SkynJay Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 6 minutes ago, Commodore said: if we are to believe it wasn't intentional, by what other means did Hillary intend to receive classified information? Do they not still have conferences and face to face meetings in Washington? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Commodore, What is obvious to you and provable to a jury are not necessarily one and the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 8 hours ago, lokisnow said: and whitewater was complete bullshit with the clintons totally clean of any wrongdoing. I think this is a fairly large exaggeration. It is true that the Clintons themselves were never charged, but Whitewater resulted in not just charges, but convictions of 15 people including aides, business associates and political supporters of the Clintons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kalbear Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 1 hour ago, Altherion said: I think this is a fairly large exaggeration. It is true that the Clintons themselves were never charged, but Whitewater resulted in not just charges, but convictions of 15 people including aides, business associates and political supporters of the Clintons. It's not an exaggeration for the Clinton's. There was one unreliable eyewitness as far as evidence goes and that was it. There was never any other evidence that they were involved. Whitewater itself was clearly a scandal; the aforementioned bullshit refers to making it about the Clintons at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Was called a 'Clinton Zealot' today when one of my left leaning friends posted a video about the FBI investigation asking if we should be worried about it. I really do not understand people who get militantly angry about their candidate. Didn't get it in 2008, and don't get it today. Why would you even participate in the democratic primary if you're going to refuse to vote for the democratic candidate in the general? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Altherion Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 2 minutes ago, aceluby said: Why would you even participate in the democratic primary if you're going to refuse to vote for the democratic candidate in the general? It's possible to support a specific candidate and the direction that candidate wants to lead the party without supporting somebody who wants to lead the party in a different direction. However, in the past, people who have said that they'll never vote for a given primary competitor during the primary have in fact generally come around to voting for their party's candidate in November. It would be pretty surprising if the vast majority of Sanders supporters don't vote for Clinton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrackerNeil Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 9 minutes ago, aceluby said: Was called a 'Clinton Zealot' today when one of my left leaning friends posted a video about the FBI investigation asking if we should be worried about it. I really do not understand people who get militantly angry about their candidate. Didn't get it in 2008, and don't get it today. Why would you even participate in the democratic primary if you're going to refuse to vote for the democratic candidate in the general? Yeah, I get that too, although with shill, sellout, blah blah. It's so tedious. Those who are upset that Sanders lost need to take a moment, write an angry poem in their dream journals, spank their inner moppets and then turn the goddamned page. Sorry to be so blunt, but I've had my fill of Bernie-angst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 3 hours ago, Fez said: Printed out documents presumably. The same way most high-level folks in the government do. this is not accurate or realistic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 3 hours ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Commodore, What is obvious to you and provable to a jury are not necessarily one and the same. gross negligence is not provable here? lol Based on what Comey said, Clinton also engaged in multiple counts of perjury, but she won't be prosecuted for that either. http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook Quote Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Also agree with Ryan that Clinton should be denied classified security briefings as a private citizen. Any other person who did what she did would never have been allowed a clearance by OPM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 Commodore, Reasonable people, reasonable prosecutors can and do disagree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fez Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 16 minutes ago, Commodore said: this is not accurate or realistic Clearly you've not spent much time actually involved with the inner workings Federal government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 6 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said: Commodore, Reasonable people, reasonable prosecutors can and do disagree. If something as egregious as this won't be prosecuted, the gross negligence clause might as well not have been written. Congress should just go home. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aceluby Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 1 hour ago, Commodore said: If something as egregious as this won't be prosecuted, the gross negligence clause might as well not have been written. Congress should just go home. They haven't done anything in 6 years anyway.... so in this I would agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commodore Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 6 minutes ago, aceluby said: They haven't done anything in 6 years anyway.... so in this I would agree. too much bickering in the Roman Senate, let Caesar take over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 13 hours ago, lokisnow said: It's like how lewinski only came to light because of the whitewater hearings. This is incredibly reductionist, and wildly inaccurate. The lewinski affair came to light as a result of the civil lawsuit filed by Paula Jones. And it, obviously, turned out to be true. it's true that they were included in the ken Starr investifgation, but I don't think it's true that they came about BECAUSE of the whitewater investigation. At the end of the day, the facts of the case are this: he had sex with an intern and then lied about it. Under oath. Quote and whitewater was complete bullshit with the clintons totally clean of any wrongdoing. Complete bullshit except for all the indictments, naturally. And if you think there was no reason to investigate the Clintons as part of Whitewater.... Then we disagree. There was most assuredly smoke there, including the involvement of Nussbaum and Williams. And it was, if I remember, Clinton himself who requested the appointment of the special prosecutor. it is of course possible that i'm misremembering the course of events here...... Quote like the email server, the lewinski affair was a far more serious matter that wouldn't have come to light without the wanton waste of tax dollars investigating everything Clinton in the spurious hope of finding something.dejavu all over again. Even if that was true, which in the case of the Lewinski affair, it really isn't true, so what? You seem to basically be saying 'Well, if he hadn't been sued for sexual harassment, then we wouldn't even know that he had sex with an intern, and he wouldn't have lied about it under oath.' I'm not sure how any of that makes it any better. That's sort of like saying 'if it wasn't for deep throat, we never would've known about Nixon, and there would've been no cover up, so we shouldn't really be talking about Watergate'. i find that pretty baffling, TBH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lokisnow Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 No I'm saying most politicians or private citizens if subjected to the extreme and perpetual investigations the clintons have endured would have similar more serious things come to light as well. I'm ok with that these things are aired out, but I lament that it takes such incredible personal animus to be the driver of this transparency, And this transparency does not extend beyond the clintons, unfortunately. Nor is it ever reversed by democrats and the same tactics applied to all the corrupt republicans in office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swordfish Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 4 minutes ago, lokisnow said: No I'm saying most politicians or private citizens if subjected to the extreme and perpetual investigations the clintons have endured would have similar more serious things come to light as well. I'm ok with that these things are aired out, but I lament that it takes such incredible personal animus to be the driver of this transparency, And this transparency does not extend beyond the clintons, unfortunately. Nor is it ever reversed by democrats and the same tactics applied to all the corrupt republicans in office. I know that's the running narrative. But at least for Bill, I don't think that's true, and the examples you posted don't bear it out. I think there was every reason to investigate the Clintons involvement in whitewater, and I think he likely did sexually harass Paula Jones,which led to jher filing a civil suit, which brought to light the Lewinsky affair. Which leaves us with.. What? Benghazi, basically? What else? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alguien Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 15 hours ago, Shryke said: So, uh, did no one else here notice that the FBI director just came out and gave a press conference on an ongoing investigation of a Presidential candidate where he shit all over her for things he then had to admit were not actually going to lead to any charges in what appears to be direct contravention of the supposed non-partisan nature of the FBI? Seriously, this seems like a police chief coming out in a press conference saying "We aren't actually charging the Mayor with murder but boy, he's sure a piece of shit who probably at least drowned a few cats for fun, eh? Anyway, see you at the voting booths next week!". Like, wtf was that? For being supposedly being so independent, that seemed like a very political move on the director's part. It's almost like he was trying to go out of his way to show he's not been influenced by partisan politics, or that he knows his tenure's up if she wins the general. Or maybe he was just frustrated as hell at having to waste over a year on this bullshit and was venting some steam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ser Scot A Ellison Posted July 6, 2016 Share Posted July 6, 2016 4 minutes ago, alguien said: For being supposedly being so independent, that seemed like a very political move on the director's part. It's almost like he was trying to go out of his way to show he's not been influenced by partisan politics, or that he knows his tenure's up if she wins the general. Or maybe he was just frustrated as hell at having to waste over a year on this bullshit and was venting some steam. He was saying she screwed up. Just not in a way that was criminal. If Trump were not her major opponent I think this would be a serious hurdle to overcome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.