• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Clinton foundation email release

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Do the people railing against the Clinton foundation have any clue or concern about what the foundation actually does with the money it collects, or can they not see past the fact that it has the word "Clinton" in the name?
 
Mxylplyx said:
Do the people railing against the Clinton foundation have any clue or concern about what the foundation actually does with the money it collects, or can they not see past the fact that it has the word "Clinton" in the name?
Click to expand...

Come on you haven't been paying attention to the propaganda about the Clintons for the last oh 20 years or so.

Clinton = conspiracy
 
buckshot24 said:
Denial at its finest.
Click to expand...

The FBI investigates to determine if a criminal act took place. To my knowledge there have been no statements by the FBI stating any criminal wrongdoing.

Are you saying they have stated such? Can you evidence that? Are you saying the FBI only investigates when there is an absolute certainty of criminal conduct and they never come back with a result of no criminal findings?
 
MomentsofSanity said:
The FBI investigates to determine if a criminal act took place. To my knowledge there have been no statements by the FBI stating any criminal wrongdoing.

Are you saying they have stated such? Can you evidence that? Are you saying the FBI only investigates when there is an absolute certainty of criminal conduct and they never come back with a result of no criminal findings?
Click to expand...
So basically you want me to evidence a conviction. Do you think she didn't commit at least one crime? Really? There will never be "absolute certainty" about her criminal activity even if she is convicted.
 
buckshot24 said:
So basically you want me to evidence a conviction. Do you think she didn't commit at least one crime? Really? There will never be "absolute certainty" about her criminal activity even if she is convicted.
Click to expand...

Start with an indictment, something we haven't seen & probably will never see.
 
Jhhnn said:
What blatant criminal activity are you talking about?
Click to expand...
Nothing that could ever penetrate your bubble. (Although that hardly narrows it down.)

fskimospy said:
If the activity is so blatant then why is it still just an investigation? Do you think charges are imminent?

My guess is that you will say if charges are filed against her it's because the evidence indicated it. If charges aren't filed against her it's evidence of corruption. Can you point to a set of circumstances where no charges are filed where you are willing to accept that you were wrong about the 'blatant criminal activity'?
Click to expand...
<sigh> I've posted this several times in several threads, but I'll try again. No, I do not think charges are imminent, for three reasons.

First, both sides do it. What Hillary did was merely a much more egregious and arrogant version of what the Pubbies did with their RNC server - when you want something to be beyond discovery, move it out of the government system even though the law says otherwise. How can the FBI indict Hillary without indicting half of DC? It's not practical. That shields her from indictment for breaking the laws on retaining and handling government documents and partially from indictment for breaking the laws on handling classified documents.

Second, to indict Hillary requires having a workable alternative. Obviously they aren't going to indict her for not following the rules on official government documents. They SHOULD indict her for her many abuses of laws on classified documents. However, currently much of what she needs to do her job is sensitive information which by law must be kept on the secure system, yet to do her job requires communicating with people who by definition cannot be on the secure system. Since we don't have a workable system by which she could avoid every abuse, she has at least a partial defense against indictment. Obviously many of her violations (such as giving classified information to her lawyer, destroying classified information that by law must be preserved, putting classified information in very non-secure server farms) could easily have been avoided, but her lawyers can make a decent case that these violations arise from the inherently unworkable laws. It's similar to how State routinely gets away with bribing people in foreign countries. Illegal? Hell yes. Necessary? Unfortunately, yes. This is why it blows up every decade or so and then dies back down - there is no practical alternative.

Third, it is not politically feasible. There is zero chance that the Obama administration indicts the Democrat nominee for any political abuses. Same with a Republican administration: They love it as a talking point, but they aren't about to set a legal precedent by which they too will be bound. Hillary's indictment would seriously reduce their own freedom and increase their own risk. Hillary's non-indictment lowers the bar for their own behavior, enhancing their own freedom and decreasing their own risk. Thus even under a President Trump or President Cruz, Hillary will not be indicted. That is simply not in their own interests.

There is of course some chance that I am wrong, which I would celebrate as I much prefer President Sanders to President Clinton redux or President Trump. But if I am, I'd bet money that it results not from what we know, but from something turned up accidentally as a result of the investigation. The combination of Hillary's skill at destroying evidence, the lackluster investigation that neither side in D.C. really wants, the Clinton's vast personal wealth and political acumen, and the fact that her graft is routed through the black hole of the Clinton Family Foundation makes me think this is vanishingly unlikely.

Thus, failure to produce an indictment will not surprise me, make me think less of the FBI, or rethink my opinion on her blatant criminal activity.
 
buckshot24 said:
So basically you want me to evidence a conviction. Do you think she didn't commit at least one crime? Really? There will never be "absolute certainty" about her criminal activity even if she is convicted.
Click to expand...

And so it begins, the buckshatting!

Back up your claims!
 
Jhhnn said:
Start with an indictment, something we haven't seen & probably will never see.
Click to expand...
They aren't playing Parcheesi up there at the FBI, they are performing an investigation. Not sure how not being able to clear her is something great for her.
 
ivwshane said:
And so it begins, the buckshatting!

Back up your claims!
Click to expand...
Let me ask you something, would you rather not be investigated by the FBI for over a year or would you rather be investigated over a year by the FBI. During which the man who set up your server was given immunity? I know which one I'd choose. Any standard of evidence where I need to provide a conviction is ridiculous. This is ongoing.
 
buckshot24 said:
Let me ask you something, would you rather not be investigated by the FBI for over a year or would you rather be investigated over a year by the FBI. During which the man who set up your server was given immunity? I know which one I'd choose. Any standard of evidence where I need to provide a conviction is ridiculous. This is ongoing.
Click to expand...

