Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

[dudalb]

Hey,Slings and Arrows,when are you going to address all the flaws and all the crap that has come out about your great god Donald?
I won't hold my breath.

 

[Fudbucker]

Apparently you don't know what law enforcement officials means. Or don't understand that people like a FORMER US attorney are not law enforcement officials.

Evidence these unnamed LE officials are privy to the investigation? Evidence they are valid authorities?

Two can play the "source" game:

"The recently released State Department inspector general report, which found Hillary Clinton broke government rules with her personal email use, increases "the likelihood and pressure" for the Justice Department to pursue criminal charges, an intelligence source familiar with the FBI investigation told Fox News."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...to-seek-criminal-charges-against-clinton.html

Because I'm right.

Yet you only gave me 100-1 odds because you were drinking. So you must have SOME doubt. You're not, for example, offering anyone here 1,000-to-1 odds, are you?

If 1% odds were only a product of drinking, what is your sober assessment? 5%? 10%?

Yes, he has the option of not going all in on her. And would do that if he thought there was a decent chance of her getting indicted.

His endorsement of Hillary was easily the most forceful endorsement of a sitting President for his potential successor of my lifetime and probably a long time before that. Reagan barely endorsed Bush, Clinton endorsed Gore but pretty much stayed out of the race. Same with Dubya.

Please. Obama released a video of himself endorsing Clinton. He didn't stage a press conference announcing it. He hasn't been on the trail with her. He hasn't had a campaign rally on her behalf. His support has been tepid. Whether this is an attempt to not alienate Bernie supporters or to keep Clinton at arm's length is debatable, but he is not even close to going balls-to-the-wall in support of Clinton. He has been much more vocal about his opposition to Trump.

She is not going to be indicted. Get over it.

She might not, but I'll point out that I'm not the one making strong claims one way or another. I simply think it's a real possibility. If she is or isn't it won't blow my mind. The people who are in for a potential shock are ones who are convinced there's not a snowball's chance in hell.

And have bet accordingly. The worse I'm out is $20. You (if you're an honest bettor) are on the hook for two grand. That may require a lot of "getting over".

 

[Tony Stark]

The day after Crooked Hillary took the oath office to become Secretary of State (January 22, 2009), she received a security briefing and signed the "Sensitive Compartmented Information Non-Disclosure Agreement:"

“I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI) by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation.

"I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of SCI by me may constitute violations of United States criminal laws, including provisions of Sections 793, 794, 798, and 952, Title 18, United States Code, and of Section 783(b), Title 50, United States Code. Nothing in this agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation."

https://www.fas.org/sgp/othergov/intel/sf4414.pdf​

Reference:
Signed copy of Hillary Clinton's Non-Disclosure Agreement
U.S. Code 18 section 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
U.S. Code 18 section 794 - Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government
U.S. Code 18 section 798 - Disclosure of classified information

"Several law-enforcement officials said they don’t expect any criminal charges to be filed as a result of the investigation."

Source the liberal rag, the Wall Street Journal.

LOL, you people are going to look so stupid in a few months. I can't wait to mock you mercilessly.

 

[Tony Stark]

Evidence these unnamed LE officials are privy to the investigation? Evidence they are valid authorities?

Two can play the "source" game:

"The recently released State Department inspector general report, which found Hillary Clinton broke government rules with her personal email use, increases "the likelihood and pressure" for the Justice Department to pursue criminal charges, an intelligence source familiar with the FBI investigation told Fox News."
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...to-seek-criminal-charges-against-clinton.html

So you think that the WJS was talking to random officials who had no idea what they are talking about.

And the Fox News source certainly does not say that an indictment is likely anyway.

Yet you only gave me 100-1 odds because you were drinking. So you must have SOME doubt. You're not, for example, offering anyone here 1,000-to-1 odds, are you?

If 1% odds were only a product of drinking, what is your sober assessment? 5%? 10%?

The only reason that was a poor bet was because I couldhave got better odds. My sober accessment is that the chances are way less than 1 in 100.

Please. Obama released a video of himself endorsing Clinton. He didn't stage a press conference announcing it. He hasn't been on the trail with her. He hasn't had a campaign rally on her behalf. His support has been tepid. Whether this is an attempt to not alienate Bernie supporters or to keep Clinton at arm's length is debatable, but he is not even close to going balls-to-the-wall in support of Clinton. He has been much more vocal about his opposition to Trump.

It is extremely clear that he stayed out of the primaries so he wouldn't be seen as biased against Bernie. As soon as it was over he gave a great endorsement and will no doubt be her top surrogate.

She might not, but I'll point out that I'm not the one making strong claims one way or another. I simply think it's a real possibility. If she is or isn't it won't blow my mind. The people who are in for a potential shock are ones who are convinced there's not a snowball's chance in hell.

And have bet accordingly. The worse I'm out is $20. You (if you're an honest bettor) are on the hook for two grand. That may require a lot of "getting over".

I'm not even slightly worried.

 

[Fudbucker]

So you think that the WJS was talking to random officials who had no idea what they are talking about.

And the Fox News source certainly does not say that an indictment is likely anyway.


The only reason that was a poor bet was because I could get have got better odds. My sober accessment is that the chances are way less than 1 in 100.



It is extremely clear that he stayed out of the primaries so he wouldn't be seen as biased against Bernie. As soon as it was over her gave a great endorsement of Hillary and will no doubt be her top surrogate.



I'm not even slightly worried.

We should just agree to disagree at this point. This is going nowhere.

 

[wareyin]

We should just agree to disagree at this point. This is going nowhere.

By "this", you mean the FBI investigation, right? Because when the best you can come up with is a far right rag making a claim of a single anonymous source backing them up, you don't have much. Then again, I realize that to those who are emotionally invested in Clinton being guilty of something, anything, Fox news' 'anonymous source' (single, always one, never multiple) perfect record of being wrong won't faze them a bit.

 

[dudalb]

That Hilary is not very likable is her weak point.But she has a secret weapon in that regard:it's named Bill.

 

[Tony Stark]

That Hilary is not very likable is her weak point.But she has a secret weapon in that regard:it's named Bill.

I think Obama will be a more effective surrogate. But still, she will have a very impressive list of surrogates including Obama, Bill, Biden, Warren, and hopefully Bernie to name a few. Who will Trump have, Sarah Palin, lol.

 

[The Big Dog]

That Hilary is not very likable is her weak point.But she has a secret weapon in that regard:it's named Bill.

The disbarred man whore who slipped a cigar into his **** buddy's vagina?

K

 

[Tony Stark]

The disbarred man whore who slipped a cigar into his **** buddy's vagina?

K

Most Americans aren't fanatical haters of Bill Clinton like you right wingers are.

 

[Loss Leader]

That Hilary is not very likable is her weak point.But she has a secret weapon in that regard:it's named Bill.

I hate the whole likability or "have a beer with" metric in politics. I don't want my President to be a good drinking buddy, I want her/him to know what the hell is happening.

It's a crutch that's used to avoid examining where candidates stand on issues of governance. It's understandable because most of those are arcane matters with no knowable correct answer and most people have neither the time nor the inclination to study them. However, the media doesn't have to play along.

 

[wareyin]

I hate the whole likability or "have a beer with" metric in politics. I don't want my President to be a good drinking buddy, I want her/him to know what the hell is happening.

It's a crutch that's used to avoid examining where candidates stand on issues of governance. It's understandable because most of those are arcane matters with no knowable correct answer and most people have neither the time nor the inclination to study them. However, the media doesn't have to play along.

I agree. We don't need somebody we like, we need someone who can do the job. In Clinton, we have proven competence. In Trump, we have someone who is incompetent and far more unlikeable than Clinton.

 

[The Big Dog]

I hate the whole likability or "have a beer with" metric in politics. I don't want my President to be a good drinking buddy, I want her/him to know what the hell is happening.

It's a crutch that's used to avoid examining where candidates stand on issues of governance. It's understandable because most of those are arcane matters with no knowable correct answer and most people have neither the time nor the inclination to study them. However, the media doesn't have to play along.

Well, the problem is that people do not like Hillary because she is a congenital liar.

 

[Loss Leader]

I agree. We don't need somebody we like, we need someone who can do the job. In Clinton, we have proven competence. In Trump, we have someone who is incompetent and far more unlikeable than Clinton.

Trump also doesn't drink, which would make it hard to have a beer with him even if you wanted to.

You couldn't have a beer with W. either, at least not by the time he was president.

 

[wareyin]

Well, the problem is that people do not like Hillary because she is a congenital liar.

Even though your track record with claims about Clinton (and Democrats in general) is abysmal, let's pretend this is true for the sake of discussion. According to the fact checkers, Trump lies three times as much as Clinton. When you only have 2 choices, if honesty is as important to you as you claim, you are stuck with picking Clinton.

 

[wareyin]

Trump also doesn't drink, which would make it hard to have a beer with him even if you wanted to.

You couldn't have a beer with W. either, at least not by the time he was president.

Which goes to show what a stupid metric that is and was. And yet it keeps getting trotted out, sadly.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Someone earlier commented that you don't know jack **** about IT. Well, there's a few other thing you don't know jack **** about too.

The function of the FBI as the chief Law Enforcement Agency in the USA is to conduct criminal investigations. That's what they do.

