I'm no longer going to partake in either side's mental masturbation on this subject.
If you like her, vote.
If you don't like her, vote.
In the end, that will be the way to settle the matter, agree?
I'm no longer going to partake in either side's mental masturbation on this subject.
If you like her, vote.
If you don't like her, vote.
In the end, that will be the way to settle the matter, agree?
IronWing
No Lifer
- Jul 20, 2001
- 72,762
- 33,720
- 136
waggy
No Lifer
- Dec 14, 2000
- 68,143
- 10
- 81
feralkid
Lifer
- Jan 28, 2002
- 16,852
- 4,963
- 136
I'm no longer going to partake in either side's mental masturbation on this subject.
If you like her, vote.
If you don't like her, vote.
In the end, that will be the way to settle the matter, agree?
"Both sides do it" doesn't really apply. On one side, we have conspiracy theorists like yourself taking off of flights of fantasy they represent to be facts while the rest of us merely point that out while taking a wait and see attitude.
The office of the SoS, any SoS, has enormous powers of discretion. It has to be that way if they're to do their job. They also depend on the security types to edit what ends up being released in FOIA requests. When those guys are really doing their job they just redact what they're supposed to redact & STFU, refrain from politicizing it. McCullough obviously overlooked that aspect of his job.
First post dated Jan 6 posed charges in 60 days. Seems unlikely that other than political charges there won't be any Criminal charges in that time frame.
nickqt
Diamond Member
- Jan 15, 2015
- 8,167
- 9,149
- 136
But you don't understand!
The smoking gun is going to come out real soon, not just for this scandal, but also regarding White Water, Vincent Foster, and of course, Benghazi.
Unless it doesn't, which will be defacto hard evidence of just how evil and in control of the entire world the Clintons are.
Either way, I get to believe whatever I want, forever.
I win!
Brovane
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2001
- 6,364
- 2,571
- 136
One of my Conservative friends has a theory. The Obama Whitehouse is trying to make sure that any filing of charges comes out after Hillary has secured the Democratic nomination for President. After Hillary secures the nomination the Justice department will then indict Hillary which will force her to withdraw and this frees her delegates. Then Biden will step back into the race as a alternative to Sanders and Hillary's delegates will be free to vote for Biden. This will allow Biden to get the nomination to run for President without having to go through all the mud-slinging from the primaries. :sneaky:
UberNeuman
Lifer
- Nov 4, 1999
- 16,937
- 3,087
- 126
Conservatives always have bullshit conspiracy "theories". It's what some of them live for, apparently.
Since Obama has already opined that she didn't jeopardize national security, then there is no law to be above. On the other hand, if you think the insular Obama is as sufficiently unprepared as he was during the period he was discussing the NSA and Snowden then maybe we should take a second look. And I believe Comey, who is a Republican and known to be a straight shooter, will take a very hard second look. At this juncture it appears there may be a grand jury impaneled as one witness has been given immunity.
I have a link for you, which is, unfortunately somewhat tainted by a bit of Faux News and it's a bit long.
The reason the public hasn't gotten down in the weeds on this issue is because it's a bit arcane and legalistic and of course Clinton claims it's part of the ongoing conspiracy against her. (Of course it is, but the question is did she violate Federal laws, including the Espionage Act.)
Anyway, for those who like details and don't suffer from attention deficit disorder, here is the link:
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...B3B720D8F72995969ECEB3B720D8F729959&FORM=VIRE
Last edited:
sportage
Lifer
- Feb 1, 2008
- 11,492
- 3,163
- 136
Or..... there just isn't anything there in the first place.
If theres no gun there can't be a smoking gun.
But hey. Keep trying. it's so cute.
Since your post is 9 minutes after mine you couldn't possibly have listened to the video which is about an hour long. So, if you like being an uninformed voter, I'm sorry for you. We have a lot of voters just like you, so you'll never be lonely.Or..... there just isn't anything there in the first place.
If theres no gun there can't be a smoking gun.
But hey. Keep trying. it's so cute.
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,487
- 16,954
- 136
I've been following this subject for quite awhile. What new factual information did the video contain?
I don't know what you know. Simply watch the video if you care. If you think you are fully informed then why watch the video?
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
You have no thoughts about what makes this video newsworthy or informative? You have nothing to offer as to why this particular video is worth an hour of our time? Sorry, but that's rather useless. The fact that some random guy knows how to package a bunch of video clips into a piece of propaganda TV doesn't necessarily make it informative. My bet is there isn't a single thing in that piece that we haven't discussed in this or other threads here. Tell me how I'm wrong.
BonzaiDuck
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2004
- 16,601
- 2,009
- 126
OK -- It's been "60 days" since the original post. Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
And I could've explained that -- or probably did -- months ago.
Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell weighed in on this. It should be fairly straightforward. If there was "negligence," than these other two predecessors were also "guilty." But "criminal?"
Just for an assessment of "risk," someone needs to ask themselves "who would have the e-mail address for this 'personal server' -- set up by a Secret Service man? And so -- how easy would it be, given those limited statistics, to eavesdrop?
There are so many angles to this, in terms of personal communication venues, in terms of "state department policy," in terms of . . . everything.
But amidst all of that -- there's nothing.
I read a "letter to the editor" today, posted in my local cornpone-shitass Right-wing newspaper, suggesting that because Obama is prodding some Dems in Congress to support Hillary, there will be no prosecution following the FBI investigation. That is -- the White House would order an end to the investigatory efforts. But if that were the case, it would all come out. There ARE people, you know, who are civil servants without partisan pressure or obligation, registered to vote for either party.
So this is more specious reasoning from the cornpone peanut gallery.
It is true that in some circumstances, ongoing investigations have been quashed by an administration, or an administration has attempted to kill them.
Take for instance Janet Reno's efforts to have Augusto Pinochet extradited to the US for questioning in the murders of Orlando Letelier and Ronnie Moffit. As soon as the Bush administration took office with Dubya's inauguration, FBI was recalled from Chile and no more was heard about it.
If Pinochet -- who was already showing solid signs of dementia -- had given testimony, it may well have implicated G.H.W. Bush in having foreknowledge of the Sheridan Circle bombing. Certainly, a taped conversation between Kissinger and Pinochet suggests the same thing.
What did the Right Wing try to do about these revelations? They were aired on PBS and NPS in documentaries early in the last decade. Weeks thereafter, Republicans in Congress attempted to block all government funding for the public media.
Quashing the FBI Chilean investigation would not -- under those circumstances -- be an outright violation of the agency's mission. It could be very easily justified -- for budgetary reasons, for Pinochet's dementia, for being far afield of the agency's domestic mission or jurisdiction. Yet, it coincides with some possible risk to GHWB's reputation -- and technically, charges that he was guilty of "misprision of a felony" when he was DCIA in 1976.
Then, you will remember Watergate. Nixon ordered Elliot Richardson to abjure further investigation into White House wrongdoing. Richardson resigned in the Saturday Night Massacre as it's called today. Would that we had Republicans today with that much integrity.
But you cannot simply assume that an administration will thwart the legal efforts of DOJ and FBI, simply because your own party has a history of similar obstructionism and malfeasance.
Further, there is multiple causation for anything, and the simple-minded twits in our electorate often cannot wrap their brains around such a scenario.
And I could've explained that -- or probably did -- months ago.
Condoleeza Rice and Colin Powell weighed in on this. It should be fairly straightforward. If there was "negligence," than these other two predecessors were also "guilty." But "criminal?"
Just for an assessment of "risk," someone needs to ask themselves "who would have the e-mail address for this 'personal server' -- set up by a Secret Service man? And so -- how easy would it be, given those limited statistics, to eavesdrop?
There are so many angles to this, in terms of personal communication venues, in terms of "state department policy," in terms of . . . everything.
But amidst all of that -- there's nothing.
I read a "letter to the editor" today, posted in my local cornpone-shitass Right-wing newspaper, suggesting that because Obama is prodding some Dems in Congress to support Hillary, there will be no prosecution following the FBI investigation. That is -- the White House would order an end to the investigatory efforts. But if that were the case, it would all come out. There ARE people, you know, who are civil servants without partisan pressure or obligation, registered to vote for either party.
So this is more specious reasoning from the cornpone peanut gallery.
It is true that in some circumstances, ongoing investigations have been quashed by an administration, or an administration has attempted to kill them.
Take for instance Janet Reno's efforts to have Augusto Pinochet extradited to the US for questioning in the murders of Orlando Letelier and Ronnie Moffit. As soon as the Bush administration took office with Dubya's inauguration, FBI was recalled from Chile and no more was heard about it.
If Pinochet -- who was already showing solid signs of dementia -- had given testimony, it may well have implicated G.H.W. Bush in having foreknowledge of the Sheridan Circle bombing. Certainly, a taped conversation between Kissinger and Pinochet suggests the same thing.
What did the Right Wing try to do about these revelations? They were aired on PBS and NPS in documentaries early in the last decade. Weeks thereafter, Republicans in Congress attempted to block all government funding for the public media.
Quashing the FBI Chilean investigation would not -- under those circumstances -- be an outright violation of the agency's mission. It could be very easily justified -- for budgetary reasons, for Pinochet's dementia, for being far afield of the agency's domestic mission or jurisdiction. Yet, it coincides with some possible risk to GHWB's reputation -- and technically, charges that he was guilty of "misprision of a felony" when he was DCIA in 1976.
Then, you will remember Watergate. Nixon ordered Elliot Richardson to abjure further investigation into White House wrongdoing. Richardson resigned in the Saturday Night Massacre as it's called today. Would that we had Republicans today with that much integrity.
But you cannot simply assume that an administration will thwart the legal efforts of DOJ and FBI, simply because your own party has a history of similar obstructionism and malfeasance.
Further, there is multiple causation for anything, and the simple-minded twits in our electorate often cannot wrap their brains around such a scenario.
Last edited:
ivwshane
Lifer
- May 15, 2000
- 33,487
- 16,954
- 136
Sorry, I value my time. If you can't articulate what new information a youtube video will have then it's definitely not worth my time.
The piece has quite a bit of interesting analysis, including analyses by lawyers and specialists in national security issues. The facts are not enough. You need to know how the LAW and the extant set of facts intertwine. I missed the Constitutional Lawyer/National Security Lawyer here on Anandtech. Should we assume computer techs know and understand the complex issues at play here?
The only down side to the link is it's obviously a hit piece on Hillary by right wingers. But, passing some obvious prejudice against Hillary, it does offer some food for thought.
So you're aware that the source is biased but still think it is providing good information? How does that make sense, especially when it comes to legal issues? It's incredibly easy to selectively omit relevant law, etc.
I recommend you not view it since it conflicts with everything you think you know.
Please. It takes maybe 5 minutes to lay out the known facts of the matter. There is no limit as to how much time right wingers can bullshit around them.
That's all we've seen since the whole thing entered the public consciousness.
1sikbITCH
Diamond Member
- Jan 3, 2001
- 4,194
- 574
- 126
I'm searching thru the entire Judicial Branch of our government, you know the ones who judge whether people broke laws or not, and cannot find a judge named "Obama". If the President was also the judge, he could just opine that the GOP is a terrorist organization and a little less than half of America would be shipped to Guantanamo. That's not how it works here. I could post an hour long video about Stalin's Russia if you think it'll help you understand better but here's a simple picture for now:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter