State: Benghazi emails involving Clinton recovered by FBI

[Publicus]

5 minutes ago, Rob13 said:

 

 

So let her come clean and prove all the 'rightwingnuts' wrong. Till then they have a valid point.

 

Got it backwards there dude. The rightwhinge has to prove its case which is something they've never been able to do. In Benghazi they've spend tens of thousands of workhours and millions of taxpayer bucks in their own political pursuits.

 

No one is guilty until proved innocent. Except in radical wildman politics. The only way to settle political games is at election time so sit tight for this one cause the right's knuckles are going to turn white.

 

No need to prove the rightwhingenuts wrong. What voters have seen for more than 20 years from the Republicans dominated by the right is a conscious, willful determination to make something of nothing or to make a mountain of a molehill. Rightwhingers have spent years and years convincing no one except other rightwhingers.

 

No one is guilty until proved innocent except on the political right where they read everything from the right only. 

[mesterm]

4 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

30 emails will take one month to redact?

 

One email a day?

 

If these were Trump's emails, we'd be reading the contents of all them tomorrow.

[iReason]

[Rancid]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Julian Assange is a criminal who publishes people's private information.  He needs to face the consequences for that.  Not all information needs to be in the public eye.  I'm sure you'll agree your's doesn't.

 

I think this is more about politics than anything else.  Sadly.  And fodder for conspiracy theorists.

The CIA in the 60's deliberately coined the term conspiracy theory as a way of debunking any alternative viewpoint aside from that presented by the government and its compliant media. Seems many people got sucked into that paradigm.

 

Then of course the next step was to get the real out-there stuff mixed in with the actual genuine alternative explanations. Hence why we see sites such as Vets Today etc going on about Jewish plots to dominate the world, the UK Queen being an alien Lizard etc. Then they go after 9-11, not for being the obvious setup that it was but as using mini-nukes. The end result is that actual alternative theory gets mixed in with the unbelievable and thus discredits it.

 

There is no possible way the establishments chosen one for President, with full media support, could have that much rot emanating from her without a good deal of it being fact. People have to get over the left/right divide, its all become the same thing. Do you like Pepsi or Coke, but they are both cola soft drinks with a marginally different flavor.

[mopar71]

1 hour ago, Boon Mee said:

Well, it's dribbling out bit by bit with Julian Assage releasing damaging information on Crooked Hillery.

Whether or not the sheep that vote for her acknowledge her crimes is the question.

 

I don't think "sheep" is the right word. Even sheep know better than to let the wolf lead them around.

[stevenl]

30 minutes ago, mesterm said:

 

If these were Trump's emails, we'd be reading the contents of all them tomorrow.

Yes, together with his tax declarations.

[Nigel Garvie]

I'm reluctant to interfere in another country's grief, but since a vast army of GOP folks in the house, Faux News, and elsewhere, have been trying desperately to make anything they possibly could, stick to HRC for decades, and nothing has, surely that should send a message to even the tiniest Republican brain.

[Ulysses G.]

The FBI called her "extremely careless" with classified material. She should have been charged, but corruption prevailed.

[Publicus]

3 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

The FBI called her "extremely careless" with classified material. She should have been charged, but corruption prevailed.

 

Political opinion vs the legal decision and declaration.

 

Same stuff always.

[craigt3365]

36 minutes ago, Rancid said:

The CIA in the 60's deliberately coined the term conspiracy theory as a way of debunking any alternative viewpoint aside from that presented by the government and its compliant media. Seems many people got sucked into that paradigm.

 

Then of course the next step was to get the real out-there stuff mixed in with the actual genuine alternative explanations. Hence why we see sites such as Vets Today etc going on about Jewish plots to dominate the world, the UK Queen being an alien Lizard etc. Then they go after 9-11, not for being the obvious setup that it was but as using mini-nukes. The end result is that actual alternative theory gets mixed in with the unbelievable and thus discredits it.

 

There is no possible way the establishments chosen one for President, with full media support, could have that much rot emanating from her without a good deal of it being fact. People have to get over the left/right divide, its all become the same thing. Do you like Pepsi or Coke, but they are both cola soft drinks with a marginally different flavor.

The CIA gets blamed for everything.   Gotta love conspiracy theorists....

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspiracy_theory

Quote

 

The Oxford English Dictionary defines conspiracy theory as "the theory that an event or phenomenon occurs as a result of a conspiracy between interested parties; spec. a belief that some covert but influential agency (typically political in motivation and oppressive in intent) is responsible for an unexplained event", and cites a 1909 article in The American Historical Review as the earliest usage example.^[20][21]

...............

According to John Ayoto's 20th century words, the phrase conspiracy theory was originally a neutral term and only acquired a pejorative connotation in the mid 1960s, implying that the advocate of the theory has a paranoid tendency to imagine the influence of some powerful, malicious, covert agency in events.^[22] According to Florida State University professor Lance deHaven-Smith’s 2013 book Conspiracy Theory in America,^[23] the phrase conspiracy theory was deployed in the 1960s by the CIA to discredit JFK assassination conspiracy theories. However, according to Robert Blaskiewicz, assistant professor of critical thinking at Stockton University and skeptical activist, such claims have existed "since at least 1997", but due to having recently been promoted by deHaven Smith, "conspiracy theorists have begun citing this work as an authority". Blaskiewicz researched the use of the term conspiracy theory and found that it has always been a disparaging term, having been used to describe "extreme hypothesis" and implausible speculation as far back as 1870.^[24][25]

 

 

[mesterm]

17 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Yes, together with his tax declarations.

 

Of course, since he wouldn't be able to bump into the attorney general at an airport to sort those matters out

[ClutchClark]

1 minute ago, Nigel Garvie said:

I'm reluctant to interfere in another country's grief, but since a vast army of GOP folks in the house, Faux News, and elsewhere, have been trying desperately to make anything they possibly could, stick to HRC for decades, and nothing has, surely that should send a message to even the tiniest Republican brain.

 

Nigel,

Welcome to the forum.

 

I would like to correct one error in your post straight away. Republicans have big brains. Our brains are bigger than Democrat brains. We have the biggest brains in the entire world. 

 

But you bring up a valid point. It is true that the Clintons, like all powerful politicians, are constantly under the microscope by the opposition who is just hoping to make an accusation stick well enough for that politician to lose power. 

 

The other sideof that coin is the politician develops a team that works day and night to insulate their person from the accusations of wrong doing. Simultaneously,  there are behind-the-scene manuevers and phone calls being made. 

 

These people are power brokers and the bigger the politician then the more power and influence they have available to "broker" a fsvorable outcome. 

 

Sometimes these politicians can hide behind state secrets. 

 

This is obviously not limited to one party or another. 

 

The Clintons happen to be some of the best at the game of politics and have also developed into the most powerful power-brokers in the US and their ties, as we have seen by recent exposure of the Foundation, extend even greater Internationally. 

 

Victories against such powerful people do not end in convictions. Each exposure ends in some smoke. We may get a glimpse of the brokering and deal making, for instance, the discussion between husband Bill and Attorney zgeneral Loretta Lynch the day before hillary was possibly being brought up on charges. 

--------

 

we will never see a politician holding a smoking gun with a corpse on the floor.  The best we can maybe do is show that the politician and the corpse were the only two people in the room and draw our own conclusions.

 

As an example, the hillary emails.

 

It is my understanding that hillary never used the gov't server provided her but only the private server which was not open to any scrutiny from the Freedom of Information Act. 

 

If hillary never conducted any business on the secure gov't server, and all of her email correspondence as Sec of State was on private server, then does it not stand to reason that some of those emails would include topics deemed Top Secret or that would require some security clearance? 

 

 

[stevenl]

2 minutes ago, mesterm said:

 

Of course, since he wouldn't be able to bump into the attorney general at an airport to sort those matters out

See the post before yours.

[evadgib]

I detest this pantomime every 4/8 years. Why not get on with it in 35 days like the mother of all parliaments in London?

[Nigel Garvie]

16 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

Nigel,

Welcome to the forum.

 

I would like to correct one error in your post straight away. Republicans have big brains. Our brains are bigger than Democrat brains. We have the biggest brains in the entire world. 

 

But you bring up a valid point. It is true that the Clintons, like all powerful politicians, are constantly under the microscope by the opposition who is just hoping to make an accusation stick well enough for that politician to lose power. 

 

The other sideof that coin is the politician develops a team that works day and night to insulate their person from the accusations of wrong doing. Simultaneously,  there are behind-the-scene manuevers and phone calls being made. 

 

These people are power brokers and the bigger the politician then the more power and influence they have available to "broker" a fsvorable outcome. 

 

Sometimes these politicians can hide behind state secrets. 

 

This is obviously not limited to one party or another. 

 

The Clintons happen to be some of the best at the game of politics and have also developed into the most powerful power-brokers in the US and their ties, as we have seen by recent exposure of the Foundation, extend even greater Internationally. 

 

Victories against such powerful people do not end in convictions. Each exposure ends in some smoke. We may get a glimpse of the brokering and deal making, for instance, the discussion between husband Bill and Attorney zgeneral Loretta Lynch the day before hillary was possibly being brought up on charges. 

--------

 

we will never see a politician holding a smoking gun with a corpse on the floor.  The best we can maybe do is show that the politician and the corpse were the only two people in the room and draw our own conclusions.

 

As an example, the hillary emails.

 

It is my understanding that hillary never used the gov't server provided her but only the private server which was not open to any scrutiny from the Freedom of Information Act. 

 

If hillary never conducted any business on the secure gov't server, and all of her email correspondence as Sec of State was on private server, then does it not stand to reason that some of those emails would include topics deemed Top Secret or that would require some security clearance? 

 

 

This is a lot of interesting information, and indeed I don't imagine for one moment that any politicians anywhere are beyond reproach, however in Europe we generally elect ones who, although corrupt, do not cause us too much embarrassment by being "Intelligenter" like GWB. I assumed that your "Republicans have the biggest brains in the world line" was tongue in check - but possibly not, however what I said did not make a general assertion about this, only that the smallest ones should understand that nothing (Actionable) found -sometimes at least - means nothing there.

[JHolmesJr]

5 hours ago, ClutchClark said:

Is there even one hillary supporter here who thinks FBI Director James Comey's assessment of hillary as "extremely careless" in her duties is a hint of the woman's character at all? 

 

Extremely careless is one interpretation…..I would say it also a deep rooted arrogance that tells her she can do whatever the hell the pleases….rules don't apply to her and bill.

[NanLaew]

2 hours ago, craigt3365 said:

... Not all information needs to be in the public eye.  I'm sure you'll agree your's doesn't. ...

 

Yes, but Boon Mee isn't the one running for POTUS.

[ClutchClark]

2 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Yes, but Boon Mee isn't the one running for POTUS.

 

But if he were...he could count on my vote ;-)

[Chicog]

5 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Indeed and they are mostly very partisan Democrats.

 

Nah, I think most people see this whole issue for what it is: A GOP witch hunt designed to try and damage Clinton's election chances.

 

How many investigations now? Nine? And how many millions of dollars wasted without finding anything?

 

[ClutchClark]

3 minutes ago, Chicog said:

 

Nah, I think most people see this whole issue for what it is: A GOP witch hunt designed to try and damage Clinton's election chances.

 

How many investigations now? Nine? And how many millions of dollars wasted without finding anything?

 

 

No doubt it is a hunt but there are no such thing as witches; however, Washington is chock full of criminals.

[smo]

2 hours ago, klauskunkel said:

The Clintons: I did not inhale. I never had sex with that woman. I never intended to break the law, it was just in my way.

 

"... and I've always, er, TRIED to tell the truth. Yeah,  in my whole career I've always tried to TELL THE TRUTH... all my life yeah, you - and the People - know that (don'tcha?)"

 

Yeah we know, not for lack of trying....

[silent]

2 hours ago, Rob13 said:

 

 

In that case it's an easy job for Hillary to take that away from them by releasing all the files and let the world see there's nothing to hide. Easy slam dunk really; unless of course, there is something to hide.

 

There is because it's the nature of the opposition that no matter what it proves or doesn't, one way or another it only gets used as ammunition. Wouldn't it be a disappointment if by chance she was only making whoopi with Putin and only thinks it might be incriminating.

[Grouse]

I know; how about we swap you one Brexiteer for each democrat?

 

America would then get Trump as president

 

We would get to live in a European social democratic country

 

Brexiteers could do the jobs you currently get Mexicans to do

 

Come on, this has real merit ?

[stevenl]

46 minutes ago, ClutchClark said:

 

SteveL has never held a position of influence if he does not realize far more deals are actually brokered on the Golf Course than in the Boardroom.

 

 

I have attended and organised many of those golf course meetings.

 

But this thread is not about me.

[ClutchClark]

5 minutes ago, stevenl said:

I have attended and organised many of those golf course meetings.

 

But this thread is not about me.

 

Ah...so then you are aware of how such things do take place.

 

Your earlier post has suggested otherwise.

 

Then atleast you won't be one of the group talking about conspiracy theories.

 

 

 

 

[craigt3365]

37 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Yes, but Boon Mee isn't the one running for POTUS.

Neither were those women in Turkey.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, Pinot said:

Faux News has made an industry out of throwing shade on HRC. They've got a low-info audience that slurps it up like pigs at the trough.

 

The Fix is in is the new battle cry of the Trumpeteers. The only fix is America fixing to send cheeto jesus back to his gilded (highly leveraged) cage for good.

 

Face it, Trump doesn't have a prayer and the Republican party is toast.

Typical Dems response to any criticism of HRC is to attack Trump and his supporters rather than address the points about HRC. Could that be because they know she is guilty and there is no actual defence?

If she is so innocent, why won't she hold a press conference?

It would be nice if I could have some answers to my question, rather than a rant about Trump. Trump is not the subject of this thread.

[landtrout]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

The FBI called her "extremely careless" with classified material. She should have been charged, but corruption prevailed.

 

    You stopped reading before you even got to the end of the sentence? Talk about "extremely careless"!

 

 Here, let me help you with the part that you apparently missed: "Though he described Clinton's actions as "extremely careless," FBI Director James Comey said his agents found no evidence that anyone intended to break the law and said "no reasonable prosecutor" would have brought a criminal case."

[thaibeachlovers]

1 minute ago, landtrout said:

 

    You stopped reading before you even got to the end of the sentence? Talk about "extremely careless"!

 

 Here, let me help you with the part that you apparently missed: "Though he described Clinton's actions as "extremely careless," FBI Director James Comey said his agents found no evidence that anyone intended to break the law and said "no reasonable prosecutor" would have brought a criminal case."

Given that many think Comey sold out, U G's statement She should have been charged, but corruption prevailed. still stands. If Trump wins, who believes Comey will still have that job?

[landtrout]

2 hours ago, Ulysses G. said:

The FBI called her "extremely careless" with classified material. She should have been charged, but corruption prevailed.

 

29 minutes ago, landtrout said:

 

    You stopped reading before you even got to the end of the sentence? Talk about "extremely careless"!

 

 Here, let me help you with the part that you apparently missed: "Though he described Clinton's actions as "extremely careless," FBI Director James Comey said his agents found no evidence that anyone intended to break the law and said "no reasonable prosecutor" would have brought a criminal case."

25 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Given that many think Comey sold out, U G's statement She should have been charged, but corruption prevailed. still stands. If Trump wins, who believes Comey will still have that job?

  

      If I'm understanding you correctly, you're suggesting that I discard the considered and informed conclusion of the Republican Director of the FBI, one he shares with (according to him anyway...) every "reasonable prosecutor", and instead defer to what "many" of you with zero direct experience with or knowledge of either the case or the investigation "think"?

     Alrighty, then. Thanks for sharing!