Reply With Quote
Police files of political candidates should be made public regardless?I think the American public should have access to whatever information is out there in order to make an informed decision.
I'll go one further: by releasing the files, the FBI is actually helping Hilary.
The disclosed information underscores the absence of any basis for criminal referral and publicly lays out justifications for such a decision.
Is it proper for a LE agency to involve itself in political campaigns this way?
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-03-2016 at 01:23 PM.
Police files of political candidates should be made public regardless?I think the American public should have access to whatever information is out there in order to make an informed decision.
Strains credulity to be sure, but I see it as guile rather than incompetence.The amount of do not recalls calls into question her memory which is very important for the job of president. MY dh is a federal contractor and the amount of security/stuff he goes through is mind-boggling and he's just a peon on the scale of the government - much less the Secretary of State - how can one claim not recalling/ignorance at that level after so many years with security clearance?
Ronald Reagan's Iran-Contra deposition is the template.
39 "do not recalls," I would assume is an OK number for an inteview that lasted 3 and a half hours for someone to say.
Here's somebody that sent and recieved thousands upon thousands of emails between 2009 and 2013. It is expected for someone (Yes. even for someone on a top job, even the president is allow to misremember ) to forget a few aspects.
The notion that people expect someone to be a robot and remember on cue is ridiculous and entirely unrealistic.
Now, with all that being said, I do think she conviniently didn't remember or didn't "recall" some emails is just her covering her ass.
Like the thing with the little "c." That's entirely made up by her. She knew.
shush, you. grownups talkin'.
rmt can speak for herself.
We've all connected the dots, at least, anybody who's looking. We all get she probably set up the private email server so she could sell favors and make incriminating evidence disappear. it's incontrovertible fact she accepted money from state governments that condone honor killings and arranged marriages and just oppressing women's rights on a grand scale.
We all rolled our eyes when we heard her flip flop and point fingers at Colin Powell even though it was Obama's administrative policy she outright disregarded. Obama endorsed her ass for POTUS anyway.
No, I don't see any problem with the FBI/Comey doing what they did in Hillary's case - they are going for transparency. Can you imagine if they did what they usually do - just announce the result/recommendation. So MANY more questions would be raised, unanswered - at least, (with his press conference and answering congressional questions) we know the reasoning behind it even if some don't agree with the result. If they didn't do all that, we'd all be in the dark and be thinking all kind of conspiracy/corruption theories. Now, with all this revealed, everyone is free to make his own conclusions as to why she did what she did. Some will accept it on face value and some (like zosa above) will come to other conclusion. I think she set up the private server to hide the Foundation dealings - why else would anybody do something like that if not to hide stuff (and use BleachBit - who goes to that extreme if it's personal stuff).
This goes to my argument that the FBI -- by breaking with previous custom and releasing investigative files -- has both helped HRC and taken an arrow from the quiver of her critics.Can you imagine if they did what they usually do - just announce the result/recommendation. So MANY more questions would be raised, unanswered - at least, (with his press conference and answering congressional questions) we know the reasoning behind it even if some don't agree with the result. If they didn't do all that, we'd all be in the dark and be thinking all kind of conspiracy/corruption theories. Now, with all this revealed, everyone is free to make his own conclusions as to why she did what she did.
My opinion is that it's improper and unwise for law enforcement agencies to release files on people who've not been found to have committed any crimes. Makes them look biased, gives them a role in elections they probably shouldn't have. The press is supposed to dig up the dirt. Expecting law enforcement agencies to do it raises a host of unsavory possibilities.
Last edited by Winehole23; 09-03-2016 at 03:30 PM.
what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. when your goose gets cooked I doubt you'll be so complacent.
You think it's helped her. I don't. In US history, being under FBI investigation probably would preclude anyone from running for president - he just wouldn't even try/run, much less, be considered. But times have changed, DNC was determined to have Hillary as its nominee, and here we are.
the sword cuts both ways. some of the details may be politically harmful, but the investigation found no basis for criminal referral.
it helps and hurts HRC.
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/02/the-5...ommentary.html
The 5 most outrageous things Hillary Clinton said in her FBI interview
Hillary Clinton was already having a bad week as polls show Donald Trump closing the gap between them and, in a few polls, even pulling ahead. It got worse Friday after the FBI released Clinton's answers to investigators' questions over her use of a private email server, revealing some pretty damaging responses from the former Secretary of State.
Here are five of the most outrageous statements Clinton made in that three-and-a-half hour FBI interview:
1. She cited her 2012 concussion as the reason that she cannot remember details of briefings during her "transition out of office."
2. She said she never even thought whether emails she exchanged on a future U.S. drone attack should be classified.
3. She said she thought the "C" before a paragraph indicated alphabetical order. The C actually stands for "classified."
4. She said no one ever raised concerns to her about her use of a private email server.
5. She said she could not recall any training on how to handle classified information.
What's more, Clinton aides told the FBI that the Secretary of State frequently replaced her Blackberry phone and the whereabouts of her old device would become "unknown." The FBI report suggests there were at least 13 different devices used.
You're going to hear on the mainstream media all weekend a lot of supposedly objective pundits insist the above revelations offer no "smoking gun." And that may be true from a legal standpoint, but we're in the middle of an election and these statements are poison for Clinton and cannon fodder for Donald Trump.
She conducted official State Department business while suffering from a concussion that may have impaired her memory? The report suggested she was only working for a few hours a day at the point based on doctor's orders but if it was that bad that she couldn't remember important briefings, she should have been on medical leave.
No. 2 stretches the limits of credulity. We're supposed to believe Clinton never even considered a discussion about a future drone attack should be kept secret? Saying "I never thought," basically sounds like a dodge on a charge of possible pre-meditation.
As for the claim that no one ever talked to her about any concerns about the private server, that's dangerous territory. Because it's probably not going to be hard to find someone at the State Department, or formerly at the State Department, to contradict this claim. In fact, there are many statements just now released from this FBI interview that are likely going to be refuted and in short order.
The "I could not recall" response to the question about prior training is a classic defendant's dodge. It works great because even if Clinton did get training, it can be argued that it doesn't matter because she doesn't remember it. But while it's a good legal dodge, it's potentially lethal in the midst of an election where you're trying to look like a competent and alert leader.
FBI Director James Comey may have decided not to indict Clinton, but the public revelation of this transcript today does a lot of damage. While you can expect most of the mainstream media pundits to pour cold water on the severity of the facts contained in them, the transcripts put the email scandal right back into the center of the news cycle. The last time that happened, Clinton's poll numbers wilted badly and it took a series of Trump missteps to reverse the decline.
She was already slipping in the polls — this could turn out to be very damaging for her and very good for Trump.
"I don't know what 'classified' means because I had a concussion!"
stranger than fiction i tell ya
brah you seemed pretty worked up about something that you ultimately deem a non-issue come November
CNN Panel: Clinton's Mobile Devices Were "Destroyed With Hammers"
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...h_hammers.html
Hillary Clinton Starts Speech With Massive Coughing Fit
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid..._allergic.html
I would not believe everything off the cnn liberal panel
Looks like Colin did advice Hillary on how to get around the State Department server.
So much for Colin not conviniently remembering.TSA
he said he advised her a year after she set it up!
Cant you not read the dates of these emails? They are from 2009.
And you don't think that she ought not to have been taking advice regarding security/emails from Powell who started his term in 2001 - 8 years before she did. That email and security procedures and technology (in general) would have changed greatly in that time period and that the 2009 rules and procedures were what she should have followed. Also, I don't think Powell established a private server in his house - he probably had some aol account which as a commercial account had more security than her private server.
And maybe someone can correct me on the timing. iirc, I read somewhere that she set up her private server the day she began her hearings (Jan 13, 2009) ten days before the date on above email.
Last edited by rmt; 09-08-2016 at 01:02 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
