Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[wareyin]

No one knows as it was a private 30 minute conversion.

The thing is, the rest of the country understands that even if they didn't discuss anything improper, which we have no way of confirming, it was still incredibly poor judgment.

Your options are basically that Bill and Loretta are idiots and are oblivious to this fact that everyone else understands.

Or they knew how stupid it was but did so anyway. What did they have to discuss that was so important?

Then again Bill also showed up at that voting location, which was stupid. Maybe they just know that whatever they do it doesn't matter.

Oh, please tell me that you're now going to start demanding transcripts of this meeting! That was such an effective ploy last time.

 

[Travis]

A lot but not always.

response as 1.4 is to note that I am definitely normal human person that loves to sports the ball with the other male human persons.

Bwahahahahahaha. Travis, you've been here a long time, you really should know the answer to this already and you should know better. On the one hand, some of the views here are reasonably extreme, to the point that picking apart a response with "always" is actually necessary. On the other hand, scoring points by picking apart a response, even if the meaning was reasonably clear to the average observer, is so much easier. There's a Pith and Language award to be won, and no such thing as friendly discussion. In the game of the Interwebz, you win or you type in all caps!

ARE YOU SAYING I MIGHT NOT BE WINNING!

 

[RobRoy]

right

Wrong. You completely miss the point on all counts. Yes, there is a criminal investigation going on (there are many, all the time, it's what the FBI does). The investigation is looking into Clinton's email server for wrong-doing. It is not looking specifically at Clinton, and there is no criminal investigation into Clinton herself.

Unless you can show otherwise, not a single one of the articles you posted state that Clinton is being criminally investigated by the FBI.

 

[Foolmewunz]

right

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/fbi...n-clinton-server-during-e-mail-investigation/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-glee-Republicans-day-Obama-endorses-her.html

heck, how about a court order:

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential," U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in an order issued Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-judge-investigation-224314#ixzz4D4xeCpGc
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

You've already been caught out trying to pass these off as "Proof" of a criminal investigation. They are not pertinent. You can continue dancing the conspiracy two-step but until you show an actual source of someone with a standing in the case saying "this is a criminal investigation", you are just grasping at straws, as usual.

To recap for any who you're possibly bamboozling:
a - not all FBI investigations are "criminal"
b - the civil judge does not have a standing in the FBI/DoJ investigation
c - you left out the WH press secretary... you remember, the one you claimed was the President

 

[RobRoy]

ARE YOU SAYING I MIGHT NOT BE WINNING!

Well, you are now.

 

[The Big Dog]

Wrong. You completely miss the point on all counts. Yes, there is a criminal investigation going on (there are many, all the time, it's what the FBI does). The investigation is looking into Clinton's email server for wrong-doing. It is not looking specifically at Clinton, and there is no criminal investigation into Clinton herself.

Unless you can show otherwise, not a single one of the articles you posted state that Clinton is being criminally investigated by the FBI.

Wait, you think they are going to slap the cuffs on the server!

the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”

Forget that too, did ya?

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Ahh, well then, you should have no problem providing a link to the story which states there is a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton, right? Do so please.

right

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/fbi...n-clinton-server-during-e-mail-investigation/

Wrong.

That story doesn't "states there is a criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-glee-Republicans-day-Obama-endorses-her.html

Shockingly, neither does that one.

heck, how about a court order:

"The privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential," U.S. District Court Judge Emmet Sullivan wrote in an order issued Tuesday.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/hillary-clinton-judge-investigation-224314#ixzz4D4xeCpGc
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Heck, how about moving the goalposts ?

 

[RobRoy]

Wait, you think they are going to slap the cuffs on the server!

the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”

Forget that too, did ya?

Oh dear, looks like we're back to this again. Language is important because it conveys meaning. I've asked for a link to evidence which states that Clinton herself is being criminally investigated. I've been provided with links to the investigation of her email server. Clinton and her server and members of her staff, along with many others involved in the matter are being treated as witnesses in a crime. They are not being treated as the suspects of a crime because the FBI doesn't even know if a crime was actually committed. There is a criminal investigation going on, and Clinton is part of it, but being a part of an investigation doesn't make Clinton the subject of that investigation any more than it makes the agents asking the questions the subject of the investigation.

Thus, there is no "criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton" unless there has been a new release by the FBI within the last five minutes.

 

[Crossbow]

Wait, you think they are going to slap the cuffs on the server!

the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”

Forget that too, did ya?

If you would actually read your own postings, then you would have your answer.

 

[The Big Dog]

Oh dear, looks like we're back to this again. Language is important because it conveys meaning. I've asked for a link to evidence which states that Clinton herself is being criminally investigated. I've been provided with links to the investigation of her email server. Clinton and her server and members of her staff, along with many others involved in the matter are being treated as witnesses in a crime. They are not being treated as the suspects of a crime because the FBI doesn't even know if a crime was actually committed. There is a criminal investigation going on, and Clinton is part of it, but being a part of an investigation doesn't make Clinton the subject of that investigation any more than it makes the agents asking the questions the subject of the investigation.

Thus, there is no "criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton" unless there has been a new release by the FBI within the last five minutes.

Oh dear, Language is important because it conveys meaning. As such, when the FBI says it is investigating "Secretary Clinton’s use" you should "use" language to address that specific claim rather than TOTALLY ignoring it.

 

[RobRoy]

Oh dear, looks like we're back to this again. Language is important because it conveys meaning. I've asked for a link to evidence which states that Clinton herself is being criminally investigated. I've been provided with links to the investigation of her email server. Clinton and her server and members of her staff, along with many others involved in the matter are being treated as witnesses in a crime. They are not being treated as the suspects of a crime because the FBI doesn't even know if a crime was actually committed. There is a criminal investigation going on, and Clinton is part of it, but being a part of an investigation doesn't make Clinton the subject of that investigation any more than it makes the agents asking the questions the subject of the investigation. Thus, there is no "criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton" unless there has been a new release by the FBI within the last five minutes.

Oh dear, Language is important because it conveys meaning. As such, when the FBI says it is investigating "Secretary Clinton’s use" you should "use" language to address that specific claim rather than TOTALLY ignoring it.

I did. But I can see how you might have missed it, so I highlighted it for you. Let me know if you still don't understand.

 

[bytewizard]

Well, you are now.

Charlie Sheen style?

 

[Fudbucker]

Oh dear, looks like we're back to this again. Language is important because it conveys meaning. I've asked for a link to evidence which states that Clinton herself is being criminally investigated. I've been provided with links to the investigation of her email server. Clinton and her server and members of her staff, along with many others involved in the matter are being treated as witnesses in a crime. They are not being treated as the suspects of a crime because the FBI doesn't even know if a crime was actually committed. There is a criminal investigation going on, and Clinton is part of it, but being a part of an investigation doesn't make Clinton the subject of that investigation any more than it makes the agents asking the questions the subject of the investigation.

Thus, there is no "criminal investigation into Hillary Clinton" unless there has been a new release by the FBI within the last five minutes.

It's just really to avoid that word when talking about this, isn't it? There's something about FBI investigations and crime...some link between the two.

 

[Fudbucker]

You've already been caught out trying to pass these off as "Proof" of a criminal investigation. They are not pertinent. You can continue dancing the conspiracy two-step but until you show an actual source of someone with a standing in the case saying "this is a criminal investigation", you are just grasping at straws, as usual.

To recap for any who you're possibly bamboozling:
a - not all FBI investigations are "criminal"
b - the civil judge does not have a standing in the FBI/DoJ investigation
c - you left out the WH press secretary... you remember, the one you claimed was the President

Bryan Pagliano (Clinton's IT guy who took the 5th 80,000 times) is involved in both a civil trial and the FBI investigation, which forced the judge to make a ruling about his immunity agreement where he (the judge) characterized the investigation as "criminal".

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No one knows as it was a private 30 minute conversion.

The thing is, the rest of the country understands that even if they didn't discuss anything improper, which we have no way of confirming, it was still incredibly poor judgment.

Your options are basically that Bill and Loretta are idiots and are oblivious to this fact that everyone else understands.

Or they knew how stupid it was but did so anyway. What did they have to discuss that was so important?

Then again Bill also showed up at that voting location, which was stupid. Maybe they just know that whatever they do it doesn't matter.

OMG, two friends talked to each other. Wow that's poor judgment.

 

[The Big Dog]

I did. But I can see how you might have missed it, so I highlighted it for you. Let me know if you still don't understand.

ctrl-f "Secretary Clinton’s use": no results.

'k! Although I certainly concede that Secretary Clinton would be a "witness" regarding "Secretary Clinton's use" of her homebrew server.

 

[Fudbucker]

So are we back to the fantasy that Clinton's server will be indicted? Perhaps perp-walked out of the evidence locker in cuffs? I wonder which racial gang it will join in the stir. Will there be a joyful reunion with Clinton waiting outside the prison gates when the server finally serves his time? Maybe the server will become institutionalized in prison and have trouble adjusting to normal society.

 

[wareyin]

So are we back to the fantasy that Clinton's server will be indicted? Perhaps perp-walked out of the evidence locker in cuffs? I wonder which racial gang it will join in the stir. Will there be a joyful reunion with Clinton waiting outside the prison gates when the server finally serves his time? Maybe the server will become institutionalized in prison and have trouble adjusting to normal society.

Back? Some of you have never left the fantasy that any recommendation of indictment will come out of this at all.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

Bryan Pagliano (Clinton's IT guy who took the 5th 80,000 times)

How is this relevant ?

is involved in both a civil trial and the FBI investigation, which forced the judge to make a ruling about his immunity agreement where he (the judge) characterized the investigation as "criminal".

Yes, and the judge may or may not be correct in his characterization.

When the head of the FBI was offered the opportunity to characterize it as a criminal investigation, he declined.

I know who I believe has better insight into the truth of the matter, and it's not the judge.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

So are we back to the fantasy that Clinton's server will be indicted? Perhaps perp-walked out of the evidence locker in cuffs? I wonder which racial gang it will join in the stir. Will there be a joyful reunion with Clinton waiting outside the prison gates when the server finally serves his time? Maybe the server will become institutionalized in prison and have trouble adjusting to normal society.

No, the people who have been following this issue understand it was a "security referral made for counterintelligence purposes."

Therefor, the FBI is conducting a security investigation into the mail server and information on it, that may or may not possible result in recommendation of (criminal) charges for people.

Why is this so difficult for people to differentiate from a criminal investigation ?