The criminal investigation began with a referral by two Intelligence Community Inspectors General (IG) after finding Top Secret material on Clinton's server among her emails. That material was not confidential, it was Top Secret. (Words have meaning and Confidential is a subset of Classified Material.) In that it was on a private server not under Government control it is therefore potentially criminal, in that it is a violation of the espionage act (referenced many time in these threads, but which you'd like to ignore). Got it yet?

The FBI does not do security reviews, nor do they conduct investigations of someone who breaks work place rules. They do Criminal Investigations period.

You keep repeating the lies that Clinton and her campaign are trying to sell, which is the true lie and unless you're dumb as a rock you ought to understand that by now.

This is not the first time Obama has surreptitiously attempted to influence a criminal investigation. He commented on the Travon Martin case by saying he could have been his son. He commented on the Ferguson case, as well. AND, more importantly, he said there was not a scintilla of evidence that the IRS did anything wrong. All of these were ongoing Criminal cases and he damned well knew they were criminal and ongoing.

In all of these cases, his attempt to influence them by commenting were unethical and depending on the outcome would be solid grounds for appeal by a defendant or the prosecution because of that influence.

That's wrong, yet you're defending it, just like defending Clinton and attempting to minimize and distort the FACT that she is very involved in an ongoing current Criminal Investigation the outcome of which is yet to be determined.

Read the facts instead of making assumptions. Your conclusion does not match what the FBI and the OIG have officially stated about the investigation.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I get an eye roll because you have demonstrated you know jack-**** about IT security ?

No, you get an eye roll for ignoring the point and instead fussing about some pedantic sidetrack.

 

[Slings and Arrows]

White House: FBI probe into Clinton email server a “criminal investigation”

The White House is calling the FBI probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State as a criminal investigation.

Press Secretary Josh Earnest was asked the question about the investigation during the press briefing. This followed President Barack Obama’s endorsement of Hillary Clinton on Thursday:

“The President, when discussing this issue, in each stage, has reiterated his commitment to this principle, that any criminal investigation should be conducted independent of any sort of political interference and people should be treated the same way before the law, regardless of their political influence, political party, political stature, and regardless of what political figure has endorsed them.”
​

Read more:
http://news10.com/2016/06/10/white-...linton-email-server-a-criminal-investigation/ (June 10, 2016)

President Obama's spokesman, press secretary Josh Earnest, is now using the phrase "criminal investigation" in reference to Crooked Hillary's national security breach.

 

[Foolmewunz]

There are authorities who think it's entirely possible:

"But former US attorney Joseph DiGenova is blunt: “I don’t think there’s any question Mrs Clinton and her staff broke the law. She maintained a server in her private home in Chappaqua, New York, and conducted government business. This clearly was beyond gross negligence.

"Dan Metcalfe, a Democrat who served as director of the Department of Justice’s Office of Information and Privacy for more than 25 years, wrote in a column last month: “So what you must contemplate, as a leader of the Democratic Party, is the very real possibility of your likely presidential candidate actually being indicted, on criminal charges, sometime between now and, say, (a) the time of the convention at the end of July; (b) the time of the general election in early November; or (c) Inauguration Day in January. Which possibility would you prefer?”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...inton-emails-analysis-possible-indictment-fbi

"Retired Col. James Waurishuk, an expert in national security, tells the Daily Caller that the evidence is damning.

"As a former career senior intelligence officer and special operations special mission intelligence officer and National Security Council staff member, I believe it is inconceivable that if it is verified that Hillary Clinton's server contained or had [the most sensitive secrets] on it that she could possibly escape indictment and criminal prosecution," he tells the Daily Caller."
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hi...l-scandal-espionage-act/2016/04/06/id/722577/

"So as a legal website, we had to fact check this one. Does ‘virtually every single’ legal expert really believe Clinton committed a crime? The answer is no. In fact, legal experts are pretty divided."
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/we-...e-legal-expert-say-clinton-committed-a-crime/

There's plenty of expert opinion to for both sides to appeal to. The bottom line is, no one knows what the FBI knows and people who are sure she won't be indicted are bloviating just as much as people who are sure she will be.

Note the "A Democrat", boy that's damning. Until you learn that he's never uttered a thing about politics and served as a bureaucrat under Reagan, Bush I, Clinton and Bush II.

Funny how there's no mention of the party affiliation of the other legal opinions you cite. Wanna guess which party they're affiliated with. C'mon, just a guess.

This is a partisan debate, always has been. As a progressive, don't you begin to feel like you need a shower citing such obviously partisan crap by people whose motivations and principles, were they saying anything about Saint Bernie of Burlington, you would be attacking.

When you've checked out the OTHER legal opinions of that myriad assortment of experts, get back to me and tell me how much YOU respect their opinions.

Please stop Googling "Bad Crap About Hillary". Leave that to 16.5 and Slings and Arrows.