2016 Politics Thread - Enter At Your Own Risk - All Politics & Dumb Opinions Here

[NeilCO]

Originally Posted by babyfaceposey

Here is some info about Teneo and The Clinton Foundation. Isn't the Clinton Foundation a charity?

http://www.judicialwatch.org/bulleti...inton-machine/
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/3332

I will have to take a closer look at this later. At a glance, I'm just annoyed that they use b/cs as shorthand for becomes. How is that easier?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[babyfaceposey]

Originally Posted by NeilCO

I will have to take a closer look at this later. At a glance, I'm just annoyed that they use b/cs as shorthand for becomes. How is that easier?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I edited my other post. Makes sense about keeping or possibly getting rid of POTUS emails now as Clinton was subpoenaed by Congress a few hours before. Total government corruption from the top down.

- congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015
- That email reply was only a couple hours after getting subpoena. So discussing to possibly keep or delete the POTUS email?
- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9545
7-23-14 State Department and Congress agree on email release dates.
7-24-14 Paul Combetta asking reddit how to remove email names.
http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/22/ho...nton-campaign/

[tke1600]

Originally Posted by babyfaceposey

I edited my other post. Makes sense about keeping or possibly getting rid of POTUS emails now as Clinton was subpoenaed by Congress a few hours before. Total government corruption from the top down.

- congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015
- That email reply was only a couple hours after getting subpoena. So discussing to possibly keep or delete the POTUS email?
- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9545

We almost know for certain the FBI and the DOJ covered up for Clinton by now. The only thing we don't know is exactly why, but I am assuming that might be part of the "big news" that is supposedly going to bring down everyone involved.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by tke1600

We almost know for certain the FBI and the DOJ covered up for Clinton by now. The only thing we don't know is exactly why, but I am assuming that might be part of the "big news" that is supposedly going to bring down everyone involved.

You can't believe the latter. The former, maybe ... but don't feed into the conspiracy stuff that the 33,000 emails have been found, or that people have videos that will wipe Clinton from the earth. Just take it day by day and process the new information the country DOES have.

People that say they have something, and promise it in time rarely, rarely deliver. You'll save yourself the disappointment in the future if you just work with what you have, and be surprised if/when anything of that value comes forward.

[GeechQuest]

Originally Posted by tke1600

We almost know for certain the FBI and the DOJ covered up for Clinton by now. The only thing we don't know is exactly why, but I am assuming that might be part of the "big news" that is supposedly going to bring down everyone involved.

How do we know for certain? Can you or someone please embed the emails, the links are going haywire on my end.

[babyfaceposey]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

You can't believe the latter. The former, maybe ... but don't feed into the conspiracy stuff that the 33,000 emails have been found, or that people have videos that will wipe Clinton from the earth. Just take it day by day and process the new information the country DOES have.

People that say they have something, and promise it in time rarely, rarely deliver. You'll save yourself the disappointment in the future if you just work with what you have, and be surprised if/when anything of that value comes forward.

I agree. That is why I formed my opinion as a question.

[tke1600]

Originally Posted by GeechQuest

How do we know for certain? Can you or someone please embed the emails, the links are going haywire on my end.

This article almost sums it up completely that all the people working on the case said they had enough evidence as is: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider | Fox News

And the new Wikileaks emails show the Clinton Campaign colluding on how not to turn over all the emails right after the congressional subpoena. Thus, further evidence that they lied even more to the FBI and DOJ during their testimonies and encounters.

[tke1600]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

You can't believe the latter. The former, maybe ... but don't feed into the conspiracy stuff that the 33,000 emails have been found, or that people have videos that will wipe Clinton from the earth. Just take it day by day and process the new information the country DOES have.

People that say they have something, and promise it in time rarely, rarely deliver. You'll save yourself the disappointment in the future if you just work with what you have, and be surprised if/when anything of that value comes forward.

Well under normal circumstances, the Wikileaks that have already dropped would be enough to indict or atleast make her unable to run for President. Unless Wikileaks is lying about saving the "best for last", that might be where some real "bombshells" hit, even without videos or her actual emails, etc.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by tke1600

Well under normal circumstances, the Wikileaks that have already dropped would be enough to indict or atleast make her unable to run for President. Unless Wikileaks is lying about saving the "best for last", that might be where some real "bombshells" hit, even without videos or her actual emails, etc.

No.

Wikileaks is not exposing Hillary Clinton. The emails you're reading have little to do w/ her and her actions; you won't find an email from her saying "Get rid of the emails" or of that nature (yet). What they show is the corruption between the media and the DNC as well as the corruption between the DNC, Clinton Foundation and other countries. To suggest that these emails would have indicted Clinton is incorrect; but they do show just about anything else.

So in terms of bombshells ... these leaks are just daily reinforcements of that logic; corruption. I don't believe you'll have a "bombshell" when it's all said and done; just 100's of examples of why politics in this country is in desperate need of change.

[tke1600]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

No.

Wikileaks is not exposing Hillary Clinton. The emails you're reading have little to do w/ her and her actions; you won't find an email from her saying "Get rid of the emails" or of that nature (yet). What they show is the corruption between the media and the DNC as well as the corruption between the DNC, Clinton Foundation and other countries. To suggest that these emails would have indicted Clinton is incorrect; but they do show just about anything else.

So in terms of bombshells ... these leaks are just daily reinforcements of that logic; corruption. I don't believe you'll have a "bombshell" when it's all said and done; just 100's of examples of why politics in this country is in desperate need of change.

Normally just this document alone would be enough if the FBI was really trying to do its job under the letter of the law.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by tke1600

Normally just this document alone would be enough if the FBI was really trying to do its job under the letter of the law.

Talking points. You see the red marks on the right side that say "Felony". Well that's some idiot who thinks Hillary Clinton has committed a crime by asking someone to send talking points in a non-secure manner. It's not.

[Chuck Bartowski]

How anyone could vote for either of these idiots is beyond me. I'm writing the The Rock Dwayne Johnson on my ballot!

[tke1600]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Talking points. You see the red marks on the right side that say "Felony". Well that's some idiot who thinks Hillary Clinton has committed a crime by asking someone to send talking points in a non-secure manner. It's not.

I interpret it as "jake" is trying to send a secure fax. Which would be something classified, or why would he go to all the trouble to send something secure? And the "H" tells him to strip out the header and send it non-secure. What am I missing?

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by tke1600

I interpret it as "jake" is trying to send a secure fax. Which would be something classified, or why would he go to all the trouble to send something secure? And the "H" tells him to strip out the header and send it non-secure. What am I missing?

Nothing. That's your interpretation. It's not evidence.

What document was she sending that was classified?

[babyfaceposey]

Originally Posted by tke1600

I interpret it as "jake" is trying to send a secure fax. Which would be something classified, or why would he go to all the trouble to send something secure? And the "H" tells him to strip out the header and send it non-secure. What am I missing?

You are missing nothing. This is illegal. Says the guy with a TS clearance.

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by babyfaceposey

You are missing nothing. This is illegal. Says the guy with a TS clearance.

Ohh, so you know what she was sending. What was it?

[NeilCO]

Originally Posted by babyfaceposey

I edited my other post. Makes sense about keeping or possibly getting rid of POTUS emails now as Clinton was subpoenaed by Congress a few hours before. Total government corruption from the top down.

- congressional subpoena on March 4, 2015
- That email reply was only a couple hours after getting subpoena. So discussing to possibly keep or delete the POTUS email?
- https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/9545

I read it as discussing whether to turn over Hillary's emails to and from Obama, pursuant to the subpoena. He's saying, "maybe we should hold them (because they're privileged, they might not have to turn them over) and make them ask for them." I don't think they're discussing shredding/deleting them, just withholding them until forced to hand them over. Assuming that a subpoena is similar to the discovery process in litigation, they would still indicate that the documents exist when they turn over the other emails, and would state the reason the documents are privileged and won't be handed over. Then, if the FBI insists, I believe a judge would look them over and determine whether they need to be handed over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[trixstar]

Secure fax =/= Classified

[babyfaceposey]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Ohh, so you know what she was sending. What was it?

You would have to find the document before and after, but shouldn't be hard. Everything is archived. I am a system admin on ts systems. When we have an issue with software and have to send to manufacturer. We have to strip all ip's etc. Then has to go to IA for approval before being sent over a non secure network. We remove all ts info. She stated remove the headers, not stripping ts info in document. Totally illegal.

[babyfaceposey]

Originally Posted by NeilCO

I read it as discussing whether to turn over Hillary's emails to and from Obama, pursuant to the subpoena. He's saying, "maybe we should hold them (because they're privileged, they might not have to turn them over) and make them ask for them." I don't think they're discussing shredding/deleting them, just withholding them until forced to hand them over. Assuming that a subpoena is similar to the discovery process in litigation, they would still indicate that the documents exist when they turn over the other emails, and would state the reason the documents are privileged and won't be handed over. Then, if the FBI insists, I believe a judge would look them over and determine whether they need to be handed over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Subpoena was for the servers. Which would hold the POTUS emails.

[tke1600]

Originally Posted by NeedChapmans

Ohh, so you know what she was sending. What was it?

But here is my point. Don't you think the FBI could have looked into this one email deeper, talk to Jacob, subpoena the emails sent between him and Hillary from his state.gov email, and then determine exactly what document was so hard to send secure and then needed to be stripped and sent un-secure?

[babyfaceposey]

Originally Posted by trixstar

Secure fax =/= Classified

Correct. She stated nonsecure=unclassified.

[trixstar]

Feel bad for Sykes, I actually respected his opinion on things.

A conservative radio host calls it quits over Trump: ?do I really want to be part of this?" - Vox

[NeilCO]

Originally Posted by babyfaceposey

Subpoena was for the servers. Which would hold the POTUS emails.

Yes, but privilege still applies. A person served a subpoena still has the right to assert that certain documents that fall under the subpoena are privileged, and thus can be withheld.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[NeedChapmans]

Originally Posted by tke1600

But here is my point. Don't you think the FBI could have looked into this one email deeper, talk to Jacob, subpoena the emails sent between him and Hillary from his state.gov email, and then determine exactly what document was so hard to send secure and then needed to be stripped and sent un-secure?

I don't know what the FBI did. My point here is to show that Wikileaks cannot provide a smoking gun and I'm not trying to argue that Clinton is innocent. Simply that to suggest WikiLeaks has proven she did something illegal ... no.