• 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.
16.5 said:
Talk about quoting out of context! That same article you are cherry picking from says that the FBI was conducting a criminal investigation.
Click to expand...

Cherrypicking? You must mean what you're doing, because yeah, the term is in the article, because it's one of the questions being addressed. But there's no one from the FBI using that term exactly as Mark Pollitt, "former chief of the FBI’s computer forensics program" explains why.

So that is Judge Sullivan, Comey and me.

Oh but he didn't use the exact words criminal investigation in exactly that order!
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHAHA! If he uses the term "criminal" at all, then it must have been a "criminal investigation". I'm not even going to point out how silly that is. Nope. Not me!

Keep the dream alive. The struggle is real!
 
RobRoy said:
Cherrypicking? You must mean what you're doing, because yeah, the term is in the article, because it's one of the questions being addressed. But there's no one from the FBI using that term exactly as Mark Pollitt, "former chief of the FBI’s computer forensics program" explains why.
Click to expand...

But of course, Clinton’s actions are clearly front-and-center in the FBI investigation. Based on her knowledge of how classified information mishandling cases proceed, and her understanding of public reports about Clinton’s role in the email setup, Glasser said the FBI is very likely looking at Clinton specifically.

"My experience tells me that Hillary Clinton is a subject of a criminal investigation," Glasser said.

The FBI doesn’t open an investigation definitely knowing it will seek charges against someone. If an investigation does not reveal evidence of a crime, or if there is insufficient evidence of criminal conduct, then the investigation will close without any charges filed."You don’t know if it’s criminal until you get to the end of it," Pollitt said.
Click to expand...

The fact that the prosecutive memorandum (uh oh, 16.5 is using big words again) does not recommend bring criminal charges does not mean it wasn't a "criminal investigation."

It sure as hell wasn't a "security review" whatever the hell that is other than pure Hilly spin.
 
RobRoy said:
You're clearly getting tired. This spin didn't even complete a full rotation before it stopped.
Click to expand...

what are you talking about? Hillary's fans are spewing the same spin even today.

Clinton and her team have made a point of not describing the FBI's work as an "investigation," but alternately as a "security review" or "security inquiry." They've also noted that the issue was referred to the FBI not as a criminal matter but as an intelligence breach.

However, in response to a question Wednesday, Comey said he wasn't familiar with the term "security inquiry" that Clinton and her aides have used. The FBI chief said he considers the work agents are doing to be an "investigation."

"It's in our name. I'm not familiar with the term 'security inquiry','" the director said.
Click to expand...

I am just baffled why her fevered fans insist that we not call it what it is obviously is:

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision.
Click to expand...

Or as layman, experts and Judges call it: a criminal investigation.

Look up that term yet, yo?
 
16.5 said:
what are you talking about? Hillary's fans are spewing the same spin even today.
Click to expand...

I already addressed this above. I even provided a quote and a direct citation. I know that doesn't mean anything to you—facts are so tediously annoying when you have The TruthTM at your fingertips. Alas, they're all the rest of us mere mortals have to work with. We can't all be as blindly ignorant as you seem able to achieve. That degree of faith in guilt before proof is only available to the elite few.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
WHERE is tony stark ... he has so money/avatars to collect :-)
Click to expand...
sunmaster14 has paid up $100 without me even prompting.

Fudbucker owes me $20 and 2 months avatar (I'm in a good mood, so I will let him pick one of those if he concedes today)

Slings and Arrows owes me $10.
 
RobRoy said:
I already addressed this above. I even provided a quote and a direct citation. I know that doesn't mean anything to you—facts are so tediously annoying when you have The TruthTM at your fingertips. Alas, they're all the rest of us mere mortals have to work with. We can't all be as blindly ignorant as you seem able to achieve. That degree of faith in guilt before proof is only available to the elite few.
Click to expand...

Wait, you are COMPLAINING that I quoted more of the article that shows that your cherry picking is hilariously wrong.

Lets take another look at that:

But of course, Clinton’s actions are clearly front-and-center in the FBI investigation. Based on her knowledge of how classified information mishandling cases proceed, and her understanding of public reports about Clinton’s role in the email setup, Glasser said the FBI is very likely looking at Clinton specifically.

"My experience tells me that Hillary Clinton is a subject of a criminal investigation," Glasser said.
The FBI doesn’t open an investigation definitely knowing it will seek charges against someone. If an investigation does not reveal evidence of a crime, or if there is insufficient evidence of criminal conduct, then the investigation will close without any charges filed."You don’t know if it’s criminal until you get to the end of it," Pollitt said.
Click to expand...

MMMMhhhhmmmmm, can you find the cherry you picked in there? Yummy!

:thumbsup::D:thumbsup:
 
To quote Hillary Clinton, what different does it make whether it was a criminal investigation or not? It is over. And, no indictment will be forthcoming. Clinton was investigated exhaustively and found not to have done anything that rose to the level of an indictable offense.

To quote Hudson from Aliens, "Game over, man! Game over!"
 
