You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
People aren't convinced by facts. As proved repeatedly in the climate change debates. The small subset who may be, are quite capable of finding them by themselves.
True dat...
Googled "Clinton body count" woah! Wish I hadnt, its all bolx right? Exaggerated/ made up?
Why not correct those people with the facts then? Rather than giving some vague rebuttal.
This.
1hr flim on Clinton's foundation - admitedly from a very right leaning source. There certainky seems to be a very high correlation between donating to the foundation, winning a contract and hiring Bill to give a speech ($100m speech revenue aparantly at $250k - $750k each)
- admitedly from a very right leaning source.
😀
So the FBI have reopened their investigation into Hillary after they apparently found more emails as part of a separate investigation .
https://www.rt.com/usa/364586-comey-reopens-clinton-investigation/
Yes - and they Director of the FBI is under fire from all sides apart from the loony right for making a public statement on this so close to the election and with so little content.
The clintons have been subject to huge numbers of politically motivated investigations and a cost of millions of dollars with no evidence of any criminality found.
You really think if they had done anything criminal it would not have been found by now?
[url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cucking_stool#Use_in_identifying_witches ]Rumour has it that the Trumpette is calling for the most up to date, modern technologies to identify whether Hillary really is a witch or not.[/url]
[img] 
[/img]
Happy Halloween.
The FBI director will be toast after the election!! Talk about "career limiting" moves!!
It will also be interesting to see what happens to that Julian Assange.
The FBI director will be toast after the election!!
The FBI Director is 3 years in to a 10 year post (supposedly so long so as to distance the Director from the possibility of any political subversion). Unless he acts illegally, I doubt he's going anywhere.
He said in his testimony in July that he would keep the oversight committee informed, and he's done just that.
Also: [url= https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/628231488794923008 ]https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/628231488794923008[/url]
3rd August [b]2015[/b]
Unless he acts illegally, I doubt he's going anywhere.
Until he has to ask for money from Congressional committees
Why do so many people in the US believe Hillary is untrustworthy?
She's had Vince Foster murdered, then all the witnesses disappeared. She's so cunning that she also had all the evidence destroyed. The lack of evidence itself should raise suspicion.
She is also a nightmare to work for. When she's under stress, she yells at the staff. Horrible. Don't know how anyone could think such a nasty person could be fit for leader of the free world.
Lol, spot the bloke who had never heard of vince foster until he watched Micheal Moore last night 😆
Holst - evidence please?
remember multiple investigations over many years have found NO evidence of wrongdoing
She's had Vince Foster murdered, then all the witnesses disappeared. She's so cunning that she also had all the evidence destroyed. The lack of evidence itself should raise suspicion.
There's no evidence linking me to any murder whatsoever. Should I hand myself in to the police and confess?
She is also a nightmare to work for.
There you go your honor, got her well banged to rights there. Throw away the key I say Guv'nor.
For the love of god! Have these people got the right to vote?
Because she is
'Loony Right' - What like Jill Stein and Susan Sarandon for example ?
The only reason you use a private email server for Government business is to hide someting and to cover your tracks.
Hillary was extra-ordinarily evasive in her FBI testimony (hit my head and can't recall any training about what constitutes secret/classified info, 39 other instances of I don't remember etc). Now the FBI have found (10's, 100's or 1000's ?) of emails on a third parties phone/computer which Hillary had deleted on her server using "bleaching" techniques. So they need to check those. So they re-open their investigation.
She is Crooked Hilary. Absolutely no doubt at all about that.
Really? another unproven allegation and despite the fact that she has been investigated many times and no criminality found you think you know better than the FBI?
[quote=tjagain ]Holst - evidence please?
She destroyed it all!
you think you know better than the FBI?
You have been away for a while hasn't you...
remember multiple investigations over many years have found NO evidence of wrongdoing
That's it true is it TJ?
The FBI July statement said:
[i]Although [b]there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information[/b], our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past...
...To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.[/i]
She's about as innocent as Ched Evans
So who would you trust more - Clinton or the FBI?
so you will be after colin Powell and condoleezza rice for this then ?The only reason you use a private email server for Government business is to hide someting and to cover your tracks.
I have no idea why someone would do this but the only reason serves only to highlight, and this really is surprising, your lack of imagination.
So who would you trust more - Clinton or the FBI?
FBI managed to not come up with a case for prosecution after a lot of effort. They now have some more emails to trawl, lets see if they manage it.
Clinton claims there is no problem and no likely prosecution.
Looks like they agree so who is not trust worthy 😉
Probably done his future career prospects some good - he was likely toast anyway so is making a proactive move.DrJ - MemberThe FBI director will be toast after the election!! Talk about "career limiting" moves!!
This might cost her a couple of points but think she'll still win. Voters didn't much care about Hillary's email the first time around, so more vague BS just isn't an issue for undecideds.
I agree that she is a dissembler par excellence, even by politicians standards she is a giant fibber. But she also has a skin like an armoured rhino - she's weathered 30 years of republican attack and is still standing, and this latest development will not phase her at all.
errrr..... she said in the late 90s that all young black american males were criminals and should be locked up
I mean, I know that people are capable of spiritual change and growth but that sort of backwards redneckery seems to me to be a pretty fundamental viewpoint
The USA is damned it would seem
I would hazard a guess that all the people at the top of food chain - Trump, Clinton and nameless others, are trying really hard to cook up a civil war
EVERY previous secretary of state has had a similar private e-mail server. The problem isn't that she used a private e-mail server, it's that the information transmitted on that server is sensitive or classified.
Ultimately, I do believe that Clinton wants to make America a better (in whatever way) place. Conversely, I believe Trump wants to be president for petty, personal reasons. Sir Richard Branson's comments regarding his meetings with Trump were quite revealing in this regard.
The only reason you use a private email server for Government business is to hide something and to cover your tracks
And more crucially, using specialist software to then scrub the disks containing the missing emails shows criminal intent. 😮
And suggesting she wasn't aware that different levels of confidentiality even existed during her time as Secretary of State (e.g. Confidential, Secret, Top Secret)...and when the questions got too tough she blamed her lack of recall on key events with hitting her head. 😮
So is patently dodgy and still so many are in denial. 😮 😆
^^^ is the correct question @oldman
31,000 electronically bleached emails. Classified government business conducted on personal email server !!!!
She can delete stuff at her end but somewhere the other end (send/receive) will be out there. The FBI cannot just go out and find them but they will turn up over time.
Hillary has used the classic "I don't remember" defence to dodge difficult FBI questions and to avoid a charge of perjury as imo the truth is she conducted highly confidential Government business on an insecure personal server so to have said "yes I knew that was secret info" she would be ****ed.
The only reason to use a personal email server for Government business is to hide stuff. If others (Rice etc) have done the same it was for the sane reason.
Trump said yesterday Clinton had spent 1 hour with Attorney General in a private conversation on a private plane and all she said they discussed was grand kids and golf - who woukd believe that, only an idiot
its worse that that teh US has no offocia secrets act so its hard to say what law she brokeThe problem isn't that she used a private e-mail server, it's that the information transmitted on that server is sensitive or classified
Someof it may have been declassified at the time and now classified and vice versa so its hard to decide if ti was or was not classified at the time
Either way its a mess best solved by simply making them all use a server of the govts choice. She is not alone in having used a private server to send "confidential" material. The fact only she is getting this shit storm suggests its, at least, partly political from Republicans.
Clarification and rules would help no end here- is it part of the US psyche to love freedom that stops them doing this ? - Genuine Q
As I said I would vote for her as marginally lesser of two evils but its a nightmare situation
Is the answer you and Trump then? 😉Trump said yesterday Clinton had spent 1 hour with Attorney General in a private conversation on a private plane and all she said they discussed was grand kids and golf - who woukd believe that, only an idiot
And more crucially, using specialist software to then scrub the disks containing the missing emails shows criminal intent.
Anything that holds any kind of sensitive info would be scrubbed like that.
So is patently dodgy and still so many are in denial.
To be honest about it, I see it as mostly a procedural cock up. It's not blatant and wanton spreading of government secrets and AFAIK there was no leaks and the integrity of the server is not being called into question.
The real point is why does it matter so much?
Our hard drives at work are taken out of computers and put through a machine that smashes them into tiny little pieces when they are to be disposed of, never realised that means I work for a criminal organisation.
It's not blatant and wanton spreading of government secrets and AFAIK there was no leaks and the integrity of the server is not being called into question.
[i]With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, [b]we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence.[/b] We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries.[b] Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account[/b].[/i]
We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account.
Which means the other end was hacked, not going to be fixed by changing what she did.
Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
Possible, not probably, not certain, not most likely but possible.
As noted it's been done by a lot of others in the past, why are those prominent republicans not calling for their heads?
In the end it's done, as for it's impact probably negligible - I left this in the Trump thread ( http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/clinton-voters-arent-just-voting-against-trump/?ex_cid=2016-forecast) but it's basically doing the numbers on the who is voting for their candidate or against the other one. Clinton has a normal level of people voting for her as opposed to against Trump. So perhaps the very vocal caring about the emails is concentrated in a certain part of the US political spectrum and most of the voters don't really care.
never realised that means I work for a criminal organisation.
As long as they don't do that after being asked for the content of those hard drives by a government agency undertaking a criminal investigation of your boss, you're probably OK.
So - according to your selective quotes Ninfan - no evidence of it being hacked and no evidence of any criminality worth prosecuting. Very damning
As noted it's been done by a lot of others in the past, why are those prominent republicans not calling for their heads?
None of those others are running for President of the USA. Do you not think that relevant?
And anyway, I reckon even the greenest-of-green fresh-out-of-law-school paralegal could poke a rather large hole in the "but.. but.. but.. they did it too!" defence.
None of those others are running for President of the USA. Do you not think that relevant?
To a point but it's still not that big an issue, politically it's being played up as in the simplest of terms the opponent is incapable of avoiding insulting a vast proportion of the population every time he opens his mouth. Take a read of the well written analysis in linked to.
tjagain - Member
...remember multiple investigations over many years have found NO evidence of [u]wrongdoing[/u]...
POSTED 2 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST
tjagain - Member
..she has been investigated many times and no [u]criminality[/u] found...
POSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST
tjagain - Member
...no evidence of any [u]criminality worth prosecuting[/u]...
POSTED 10 MINUTES AGO # REPORT-POST
i like how the defence is slipping through the course of the day, seems reminiscent of something 😉
None of those others are running for President of the USA. Do you not think that relevant?
I do. I also think (like many, including TWSJ) that she's been subject to a much higher level of scrutiny than any other previous candidate.
Do you HONESTLY believe Donald Trump would do better? The nuclear codes would be on Twitter closely followed by the words "Big League!" by the end of January 20th.
OK ninfan - you pushed me into more precise language usage - now will you admit they have found nothing worth prosecuting for after numerous investigations over decades at a cost of multiple millions?
Trump could not stand the same level of scrutiny. From his racial profiling of tenents and illegal evictions to his sexual assaults
now will you admit they have found nothing worth prosecuting for after numerous investigations over decades at a cost of multiple millions?
Does that mean she's innocent, or good at covering her tracks though?
You might as well say that Tony Blair was in the clear because Chilton cleared him of any criminal wrongdoing.
The Econmist had a good piece on Hillary a few weeks back. Not sure if it's been posted here.
Does that mean she's innocent, or good at covering her tracks though?You might as well say that Tony Blair was in the clear because Chilton cleared him of any criminal wrongdoing.
So you're advocating that people should be tried and judged in the court of public opinion, not on the basis of facts and evidence...? Interesting.
At the very least, Hilary treated state secrets with reckless disregard, broke clear and established rules on the handling of top secret information, withheld and subsequently deleted evidence in an FBI investigation and claimed to have lost her memory of what happened,
And that's in addition to having repeatedly misremembered events that were on public record.
And you think that shouldn't disqualify her from office?
also think (like many, including TWSJ) that she's been subject to a much higher level of scrutiny than any other previous candidate
Because people suspect/know she is a crook ? Because having interviewed her the FBI with their experience recognise she is lying again and again ? Because her rationale that C next to a paragrapgh was an indexing system even though there was no A, B or D ???
Hillary has campaigned and been endorsed by Barak and Michelle Obama repeatedly as being the best prepared candidate EVER for the Presidency. A woman who said to the FBI she forgot 39 (or similar) times and that she fell and hit her head and had a bleed and therefore forgot what Classified information was and could not recall ever having had any training. REALLY 😯
I think there is a very real chance she could win the Presidency and then face further investigation, impeachment and/or jail.
Jamba - which bit of "she has been investigated many times over many decades and no evidence of criminality worth prosecuting has been found" is unclear to you?
So why do you call her a crook? Why do you know better than the FBI?
Why do you know better than the FBI?
GIven the fact that the FBI have reopened the investigation, it seems Jamba is agreeing with them.
ninfan - Member
At the very least, Hilary treated (retroactively applied) state secrets with (alleged) reckless disregard, (allegedly) broke clear and established rules on the handling of [s]top[/s] secret information, (allegedly) withheld and subsequently deleted evidence in an FBI investigation and claimed to have lost her memory of what happened.
FTFY.
Now, if any of the above were FACTS, then Secretary Clinton would've been held to account. They may yet turn out to be facts, but at the moment they're opinions and NOTHING more.
And that's in addition to having repeatedly misremembered events that were on public record.
This i'll grant you, but as someone who has in a previous life worked with people required to recall events, I can't even begin to tell you how malleable memory becomes during recall.
And you think that shouldn't disqualify her from office?
As I said, disqualifying people based upon lies and hearsay....?
No ninfan - innocent until proven guilty remember?
^^^ agreed that's why she is able to run.
I never had sexual relations with that woman (Monica Lewinsky)
Two peas in a pod the Clintons
GIven the fact that the FBI have reopened the investigation, it seems Jamba is agreeing with them.
The real issue with the VERY public announcement of re-opening the investigation is that, this doesn't mean that anything has already been found, it simply means that the computers, seized for a completely unrelated offence, can now be investigated under the terms of the original investigation. Any evidence otherwise obtained would be inadmissible in court due to being illegally obtained under the articles 4th and 9th amendments.
Again, the election result is being affected based on hearsay, NOT fact. It should NEVER have been publicly disclosed this close to an election.
I never had sexual relations with that woman (Monica Lewinsky)Two peas in a pod the Clintons
And yet still thought of as one of the best US Presidents of recent times. His philandering and trying to wriggle out of it had little effect on his job performance or the public's opinion of him.
Will Monica get to have a go at being president as well?
Will Monica get to have a go at being president as well?
and yet still a misogynist ****.
I would have thought you admired folk who were willing to brazenly lie in the face of overwhelming evidence and still maintain an untenable position.Two peas in a pod the Clintons
Will Monica get to have a go at being president as well?
She'll get close, but no cigar...
Do you HONESTLY believe Donald Trump would do better? The nuclear codes would be on Twitter closely followed by the words "Big League!" by the end of January 20th.
I don't have a horse in this race. If I lived over there I'd be voting Jill Stein, so I could stand back in 4 years - regardless of who actually won - and say, "None of this is on my hands".
At the very least, Hilary treated (retroactively applied) state secrets with (alleged) reckless disregard, (allegedly) broke clear and established rules on the handling of top secret information, (allegedly) withheld and subsequently deleted evidence in an FBI investigation and claimed to have lost her memory of what happened.FTFY.
Ummm... She broke the [i]rules[/i]. That much is clear. None of the above is alleged, it happened, and the FBI Director clarified this himself when speaking to the House Judiciary Committee in July. The issue for the GOP nutters is that the [i]law[/i] is different to the [i]rules[/i]. The [i]law[/i] requires the [i]rules[/i] to have been broken [i]with intent[/i]. The flip-side of this is that lack of intent instead shows lack of competence. So it's lose-lose for Hillary, really.
The point is - whilst Trump may well be the worst-equipped person ever to feature in a Presidential election - does anything about Hillary, from the dodgy email server to the [url= http://uk.businessinsider.com/hillary-clinton-emails-classified-information-2016-9 ]constantly changing story about what emails were exchanged[/url] to the [url=
when speaking to the press about server wiping[/url] to the [url= http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/james-comey-testimony-clinton-email-225224 ]damning conclusion of the FBI Director re: Hillary's actions[/url] to her [url= https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dY77j6uBHI ]constant documented flip-flopping on issues[/url]... does any of that make you think she'd be any better?
That's why people believe she's untrustworthy.
yes because Trump is an egomaniacal female groping wee raging orange shit bag who is unrpedictable, bares grudges and likes to settle scores by using overwhelming force that many consider bullying. he also seems bereft of principles beyond making money for the D man.does any of that make you think she'd be any better?
Its really hard to think of anyone less suited to hold such a high office...Gary Glitter?
Hilary is a pretty poor candidate for all the reasons you mention as well but Trump is truly odious where as she is just crap and a bit slimy/slippery.
Jamba - you really need to read up a bit on Trumps past - racial profiling tenets, illegal evictions, groping women, him and his wife lying about her immigrations status etc etc
and yet still a misogynist ****.
😆 I bet you shout racist a lot as well. Bless.
Phillip May and Dennis Thatcher would be just as ridiculous as candidates for PM as Cherie Blair would. Dennis has missed his opportunity.
The use of a private e-mail sever didn't break the rules, nor the law. It was against advice and council to do so, but not forbidden by anything nor anyone.
Intent (or lack thereof) is a clear founding in any common case law, but particularly criminal law. There is still no clear evidence that anything marked directly as secret was passed through the private server. It's more about soft data than hard data in this regard and that's where the problem lies.
I don't really see flip-flopping, I see a change in stance between a state issue and a national campaign over a 15 year period.
The use of a private e-mail sever didn't break the rules, nor the law. It was against advice and council to do so, but not forbidden by anything nor anyone.
It was a private server and classified information (not retrospectively classified, either) was found on it.
Title 18, Section 793 of the US Federal Penal Code
(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) [b]through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust[/b], or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
There is still no clear evidence that anything marked directly as secret was passed through the private server.
relevant @ 42s onwards
And now, we may have intent:
[url= https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12605 ]https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/emailid/12605[/url]
So another poster who knows better than the FBI
The same FBI that has re-opened its investigation as a result of new emails found?
I'm just looking at what the law says and what evidence is available and suggesting certain conditions may be met. Given Comey specifically said he couldn't recommend a case because he couldn't prove intent, I'd say the above email is - at the very least - interesting.
I watched that as it was broadcast and also the commentaries that followed it. The majority of correspondents believed that the reason for not even a hint at any further prosecution was that the content of the emails contained references to classified material, but no actual material, or that that as both the sender and recipient of classified material, that not only Clinton was at fault and to bring prosecution would've opened a MUCH bigger can of worms.
And now we may have intent
To expedite the transfer of the taking points around an unclassified State Dept case?
Why, in 2011, would press talking points need sending over secure fax? Why would press talking points need their identifying info scrubbing? Why does the pdf version of the email have the "Re:" box censored?
TPS also stands for [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temporary_protected_status ]Temporary Protected Status[/url].
[img] 
[/img]
that not only Clinton was at fault and to bring prosecution would've opened a MUCH bigger can of worms
Oh, that's alright then.
#I'mWithHer
The Director of the FBI said
I'm not disputing what he said, it was what [i]wasn't[/i] said that I and others were commenting on; The same is true of this recent release.
You say you don't have a horse in this race (I despise this phrase, it's parochial at best...) , but do you want Trump running the only democratic superpower? Do you honestly believe that this would be helpful, for anyone?
Appreciate I'm late to this debate, but...
Hilary is as bent as a nine bob note. And Trump is a dangerous lunatic.
South Park nailed it years ago:
[url=
do we have to choose, every four years, between a giant douche and a turd sandwich? "It's because we're American, son."[/url]
but do you want Trump running the only democratic superpower? Do you honestly believe that this would be helpful, for anyone?
That's rather disingenuous. A loaded question like that suggests that I have argued the case for Trump to be Pres, when I have done nothing of the sort.
That's rather disingenuous. A loaded question like that suggests that I have argued the case for Trump to be Pres, when I have done nothing of the sort.
Yep. Twitter is full of anti-Trumpers who are seeking to minimise Hilary's misdemeanours, with the view that "If you criticise Hilary, you must want Trump for President." It's dishonest.
I wish neither of them were going to be President.
tjagain - Member
No ninfan - innocent until proven guilty remember?POSTED 3 HOURS AGO # REPORT-POST
tjagain - Member
Jamba - you really need to read up a bit on Trumps past - racial profiling tenets, illegal evictions, groping women, him and his wife lying about her immigrations status etc etcPOSTED 1 HOUR AGO # REPORT-POST
😆