Post by: Little Joe on October 20, 2016, 03:33:08 PM
https://thinkprogress.org/gop-senators-arent-happy-that-john-mccain-was-probably-caught-telling-the-truth-7fb0505fc51d?ref=yfp#.tyyilhxds
OPSEC matters!
edit: I posted the wrong link, but I don't have time to fix it yet. Google "Hillary 4 minutes"
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 20, 2016, 04:13:57 PM
Post by: Gary on October 20, 2016, 04:16:55 PM
It doesn't sound like it.
https://thinkprogress.org/gop-senators-arent-happy-that-john-mccain-was-probably-caught-telling-the-truth-7fb0505fc51d?ref=yfp#.tyyilhxds
OPSEC matters!
edit: I posted the wrong link, but I don't have time to fix it yet. Google "Hillary 4 minutes"
Was this the link you had in mind??
http://www.snopes.com/clinton-four-minute-nuclear/
Post by: Little Joe on October 20, 2016, 04:34:49 PM
They couldn't confirm that the information was a secret, because even confirming that is classified.
So they resort to pointing out that someone else disclosed it in August. Even if that were relevant (I'm not sure on that point), do you thing Hillary knew that when she blurted it out on national TV?
Post by: Gary on October 20, 2016, 04:46:09 PM
I just lost my last shred of respect for Snopes.
They couldn't confirm that the information was a secret, because even confirming that is classified.
So they resort to pointing out that someone else disclosed it in August. Even if that were relevant (I'm not sure on that point), do you thing Hillary knew that when she blurted it out on national TV?
Perhaps she read Command and Control (Eric Schlosser, 2013), there is a discussion of how long these things take. Actually, an excellent book on our evolution of nuclear weapons.
Seriously, a breach of National Security??
Post by: Little Joe on October 20, 2016, 04:52:25 PM
Perhaps she read Command and Control (Eric Schlosser, 2013), there is a discussion of how long these things take. Actually, an excellent book on our evolution of nuclear weapons.A breach of OPSEC (operational security).
Seriously, a breach of National Security??
Or maybe not. You have me wondering, but I am still hoping she goes to prison over this before November 8.
Post by: bflynn on October 21, 2016, 06:29:01 AM
Why does this lying piece of trash keep getting special privilege?
Seriously, a breach of National Security??
Seriously a major breach of National Security. Others now know how fast they need to be to take down the US launch authority network. If they could catch a president in a situation where he could not respond quickly - say, on a golf course near DC - and then launch a missile from a submarine close to shore, they might be able to take out the president before he can issue a counter order. Or, if not, then how closely coordinated of an attack do they need to have to take out the satellites and ELF transmitter which tells our missiles to launch.
It becomes a race. Can they disable it all in within 4 minutes of the first warning? If they believe they can, then they have broken our nuclear deterrent capabilities and they can try to launch a first and only strike on the US.
Hillary's bravado in this reminds me of Senator May during WW-II who came out of an intelligence briefing and declared "Don't worry about our submarines, the Japanese are setting their depth charges too shallow!" Of course the Japanese immediately adjusted and started sinking more boats. Admiral Lockwood, who was in charge of the pacific submarine fleet, estimated that May's disclosure increased US submarine casualties by about 25%.
I hope that Hillary's disclosure does not have similar consequences.
Post by: Lucifer on October 21, 2016, 06:33:34 AM
Post by: PaulS on October 21, 2016, 06:38:21 AM
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 21, 2016, 07:40:27 AM
Perhaps she read Command and Control (Eric Schlosser, 2013), there is a discussion of how long these things take. Actually, an excellent book on our evolution of nuclear weapons.
Seriously, a breach of National Security??
The authority on this would found in the applicable Security Classification Guides (SCGs). I doubt that anyone on Pilot Spin has access to the applicable ones (heck, few people on Pilot Spin have even the vaguest idea about classified materials).
as an fyi for the general population. Just because something might be found on an unclassified source (e.g., Aviation Leak and Spy Technology), doesn't make the information unclassified. Anyone heard the phrase "I can neither confirm nor deny the existence of nuclear weapons on this vessel"?
Post by: Number7 on October 22, 2016, 09:23:49 AM
Was this the link you had in mind??
http://www.snopes.com/clinton-four-minute-nuclear/
snopes is a joke. Those clowns have zero training in investigation, and other than being big lib donors, do nothing to engender trust, which is why so many gullible libs believe their every word.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on October 22, 2016, 01:36:44 PM
Post by: bflynn on October 23, 2016, 08:31:55 PM
Anyone heard the phrase "I can neither confirm nor deny the presence of nuclear weapons on this vessel"?
Heard it? I've said it and meant it.
I think the question of this thread is rhetorical. No, she cannot keep a national security secret.
Post by: Witmo on October 25, 2016, 09:32:37 AM
Unless I saw an original document with Confidential classification markings top and bottom, I wouldn't know that (C) referred to confidential or copyright or just the third paragraph extracted from some other document with the first two paragraphs not included. This doesn't excuse someone from including information classified Confidential in an unclassified document but most of the confidential material I've handled has been extremely low importance given the general trend to overclassify information. As far as I know, this is the only instance of any material marked with any sort of classification reference found in HRC emails. There have been other emails with information found after review to be of a higher classification but that information was not marked as such and none of it originated from HRC.
HRC mistakes in handling classified are not comparable to others who have knowingly released Secret or Top Secret material they knew to be classified to unauthorized recipients. I tend to agree with the FBI director's decision to forgo criminal prosecution based on the totality of the mistakes that were made. She definitely could have done things to protect information better and is probably wiser from the experience but I have seen inadvertent security violations that were handled similarly so I don't think she's received any special treatment.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 25, 2016, 09:48:41 AM
I got a kick out of Rudy Giuliani criticizing HRC for mistaking what (C) meant tucked away in the body of an email she received and saying she couldn't recall the details of a Security briefing she had received at some point on handling classified material . Giuliani claimed he remembers everything from his briefing and has taken great care to protect all the Top Secret Confidential information he has been granted access to. Either he was trying to mislead the public and link Top Secret and Confidential as somehow or equivalent or he really doesn't understand that Confidential is much less important than Top Secret material. Either way -- TS Confidential--no such animal.
Unless I saw an original document with Confidential classification markings top and bottom, I wouldn't know that (C) referred to confidential or copyright or just the third paragraph extracted from some other document with the first two paragraphs not included. This doesn't excuse someone from including information classified Confidential in an unclassified document but most of the confidential material I've handled has been extremely low importance given the general trend to overclassify information. As far as I know, this is the only instance of any material marked with any sort of classification reference found in HRC emails. There have been other emails with information found after review to be of a higher classification but that information was not marked as such and none of it originated from HRC.
HRC mistakes in handling classified are not comparable to others who have knowingly released Secret or Top Secret material they knew to be classified to unauthorized recipients. I tend to agree with the FBI director's decision to forgo criminal prosecution based on the totality of the mistakes that were made. She definitely could have done things to protect information better and is probably wiser from the experience but I have seen inadvertent security violations that were handled similarly so I don't think she's received any special treatment.
Anyone with a clearance should have received training wrt proper handling and marking of classified material. That includes identifying improperly marked information.
she compounded her "mishandling" by lying about it.
Post by: Anthony on October 25, 2016, 10:07:33 AM
Post by: Witmo on October 25, 2016, 03:01:06 PM
I firmly believe the Obama Admin, of which Hillary was a part has purposely subverted our foreign interests, and polices to bring us down in world standing. Due to this they have put us more at risk foreign, and domestically. With the addition of illegal aliens, and Muslim refugees which their policies encourage, we are more at risk now as a nation since WWII.
You're entitled to your opinion. I happen to be of the opinion that President Obama's administration has elevated the opinion of most of the world concerning the United States. Believe it or not, but many nations believed that we abuse our power by interfering in the affairs of sovereign nations and our presence in force in foreign nations without invitation is not a good thing.
George Bush Senior was correct in not taking out Saddam during Desert Storm. If only his son had the same wisdom. World opinion couldn't have been lower after the Junior Bush's fiascos so President Obama couldn't have brought us further down in world standing. It's amusing to think that the reason for awarding President Obama the Nobel Peace Prize was simply the world saying farewell to Bush, good riddance.
The next Administration has to tread a fine line brokering peace between Sunni and Shiite factions who hate each as well as Israel. It's not a zero sum game and requires finesse. HRC has the right idea in taking a large military ground action using US troops off the table. The last thing we want to do is sink more trillions into the middle east where all factions involved don't exactly love America. We need to protect our interests but stay away from futile attempts at nation building. We do need to smack Russia upside the head in some way without triggering a nuclear exchange and demonstrate they need to rethink challenging us at every opportunity.
Post by: Jaybird180 on October 26, 2016, 08:31:07 AM
I firmly believe the Obama Admin, of which Hillary was a part has purposely subverted our foreign interests, and polices to bring us down in world standing. Due to this they have put us more at risk foreign, and domestically. With the addition of illegal aliens, and Muslim refugees which their policies encourage, we are more at risk now as a nation since WWII.
At what gain?
[edit: bold added to quote to clarify my question]
Post by: Number7 on October 26, 2016, 08:32:20 AM
At what gain?
Bribe taking - the only religion of the current crop of democrats in power.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on October 26, 2016, 06:17:25 PM
At what gain?
[edit: bold added to quote to clarify my question]
They believe the US got to be rich and powerful off the backs of other countries and because of that we must be cut down to size and made to suffer like third world countries do. They are out to even things out, make things fair, bring America down to the level of others.
I believe the opposite should be true. There are opportunities everywhere and if they are taken advantage of anyone or country can be like we are.
Never forget that Obama studied under Frank Marshall Davis, is a proponent of Cloward & Piven and an Alinskyite as well as friends with Bill Ayers.
Post by: Mase on October 26, 2016, 06:31:30 PM
Post by: Anthony on October 27, 2016, 04:25:23 AM
Never forget that Obama studied under Frank Marshall Davis, is a proponent of Cloward & Piven and an Alinskyite as well as friends with Bill Ayers.
And Reverend Wright. All, far left, radical Communists that HATE America. The Obama's want the wealth for themselves, but not the American citizen. These people also admire mass murderers like Castro, Che Guavera, Mao, etc.
Post by: PaulS on October 27, 2016, 06:04:18 AM
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 31, 2016, 08:06:08 AM
Irony much?
Post by: Witmo on October 31, 2016, 03:09:56 PM
Apparently Paul Ryan has suggested, in light of the investigation restart, that HRC stop receiving the daily security briefings candidates get.
Irony much?
Let me get this straight. HRC was getting classified briefings while the earlier investigation was going on and Paul Ryan didn't voice a concern but now close to the election when the same investigation gets restarted with absolutely no evidence that the emails on the computer have any relevance, Paul Ryan is concerned about security. Give me a break. The FBI should have STFU until evidence of wrongdoing led to an indictment and then HRC could deal with impeachment.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on October 31, 2016, 03:14:15 PM
Let me get this straight. HRC was getting classified briefings while the earlier investigation was going on and Paul Ryan didn't voice a concern but now close to the election when the same investigation gets restarted with absolutely no evidence that the emails on the computer have any relevance, Paul Ryan is concerned about security. Give me a break. The FBI should have STFU until evidence of wrongdoing led to an indictment and then HRC could deal with impeachment.Easy to see how people might begin to have a dawning awareness that rules are being ignored on many levels. Hence the irony. These people are supposed to be on top of that archaic principle called national security.
Post by: Little Joe on October 31, 2016, 03:56:49 PM
Let me get this straight. HRC was getting classified briefings while the earlier investigation was going on and Paul Ryan didn't voice a concern but now close to the election when the same investigation gets restarted with absolutely no evidence that the emails on the computer have any relevance, Paul Ryan is concerned about security. Give me a break. The FBI should have STFU until evidence of wrongdoing led to an indictment and then HRC could deal with impeachment.I submit that you have absolutely no idea what evidence the FBI has. The only thing that disappoints me is that Comey bowed to pressure from the DOJ to soft-peddle the investigation until his wife forced him to do the right thing. There is so much finger pointing and backstabbing going on behind the scenes of this investigation that we will probably never know what is really going on. Except that Bill met with Loretta on the runway just prior to Comey's ridiculous announcement. And that the Clinton's are a criminal organization.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on October 31, 2016, 04:03:51 PM
Let me get this straight. HRC was getting classified briefings while the earlier investigation was going on and Paul Ryan didn't voice a concern but now close to the election when the same investigation gets restarted with absolutely no evidence that the emails on the computer have any relevance, Paul Ryan is concerned about security. Give me a break. The FBI should have STFU until evidence of wrongdoing led to an indictment and then HRC could deal with impeachment.
Let me get this straight. You are apparently ok with a possible election of someone who has demonstrated mishandling of classified material on a scale that would get ordinary little people tossed in jail... or at the very least loss of the clearance, and you are whining about Paul Ryan?
get a clue.
Post by: Little Joe on October 31, 2016, 04:10:40 PM
The FBI should have STFU until evidence of wrongdoing led to an indictment and then HRC could deal with impeachment.So you thing the FBI should have STFU, regardless of what evidence they may have, until after the election when there would be nothing we could do about it. Oh yeah, we could impeach her, but a lot of good that did with her husband.
Post by: Lucifer on October 31, 2016, 04:23:59 PM
So you thing the FBI should have STFU, regardless of what evidence they may have, until after the election when there would be nothing we could do about it. Oh yeah, we could impeach her, but a lot of good that did with her husband.
That's because he knows there is not enough votes to impeach her in the senate.
Also, if she's indicted all she has to do is pardon herself.
Funny how just a few weeks ago the liberals were singing high praise of Comey.
Post by: Witmo on October 31, 2016, 05:28:13 PM
I submit that you have absolutely no idea what evidence the FBI has. The only thing that disappoints me is that Comey bowed to pressure from the DOJ to soft-peddle the investigation until his wife forced him to do the right thing. There is so much finger pointing and backstabbing going on behind the scenes of this investigation that we will probably never know what is really going on. Except that Bill met with Loretta on the runway just prior to Comey's ridiculous announcement. And that the Clinton's are a criminal organization.I submit to you that the FBI has no evidence of wrongdoing--when the announcement had been made by Comey, the FBI hadn't even had gotten a warrant yet to read what was on the computer. Announcing investigations against individuals before an indictment only casts suspicion on the person who may be innocent. It's premature and downright prejudicial.
Trump is amoral and just a plain rich jerk who made his money cheating the little guy and yet my party chose him to lead the ticket. I've had to reexamine my choice of party affiliation for this election. Until the Clintons are convicted of a crime, I don't think your opinion is enough to call them criminal. The way the Republicans make so much of Democrat politicians refusing to use the term "radical Islamic terrorism" and mistakenly attributing the Benghazi attack to a reaction to an anti-Islamic video instead of calling it a terrorist attack, it reinforces my belief they have no clue as to what is really important in fighting terrorism. Let's all call them some really nasty name and they'll just stop bothering us, yeah, that's the ticket. Trump's really good at calling people names so maybe calling the terrorists "radical Islamic terrorists" will be the key to his leading us to victory. Too bad he's never going to get the chance.
I never thought I'd vote for a Clinton but I'd rather drink a cup of vinegar than chug a gallon of battery acid.
Post by: Lucifer on October 31, 2016, 06:00:35 PM
I submit to you that the FBI has no evidence of wrongdoing--when the announcement had been made by Comey, the FBI hadn't even had gotten a warrant yet to read what was on the computer. Announcing investigations against individuals before an indictment only casts suspicion on the person who may be innocent. It's premature and downright prejudicial.
So you have inside information to an FBI investigation?
Funny, those very points you are making are the exact same talking points the democrats have come out with. Almost verbatim.
As far as the Clintons go, and their "foundation", a third year law student could see right through it and how the RICO laws would apply. Couple that to the crimes, yes, crimes the Clintons have committed and it is truly amazing they aren't serving time in a federal penitentiary.
Finally, there is only one person to blame for all of this, Hillary Clinton. She and her sexual predator husband have brought all of this on themselves, they own it. After 8 years in the WH, scandal after scandal cumulating in the second impeachment of a sitting president in history, the Clintons felt they are impervious to the law and have acted as such.
Hillary can point and blame Comey, Trump, the Russians, the "vast right wing conspiracy" but in the end, it's all hers.
Post by: Witmo on October 31, 2016, 06:09:22 PM
So you have inside information to an FBI investigation?Any statement of facts becomes a "talking point." Got it. No wonder my RNC objects to "talking points." When Comey announced the reopening of the investigation the FBI had no clue as to who sent the emails on the computer or what they contained. What don't you understand? They got nothing until they read the friggin' emails and they couldn't do that until they got a warrant.
Funny, those very points you are making are the exact same talking points the democrats have come out with. Almost verbatim.
As far as the Clintons go, and their "foundation", a third year law student could see right through it and how the RICO laws would apply. Couple that to the crimes, yes, crimes the Clintons have committed and it is truly amazing they aren't serving time in a federal penitentiary.
Finally, there is only one person to blame for all of this, Hillary Clinton. She and her sexual predator husband have brought all of this on themselves, they own it. After 8 years in the WH, scandal after scandal cumulating in the second impeachment of a sitting president in history, the Clintons felt they are impervious to the law and have acted as such.
Hillary can point and blame Comey, Trump, the Russians, the "vast right wing conspiracy" but in the end, it's all hers.
HRC is criticized for defending a rapist in a trial. She was appointed by a judge to defend the guy. Republicans are criticizing a lawyer from defending someone. Gee, I didn't realize that all it takes is a decree of guilt by "Lucifer" to convict someone and sentence them to death or life.
Post by: Mase on October 31, 2016, 06:35:44 PM
HRC is criticized for defending a rapist in a trial. She was appointed by a judge to defend the guy. Republicans are criticizing a lawyer from defending someone.
Actually, most of the criticism is for the way she acted after the fact, laughing and joking about how she got the guilty guy off thru re-victimizing the girl.
Post by: Lucifer on October 31, 2016, 06:39:00 PM
Any statement of facts becomes a "talking point." Got it. No wonder my RNC objects to "talking points." When Comey announced the reopening of the investigation the FBI had no clue as to who sent the emails on the computer or what they contained. What don't you understand? They got nothing until they read the friggin' emails and they couldn't do that until they got a warrant.
Again, obviously you have an inside track to the investigation and know details not known by the public.
Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you there is a lot more going on in the official investigation. It's not improbable that the FBI was tipped off and given evidence, and then told if they want the other evidence go look on Carlos Danger's laptop for the motherload.
You keep arguing "they got nothing" (which is the current DNC talking point) when it's you (and the general public) that is clueless to what they actually have.
Comey is not going to dump the entire investigation on the table at this point, no investigator would do that. But a good investigator knows the answer before the question is asked. And in this investigation from what I've seen, there is a lot more going on than has been publicly disclosed. Look for some real damning evidence to be presented in the next few days.
HRC is criticized for defending a rapist in a trial. She was appointed by a judge to defend the guy. Republicans are criticizing a lawyer from defending someone. Gee, I didn't realize that all it takes is a decree of guilt by "Lucifer" to convict someone and sentence them to death or life.
Funny, I never brought up how Hillary helped get a rapist off while simultaneously destroying a 12 year old girls reputation and causing life long mental problems for the victim.
Obviously you weren't around or way too young to remember the Clinton's previous tenure in the White House. White Water, Travel gate, selling the Lincoln bedroom, the Lewinski affair, the impeachment, etc. I won't write them all out, here is a list with detailed information.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Clinton_administration_controversies
And to add to that, here's several laws that the Clinton's have recently broke:
1. Bribery
2. Acts affecting a personal financial interest (includes recommendations)
3. Conspiracy
4. False statements
5. Frauds and swindles (mail fraud)
6. Fraud by wire
7. Attempt and conspiracy (to commit fraud)
8. Obstruction of justice
9. Destruction (alteration or falsification) of records in federal investigations or/and bankruptcy
10. Disclosure of confidential information
11. Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
12. Concealment (removal or mutilation) of government records
13. Attempt to evade or defeat a tax (use of Clinton foundation funds for personal or political purposes)
14. Attempts to interfere with administration of internal revenue laws (call to IRS on behalf of UBS not turning over accounts to IRS)
15. Perjury (including documents signed under penalties of perjury)
Here are the applicable laws Hillary has broken:
18 USC 201
18 USC 208
18 USC 371
18 USC 1001
18 USC 1341
18 USC 1343
18 USC 1349
18 USC 1505
18 USC 1519
18 USC 1621
18 USC 1905
18 USC 1921
18 USC 2071
18 USC 7201
18 USC 7212
Post by: nddons on October 31, 2016, 08:40:32 PM
I submit to you that the FBI has no evidence of wrongdoing--when the announcement had been made by Comey, the FBI hadn't even had gotten a warrant yet to read what was on the computer. Announcing investigations against individuals before an indictment only casts suspicion on the person who may be innocent. It's premature and downright prejudicial.
Trump is amoral and just a plain rich jerk who made his money cheating the little guy and yet my party chose him to lead the ticket. I've had to reexamine my choice of party affiliation for this election. Until the Clintons are convicted of a crime, I don't think your opinion is enough to call them criminal. The way the Republicans make so much of Democrat politicians refusing to use the term "radical Islamic terrorism" and mistakenly attributing the Benghazi attack to a reaction to an anti-Islamic video instead of calling it a terrorist attack, it reinforces my belief they have no clue as to what is really important in fighting terrorism. Let's all call them some really nasty name and they'll just stop bothering us, yeah, that's the ticket. Trump's really good at calling people names so maybe calling the terrorists "radical Islamic terrorists" will be the key to his leading us to victory. Too bad he's never going to get the chance.
I never thought I'd vote for a Clinton but I'd rather drink a cup of vinegar than chug a gallon of battery acid.
What exactly has Hillary done to fight terrorism? If you like the status quo, then just admit it.
Post by: Anthony on November 01, 2016, 12:57:32 AM
I submit to you that the FBI has no evidence of wrongdoing--when the announcement had been made by Comey, the FBI hadn't even had gotten a warrant yet to read what was on the computer. Announcing investigations against individuals before an indictment only casts suspicion on the person who may be innocent. It's premature and downright prejudicial.
Trump is amoral and just a plain rich jerk who made his money cheating the little guy
And the Clinton's aren't RICH JERKS? Making millions "giving speeches" which is really just influence peddling for large banks, corporations, and foreign governments. Bill Clinton perjured himself, lied, and was impeached. Hillary doesn't remember anything under scrutiny. Comey, and the FBI already told you she broke the law, but didn't indict due to politics.
Post by: bflynn on November 01, 2016, 05:32:08 AM
I submit to you that the FBI has no evidence of wrongdoing--when the announcement had been made by Comey, the FBI hadn't even had gotten a warrant yet to read what was on the computer. Announcing investigations against individuals before an indictment only casts suspicion on the person who may be innocent. It's premature and downright prejudicial.
Director Comey sent a letter to the Congressmen on the investigating subcommittee because he had been asked specifically if he would reopen the investigation. So, he was telling them that he was reopening it. He was also attempting to be open about what was going on and avoiding any accusation of being part of a coverup for Hillary. Kudos to the director.
I would take an educated guess that the investigation now is about obstruction of justice and that the team investigating Weiner found emails from Hillary Clinton, from her email server which Hillary did not turn over in the first place. If so, then Hillary did not turn over all relevant information and is quite guilty. I'm quite certain Hillary and Weiner were not discussing yoga and trading recipes.
Post by: bflynn on November 01, 2016, 05:35:08 AM
HRC is criticized for defending a rapist in a trial. She was appointed by a judge to defend the guy.
Actually, Hillary is criticized for attacking the underage rape victim in that trial and then laughing later about how she knew that the guy was guilty but she got him acquitted anyway. And it isn't just Republicans condemning her for doing this.
Post by: Lucifer on November 01, 2016, 05:47:54 AM
Director Comey sent a letter to the Congressmen on the investigating subcommittee because he had been asked specifically if he would reopen the investigation. So, he was telling them that he was reopening it. He was also attempting to be open about what was going on and avoiding any accusation of being part of a coverup for Hillary. Kudos to the director.
I would take an educated guess that the investigation now is about obstruction of justice and that the team investigating Weiner found emails from Hillary Clinton, from her email server which Hillary did not turn over in the first place. If so, then Hillary did not turn over all relevant information and is quite guilty. I'm quite certain Hillary and Weiner were not discussing yoga and trading recipes.
Correct.
Also, I firmly believed they were tipped off and handed evidence, and told that there is a lot more to be found on Weiner's laptop.
Who tipped them off? Who knows. But Mr. Weiner is facing possible jail time for his sexplotations. Don't be shocked if you see Anthony Weiner get an immunity deal.
Post by: Witmo on November 01, 2016, 07:21:42 AM
Correct.You accuse me of knowing more about this investigation than has been released and yet you boldly speculate about whatever is on Wiener's laptop being evidence of HRC wrongdoing. Yeah, right, I'm the one making stuff up. Comey stated in his letter reopening the investigation that the FBI did not know what the emails on the computer concerned, who wrote them, or who received them. Weiner is being investigated for sex crimes and has nothing to do with HRC and yet he thought it necessary to reopen the HRC investigation less than two weeks from the election and announce it before even getting a warrant to read the emails. Whatever happened to "I can't comment on any investigation" which was the standard comment law enforcement officials used to make. Don't you understand how dangerous it is to innocent people when law enforcement blabs about someone being investigated? You've already tried HRC and found her guilty so any protections don't apply to her I suppose. You know what's on the computer. They (FBI) should STFU, do their job, and if the prosecutor sees evidence uncovered of wrong doing, indite that person. This is BS--We don't know if there's anything on this Wiener computer relevant to HRC, but we're announcing we're reopening the investigation--a pure an utter abuse of power and prejudicial to the election.
Also, I firmly believed they were tipped off and handed evidence, and told that there is a lot more to be found on Weiner's laptop.
Who tipped them off? Who knows. But Mr. Weiner is facing possible jail time for his sexplotations. Don't be shocked if you see Anthony Weiner get an immunity deal.
Post by: Lucifer on November 01, 2016, 07:32:57 AM
You accuse me of knowing more about this investigation than has been released and yet you boldly speculate about whatever is on Wiener's laptop being evidence of HRC wrongdoing. Yeah, right, I'm the one making stuff up. Comey stated in his letter reopening the investigation that the FBI did not know what the emails on the computer concerned, who wrote them, or who received them. Weiner is being investigated for sex crimes and has nothing to do with HRC and yet he thought it necessary to reopen the HRC investigation less than two weeks from the election and announce it before even getting a warrant to read the emails. Whatever happened to "I can't comment on any investigation" which was the standard comment law enforcement officials used to make. Don't you understand how dangerous it is to innocent people when law enforcement blabs about someone being investigated? You've already tried HRC and found her guilty so any protections don't apply to her I suppose. You know what's on the computer. They (FBI) should STFU, do their job, and if the prosecutor sees evidence uncovered of wrong doing, indite that person. This is BS--We don't know if there's anything on this Wiener computer relevant to HRC, but we're announcing we're reopening the investigation--a pure an utter abuse of power and prejudicial to the election.
Your entire post is straight out of the latest DNC talking points.
Quote
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”- Joseph Goebbels
Post by: Little Joe on November 01, 2016, 08:23:32 AM
You accuse me of knowing more about this investigation than has been released and yet you boldly speculate about whatever is on Wiener's laptop being evidence of HRC wrongdoing. Yeah, right, I'm the one making stuff up. Comey stated in his letter reopening the investigation that the FBI did not know what the emails on the computer concerned, who wrote them, or who received them. Weiner is being investigated for sex crimes and has nothing to do with HRC and yet he thought it necessary to reopen the HRC investigation less than two weeks from the election and announce it before even getting a warrant to read the emails. Whatever happened to "I can't comment on any investigation" which was the standard comment law enforcement officials used to make. Don't you understand how dangerous it is to innocent people when law enforcement blabs about someone being investigated? You've already tried HRC and found her guilty so any protections don't apply to her I suppose. You know what's on the computer. They (FBI) should STFU, do their job, and if the prosecutor sees evidence uncovered of wrong doing, indite that person. This is BS--We don't know if there's anything on this Wiener computer relevant to HRC, but we're announcing we're reopening the investigation--a pure an utter abuse of power and prejudicial to the election.Lucifer's opinions were stated as such. Yours were assertions.
Post by: Number7 on November 01, 2016, 08:26:09 AM
Post by: bflynn on November 01, 2016, 08:36:59 AM
That would contradict Hillary's statement that she never sent classified email. And since she claimed this and nobody could point to an email and say "no, you did it here", it would have to be missing information. So now the bar would be raised from obstruction back to perjury before Congress and potentially failure to protect classified information.
Cookie Monster says C is for Classified.
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1514.0;attach=300;image)
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 01, 2016, 09:42:17 AM
Post by: Lucifer on November 01, 2016, 10:44:58 AM
Post by: nddons on November 01, 2016, 11:26:49 AM
Director Comey sent a letter to the Congressmen on the investigating subcommittee because he had been asked specifically if he would reopen the investigation. So, he was telling them that he was reopening it. He was also attempting to be open about what was going on and avoiding any accusation of being part of a coverup for Hillary. Kudos to the director.But, but, but she's already said she made a mistake. What else do you want from her? And what difference, at this point, does it make?
I would take an educated guess that the investigation now is about obstruction of justice and that the team investigating Weiner found emails from Hillary Clinton, from her email server which Hillary did not turn over in the first place. If so, then Hillary did not turn over all relevant information and is quite guilty. I'm quite certain Hillary and Weiner were not discussing yoga and trading recipes.
Why do you hate women?
Post by: nddons on November 01, 2016, 11:38:37 AM
You accuse me of knowing more about this investigation than has been released and yet you boldly speculate about whatever is on Wiener's laptop being evidence of HRC wrongdoing. Yeah, right, I'm the one making stuff up. Comey stated in his letter reopening the investigation that the FBI did not know what the emails on the computer concerned, who wrote them, or who received them. Weiner is being investigated for sex crimes and has nothing to do with HRC and yet he thought it necessary to reopen the HRC investigation less than two weeks from the election and announce it before even getting a warrant to read the emails. Whatever happened to "I can't comment on any investigation" which was the standard comment law enforcement officials used to make. Don't you understand how dangerous it is to innocent people when law enforcement blabs about someone being investigated? You've already tried HRC and found her guilty so any protections don't apply to her I suppose. You know what's on the computer. They (FBI) should STFU, do their job, and if the prosecutor sees evidence uncovered of wrong doing, indite that person. This is BS--We don't know if there's anything on this Wiener computer relevant to HRC, but we're announcing we're reopening the investigation--a pure an utter abuse of power and prejudicial to the election.Again, I'm shocked you're such an apologist for this woman.
You stated things that are not in Comey's letter. You're projecting what you want it to say.
It DID say: "In connection with an unrelated case, the FBI has learned of the existence of emails that appear to be pertinent to the investigation."
Since Comey was under oath when he testified to Congress when he said something to the effect of not reopening the case unless something material happened, he needed to "... supplement my previous testimony."
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 01, 2016, 02:44:39 PM
Post by: Witmo on November 01, 2016, 02:58:26 PM
Lucifer's opinions were stated as such. Yours were assertions.I wrote that Comey had no idea what the emails on Wiener's computer might reveal because Comey said he didn't know what was on the computer. When he wrote the letter reopening the investigation the FBI had yet to get a search warrant for the computer for HRC related emails. Lucifer opines that the FBI knows more than they're revealing, well if Comey did know more when he made his initial statements, the FBI was snooping around without a search warrant which I don't think they would do knowing that anything they found unrelated to the sex investigation of 'Wiener would be suppressed by a judge.
I may not be thrilled with HRC as President but I have to take her over Donald Trump who has absolutely no clue on anything other than ensuring Donald Trump is taken care of first and foremost. Yes, HRC is not shy about making money for herself but her grasp of everything a President has to master is head and shoulders above Donald Trump. She may be the first woman President but I'm afraid that should DT be elected, he would be the last President of either sex due to his incompetence. It's a survival thing with me. I feel we can survive HRC but I have serious doubts we could survive DT. Maybe in four years the Republican Party might get their act together and look towards uniting this country instead of nominating a clown like Donald Trump.
Post by: Lucifer on November 01, 2016, 03:20:11 PM
I wrote that Comey had no idea what the emails on Wiener's computer might reveal because Comey said he didn't know what was on the computer. When he wrote the letter reopening the investigation the FBI had yet to get a search warrant for the computer for HRC related emails. Lucifer opines that the FBI knows more than they're revealing, well if Comey did know more when he made his initial statements, the FBI was snooping around without a search warrant which I don't think they would do knowing that anything they found unrelated to the sex investigation of 'Wiener would be suppressed by a judge.
You do realize if someone gives the FBI documents they don't need warrants. You do realize if someone tips off the FBI with information they again don't need a warrant to receive that information.
You are parsing words and trying to inject what you want the Comey letter to say. That or you actually have little reading comprehension skills.
I may not be thrilled with HRC as President but I have to take her over Donald Trump who has absolutely no clue on anything other than ensuring Donald Trump is taken care of first and foremost. Yes, HRC is not shy about making money for herself but her grasp of everything a President has to master is head and shoulders above Donald Trump. She may be the first woman President but I'm afraid that should DT be elected, he would be the last President of either sex due to his incompetence. It's a survival thing with me. I feel we can survive HRC but I have serious doubts we could survive DT. Maybe in four years the Republican Party might get their act together and look towards uniting this country instead of nominating a clown like Donald Trump.
So you feel a woman who has lived her life in one scandal after another, who has zero accomplishments in public service, who feels she is above the law, who has sold access to government and probably worse, who has broken multiple laws, is any way shape or form fit to be president?
Wow.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 01, 2016, 03:22:51 PM
Post by: Jim Logajan on November 01, 2016, 03:35:22 PM
First, it seems that while examining the emails on Anthony Weiner's computer, the agents came across Huma Abedin emails to and/or from the Clinton private server. While the FBI may have had a warrant to search for emails specific to his communications with a 15 year old girl, once they see evidence of a crime outside the warrant that allowed their search, it appears that while they can use the first such email they find of the new crime, they can't go looking for any more emails related to that new crime until they first get another warrant specific to it. Here's a copy-and-paste from page 36 of https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/legacy/2015/01/14/ssmanual2009.pdf (https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/criminal-ccips/legacy/2015/01/14/ssmanual2009.pdf), which is a DoJ guide to handling computer searches during criminal investigations:
As agents review a computer for information that falls within the scope of the warrant, they may discover evidence of an additional crime, and they are entitled to seize it under the plain view doctrine. Nevertheless, the Tenth Circuit’s decision in United States v. Carey, 172 F.3d 1268, 1273 (10th Cir. 1999), provides a cautionary example regarding continuing the review of a computer after finding evidence of a second crime. In Carey, a police detective searching a hard drive with a warrant for drug trafficking evidence opened a “jpg” file and instead discovered child pornography. At that point, the detective spent five hours accessing and downloading several hundred “jpg” files in a search not for evidence of the narcotics trafficking that he was authorized to seek and gather pursuant to the original warrant, but for more child pornography. When the defendant moved to exclude the child pornography files on the ground that they were seized beyond the scope of the warrant, the government argued that the detective had seized the “jpg” files properly because the contents of the contraband files were in plain view. The Tenth Circuit rejected this argument with respect to all of the files except for the first “jpg” file the detective discovered. Seeid. at 1273, 1273 n.4. As best as can be discerned, the rule in Carey seems to be that the detective could seize the first “jpg” file that came into plain view when the detective was executing the search warrant, but could not rely on the plain view exception to justify the search solely for additional “jpg” files containing child pornography on the defendant’s computers, evidence beyond the scope of the warrant. In subsequent cases, the Tenth Circuit has interpreted Carey narrowly, explaining that it “simply stands for the proposition that law enforcement may not expand the scope of a search beyond its original justification.”
Post by: Little Joe on November 01, 2016, 03:40:09 PM
I wrote that Comey had no idea what the emails on Wiener's computer might reveal becauseWhat you wrote was:
Quote
I submit to you that the FBI has no evidence of wrongdoing
Post by: Number7 on November 01, 2016, 03:51:22 PM
(https://scontent.ftpa1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/14572188_594428207411211_2352662490637204615_n.jpg?oh=baf8ef8ae29a0e8c9dde24812aaca030&oe=5895E960)
Post by: Jim Logajan on November 01, 2016, 03:56:18 PM
It is has been claimed that the FBI agents had discovered emails on Weiner's computer relating to the Clinton case weeks ago.
In all that time the agents never got a warrant to investigate further.
Maybe they didn't because they couldn't, and the only way to get one was for Comey to send his letter and put the pressure on to get one done.
Even absent Comey's letter, a warrant would likely have become publicly known anyway. And congress would have said WTF even to that.