The last few pages in this thread have gotten me confused again and I will address my question to 16.5 because he seems to be the most concerned with the details of the wording, etc. in terms of the latest fact finding:

Has Hillary been indicted yet?

If she hasn't yet, then given the recent statement from the AG, do you think it is likely that the FBI's report will lead the DoJ to indict her?

I am only seeking to learn if my current interpretation is correct, and 16.5 is probably the most likely poster to correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks!
 
16.5 said:
Wait, you are COMPLAINING that I quoted more of the article that shows that your cherry picking is hilariously wrong.
Click to expand...

Once again, already answered.

RobRoy said:
Cherrypicking? You must mean what you're doing, because yeah, the term is in the article, because it's one of the questions being addressed. But there's no one from the FBI using that term exactly as Mark Pollitt, "former chief of the FBI’s computer forensics program" explains why.
Click to expand...

But please, do keep ignoring the evidence that is repeatedly handed to you on a silver platter. It makes for entertaining reading, and will certainly drive this thread up to the 100 page mark!
 
jhunter1163 said:
To quote Hillary Clinton, what different does it make whether it was a criminal investigation or not? It is over. And, no indictment will be forthcoming. Clinton was investigated exhaustively and found not to have done anything that rose to the level of an indictable offense.

To quote Hudson from Aliens, "Game over, man! Game over!"
Click to expand...

actually the DoJ makes the final call, and given Comey's perplexing reliance on "intent" they better come up with a better explanation than he gave, because "intent" ain't gonna cut it.
 
Deleted- On second thought, not worth it and meaninglessly provocative. Sorry.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
actually the DoJ makes the final call, and given Comey's perplexing reliance on "intent" they better come up with a better explanation than he gave, because "intent" ain't gonna cut it.
Click to expand...

If you get into a bet on this may I get some of the action too? Intent plays a big role in terms of the nature of the crime with which on might be charged and whether or not a prosecutor even decides to pursue it or not.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
actually the DoJ makes the final call, and given Comey's perplexing reliance on "intent" they better come up with a better explanation than he gave, because "intent" ain't gonna cut it.
Click to expand...
LOL, keeping up with your insane fantasy of Hillary going to prison despite the fact that the (Republican) director of the FBI saying that he isn't recommending charges.

How long are you going to keep hope? Till she is elected POTUS? Till she is sworn in? Throughout her term(s)?

LOL
 
Giordano said:
The last few pages in this thread have gotten me confused again and I will address my question to 16.5 because he seems to be the most concerned with the details of the wording, etc. in terms of the latest fact finding:

Has Hillary been indicted yet?

If she hasn't yet, then given the recent statement from the AG, do you think it is likely that the FBI's report will lead the DoJ to indict her?

I am only seeking to learn if my current interpretation is correct, and 16.5 is probably the most likely poster to correct me if I am wrong.

Thanks!
Click to expand...

No she obviously has not been indicted yet, c'mon man.

"After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision."

Now the senior prosecutors must decide. The AG said she would be hands off.

I personally am troubled that Comey kept blathering on about "intent" when "intent" is not an element of certain of the crimes.

So it ain't over yet.
 
16.5 said:
actually the DoJ makes the final call, and given Comey's perplexing reliance on "intent" they better come up with a better explanation than he gave, because "intent" ain't gonna cut it.
Click to expand...

Wait, wait, wait. Do I have this right? Are you actually saying that the DOJ will override the FBI and go ahead and indict Hillary Clinton? That's what you're saying right?

Care to make a bet? I'll give you odds if you'll bet over $100!
 
What 16.5 doesn't want anyone to think about is SCOPE of investigation, and what the results of an investigation WITHIN SCOPE might be.

A security review or investigation isn't about fixing the blame but fixing the problem: was security compromised, how much and in what way, et cetera. Not every security investigation is criminal - most aren't. If no criminal act was involved then there can be no charges.

Anecdotal real world example:
When: 1987
Where: RAF Mildenhall
What: NOFORN messages given by classified message office to British civilian secretary of USAF 3rd AF General.
Who: AFOSI investigating pax and procedures of the Communications center.

Finding: unclassified NOFORN messages should print out on the classified printer and/or be handled by the classified desk only. This became AF wide policy. We were only one of many offices that had had the problem over the years of handing Unclassfied NOFORN messages to foreign national secretaries with very high security clearances ordinarily sufficient for the job.

The investigation was seeking to find out if any mishandled information resulted in improper access, and how bad the compromise was, if any. Had a specific Airman been found to have deliberately given the message over, that Airman would have faced further investigation and actions.

Totally separate questions.

You've made your little posts about "investigating the server" or some crap several times, apparently unwilling to learn what that means. Instead you continue to highlighter the word "prosecutorial" without bothering to learn what it means. Or anything else for that matter.
 
RobRoy said:
Wait, wait, wait. Do I have this right? Are you actually saying that the DOJ will override the FBI and go ahead and indict Hillary Clinton? That's what you're saying right?
Click to expand...

No, and if you read Comey's statement why what you wrote does not make sense.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom