Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
She is so done that anyone pretty much can think about her as president already.

Caveat: no major successful terroristic attack on USA territory.
 
Hillary put her good friend a high volume security trader from Chicago and mega major Clinton Foundation donor on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department's professional staff.

When ABC News asked about it, they gave them the run around, and at one point the mega-donor threatened to have an ABC news reporter arrested.

By the way? He is going to be A SUPER-DELEGATE at the convention this summer.

That is nice, Hillary looking out for the 1%.

http://abc11.com/news/how-clinton-donor-got-on-sensitive-intelligence-board/1379818/
 
16.5 said:
Hillary put her good friend a high volume security trader from Chicago and mega major Clinton Foundation donor on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department's professional staff.

When ABC News asked about it, they gave them the run around, and at one point the mega-donor threatened to have an ABC news reporter arrested.

By the way? He is going to be A SUPER-DELEGATE at the convention this summer.

That is nice, Hillary looking out for the 1%.

http://abc11.com/news/how-clinton-donor-got-on-sensitive-intelligence-board/1379818/
Click to expand...

I am really hoping she gets indicted.
 
16.5 said:
Hillary put her good friend a high volume security trader from Chicago and mega major Clinton Foundation donor on a sensitive government intelligence advisory board even though he had no experience in the field, a decision that appeared to baffle the department's professional staff.

When ABC News asked about it, they gave them the run around, and at one point the mega-donor threatened to have an ABC news reporter arrested.

By the way? He is going to be A SUPER-DELEGATE at the convention this summer.

That is nice, Hillary looking out for the 1%.

http://abc11.com/news/how-clinton-donor-got-on-sensitive-intelligence-board/1379818/
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, this isn't Breitbart or Redstate reporting this:

"The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues."

"The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624

Clinton supporters are OK with this?
 
Fudbucker said:
Just to be clear, this isn't Breitbart or Redstate reporting this:

"The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues."

"The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624

Clinton supporters are OK with this?
Click to expand...

Based on your second paragraph, you seem to take issue with media management. She seems to have handled it quite well.
 
Fudbucker said:
Just to be clear, this isn't Breitbart or Redstate reporting this:

"The Chicago securities trader, who specialized in electronic investing, sat alongside an august collection of nuclear scientists, former cabinet secretaries and members of Congress to advise Hillary Clinton on the use of tactical nuclear weapons and on other crucial arms control issues."

"The emails further reveal how, after inquiries from ABC News, the Clinton staff sought to “protect the name” of the Secretary, “stall” the ABC News reporter and ultimately accept the resignation of the donor just two days later."

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/clinton-donor-sensitive-intelligence-board/story?id=39710624

Clinton supporters are OK with this?
Click to expand...
While I don't self identify as a Clinton supporter per se, I'll take a stab: hell no. This is the sort of bs that gave us "Brownie did a heck of a good job" as head of fema.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Almost !

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/cnn-repo...doing-in-hillary-clinton-email-investigation/
For all those Hillary Clinton opponents who have been hoping against hope that the likely Democratic presidential nominee will be indicted as a result of the FBI review of Hillary’s email server, CNN has some bad news. According to CNN correspondent Pamela Brown, the FBI is close to wrapping up the “investigation,” and thus far have found “no criminal wrongdoing”:

The interviews, we’re told, are focused on whether classified information was mishandled, and the security of the server. So far officials tell us, no, there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing at this point in the investigation, but, again, the investigation is not over.

It sounds like they’re really just waiting for Hillary Clinton to be interviewed so they can wrap things up, but if Republicans and Bernie Sanders and the media are counting on Hillary Clinton to suddenly crack under questioning, they haven’t been paying attention.
Click to expand...

Fudbucker said:
The article is a month old. If it were true, they would have interviewed Clinton by now.
Click to expand...

http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-emails-in-probe-dealt-with-planned-drone-strikes-1465509863
Updated June 9, 2016 10:19 p.m. ET
Several law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation, although a final review of the evidence will be made only after an expected FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton this summer.

One reason is that government workers at several agencies, including the departments of Defense, Justice and State, have occasionally resorted to the low-side system to give each other notice about sensitive but fast-moving events, according to one law-enforcement official.

When Mrs. Clinton has been asked about the possibility of being criminally charged over the email issue, she has repeatedly said “that is not going to happen.’’


Yesterday, WSJ... that good enough yet?
 
Also don't forget that an ice cream distributor donated to the George W Bush presidential run and got put directly in charge of Baghdad during the occupation.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
http://www.wsj.com/articles/clinton-emails-in-probe-dealt-with-planned-drone-strikes-1465509863
Updated June 9, 2016 10:19 p.m. ET
Several law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation, although a final review of the evidence will be made only after an expected FBI interview with Mrs. Clinton this summer.

One reason is that government workers at several agencies, including the departments of Defense, Justice and State, have occasionally resorted to the low-side system to give each other notice about sensitive but fast-moving events, according to one law-enforcement official.

When Mrs. Clinton has been asked about the possibility of being criminally charged over the email issue, she has repeatedly said “that is not going to happen.’’


Yesterday, WSJ... that good enough yet?
Click to expand...

There are authorities who think it's entirely possible:

"But former US attorney Joseph DiGenova is blunt: “I don’t think there’s any question Mrs Clinton and her staff broke the law. She maintained a server in her private home in Chappaqua, New York, and conducted government business. This clearly was beyond gross negligence.

"Dan Metcalfe, a Democrat who served as director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information and Privacy for more than 25 years, wrote in a column last month: “So what you must contemplate, as a leader of the Democratic Party, is the very real possibility of your likely presidential candidate actually being indicted, on criminal charges, sometime between now and, say, (a) the time of the convention at the end of July; (b) the time of the general election in early November; or (c) Inauguration Day in January. Which possibility would you prefer?”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...inton-emails-analysis-possible-indictment-fbi

"Retired Col. James Waurishuk, an expert in national security, tells the Daily Caller that the evidence is damning.

"As a former career senior intelligence officer and special operations special mission intelligence officer and National Security Council staff member, I believe it is inconceivable that if it is verified that Hillary Clinton's server contained or had [the most sensitive secrets] on it that she could possibly escape indictment and criminal prosecution," he tells the Daily Caller."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hi...l-scandal-espionage-act/2016/04/06/id/722577/

"So as a legal website, we had to fact check this one. Does ‘virtually every single’ legal expert really believe Clinton committed a crime? The answer is no. In fact, legal experts are pretty divided."
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/we-...e-legal-expert-say-clinton-committed-a-crime/

There's plenty of expert opinion to for both sides to appeal to. The bottom line is, no one knows what the FBI knows and people who are sure she won't be indicted are bloviating just as much as people who are sure she will be.
 
Travis said:
Also don't forget that an ice cream distributor donated to the George W Bush presidential run and got put directly in charge of Baghdad during the occupation.
Click to expand...

Is this an attempt to excuse putting an obviously unqualified campaign donor in an important post? What is the principle here, what if Bush did it, it's OK?
 
Fudbucker said:
There are authorities who think it's entirely possible:

"But former US attorney Joseph DiGenova is blunt: “I don’t think there’s any question Mrs Clinton and her staff broke the law. She maintained a server in her private home in Chappaqua, New York, and conducted government business. This clearly was beyond gross negligence.

"Dan Metcalfe, a Democrat who served as director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information and Privacy for more than 25 years, wrote in a column last month: “So what you must contemplate, as a leader of the Democratic Party, is the very real possibility of your likely presidential candidate actually being indicted, on criminal charges, sometime between now and, say, (a) the time of the convention at the end of July; (b) the time of the general election in early November; or (c) Inauguration Day in January. Which possibility would you prefer?”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...inton-emails-analysis-possible-indictment-fbi

"Retired Col. James Waurishuk, an expert in national security, tells the Daily Caller that the evidence is damning.

"As a former career senior intelligence officer and special operations special mission intelligence officer and National Security Council staff member, I believe it is inconceivable that if it is verified that Hillary Clinton's server contained or had [the most sensitive secrets] on it that she could possibly escape indictment and criminal prosecution," he tells the Daily Caller."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hi...l-scandal-espionage-act/2016/04/06/id/722577/

"So as a legal website, we had to fact check this one. Does ‘virtually every single’ legal expert really believe Clinton committed a crime? The answer is no. In fact, legal experts are pretty divided."
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/we-...e-legal-expert-say-clinton-committed-a-crime/

There's plenty of expert opinion to for both sides to appeal to. The bottom line is, no one knows what the FBI knows and people who are sure she won't be indicted are bloviating just as much as people who are sure she will be.
Click to expand...
There is a difference between random people who may be experts but have no inside information (and probably hate Hillary) and "law enforcement officials".

She isn't getting indicted. Get over it.

Do you think that President Obama would be endorsing her if he thought that there was any chance of her getting indicted? Do you think maybe he has an informed opinion on the topic? One better than the fanatical Hillary haters?
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
There is a difference between random people who may be experts but have no inside information (and probably hate Hillary) and "law enforcement officials".
Click to expand...

So your claim is the people who say she might be indicted don't have inside information, but the ones who say she won't have inside information? Evidence for this? Evidence that any of the people I listed hate Clinton? Does Metcalf? Does Dan Abrams?

She isn't getting indicted. Get over it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I believe you've said this before.

Do you think that President Obama would be endorsing her if he thought that there was any chance of her getting indicted?
Click to expand...

Of course, what is his alternative, not endorsing her?
"Mr. President, why aren't you endorsing the presumptive nominee?"
"Uhhhhh...."

Do you think maybe he has an informed opinion on the topic? One better than the fanatical Hillary haters?
Click to expand...

It depends. You assume the FBI has made out up their mind. They might be on the fence about whether to charge her as we speak, and Obama as well. But even if he knew an indictment was coming down, what could he do about it? Suck up to Sanders? Talk up Biden? Distance himself from Clinton? He can't do any of that, for obvious reasons. Obama has to go through the motions. He has no other options but to support the presumptive nominee and I'm sure he's not happy about it.
 
If Clinton had given the entire contents of her email server to WikiLeaks AND sat giggling and munching popcorn while watching a live feed of the Benghazi attack, she would still be a better presidential candidate than Trump.
 
Fudbucker said:
So your claim is the people who say she might be indicted don't have inside information, but the ones who say she won't have inside information? Evidence for this? Evidence that any of the people I listed hate Clinton? Does Metcalf? Does Dan Abrams?
Click to expand...

Apparently you don't know what law enforcement officials means. Or don't understand that people like a FORMER US attorney are not law enforcement officials.


Yes, I believe you've said this before.
Click to expand...

Because I'm right.


Of course, what is his alternative, not endorsing her?
"Mr. President, why aren't you endorsing the presumptive nominee?"
"Uhhhhh...."



It depends. You assume the FBI has made out up their mind. They might be on the fence about whether to charge her as we speak, and Obama as well. But even if he knew an indictment was coming down, what could he do about it? Suck up to Sanders? Talk up Biden? Distance himself from Clinton? He can't do any of that, for obvious reasons. Obama has to go through the motions. He has no other options but to support the presumptive nominee and I'm sure he's not happy about it.
Click to expand...

Yes, he has the option of not going all in on her. And would do that if he thought there was a decent chance of her getting indicted.

His endorsement of Hillary was easily the most forceful endorsement of a sitting President for his potential successor of my lifetime and probably a long time before that. Reagan barely endorsed Bush, Clinton endorsed Gore but pretty much stayed out of the race. Same with Dubya.

She is not going to be indicted. Get over it.
 
Clinton Doesn’t Remember Signing Non-Disclosure Agreement

Presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton said Wednesday that she couldn’t remember signing a non-disclosure agreement as secretary of state that laid out criminal penalties for mishandling classified information.

“Secretary Clinton, you said you sent or received nothing that was marked classified, but you did sign a non-disclosure agreement, an NDA, in 2009 that said markings don’t matter, whether it’s marked or unmarked. You remember signing that?” Fox News host Bret Baier asked.

“No, I do not," Clinton said.

Read more:
http://freebeacon.com/national-secu...ber-signing-nda-handling-classified-material/ (June 8, 2016)
Click to expand...


The day after Crooked Hillary took the oath office to become Secretary of State (January 22, 2009), she received a security briefing and signed the "Sensitive Compartmented Information Non-Disclosure Agreement:"

“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation.

"I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of SCI by me may constitute violations of United States criminal laws, including provisions of Sections 793, 794, 798, and 952, Title 18, United States Code, and of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code. Nothing in this agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation."

https://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/intel/sf4414.pdf​

Reference:
Signed copy of Hillary Clinton's Non-Disclosure Agreement
U.S. Code 18 section 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
U.S. Code 18 section 794 - Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government
U.S. Code 18 section 798 - Disclosure of classified information
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom