Hillary Clinton is Done: part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can't tell what this is supposed to mean.

I don't have TV.
The broadcast networks (the ones that are broadcast over the air all over the country) have nightly national news programs. This is what they apparently talked about. Haven't seen it myself because it hasn't aired on my time zone.
 
Hillary didn't delete any emails.

Is this a manifestation of "Plausible Deniability"?

Have your underlings do your "dirty work" with a wink wink nudge nudge, keeping your distance.

Then you can crack jokes about wiping it with a cloth, all the while ready to throw anyone under the bus if push comes to shove.

So to speak.

Edited to add: I see Bogative covered similar ground upthread.
 
Last edited:
Actually no. That isn't common sense at all. Why would anyone do that? If there is incriminating evidence, you ERASE it. You don't save it elsewhere.
How would Hillary erase all the in-boxes of everyone she had ever sent a clinton.com email to?
 
The broadcast networks (the ones that are broadcast over the air all over the country) have nightly national news programs. This is what they apparently talked about. Haven't seen it myself because it hasn't aired on my time zone.

I do know what broadcast news is. I wasn't sure what the tweet was trying to say. That it was on the news? That criticism of Comey was dominating the news? That GOP criticism of Comey was dominating the news? Why is the TOP GOP criticizing Comey?
 
Last edited:
One big reason NOT to set up a private email server? It's, at the very least, "extremely careless." There is not the required protection for classified information and it can be used to circumvent FOIA.

Clinton herself acknowledges this was a mistake.
Really? I can think of several:
1) If she was trying to hide the emails, well, it's her husband's computer therefore it wasn't searched as part of the original investigation. This allowed her to say she had turned over all her devices. This only came up because Anthony Weiner is an idiot.
2)Along those lines, maybe she holds on to the juicy stuff just in case she ever needs to use it.
3)Maybe she wasn't storing them herself but her husband downloaded them into his computer as a)his own little insurance policy, b)to keep tabs on his wife, c)to keep in the loop with political stuff.
4)Maybe she used his computer once in awhile to check on work stuff and forgot.


Well, we do know that investigators have determined that they could be connected to the Clinton investigation. This indicates that they saw something (metadata?) that lead them to that conclusion. Other than that, could be lunch meat, could be peaches. I guess we'll find out.

This is the point. The metadata on an email tells you very little. Dates, To and From and the the server, hops, spam filter. It's mostly how an email is handled. Every email sent by Huma asking her husband to pick up milk that was routed though Hillary's server would be included. It contains NOTHING from the body of the email. Whether it actually is relevant requires reading the email.
 
I do know what broadcast news is. I wasn't sure what the tweet was trying to say. That it was on the news? That criticism of Comey was dominating the news? That GOP criticism of Comey was dominating the news? Why is the TOP criticizing Comey?

I think it is pretty clear. That news about the issue was mostly about criticism of Comey, especially from Republicans. There are some Republicans who understand that he shouldn't have done what he did. That lawyer who filed the Hatch complaint for example.
 
I also believe that it is logical and diligent for the FBI to review them. That said, I think is absurd to speculate as to the nature of those emails, let alone suggest that it will include a smoking gun. I'm not spinning anything. I'm saying, we know nothing at the moment and drawing conclusions from nothing is reckless.

The spin doctor comment wasn't directed at you personally, unless you used that position in an argument before, of course. Sorry for any confusion.

This would be a very quiet subforum if we weren't here speculating about these political issues. I may be wrong, if I am, I will happily admit it. I thought I would offer a reason why Comey did what he did other than 'he hates Hillary and wants to sink her campaign.'
 
...People blasted me in Part 3 for saying Comey wasn't necessarily being a partisan hack. What's Obama's motive now to tell the country that Comey isn't a partisan hack?...

Didn't you also say that perhaps Comey made the announcement to Congress because he knew the information would come out anyway? The more I think about it the more I find myself leaning towards that point of view.

What would be better:

  1. For word to slowly trickle out, with the media questioning the FBI: Did you find Clinton emails on Weiner's laptop and are you looking at them to see if there is classified information in any of them? Or
  2. For Comey to get out in front and go on record that yes, we did find Clinton emails on Weiner's laptop and yes, we are looking at them to see if there is classified information in any of them.

However I have also read several times -- including through a link here I think -- that there are no emails from or to Clinton on Weiner's laptop. Except if that were the case, why is the FBI talking about Clinton?

I guess this is what Clinton herself meant when she said the FBI needed to be a clearer.
 
The spin doctor comment wasn't directed at you personally, unless you used that position in an argument before, of course. Sorry for any confusion.

This would be a very quiet subforum if we weren't here speculating about these political issues. I may be wrong, if I am, I will happily admit it. I thought I would offer a reason why Comey did what he did other than 'he hates Hillary and wants to sink her campaign.'

Nobody has an issue with them going through the emails. Or at least I don't. The complaint is that he ran to Congress before even reviewing them, knowing that Republicans would immediately use it to try to hurt Hillary.
 
Didn't you also say that perhaps Comey made the announcement to Congress because he knew the information would come out anyway? The more I think about it the more I find myself leaning towards that point of view.

What would be better:

  1. For word to slowly trickle out, with the media questioning the FBI: Did you find Clinton emails on Weiner's laptop and are you looking at them to see if there is classified information in any of them? Or
  2. For Comey to get out in front and go on record that yes, we did find Clinton emails on Weiner's laptop and yes, we are looking at them to see if there is classified information in any of them.

However I have also read several times -- including through a link here I think -- that there are no emails from or to Clinton on Weiner's laptop. Except if that were the case, why is the FBI talking about Clinton?

I guess this is what Clinton herself meant when she said the FBI needed to be a clearer.

People in the FBI knew about it for weeks. No leaks. Then they told Comey, who told Congress the next day despite being told he shouldn't by his boss.

He should have just reviewed the emails without saying anything like he would have with any other investigation.
 
... This email story is neutral.
Continuing to repeat this without addressing the evidence it was not neutral is not helping your case.

The way Chaffetz Tweeted about Comey's action was not neutral.
The way Comey called and notified Chaffetz ahead of the letter was not neutral.
 
It's rather like the EIGHT Benghazi investigations, simply going over the same ground again and again. Unless we assume that Clinton actually was handing out classified information like, well, dick pics, then I cannot see what this is going to change. On the other hand a presidential candidate who has the Russians doing favours for them...


No Big Dog, the FBI said she wasn't either, so you believe Comey or you don't, you don't get to cherry pick which of his actions you choose to accept as truth.

The FBI stated she hadn't committed a criminal offence, hence no charges were brought, that is simply a fact, of course we all know you do poorly with that concept.

Man, look at that desperate gallop of goal posts, yet he accuses me of doing poorly with facts. :rolleyes:

You did not mention criminal charges in your first post, now did you.
 
Didn't you also say that perhaps Comey made the announcement to Congress because he knew the information would come out anyway? The more I think about it the more I find myself leaning towards that point of view.

Personally I hope it was a pre-emptive strike ahead of something absolutely devastating that will come out against Trump in the next day or two.

I plan on going to the polls, do not want to miss seeing what the line looks like. Does anyone here know the percentage of early voters vs. general turnout?

However I have also read several times -- including through a link here I think -- that there are no emails from or to Clinton on Weiner's laptop. Except if that were the case, why is the FBI talking about Clinton?
There is a lot of speculation, duplication and misinformation when reporters and pundits are given a weekend to bat around a few known facts mixed with people's pet theories.

Obama defending Comey on a Monday. Defending him on a Sunday would be a serious breach of protocol.

If there were no emails from Clinton that fact has to come out right now.
 
The spin doctor comment wasn't directed at you personally, unless you used that position in an argument before, of course. Sorry for any confusion.

This would be a very quiet subforum if we weren't here speculating about these political issues. I may be wrong, if I am, I will happily admit it. I thought I would offer a reason why Comey did what he did other than 'he hates Hillary and wants to sink her campaign.'

I respectfully disagree with the highlighted sentence. To speculate about Comey is reasonable as he is not running for president and speculation is not going to change the world.

I consider our system to be flawed, but inherently good. We and by we, I mean the citizens and the people in authority respect the process even more than the result. It's how this constitutional democracy has lasted for 226 years, longer than any nation on earth. It seems to me that Comey put the result in front of the process. That he was trying to tip the election. But maybe not.

Still that didn't stop anyone and everyone use it to cast doubt on Clinton's candidacy. And that is wrong.
 
Never happened, complete falsehood.

unbelievable....


(copy pasta from Jason's twitter account)
User Actions
Follow

Jason ChaffetzVerified account
‏@jasoninthehouse
FBI Dir just informed me, "The FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation." Case reopened

9:57 AM - 28 Oct 2016
Jason says he was informed by the FBI Director.

Are you saying that Comey is not the FBI Director?
Jason Chaffetz lied about getting information from the FBI Director?

Never happened huh?

Check Jason's twitter account, right there with the time stamp.
 
(copy pasta from Jason's twitter account)
User Actions
Follow

Jason ChaffetzVerified account
‏@jasoninthehouse
FBI Dir just informed me, "The FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation." Case reopened

9:57 AM - 28 Oct 2016
Jason says he was informed by the FBI Director.

Are you saying that Comey is not the FBI Director?
Jason Chaffetz lied about getting information from the FBI Director?

Never happened huh?

Check Jason's twitter account, right there with the time stamp.

Do you really not know that the letter was addressed to him, and all the other majority and minority leaders of several congressional committees? Unbelievable.

The claim that Comey called him is a total lie.
 
The FBI stated she hadn't committed a criminal offence, hence no charges were brought, that is simply a fact, of course we all know you do poorly with that concept.

Well, that is kind of open to interpretation.

Comey included this in his statement:

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

(bolded mine)

Sounds like rather than saying "she hadn't committed a criminal offence" he felt there was evidence she may have, but chose not to prosecute for other reasons.
 
Last edited:
...If there were no emails from Clinton that fact has to come out right now.

Reports seem to go only as far as saying the FBI found emails from Clinton's server on Weiner's laptop. Multiple Democratic officials have been asking Comey to clarify but so far I don't believe he has responded, at least publicly. He certainly hasn't clarified anything either. Nor has he made any public response to the Reid letter of October 30th.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom