WaPo: FBI uncovered tens of thousands more emails that Clinton didn't disclose
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:54:30 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  WaPo: FBI uncovered tens of thousands more emails that Clinton didn't disclose
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: WaPo: FBI uncovered tens of thousands more emails that Clinton didn't disclose  (Read 2017 times)
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: August 22, 2016, 05:37:52 PM »

The lack of an indictment makes the emails a non-issue. You can't indict people on the internet with no law degree or credentials, that is left up to the authorities and the authorities didn't find anything to indict on.
Well yeah, they couldn't indict Hillary on obstruction of justice because they didn't know she obstructed justice. Why is a court ordering the release of more documents today if these newly found and obviously withheld work related emails not a serious sign that something is at the very least suspicious?

The FBI saw these emails already, they are not new to the FBI. What is being ordered to be released is at the request of an extremely right-wing political organization called Judicial Watch wanting the records.
This from the arch-conservative Washington Post, which totally didn't go to war with Richard Nixon or anything like that ever....

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uncovered. These are "previously undisclosed" documents according to the Hill. You are no Goebbels, Dr. Scholl, but I'll give you credit for at least matching them in enthusiasm. At least you do a better job than Baghdad Bob!
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,929
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: August 22, 2016, 05:41:08 PM »

The lack of an indictment makes the emails a non-issue. You can't indict people on the internet with no law degree or credentials, that is left up to the authorities and the authorities didn't find anything to indict on.
Well yeah, they couldn't indict Hillary on obstruction of justice because they didn't know she obstructed justice. Why is a court ordering the release of more documents today if these newly found and obviously withheld work related emails not a serious sign that something is at the very least suspicious?

The FBI saw these emails already, they are not new to the FBI. What is being ordered to be released is at the request of an extremely right-wing political organization called Judicial Watch wanting the records.
This from the arch-conservative Washington Post, which totally didn't go to war with Richard Nixon or anything like that ever....

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uncovered. These are "previously undisclosed" documents according to the Hill. You are no Goebbels, Dr. Scholl, but I'll give you credit for at least matching them in enthusiasm. At least you do a better job than Baghdad Bob!

I would edit the Nazi reference if I were you. You certainly don't want another deleted post. I'm no the Nazi here. Just saying.

With that said, you are not getting it. The FBI saw these emails as part of the investigation which concluded with no charges. You are under the impression that there is an indictment pending, which is wrong.

Logged
Trapsy
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 899


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: August 22, 2016, 05:51:15 PM »

I wonder how many people actually care about this issue, as opposed to those who "care" only for the political benefits may or may not provide.

I wonder how many of Hillary's supporters ACTUALLY care whether or not she did something extremely unethical and unprofessional, as opposed to those who don't care either way, as long as she doesn't get in trouble for it...

I am very concerned and disappointed with the fallout of everything.
Logged
Ebsy
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,001
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: August 22, 2016, 06:05:41 PM »

The sort of people basing their vote on email server maintenance weren't going to be voting for Clinton in the first place.
Nobody is basing their vote on the scandal itself as much as what it says about her character, especially as she continuously makes attacks on Trump. I've never heard the expression "two evils" used so often and so seriously in any election in my lifetime. People might think Trump is a joke, but they certainly don' t view Hillary as this shining beacon of clean politics and honor.
I don't know a single person that would have voted for Clinton before that is refusing to vote for her now because of emails. Also, people don't view Clinton as a "shining beacon" because she has faced 3 decades of polarizing personal attacks from the GOP. A sustained campaign like that is going to impact public opinion, especially during election cycle.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: August 22, 2016, 06:07:28 PM »

So if nobody cares, how come nobody trusts Hillary?

No, the faux scandal did its job. The point is there's nothing more it can do. If ~550 days of email spam didn't move your vote, why would a few more days make a difference?

Because it reminds people of the aspects of the candidate that they are most concerned about, and gives voters a general feeling of discomfort and negativity.  Voters don't make decisions using hard-edged, concrete-sequential rationality much.

LOL, trust me, nobody needed to be "reminded" of the emails. The media has ensured you can't escape hearing about them daily in some form or fashion, unless you live under a rock.

Actually, yes, most people don't consume politics so regularly that something like Clinton's emails are always on the top of their mind, even when thinking about the election.  There's research that shows invoking known, negative traits about someone -- even in a vague or unsubstantiated way -- reframes how people think about them and tends to result in more negative perceptions.  Why do you think political advertising works the way it does?

Well, if we're referring to people who inconsistently consume media, then there's no guarantee they'll be paying any attention to this story either. So my point stands.

No, it doesn't.  I disputed your apparent claim that this won't influence any votes because people are nearly universally aware of Clinton's email scandal.  I disputed it by pointing out that negative coverage can still influence sentiments and feelings even if it doesn't really move substantive views.  Your response is basically "well, if people watch news infrequently, they might miss this."  True, but so what?  I didn't argue that every single swing voter was going to see and be influenced by this coverage.  I disputed your claim that none would be.

Either your point was something besides what you plainly wrote, or it does not stand.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,620
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: August 22, 2016, 06:13:56 PM »

I wonder how many people actually care about this issue, as opposed to those who "care" only for the political benefits may or may not provide.

I wonder how many of Hillary's supporters ACTUALLY care whether or not she did something extremely unethical and unprofessional, as opposed to those who don't care either way, as long as she doesn't get in trouble for it...

Dude, your party nominated Trump.
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: August 22, 2016, 07:34:08 PM »

The sort of people basing their vote on email server maintenance weren't going to be voting for Clinton in the first place.
Nobody is basing their vote on the scandal itself as much as what it says about her character, especially as she continuously makes attacks on Trump. I've never heard the expression "two evils" used so often and so seriously in any election in my lifetime. People might think Trump is a joke, but they certainly don' t view Hillary as this shining beacon of clean politics and honor.
I don't know a single person that would have voted for Clinton before that is refusing to vote for her now because of emails. Also, people don't view Clinton as a "shining beacon" because she has faced 3 decades of polarizing personal attacks from the GOP. A sustained campaign like that is going to impact public opinion, especially during election cycle.
So when exactly did the vast right wing conspiracy start? Around the time that the Muslim Brotherhood and the KGB anointed a young Kenyan born child to be the President of the United States who would implement socialism through minor regulations of the insurance industry?

The lack of an indictment makes the emails a non-issue. You can't indict people on the internet with no law degree or credentials, that is left up to the authorities and the authorities didn't find anything to indict on.
Well yeah, they couldn't indict Hillary on obstruction of justice because they didn't know she obstructed justice. Why is a court ordering the release of more documents today if these newly found and obviously withheld work related emails not a serious sign that something is at the very least suspicious?

The FBI saw these emails already, they are not new to the FBI. What is being ordered to be released is at the request of an extremely right-wing political organization called Judicial Watch wanting the records.
This from the arch-conservative Washington Post, which totally didn't go to war with Richard Nixon or anything like that ever....

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uncovered. These are "previously undisclosed" documents according to the Hill. You are no Goebbels, Dr. Scholl, but I'll give you credit for at least matching them in enthusiasm. At least you do a better job than Baghdad Bob!

I would edit the Nazi reference if I were you. You certainly don't want another deleted post. I'm no the Nazi here. Just saying.

With that said, you are not getting it. The FBI saw these emails as part of the investigation which concluded with no charges. You are under the impression that there is an indictment pending, which is wrong.

I am not waiting for an indictment, that'd imply that I have faith in the system. I do suspect that the damage of the allegations are strong enough to weaken her. These emails were "uncovered" by the FBI according to every source I've read. These emails were not handed over by Clinton originally. They were hidden. Were they intentionally hidden? We will not know, as there was not enough evidence of a cover-up to show criminal intent. But Comey did, in that press conference, indict Clinton not criminally but rather rhetorically-that is, to say, that he clearly and adequately displayed that Clinton panics under pressure, has little regard for established rules and protocol, etc.

Then there is of course the matter of the Clinton Foundation, which very well may be under FBI investigation as we speak. If the FBI wasn't investigating the Clinton Foundation, would they not come out and confirm it? Or is Comey part of the vast right-wing conspiracy too?

Also, you know who liked to threaten people's right to speech? Nazis.
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: August 22, 2016, 08:03:02 PM »

I wonder how many people actually care about this issue, as opposed to those who "care" only for the political benefits may or may not provide.

I wonder how many of Hillary's supporters ACTUALLY care whether or not she did something extremely unethical and unprofessional, as opposed to those who don't care either way, as long as she doesn't get in trouble for it...

Dude, your party nominated Trump.

Plus, I do care whether or not she did something extremely unethical.

And after months and months of trying to trump this e-mail business up as a big deal, it's pretty clear she did not do anything unethical. So phewf—I'm in the clear!

Roll Eyes
Logged
MasterJedi
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,551
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: August 22, 2016, 08:08:03 PM »

The sort of people basing their vote on email server maintenance weren't going to be voting for Clinton in the first place.
Nobody is basing their vote on the scandal itself as much as what it says about her character, especially as she continuously makes attacks on Trump. I've never heard the expression "two evils" used so often and so seriously in any election in my lifetime. People might think Trump is a joke, but they certainly don' t view Hillary as this shining beacon of clean politics and honor.
I don't know a single person that would have voted for Clinton before that is refusing to vote for her now because of emails. Also, people don't view Clinton as a "shining beacon" because she has faced 3 decades of polarizing personal attacks from the GOP. A sustained campaign like that is going to impact public opinion, especially during election cycle.
So when exactly did the vast right wing conspiracy start? Around the time that the Muslim Brotherhood and the KGB anointed a young Kenyan born child to be the President of the United States who would implement socialism through minor regulations of the insurance industry?

The lack of an indictment makes the emails a non-issue. You can't indict people on the internet with no law degree or credentials, that is left up to the authorities and the authorities didn't find anything to indict on.
Well yeah, they couldn't indict Hillary on obstruction of justice because they didn't know she obstructed justice. Why is a court ordering the release of more documents today if these newly found and obviously withheld work related emails not a serious sign that something is at the very least suspicious?

The FBI saw these emails already, they are not new to the FBI. What is being ordered to be released is at the request of an extremely right-wing political organization called Judicial Watch wanting the records.
This from the arch-conservative Washington Post, which totally didn't go to war with Richard Nixon or anything like that ever....

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uncovered. These are "previously undisclosed" documents according to the Hill. You are no Goebbels, Dr. Scholl, but I'll give you credit for at least matching them in enthusiasm. At least you do a better job than Baghdad Bob!

I would edit the Nazi reference if I were you. You certainly don't want another deleted post. I'm no the Nazi here. Just saying.

With that said, you are not getting it. The FBI saw these emails as part of the investigation which concluded with no charges. You are under the impression that there is an indictment pending, which is wrong.

I am not waiting for an indictment, that'd imply that I have faith in the system. I do suspect that the damage of the allegations are strong enough to weaken her. These emails were "uncovered" by the FBI according to every source I've read. These emails were not handed over by Clinton originally. They were hidden. Were they intentionally hidden? We will not know, as there was not enough evidence of a cover-up to show criminal intent. But Comey did, in that press conference, indict Clinton not criminally but rather rhetorically-that is, to say, that he clearly and adequately displayed that Clinton panics under pressure, has little regard for established rules and protocol, etc.

Then there is of course the matter of the Clinton Foundation, which very well may be under FBI investigation as we speak. If the FBI wasn't investigating the Clinton Foundation, would they not come out and confirm it? Or is Comey part of the vast right-wing conspiracy too?

Also, you know who liked to threaten people's right to speech? Nazis.

Glad you finally agree that Trump (who did just that) is like a Nazi. Finally some sense into your mind!
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: August 22, 2016, 09:05:45 PM »

The sort of people basing their vote on email server maintenance weren't going to be voting for Clinton in the first place.
Nobody is basing their vote on the scandal itself as much as what it says about her character, especially as she continuously makes attacks on Trump. I've never heard the expression "two evils" used so often and so seriously in any election in my lifetime. People might think Trump is a joke, but they certainly don' t view Hillary as this shining beacon of clean politics and honor.
I don't know a single person that would have voted for Clinton before that is refusing to vote for her now because of emails. Also, people don't view Clinton as a "shining beacon" because she has faced 3 decades of polarizing personal attacks from the GOP. A sustained campaign like that is going to impact public opinion, especially during election cycle.
So when exactly did the vast right wing conspiracy start? Around the time that the Muslim Brotherhood and the KGB anointed a young Kenyan born child to be the President of the United States who would implement socialism through minor regulations of the insurance industry?

The lack of an indictment makes the emails a non-issue. You can't indict people on the internet with no law degree or credentials, that is left up to the authorities and the authorities didn't find anything to indict on.
Well yeah, they couldn't indict Hillary on obstruction of justice because they didn't know she obstructed justice. Why is a court ordering the release of more documents today if these newly found and obviously withheld work related emails not a serious sign that something is at the very least suspicious?

The FBI saw these emails already, they are not new to the FBI. What is being ordered to be released is at the request of an extremely right-wing political organization called Judicial Watch wanting the records.
This from the arch-conservative Washington Post, which totally didn't go to war with Richard Nixon or anything like that ever....

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uncovered. These are "previously undisclosed" documents according to the Hill. You are no Goebbels, Dr. Scholl, but I'll give you credit for at least matching them in enthusiasm. At least you do a better job than Baghdad Bob!

I would edit the Nazi reference if I were you. You certainly don't want another deleted post. I'm no the Nazi here. Just saying.

With that said, you are not getting it. The FBI saw these emails as part of the investigation which concluded with no charges. You are under the impression that there is an indictment pending, which is wrong.

I am not waiting for an indictment, that'd imply that I have faith in the system. I do suspect that the damage of the allegations are strong enough to weaken her. These emails were "uncovered" by the FBI according to every source I've read. These emails were not handed over by Clinton originally. They were hidden. Were they intentionally hidden? We will not know, as there was not enough evidence of a cover-up to show criminal intent. But Comey did, in that press conference, indict Clinton not criminally but rather rhetorically-that is, to say, that he clearly and adequately displayed that Clinton panics under pressure, has little regard for established rules and protocol, etc.

Then there is of course the matter of the Clinton Foundation, which very well may be under FBI investigation as we speak. If the FBI wasn't investigating the Clinton Foundation, would they not come out and confirm it? Or is Comey part of the vast right-wing conspiracy too?

Also, you know who liked to threaten people's right to speech? Nazis.

Glad you finally agree that Trump (who did just that) is like a Nazi. Finally some sense into your mind!
It's really embarrassing that Cruz supporters are this butt hurt still.
Logged
Fuzzy Stands With His Friend, Chairman Sanchez
Fuzzy Bear
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 25,502
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: August 22, 2016, 09:30:22 PM »

I wonder how many people actually care about this issue, as opposed to those who "care" only for the political benefits may or may not provide.

I'm guessing somewhere between 0 and 12.

I don't know how many people care, but I think people SHOULD care.

Should they care enough to not vote for Hillary?  That's up to them.  But she's lied and been secretive about matters of state in a way that is not in the public interest.  She has conducted herself at the State Department in a way that, unquestionably, has the APPEARANCE of impropriety, and it's not been fully probed, in no small measure, because she has been obstructive.

Voting this year involves people doing the best they can choosing between the most imperfect options of my lifetime.  People should not just ignore Trump's behavior, but they shouldn't just ignore Hillary's e-mails, because it involves action on the part of a candidate that was deceptive and illegal (even if not criminal) while in the public trust.  There are folks who are upright and those who need to be kept upright.  Hillary's in the latter category, and that's hardly what one should view as acceptable in a Presidential candidate.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,620
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: August 22, 2016, 09:33:31 PM »

I wonder how many people actually care about this issue, as opposed to those who "care" only for the political benefits may or may not provide.

I'm guessing somewhere between 0 and 12.

I don't know how many people care, but I think people SHOULD care.

IMHO, people should care more about the possibility a mentally unstable con man acquiring the nuclear codes.
Logged
DrScholl
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,929
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.55, S: -3.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: August 22, 2016, 09:37:26 PM »

The sort of people basing their vote on email server maintenance weren't going to be voting for Clinton in the first place.
Nobody is basing their vote on the scandal itself as much as what it says about her character, especially as she continuously makes attacks on Trump. I've never heard the expression "two evils" used so often and so seriously in any election in my lifetime. People might think Trump is a joke, but they certainly don' t view Hillary as this shining beacon of clean politics and honor.
I don't know a single person that would have voted for Clinton before that is refusing to vote for her now because of emails. Also, people don't view Clinton as a "shining beacon" because she has faced 3 decades of polarizing personal attacks from the GOP. A sustained campaign like that is going to impact public opinion, especially during election cycle.
So when exactly did the vast right wing conspiracy start? Around the time that the Muslim Brotherhood and the KGB anointed a young Kenyan born child to be the President of the United States who would implement socialism through minor regulations of the insurance industry?

The lack of an indictment makes the emails a non-issue. You can't indict people on the internet with no law degree or credentials, that is left up to the authorities and the authorities didn't find anything to indict on.
Well yeah, they couldn't indict Hillary on obstruction of justice because they didn't know she obstructed justice. Why is a court ordering the release of more documents today if these newly found and obviously withheld work related emails not a serious sign that something is at the very least suspicious?

The FBI saw these emails already, they are not new to the FBI. What is being ordered to be released is at the request of an extremely right-wing political organization called Judicial Watch wanting the records.
This from the arch-conservative Washington Post, which totally didn't go to war with Richard Nixon or anything like that ever....

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uncovered. These are "previously undisclosed" documents according to the Hill. You are no Goebbels, Dr. Scholl, but I'll give you credit for at least matching them in enthusiasm. At least you do a better job than Baghdad Bob!

I would edit the Nazi reference if I were you. You certainly don't want another deleted post. I'm no the Nazi here. Just saying.

With that said, you are not getting it. The FBI saw these emails as part of the investigation which concluded with no charges. You are under the impression that there is an indictment pending, which is wrong.

I am not waiting for an indictment, that'd imply that I have faith in the system. I do suspect that the damage of the allegations are strong enough to weaken her. These emails were "uncovered" by the FBI according to every source I've read. These emails were not handed over by Clinton originally. They were hidden. Were they intentionally hidden? We will not know, as there was not enough evidence of a cover-up to show criminal intent. But Comey did, in that press conference, indict Clinton not criminally but rather rhetorically-that is, to say, that he clearly and adequately displayed that Clinton panics under pressure, has little regard for established rules and protocol, etc.

Then there is of course the matter of the Clinton Foundation, which very well may be under FBI investigation as we speak. If the FBI wasn't investigating the Clinton Foundation, would they not come out and confirm it? Or is Comey part of the vast right-wing conspiracy too?

Also, you know who liked to threaten people's right to speech? Nazis.

I didn't threaten your right to free speech, I just reminded you of the board rules against personal attacks like calling people Nazis. I don't get why people claim free speech on a message board. Message boards are not the government, they are private.
Logged
Beet
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 28,804


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: August 22, 2016, 11:08:33 PM »

Re: the e-mails, Comey has already said that they found no evidence that the e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. He didn't say they found some evidence, but not enough to be conclusive, he said no evidence.

Further, he also gave the following affirmative assessment:

"Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department."

Hence phrasing like this thread's title ("...that Clinton didn't disclose") are misleading, since they imply Clinton had them but just didn't turn them over, whereas Comey has said they were not on her server. The FBI had more resources, time, and did a more thorough technical search and was able to recover more e-mails.

---

As far as the substantive issue, Clinton had rich friends who were also donors to the foundation, who got access to Clinton and who asked for favors, but never got any specific action directly for money. How is this different than a political fundraiser, where people pay a certain amount of money to attend a function, or participate in a strategy session, with the candidate? By that standard, all fundraisers are "pay to play." The e-mails show Band and Huma were sensitive to ethical concerns even in their private e-mail discussions and tried not to do anything they felt would be unethical.

---

Also going to point out that independent charity watches have found that the Clinton foundation spends 89% of its money on charity, and it has saved thousands, if not millions of lives, so there's that.

---

Also, the following comical exchange from Huma's deposition:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, the server was definitely a conspiracy. Wink
Logged
Hermit For Peace
hermit
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,925


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: August 22, 2016, 11:14:11 PM »

I wonder how many people actually care about this issue, as opposed to those who "care" only for the political benefits may or may not provide.

I wonder how many of Hillary's supporters ACTUALLY care whether or not she did something extremely unethical and unprofessional, as opposed to those who don't care either way, as long as she doesn't get in trouble for it...

Dude, your party nominated Trump.

LOL!
Logged
Atlas Has Shrugged
ChairmanSanchez
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 38,096
United States


Political Matrix
E: 5.29, S: -5.04


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: August 22, 2016, 11:23:58 PM »

The sort of people basing their vote on email server maintenance weren't going to be voting for Clinton in the first place.
Nobody is basing their vote on the scandal itself as much as what it says about her character, especially as she continuously makes attacks on Trump. I've never heard the expression "two evils" used so often and so seriously in any election in my lifetime. People might think Trump is a joke, but they certainly don' t view Hillary as this shining beacon of clean politics and honor.
I don't know a single person that would have voted for Clinton before that is refusing to vote for her now because of emails. Also, people don't view Clinton as a "shining beacon" because she has faced 3 decades of polarizing personal attacks from the GOP. A sustained campaign like that is going to impact public opinion, especially during election cycle.
So when exactly did the vast right wing conspiracy start? Around the time that the Muslim Brotherhood and the KGB anointed a young Kenyan born child to be the President of the United States who would implement socialism through minor regulations of the insurance industry?

The lack of an indictment makes the emails a non-issue. You can't indict people on the internet with no law degree or credentials, that is left up to the authorities and the authorities didn't find anything to indict on.
Well yeah, they couldn't indict Hillary on obstruction of justice because they didn't know she obstructed justice. Why is a court ordering the release of more documents today if these newly found and obviously withheld work related emails not a serious sign that something is at the very least suspicious?

The FBI saw these emails already, they are not new to the FBI. What is being ordered to be released is at the request of an extremely right-wing political organization called Judicial Watch wanting the records.
This from the arch-conservative Washington Post, which totally didn't go to war with Richard Nixon or anything like that ever....

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uncovered. These are "previously undisclosed" documents according to the Hill. You are no Goebbels, Dr. Scholl, but I'll give you credit for at least matching them in enthusiasm. At least you do a better job than Baghdad Bob!

I would edit the Nazi reference if I were you. You certainly don't want another deleted post. I'm no the Nazi here. Just saying.

With that said, you are not getting it. The FBI saw these emails as part of the investigation which concluded with no charges. You are under the impression that there is an indictment pending, which is wrong.

I am not waiting for an indictment, that'd imply that I have faith in the system. I do suspect that the damage of the allegations are strong enough to weaken her. These emails were "uncovered" by the FBI according to every source I've read. These emails were not handed over by Clinton originally. They were hidden. Were they intentionally hidden? We will not know, as there was not enough evidence of a cover-up to show criminal intent. But Comey did, in that press conference, indict Clinton not criminally but rather rhetorically-that is, to say, that he clearly and adequately displayed that Clinton panics under pressure, has little regard for established rules and protocol, etc.

Then there is of course the matter of the Clinton Foundation, which very well may be under FBI investigation as we speak. If the FBI wasn't investigating the Clinton Foundation, would they not come out and confirm it? Or is Comey part of the vast right-wing conspiracy too?

Also, you know who liked to threaten people's right to speech? Nazis.

I didn't threaten your right to free speech, I just reminded you of the board rules against personal attacks like calling people Nazis. I don't get why people claim free speech on a message board. Message boards are not the government, they are private.
Being called a "Nazi" isn't really a personal attack around here considering Evergreen calls me it twice a week and nobody bats an eye, nor should they. You ought to grow some big, beautiful, thick, orange, TRUMP skin.
Logged
Virginiá
Virginia
Administratrix
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,856
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.97, S: -5.91

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: August 23, 2016, 01:00:57 AM »

She's literally inching dangerously close to Nixonian territory.

Sanchez that is bull and you know it.

I wonder how many of Hillary's supporters ACTUALLY care whether or not she did something extremely unethical and unprofessional, as opposed to those who don't care either way, as long as she doesn't get in trouble for it...

I think her having a private email server was wrong and ridiculously stupid, but not so wrong she should really get in serious trouble or be disqualified for anything because of it. I do resent her for running again, though. I'm sick of her baggage and her problems and now worried how many problems she is going to have in office and thus project onto the Democratic party.

But, regardless of all that, your party is insane, unethical in its own and counter to most of what I believe in, so the choice is obvious here and probably for the foreseeable future.
Logged
JerryArkansas
jerryarkansas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: August 23, 2016, 02:49:46 AM »

The sort of people basing their vote on email server maintenance weren't going to be voting for Clinton in the first place.
Nobody is basing their vote on the scandal itself as much as what it says about her character, especially as she continuously makes attacks on Trump. I've never heard the expression "two evils" used so often and so seriously in any election in my lifetime. People might think Trump is a joke, but they certainly don' t view Hillary as this shining beacon of clean politics and honor.
I don't know a single person that would have voted for Clinton before that is refusing to vote for her now because of emails. Also, people don't view Clinton as a "shining beacon" because she has faced 3 decades of polarizing personal attacks from the GOP. A sustained campaign like that is going to impact public opinion, especially during election cycle.
So when exactly did the vast right wing conspiracy start? Around the time that the Muslim Brotherhood and the KGB anointed a young Kenyan born child to be the President of the United States who would implement socialism through minor regulations of the insurance industry?

The lack of an indictment makes the emails a non-issue. You can't indict people on the internet with no law degree or credentials, that is left up to the authorities and the authorities didn't find anything to indict on.
Well yeah, they couldn't indict Hillary on obstruction of justice because they didn't know she obstructed justice. Why is a court ordering the release of more documents today if these newly found and obviously withheld work related emails not a serious sign that something is at the very least suspicious?

The FBI saw these emails already, they are not new to the FBI. What is being ordered to be released is at the request of an extremely right-wing political organization called Judicial Watch wanting the records.
This from the arch-conservative Washington Post, which totally didn't go to war with Richard Nixon or anything like that ever....

Quote from: Restricted
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Uncovered. These are "previously undisclosed" documents according to the Hill. You are no Goebbels, Dr. Scholl, but I'll give you credit for at least matching them in enthusiasm. At least you do a better job than Baghdad Bob!

I would edit the Nazi reference if I were you. You certainly don't want another deleted post. I'm no the Nazi here. Just saying.

With that said, you are not getting it. The FBI saw these emails as part of the investigation which concluded with no charges. You are under the impression that there is an indictment pending, which is wrong.

I am not waiting for an indictment, that'd imply that I have faith in the system. I do suspect that the damage of the allegations are strong enough to weaken her. These emails were "uncovered" by the FBI according to every source I've read. These emails were not handed over by Clinton originally. They were hidden. Were they intentionally hidden? We will not know, as there was not enough evidence of a cover-up to show criminal intent. But Comey did, in that press conference, indict Clinton not criminally but rather rhetorically-that is, to say, that he clearly and adequately displayed that Clinton panics under pressure, has little regard for established rules and protocol, etc.

Then there is of course the matter of the Clinton Foundation, which very well may be under FBI investigation as we speak. If the FBI wasn't investigating the Clinton Foundation, would they not come out and confirm it? Or is Comey part of the vast right-wing conspiracy too?

Also, you know who liked to threaten people's right to speech? Nazis.

I didn't threaten your right to free speech, I just reminded you of the board rules against personal attacks like calling people Nazis. I don't get why people claim free speech on a message board. Message boards are not the government, they are private.
Being called a "Nazi" isn't really a personal attack around here considering Evergreen calls me it twice a week and nobody bats an eye, nor should they. You ought to grow some big, beautiful, thick, orange, TRUMP skin.
So should you instead of launching into large tirades all over the board.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.08 seconds with 13 queries.