He asked you a question, answer it.
 
buckshot24 said:
So basically you want me to evidence a conviction. Do you think she didn't commit at least one crime? Really? There will never be "absolute certainty" about her criminal activity even if she is convicted.
Click to expand...

Ummm the claim was blatant criminality. No conviction needed. Just one accusation of criminality from the FBI since their involvement is what you pointed to as being evidence of said blatant criminality.
 
buckshot24 said:
They aren't playing Parcheesi up there at the FBI, they are performing an investigation. Not sure how not being able to clear her is something great for her.
Click to expand...

Heh. Rephrased innuendo is still just innuendo.

So far, it's all hat & no cattle. I doubt that will change.
 
buckshot24 said:
I did. Which situation would you rather be in?

We're dealing in percentages here, not absolute certainty.
Click to expand...

I see no ambiguity in someone claiming blatant criminality. That seems like a very absolute statement.

I remember this one chap. Name was Richard Jewell. He was investigated by the FBI for some pretty serious things. Media was all over reporting about how he was probably guilty. Trying to remember how that played out.....
 
MomentsofSanity said:
Ummm the claim was blatant criminality. No conviction needed. Just one accusation of criminality from the FBI since their involvement is what you pointed to as being evidence of said blatant criminality.
Click to expand...

The FBI hasn't alleged criminality on anybody's part, not at all.
 
werepossum said:
Nothing that could ever penetrate your bubble. (Although that hardly narrows it down.)
Click to expand...

That's a dodge, not an answer.


<sigh> I've posted this several times in several threads, but I'll try again. No, I do not think charges are imminent, for three reasons.

First, both sides do it. What Hillary did was merely a much more egregious and arrogant version of what the Pubbies did with their RNC server - when you want something to be beyond discovery, move it out of the government system even though the law says otherwise. How can the FBI indict Hillary without indicting half of DC? It's not practical. That shields her from indictment for breaking the laws on retaining and handling government documents and partially from indictment for breaking the laws on handling classified documents.

Second, to indict Hillary requires having a workable alternative. Obviously they aren't going to indict her for not following the rules on official government documents. They SHOULD indict her for her many abuses of laws on classified documents. However, currently much of what she needs to do her job is sensitive information which by law must be kept on the secure system, yet to do her job requires communicating with people who by definition cannot be on the secure system. Since we don't have a workable system by which she could avoid every abuse, she has at least a partial defense against indictment. Obviously many of her violations (such as giving classified information to her lawyer, destroying classified information that by law must be preserved, putting classified information in very non-secure server farms) could easily have been avoided, but her lawyers can make a decent case that these violations arise from the inherently unworkable laws. It's similar to how State routinely gets away with bribing people in foreign countries. Illegal? Hell yes. Necessary? Unfortunately, yes. This is why it blows up every decade or so and then dies back down - there is no practical alternative.

Third, it is not politically feasible. There is zero chance that the Obama administration indicts the Democrat nominee for any political abuses. Same with a Republican administration: They love it as a talking point, but they aren't about to set a legal precedent by which they too will be bound. Hillary's indictment would seriously reduce their own freedom and increase their own risk. Hillary's non-indictment lowers the bar for their own behavior, enhancing their own freedom and decreasing their own risk. Thus even under a President Trump or President Cruz, Hillary will not be indicted. That is simply not in their own interests.

There is of course some chance that I am wrong, which I would celebrate as I much prefer President Sanders to President Clinton redux or President Trump. But if I am, I'd bet money that it results not from what we know, but from something turned up accidentally as a result of the investigation. The combination of Hillary's skill at destroying evidence, the lackluster investigation that neither side in D.C. really wants, the Clinton's vast personal wealth and political acumen, and the fact that her graft is routed through the black hole of the Clinton Family Foundation makes me think this is vanishingly unlikely.

Thus, failure to produce an indictment will not surprise me, make me think less of the FBI, or rethink my opinion on her blatant criminal activity.
Click to expand...

So, it's all a giant conspiracy including the FBI. But you "won't think less of the FBI" because your whole song & dance is based on them being corrupt in the first place.

That's the kind of accusation you have to kinda ease your way into, huh?
 
MomentsofSanity said:
I see no ambiguity in someone claiming blatant criminality. That seems like a very absolute statement.

I remember this one chap. Name was Richard Jewell. He was investigated by the FBI for some pretty serious things. Media was all over reporting about how he was probably guilty. Trying to remember how that played out.....
Click to expand...
Jewell was cleared within a month or two of the investigation. Hillary has been under investigation for over a year and the guy who set her server up got immunity.

I'm talking likelihood not absolute certainty. I think the IG report is enough to conclude blatant criminality not with absolute certainty but beyond some level of doubt.

Why haven't they cleared her yet?
 
ivwshane said:
It certainly doesn't get us all riled up and willing to regurgitate conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...
FBI is investigating this, nothing "grassy knoll" about that. I'd rather not be investigated by the FBI for over a year and have people get immunity that set up my server in question but that's just me.
 
buckshot24 said:
FBI is investigating this, nothing "grassy knoll" about that. I'd rather not be investigated by the FBI for over a year and have people get immunity that set up my server in question but that's just me.
Click to expand...

Yeah but you are a nobody in a position that no one important gives a shit about so...
 
Jhhnn said:
That's a dodge, not an answer.

So, it's all a giant conspiracy including the FBI. But you "won't think less of the FBI" because your whole song & dance is based on them being corrupt in the first place.

That's the kind of accusation you have to kinda ease your way into, huh?
Click to expand...
Buggy code is buggy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top