80
   

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

 
 
Lash
 
  -2  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 12:26 am
@revelette2,
You're definitely voting for the right candidate. Hillary always says she's going to "look at" things. Of course, millions of people's lives are ruined and ended while she thinks about looking, but we don't really give a **** about them, do we?? (Elbow, wink)
0 Replies
 
Blickers
 
  2  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 07:16 am
@glitterbag,
Quote Glitterbag:
Quote:
PS I know what his real first name is, but it should be Trite or Triffling.

Indeed, Gowdy has appointed himself the warrior who is going to take every opportunity to tell off the Obama Administration, and he just comes across as a hack. He also posts YouTube video of himself during his supposedly stellar moments and has his friends all praise him to the skies in the comments section.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 07:44 am
@blatham,
blatham wrote:

Quote:
The record of the Justice Department in the past seven years is one of a highly politicized body, so the possibility is real.

So, you apparently are answering my question - "do you think the fix is in?" affirmatively. You could have been rather more honest and/or clear in your response - like "yes" or "probable to 90%

Please don't try to put words in my mouth. What I wrote expressed my views accurately. There was nothing either evasive or disonest in them. The dishonesty here was in your your puerile attempt to distort them and characterize them differently from my intent
blatham wrote:

Quote:
Benghazi wasn't the subject of the discussion.

I'm not sure what discussion you've been attending to here. Go back twenty pages and count the number of instances of the term "Benghazi". The email controversy arose, as I'm sure you know, out of the House Benghazi investigation.
My comments to which you were pointedly responding addressed only the e mail/classified information issues, not the prior 20 pages on this thread, and I believe you know that very well.

Many people in this country are indeed concerned about the long term pattern of self-serving corruption and deceit coming from the Clintons, and are also suspicious about the objectivity of an administration headed by a President who has already publicly declared that nothing wrong was done by his former Secretary of State. The rather obvious politicazation of the Justice Department under Former Secretary Holder and the recent "casual" meeting in a secured aircraft strongly suggests that may be continuing.

You have created a straw man, "the Right" presumably composed of crazy intractable and uneducatred zealots - a theme you peddle incessantly with repeated references to "movement conservatism" It's all a bit tedious and paranoid. There certainly are such people out there, and they populate all parts of the political spectrum. The obvious fact, however, is that Right Wing and Republican politics is suported by an assemblage of people and voters of relatively diverse viewpoints, who are a good deal less united and monolithic in their views even than their recently disputatious Democrat counterparts. You can punch your straw man all you want: just don't presume that it has anything to do with me or what I write here.
revelette2
 
  2  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 08:12 am
Conservatives Lose Their Excuse To Question The Results Of The Clinton Email Investigation

Quote:
Conservatives have just lost their excuse to question the results of the investigation relating to Hillary Clinton’s email server, which legal experts say lacks a “legitimate basis” to charge Clinton with crimes. Right-wing media figures have ignored those experts to suggest that if the investigation does not result in a Clinton indictment, it must be politically tainted. But Attorney General Loretta Lynch affirmed that she will “be accepting the recommendations” made by “career agents and investigators” and FBI Director James Comey in the case, and conservative media have spent months lauding Comey’s “impeccable integrity” and ability to impartially conduct the investigation.

Lynch And Bill Clinton’s Meeting “Sparked Rebukes From Republicans And Concern Among Some Democrats.” A June 27 private meeting between Attorney General Loretta Lynch and former president Bill Clinton “sparked rebukes from Republicans and concern among some Democrats about the perceptions it created,” and raised questions “whether [the meeting] might undermine public confidence into the e-mail investigation.” Bloomberg reported that “The encounter renewed calls by Republicans for a special prosecutor to investigate Hillary Clinton's use of a private e-mail account when serving as secretary of state.” [Bloomberg, 6/30/16]

Lynch Announces That She Will Be “Accepting The Recommendations” From Career Prosecutors, The F.B.I., And Director Comey In Clinton Email Investigation

Attorney General Lynch: “I Fully Expect To Accept” The “Recommendations” From The F.B.I. And "Career People In The Department Of Justice." During a July 1 speech at the Aspen Ideas Festivals, Attorney General Loretta Lynch said, “I fully expect to accept [the] recommendations” of the F.B.I. and “career agents and investigators,” and the “FBI Director” James Comey regarding the investigation relating to Hillary Clinton’s use of a email server while she served as secretary of state. Though she said she would not recuse herself from the case, Lynch did say she won’t “have a role in those findings, in coming up with those findings, or making those recommendations as to how to go forward, I'll be briefed on it, and will be accepting the recommendations”:


LORETTA LYNCH: As I've always indicated, the matter is being handled by career agents and investigators with the Department of Justice. They've had it since the beginning. They are independent.

JONATHAN CAPEHART: Which predates your tenure as attorney general.

LYNCH: It predates my tenure as attorney general. It is the same team and they are acting independently. They follow the law, they follow the facts. That team will make findings, that is to say will come up with a chronology of what happened, the factual scenario. They will make recommendations as to how to resolve what those facts lead to. The recommendations will be reviewed by career supervisors in the Department of Justice, and the FBI, and by the FBI director. And then, as is the common process, they present to me, and I fully expect to accept their recommendations.

CAPEHART: What's interesting here is you say you fully expect to accept the recommendations. One thing people were saying this morning the news broke was that you were, quote, "recusing yourself" from having any kind of role in the final determination. Is that the case? Is that what you're saying?

LYNCH: Well a recusal would mean that I wouldn't even be briefed on what the findings were or what the actions going forward would be. And while I don't have a role in those findings, in coming up with those findings, or making those recommendations as to how to go forward, I'll be briefed on it, and will be accepting their recommendations.

CAPEHART: And when you say -- again, this must be the journalist in me and the linguist in me, accepting means, "here, Madame Attorney General, here are our findings," and you completely accept them wholeheartedly and then issue them to the public, or you accept them, look them over, and then make your own determination as to what the final determination will be?

LYNCH: No, the final determination as to how to proceed will be contained within the recommendations in the report and whatever format the team puts it together, that has not been resolved, whatever report they provide to me. There will be a review of their investigation, there will be a review of what they have found and determined to have happened and occurred, and there will be their determination as to how they feel the case should proceed.

CAPEHART: And when you say there will be a review, you mean the review will be done by you once you accept the recommendations and determinations, or you're talking about the process of the review getting to that point?

LYNCH: No, I understand. I'm talking about the initial process of how this case will be resolved. This case will be resolved by the team that's been working on it from the beginning. Supervisors always review matters. In this case, that review will be career people in the Department of Justice, and also the FBI will review it, up to and including the FBI director, and that will be the finalization of not just factual findings, but the next steps in this matter. [Fox News, Happening Now, 7/1/16]


Right-Wing Media Have Praised Comey’s Reputation And Ability To Investigate The Case With Impartiality

Rush Limbaugh: “James Comey … Really Is A Guy With Impeccable Integrity.” On the April 12 edition of Premiere Radio Networks’ The Rush Limbaugh Show, Limbaugh praised FBI Director James Comey, saying he “really is a guy with impeccable integrity, especially measured against most people in Washington.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Rush Limbaugh Show, 4/12/16]

Fox’s Kimberly Guilfoyle: “I Trust In Jim Comey Completely.” When asked about the State Department Inspector General report on Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while she served as secretary of state, The Five co-host Kimberly Guilfoyle said she believes the FBI is going to do a “really thorough job” in their investigation and that she trusts in FBI Director James Comey “completely.” From the May 25 edition of Fox News’ The Five:

DANA PERINO (CO-HOST): Kimberly, do you think there’s any connection or any information that can be gleaned from today's IG report that might tell us what the FBI is thinking or doing?

KIMBERLY GUILFOYLE (CO-HOST): I think the FBI has all of that already, so it shows you that they’re on the track, you know, they're proceeding forward. Because if the IG has it, then so does the Justice Department and the FBI. So I think this is very bad news for Hillary Clinton. And no surprise to the Justice Department. They're on top of this. You know, the FBI is really going to do a thorough job, I trust in Jim Comey completely to make sure -- and this really flies in the face and shows, lying, lying, better strip it off of Mr. Cruz, poor Mr. Cruz, and apply it to Hillary Clinton. Because she lied when she said she had the authority, and that she did nothing wrong. [Fox News, The Five, 5/25/16]
Fox Contributor George Will: “Comey Is A Big Boy.” Washington Post columnist and Fox News contributor George Will lauded Comey as a “big boy” who Will said will move “quickly” on the FBI investigation into Clinton’s email server. From the June 12 edition of Fox Broadcasting Co.’s Fox News Sunday:

BRET BAIER (HOST): We don't have the timing, George, but we do have these nuggets about the actual emails and the classified nature of them, and what they discussed, and the CIA personnel, and the drone operations, and more and more every day we seem to get little things that suggest that maybe there is more there.

GEORGE WILL: And we don’t have a timetable, but Director Comey of the FBI is a big boy and he’s vastly experienced in Washington, and he knows this is taking place in the context of the selection of the next chief executive, so it's inconceivable to me that they’re not going to act with more than deliberate speed on this. So much attention has been focused on this, however, that I think she stands to win big if nothing happens. That is if there is no criminal referral sent to the Justice Department, people will say this took a long time, it was extremely thorough, they found nothing. That’s the way it will be presented, this is a binary choice, yes or no. And the way it comes out is potentially very good for her. [Fox Broadcasting Co., Fox News Sunday, 6/12/16]

Fox’s Bill O’Reilly: I “Trust Director Comey” And “Believe An Honest Investigation Is Being Done By The FBI.” On the March 2 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, host Bill O’Reilly said, “some Americans don’t trust Director Comey. Talking Points does. I believe an honest investigation is being done by the FBI.” [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 3/2/16]

Fox Guest David Bossie: “I Trust” Comey And “He’s A Very Squared-Away Individual.” On the May 11 edition of The O’Reilly Factor, Fox guest and president of Citizens United David Bossie said that Comey “seems like he's a very squared-away individual and I trust him.” Host Bill O’Reilly also said, “he’s an honest guy, yes.” [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 5/11/16, via Nexis]

Fox Contributor Arthur Aidala: “James Comey, By All Accounts, Is A Very Decent Man, He’s Very Even-Keeled.” On the April 1 edition of Fox News’ Outnumbered, Fox News contributor Arthur Aidala referred to FBI Director James Comey as “a very decent man, he’s very even-keeled.” [Fox News, Outnumbered, 4/1/16]

Fox Legal Analyst Peter Johnson Jr.: “James Comey [Is] A Straight-Shooter And A Guy That’s Got A Great Reputation For Integrity.” Fox legal analyst and Fox News CEO Roger Ailes’ personal lawyer, Peter Johnson Jr., praised Comey, calling him “a straight-shooter and a guy that’s got a great reputation for integrity.” From the April 1 edition of Fox News’ Fox & Friends:

PETER JOHNSON JR.: Will there be any indictments at all? So it's fraught with tension in terms of the political landscape in America, and there's all kinds of rumors. One rumor is that James Comey is, in fact -- who is the head of the FBI, and a straight-shooter and a guy that’s got a great reputation for integrity -- will interview Hillary Clinton. I discount that. I don't believe he's going to put himself in that position, because he will be the ultimate decision-maker on the FBI side. There's another rumor that says, well, there's a grand jury that's already been impaneled. I don't believe that. [Fox News, Fox & Friends, 4/1/16]

Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano: James Comey “Is A Very, Very Straight Shooter. He’s Very Apolitical.” On the April 21 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor, Fox senior judicial analyst Andrew Napolitano said that Comey “is a very, very straight shooter. He's very apolitical.” [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 4/21/16]

Fox’s Martha MacCallum: “James Comey Is A Very Serious Operator And A Man Who Is Respected Pretty Much Universally.” On the March 28 edition of Fox News’ America’s Newsroom, host Martha MacCallum praised Director Comey for being “a very serious operator and a man who is respected pretty much universally.” [Fox News, America’s Newsroom, 3/28/16]

Fox Guest Rudy Giuliani Agrees The FBI Is “Doing An Honest Investigation,” And Comey Is “Straight As An Arrow.” Fox host Bill O’Reilly stated that he “believe[s] the FBI is doing an honest investigation” and that Director Comey “is an honest man.” Fox guest Rudy Giuliani agreed and also said Comey is “straight as an arrow and very smart.” From the March 9 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor:

BILL O’REILLY (HOST): I believe the FBI is doing an honest investigation, do you believe that?

RUDY GIULIANI: Absolutely, no doubt about it.

O’REILLY: OK.

GIULIANI: And Jim Comey was one of my assistant U.S. attorneys, and he’s --

O’REILLY: He’s an honest man.

GIULIANI: -- straight as an arrow and very smart. [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 3/9/16]

Fox Guest Ron Kessler: Comey “Has An Impeccable Reputation For Integrity.” Fox host Bill O’Reilly said that he does not believe that Director Comey “is going to succumb to pressure from anybody, including Barack Obama,” to which his guest, anti-Clinton author Ronald Kessler, replied saying that Comey “has an impeccable reputation for integrity.” From the February 3 edition of Fox News’ The O’Reilly Factor:

BILL O’REILLY (HOST): Director Comey is an interesting guy. I, myself, and I could be wrong, do not believe that this man is going to succumb to pressure from anybody, including Barack Obama. Do you know anything about him?

RONALD KESSLER: Well he has an impeccable reputation for integrity. He is the guy who threatened to resign over illegal issue in the Bush administration. And he is also a former prosecutor. So he knows exactly what's needed. I believe that he never would have authorized this investigation in the first if he didn't already believe that the FBI had evidence to indicate that she should be indicted. [Fox News, The O’Reilly Factor, 2/3/16, via Nexis]

Fox’s Chris Wallace: “Everybody I Talk To Say That [Comey] Is A Straight-Shooter, That He’s A Serious Guy, That He’s Non-Political, And … You Got To Give Him The Benefit Of The Doubt.” Host of Fox’s Fox News Sunday Chris Wallace stated that everyone he talks to says that Director Comey “is a straight shooter, that he’s a serious guy, that he’s non-political” and concluded by saying that “you got to give him the benefit of the doubt” to conduct the investigation properly. From the March 1 edition of Fox News’ Outnumbered:

CHRIS WALLACE: I will say that James Comey, who is the FBI director, that everybody I talk to say that he is a straight-shooter, that he’s a serious guy, that he’s non-political, and, you know, I think you got to give him the benefit of the doubt. Let's wait and see if there is a criminal referral or not. That’s a different issue than does the Justice Department take that referral and actually indict. But let me say this, if there were a criminal referral and they didn't indict, I don't think there’s any question it would get out. I suspect Comey would resign, and, in a sense, it would be even a bigger firestorm than an indictment. [Fox News, Outnumbered, 3/1/16]

Fox’s Geraldo Rivera: “I Have No Doubt That James Comey Is The Straightest Shooter In Washington, D.C.” On the February 25 edition of Fox News’ Outnumbered, correspondent Geraldo Rivera stated that he has “no doubt that James Comey is the straightest shooter in Washington, D.C.” and that “f there’s something there, he will recommend it for prosecution.” [Fox News, Outnumbered, 2/25/16]

Sean Hannity: James Comey Is “Respected By Both Sides Of The Aisle.” Fox News host Sean Hannity said that “James Comey [is] respected on both sides of the aisle,” to which his guest, Fox News contributor Julie Roginsky, replied, “If the FBI finds nothing improper took place, you're going to have to sit here and say, you know what, she's not guilty of these things she's being accused of.” From the February 4 edition of Fox News’ Hannity:



Believe it or not there is more, but that is enough to make my point and then some. Which is Lynch has said she will accept the final decision of James Coney, the respected director of the FBI praised for months by both guest and pundits of all right wing news for being a straight shooter. If the final decision is not to indict, then you all really have to accept it or lose credibility. The same goes for us if the reverse is true and really we have a lot more to lose. We will be up poop creek without a paddle and will have to accept Sanders. On the other hand if there is no indictment, more than likely Sanders will officially step down.
Lash
 
  -3  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 08:51 am
@revelette2,
Hope Comey doesn't drop a barbell on his neck this week.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  2  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 08:54 am
LOL. Comey is respected on both sides of the aisle, and it's pretty sure that he won't find grounds for an indictment.
The response to that?
"Hope he doesn't drop a barbell on his neck."

So mature.
So constructive.

Bwaaaahahahahahaaaaaa!!!!
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  4  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 09:18 am
@Baldimo,
Quote:
I was implying that not everyone gets the same chance to keep their spouse out of prison.


The chance of Hillary having broken a law is almost zero, your argument is pretty meaningless.

The FBI has stated they are not investigating her. The law as it reads would make it impossible to convict her of anything, let alone ask for an indictment.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  4  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 09:21 am
@Baldimo,
Quote:
We only have their word on what they talked about.

Sure. And we only have your word that your spouse couldn't get a secret meeting with the AG.

We don't know if you are really telling us the truth. It certainly looks bad that you would lie about your wife's ability to get a secret meeting.

When we assume nefarious intentions on your part, it makes the conversation with you much different. Everything you tell us is obviously a lie. We should have no reason to trust you.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  5  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 09:27 am
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Well since neither you nor they (whoever they might be) don't really know that outcome as will be determined by the only legally empowered investigatory panel, what do your words really mean? To what investigory panels are you referring?

I could also note that many (unlike you I can't speak for most or all) Democrats and "LW" poster here have indicated near certainty that Hillary will not be indicted under any circumstance. Does that imply that they know the fix is in? ... or perhaps they are cuckoo as well.


No. We don't know a fix is in. We just happen to look at the actual facts and the laws. The law requires knowingly and with intent providing classified material to an unauthorized person.

As of now there is not a single fact that would support an indictment of Hillary. Indictments don't happen based on the wishes of RW fools. (Although it seems RW fools are more than happy to keep investigating things over and over and over and over and over and over and over hoping some new facts will suddenly appear out of nowhere.)
engineer
 
  5  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 09:52 am
@parados,
We also know that when someone knowingly and with intent provides classified material to an unauthorized person for a purpose other than espionage (see Petraeus, general), the FBI generally doesn't bother with charges.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  5  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 11:02 am
@georgeob1,
Quote:
Please don't try to put words in my mouth. What I wrote expressed my views accurately. There was nothing either evasive or disonest in them. The dishonesty here was in your your puerile attempt to distort them and characterize them differently from my intent

I'm really not trying to put words in your mouth nor to misrepresent what you say. But I am trying to coax you a fully transparent description of what's in your mind. What will you think and what will you say here if the FBI does not proceed with criminal charges? That a fix was/is probable? Much else of what you've said points in that direction.

Further, it is very easy for me to predict what the reigning thesis will be in right wing media if there's no criminal charge. Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and talk radio, NRO, RedState, Fox and other prominent RW media elements will claim or imply that the fix was in (or very likely was in, which is really the same claim but with the pretense of 'fairness' or 'objectivity') - that Comey and team will have succumbed to some theorized pressures or manipulations. A very few such voices will say anything like, "Well, the FBI are a good lot and we should accept this finding and leave the matter now".

Can you speak to my prediction here. That is, do you think I will be more correct than incorrect or vice versa?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  2  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 11:17 am
@parados,
It's a shame there is no financial cost for frivolous and vexatious when people are in government.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 11:43 am
@ehBeth,
But the biggest problem is that the voters continue to revote them into office.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 01:47 pm
Heading out tomorrow early on a month long road trip in my little Z3 through southern BC and Alberta to visit old friends. Picked up a chromebook so I'll have online access with a keyboard but my presence will likely be spotty.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 01:54 pm
@blatham,
Drive safe, and keep us posted on your journey.
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  0  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 01:58 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:

No. We don't know a fix is in. We just happen to look at the actual facts and the laws. The law requires knowingly and with intent providing classified material to an unauthorized person.

As of now there is not a single fact that would support an indictment of Hillary. Indictments don't happen based on the wishes of RW fools. (Although it seems RW fools are more than happy to keep investigating things over and over and over and over and over and over and over hoping some new facts will suddenly appear out of nowhere.)


I am generally loath to engage you in the pursuit of such details in that you are usually exceedingly selective in the relevant "facts" you present and extraortinarally self-serving in the "logic" you employ in interpreting them.

I'll just note that substantial evidence has accumulated indicating the Hillary knowingly and with intent evaded the use of government provided e mail systems for the conduct of her official duties, as provided for in existing law and in directives she herself issued (in compliance with that law) to all State Department Employees. She employed a privately owned server for this purpose (very likely to evade compliance with FOIA Laws - as she has effectively done - that also a violation of Law) and hid that server from access by Departnent IT security staff - all as confirmed by the State Dept AIG.

Review of the (largely unknown and now unverifiable) subset of her e mails provided to the State Dept ( with significant added difficulty in paper form rather than electronic , likely to slow walk any investigation), has revealed numerous instance of classified information in e mails that were sent in some cases to people with no clearance, others containing Top Secret, Special Intelligence information (a category generally employed among other things to protect sources and methods i.e. to protect the people who provided it.). There are multiple laws that apply to these actions. Some, as you say, require knowledge and intent. Other require only gross neglegence. She has surely met the latter standard. She has knowingly obscured all of this with denials of the presence of classified information that has since been found to be false, and egregious excuses that other Secretaries have "done it" as well, though in fact the applicable rules and laws have changed singe the alleged prior use. Moreover none of the previous Secretaries adopted the use of a private server for ALL of their official e mails, and none were found to have disclosed classified information in their incidental use of private e mail accounts. That there is a patern here of knowing and self serving deception in all of this is beyond doubt. That alone casts a shadow over perceptions of her integrity and suitability for the office she seeks.

If your intent is to rationalize and excuse her actions you can certainly do it - as she herself has done. Alternatively if your intent is to assess her character and the degree to which she places the public good above her own convenience anf political future you have a much steeper hill to climb.
cicerone imposter
 
  0  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 02:01 pm
@georgeob1,
I'm waiting for the bomb to drop.
http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/breaking-fbi-is-ready-to-indict-hillary-rodham-clinton/
blatham
 
  1  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 02:39 pm
@cicerone imposter,
You gotta be joking. Tom ******* DeLay and Steve Malzberg.
roger
 
  2  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 02:57 pm
@blatham,
I couldn't copy from the article, but at one point, someone with the fbi said that if she weren't indicted, they were going public with their results. That would be a very bad career move, and deservedly so.

EDIT: I'm pretty sure no one with the FBI would say such a thing, though they might very quietly do it.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Sat 2 Jul, 2016 03:01 pm
@blatham,
You're probably right: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/21/law-professor-explains-why-hillary-clinton-wont/209438
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

The Pro Hillary Thread - Discussion by snood
get this woman out of my view/politics - Discussion by ossobuco
Hillary Clinton hospitalized - Discussion by jcboy
Has Hillary's Time Come? - Discussion by Phoenix32890
I WANT HILLARY TO RUN IN 2012 - Discussion by farmerman
Hillary's The Secretary Of State..It's Official - Discussion by Bi-Polar Bear
Hillary the "JOKESTER"?? - Discussion by woiyo
Hillary Rebuked by Iraqi Leader - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 5.45 seconds on 11/23/2024 at 08:12:38