• 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.
Foolmewunz said:
Well, we're talking about a specific sub-set of "a lot of people".... deranged partisans.
Click to expand...

There is always some.

This election is bizarre. I have lots of friends that hate Hillary and Bill with a passion but who can't and won't support Trump. I just keep my mouth shut and chuckle inside. I've never seen anything like this in 50 years of campaigns. It's like they once said that they'd vote for the Devil before they would vote for a Democrat especially a Clinton and someone had to go and take them up on the offer.
 
Tony Stark said:
The notion that the DOJ might ignore the recommendation of the Republican FBI director and indict her anyway is flat out insane. So it is no wonder that 16.5 is pushing it.

Even if the DOJ wanted to, the fact that Comey has publicly come out against charges creates enough reasonable doubt that she would never be convicted. And no way are they going to bring charges against Hillary if the case isn't 100% airtight.
Click to expand...

Could the defense even introduce that fact?
 
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...

This shows your problem with understand the entire criminality of this and why you're so surprised and upset by the result.

The law provides for two possibles. Firstly that classified materials ended up being destroyed or in the hands of enemies via gross negligence of those responsible for it.

There was simply no proof of either thing occurring, so even if the FBI consider the level of carelessness and mishandling to be gross negligence, which it doesn't appear that they did or they would have stated it, then there is no proof that a crime occurred, and so nothing to charge for.

The second issue they needed to look at was if the materials were intentionally mishandled in a way that they were given to those without the proper clearance, the General Petraeus scenario if you will. The FBI here has made it abundantly clear that their finding was that there was no intent to mishandle the information and as such, no intent, no crime, even if it was in fact mishandled.

This had been pointed out to you a number of times in this thread and others as to why the FBI would come out with this exact conclusion, now the FBI has come out with it as predicted, and you still, apparently, don't get it.
 
Last edited:
Also, the head of FBI is a Republican so he had the agenda of trying to make the declaration that they had no evidence of wrong doing sound as awful as he could.
 
thaiboxerken said:
Also, the head of FBI is a Republican so he had the agenda of trying to make the declaration that they had no evidence of wrong doing sound as awful as he could.
Click to expand...
If the Republicans were smart they would just run with the bad things Comey said and ignore that he isn't recommending charges. But they aren't smart, so they are going with conspiracy theories about how the Republican FBI director is part of the conspiracy that rigged things for Hillary.
 
Maybe Obama could pardon Hillary ...

If someone was running a discreet cowboy server, while WikiLeaks tries to hack the entire State Department servers, isn't it possible that some data on the private server may have been more secure because people didn't know there was something to hack?

Who, besides the State Department, received or replied through that server? Could it have been a secret electronic back channel trying to cruise under the radar of the rank and file?

I've been lazy on keeping up with this because the fact that politicians keep secrets doesn't scandalize me. But I'd like to get informed if anyone knows answers to above, or a good summary of events.
 
Minoosh said:
Maybe Obama could pardon Hillary ...

If someone was running a discreet cowboy server, while WikiLeaks tries to hack the entire State Department servers, isn't it possible that some data on the private server may have been more secure because people didn't know there was something to hack?

Who, besides the State Department, received or replied through that server? Could it have been a secret electronic back channel trying to cruise under the radar of the rank and file?

I've been lazy on keeping up with this because the fact that politicians keep secrets doesn't scandalize me. But I'd like to get informed if anyone knows answers to above, or a good summary of events.
Click to expand...
Why would Obama pardon Hillary? She is in the clear already.

There were people outside of State that sent/received emails from her including friends, family and even President Obama himself. Though clearly her server was a far smaller target than the State server which we know for a fact has been hacked.
 
16.5 said:
Comey said, as I have quoted, that "In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect."

Ok, guys, it is really important to read the links you post lest you miss the point and mislead other people.
Click to expand...

Yes, but unlike you, I speak human and have interacted with the species my entire life. Thus, reading what Comey said (no reason to prosecute) and what Lynch said (accept the recommendations of others) I can arrive at an outcome that is reasonably certain—no prosecution.

You, on the other hand, seem to have a wholly different take on the matter, such that you belittle others for holding the alternative (i.e. reasonable) point of view. And that's cool man. That's groovy. But if you're so certain, put your money where your mouth is. Slings and Arrows did, and although he's disappeared entirely (and for obvious reasons), at least he put up the illusion of being willing to back his play. You, on the other hand, won't even bother, but keep drawing circles back to old, long dead arguments.

But here, I'll give you a second opportunity—bet me. Bet me that the DOJ goes ahead and prosecutes Clinton. I'll give you 2-1 odds up to $100 at which point I'll give you 10-1 odds. You got nothing but your pride to lose!
 
Tony Stark said:
I wouldn't be surprised if he never comes back. He was saying just a few days ago that Hillary had to plead the fifth during her questioning by the FBI or lie to them.

LOL.
Click to expand...

It is fascintating how he last posted like 10 minutes prior to Comeys presser ... then ... nothing.

Maybe this post should be in CT :D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom