• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
xjx388 said:
And AFAIK no one ever has to specifically inform you that you are a target. Only when they actually question you do they have to make any statement at all about your rights.
Click to expand...

That's not what the expert that I cited above from the article asserted:

"If she has been informed by the DOJ that she is presently not a target, then her statement that she is not a target would be accurate," Ouziel said, noting that she has no non-public knowledge of the case.​

I also provided Clinton's statement where she says that she isn't a target.
 
RobRoy said:
Arrghhh, page 87 without even realizing it.

Is Hillary Clinton done?

Please, someone tell me!
Click to expand...

And all that we need is another mere 13 pages of vague, poorly defined, incorrect, and flat-out lies of Hillary Clinton accusations, then we can have a new thread entitled Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3.

I am sure that there are at least a few posters here at the Forum who will be quite able to meet such a challange.
 
Crossbow said:
And all that we need is another mere 13 pages of vague, poorly defined, incorrect, and flat-out lies of Hillary Clinton accusations, then we can have a new thread entitled Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3.

I am sure that there are at least a few posters here at the Forum who will be quite able to meet such a challange.
Click to expand...

I know I am!

how-i-met-your-mother-challenge-accepted.jpg
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Seriously ?
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/faqs
The FBI is an intelligence-driven and threat-focused national security organization with both intelligence and law enforcement responsibilities. It is the principal investigative arm of the U.S. Department of Justice and a full member of the U.S. Intelligence Community.
Click to expand...

True, in August the FBI told Clinton she is not a target. The story changed in Feb.:

"Now, in a letter dated February 2 and filed in court Monday, the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, notes that in public statements and congressional testimony, the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”

Baker says the FBI has not, however, “publicly acknowledged the specific focus, scope or potential targets of any such proceedings.”

He ends the one-paragraph letter by saying that the FBI cannot say more “without adversely affecting on-going law enforcement efforts.”
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/fbi-formally-confirms-its-investigation-hillary-clintons-email-server

She went from not-a-target to scrutiny over the use of her private server.
 
RobRoy said:
That's not what the expert that I cited above from the article asserted:

"If she has been informed by the DOJ that she is presently not a target, then her statement that she is not a target would be accurate," Ouziel said, noting that she has no non-public knowledge of the case.​

I also provided Clinton's statement where she says that she isn't a target.
Click to expand...

No, she said that no one had informed her that she was a target. That may be true but no one has to inform her of anything. She may still be a target. Certainly, as Politifact said in the oft-quoted article, she's certainly the subject of an FBI investigation.
 
Crossbow said:
And all that we need is another mere 13 pages of vague, poorly defined, incorrect, and flat-out lies of Hillary Clinton accusations, then we can have a new thread entitled Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3.

I am sure that there are at least a few posters here at the Forum who will be quite able to meet such a challange.
Click to expand...


Or, you could just add new posts here.
 
RobRoy said:
Your article, where we both saw that she was not a target is from May of this year.
Click to expand...

From the article:

Clinton is undoubtedly a subject of the investigation, but whether she meets the definition of an official FBI "target" is unknown. That term is reserved for people for whom there is substantial evidence linking them to a crime, according to the prosecutor’s judgment.
 
xjx388 said:
No, she said that no one had informed her that she was a target. That may be true but no one has to inform her of anything. She may still be a target. Certainly, as Politifact said in the oft-quoted article, she's certainly the subject of an FBI investigation.
Click to expand...

The exact line in question is, "Clinton said in March that investigators have not told her that she or any of her staff members are targets of the investigation." This suggests that the question was asked by Clinton or someone on her staff and answered by the FBI.

If you have evidence which shows she's a target, please share it.

xjx388 said:
The article does not say she isn't a target, only that it isn't clear whether or not she is.
Click to expand...

Yes it does, unless you can show otherwise, that's exactly what the article says.

She is "certainly" a subject.
Click to expand...

This isn't germane to the discussion of if Clinton is under a criminal investigation by the FBI. She's a subject. Some of her staff are subjects. Some people connected to the maintenance of the server a subjects. They're all subjects of the investigation. That's how an investigation works. None of it implies wrong-doing or criminal behavior. If you can show otherwise, please do so.
 
Fudbucker said:
From the article:

Clinton is undoubtedly a subject of the investigation, but whether she meets the definition of an official FBI "target" is unknown. That term is reserved for people for whom there is substantial evidence linking them to a crime, according to the prosecutor’s judgment.
Click to expand...

Are you countering your own argument now?
 
Fudbucker said:
From the article:

Clinton is undoubtedly a subject of the investigation, but whether she meets the definition of an official FBI "target" is unknown. That term is reserved for people for whom there is substantial evidence linking them to a crime, according to the prosecutor’s judgment.
Click to expand...

So prove that she's a target. I'm happy to be wrong. I'm not thrilled with having to defend Hillary, but I prefer truth in advertising to taking an untenable position on fantasy allegations.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Are you countering your own argument now?
Click to expand...

I've never made the argument that she's an "official" target. The FBI is investigating what she did with her private server. They admitted that when they made an official announcement of the investigation in Feb. I think there's a decent chance they'll recommend charges.

Everything else is a semantics distraction.
 
Fudbucker said:
I've never made the argument that she's an "official" target. The FBI is investigating what she did with her private server. They admitted that when they made an official announcement of the investigation in Feb. I think there's a decent chance they'll recommend charges.

Everything else is a semantics distraction.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I'm confused. What exactly where you attempting to dispute when this exchange happened:

Fudbucker said:
RobRoy said:
Your article, where we both saw that she was not a target is from May of this year.
Click to expand...
From the article:

Clinton is undoubtedly a subject of the investigation, but whether she meets the definition of an official FBI "target" is unknown. That term is reserved for people for whom there is substantial evidence linking them to a crime, according to the prosecutor’s judgment.
Click to expand...
 
RobRoy said:
So prove that she's a target. I'm happy to be wrong. I'm not thrilled with having to defend Hillary, but I prefer truth in advertising to taking an untenable position on fantasy allegations.
Click to expand...

Read the FBI's statement:

Now, in a letter dated February 2 and filed in court Monday, the FBI’s general counsel, James Baker, notes that in public statements and congressional testimony, the FBI “has acknowledged generally that it is working on matters related to former Secretary Clinton’s use of a private email server.”

They want to know what she did with the server. That's what the investigation is all about. I don't know if she's an official target, but to say that Clinton isn't at the center of all this, or the FBI is investigating the server itself, as if it's some kind of moral agent, is absurd.
 
RobRoy said:
I'm not certain which word you're talking about. I'm certainly not attempting to avoid any particular words. I simply prefer truth in advertising.

Let me delve a bit deeper. An investigation to determine wrong-doing does not mean those people associated with the wrong-doing or the investigation have done anything wrong. That's why they have an investigation—to determine what, if anything, happened and who, if anyone, did it. For example: I was in a car accident ten years ago, a five-car pileup. I didn't cause the accident, and I did everything my defensive driving instructor told me, and the law required. However, that didn't stop the police from questioning me about the accident, in the course of a full investigation to determine wrong-doing. I was present, I gave my statement, as did other witnesses. The police took several weeks to sift through everything. At the end it was determined that although I was part of the accident, I had no fault in causing it, and no fault in any of the subsequent damage that occurred.

One can be part of an investigation, even a criminal investigation, and yet that investigation is not actually into them specifically. That's certainly the case here.
Click to expand...

This, RobRoy, is wrong. The FBI is specifically investigating Clinton's actions (what she did with her server), and they're doing so to see if there was any criminal wrongdoing.
 
Fudbucker said:
This, RobRoy, is wrong. The FBI is specifically investigating Clinton's actions (what she did with her server), and they're doing so to see if there was any criminal wrongdoing.
Click to expand...

Err, which part of my statement that you bolded is the wrong?

One can be part of an investigation, even a criminal investigation, and yet that investigation is not actually into them specifically. That's certainly the case here.​

Because I'm not seeing it. Your claims have already been disproved, but I'm really interested in how you arrived at your conclusion that my generalization was "wrong". Do enlighten me.
 
RobRoy said:
Who is currently "under criminal investigation" that is a family member of Bill Clinton? Oh, right. No one. I forgot. That's just spin so that we can make hay out of these kinds of articles, connect the dots and come up with the picture of a conspiracy so that later, we can all point and yell, "SEE! I TOLD YOU SO!"

Also, I'd appreciate if you'd end all your posts with "WAKE UP SHEEPLE".
Click to expand...

This response to Slings and Arrows is also over the top. There is at least one expert (Ellen Glasser) who specifically is claiming that Clinton is the subject of a criminal investigation. There is also the judge working the civil trial that Bryan Pagliano is involved in who characterized it as a "criminal investigation".

The idea that Clinton is under criminal investigation can't just be laughed off as part of the "vast right-wing conspiracy".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom