Publicus Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 What good knowledge of the law or legal advice would a good lawyer provide to a client the lawyer agreed to represent when the client successfully insisted 100% that the email server be wiped clean before being reviewed by an adversary or by otherwise legit legal examiners/investigators. What defense would you recommend to the client. Or, conversely, if you were the lawyer advising investigators (private or public), what legal defense would you expect from lawyers for Mrs Clinton and how would you advise prosecuting the case based on an anticipated defense by Mrs. Clinton's lawyers. Choose one or the other inquiry or both, it would be up to you what or how you would want to post as a response. If the TVF House Lawyer wants to present his stellar knowledge of law or legal advice to the body, this could be his opportunity to shine...so counselor you just got handed the ball to run with. You gonna go up the middle or make an end run after a few dekes of the line.... Keeping in mind of course the fact there are no charges in this brouhaha nor is there a criminal or a civil investigation, and that no person is being investigated what so ever. The FBI is investigating Hillary Clinton’s private email server out of of its headquarters in Washington, D.C., in an “unusual move,” the New York Times reported. “But given this inquiry’s importance, senior F.B.I. officials have opted to keep it closely held in Washington in the agency’s counterintelligence section, which investigates how national security secrets are handled.” http://www.businessinsider.sg/hillary-clintons-private-email-and-fbi/#.Vdib3fmqpBc All of that would indeed be kept confidential now wouldn't it as the normal course of the FBI inquiry. The post points out yet another obvious fact that is a neutral fact except for the fact the rightwing tries to make the FBI inquiry sound like a national security emergency and crisis. The only crisis is on the right and in the Republican party which does not have the votes to win the 2016 election so it must proceed in this political campaign and season by hook or by crook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chuckd Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Read the following link and one will find out what "born classified" means. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Business | Fri Aug 21, 2015 6:36pm EDT Exclusive: Dozens of Clinton emails were classified from the start, U.S. rules suggest NEW YORK | BY JONATHAN ALLEN For months, the U.S. State Department has stood behind its former boss Hillary Clinton as she has repeatedly said she did not send or receive classified information on her unsecured, private email account, a practice the government forbids. While the department is now stamping a few dozen of the publicly released emails as "Classified," it stresses this is not evidence of rule-breaking. Those stamps are new, it says, and do not mean the information was classified when Clinton, the Democratic frontrunner in the 2016 presidential election, first sent or received it. But the details included in those "Classified" stamps — which include a string of dates, letters and numbers describing the nature of the classification — appear to undermine this account, a Reuters examination of the emails and the relevant regulations has found. Article follows here: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/08/21/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeverSure Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 All of that would indeed be kept confidential now wouldn't it as the normal course of the FBI inquiry. The post points out yet another obvious fact that is a neutral fact except for the fact the rightwing tries to make the FBI inquiry sound like a national security emergency and crisis. The only crisis is on the right and in the Republican party which does not have the votes to win the 2016 election so it must proceed in this political campaign and season by hook or by crook. Hillary: “Bill, how long am I going to be in here?" Bill: "At this point, what difference does it make?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostoday Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 What good knowledge of the law or legal advice would a good lawyer provide to a client the lawyer agreed to represent when the client successfully insisted 100% that the email server be wiped clean before being reviewed by an adversary or by otherwise legit legal examiners/investigators. What defense would you recommend to the client. Or, conversely, if you were the lawyer advising investigators (private or public), what legal defense would you expect from lawyers for Mrs Clinton and how would you advise prosecuting the case based on an anticipated defense by Mrs. Clinton's lawyers. Choose one or the other inquiry or both, it would be up to you what or how you would want to post as a response. If the TVF House Lawyer wants to present his stellar knowledge of law or legal advice to the body, this could be his opportunity to shine...so counselor you just got handed the ball to run with. You gonna go up the middle or make an end run after a few dekes of the line.... Keeping in mind of course the fact there are no charges in this brouhaha nor is there a criminal or a civil investigation, and that no person is being investigated what so ever. The FBI is investigating Hillary Clinton’s private email server out of of its headquarters in Washington, D.C., in an “unusual move,” the New York Times reported. “But given this inquiry’s importance, senior F.B.I. officials have opted to keep it closely held in Washington in the agency’s counterintelligence section, which investigates how national security secrets are handled.” http://www.businessinsider.sg/hillary-clintons-private-email-and-fbi/#.Vdib3fmqpBc All of that would indeed be kept confidential now wouldn't it as the normal course of the FBI inquiry. The post points out yet another obvious fact that is a neutral fact except for the fact the rightwing tries to make the FBI inquiry sound like a national security emergency and crisis. The only crisis is on the right and in the Republican party which does not have the votes to win the 2016 election so it must proceed in this political campaign and season by hook or by crook. Most public servants are not investigated by the FBI. Since the government is now controlled by a Demmocrat I would consider an active FBI investigation significant. With the FBI Investigating Clinton's Emails, Bernie Sanders Should Be Considered the Democratic Frontrunner. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-should-be-considered-the-democratic-frontrunner_b_8019264.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amavel Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Move along, nothing to see here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 What good knowledge of the law or legal advice would a good lawyer provide to a client the lawyer agreed to represent when the client successfully insisted 100% that the email server be wiped clean before being reviewed by an adversary or by otherwise legit legal examiners/investigators. What defense would you recommend to the client. Or, conversely, if you were the lawyer advising investigators (private or public), what legal defense would you expect from lawyers for Mrs Clinton and how would you advise prosecuting the case based on an anticipated defense by Mrs. Clinton's lawyers. Choose one or the other inquiry or both, it would be up to you what or how you would want to post as a response. If the TVF House Lawyer wants to present his stellar knowledge of law or legal advice to the body, this could be his opportunity to shine...so counselor you just got handed the ball to run with. You gonna go up the middle or make an end run after a few dekes of the line.... Keeping in mind of course the fact there are no charges in this brouhaha nor is there a criminal or a civil investigation, and that no person is being investigated what so ever. The FBI is investigating Hillary Clinton’s private email server out of of its headquarters in Washington, D.C., in an “unusual move,” the New York Times reported. “But given this inquiry’s importance, senior F.B.I. officials have opted to keep it closely held in Washington in the agency’s counterintelligence section, which investigates how national security secrets are handled.” http://www.businessinsider.sg/hillary-clintons-private-email-and-fbi/#.Vdib3fmqpBc All of that would indeed be kept confidential now wouldn't it as the normal course of the FBI inquiry. The post points out yet another obvious fact that is a neutral fact except for the fact the rightwing tries to make the FBI inquiry sound like a national security emergency and crisis. The only crisis is on the right and in the Republican party which does not have the votes to win the 2016 election so it must proceed in this political campaign and season by hook or by crook. Most public servants are not investigated by the FBI. Since the government is now controlled by a Demmocrat I would consider an active FBI investigation significant. With the FBI Investigating Clinton's Emails, Bernie Sanders Should Be Considered the Democratic Frontrunner.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-should-be-considered-the-democratic-frontrunner_b_8019264.html There is no "target" of the FBI activity. That means no person is being reviewed by the FBI, no person is being investigated by the FBI, no person is suspected by the FBI of violating law, rules, regulations; no person is involved in the FBI participation in this. There are no charges, no violations of law identified or being pursued, no prosecutor or special prosecutor, no jury either grand or petite. There are a couple of judges that the right identified to file their motions with, FOIA primarily and that is all. The Attorney General is not involved. The State Department is the government entity dealing with the public and the judges because HRC had of course been SecState. Despite the reference to a jury by a lawyer in a post to the thread, there is no jury involved, neither grand or petite. Today, same as yesterday, the same as every day the past three months, the money and the odds are on Hillary Clinton to be elected the next president of the United States on November 8th 2016. I keep asking but I get no reply...The Right and the Republican party that the Right controls have been going all out to do everything they possibly can to try to prevent HRC being elected POTUS. Yet, so far the Right and the Republican party it controls have got nowhere. Given these forces while going full tilt have been unable to accomplish their partisan political purposes, when and how can youse guyz get your way as you've been trying to do it, i.e., by hook or by crook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Most public servants are not investigated by the FBI. Since the government is now controlled by a Demmocrat I would consider an active FBI investigation significant. With the FBI Investigating Clinton's Emails, Bernie Sanders Should Be Considered the Democratic Frontrunner.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-should-be-considered-the-democratic-frontrunner_b_8019264.html It's a pretty good and clear analysis (below) to say that presently the three strongest candidates for president are Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump. The analysis of the situation as of the present does kind of focus the mind. This is not the 2012 race with so many Rs playing musical chairs for the lead of the moment. The leaders of each party are established, whether on a long term basis or in more recent but sustained terms. Bush for instance never took the lead and HRC has never lost it. POWER RANKINGS: Here's who has the best chance at being our next president Our rankings are based on the Real Clear Politics averages of national polls and those in New Hampshire and Iowa. We also factor in candidates' fundraising numbers released last month and their momentum (or lack thereof) over the past few weeks, especially after the first Republican presidential debate earlier this month Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/presidential-candidate-power-rankings-week-2-2015-8#ixzz3jbnusaWJ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurath Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 It's not the violation. It's the coverup. If she's not covering up something, I'm the Queene of England. Not beyond the Realms of Possibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Well, maybe now the stage is set for Bernie Sanders to first beat Clinton, and then Trump (or Bush); and be the next President of the USA. Not a chance. Sorry for your loss. Also don't assume the republican ticket will be Trump or Bush. I predict this ticket: KASICH - RUBIO (VP) Fantasy politics, wishful dreaming, empty propaganda all of which have no contact with the realities of the hard biting Right and the rich Republican party it controls. Ted Cruz for instance has $50 million bucks and continues to count by the tens along with having a long term design to surface in already organized and newly visible action for the dozen or so Super Tuesday primaries that occur on one single day, mainly throughout the South. Rubio has around $40 million for a personal PR campaign at some point but no message to present. John Kasich has little money and less support among the base than Chris Christie has. Kasich is the cute little puppy dog that has wandered in among the big dogs who when they scent him will run him off in a canine go home to mommy rush. Ben Carson has almost $10 million bucks and all he has to do to get more votes than Kasich and Rubio combined is just show up and smile. Kasich-Rubio The Republican party Edited August 23, 2015 by Publicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
55Jay Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Having worked for a Multi International company (another way of saying tax dodging american company), all our emails were deleted from the sever after 90 days, company policy. Why... Depending on what business you are in, there may be laws that mandate that you keep emails for a year or more. However, in this instance since she claims to have turned over all the work emails, there is no legal requirement for her to keep the top secret ultraclassified ones personal ones she sent to her mates. Since she wasn't supposed to use that account for personal email, she was required to turn over all emails per the subpoena, not just the one's she cherry picked. If you can't see that, then you are either being obtuse, intellectually lazy or a blind partisan. She's losing support among Dems and Indy's http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/19/politics/2016-poll-hillary-clinton-joe-biden-bernie-sanders/ Reminds me of Ronald Reagan. "No, sorry senator, I can't recall. Nope, can't recall that either". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gudtymchuk Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Most public servants are not investigated by the FBI. Since the government is now controlled by a Demmocrat I would consider an active FBI investigation significant. With the FBI Investigating Clinton's Emails, Bernie Sanders Should Be Considered the Democratic Frontrunner.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-should-be-considered-the-democratic-frontrunner_b_8019264.html It's a pretty good and clear analysis (below) to say that presently the three strongest candidates for president are Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump. The analysis of the situation as of the present does kind of focus the mind. This is not the 2012 race with so many Rs playing musical chairs for the lead of the moment. The leaders of each party are established, whether on a long term basis or in more recent but sustained terms. Bush for instance never took the lead and HRC has never lost it. POWER RANKINGS: Here's who has the best chance at being our next president Our rankings are based on the Real Clear Politics averages of national polls and those in New Hampshire and Iowa. We also factor in candidates' fundraising numbers released last month and their momentum (or lack thereof) over the past few weeks, especially after the first Republican presidential debate earlier this month Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/presidential-candidate-power-rankings-week-2-2015-8#ixzz3jbnusaWJ All this is just a bunch of useless fodder taking up space. It's still more than 5 months to the very first primary and a political life time until the general election. This time in 2008 Barack wasn't even a blimp on the radar screen as Hillary was swooning her way to her first non-coronation so I wouldn't be making any book on these so-called front runners. Screw the polls. It's so much more fun watching the combatants flailing away at each other. Edited August 23, 2015 by gudtymchuk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Most public servants are not investigated by the FBI. Since the government is now controlled by a Demmocrat I would consider an active FBI investigation significant. With the FBI Investigating Clinton's Emails, Bernie Sanders Should Be Considered the Democratic Frontrunner.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-should-be-considered-the-democratic-frontrunner_b_8019264.html It's a pretty good and clear analysis (below) to say that presently the three strongest candidates for president are Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Donald Trump. The analysis of the situation as of the present does kind of focus the mind. This is not the 2012 race with so many Rs playing musical chairs for the lead of the moment. The leaders of each party are established, whether on a long term basis or in more recent but sustained terms. Bush for instance never took the lead and HRC has never lost it. POWER RANKINGS: Here's who has the best chance at being our next president Our rankings are based on the Real Clear Politics averages of national polls and those in New Hampshire and Iowa. We also factor in candidates' fundraising numbers released last month and their momentum (or lack thereof) over the past few weeks, especially after the first Republican presidential debate earlier this month Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/presidential-candidate-power-rankings-week-2-2015-8#ixzz3jbnusaWJ All this is just a bunch of useless fodder taking up space. It's still more than 5 months to the very first primary and a political life time until the general election. This time in 2008 Barack wasn't even a blimp on the radar screen as Hillary was swooning her way to her first non-coronation so I wouldn't be making any book on these so-called front runners. Screw the polls. It's so much more fun watching the combatants flailing away at each other. In the four sentences I wrote to the post I said the "present" time twice but I also pointed out this is unlike 2012. Unlike four years ago there are no rotating leaders of the moment in the Republican party. And there is no D 2016 Barack Obama. Clinton is the long term leader and while Bernie Sanders has come on strong and is established in the race, Bernie is no Barack Obama. Clinton has the D lead and is holding it despite a massive and sustained broad front onslaught against her by the Right and the R party. Trump has taken the lead and is holding it despite the disdain of the political and MSM establishment. No one is positioned to challenge either leader and no one is considered a proverbial dark horse candidate. The primary voting in the states begins in February which is six months away and it is no well kept secret that a lot can change by then. Conversely, not a lot can change between now and then either. And it might well be the case that not much changes after the primary voting begins except the inevitable winnowing of the many marginal candidates the Rs have, to include the probability Bush continues his incoherent muddling. One big development might be that Joe Biden gets in the race yet either way the decision needs to be made well before the primary voting begins. If Biden plunges in it would mean Joe wants to be Hillary's vp . HRC and Bernie have almost all the D party voters as evidenced by the 1% polling Jim Webb keeps looking at from over on the D center-right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
55Jay Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 For me, this Hillary email thing demonstrates her (perceived) sense of entitlement. The normal rules don't apply to members of the smug, political elite class, but if the peasants get uppity about something, they can be baffled with bulls**t until they eventually give up and go back to watching sitcoms and sports on the idiot box. She can barely conceal her irritation that this thing didn't die the death her lawyers and advisers told her it would if she just kept her mouth shut and followed the play book. US Gov IT system has become so heavily restricted, it's almost unusable. Unclass is bad. Classified is worse but come on, as SecState, she had an IT geek at her beck and call, unlike the rest of the trouble call submitting peons. Travel. OK, she did a lot of that but there's provisions for that too, even if it is, or was, not that great. So yeah, the US GOV IT system is a mess, so I would understand why anyone with means, and who is a political ticket puncher like she is, would want to contract out for a personal server. Convenience, usability, and control so that some idiot doesn't leak some embarrassing email in a GOTCHA moment on national television. But therein' lies the rub that Hillary's totally misplayed here. If you work for Government, even as a diplo-dunk appointee, and have one of the highest security clearances available, it's about your character, integrity and accountability. It's bigger than yourself, and not just a ticket punch to pad the <deleted> presidential resume. If you do something questionable, have the character to step up, not clam up and hide behind lawyers and PR advisers. For me, Hillary Clinton failed the gutt check and is still acting like a snake in the grass. "Wiped with what, a cloth?" Yeah, Ok, Hillary. Whateva. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Look, I tend to support HRC ideologically pretty much across the board, but Americans don't generally elect mostly on ideology. Perceived character is a big part of it. Maybe the way people are perceiving her now (so negatively) isn't completely fair, but as she might say -- WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? What matters is that she might be indeed be permanently damaged so it might be time to change horses. If she can manage to repair this damage and go on to be president, well good for her, but seriously, would you bet the house on that? People who assert she hasn't been damaged (largely self inflicted) and that nobody is paying attention now ... well, they're just obviously in deep denial and wrong about that. Edited August 23, 2015 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Look, I tend to support HRC ideologically pretty much across the board, but Americans don't generally elect mostly on ideology. Perceived character is a big part of it. Maybe the way people are perceiving her now (so negatively) isn't completely fair, but as she might say -- WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? What matters is that she might be indeed be permanently damaged so it might be time to change horses. If she can manage to repair this damage and go on to be president, well good for her, but seriously, would you bet the house on that? People who assert she hasn't been damaged and that nobody is paying attention now ... well, they're just obviously in deep denial and wrong about that. Look old timer the Republican party is permanently damaged especially given the demographics of the electorate that will vote in 2016 (and beyond). From Bush to Cruz to Kasich no one wants them in the White House and the vast majority of Republicans do not want Trump. HRC has self-inflicted some damage but the Rs are trying to do to her as they did to John Kerry and Barack Obama, they just could not pull it off against Obama who is too strong with the general electorate. HRC is equally as strong with the electorate. The Republican party led and controlled by the Right continues to believe they can determine election outcomes for the White House by hook or by crook. When they play by their own foul rules and lose it makes 'em furious. Go live in Alabama for several years to find out what Putin Republicans, teabaggers and evangelicals in control of a place means. These are the people and their kind who want control of the White House and the executive branch too. Edited August 23, 2015 by Publicus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gudtymchuk Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Yep, it's a loooong way until this all shakes out. Way too early to hitch up your horse to any wagon. Trump will probably do himself in with his narcissistic and verbose caterwauling. On the other hand once the vast right wing conspirators finish trashing Shrill Hill the Dem debates will be left with the two ancient dinosaurs Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. How is Wolfe Blitzer and Candy Crowley gonna keep a straight face asking these two buffoons any kind of a serious question. Politics, the sit-com. Stay tuned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostoday Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Look, I tend to support HRC ideologically pretty much across the board, but Americans don't generally elect mostly on ideology. Perceived character is a big part of it. Maybe the way people are perceiving her now (so negatively) isn't completely fair, but as she might say -- WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? What matters is that she might be indeed be permanently damaged so it might be time to change horses. If she can manage to repair this damage and go on to be president, well good for her, but seriously, would you bet the house on that? People who assert she hasn't been damaged and that nobody is paying attention now ... well, they're just obviously in deep denial and wrong about that. Look old timer the Republican party is permanently damaged especially given the demographics of the electorate what will vote in 2016 (and beyond). From Bush to Cruz to Kasich no one wants them in the White House and the vast majority of Republicans do not want Trump. HRC has self-inflicted some damage but the Rs are trying to do to her as they did to John Kerry and Barack Obama, they just could not pull it off against Obama who is too strong with the general electorate. HRC is equally as strong with the electorate. The Republican party led and controlled by the Right continues to believe they can determine election outcomes for the White House by hook or by crook. When they play by their own foul rules and lose it makes 'em furious. Go live in Alabama for several years to find out what Putin Republicans, teabaggers and evangelicals in control of a place means. These are the people and their kind who want control of the White House and the executive branch too. She received her worst favorability rating ever. She’s lost ground on Republicans’ three strongest candidates. And she’s about as honest and trustworthy as Donald Trump. http://www.businessinsider.sg/hillary-clinton-poll-trump-2015-7/#.VdmduPmqpBc Hillary Clinton’s Poll Numbers Take A Huge Drop In Just One Month reverbpress.com/politics/clintons-poll-numbers-drop Hillary Clinton's Poll Numbers Collapse - Breitbart Hillary Clinton's Poll Numbers Plunge To The Worst Since ... Hillary's Favorability Numbers Sharply Drop in New Poll ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Look, I tend to support HRC ideologically pretty much across the board, but Americans don't generally elect mostly on ideology. Perceived character is a big part of it. Maybe the way people are perceiving her now (so negatively) isn't completely fair, but as she might say -- WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? What matters is that she might be indeed be permanently damaged so it might be time to change horses. If she can manage to repair this damage and go on to be president, well good for her, but seriously, would you bet the house on that? People who assert she hasn't been damaged and that nobody is paying attention now ... well, they're just obviously in deep denial and wrong about that. Look old timer the Republican party is permanently damaged especially given the demographics of the electorate that will vote in 2016 (and beyond). From Bush to Cruz to Kasich no one wants them in the White House and the vast majority of Republicans do not want Trump. HRC has self-inflicted some damage but the Rs are trying to do to her as they did to John Kerry and Barack Obama, they just could not pull it off against Obama who is too strong with the general electorate. HRC is equally as strong with the electorate. The Republican party led and controlled by the Right continues to believe they can determine election outcomes for the White House by hook or by crook. When they play by their own foul rules and lose it makes 'em furious. Go live in Alabama for several years to find out what Putin Republicans, teabaggers and evangelicals in control of a place means. These are the people and their kind who want control of the White House and the executive branch too. I have lived in the deep south so not sure what your point is. Just because I acknowledge Hillary's problems doesn't equate as support for the republicans. It may still be that her running remains the best bet to beat the republicans, but like a lot of rational people, including democrats, I'm questioning that. Old timer? That's what you've got ... personal ageist comments. You're really wound up by all this, huh? It's pretty interesting that Biden met with Warren. Here's my wild theory. Worth two cents anyway. What if Biden announced with Warren at his side and said, we're running as a ticket: BIDEN WARREN. That would be historically very very unusual but it pushes all the buttons. Pushes Hillary and Sanders away in one stroke. You avoid Hillary's scandals ... you get a seasoned democrat strong on foreign policy as president ... you get the first woman VICE president, not president but not chopped liver either, you get the progressives represented with Warren (who really isn't seasoned enough to be president yet anyway). More leftist democrats preferred Warren over Sanders anyway and nobody outside a nuthouse thinks Sanders will ever be president. Also of course Warren would excite the democratic base like NO OTHER democrat, including all of them (Biden / O'Malley / Sanders / Hillary). Pretty brilliant, eh? So, why not? Just googled this -- not surprisingly my "wild theory" is not original! Here they also speculate the old Joe would run as a one termer with Warren on deck, which I had thought about but didn't post before. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/08/22/1414584/-Biden-Warren-2016 Edited August 23, 2015 by Jingthing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Yep, it's a loooong way until this all shakes out. Way too early to hitch up your horse to any wagon. Trump will probably do himself in with his narcissistic and verbose caterwauling. On the other hand once the vast right wing conspirators finish trashing Shrill Hill the Dem debates will be left with the two ancient dinosaurs Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. How is Wolfe Blitzer and Candy Crowley gonna keep a straight face asking these two buffoons any kind of a serious question. Politics, the sit-com. Stay tuned. You are saying it's too early to make predictions while you go ahead to make predictions you like. Can't have it both ways dude. Everyone knows we're a long way out from anything definitive happening. The best one can do is to try to outline the broad contours while leaving the specific details to voters once the primary voting begins in the many states. The best way to proceed in this volatile business of elections, voters, politics, money, ideologies, geographic regions, religion and the whole nine yards of it is with caution. I myself look at two things that, while nothing outside of voters voting is definitive, have a proven track record of fundamental accuracy. One is the money and the odds, the other is the broad contours of the reliable and credible polling organizations such as the PPP survey which was the most accurate in 2008 and again in 2012. PPP is one among many I closely follow and examine. The money and the odds meanwhile have a long record of accuracy in US elections of the prez. Balancing and juggling the two of 'em has proved to be reliably accurate. The two indicators plus the FiveThirtyEight calculations of the very precise Nate Silver notably point in the right direction. As the guy should have said instead of 'plastics' to Benjamin The Graduate, 'Bovada'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gudtymchuk Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Yep, it's a loooong way until this all shakes out. Way too early to hitch up your horse to any wagon. Trump will probably do himself in with his narcissistic and verbose caterwauling. On the other hand once the vast right wing conspirators finish trashing Shrill Hill the Dem debates will be left with the two ancient dinosaurs Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. How is Wolfe Blitzer and Candy Crowley gonna keep a straight face asking these two buffoons any kind of a serious question. Politics, the sit-com. Stay tuned. You are saying it's too early to make predictions while you go ahead to make predictions you like. Can't have it both ways dude. Everyone knows we're a long way out from anything definitive happening. The best one can do is to try to outline the broad contours while leaving the specific details to voters once the primary voting begins in the many states. The best way to proceed in this volatile business of elections, voters, politics, money, ideologies, geographic regions, religion and the whole nine yards of it is with caution. I myself look at two things that, while nothing outside of voters voting is definitive, have a proven track record of fundamental accuracy. One is the money and the odds, the other is the broad contours of the reliable and credible polling organizations such as the PPP survey which was the most accurate in 2008 and again in 2012. PPP is one among many I closely follow and examine. The money and the odds meanwhile have a long record of accuracy in US elections of the prez. Balancing and juggling the two of 'em has proved to be reliably accurate. The two indicators plus the FiveThirtyEight calculations of the very precise Nate Silver notably point in the right direction. As the guy should have said instead of 'plastics' to Benjamin The Graduate, 'Bovada'. Damn DUDE, all that "I myself" stuff. I'm impressed..... Go Bernie!!!!! or Joe!!! or Liz!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Yep, it's a loooong way until this all shakes out. Way too early to hitch up your horse to any wagon. Trump will probably do himself in with his narcissistic and verbose caterwauling. On the other hand once the vast right wing conspirators finish trashing Shrill Hill the Dem debates will be left with the two ancient dinosaurs Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden. How is Wolfe Blitzer and Candy Crowley gonna keep a straight face asking these two buffoons any kind of a serious question. Politics, the sit-com. Stay tuned. You are saying it's too early to make predictions while you go ahead to make predictions you like. Can't have it both ways dude. Everyone knows we're a long way out from anything definitive happening. The best one can do is to try to outline the broad contours while leaving the specific details to voters once the primary voting begins in the many states. The best way to proceed in this volatile business of elections, voters, politics, money, ideologies, geographic regions, religion and the whole nine yards of it is with caution. I myself look at two things that, while nothing outside of voters voting is definitive, have a proven track record of fundamental accuracy. One is the money and the odds, the other is the broad contours of the reliable and credible polling organizations such as the PPP survey which was the most accurate in 2008 and again in 2012. PPP is one among many I closely follow and examine. The money and the odds meanwhile have a long record of accuracy in US elections of the prez. Balancing and juggling the two of 'em has proved to be reliably accurate. The two indicators plus the FiveThirtyEight calculations of the very precise Nate Silver notably point in the right direction. As the guy should have said instead of 'plastics' to Benjamin The Graduate, 'Bovada'. Damn DUDE, all that "I myself" stuff. I'm impressed..... Go Bernie!!!!! or Joe!!! or Liz!!! The "I myself" stuff is rare indeed in my posts so thx for indulging me one time. It's easier to write in the first person but always better to write to the board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Look, I tend to support HRC ideologically pretty much across the board, but Americans don't generally elect mostly on ideology. Perceived character is a big part of it. Maybe the way people are perceiving her now (so negatively) isn't completely fair, but as she might say -- WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE? What matters is that she might be indeed be permanently damaged so it might be time to change horses. If she can manage to repair this damage and go on to be president, well good for her, but seriously, would you bet the house on that? People who assert she hasn't been damaged and that nobody is paying attention now ... well, they're just obviously in deep denial and wrong about that. Look old timer the Republican party is permanently damaged especially given the demographics of the electorate that will vote in 2016 (and beyond). From Bush to Cruz to Kasich no one wants them in the White House and the vast majority of Republicans do not want Trump. HRC has self-inflicted some damage but the Rs are trying to do to her as they did to John Kerry and Barack Obama, they just could not pull it off against Obama who is too strong with the general electorate. HRC is equally as strong with the electorate. The Republican party led and controlled by the Right continues to believe they can determine election outcomes for the White House by hook or by crook. When they play by their own foul rules and lose it makes 'em furious. Go live in Alabama for several years to find out what Putin Republicans, teabaggers and evangelicals in control of a place means. These are the people and their kind who want control of the White House and the executive branch too. I have lived in the deep south so not sure what your point is. Just because I acknowledge Hillary's problems doesn't equate as support for the republicans. It may still be that her running remains the best bet to beat the republicans, but like a lot of rational people, including democrats, I'm questioning that. Old timer? That's what you've got ... personal ageist comments. You're really wound up by all this, huh? It's pretty interesting that Biden met with Warren. Here's my wild theory. Worth two cents anyway. What if Biden announced with Warren at his side and said, we're running as a ticket: BIDEN WARREN. That would be historically very very unusual but it pushes all the buttons. Pushes Hillary and Sanders away in one stroke. You avoid Hillary's scandals ... you get a seasoned democrat strong on foreign policy as president ... you get the first woman VICE president, not president but not chopped liver either, you get the progressives represented with Warren (who really isn't seasoned enough to be president yet anyway). More leftist democrats preferred Warren over Sanders anyway and nobody outside a nuthouse thinks Sanders will ever be president ... The left of the D party loves the idea that is being widely speculated as we speak. Thing is, people vote for president, not for vice president. HRC is the real thing, not a Biden-Warren combo. For Warren to have a shot at the White House, a Biden-Warren ticket would have to defeat HRC for the nomination, which is far from certain in a party that would become radically divided over the challenge. Then Biden-Warren would need to win in November next year. Then Warren would need Biden to step aside four years from now in a radically divided party. Then Warren would need to win four years from now in a radically divided party, assuming she could defeat a challenge to her own nomination in the D party primaries four years from now in a radically divided party. A radically divided Democratic party from the moment any kind of Biden-Warren ticket might be announced and well into the indefinite future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gudtymchuk Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Hmmmm, interesting read, maybe, for those that don't kneel at the alter of their liberal goddess. The secretary would have known better, the department officials say, because she was trained to understand the difference when she was “read in” on procedures to ID and handle classified information by diplomatic-security officials in 2009. Clinton also went through a so-called “read-off” when she left office in 2013 and in that debriefing, security officials reminded her of her duty to return all classified documents, including ones in which the classification status is “uncertain,” which would have included the e-mails stored on her private server — which she only this month turned over to authorities. The read-off would have included her signing a nondisclosure agreement. “Once she resigned as secretary, she needed to return classified documents and other government-owned documents, which in this case would have included the server,” veteran Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent Raymond Fournier said. http://nypost.com/2015/08/23/hillarys-e-mail-defense-is-total-bs-former-state-dept-officials/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NY%2520Post%2520Newsletter&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_term=NYP%20180%20Day%20Openers%20and%2030%20Day%20Signups Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
F430murci Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 The FBI is investigating Hillary Clinton’s private email server out of of its headquarters in Washington, D.C., in an “unusual move,” the New York Times reported. “But given this inquiry’s importance, senior F.B.I. officials have opted to keep it closely held in Washington in the agency’s counterintelligence section, which investigates how national security secrets are handled.” http://www.businessinsider.sg/hillary-clintons-private-email-and-fbi/#.Vdib3fmqpBc All of that would indeed be kept confidential now wouldn't it as the normal course of the FBI inquiry. The post points out yet another obvious fact that is a neutral fact except for the fact the rightwing tries to make the FBI inquiry sound like a national security emergency and crisis. The only crisis is on the right and in the Republican party which does not have the votes to win the 2016 election so it must proceed in this political campaign and season by hook or by crook. Most public servants are not investigated by the FBI. Since the government is now controlled by a Demmocrat I would consider an active FBI investigation significant. With the FBI Investigating Clinton's Emails, Bernie Sanders Should Be Considered the Democratic Frontrunner.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/bernie-sanders-should-be-considered-the-democratic-frontrunner_b_8019264.html There is no "target" of the FBI activity. That means no person is being reviewed by the FBI, no person is being investigated by the FBI, no person is suspected by the FBI of violating law, rules, regulations; no person is involved in the FBI participation in this. There are no charges, no violations of law identified or being pursued, no prosecutor or special prosecutor, no jury either grand or petite. There are a couple of judges that the right identified to file their motions with, FOIA primarily and that is all. The Attorney General is not involved. The State Department is the government entity dealing with the public and the judges because HRC had of course been SecState. Despite the reference to a jury by a lawyer in a post to the thread, there is no jury involved, neither grand or petite. Today, same as yesterday, the same as every day the past three months, the money and the odds are on Hillary Clinton to be elected the next president of the United States on November 8th 2016. I keep asking but I get no reply...The Right and the Republican party that the Right controls have been going all out to do everything they possibly can to try to prevent HRC being elected POTUS. Yet, so far the Right and the Republican party it controls have got nowhere. Given these forces while going full tilt have been unable to accomplish their partisan political purposes, when and how can youse guyz get your way as you've been trying to do it, i.e., by hook or by crook. Holy cow. Very difficult to figure out if your a really dumb or just really blinded by your passion. One would never know if the FBI is investigating, but some how you do without any equivocation . . . and all the way from Thailand at that. Of course Obama's AG would not pursue Hillary. Does this one really need to be explained? RE: Jury Here you are either really dense, obstinate or just dishonest. I never said a jury was involved. I simply indicated how the law regarding the destruction of evidence and how a jury would be instructed when you said there was no evidence. An Adverse inference instruction means there is strong evidence to support a conviction. I also said this would never get to a jury because matters of a political nature like this never do regardless as to whether laws have been violated. I explained why. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostoday Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Hmmmm, interesting read, maybe, for those that don't kneel at the alter of their liberal goddess. The secretary would have known better, the department officials say, because she was trained to understand the difference when she was “read in” on procedures to ID and handle classified information by diplomatic-security officials in 2009. Clinton also went through a so-called “read-off” when she left office in 2013 and in that debriefing, security officials reminded her of her duty to return all classified documents, including ones in which the classification status is “uncertain,” which would have included the e-mails stored on her private server — which she only this month turned over to authorities. The read-off would have included her signing a nondisclosure agreement. “Once she resigned as secretary, she needed to return classified documents and other government-owned documents, which in this case would have included the server,” veteran Diplomatic Security Service Special Agent Raymond Fournier said. http://nypost.com/2015/08/23/hillarys-e-mail-defense-is-total-bs-former-state-dept-officials/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=NY%2520Post%2520Newsletter&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_term=NYP%20180%20Day%20Openers%20and%2030%20Day%20Signups “Anybody else would have already lost their security clearance and be subjected to an espionage investigation,” Mrozinski added. “But apparently a different standard exists for Mrs. Clinton." Above good post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jingthing Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 A tough primary fight would be good for Hillary and the party if she gets through it which I reckon she wouldn't. Biden Warren 2016! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Publicus Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 The Right which controls the Republican party is OTT already on the email stuff as the NYT reminds us (emphasis included). NY Times Sends Warning Shot to GOP Over Hillary's Classified Emails: Ease OffMany other prominent Republicans, however, were more restrained. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida, for example, spoke Friday in the broader context of Clinton-related “drama,” and Jeb Bush, the former Florida governor, said nothing. In part, their reluctance was a reaction to the complexity of the email controversy. But it also appeared to reflect the thinking of campaign operatives and outside groups that are looking past the Republican primaries and toward a general election race against a woman who has often benefited from rivals who swung too hard. Haberman and Parker -- just as Times reporters before them -- denigrate the congressional truth-finding efforts on Benghazi as mere partisan attacks by vengeful Republicans. .... The work of trying to damage Mrs. Clinton has been essentially outsourced to the congressional committees that have investigated the events leading up to and after the 2012 attacks on the American compound in Benghazi, Libya. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/27/us/politics/while-some-republicans-seize-chance-to-attack-hillary-clinton-others-refrain.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=1 Sen Elizabeth Warren has said a million times she won't run in 2016 so one could believe that today Sen Warren would say the same thing. The Democrat from Massachusetts would probably need to be asked, so we might hear her present statement pretty soon concerning this wild Biden-Warren speculation from the D party far out socialist left, or so one could expect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boon Mee Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 (edited) Hmmmm, interesting read, maybe, for those that don't kneel at the alter of their liberal goddess. Yeah! Just what is this bizare fixation with Grandma Clinton? Edited August 23, 2015 by Boon Mee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
55Jay Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Thought this thread's subject is Hillary and her server problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boon Mee Posted August 23, 2015 Share Posted August 23, 2015 Thought this thread's subject is Hillary and her server problem. Heard today it's not one but two servers in question The FBI need to get her in handcuffs soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now