Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

all hail HRCFollow

#52 Jul 07 2016 at 8:17 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Talk about trying way too hard. I particularly loved when Obama called Clinton the Energizer Bunny (I'm sure that no feminist groups will have issue with the word "bunny" used in this context though, so it's all ok), and when Clinton said that Obama's greatest accomplishment was more or less successfully breeding (yeah, I get what she was saying, but boy could you interpret it another way if you wanted).

You're sounding desperate.


And yet, those are the kinds of statements which if made by two Republicans would be front and center on every liberal website and media source as evidence of discord between them.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#53 Jul 07 2016 at 8:27 PM Rating: Good
Repressed Memories
******
20,884 posts
Candies and nuts?
#54 Jul 07 2016 at 8:28 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
Allegory wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
My mom still can't figure out the difference between Reply and Forward.

There isn't one, at least functionally.


There is. If you reply, and add a recipient, there won't be any attachments from the previous email. If you forward to someone, attachments will be included. Usually forward to someone who wasn't on the original email. This is a thing that my boss, who is older, can't wrap his head around, so I get added to a lot of replies, with things like "can you fill out the attached document from so-and-so" and I have to reply asking him to forward the document to me.


Hah. Yeah, I run into this all the time. One of our vendor AEs will get an email from their internal team with a set of licenses for their software that we need, and he'll reply to it, include me (the guy who has to actually do something with the licenses), and ask me to activate/install them. I'm constantly having to ask him to send the darn attachment. Of course, then he often manages to ***** it up (cause again, "forward" is too complicated), and tries to manually attach the files to a new email. He inevitably sends me 2 or more copies of one license file, and no copies of some others. And when our counts don't add up, I'm left with zero electronic paper trail to figure out why we're short.

So yes. Knowing the correct tool to use and how to use it correctly actually is important.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Jul 07 2016 at 9:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
And yet, those are the kinds of statements which if made by two Republicans would be front and center on every liberal website and media source as evidence of discord between them.

It's good that, in all this, you can still find ways to whine and make the GOP a martyr Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#56 Jul 08 2016 at 1:52 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,383 posts
Call me crazy, but I don't find myself actually caring about any of the things Hilary is being accused of. Next I'll be hearing about how Hilary forgot to wash her hands after leaving the girls room and how horrible it is, over and over, all day long for months until the next of many desperate try hard scandals comes along. It's kind of sad how this one stuck somehow and all kinds of people who aren't conspiracy theory fuckwits are talking about it like it matters at all.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#57 Jul 08 2016 at 8:49 AM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Anyone else would have been nailed to the wall.
But no one really has.
angrymnk wrote:
I am not even sure why this cannot happen.
Because not voting has zero effect on the process.

Also voting third party. Zero effect. Just the sheer number of people that are going to always vote along party lines makes it pointless.

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 11:35am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#58 Jul 08 2016 at 9:18 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yeah, for all the "Anyone else would have been...", that's just not the history. Even if you were to accept the one or two reaches that come up and ignore the other circumstances around those cases, that's still a bunch of investigated cases and one or two times someone was actually prosecuted. "Anyone else would have been" is just plain wrong based on previous history.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#59 Jul 08 2016 at 10:13 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,250 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yeah, for all the "Anyone else would have been...", that's just not the history. Even if you were to accept the one or two reaches that come up and ignore the other circumstances around those cases, that's still a bunch of investigated cases and one or two times someone was actually prosecuted. "Anyone else would have been" is just plain wrong based on previous history.
This probably bears repeating. If there's any criticism to spin it's that the problem is widespread and isn't being treated seriously. How seriously we should take it, of course, being a matter of debate. Updating laws for the 21st century is probably a good start, record keeping requirements and whatnot probably need to be looked at again, and security is always a concern regardless. If if the majority of government employees likely do use non-government e-mails for government communication, at least on occasion, that's a problem that should be addressed.

Still an occasional e-mail is a far cry from setting up your own server without permission and handling classified information over it, of course. Some dumb decisions speak for themselves.Smiley: rolleyes

I guess we see what the State Dept has to say about it now that they're relaunching their own investigation. Not that it'll mean much if she does wind up President. Can't exactly ban the leader of the country from handling classified information.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#60 Jul 08 2016 at 6:12 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,224 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Anyone else would have been nailed to the wall.
But no one really has.
angrymnk wrote:
I am not even sure why this cannot happen.
Because not voting has zero effect on the process.

Also voting third party. Zero effect. Just the sheer number of people that are going to always vote along party lines makes it pointless.

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 11:35am by lolgaxe


Huh? Cursory google search pulls names like: Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, John Gerstein, Bryan Nishimura, Kristian Saucier and Shamai Leibowitz. I will give you that they are not completely analogous to what HRC did. But you will note how some of them did not have the intent, apparently like Clinton. Not like her, naturally. She is a in league of her own.

As for the third party vote, I think I can finally use this piece.

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 8:25pm by angrymnk

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 8:28pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#61 Jul 08 2016 at 6:39 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,138 posts
Didn't read the first page, but I would like to clarify that there is a huge difference between an email being marked classified as opposed to a classified marking on a sentence within the document. Not making any excuses, but I hear a lot of people claiming that they are the same.
#62 Jul 08 2016 at 7:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
Huh? Cursory google search pulls names like: Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, John Gerstein, Bryan Nishimura, Kristian Saucier and Shamai Leibowitz. I will give you that they are not completely analogous to what HRC did.

Which is why they were handled differently. Kim intentionally disclosed info to a reporter, Nishimura tried to destroy classified materials, Saucier took photos of a submarine's (classified) nuclear reactor room and Leibowitz intentionally shared classified information with a friend explicitly to have it disseminated.

But, hey... kinda-sorta is close enough. Why sweat details?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#63 Jul 08 2016 at 7:23 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,224 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Huh? Cursory google search pulls names like: Stephen Jin-Woo Kim, John Gerstein, Bryan Nishimura, Kristian Saucier and Shamai Leibowitz. I will give you that they are not completely analogous to what HRC did.

Which is why they were handled differently. Kim intentionally disclosed info to a reporter, Nishimura tried to destroy classified materials, Saucier took photos of a submarine's (classified) nuclear reactor room and Leibowitz intentionally shared classified information with a friend explicitly to have it disseminated.

But, hey... kinda-sorta is close enough. Why sweat details?


Why indeed? It is not like HRC unintentionally hired a consulting firm, unintentionally bought a server, had IT people manage it, unintentionally used that private server for work emails, unintentionally had her lawyers only give investigators those emails she deemed worthwhile. And then she did not even get a slap on a ******* wrist. Not even a paltry fine, which she could pay out of her pocket.

Now let us oppose that with Saucier, who did not actually intend to disseminate pictures he took. Where is that mens rea now?
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#64 Jul 08 2016 at 8:20 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Navy Times wrote:
Saucier told the FBI in an interview that the phone was his but that he didn't take the pictures, according to the criminal complaint. The FBI alleges that after the interview, Saucier went home and smashed his laptop, a camera and an SD card.

FBI caught him lying in the interview and then trying to destroy evidence. In contrast, Comey stated that Clinton did not lie to him during the FBI interview and that the deleted emails containing information of note were apparently deleted over time as part of routine server maintenance and not intentionally.

It's entirely likely that, had Saucier been honest and handed over the evidence, he would have been reprimanded but not indicted and sent to prison.

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 9:22pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#65 Jul 08 2016 at 8:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,224 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Navy Times wrote:
Saucier told the FBI in an interview that the phone was his but that he didn't take the pictures, according to the criminal complaint. The FBI alleges that after the interview, Saucier went home and smashed his laptop, a camera and an SD card.

FBI caught him lying in the interview and then trying to destroy evidence. In contrast, Comey stated that Clinton did not lie to him during the FBI interview and that the deleted emails containing information of note were apparently deleted over time as part of routine server maintenance and not intentionally.

It's entirely likely that, had Saucier been honest and handed over the evidence, he would have been reprimanded but not indicted and sent to prison.

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 9:22pm by Jophiel


Funny, Clinton lied to the US on her very own HillaryClinton.com ( email facts ) page. It was for everyone to see. Don't know if it is still is. But because she technically did not lie to Comey directly she gets off with... nothing at all? Gotta love technicalities. So talk to me more about lying and destroying evidence.

Also, I do apologize in advance for doing this, but this is not a normal situation:

CLINTON: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.” (Hillary Clinton, press conference, 3/10/15)

COMEY: “110 emails in 52 email chains have been determined by the owning [government] agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. … Separate from those, about 2,000 additional emails were up-classified to make them confidential. Those emails had not been classified at the time that they were sent or received… [Some] chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending emails about [top-secret-level] matters and receiving emails from others about the same matters.”

CLINTON: “I take classified information seriously.” (Hillary Clinton, CNN interview, 2/1/2016)

COMEY: “Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of the classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.”

CLINTON: “Nothing I sent was marked classified or that I received was marked classified.” (Hillary Clinton, Democratic Presidential Town Hall on Fox News, 3/7/2016)

COMEY: “It’s also important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the emails here containing classified information bore markings that indicated the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

CLINTON: “I have directed that all my emails on Clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done” (Hillary Clinton, sworn statement filed in U.S. District Court, 08/10/15)

COMNEY: “The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related emails that were not among the group of 30,000 emails returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014.”

CLINTON: Asked if she “wiped” the server, “What, like with a cloth or something? Well, no. I don’t know how it works digitally at all.” (Hillary Clinton, press conference, 8/18/2015)

COMEY: Clinton’s lawyers “cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.”

CLINTON: “The Secretary’s office was located in a secure area. Classified information was viewed in hard copy by Clinton while in the office. While on travel, the State Department had rigorous protocols for her and traveling staff to receive and transmit information of all types,” (HillaryClinton.com, “The Facts About Hillary Clinton’s Emails”)

COMEY: “She also used her personal email extensively while outside of the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”




Edited, Jul 8th 2016 10:55pm by angrymnk

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 10:59pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#66 Jul 08 2016 at 10:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
But because she technically did not lie to Comey directly she gets off with... nothing at all?

Rule of law is a bitch, huh? It's almost as though you need to lie to the FBI in order for the FBI to charge you with lying to the FBI and collected quotes pulled from the internet don't count.

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 11:34pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#67 Jul 09 2016 at 7:01 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,138 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
But because she technically did not lie to Comey directly she gets off with... nothing at all?

Rule of law is a bitch, huh? It's almost as though you need to lie to the FBI in order for the FBI to charge you with lying to the FBI and collected quotes pulled from the internet don't count.

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 11:34pm by Jophiel



Funny how many of these same people upset about this outcome took the DoJ outcome for Mike Brown/Ferguson as absolute truth when there was supporting evidence of the city abusing the populace and facts that officer Wilson was once removed for behavioral issues.
#68 Jul 09 2016 at 10:14 AM Rating: Good
Scholar
***
1,224 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
But because she technically did not lie to Comey directly she gets off with... nothing at all?

Rule of law is a bitch, huh? It's almost as though you need to lie to the FBI in order for the FBI to charge you with lying to the FBI and collected quotes pulled from the internet don't count.

Edited, Jul 8th 2016 11:34pm by Jophiel


Heh, good one. It is only a shame that some of those quotes happen to have been parts of various interviews and whatnot. Public record. Internet just happens to be a storage here. Still, as arguments go, it was a good one.

You see Joph.. I believe in balance, above all else. I also happen to think things have gotten way out of balance over the past 20 or so years. And it is not about Clinton, not really. It is exactly about that lack of balance. And with all his recent decisions, Comey made it clear that he wants to move that balance even further in the same direction. And again, HRC decision was just another bad decision in a string of really bad decisions. He, and people like him, are pushing US towards a country that is effectively not the US I would want to live in.

Which is a ******* shame, because I like it here. About the only thing I seem to be missing now is a dog to make it dunno..complete.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#69 Jul 09 2016 at 11:06 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
Heh, good one. It is only a shame that some of those quotes happen to have been parts of various interviews and whatnot.

But not with the FBI. You realize that it's not the FBI's job to see if you told fibs on the internet, right? You're demanding that Clinton's case be treated like other cases that differed from her's in significant ways and you don't seem to understand that those differences... well, make all the difference.
Quote:
You see Joph.. I believe in balance, above all else.

That's swell. You don't seem to believe in the FBI working within the law even as you pitch a fit about Clinton not working within the law.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Jul 09 2016 at 11:18 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,224 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Heh, good one. It is only a shame that some of those quotes happen to have been parts of various interviews and whatnot.

But not with the FBI. You realize that it's not the FBI's job to see if you told fibs on the internet, right? You're demanding that Clinton's case be treated like other cases that differed from her's in significant ways and you don't seem to understand that those differences... well, make all the difference.
Quote:
You see Joph.. I believe in balance, above all else.

That's swell. You don't seem to believe in the FBI working within the law even as you pitch a fit about Clinton not working within the law.


Interesting. It is, however, FBI's job to collect relevant evidence. Based on what you know thus far, was she working within the law? Consider it a thought experiment. Try not to base it on FBI saying yes.

Edited, Jul 9th 2016 1:19pm by angrymnk

Edited, Jul 9th 2016 1:20pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#71 Jul 09 2016 at 11:42 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,138 posts
Agnrymnk wrote:
Interesting. It is, however, FBI's job to collect relevant evidence.
Exactly. Don't confuse the intent of the investigation.
#72 Jul 09 2016 at 11:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
Try not to base it on FBI saying yes.

Why not? We were discussing whether or not the FBI treated the case fairly compared to other cases, right? Re-reading this page, that WAS the topic. Are you ready to concede that the FBI treated the case properly before we move on?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Jul 09 2016 at 12:06 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,224 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Try not to base it on FBI saying yes.

Why not? We were discussing whether or not the FBI treated the case fairly compared to other cases, right? Re-reading this page, that WAS the topic. Are you ready to concede that the FBI treated the case properly before we move on?


Depends. Are you ready to say that Clinton got a way with metaphorical murder?

Edited, Jul 9th 2016 2:07pm by angrymnk
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#74 Jul 09 2016 at 12:09 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,224 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Agnrymnk wrote:
Interesting. It is, however, FBI's job to collect relevant evidence.
Exactly. Don't confuse the intent of the investigation.


That intent being to let her go? I am confused.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#75 Jul 09 2016 at 12:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Try not to base it on FBI saying yes.
Why not? We were discussing whether or not the FBI treated the case fairly compared to other cases, right? Re-reading this page, that WAS the topic. Are you ready to concede that the FBI treated the case properly before we move on?
Depends.

I'll take that as you running out of points. No problem, better luck next time. We have a lovely home edition of the game waiting for you as you leave. Smiley: thumbsup
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Jul 09 2016 at 12:26 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,224 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
Try not to base it on FBI saying yes.
Why not? We were discussing whether or not the FBI treated the case fairly compared to other cases, right? Re-reading this page, that WAS the topic. Are you ready to concede that the FBI treated the case properly before we move on?
Depends.

I'll take that as you running out of points. No problem, better luck next time. We have a lovely home edition of the game waiting for you as you leave. Smiley: thumbsup


Take it as you will. You did not answer either of the previous questions. As far as I can tell we did not finish.

That said, you made me question my view of things. I can only say good job. I doubt you believe any of it, but any sophist would be proud.

____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#77 Jul 09 2016 at 12:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, I didn't because they were irrelevant to whether or not Clinton's FBI case compared to previous FBI cases resulting in indictment.

"Thought experiments" are what Gbaji comes up with when he's losing an argument and wants to re-set it on his own terms.

Edited, Jul 9th 2016 1:29pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78 Jul 09 2016 at 12:39 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,224 posts
Jophiel wrote:
No, I didn't because they were irrelevant to whether or not Clinton's FBI case compared to previous FBI cases resulting in indictment.

"Thought experiments" are what Gbaji comes up with when he's losing an argument and wants to re-set it on his own terms.

Edited, Jul 9th 2016 1:29pm by Jophiel


I beg to differ, but, in the parlance of today's youth, whatevs. For the record, thought experiments are a valid way of argumentation and happen to find its place in math, CS, physics and, surprise, philosophy. And last but not least, I am not Gbaji.

I get that you want to quit while you are ahead. I really do, but that does not automatically make me attempting to null your previous efforts any less valid just because of the method used.

Nice try though.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#79 Jul 09 2016 at 12:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
I get that you want to quit while you are ahead

Sweet! I'm ahead!

Winner-winner-chicken-dinner! Smiley: yippee
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#80 Jul 09 2016 at 12:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,224 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
I get that you want to quit while you are ahead

Sweet! I'm ahead!

Winner-winner-chicken-dinner! Smiley: yippee


I can't help but to chuckle.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#81 Jul 09 2016 at 3:03 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,138 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Agnrymnk wrote:
Interesting. It is, however, FBI's job to collect relevant evidence.
Exactly. Don't confuse the intent of the investigation.


That intent being to let her go? I am confused.
To determine whether or not classified information was mishandled to the point to indict someone. The information that you are claiming to be "relevant evidence" doesn't alter that outcome.
#82 Jul 11 2016 at 7:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ABC-WP poll suggests that the whole event is largely a wash for Clinton. Although 56% of respondents said they thought Clinton should face charges of some sort, 30% of the total respondents said it made them less likely to vote for Clinton, 8% said "more likely" and 60% said it made no difference. Even among people who thought she should face charges, a plurality (47%) said it wouldn't impact their vote.

That's at peak news cycle. I'd assume that, a few months from now, it'll have even less impact.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#83 Jul 11 2016 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
Lying to the public isn't illegal, lying to federal agents in the course of their investigation is. Coming up next on the news after the break, water is wet.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#84 Jul 11 2016 at 10:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,250 posts
Jophiel wrote:
ABC-WP poll suggests that the whole event is largely a wash for Clinton. Although 56% of respondents said they thought Clinton should face charges of some sort, 30% of the total respondents said it made them less likely to vote for Clinton, 8% said "more likely" and 60% said it made no difference. Even among people who thought she should face charges, a plurality (47%) said it wouldn't impact their vote.
Really her and that husband have both been up to all kinds of mischief since their days in Arkansas. If you didn't already hate her for other reasons this probably wasn't going to be the tipping point.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#85 Jul 11 2016 at 10:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quite probably. It's a common suggestion that Clinton's negatives are "baked in" after decades of being in the press and GOP attacks so there isn't much at this point that'll make supporters say "Nope, that's it... I'm out"

A better GOP candidate could have potentially drawn people off but the Republican primary voters wanted Trump.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#86 Jul 11 2016 at 5:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
But because she technically did not lie to Comey directly she gets off with... nothing at all?

Rule of law is a bitch, huh? It's almost as though you need to lie to the FBI in order for the FBI to charge you with lying to the FBI and collected quotes pulled from the internet don't count.


If the only crime in the universe was "lying to the FBI", you'd have a point. But the FBI was not just investigating as to whether statements made by Clinton to the FBI under oath were true. They were investigating as to whether or not any of her actions involving the use of a private email server violated the law and should be prosecuted by the DoJ. You would think that this would also include statements made under oath to Congress, and her degree of cooperation or obstruction with regard to their original requests for information, given that this was the starting point of the very investigation they were conducting.

She absolutely did lie to Congress. She, at the very very least, committed perjury and obstruction of justice. Amusing the exact same charges that Libby was convicted of, during an investigation in which the investigators knew going in who had committed the "crime" (which apparently wasn't actually a crime at all), and essentially existed solely as a fishing expedition in the Bush White House. But that's justice and Clinton's lack of even a prosecution is justice as well?

Hard to imagine that justice is still wearing that blindfold when you see such a ridiculous double standard in play.

The irony is that Comey's recommendation may actually play out to be worse for Clinton. If he'd recommended prosecution, then Lynch could have simply declined to do so (and taken the heat for it herself). Or she could have strung her own investigation along with promises to determine charges if any "in good time", call anyone pushing for more action "partisan", etc. Or she could have rushed it, put together a kangaroo panel of attorney's, determined that there were no charges to file, and then dropped the whole thing with some pretty pretty speech about how all the evidence really did clear Clinton of all wrongdoing, etc, etc, etc... Heck. If they were really clever, they'd pull the same trick they did with the PP investigation and maybe level charges at some prominent GOP member (maybe Gowdy) for some silly thing or other. Just because that never gets old.

Comey's action actually takes control of the message out of Clinton and the Obama administrations hands. It puts the assessment of Comey's recommendation front and center before the American people. And I don't think they like what they see. I get that well inside the liberal echo chamber this is all seen as just partisan unfairness, but I'm pretty sure that far far more people think Clinton just got away with a crime than think otherwise. And in an election cycle where "crooked politics as usual" is one of the major themes, this will almost certainly hurt Clinton.

Then again, Clinton was going to have problems with this no matter what. So it's possible that perception was just baked into the cake from day one and this one extra example wont make much difference. Hard to say really. You've got someone with such a long history of questionable actions, that even her most ardent supporters have to kinda hold their noses and look the other way. I suppose it does put the issue right into the minds of the voters. Whether it's still there in November is a whole different matter though.

Edited, Jul 11th 2016 4:57pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#87 Jul 11 2016 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Lying to the public isn't illegal, lying to federal agents in the course of their investigation is. Coming up next on the news after the break, water is wet.


Lying to Congress is illegal too.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#88 Jul 11 2016 at 6:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
ABC-WP poll suggests that the whole event is largely a wash for Clinton. Although 56% of respondents said they thought Clinton should face charges of some sort, 30% of the total respondents said it made them less likely to vote for Clinton, 8% said "more likely" and 60% said it made no difference. Even among people who thought she should face charges, a plurality (47%) said it wouldn't impact their vote.


Uh... Presumably because most of those who thought she should have faced chargers were already not going to vote for her. I would hardly call an event that 30% of respondents said would make them less likely to vote for Clinton "a wash". That's wishful thinking in the extreme. A wash would have been an equal number being more likely as less likely to vote for Clinton, and that's not close to what happened.

Quote:
That's at peak news cycle. I'd assume that, a few months from now, it'll have even less impact.


This, on the other hand, is not wishful thinking at all. I see you mentioned the whole "baked in" bit (I didn't read back through all the posts before replying), and I totally agree. How much this actually affects her come November is really hard to say. If you're voting for Clinton it's because you've already decided that the pattern of behavior she (and her husband) exhibit is not sufficient to counteract whatever list of "good things" you think voting for her (or just for *any* Dem) brings. So one more thing that's part of that same dishonest pattern probably wont influence your vote in the long run (even among those who say it will today).

Of course, if we didn't spend time arguing about this, the forum would be even more deader than it is now. So... I officially declare that this will be the issue that sinks the Clinton campaign. Absolutely. Definitely! No doubt! Anyone who disagrees just has their head shoved in the sand or something. A vote for Clinton is a vote for Hitler! Rargh!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Jul 11 2016 at 6:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But the FBI was not just investigating as to whether statements made by Clinton to the FBI under oath were true. They were investigating as to whether or not any of her actions involving the use of a private email server violated the law and should be prosecuted by the DoJ. You would think that this would also include statements made under oath to Congress, and her degree of cooperation or obstruction with regard to their original requests for information, given that this was the starting point of the very investigation they were conducting.

No, Comey was very clear about what the limits of the investigation were. The fact that they aren't what you wish they were is 100% irrelevant. What Clinton said at a Congressional hearing or a public interview or what was posted on her website, etc wasn't what the FBI was investigating.
gbaji wrote:
Uh... Presumably because most of those who thought she should have faced chargers were already not going to vote for her. I would hardly call an event that 30% of respondents said would make them less likely to vote for Clinton "a wash".

As you just stated, the people who are saying it makes them "less likely" weren't voting for her anyway. If the number of people saying that was near or exceeding her polling numbers, THAT would be a problem. A bunch of Trump supporters saying "we're less likely to vote for Clinton" is meaningless. When you're polling at 46% and 70% of the country shrugs their shoulders about something, it's a wash.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 Jul 11 2016 at 7:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,802 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But the FBI was not just investigating as to whether statements made by Clinton to the FBI under oath were true. They were investigating as to whether or not any of her actions involving the use of a private email server violated the law and should be prosecuted by the DoJ. You would think that this would also include statements made under oath to Congress, and her degree of cooperation or obstruction with regard to their original requests for information, given that this was the starting point of the very investigation they were conducting.

No, Comey was very clear about what the limits of the investigation were.


In his final report, sure. It's pretty clear from the grilling he got from Congress that most of the people who asked for the investigation in the first place thought it was going to investigate the entire process from start to finish, including the numerous hearings and testimony she gave to Congress. They were pretty shocked, in fact, when they asked if she lied about the email on her server and he responded only with "well, she didn't like to the FBI". Um... Again, most people would assume they were investigating all of her actions with regard to her handling of the server and the information contained within, not just her interactions with the investigative body itself.

Quote:
The fact that they aren't what you wish they were is 100% irrelevant. What Clinton said at a Congressional hearing ... wasn't what the FBI was investigating.


Why not? Don't you think that their investigation should have included that? Given that the only reason they had any evidence to work with in the first place was because congress ordered the state department to hand it over as part of the Benghazi investigation, then discovered it wasn't there but was on Clinton's private email server, and she then proceeded to lie and obstruct them when they demanded those documents as well making it take a year or so to get documents that should have been readily available if they'd been properly stored on State Dept servers, it seems silly to leave that whole process out when investigating whether Clinton committed a crime.

The old saying is that the coverup is often worse than the crime. Except in this case, Comey chose to not bother to look at the very overt attempt to cover up what she did. Which is bizarre at the very least.


Quote:
As you just stated, the people who are saying it makes them "less likely" weren't voting for her anyway.


That's not what I said. I said that the large percentage of people who thought she should face charges but also said it wouldn't affect their vote was because they were already not going to vote for Clinton. In the same way, those who were already not going to vote for Clinton are presumably most present in the 60% who said it made no difference. If they weren't voting for her before, and are not voting for her now, then the action did not make a difference in their vote.

On the other hand, one kinda has to assume that the 30% who said they were "less likely" to vote for Clinton as a result of this, were at least somewhat on the fence. They can only be less likely to vote for her if there was some likelihood that they would have absent this event. So yeah, the whole "30% less likely vs 8% more likely" is not remotely "a wash". It's a whole bunch of people who were at least somewhat undecided tilting away from Clinton as a result. You kinda have to really double think the poll results to see it otherwise.

Quote:
If the number of people saying that was near or exceeding her polling numbers, THAT would be a problem. A bunch of Trump supporters saying "we're less likely to vote for Clinton" is meaningless. When you're polling at 46% and 70% of the country shrugs their shoulders about something, it's a wash.


Yeah, right... If the polling numbers were reversed you'd be declaring victory though, right? If the poll said that 30% were "more likely" to vote for Clinton and only 8% "less likely", you'd never accept a counter argument that those who were "more likely" were just people who were already going to vote for her anyway so they really didn't count. You'd toss that out immediately, yet eagerly grab on to the opposite conclusion. You are nothing if not consistent in your inconsistency though!

Edited, Jul 11th 2016 6:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#91 Jul 11 2016 at 7:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Why not? Don't you think that their investigation should have included that?

Who cares what I think? The FBI had what they were asked to investigate and they investigated it.
Quote:
On the other hand, one kinda has to assume that the 30% who said they were "less likely" to vote for Clinton as a result of this, were at least somewhat on the fence.

You're... joking, right? You really think that's how people respond in polls? For real? Please, answer me and tell me that you're being serious here because I'd feel silly having a belly laugh if you're just casting around for debating points right now.
Quote:
Yeah, right... If the polling numbers were reversed you'd be declaring victory though, right?

Well, no. Because, again, if you're dealing with a number like 30% during a partisan election it's pretty easy to guess where that 30% is coming from.

Not to put too fine a point on it but, if I thought these were terrible numbers and was trying desperately to put a brave face on them while knowing it was all a farce... I'd just not post them? I mean, I wouldn't bother volunteering the info if I thought I was going to have to spin a web of lies around it. More in reality, I'd post it (just cause I find it interesting) and say "Bad news for Camp Clinton..."

Edited, Jul 11th 2016 9:02pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Jul 11 2016 at 7:56 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,138 posts
Gbaji wrote:
In his final report, sure. It's pretty clear from the grilling he got from Congress that most of the people who asked for the investigation in the first place thought it was going to investigate the entire process from start to finish, including the numerous hearings and testimony she gave to Congress
From my understanding, the emails had classified markings, but were not marked classified. If that's the case, then she didn't lie about not sending or receiving any emails marked classified.
#93 Jul 12 2016 at 12:07 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,200 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
In his final report, sure. It's pretty clear from the grilling he got from Congress that most of the people who asked for the investigation in the first place thought it was going to investigate the entire process from start to finish, including the numerous hearings and testimony she gave to Congress
From my understanding, the emails had classified markings, but were not marked classified. If that's the case, then she didn't lie about not sending or receiving any emails marked classified.
Yeah, If Mark Classified send them it wouldn't be sending Classified Mark Materials. Just classic Mark behavior.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#94 Jul 12 2016 at 1:07 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,211 posts
Bush's did nothing wrong
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#95 Jul 12 2016 at 5:43 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,138 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
In his final report, sure. It's pretty clear from the grilling he got from Congress that most of the people who asked for the investigation in the first place thought it was going to investigate the entire process from start to finish, including the numerous hearings and testimony she gave to Congress
From my understanding, the emails had classified markings, but were not marked classified. If that's the case, then she didn't lie about not sending or receiving any emails marked classified.
Yeah, If Mark Classified send them it wouldn't be sending Classified Mark Materials. Just classic Mark behavior.
?
#96 Jul 12 2016 at 7:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
Yeah, If Mark Classified send them it wouldn't be sending Classified Mark Materials. Just classic Mark behavior.

My understanding is that classified documents are supposed to be marked across the header as classified and then, within the body of text, symbols are used to denote the sensitive material. The emails Comey found were marked with a (c) within the document but lacked the headers designed to let you know at a glance that the document was classified.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#97 Jul 12 2016 at 7:14 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,200 posts
So, uh, just thousands and thousands of pages of super sloppy state dept. paperwork?

This really isn't making it better...
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#98 Jul 12 2016 at 7:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Where are you getting "thousands and thousands" from? There weren't "thousands" of classified emails involved.

In any case, I'm not trying to make you feel better but rather clarify what Alma was trying to say.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#99 Jul 12 2016 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
gbaji wrote:
Lying to Congress is illegal too.
What you want to be illegal and what actually is illegal are two different things.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#100 Jul 12 2016 at 8:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Perjury before Congress is illegal but nearly impossible to prosecute since, again, you have to be able to prove intent. Clinton says she didn't send/receive any classified documents, FBI finds that 0.3% of the documents were classified, Clinton says "Don't remember those out of the tens of thousands of emails. You can see from the tiny percentage of classified documents that it was an extremely uncommon event that something must have slipped through; I thought my statement was accurate and truthful" and... how do you prove otherwise? Thus, getting DoJ to indict on perjury is a longer shot than indicting on the initial charges.

Edited, Jul 12th 2016 9:06am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#101 Jul 12 2016 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
******
49,399 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Perjury before Congress is illegal but nearly impossible to prosecute since, again, you have to be able to prove intent.
You were just waiting for the chance to explain it on a technical level, weren't you?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 77 All times are in CDT
Jophiel, Kavekkk, lolgaxe, Anonymous Guests (74)