Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bob001 said:
That's not entirely true. The FBI will say an investigation has closed or ended, and if it doesn't say "so and so is clean," it will say something like it found no basis for prosecution.

Just Google "FBI closes:"
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/source-fbi-formally-closes-anthrax-case/
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/fbi-closes-probe-into-vanished-cruise-ship-honeymooner/
www.nwitimes.com/news/local/lake/ma...cle_d22fa60a-5969-5ea8-ae6f-e65fef062ca6.html
http://www.tampabay.com/features/hu...neals-lynching-without-naming-killers/2191344

What's most significant about the FBI investigation is that at least one person who worked for HC has been granted immunity. That means that FBI and his lawyers think he has information about real misconduct.https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...21e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html
Click to expand...

Not necessarily.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...bb6ab2-e15e-11e5-846c-10191d1fc4ec_story.html

It could mean that Pagliano, concerned about his legal exposure, might implicate others, including Clinton. But it also could be an indication that agents and prosecutors are winding down an inquiry that will not result in charges, said Justin Shur, a former deputy chief of the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section who now works in private practice at the MoloLamken firm.

“I don’t know that I would necessarily jump to the conclusion that this person has ‘flipped,’ and now they’re going to say a bunch of incriminating things about other people,” Shur said, adding that the agents could simply be making sure they have spoken to everyone relevant to the investigation.

Brian Fallon, a spokesman for the presidential campaign, said in a statement that Clinton has been cooperating with the Justice Department and offered in August to meet with officials. He said the campaign was “pleased” that Pagliano, who invoked his Fifth Amendment rights before a congressional panel in September, was cooperating. It is unclear what level of immunity Pagliano received.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
...Well, it was crystal clear to me whether or not to trust Bush, and I could tell he was lying. ...
Click to expand...
And at exactly what moment did you come to that realization and do you have any posts here confirming you knew he was lying from day one?

Downing St Memo
Valerie Plame Affair

I was convinced by that time.

What'shisface on the nuclear inspection team was pretty clear there were no WMDs but at what point did you say, OK this guy isn't being fooled? After all his access was restricted.

Remember, Colin Powell was fooled. He got very pissed off afterward and that was no act.
 
Last edited:
TheL8Elvis said:
Yes, can you post the evidence they are "pretending" to be "grassroots support" ?

Because there was not any evidence of that in what you posted.
Click to expand...

Oh, I see what you're getting at. I can't prove that they wouldn't have done this anyway, without paying them. Therefore, I can't prove they're pretending! Genius! :rolleyes:

Well, if this isn't astroturfing, then nothing is. It must be a meaningless concept.
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Oh, I see what you're getting at. I can't prove that they wouldn't have done this anyway, without paying them. Therefore, I can't prove they're pretending! Genius! :rolleyes:

Well, if this isn't astroturfing, then nothing is. It must be a meaningless concept.
Click to expand...

There are some levels to consider here besides your black and white false dichotomy.

If computer nerds that had no interest in Clinton were hired to post fake stuff on social media, the way some products were advertised with fake viral videos, for example, that's probably the category you are putting all your black into. I might agree.

If computer nerds were simply hired to track down negative BS about Clinton and counter the army of fanatics posting it, that's a shade of grey.

If Clinton campaign staff were paid to post and or counter post in an effort to address the social media issue, that's an off-white shade.

And if Clinton campaign volunteers were given the computer programs to search for the stuff and the equipment and whatever other resources they needed that would be a pretty white shade in your black and white dichotomy.

So, other than you heard money was being spent, do you know how the program is being carried out?
 
Axiom_Blade said:
Oh, I see what you're getting at. I can't prove that they wouldn't have done this anyway, without paying them. Therefore, I can't prove they're pretending! Genius! :rolleyes:

Well, if this isn't astroturfing, then nothing is. It must be a meaningless concept.
Click to expand...

Astroturfing is the practice of masking the sponsors of a message or organization (e.g., political, advertising, religious or public relations) to make it appear as though it originates from and is supported by a grassroots participant(s).


In your world, is anyone who posts online automatically assumed to be a grassroots supporter ???

I'm confused. Words have meanings - to be astroturfing, there must be some pretense.

WHERE is evidence of this pretense ?
 
Bob001 said:
What's most significant about the FBI investigation is that at least one person who worked for HC has been granted immunity. That means that FBI and his lawyers think he has information about real misconduct.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...21e39e-e0a0-11e5-9c36-e1902f6b6571_story.html
Click to expand...

This isn't necessarily true either. When he was called on to testify before congress, he went against legal advise from both his own lawyers and the Clinton campaign and he plead the 5th, refusing to testify. The deal could easily have been just to get him to be willing to interview which he wasn't willing to do before even though his own lawyers and those of the Clinton Campaign were both saying he had nothing to worry about and that he should go and cooperate fully with the investigators. It seems most likely that the guy was seeking to cover his own butt just in case because he kept ignoring his legal advice that he was fine and hadn't done anything illegal
 
16.5 said:
:rolleyes: cool strawman

although, "Not indicted yet" does make one hell of a campaign slogan.
Click to expand...