Post by: Witmo on November 01, 2016, 05:34:55 PM
Far-fetched conspiracy theory I just made up:Since when does the FBI need to go to Congress in order to get a warrant?
It is has been claimed that the FBI agents had discovered emails on Weiner's computer relating to the Clinton case weeks ago.
In all that time the agents never got a warrant to investigate further.
Maybe they didn't because they couldn't, and the only way to get one was for Comey to send his letter and put the pressure on to get one done.
Even absent Comey's letter, a warrant would likely have become publicly known anyway. And congress would have said WTF even to that.
Post by: Witmo on November 01, 2016, 05:59:18 PM
You do realize if someone gives the FBI documents they don't need warrants. You do realize if someone tips off the FBI with information they again don't need a warrant to receive that information.You truly are clueless about what is required before LE can search private property. Maybe you should read up on the constitution. Tips are not evidence and I'm sure the FBI gets thousands of tips that are bogus. You don't reopen investigations because of a "tip." The FBI saw suspicious emails on a computer unrelated to the case they were investigating and could not look at them without a new warrant--no tipster required. It's obvious to me why you would support another clueless individual as Donald Trump.
You are parsing words and trying to inject what you want the Comey letter to say. That or you actually have little reading comprehension skills.
So you feel a woman who has lived her life in one scandal after another, who has zero accomplishments in public service, who feels she is above the law, who has sold access to government and probably worse, who has broken multiple laws, is any way shape or form fit to be president?
Wow.
Hillary Clinton has done more public service that the Trump family combined from their earliest inception. The millions given to the Clinton Foundation have actually gone to deserving charities around the world. Trump serves Trump period. The Trump Foundation serves Donald Trump first and others whenever the media exposes Trump lies about donations. Any "public service" done by Trump benefited Trump far more than the public. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump figures out how to turn a profit from his losing campaign. We probably won't find out because he'll never release his tax returns. If anything the people/public he cheated out of their wages and money they had coming to them for work and materials is the legacy Donald Trump deserves to be remembered for.
You people accuse me of spouting "talking points" while you go spouting off RNC talking points like no tomorrow. All these alleged crimes have yet to be successfully prosecuted so all I can say is HRC is innocent until proven guilty and nothing has been discovered yet that is worth prosecuting. I'm the last one to say HRC is a very flawed politician but she is far less dangerous to the country than an idiot like Donald Trump.
And please stop bringing up Bill Clinton's faults when Hillary Clinton is running, not her husband.
Post by: Mase on November 01, 2016, 06:01:47 PM
Post by: Mase on November 01, 2016, 06:06:58 PM
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 01, 2016, 06:14:56 PM
Yes, HRC is not shy about making money for herself...
...by selling access and influence to God knows who, hiding behind a "charity". You fracking fool.
Post by: Jim Logajan on November 01, 2016, 06:15:45 PM
Since when does the FBI need to go to Congress in order to get a warrant?
They don't. I was trying to keep my post short and may have garbled what I meant. What I meant to say is that the act of getting a warrant for the Clinton related emails would have very likely become public before election day and congress would then have complained they weren't notified as promised.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 01, 2016, 06:17:31 PM
You truly are clueless about what is required before LE can search private property. Maybe you should read up on the constitution. Tips are not evidence and I'm sure the FBI gets thousands of tips that are bogus. You don't reopen investigations because of a "tip." The FBI saw suspicious emails on a computer unrelated to the case they were investigating and could not look at them without a new warrant--no tipster required. It's obvious to me why you would support another clueless individual as Donald Trump.Please go back to sleep, little Timmy, and wake up on Nov 9.
Hillary Clinton has done more public service that the Trump family combined from their earliest inception. The millions given to the Clinton Foundation have actually gone to deserving charities around the world. Trump serves Trump period. The Trump Foundation serves Donald Trump first and others whenever the media exposes Trump lies about donations. Any "public service" done by Trump benefited Trump far more than the public. I wouldn't be surprised if Trump figures out how to turn a profit from his losing campaign. We probably won't find out because he'll never release his tax returns. If anything the people/public he cheated out of their wages and money they had coming to them for work and materials is the legacy Donald Trump deserves to be remembered for.
You people accuse me of spouting "talking points" while you go spouting off RNC talking points like no tomorrow. All these alleged crimes have yet to be successfully prosecuted so all I can say is HRC is innocent until proven guilty and nothing has been discovered yet that is worth prosecuting. I'm the last one to say HRC is a very flawed politician but she is far less dangerous to the country than an idiot like Donald Trump.
And please stop bringing up Bill Clinton's faults when Hillary Clinton is running, not her husband.
Post by: bflynn on November 01, 2016, 08:35:30 PM
Since when does the FBI need to go to Congress in order to get a warrant?
::) ::)
Obviously they do not. But they do need to let Congress know about a significant change in a case which Congress has had hearings on and for which the FBI could be accused of helping Hillary cover up obstruction of justice.
That is what is on the table now - if you are not keeping up, this is not about having a server or classified emails. This is about Hillary not being fully cooperative, about her trying to circumvent the law. It could bookend her career. The first thing she did was help bring down Nixon on obstruction charges, now tripping over the same thing herself.
Post by: nddons on November 01, 2016, 09:00:48 PM
I wrote that Comey had no idea what the emails on Wiener's computer might reveal because Comey said he didn't know what was on the computer. When he wrote the letter reopening the investigation the FBI had yet to get a search warrant for the computer for HRC related emails. Lucifer opines that the FBI knows more than they're revealing, well if Comey did know more when he made his initial statements, the FBI was snooping around without a search warrant which I don't think they would do knowing that anything they found unrelated to the sex investigation of 'Wiener would be suppressed by a judge.For the second time, stop lying about what Comey said in the letter.
I may not be thrilled with HRC as President but I have to take her over Donald Trump who has absolutely no clue on anything other than ensuring Donald Trump is taken care of first and foremost. Yes, HRC is not shy about making money for herself but her grasp of everything a President has to master is head and shoulders above Donald Trump. She may be the first woman President but I'm afraid that should DT be elected, he would be the last President of either sex due to his incompetence. It's a survival thing with me. I feel we can survive HRC but I have serious doubts we could survive DT. Maybe in four years the Republican Party might get their act together and look towards uniting this country instead of nominating a clown like Donald Trump.
Maybe you haven't even read it, since everything you say it says sounds like DNC talking points.
Here you go: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/10/28/us/politics/fbi-letter.html?_r=0
Post by: Mase on November 01, 2016, 10:45:18 PM
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 01, 2016, 11:03:16 PM
https://youtu.be/nSRnfm0MFws
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 01, 2016, 11:14:46 PM
Please go back to sleep, little Timmy, and wake up on Nov 9.Witmo, the Clinton Foundation is currently under intensive investigation by the FBI. But I'm sure it has spread just enough charity in the world to provide good cover.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/10/30/former-fbi-asst-director-fbi-has-intensive-ongoing-investigation-into-the-clinton-foundation/
Post by: nddons on November 02, 2016, 04:50:45 AM
We laughed so hard we cried. Especially at the very end.That's awesome!
https://youtu.be/nSRnfm0MFws
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 02, 2016, 05:35:49 AM
Yep. She really said that.
Apparently not.
http://www.snopes.com/people-like-donald-trump/
Post by: Lucifer on November 02, 2016, 05:43:38 AM
Witmo, the Clinton Foundation is currently under intensive investigation by the FBI. But I'm sure it has spread just enough charity in the world to provide good cover.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/2016/10/30/former-fbi-asst-director-fbi-has-intensive-ongoing-investigation-into-the-clinton-foundation/
The Clinton Foundation spends about 6% of its income on charity, the rest goes to "administrative fees".
The Clinton Foundation is basically a money laundering outfit that's ripe for a RICO investigation. It is currently under an FBI investigation.
But Witmo will cling to the talking point about "all the good" it does around the world.
BTW Witmo, the people of Haiti and Colombia are still waiting for the Clinton Foundation to come through with the aid they promised after taking in millions in donations.
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 02, 2016, 06:48:47 AM
Apparently not.
http://www.snopes.com/people-like-donald-trump/
I think it's fairly well established that the Snopes people suck the farts out of Hillary's chair.
Post by: Gary on November 02, 2016, 06:54:09 AM
The Clinton Foundation spends about 6% of its income on charity, the rest goes to "administrative fees".
Which, of course is completely untrue.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
While the Clinton Foundation has some serious issues as far as fundraising and access, as a charity, they do a pretty good job.
Apparently not.
http://www.snopes.com/people-like-donald-trump/
We all know Snopes is a biased, left wing, fact twisting organization! ;D
Post by: Number7 on November 02, 2016, 06:56:27 AM
I recall Steingar proclaiming that he had first hand knowledge that the Clinton crime syndicate saved children.
The contortions Witmo and Steingar and people like them will put themselves through to avoid calling a crook a crook as long as they are pro abortion is as sad as it is pathetic.
Post by: Lucifer on November 02, 2016, 07:06:33 AM
Which, of course is completely untrue.
https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=16680
While the Clinton Foundation has some serious issues as far as fundraising and access, as a charity, they do a pretty good job.
http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/12/news/economy/clinton-foundation-charity-navigator/
Quote
Unlike many other aid groups, the Clinton Foundation files multiple IRS 990 tax forms for its various initiatives. In some years, the foundation has filed three 990 forms. In others, it has filed only two.
"The Clinton Foundation has multiple legal entities, and then also multiple disparate programs, which makes it impossible for us to rate in the actual format that we do ratings today," said Thatcher.
In order to rate it, Charity Navigator needs the Clinton Foundation to complete a form that includes all its operations, which is different than the combined financial materials it currently provides on its website.
Quote
Shalala and Thatcher then discussed how the Foundation could get a Charity Navigator rating. "There was an eagerness," said Thatcher.
Thatcher has provided the Clinton Foundation with Charity Navigator's special consolidated form. Thatcher says if the Clinton Foundation provides him with 4 years worth of information in that format, his analysts will be able to evaluate the information and potentially assign a rating.
Ah, great! So Charity Navigator gives the Clinton Foundation a "form" to fill out and then makes a determination. And we all know, given the Clinton's life long determination to be transparent and always tell the truth that the form was filled out correctly and truthfully. Would Bill and Hillary lie or shield the truth?
Quote
Whether a Charity Navigator rating is significant is an open question. Professor Brian Mittendorf, Professor of Accounting at Ohio State University and an expert in philanthropy, puts it this way:
"A Charity Navigator rating would be something that supporters and/or critics would fixate on to support their pre-existing views of the organization or its founders, but wouldn't really provide new information."
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 02, 2016, 07:08:31 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37826098 (http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-37826098)
Quote
Possibly the most enduring criticism of the Clinton Foundation's work in Haiti stems from its signature project, a garment factory known as the Caracol Industrial Park.The foundation, working with the Clinton State Department, helped arrange a US-subsidised deal with the Haitian government to build the $300m factory complex in 2012.
Several hundred farmers were evicted from their land to make way for the 600-acre manufacturing site, which produces clothes for retailers such as Old Navy, Walmart and Target.
South Korean textile giant Sae-A Trading Co, which is the main employer at the facility, subsequently donated between $50,000 to $100,000 to the Clinton Foundation.
Mr Clinton declared 100,000 jobs would be created "in short order".
But the Caracol Industrial Park has created only 8,000 jobs.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 02, 2016, 07:19:10 AM
Take a look at the Tax filing on page 28. Salaries alone account for 19.6% of revenues.
Post by: Lucifer on November 02, 2016, 07:25:04 AM
https://www.clintonfoundation.org/sites/default/files/clinton_foundation_report_public_2014.pdf
Take a look at the Tax filing on page 28. Salaries alone account for 19.6% of revenues.
Exactly. And that's just the perception they want the public to have. Like anything else "Clinton" it's has more holes than swiss cheese.
It's already been well documented how the Clinton Foundation works. It's nothing more than a portal to funnel money to the Clintons for access to government under the guise of "charity".
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on November 02, 2016, 07:39:07 AM
We all know Snopes is a biased, left wing, fact twisting organization! ;D
Thanks for the confirmation.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 02, 2016, 07:40:56 AM
Quote
DLA Piper is the firm that performed the independent audit of the Clinton Foundation in November during Clinton-World’s first big push to put the email scandal behind them. DLA Piper’s employees taken as a whole represent a major Hillary Clinton 2016 campaign donation bloc and Clinton Foundation donation base.
http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/09/10/exposed-fbi-director-james-comeys-clinton-foundation-connection/
Post by: Jim Logajan on November 02, 2016, 09:21:41 AM
I think it's fairly well established that the Snopes people suck the farts out of Hillary's chair.
Feel free, then, to post reasonably credible references that support the alleged quotes from Clinton.
Post by: Lucifer on November 02, 2016, 09:27:22 AM
Feel free, then, to post reasonably credible references that support the alleged quotes from Clinton.
Since Clinton kept her speeches secret (except from excerpts from wikileaks) that's a bit hard to do. And the people that heard those speeches aren't talking either.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 02, 2016, 09:29:07 AM
Feel free, then, to post reasonably credible references that support the alleged quotes from Clinton.There aren't any! Spin and deception are party-blind. Trump must send a drain snake routing out media's killing sludge. We pay the media to INFORM us and they DECEIVE us instead.
Post by: Gary on November 02, 2016, 09:59:42 AM
Since Clinton kept her speeches secret (except from excerpts from wikileaks) that's a bit hard to do. And the people that heard those speeches aren't talking either.
There aren't any! Spin and deception are party-blind. Trump must send a drain snake routing out media's killing sludge. We pay the media to INFORM us and they DECEIVE us instead.
So there isn't the smallest shred of evidence that Hillary ever uttered that quote! Amazing what people will believe.
Do appreciate you acknowledging that spin and deception are party-blind! There is lot's of it out there. ;)
Post by: Lucifer on November 02, 2016, 10:05:00 AM
So there isn't the smallest shred of evidence that Hillary ever uttered that quote! Amazing what people will believe.
Do appreciate you acknowledging that spin and deception are party-blind! There is lot's of it out there. ;)
I posted this:
Quote
Since Clinton kept her speeches secret (except from excerpts from wikileaks) that's a bit hard to do. And the people that heard those speeches aren't talking either.
Please enlighten us what I posted was untrue or "spin and deception"?
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 02, 2016, 10:17:19 AM
So there isn't the smallest shred of evidence that Hillary ever uttered that quote! Amazing what people will believe.So you're coming over to the Drain the Swamp side? :) Or did I myself make a credibility leap to suggest you have?
Do appreciate you acknowledging that spin and deception are party-blind! There is lot's of it out there. ;)
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 02, 2016, 10:18:55 AM
I posted this:Most of her speeches ate indeed secret. To verify that quote would be very difficult.
Please enlighten us what I posted was untrue or "spin and deception"?
Post by: Jim Logajan on November 02, 2016, 11:16:17 AM
Since Clinton kept her speeches secret (except from excerpts from wikileaks) that's a bit hard to do. And the people that heard those speeches aren't talking either.
That makes it possible to claim Clinton said all sorts of things under the guise of plausibility.
Why is that sort of bogus attack even being done when there is supportable material against her that is actually more damning? Bogus attacks water down the damning material.
Post by: Lucifer on November 02, 2016, 11:25:26 AM
That makes it possible to claim Clinton said all sorts of things under the guise of plausibility.
Why is that sort of bogus attack even being done when there is supportable material against her that is actually more damning? Bogus attacks water down the damning material.
Reading comprehension issues?
Read again, just slow down and read each word carefully. If you need help let us know.
Quote
Since Clinton kept her speeches secret (except from excerpts from wikileaks) that's a bit hard to do. And the people that heard those speeches aren't talking either.
First sentence:
Quote
Since Clinton kept her speeches secret (except from excerpts from wikileaks) that's a bit hard to do.
Fact: Clinton kept her speeches secret and never released them.
Fact: Wikileaks did release excerpts of a few speeches.
And I concluded "that's a bit hard to do" in response to your quote:
Quote
Feel free, then, to post reasonably credible references that support the alleged quotes from Clinton.
Second sentence:
Quote
And the people that heard those speeches aren't talking either.
Meaning? There are no sources available.
So, to sum it up, I stated 2 facts then concluded it was "hard to do" since her speeches were kept secret and that the people that witnessed the speeches were not confirming or denying what was in them.
Post by: Gary on November 02, 2016, 11:37:05 AM
So you're coming over to the Drain the Swamp side? :) Or did I myself make a credibility leap to suggest you have?
Gotta admit that the phrase "Draining the Swamp" is catchy and I can see that it would have appeal. How is that defined? Does the Donald intend to replace duly elected representatives that don't support his cause? How about judges, or other appointed members of government? Will everyone now have a new test (Trumpism?) to determine if they are indeed worthy?
We are electing a President, not a dictator. If the Donald is going to implement just one of the many promises he has made, he will need help and cooperation to accomplish these things. So, who is going to work with him? The Dems will likely dust off the Republican playbook of "The Party of No' and there are more than a few on the right side of the aisle who already distaste his rhetoric and are distancing themselves.
I'm all in favor of removing people who are criminals, corrupt or clearly incompetent. We already have procedures to do that. While inefficient, there is a process, and it is not just one persons opinion.
Post by: Mase on November 02, 2016, 11:41:53 AM
We are electing a President, not a dictator. If the Donald is going to implement just one of the many promises he has made, he will need help and cooperation to accomplish these things.
Obama: "I can't do that."
"I can't do that."
"I can't do that."
"I can't do that."
"I can't do that."
"I did it."
Amnesty by executive order.
Post by: Jim Logajan on November 02, 2016, 11:59:49 AM
So, to sum it up, I stated 2 facts then concluded it was "hard to do" since her speeches were kept secret and that the people that witnessed the speeches were not confirming or denying what was in them.
You agree then that at best the alleged quotes contribute nothing?
Post by: Lucifer on November 02, 2016, 12:08:08 PM
You agree then that at best the alleged quotes contribute nothing?
My post is rather clear for anyone that has comprehension skills.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 02, 2016, 09:51:18 PM
Gotta admit that the phrase "Draining the Swamp" is catchy and I can see that it would have appeal. How is that defined? Does the Donald intend to replace duly elected representatives that don't support his cause? How about judges, or other appointed members of government? Will everyone now have a new test (Trumpism?) to determine if they are indeed worthy?https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-delivers-groundbreaking-contract-for-the-american-vote1
We are electing a President, not a dictator. If the Donald is going to implement just one of the many promises he has made, he will need help and cooperation to accomplish these things. So, who is going to work with him? The Dems will likely dust off the Republican playbook of "The Party of No' and there are more than a few on the right side of the aisle who already distaste his rhetoric and are distancing themselves.
I'm all in favor of removing people who are criminals, corrupt or clearly incompetent. We already have procedures to do that. While inefficient, there is a process, and it is not just one persons opinion.
Post by: Mase on November 02, 2016, 10:09:29 PM
Post by: Gary on November 03, 2016, 03:26:18 AM
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-delivers-groundbreaking-contract-for-the-american-vote1
The Donald (or any other politician) can say or post on a website anything. Getting it accomplished is entirely different.
Hmmmm.... seem to remember another "Contract with America" a few years ago. That didn't amount to much either.
Post by: President-Elect Bob Noel on November 03, 2016, 04:02:32 AM
The Donald (or any other politician) can say or post on a website anything. Getting it accomplished is entirely different.
Hmmmm.... seem to remember another "Contract with America" a few years ago. That didn't amount to much either.
Do you have any specific objections to the "contract"?
or are you just whining about the republican nominee?
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 03, 2016, 06:04:24 AM
The Donald (or any other politician) can say or post on a website anything. Getting it accomplished is entirely different.
Hmmmm.... seem to remember another "Contract with America" a few years ago. That didn't amount to much either.
Not like it brought us a balanced budget or anything like that. ::)
Post by: Little Joe on November 03, 2016, 06:07:49 AM
But I thought Bill Clinton brought us the balanced budget, all by himself since he had a Republican Congress.
Not it brought us a balanced budget or anything like that. ::)
Post by: Lucifer on November 03, 2016, 06:49:47 AM
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html
Quote
1. The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far and has been going on for more than a year.
2. The laptops of Clinton aides Cherryl Mills and Heather Samuelson have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them. The investigation has interviewed several people twice, and plans to interview some for a third time.
3. Agents have found emails believed to have originated on Hillary Clinton's secret server on Anthony Weiner's laptop. They say the emails are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature.
4. Sources within the FBI have told him that an indictment is "likely" in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, "barring some obstruction in some way" from the Justice Department.
5. FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton's server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information had been taken from it.
So, as previously stated, it's not just the email's on Weiner's laptop.
Face it, Hillary dug this hole back when she thought she could circumvent FOIA laws with a private server. She owns everything that is about to happen, and once again proves to the American people she is unfit to hold the office of President.
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on November 03, 2016, 06:58:40 AM
Post by: nddons on November 03, 2016, 07:56:05 AM
The Donald (or any other politician) can say or post on a website anything. Getting it accomplished is entirely different.It didn't? Perhaps you weren't paying attention.
Hmmmm.... seem to remember another "Contract with America" a few years ago. That didn't amount to much either.
Post by: Becky (My pronouns are Assigned/By/God) on November 03, 2016, 08:17:01 AM
Post by: Anthony on November 06, 2016, 01:56:34 PM
Gotta admit that the phrase "Draining the Swamp" is catchy and I can see that it would have appeal. How is that defined? Does the Donald intend to replace duly elected representatives that don't support his cause? How about judges, or other appointed members of government? Will everyone now have a new test (Trumpism?) to determine if they are indeed worthy?
We are electing a President, not a dictator. If the Donald is going to implement just one of the many promises he has made, he will need help and cooperation to accomplish these things. So, who is going to work with him? The Dems will likely dust off the Republican playbook of "The Party of No' and there are more than a few on the right side of the aisle who already distaste his rhetoric and are distancing themselves.
To be fair to the Republicans, they did give practically everything that Obama wanted in the budgets they approved and past to him for signature. The Democrats also refused to compromise on other issues, and that is fine. Gridlock was designed into the system.
Trump may be a jerk, but he can make deals, and he gives enough incentives, the opposition make work with him.