Jump to content

Hillary Clinton


waitforufo
 Share

Recommended Posts

I figured since we had a Donald Trump topic, we should have a Hillary Clinton topic. I thought today would be a good start day with the release of the FBI investigation file.

 

Hillary-FBI-copy.jpg?w=600

Hillary could find even one of those 13 mobile devices? Not one?

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/article/2600901

 

Hillary deleted 17500 emails. Wow, 17500.

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/8779/fbi-hillary-deleted-30-emails-about-benghazi-ben-shapiro

 

At least 30 of those emails were about benghazi. Doesn't sound personal to me. I wonder what else she deleted. Maybe the NSA knows.

 

http://circa.com/politics/accountability/fbis-hillary-clinton-email-probe-found-evidence-of-effort-to-evade-federal-records-law

 

Hillary also the FBI found extensive evidence Hillary emails violated federal records laws.

 

 

In public, the FBI recommended not filing criminal charges against Clinton on national security grounds. But in private, the Bureau chose to defer to the State Department on whether to recommend anyone to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution on records law violations, the sources said, speaking only on condition of anonymity.

Each email transmission of a government document that was not preserved or turned over to the State Department from Mrs. Clinton's tenure could theoretically be considered a violation of the Federal Records Act, the main law governing preservation of government records and data.
Other federal laws make it a felony to intentionally conceal, remove or destroy federal records as defined under the act, punishable with a fine and imprisonment of up to three years.
A single conviction also carries a devastating impact for anyone looking to work again in government because the law declares that any violator "shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States."

 

And to think Richard Nixon's big problem was 18 minutes of erased tape. Somewhere in the great beyond old tricky Dick must be shouting "You go girl!"

 

 


Edit:

 

Oh here is why she can't remember her briefings and where her mobile devices are.

 

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/fbi-releases-documents-related-clinton-email-investigation-174820715.html

 

She had a concussion and a blood clot on her brain. Good thing she is in perfect health now. :blink:

 

Now I'm sure we all know that this is all BS, but we will just have to cut Hillary some slack to support the cause. Right?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The distinction between Tricky Dick and Hillary is that he actually conspired to commit and conceal a crime. An FBI investigation, led by a Republican appointed and endorsed agent, has found no prosecutorial criminality in any of Hillary's email related actions. From the very beginning, this was a political effort by a Republican led congress to undermine the candidacy of the strongest and likely Democratic successor to Obama. It is likely that once she is elected, the Republicans will ceaselessly continue to undermine her effectiveness as President as they openly and callously did Obama's presidency to the detriment of needed social programs, effective governance, and a qualified judiciary in need of a properly vetted Supreme Court nominee, which they have ignored. As Donald Trump embodies, Republicans have become a vindictive, selfish, intolerant, and bigoted brood.

Edited by DrmDoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nixon was an 'honest' man compared to most of today's politicians.

 

 

Nixon was a crook and is one of the reasons that almost all candidates since then have disclosed their tax returns – the returns would have shown his crookedness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. IMO the distinction is R. Nixon got cought.

Or was there no conspiracy to undermine B. Sanders' bid for Democratic nominee ?

 

Oh, and I am an H. Clinton supporter.

A criminal conspiracy? No. There were plenty of people in the Democratic Party who didn't support his bid but... That's not illegal. I like Bernie and I don't even think it should be illegal.

 

Nixon's people actually broke the law, and not in a "ran afoul of the minutiae of election regulations while doing some shady stuff" but straight up "breaking and entering" kind of illegal activity.

 

Not even the same level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well we all know Hillary is a liar very forgetful.

 

http://www.weeklystandard.com/article/2004146/

 

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/clinton-told-fbi-couldnt-recall-key-details-26-times/

 

 

Below is the list of things Clinton could not recall in the FBI interview:

  • When she received security clearance
  • Being briefed on how to handle classified material
  • How many times she used her authority to designate items classified
  • Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret "Special Access Program" material
  • How to select a target for a drone strike
  • How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices
  • The number of times her staff was given a secure phone
  • Why she didn’t get a secure Blackberry
  • Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system
  • Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account
  • Getting guidance from state on email policy
  • Who had access to her Blackberry account
  • The process for deleting her emails
  • Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full
  • Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server
  • Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked
  • Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts
  • Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server
  • Using an iPad mini
  • An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal
  • Jacob Sullivan using personal email
  • State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports
  • Every briefing she received after suffering concussions
  • Being notified of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012
  • Being read out of her clearance
  • Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRCoffice.com account

It is a "time-honored tradition in Washington scandals" to claim one doesn't recall as they were busy being busy Washington officials, The Associated Press said in a 2005 report on common criminal defenses inside the Beltway.

 

And easily confused.

 

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/clinton-told-fbi-she-thought-classified-markings-were-alphabetical-paragraphs/article/2600900

 

And is extremely careless.

 

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/05/politics/fbi-director-doesnt-recommend-charges-against-hillary-clinton/

 

But lying to the people is what politicians do, so I guess she gets a pass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

But lying to the people is what politicians do, so I guess she gets a pass.

You have not showed that she lied.

 

The FBI didn't believe that it could show that she lied.

The most sensible explanation for the fact that nobody seems able to show that she lied is that she didn't.

 

I presume you are rooting for the guy who tells the truth 4% of the time.

 

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

 

Are you saying that Clinton wasn't dishonest enough for your taste or what?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. IMO the distinction is R. Nixon got cought.

Or was there no conspiracy to undermine B. Sanders' bid for Democratic nominee ?

 

Oh, and I am an H. Clinton supporter.

Hillary's allegedly criminal email violations were caught, investigated, and found non-prosecutorial. Nixon's conspiracy was caught, investigated, and prosecuted. As Delta1212 commented, "Not even the same level."

 

Well we all know Hillary is a liar very forgetful.

We all know all politicians, as the average human does, lie. In the whole of human history, what politician hasn't lied? That really isn't much of a revelation about a class of individuals who would say anything to advance their political ambitions and goals. It's negligently naïve to receive every politico's utterance as truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Our primary interest should be whether their lies have violated our laws and harmed our nation--according to our nation's investigative branch, Hillary's alleged prevarications haven't.

Edited by DrmDoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her biggest weakness is the goofy look she gets on her face, wide eyes and ginning. Saturday Night Live has her goofy look down pat. Someone should tell her to tone it down. Before she speaks to a group she comes out looking like a kindergarten teacher ready to address a room of kids. Hillary needs to get a presidential look before she starts speaking.

 

Also she needs to refrain from jerking her head around like an epileptic seizure.

Edited by Airbrush
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. IMO the distinction is R. Nixon got cought.

Or was there no conspiracy to undermine B. Sanders' bid for Democratic nominee ?

 

Oh, and I am an H. Clinton supporter.

 

 

Nixon got caught, yes. That means there is evidence of his crookedness (plus, we have now seen his tax returns). So the distinction here is actual evidence, rather than conspiracy or innuendo.

 

Was there a conspiracy to undermine Sanders? I thought it would be obvious that a party outsider (who had run against democrats in the past) would not have much support from the party. No conspiracy is necessary.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/feb/23/bernie-sanders-democrat/

Below is the list of things Clinton could not recall in the FBI interview:

 

  • When she received security clearance
  • Being briefed on how to handle classified material
  • How many times she used her authority to designate items classified
  • Any briefing on how to handle very top-secret "Special Access Program" material
  • How to select a target for a drone strike
  • How the data from her mobile devices was destroyed when she switched devices
  • The number of times her staff was given a secure phone
  • Why she didn’t get a secure Blackberry
  • Receiving any emails she thought should not be on the private system
  • Did not remember giving staff direction to create private email account
  • Getting guidance from state on email policy
  • Who had access to her Blackberry account
  • The process for deleting her emails
  • Ever getting a message that her storage was almost full
  • Anyone besides Huma Abedin being offered an account on the private server
  • Being sent information on state government private emails being hacked
  • Receiving cable on State Dept personnel securing personal email accounts
  • Receiving cable on Bryan Pagliano upgrading her server
  • Using an iPad mini
  • An Oct. 13, 2012, email on Egypt with Clinton pal Sidney Blumenthal
  • Jacob Sullivan using personal email
  • State Department protocol for confirming classified information in media reports
  • Every briefing she received after suffering concussions
  • Being notified of a FOIA request on Dec. 11, 2012
  • Being read out of her clearance
  • Any further access to her private email account from her State Department tenure after switching to her HRCoffice.com account

 

 

Do you care to wade through any of this to see what's a reasonable complaint?

 

I don't recall the date of most paperwork that I've done, so not recalling the date she got her clearance doesn't seem all that surprising.

How many times she classified material? Why would she keep count?

How to select a target for a drone strike? Is that par of her job description? That sounds military to me.

Why she didn't get a secure Blackberry? That's an IT issue, isn't it? Same with access to the account

email details — how many tens of thousands of emails were involved? Can you recall details of any one email from that number?

 

The insinuation is that not recalling is somehow evidence of deceit, which is BS.

 

But lying to the people is what politicians do, so I guess she gets a pass.

 

 

Yes. But the thing is, she's not getting a pass. This very thread demonstrates that. She's being held to a higher standard than her opponent, and being savaged for transgressions that pale in comparison to her opponent's. (imagine if, e.g. Clinton had been fined by the IRS for making an illegal contribution to a politician)

 

By an objective measurement of lying, it's not even close.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/aug/16/post-truth-election-comparing-2016-past-elections-/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's sort of a feedback loop problem. People who have committed actual crimes have gone in and just repeated "I don't remember" a million times. So now phrases like "I can't recall" are imprinted in the public psyche as signs of guilt, especially when repeated.

 

That means that if you want someone to look guilty but don't have any evidence to pin them down on, you can call them into a public hearing and ask them a bunch of questions that someone might possibly remember but that it is also fairly likely they would have forgotten because the information wouldn't have seemed important enough to commit to memory at the time. Then you can get a whole bunch of "I don't remembers" in a row that you can point to as the person stonewalling or dodging questions and thus make them look guilty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's sort of a feedback loop problem. People who have committed actual crimes have gone in and just repeated "I don't remember" a million times. So now phrases like "I can't recall" are imprinted in the public psyche as signs of guilt, especially when repeated.

 

That means that if you want someone to look guilty but don't have any evidence to pin them down on, you can call them into a public hearing and ask them a bunch of questions that someone might possibly remember but that it is also fairly likely they would have forgotten because the information wouldn't have seemed important enough to commit to memory at the time. Then you can get a whole bunch of "I don't remembers" in a row that you can point to as the person stonewalling or dodging questions and thus make them look guilty.

It's a familiar political tactic, which investigators on both side of the congressional isles have frequently employed to sway public opinion. Unfortunately, an often uninformed public and our general distrust of politicians have made this tactic a very effective political tool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll be voting for Hillary mainly because Bernie Sanders influenced her enough to change her stance on minimum wage and trade deals. For me, the stuff in the OP is just witchhunt craziness, on a par with what the Republicans did to Obama with the birther movement. For Republicans to object to Clinton on the basis of her honesty is the height of hypocrisy, imo.

 

My problems with Clinton would seem to make her a good choice for disgruntled Republicans. She will continue to overpush capitalism as our savior, which I think is a big mistake. I think we need to establish better parameters for when it makes sense to use socialism and even communism in our approach to governing society. Our ideological mixture is too heavily weighted towards capitalism, and we're seeing now how stupid it is for some things to be approached on a for-profit basis (glad to see we're starting to rethink private prisons! Yay!). Clinton will be further right of Obama on military matters, and I dislike the thought of the drone program in her hands (of the Dem/Rep/Lib/Green candidates, I think the two major party candidates would abuse it most - Cinton would be my 3rd choice to control the drones). I'd love to see a campaign to explain why social programs need to be more accepted as part of society instead of tossed off as some kind of charity, but I don't see that on the horizon either.

 

I don't think she'll be reversing any of her husband's tragic telecommunications legislation that lets corporations own news outlets that can influence buyers for their other businesses and private agendas. I doubt she'll bring back federal authority to social programs that Bill gave to the states. I'm not sure what kind of bipartisan corporate shenanigans are going on in banking, with talks of a "new" Glass-Steagal Act, but I dislike how both sides cater to the banks. Neither major candidate will be good for those who think the banks have too much power.

 

It seems bizarre that anyone could believe Hillary Clinton, with all the scrutiny she's endured, isn't worthy of being president for any of the reasons listed in the OP. It's obviously part of the GOP strategy to keep her constantly under investigation, even multiple investigations for the same incidents, even though the investigations never find anything prosecutable. I think admitting a woman is capable of leading the country is a harder pill to swallow for many Republicans than admitting a black man has done an outstanding job as president with what he was given to work with, and the obstructionists he had to work around. I think Clinton's presidency (two terms) will be a lot like Obama's, and the Dems will probably continue to slide right, hoping to pick up all the leaves falling from the GOP crazy tree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there's sort of a feedback loop problem. People who have committed actual crimes have gone in and just repeated "I don't remember" a million times. So now phrases like "I can't recall" are imprinted in the public psyche as signs of guilt, especially when repeated.

That means that if you want someone to look guilty but don't have any evidence to pin them down on, you can call them into a public hearing and ask them a bunch of questions that someone might possibly remember but that it is also fairly likely they would have forgotten because the information wouldn't have seemed important enough to commit to memory at the time. Then you can get a whole bunch of "I don't remembers" in a row that you can point to as the person stonewalling or dodging questions and thus make them look guilty.

I don't disagree. It's politics, and the goal is to sway public opinion. You use persuasion and emotional appeal, because facts don't sway some people.

 

But here, in this thread, that's not enough. We're a science site, and have a higher standard.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're a science site, and have a higher standard.

No. IMO the distinction is R. Nixon got cought.

Democrats controlled Congress under Nixon, and they found evidence of prosecutable misdeeds. A Republican-controlled Congress has been after Hillary for far longer, and for multiple investigations, and haven't found anything similar.

 

Besides implying that the FBI are morons, aren't you also suggesting that our current Republican-controlled Congress couldn't find their ass with both hands?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her biggest weakness is the goofy look she gets on her face, wide eyes and ginning. Saturday Night Live has her goofy look down pat. Someone should tell her to tone it down. Before she speaks to a group she comes out looking like a kindergarten teacher ready to address a room of kids. Hillary needs to get a presidential look before she starts speaking.

 

Also she needs to refrain from jerking her head around like an epileptic seizure.

Well, if her biggest weaknesses have nothing to do with her ability to serve as president, whereas her opponent's biggest weakness is that he really isn't fit to run a bath, never mind a country, you have just explained why everyone should vote for Hillary.

Cool, but next time you might like to try doing it without picking on epileptics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An FBI investigation, led by a Republican appointed and endorsed agent, has found no prosecutorial criminality in any of Hillary's email related actions.

No, it didn't. You may want to go back and read their announcement again.

 

 

You have not showed that she lied.

Either she lied, or she is so incompetent that after being FLOTUS, a Senator, and Sec State, she didn't know what classification markings are. I'm not sure which is the better option.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, it didn't. You may want to go back and read their announcement again.

The Attorney General said that she would accept the FBI's recommendations. She did and, to-date, there are no prosecutorial efforts announced or currently pursued by her office against Mrs. Clinton--that is unless you know something everyone else doesn't?

Edited by DrmDoc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.