Various stupid, idiotic, lying Republicans have been trying to get one Clinton or the other in trouble with the legal system for over 20 years, and so far, all that they have done is destroy themselves.

I expect the same sort or result in this case as well.
 
I don't think we've seen any evidence yet, but I can think of a few things that would count:

An admission by someone on the organization's payroll that they were pain to maintain such a pretense.

Or documents from the organization describing such a pretense as their strategy.

Or statements by the organization's management to that effect.
 
BobTheCoward said:
Why are there no Clinton speech leaks?

A lot of people heard them. Some would be Sanders supporters.
Click to expand...

There is one. She talked about working with banks instead of demonizing them.But you can bet that will be distorted into working for the banks instead of resolving issues. And the report is how the attendee paraphrased the talk so it might have been quite different.

I doubt there are many Sanders supporters among the higher ranking financial institution employees, socialism vs capitalism and all.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
So, other than you heard money was being spent, do you know how the program is being carried out?
Click to expand...

If the people clearly identified themselves as working for the Clinton campaign, then I'm okay with it. Otherwise, I would call it scummy. I think that from the news article, it's pretty clear that they did not identify themselves and were instead pretending to be grassroots support.

What if some corporation (say, Wal-Mart or Monsanto) hired some PR goons to go online and defend the corporation against attacks while posing as ordinary, disinterested citizens? Would that be okay, too? Don't you find it a bit ridiculous that Clinton's fans have gone from

"Oh, you think Clinton has shills? How ridiculous! What a crazy conspiracy theory!"

to

"Well, duh. Of course she has shills! And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that!"

TheL8Elvis said:
I'm confused. Words have meanings - to be astroturfing, there must be some pretense.

WHERE is evidence of this pretense ?
Click to expand...

The pretense is that they're just some ordinary Clinton supporters. Not people paid to be Clinton supporters.

Do you honestly not see the difference?
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
There is one. She talked about working with banks instead of demonizing them.But you can bet that will be distorted into working for the banks instead of resolving issues. And the report is how the attendee paraphrased the talk so it might have been quite different....
Click to expand...

That is a strong argument for releasing the transcripts or recordings. Let her own words stand for themselves in their full context. She might have said "I want to work with you, but you need to know that the gravy train is over!" Or she might have said "I want to work with you so any new regulations won't put a dent in your profits and your bonuses!" We'd kinda like to know which way she leans. And recordings would tell us what kind of reaction she got from her audience.
 
Bob001 said:
That is a strong argument for releasing the transcripts or recordings. Let her own words stand for themselves in their full context. She might have said "I want to work with you, but you need to know that the gravy train is over!" Or she might have said "I want to work with you so any new regulations won't put a dent in your profits and your bonuses!" We'd kinda like to know which way she leans. And recordings would tell us what kind of reaction she got from her audience.
Click to expand...

For whatever reason I have not seen the link to the discussion of her speech spread around very widely. Maybe because the paragraph is buried in another story. I'm not going to contribute to the echo-sphere but I'm sure since someone shared it on another forum that it will be getting out there.

I can't imagine she said the latter. Why would she?

Maybe then....
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
For whatever reason I have not seen the link to the discussion of her speech spread around very widely. Maybe because the paragraph is buried in another story. I'm not going to contribute to the echo-sphere but I'm sure since someone shared it on another forum that it will be getting out there.
Click to expand...

My best friend's sister's boyfriend's brother's girlfriend heard from this guy who knows this kid who's going with the girl who saw Clinton say she is going to work with the Banks. I guess it's pretty serious.
 
Bob001 said:
Gee, I dunno. Maybe because they pay her and her husband and their foundation millions of dollars, and she wants to make sure they continue?
Click to expand...
That's no reason to make an outrageously stupid statement. You seem to have tossed realty out the window there, conflating your HDS imagination with fact.
 
Last edited:
Axiom_Blade said:
If the people clearly identified themselves as working for the Clinton campaign, then I'm okay with it. Otherwise, I would call it scummy. I think that from the news article, it's pretty clear that they did not identify themselves and were instead pretending to be grassroots support.
What if some corporation (say, Wal-Mart or Monsanto) hired some PR goons to go online and defend the corporation against attacks while posing as ordinary, disinterested citizens? Would that be okay, too? Don't you find it a bit ridiculous that Clinton's fans have gone from

"Oh, you think Clinton has shills? How ridiculous! What a crazy conspiracy theory!"

to

"Well, duh. Of course she has shills! And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that!"

The pretense is that they're just some ordinary Clinton supporters. Not people paid to be Clinton supporters.

Do you honestly not see the difference?
Click to expand...

I get it now. You don't actually have any evidence ... you just decided that what they were doing.
:rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom