!

It's nothing like a head football coach and towels. It's like a head football coach leaving the team's playbook lying around where it could be stolen by anyone. It's not beneath a coach or a SoS to fundamentally protect the team's/country's game plan from the opposition. It's their fundamental responsibility!!!! 

You are so obtuse on this issue, the NSA issue, and many others that you deserve all the crap you take here. 

 
timschochet said:
I seem to recall that you've predicted at least 3 times before that Hillary would be caught having committed criminal behavior. Each time was supposed to be within a few days. Now you are predicting it will happen after the election. When it doesn't happen as usual, nobody's going to remember what you wrote on September 4. You're getting smarter about this. 
Click to expand...
I have been consistent from the beginning about what I believed she did and the premeditated and criminal nature, and as more facts come out it's more clear that it's all true.  Question is how long the campaign, DOJ and State can bury the truth. Not forever.  

 
Mr. Ham said:
I have been consistent from the beginning about what I believed she did and the premeditated and criminal nature, and as more facts come out it's more clear that it's all true.  Question is how long the campaign, DOJ and State can bury the truth. Not forever.  
Click to expand...
Can those opposed to Hillary please stop with the "criminal" angle. She doesn't need to be a criminal to be a bad choice for POTUS. We are learning after she left, that she was so incompetent as SoS that she should have been fired. Tens of thousands of people get fired every year, and the vast majority of them are not criminals. You don't have to be a criminal to be incompetent. You just have to be incompetent. Hillary is incompetent. If the country elects someone incompetent to POTUS, we're a bunch of f'ing idiots, and some people in this thread are leading the idiot brigade. 

 
Politician Spock said:
Can those opposed to Hillary please stop with the "criminal" angle. She doesn't need to be a criminal to be a bad choice for POTUS. We are learning after she left, that she was so incompetent as SoS that she should have been fired. Tens of thousands of people get fired every year, and the vast majority of them are not criminals. You don't have to be a criminal to be incompetent. You just have to be incompetent. Hillary is incompetent. If the country elects someone incompetent to POTUS, we're a bunch of f'ing idiots, and some people in this thread are leading the idiot brigade. 
Click to expand...
It's quite clear that she or her staff ordered emails to be deleted while they were under subpoena.  There was also a conspiracy to delete all backups.  And the real story hasn't been made public yet...  It concerns the why such efforts were taken to zero out the data on the server, both in terms of what exists in that 17,500 emails and what else was wiped....  i.e. Teneo emails.  The behavior is consistent with criminals.  The reason they acted in this manner will prove consistent with the behavior (covering up crimes)...  its is apparent.  We just don't have the facts - yet.

 
Last edited:
Mr. Ham said:
It's quite clear that she or her staff ordered emails to be deleted while they were under subpoena.  There was also a conspiracy to delete all backups.  And the real story hasn't been made public yet...  It concerns the why such efforts were taken to zero out the data on the server, both in terms of what exists in that 17,500 emails and what else was wiped....  i.e. Teneo emails.  The behavior is consistent with criminals.  The reason they acted in this manner was consistent with the behavior...  We know this for certain.  We just don't have the facts - yet.
Click to expand...
So what? Even without all that she's still incompetent. 

 
Politician Spock said:
Can those opposed to Hillary please stop with the "criminal" angle. She doesn't need to be a criminal to be a bad choice for POTUS. We are learning after she left, that she was so incompetent as SoS that she should have been fired. Tens of thousands of people get fired every year, and the vast majority of them are not criminals. You don't have to be a criminal to be incompetent. You just have to be incompetent. Hillary is incompetent. If the country elects someone incompetent to POTUS, we're a bunch of f'ing idiots, and some people in this thread are leading the idiot brigade. 
Click to expand...
There are Republicans not voting for Trump.  Where are the Democrats not voting for Hillary?

True moral courage is to reject a candidate even if he or she could win.

 
Politician Spock said:
Can those opposed to Hillary please stop with the "criminal" angle. She doesn't need to be a criminal to be a bad choice for POTUS. We are learning after she left, that she was so incompetent as SoS that she should have been fired. Tens of thousands of people get fired every year, and the vast majority of them are not criminals. You don't have to be a criminal to be incompetent. You just have to be incompetent. Hillary is incompetent. If the country elects someone incompetent to POTUS, we're a bunch of f'ing idiots, and some people in this thread are leading the idiot brigade. 
Click to expand...
I've brought up the wrong vs right angle many times.  Much to my surprise, no one wants to discuss it.  For there to be ANY defense of Hillary, her defenders need to stay at "legal vs illegal" and "ignorance" as a defense levels.  It's pretty clear that the latter is what she is doubling down on.  She's done her best to distance herself from the actual work by claiming (aka "trusting") the people under her to do things correctly.  Of course, no one has held her feet to the fire by asking about the comments made by the underlings telling her staff that this server approach wasn't wise or safe and them demanding they move forward anyway.  Clearly she couldn't be bothered with the details, which sucks because SoS is a pretty pivotal position that helps keep the country safe.  This would probably be a completely different story if she hadn't settled into the "I didn't know what I was reading or doing" shtick early on.

 
I don't think I have ever delved into the legality of Clinton's approach.  I know that I have said that the classified info on her server bothers me far less than why she had the server, and why she put certain people on the server, and why she handled the clean-up of the server the way she did.  Hilary Clinton is morally corrupt.  

Now, I am probably naive, and I am sure that other most politicians fall into the same category.  But, with the Clintons, it is so much more in your face - about selling access and trading political favors.  Most politicians probably do the same thing to gain favor or money.  The Clintons are just out in the open with it much more than anyone in our history.   They don't care.  Its almost like they can't help themselves. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
I don't think I have ever delved into the legality of Clinton's approach.  I know that I have said that the classified info on her server bothers me far less than why she had the server, and why she put certain people on the server, and why she handled the clean-up of the server the way she did.  Hilary Clinton is morally corrupt.  

Now, I am probably naive, and I am sure that other most politicians fall into the same category.  But, with the Clintons, it is so much more in your face - about selling access and trading political favors.  Most politicians probably do the same thing to gain favor or money.  The Clintons are just out in the open with it much more than anyone in our history.   They don't care.  Its almost like they can't help themselves.
Click to expand...


- I've mentioned this but there is something which is an important distinction about 'other politicians do it'. The Clintons sell access through private entities. The politicians everyone thinks of do it through it the publicly regulated and legal campaign finance system. It's public and (even post CU) largely traceable. It's the fact that they work outside this system and the conversion of public resources to private gain which is the thing that distinguishes the Clintons. Other politicians have done that, but they have invariably been investigated and often indicted and convicted.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
As to the moral indignation angle. She admitted to being careless, and apologized. She likely fears issues will be used against her because she's a politician who trades in favors, which people are sick and tired of. She's also clearly of the mindset that she is above, or better than, regular people. She's Slick Hillary.

Where it seems that message has gone off the rails is the criminality. When the message is Lock Her Up, and the anger level is high, the message starts to get drowned out and people get turned off. A steady diet of Slick Hillary for a prolonged period is a message that might have resonated. Instead it has been full bore angry chants, Lock her Up, and that coupled with the other hate based rhetoric is too much for most regular people. They overplayed their hand, and people are turned off by that.

In here, I haven't seen universal Hillary support. On the contrary, most have been critical of her daily, even those who plan to vote for her. On the other hand, there's been a lot of hatred towards Hillary. Frankly, I'm looking for better from the alternative side on this. I had a good chance this year to look away from Hillary, like I did in 2008 Democratic primary when I voted Obama. I voted GHWB over Clinton in 92 on qualifications, so I'm open to both sides. But the alternative is completely unacceptable.

You know, using that argument the Trump supporters should look in the mirror. We could have a Kasich alternative right now, that might work. Thanks.

 
Does it really matter which one of these clowns gets elected? I see no difference between any of them. Have we dropped less bombs on brown people in the middle east over the last 7 years or is Bush still president?

 
pinkham13 said:
Does it really matter which one of these clowns gets elected? I see no difference between any of them. Have we dropped less bombs on brown people in the middle east over the last 7 years or is Bush still president?
Click to expand...
So all brown people are the same - innocent Iraqis vs. ISIS members?

Like it or not, drones are the best way we have of attacking our enemies without risking American lives. 

 
Sinn Fein said:
I don't think I have ever delved into the legality of Clinton's approach.  I know that I have said that the classified info on her server bothers me far less than why she had the server, and why she put certain people on the server, and why she handled the clean-up of the server the way she did.  Hilary Clinton is morally corrupt.  

Now, I am probably naive, and I am sure that other most politicians fall into the same category.  But, with the Clintons, it is so much more in your face - about selling access and trading political favors.  Most politicians probably do the same thing to gain favor or money.  The Clintons are just out in the open with it much more than anyone in our history.   They don't care.  Its almost like they can't help themselves. 
Click to expand...
They are all about transparency in their corruption.  :thumbup:

 
cstu said:
So all brown people are the same - innocent Iraqis vs. ISIS members?

Like it or not, drones are the best way we have of attacking our enemies without risking American lives. 
Click to expand...
yeah isis seems more like a scapegoat false flag type to me. Reading between the lines its just a push to gain more territory and resources. Russia and China are also backing Iran ,Syria so its just the usual might makes right global chessboard mess. Its hard to support the misery these people are going through. Reminds me of the American Indians situation. Getting wiped out so others can control and prosper.

 
Rohn Jambo said:
There are Republicans not voting for Trump.  Where are the Democrats not voting for Hillary?

True moral courage is to reject a candidate even if he or she could win.
Click to expand...
There will be plenty not voting for Hillary either going Green Party or just abstaining.

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Well you know except for the whole destruction of documents under subpoena thing.
Click to expand...
Can you remind me: What are all of the times Hillary destroyed evidence, or is strongly suspected of having done so?

 
Mr. Ham said:
Can you remind me: What are all of the times Hillary destroyed evidence, or is strongly suspected of having done so?
Click to expand...
Lessee...

- Hillary was fingerprinted during the disappearance of the Whitewater billing records. Those were under subpoena. Her fingerprints (among a few others') were found on the files.

- IIRC there was a memorandum documenting Hillary's involvement in travelgate. That disappeared.

- There was the concealment of automated email archiving during Whitewater.

- I think a lead counsel during Watergate accused her of stealing recrods, but I'm not sure if that one was ever proved out.

 
Huh. This is the original "March 2007" Mark Penn strategy memo in which the Hillary campaign strategized attacking Obama on his "Lack of American Roots."

Money quote is on Page 3:

- "Save it for 2050."

From Atlantic Magazine.

It's rarely mentioned but Hillary's hiring of Larry Johnson of NoQuarterUSA - the leading Birther site during the primaries - while SOS, but it should be. It also makes sense in light of Obama's banning of Blumenthal, as Blumenthal was the one who did the hiring of Johnson for Hillary. My guess is Obama and his team knew something about that connection.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
:o  

Her fingerprints were found on files for the law firm she worked for? Get out of here.
Click to expand...
Did Hillary admit moving the files? No, hence the fingerprints.

In addition to Mrs. Clinton's fingerprints, the bureau found those of Mr. Foster, who reviewed the documents in 1992; Carolyn Huber, a White House official who discovered the documents; Marc Rolfe, an employee of the law firm that took custody of the documents after they were discovered in the White House; Sandra Hatch, a secretary in the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Ark., where the documents were first produced, and Millie Alston, a White House official who had also worked at the Rose Law Firm.
Click to expand...
So one of these people moved subpoenaed files into a White House closet.

How many times has our future president been fingerprinted? Twice, at least?

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Did Hillary admit moving the files? No, hence the fingerprints.

So one of these people moved subpoenaed files into a White House closet.

How many times has our future president been fingerprinted? Twice, at least?
Click to expand...
Fingerprints don't have a time stamp.

From the article:

"The bureau report did not say how long ago the fingerprints were left on the documents or in what sequence, things beyond the scope of fingerprint technology."

She could have handled the billing records while she was at The Rose Law firm and as Mark Fabini noted in the article:

"But Mark Fabiani, a special White House counsel, said Mrs. Clinton had acknowledged that she probably read the documents in 1992 during the election campaign when questions about Whitewater were being raised by reporters."

 
squistion said:
Fingerprints don't have a time stamp.

From the article:

"The bureau report did not say how long ago the fingerprints were left on the documents or in what sequence, things beyond the scope of fingerprint technology."

She could have handled the billing records while she was at The Rose Law firm and as Mark Fabini noted in the article:

"But Mark Fabiani, a special White House counsel, said Mrs. Clinton had acknowledged that she probably read the documents in 1992 during the election campaign when questions about Whitewater were being raised by reporters."
Click to expand...


Ok, so, who from that list would have had access to the WH closet where the files were placed?

- Vince Foster - who killed himself.

- Millie Alston - who doesn't seem very likely to have taken such a HUGE step all on her lonesome. Like Justin Cooper I guess who also hardly seems likely to have decided all by himself to delete all of Hillary's data personally.

But I have to say like the emails it's hard to imagine Hillary tiptoeing through the WH halls in the dead of night with a box of files under her arm.

 
I'm clearly behind on Hillary / emails conversation, but are people honestly defending her actions or lack of memory in this thread? If so, that's pretty pathetic

 
SaintsInDome2006 said:
Ok, so, who from that list would have had access to the WH closet where the files were placed?

- Vince Foster - who killed himself.

- Millie Alston - who doesn't seem very likely to have taken such a HUGE step all on her lonesome. Like Justin Cooper I guess who also hardly seems likely to have decided all by himself to delete all of Hillary's data personally.

But I have to say like the emails it's hard to imagine Hillary tiptoeing through the WH halls in the dead of night with a box of files under her arm.
Click to expand...
:sigh:

Her fingerprints could have been left on the files at any time. The fact that fingerprints of other people have not been found does not mean they did not handle the documents, only that no fingerprints of theirs were found.

 
squistion said:
:sigh:

Her fingerprints could have been left on the files at any time. The fact that fingerprints of other people have not been found does not mean they did not handle the documents, only that no fingerprints of theirs were found.
Click to expand...
From a very small group of people with access to both Rose Law Firm files and WH living area closets.

So: Hillary, Foster, Alston and whoever else falls into that group.

Got it, thanks for clearing that up.

eta - sorry it wasn't a closet:

A White House assistant who discovered them said she found them on a table in a library known as the Book Room, to which very few people other than the First Family have access.
Click to expand...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
SaintsInDome2006 said:
From a very small group of people with access to both Rose Law Firm files and WH living area closets.

So: Hillary, Foster, Alston and whoever else falls into that group.

Got it, thanks for clearing that up.
Click to expand...
Saints, nobody in 2016 really gives a crap about Hillary's fingerprints on the Whitewater billing records. I doubt Trump will bring that up in the debates or that we will even see one Super PAC ad mentioning it.

 
squistion said:
Saints, nobody in 2016 really gives a crap about Hillary's fingerprints on the Whitewater billing records. I doubt Trump will bring that up in the debates or that we will even see one Super PAC ad mentioning it.
Click to expand...
Ham asked, I answered, you challenged what I had posted with a good point. I guess we cleared it up for the three of us interested in this historical event.

I think Trump would be pretty much shocked by what public records laws would require of him. I'm waiting to see if anyone has told him his emails will be public yet.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
squistion said:
Saints, nobody in 2016 really gives a crap about Hillary's fingerprints on the Whitewater billing records. I doubt Trump will bring that up in the debates or that we will even see one Super PAC ad mentioning it.
Click to expand...
You don't give a crap, but what emerges is a picture of someone close to Hillary or Hillary herself hiding subpoenaed documents on her behalf.  Sound familiar?  

 
Mills and Samuelson did not know from what location on the server REDACTED NAME extracted Clinton's emails.

REDACTED gave the FBI inconsistent statements over the course of three interviews regarding from where on the server he extracted Clinton' e-mails, and FBI investigation and forensic analysis have been unable to specifically identify the location and composition of the repository used to create the export of Clinton's e-mails from her tenure.
Click to expand...
- Text.

From FBI notes, page 16

- Whoever extracted Hillary's emails was caught lying to the FBI, per the FBI.

- Why is the name of this person redacted?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
 I guess this is good news for Hillary, if it is true:

Zeke Miller ‏@ZekeJMiller 4h4 hours ago

Trump tells pool aboard his plane he isn’t doing any mock debates and has no one playing Hillary in his prep.
 
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
253K
rockaction
rockaction
HellToupee
***Official*** Joe Biden 2016 Presidential Thread
Replies
35
Views
2K
That one guy
T

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 3 (members: 0, guests: 3)
Back
Top