• 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.
Darat said:
Er.... that's not answering the question. Is there indeed any evidence this was a clandestine meeting. Seems to me to be just a meeting. No one seems to have evidence that the meeting was being done in secret had been planed to be secret and so on.
Click to expand...

Why does it matter whether Bill pre-arranged the meeting or just saw an opportunity to meet and took it? Assuming they did talk about Clinton's FBI troubles, is it somehow better that he spontaneously decided to meet with her about it rather than pre-planned it?

And if it was just exchanging pleasantries and asking how the family is doing, why didn't they do that out in the open instead of meeting privately?

I don't believe for a second that they're so ignorant that they didn't understand how inappropriate this would look.
 
The_Animus said:
Why does it matter whether Bill pre-arranged the meeting or just saw an opportunity to meet and took it? Assuming they did talk about Clinton's FBI troubles, is it somehow better that he spontaneously decided to meet with her about it rather than pre-planned it?

And if it was just exchanging pleasantries and asking how the family is doing, why didn't they do that out in the open instead of meeting privately?

I don't believe for a second that they're so ignorant that they didn't understand how inappropriate this would look.
Click to expand...

A little bi-partisan criticism is always welcome:

Some Democrats also criticized the meeting. David Axelrod, the former senior adviser to President Obama, tweeted that while he took Lynch and Clinton "at their word" that the email investigation didn't come up in their conversation, it was "foolish to create such optics" by meeting.

"I do agree with you that it doesn't send the right signal," Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.) said Thursday on CNN's "New Day." Coons said he considers Lynch to be an "independent attorney general" and has "generally shown excellent judgment" in her role.
http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286143-lynch-clinton-meeting-creates-firestorm
 
Holy ****, man. I honestly cannot believe the spin in this thread. It's truly ridiculous.

Is the FBI investigation about Hillary's use of the email server? Yes.

Was it her server setup in her house under her control? Yes.

Are there potential criminal violations connected with the use of the server? Yes.

Hillary is under criminal investigation. QED

All this blather about "target," "subject," ad nauseum is nothing but semantic spin so that Hillary supporters can feel better about themselves and their candidate of choice. If they would just speak rationally, "sure she's under criminal investigation but I feel she will be vindicated," I would gain mic more respect. But no SPIN SPIN SPIN!
 
xjx388 said:
Holy ****, man. I honestly cannot believe the spin in this thread. It's truly ridiculous.

Is the FBI investigation about Hillary's use of the email server? Yes.

Was it her server setup in her house under her control? Yes.

Are there potential criminal violations connected with the use of the server? Yes.

Hillary is under criminal investigation. QED

All this blather about "target," "subject," ad nauseum is nothing but semantic spin so that Hillary supporters can feel better about themselves and their candidate of choice. If they would just speak rationally, "sure she's under criminal investigation but I feel she will be vindicated," I would gain mic more respect. But no SPIN SPIN SPIN!
Click to expand...

QTF :thumbsup:
 
xjx388 said:
Holy ****, man. I honestly cannot believe the spin in this thread. It's truly ridiculous.

Is the FBI investigation about Hillary's use of the email server? Yes.

Was it her server setup in her house under her control? Yes.

Are there potential criminal violations connected with the use of the server? Yes.

Hillary is under criminal investigation. QED

All this blather about "target," "subject," ad nauseum is nothing but semantic spin so that Hillary supporters can feel better about themselves and their candidate of choice. If they would just speak rationally, "sure she's under criminal investigation but I feel she will be vindicated," I would gain mic more respect. But no SPIN SPIN SPIN!
Click to expand...

Yes, it can get very surreal, talking to Clinton supporters. The essential facts are as you listed them.

Remember, Bill Clinton is the one who tried to parse what "is" meant, so Clinton supporters probably take their cue from that.
 
The_Animus said:
...Assuming they did talk about Clinton's FBI troubles, is it somehow better that he spontaneously decided to meet with her about it rather than pre-planned it?....
Click to expand...
This is an unfair assumption. Both are lawyers and both know full well such a discussion would have been unethical. Assuming both of them are unethical is a crock. If that were the case, why not meet more secretly?
 
Holy ****, man. I honestly cannot believe the spin in this thread. It's truly ridiculous.

Is the FBI investigation about Hillary's use of the email server? Yes.

Was it her server setup in her house under her control? Yes.

Are there potential criminal violations connected with the use of the server? Yes.

Hillary is under criminal investigation. QED

All this blather about "target," "subject," ad nauseum is nothing but semantic spin so that Hillary supporters can feel better about themselves and their candidate of choice. If they would just speak rationally, "sure she's under criminal investigation but I feel she will be vindicated," I would gain mic more respect. But no SPIN SPIN SPIN!
 
xjx388 said:
Holy ****, man. I honestly cannot believe the spin in this thread. It's truly ridiculous.

Is the FBI investigation about Hillary's use of the email server? Yes.

Was it her server setup in her house under her control? Yes.

Are there potential criminal violations connected with the use of the server? Yes.

Hillary is under criminal investigation. QED

All this blather about "target," "subject," ad nauseum is nothing but semantic spin so that Hillary supporters can feel better about themselves and their candidate of choice. If they would just speak rationally, "sure she's under criminal investigation but I feel she will be vindicated," I would gain mic more respect. But no SPIN SPIN SPIN!
Click to expand...
That's funny since it's the "Hillary supporters" who have the facts while you are guys SPINing the facts to meet your need to use the special words.

If you want respect accept that you are wrong. At least until someone in a position to say so, says it is a criminal investigation. Why is that so hard for you? Radical Islam - there does that make you feel good :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
xjx388 said:
Holy ****, man. I honestly cannot believe the spin in this thread. It's truly ridiculous.

Is the FBI investigation about Hillary's use of the email server? Yes.

Was it her server setup in her house under her control? Yes.

Are there potential criminal violations connected with the use of the server? Yes.

Hillary is under criminal investigation. QED

All this blather about "target," "subject," ad nauseum is nothing but semantic spin so that Hillary supporters can feel better about themselves and their candidate of choice. If they would just speak rationally, "sure she's under criminal investigation but I feel she will be vindicated," I would gain mic more respect. But no SPIN SPIN SPIN!
Click to expand...

There's nothing there there.

If they had found something nefarious, we'd know already. Republicans will argue that this was some more Clinton sleaze, but I haven't seen a single email e-mail suggestive of actual corruption. This fits a typical pattern of partisan investigations of the Clintons. Whitewater, Travelgate, Vince Foster, etc etc etc. A whole lot of sound and fury with absolutely nothing to it.

Don't they get it? Most everyone else is rolling their eyes thinking here the Republicans go again.
 
Fudbucker said:
Remember, Bill Clinton is the one who tried to parse what "is" meant, so Clinton supporters probably take their cue from that.
Click to expand...

Considering that the people investigating him (for the completely unrelated matter concerning land deals) were trying use "is" to mean "was", such a statement was quite in character for that entire fiasco.
 
GodMark2 said:
Considering that the people investigating him (for the completely unrelated matter concerning land deals) were trying use "is" to mean "was", such a statement was quite in character for that entire fiasco.
Click to expand...

They had no business at all asking him questions about Monica Lewinsky. They spent 100 million dollars finding out Bill got a blow job from a very willing intern. And Bill didn't want his wife to be embarrassed so he lied about it. What damn husband wouldn't?

If a President or a candidate does something that hurts the public, I want to know. I don't care that Donald was married 3 times either. I don't care that Trump isn't a Christian.I don't care what he might claim today, he's not. I care that he's a con man and a jerk though.
 
DavidJames said:
That's funny since it's the "Hillary supporters" who have the facts while you are guys SPINing the facts to meet your need to use the special words.
Click to expand...

Please demonstrate the spin. I put the facts as plainly as I could. 1 2 3. I didn't use any special words. If the answer to the three questions I posed is "yes," then my conclusion is reasonable. Is the answer to any of those questions "no?"

If you want respect accept that you are wrong. At least until someone in a position to say so, says it is a criminal investigation. Why is that so hard for you? Radical Islam - there does that make you feel good :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

??? Again, clearly demonstrate how anything I said is wrong. I only used the clear facts that we know to be true. I don't need some outside authority to tell me what is plainly obvious.
 
xjx388 said:
Holy ****, man. I honestly cannot believe the spin in this thread. It's truly ridiculous.

Is the FBI investigation about Hillary's use of the email server? Yes.

Was it her server setup in her house under her control? Yes.

Are there potential criminal violations connected with the use of the server? Yes.

Hillary is under criminal investigation. QED

All this blather about "target," "subject," ad nauseum is nothing but semantic spin so that Hillary supporters can feel better about themselves and their candidate of choice. If they would just speak rationally, "sure she's under criminal investigation but I feel she will be vindicated," I would gain mic more respect. But no SPIN SPIN SPIN!
Click to expand...

So why is it so important to HDS sufferers to say "Criminal Investigation"? That is from whence this conversation/derail started.

Spin, spin, spin? Oh, no, not on the conservatives part. They're not interested, in spite of three decades of evidence to the contrary, in controlling the language of the debate.

The discussion started because of the HDS desire to spin the description. The points being raised by RobRoy and earlier myself are to counter this propaganda/spin.

I thought this conversation ended weeks ago. Until you have someone from the FBI or DoJ saying that this is a criminal investigation, it's an investigation. Conservatives [and Bernie Believers] need to spin it as a "criminal investigation"? Go ahead. To paraphrase your closing, above, I'll have much more respect for you if you admit that it's "an investigation that could lead to criminal charges but we have no directly-sourced evidence to confirm that. I sure hope she'll be indicted, though"....

Who's doing the "Spin Spin Spin"?
 
GodMark2 said:
Considering that the people investigating him (for the completely unrelated matter concerning land deals) were trying use "is" to mean "was", such a statement was quite in character for that entire fiasco.
Click to expand...

No, he was testifying before the grand jury about the Lewinsky Affair:

Years from now, when we look back on Bill Clinton's presidency, its defining moment may well be Clinton's rationalization to the grand jury about why he wasn't lying when he said to his top aides that with respect to Monica Lewinsky, "there's nothing going on between us." How can this be? Here's what Clinton told the grand jury (according to footnote 1,128 in Starr's report):

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...98/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html
 
Foolmewunz said:
So why is it so important to HDS sufferers to say "Criminal Investigation"? That is from whence this conversation/derail started.
Click to expand...
But that's not really the issue. The issue is actually Hillary's mischaracterization followed by her supporters repetition of the mischaracterization as the truth when the plain facts are all there for us to see. If you can admit that the FBI is investigating her for potential criminal violations, which is clearly what is happening here, then I really don't care if you call such an investigation a "gloofitz" investigation. We already have a perfectly valid phrase for that and it is, simply "criminal investigation."

But no. We have "she's not the target/subject," "it's a national security review," "it's a just a conservative wiitch hunt, "she hasn't been informed." Page after page after page. All in contravention to the evidence.

It's as if someone pointed out a dog and other people said, oh no, that's "a four legged mammal," "a non-feline domesticated animal," "undetermined until a veterinarian gives us a definitive statement."

Spin, spin, spin? Oh, no, not on the conservatives part. They're not interested, in spite of three decades of evidence to the contrary, in controlling the language of the debate.
Click to expand...
Calling it a criminal investigation is not spin. That's just what it is. Why can't we just call things what they are?

The discussion started because of the HDS desire to spin the description. The points being raised by RobRoy and earlier myself are to counter this propaganda/spin.
Click to expand...
No. You are simply supporting your candidate's propaganda and spin.

I thought this conversation ended weeks ago. Until you have someone from the FBI or DoJ saying that this is a criminal investigation, it's an investigation. Conservatives [and Bernie Believers] need to spin it as a "criminal investigation"? Go ahead. To paraphrase your closing, above, I'll have much more respect for you if you admit that it's "an investigation that could lead to criminal charges but we have no directly-sourced evidence to confirm that. I sure hope she'll be indicted, though"....
Click to expand...
And what do we call investigations that could lead to criminal charges in everyday language?

Who's doing the "Spin Spin Spin"?[/QUOTE]
 
xjx388 said:
But that's not really the issue. The issue is actually Hillary's mischaracterization followed by her supporters repetition of the mischaracterization as the truth when the plain facts are all there for us to see. If you can admit that the FBI is investigating her for potential criminal violations, which is clearly what is happening here, then I really don't care if you call such an investigation a "gloofitz" investigation. We already have a perfectly valid phrase for that and it is, simply "criminal investigation."

But no. We have "she's not the target/subject," "it's a national security review," "it's a just a conservative wiitch hunt, "she hasn't been informed." Page after page after page. All in contravention to the evidence.
Click to expand...

No, you've simply ignored the evidence, and chosen not to address these points:
  • It was a security referral the the doj, not a criminal referral
  • the fbi conducts security investigations (which you ignored/denied in the email thread)
  • the only "spin" by Clinton was the difference between the phrase security review and security investigation
  • Comey refused to agree it was a criminal investigation

I've already posted this:
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/ag/legacy/2008/10/03/guidelines.pdf
Activities within the definition of "threat to the national security" that are subject to investigation under these Guidelines commonly involve violations (or potential violations) of federal criminal laws. Hence, investigations of such threats may constitute an exercise both of the FBI's criminal investigation authority and of the FBI's authority to investigate threats to the national security.

So when you say:
xjx388 said:
If you can admit that the FBI is investigating her for potential criminal violations, which is clearly what is happening here, then I really don't care if you call such an investigation a "gloofitz" investigation.
Click to expand...
I don't believe you.

Because there will be no referral of charges, the only thing left for the HDS sufferers is spin:
"Hillary is the target of a criminal investigation".

But that's not what the facts say.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom