The Clinton Discussion Thread

[LiquidMethod]

seriously. we're here now?

the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. by shifting the burden - and, by implication, trying to assert that something is true unless or until it is proven otherwise - is fallacious.

let's not go down this road, please?

alasdair

Seriously? Just ignore everything else that I said? Let's not go down that road (but it seems to be your MO). The person I was talking to was acting as if what I said was proven false. Not the case.



Also this should be the first post in this thread:

Hillary Clinton was caught removing classified documents from secure government networks and placing them on a private server, unencrypted (including cloud storage) for 3 months. If it was anyone except for Hillary or a powerful politician that did this it would have been considered an incredibly severe crime. It is basically giving state secrets to multiple foreign enemy governments. So of course there was no way Queen Hillary was going to jail. Enter her buddies - Comey testified under oath that Loretta Lynch ordered him to refer to the criminal investigation as a "matter" when dealing with the media. Bill Clinton met with Loretta Lynch in a private plane on an airport tarmac while his wife was under FBI investigation. We do not know what they spoke about but many surmise that it wasn't "golf, grandchildren and Brexit".

So when it comes to mishandling classified information the intent of the perpetrator is irrelevant, however the way that Comey got out of d̶o̶i̶n̶g̶ ̶h̶i̶s̶ ̶j̶o̶b̶ recommending charges for Clinton to the DOJ was stating that the FBI could not find intent with her actions. If we think about it there is a lot wrong with this conclusion from Comey. Not only is intent irrelevant in cases of violating the Espionage Act, but there was obvious intent. Obama even lied to the public stating that he found out about Clinton's server from the media like everyone else, but we have Cheryl Mills on email saying “We need to clean this up — he (Obama) has emails from her — they do not say state.gov,”. Also let's suspend our disbelief and buy this story that she committed crimes due to oblivious incompetency. In that case she could not have been considered "the most qualified candidate ever" as qualified officials do not unknowingly endanger national security.

Let me remind you that we have direct evidence of these crimes that would easily get anyone else convicted and sent away for a very long time. 22 top secret emails, retroactively-classified information. All there on a bathroom server unprotected for the Russians to steal (this is the actual Russian hacking scandal). But that's basically how the AG & FBI Director colluded to get Clinton off the hook. One of the (if not the) most blatant cover-ups and perversions of justice that I have ever witnessed.

 

[LiquidMethod]

Republicans really don't like them.

Many people that have brains don't like them. I am closer to a Democrat than a Republican. I just do my research and know somewhat the extent of how the Clintons operate. If you support the Clintons you are either stupid or willfully ignorant.

Who wants to bet that now that Hillary's career is over and Chelsea hasn't entered politics, you won't hear any more odd stories of dead witnesses or billions in cash disappearing?

We had a couple more suspicious deaths just in the past month. Many people are still a danger to the Clintons' safety. Don't get your hopes up.

I mean, no new aspects to anything, from right-wing outlets? Only the same talking points like above, circling around and around forever, some kind of Clinton whirlpool, the MaelHillarstrom. THe Billpool.

Latest update in the real world:

The Justice Department has reopened the investigation of Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified material on her private email system while she was secretary of state, and is considering offering her a plea bargain if she will agree to plead guilty to charges of breaking the law, according to a Clinton attorney.

^this is a joke. She admits to breaking the law and walks?

 

[Scrofula]

^this is a joke.

^indeed:

Not a single quote or name is offered. Who are these lawyers? How does the author know what was in these "exploratory talks"? If the author spoke with them, why not give their names? Quote them on the record?

And yeah, maybe, who knows, they could be "exploring" something that might include a plea bargain. They might be exploring shadow people hiding all the good things Putin did, and the pedophile codes.

You might be getting better with the links, in that there's some actual news near the article, of Manafort getting raided. That's how you know you're being investigated, when there's a 4am knock.

 

[alasdairm]

^ not to mention the fact that a search warrant requires probable cause.

alasdair

 

[LiquidMethod]

Manafort already turned everything over before the raid, unlike Clinton he is cooperating with authorities.

 

[LiquidMethod]

"Loretta Lynch prepped with talking points about Phoenix tarmac meeting"

Newly released documents reveal former Attorney General Loretta Lynch was prepared for questions about the now-infamous tarmac meeting at Sky Harbor International Airport with former President Bill Clinton.

Hmm, most of it is redacted yet they only spoke about golf, grandchildren & Brexit..


"Judge orders new searches for Clinton Benghazi emails"

Nine months after the presidential election was decided, a federal judge is ordering the State Department to try again to find emails Hillary Clinton wrote about the Benghazi attack.

U.S. District Court Judge Amit Mehta ruled that the State Department had not done enough to try to track down messages Clinton may have sent about the assault on the U.S. diplomatic compound on Sept. 11, 2012 — an attack that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador to Libya.

Clinton stored those Benghazi emails on the servers of Platte River.
This guy that worked there might have some idea where those emails are.

 

[Scrofula]

Manafort already turned everything over before the raid, unlike Clinton he is cooperating with authorities.

Which is why they needed guys with guns to go get that stuff he was really, no lying, totally gonna bring over personally that very day, in a show of cooperation.


And those deleted emails are in the same place my emails from 2012 are: somewhere in the ether, where they can once again see their grandparent emails and play with their old dog emails. Where do your emails go when they die? How do you know the guy on the Platte River isn't watching you download porn?

THe only people who cared about her emails were Republican politicians and campaign ratfuckers. That's over, which means it's just the conspiracy nuts, out collecting squirrels.

"Hilary's Emails." The world either rolls its collective eye or yawns, but the cat 5 winds would destroy us all in that metaphor, so we'll go with eyerolling. Although that might throw the Earth's axis off, screw up the seasons.

 

[Escher's Waterfall]

Manafort already turned everything over before the raid, unlike Clinton he is cooperating with authorities.

Then either he has immunity or Trump hires complete idiots.

Hmmm, both are possible.

 

[LiquidMethod]

Lmao, I thought this was the Clinton thread..

And why does cooperating with authorities = complete idiot?
Idiocy is emailing classified information through your private email server and assuming you'd get away with it.

 

[Scrofula]

What are your thoughts on Colin Powell, a Republican, deeply involved in the first Iraq "war"?

You know where I'm going with that, I'm just wondering if you'll fight to the death to defend Colin Powell (that memo from him telling Hillary to do it is all fake!!) or insist he also should be tried for a capital offense.

 

[LiquidMethod]

If they have evidence of Colin Powell committing crimes than indict and charge him too. This isn't rocket sugery: the law should apply to everyone.
I detest Republicans almost as much as I detest Democrats.

 

[Scrofula]

The memo in which Colin Powell explained why it was best to use that unsecured server: so you could circumvent the clunky security procedures and maintain some privacy. He told her to do it, and everybody else was and is and has been doing the same. The server was already installed in the residence. It was purely a political chew toy for the media. And pretty much everything at State is "classified", so yes, out of the tens of thousands of emails, I bet one got out. But the only one handing intelligence back and forth with foreign powers is yr. boy's team.

So I'm glad to see some internal consistency with you: the former Joint Chiefs and Sec. State, hero of Republicans until he endorsed Obama and became an apostate, and every employee of the State Department since Blackberries were invented, should be hung.

Trump finally have a secure phone for tweets?

 

[LiquidMethod]

Your justifications are mind-numbingly obtuse. You either care about the law or you do not. You either care about protecting national security and classified information or you do not. You've exposed your opinions on these matters multiple times already and your stance is: "Well, I like Hillary so she should not be charged for criminal activity. I assume other people were doing it too (I don't have evidence), but that is enough for me to absolve her".

To answer your question: everyone who mishandles classified information should be charged and prosecuted. Do you even understand why a state official would conduct government business on a private server? Do you understand why we have secure government networks in the first place? Not only does it safeguard sensitive information that could put American lives at risk, but using a private server lets one operate independently of Freedom of Information Act laws.

It is not "Hillary's emails" - it is "violations of the Espionage Act". And not charging Clinton sets a very bad precedent for the future. (You wouldn't want Trump mishandling classified information, would you?)

 

[drug_mentor]

You're acting as if the money doesn't even exist.

What money? Earthquake relief money to Haiti, or billions of dollars of relief money which the Clinton's personally stole? Of course the former exists, and, while very unfortunate, I don't think Haiti is the first disaster that has seen relief money used very inefficiently. I can acknowledge that billions of dollars were donated to Haiti following the earthquake disaster there, I can acknowledge that the money was spent poorly, I could even acknowledge that the Clinton's misappropriated some money from the Clinton Foundation (though, I am not convinced on this last point at all) - none of this implies that the Clinton's stole billions, which is your claim.

I get what you're trying to illustrate but I did not acknowledge any dishonesty. I stand by my claims that the Clintons/CF/CGI misappropriated donations meant for Haiti.

You said the following in post #11 of this thread:

He is the only one so far that has legitimately called me out. I do not have hard evidence for the claim that he is referring to.[/URL]

Here, when asked how you arrived at the figure of billions you said "[w]e count". On what possible interpretation of this response were you not insinuating that you had access to some kind of countable figure which indicated guilt on the part of the Clinton's? I asked you to provide me with those figures, you spammed a bunch of nonsense links, when I pointed out none of them substantiated your claim you ignored me. I had to bring it up a second time for you to admit that these countable figures don't exist. I don't doubt that you stand by your claim vis-a-vis the Clinton's, however, you have essentially acknowledged dishonesty when it comes to representing how good the available evidence for that claim is.

Money (among other things) disappeared while the Clintons were overseeing Haiti. It is true and easily verifiable that the Clintons were helping human traffickers steal children, but I guess now you have all the justification that you need to ignore that story, or maybe even take with a pinch of salt.

Do you realise that money disappearing while the Clinton's oversaw Haiti is not evidence that it was actually the Clinton's who made it disappear? Do you think Bill and/or Hillary were micromanaging every transaction that took place out of $13 billion in relief money? Give me a break. The other day, the figure (billions, as you tell it) was countable, today it isn't - funny that! I will take your claims that something is easily verifiable seriously when you undertake the little effort it should require to substantiate such easily verifiable claims.

The person I was talking to was acting as if what I said was proven false. Not the case.

I was that person and I fail to see how I acted that way. You made a claim which you more or less alleged was verifiable (i.e. countable), when I pressed you on the matter you conceded (as I have quoted you doing earlier in this post) that your claim was not verifiable. I have acted as though you have not substantiated your claim - and, you haven't. That is very different from behaving as though your claim was falsified; if I believed it were so, I would link you to the evidence which I took to show this.

 

[Scrofula]

Do you even understand why a state official would conduct government business on a private server?

As usual, I answered your question already, and you've already forgotten my point: It's not "state official" it's the goddamned State Dept. It's like speeding on the freeway: they all do it. Maybe we should all give them a ticket, including Hillary. More productive would be to overhaul the system that's so obnoxious they all do that.

You agreed Colin Powell should be prosecuted too, can you insert his name next to Hillary now, every time you mention her fucking emails?

 

[LiquidMethod]

What money? Earthquake relief money to Haiti, or billions of dollars of relief money which the Clinton's personally stole? Of course the former exists, and, while very unfortunate, I don't think Haiti is the first disaster that has seen relief money used very inefficiently. I can acknowledge that billions of dollars were donated to Haiti following the earthquake disaster there, I can acknowledge that the money was spent poorly, I could even acknowledge that the Clinton's misappropriated some money from the Clinton Foundation (though, I am not convinced on this last point at all) - none of this implies that the Clinton's stole billions, which is your claim.

What are you basing your conclusions on? Respect for the compassionate Clinton Foundation? Taking money from regimes that stone rape victims to death doesn't exactly make one an institution founded on morality. Many Haitians claim they stole billions.

when asked how you arrived at the figure of billions you said "[w]e count". On what possible interpretation of this response were you not insinuating that you had access to some kind of countable figure which indicated guilt on the part of the Clinton's?

I did not intend to imply that "we count" meant we have a verifiably exact record of all the stolen money. It was also obvious that if we had direct evidence, these crimes would have been much more publicized. You misinterpreted what I wrote. Maybe a poor choice of words but I was simply commenting on the action required to acquire the total number of a combined amount of funds, counting, as per the question asking how we achieve a sum total.

Next time I will write "allegedly", cool?

Fact: billions of dollars were donated to Haiti. Nothing I said was provably false. I do not have hard evidence, but Clinton does have a track record of robbing people of billions of dollars - she (verifiably) personally orchestrated the invasion of Libya and (allegedly) the murder of Gaddafi, then proceeded to loot his stuff (and the country) with her military buddies.

 

[LiquidMethod]

More productive would be to overhaul the system that's so obnoxious they all do that.

I'm all ears. How do we do that? I suggest prosecuting criminal politicians like we do the common folk. Any better ideas?

 

[alasdairm]

Nothing I said was provably false. I do not have hard evidence...

sigh.

liquidmethod, i heard that you're a pedophile. i do not have hard evidence but, until you can prove otherwise, let's just assume it's true. ok?



alasdair

 

[LiquidMethod]

Do you have any circumstantial evidence? Let's see it.

 

[Scrofula]

What are you basing your conclusions on? Respect for the compassionate Clinton Foundation? Taking money from regimes that stone rape victims to death doesn't exactly make one an institution founded on morality. Many Haitians claim they stole billions

Thought I'm not authorized to speak on his behalf, the only conclusion Drug Mentor made is that you have no concept of evidence, argument, truth, falsehood, credibility, and possibly reason; oh and that you are the one who's lazy. I'd add nuance and the color grey.

Next time I will write "allegedly", cool?

Very cool, making progress!