Hillary Clinton is Done: part 4

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Big Dog said:
WRONG because the legally seized lap top is not a poisonous tree, therefore the whole claim that the emails are the fruits is utterly false.
Click to expand...

So you assert, but I have no reason to accept your speculation over mine.

They were looking for evidence against Weiner. That's all they were looking for. I'd say that even opening one email that did not include Weiner as a sender or recipient potentially crosses the line into illegal search and seizure.

Comey pretty much hangs himself here; he can't flatly state they are pertinent then pretend he hasn't even peeked.

IANAL but I've impersonated one.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
Okay, if her emails ended up on a sexual perverts laptop, then it's Hillary's fault for not using a government approved secure server when corresponding with the President of the United States.

Does that sound any better?
Click to expand...
Really???

Hillary sent some of her emails Cc: to Huma. That's what this is all about isn't it? And thus far, we don't even know if those emails were about, say, lifting sanctions on Iran, or about apple pie recipes.
 
Minoosh said:
ETA: I've used up all my free samples of the Washington Post.
Click to expand...
Open the link in a "private window" (Firefox). That works for me to fool their count of page views.

ETA: From the WaPo article BigDog linked to:
One official said the total number of emails recovered in the Weiner investigation is close to 650,000 — though that reflects many emails that are not in any way relevant to the Clinton investigation. Officials familiar with the case said, though, that the messages include a significant amount of correspondence associated with Clinton and her top aide Huma Abedin, Weiner’s estranged wife.
Click to expand...

IOW, that number is pretty worthless at this time. They've recovered 650,000 emails in the Weiner investigation. Many of those do not have bearing on Clinton. For the rest, there were only 33,000 emails missing from Clinton's private email server. That's what percentage? Expect of those of Weiner's emails (rather, Huma's) which do have bearing in Clinton to be the same percentage from those missing emails. The rest is already known.
 
Last edited:
It is illegal for a private citizen, such as Trump, to urge a foreign government or agents of that government to illegally hack into American servers and email accounts. It is illegal for a private citizen such as Trump, to urge or encourage agents of a foreign govt. to try to influence an American election.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act#Text

§ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.

Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
 
Minoosh said:
So you assert, but I have no reason to accept your speculation over mine.

They were looking for evidence against Weiner. That's all they were looking for. I'd say that even opening one email that did not include Weiner as a sender or recipient potentially crosses the line into illegal search and seizure.

Comey pretty much hangs himself here; he can't flatly state they are pertinent then pretend he hasn't even peeked.

IANAL but I've impersonated one.
Click to expand...

Yes, well you have no idea what you are talking about, and your explanation is not fruit of the poisonous tree so please stop posting terribly uninformed claims.
 
The Big Dog said:
Uh, not all of them are Hillary's but yeah, let's just blow off classification rules because Hillary is a scumbag. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Not because Hillary is a scumbag.

Because keeping them under wraps at this point may present a threat to national security in itself. Some few people have promised armed insurrection should Hillary win. It's vital not to fan those flames with rampant innuendo.
 
Minoosh said:
Not because Hillary is a scumbag.

Because keeping them under wraps at this point may present a threat to national security in itself. Some few people have promised armed insurrection should Hillary win. It's vital not to fan those flames with rampant innuendo.
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi

Wow.
 
The Big Dog said:
Yes, well you have no idea what you are talking about, and your explanation is not fruit of the poisonous tree so please stop posting terribly uninformed claims.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it make more sense for you to just quote the relevant sources and make an argument rather than just blindly state that you're right? I mean, since you're obviously right and not playing a character or anything.
 
The Big Dog said:
Does he cut off expert analysis like you just did to make a silly joke?
Click to expand...

Aw, come on. You can't say that you were hurt by such a small bit of humour. Certainly I wasn't implying at all that you are adding a bit of Trump to your comedy routine.

And this:

The Big Dog said:
WRONG because the legally seized lap top is not a poisonous tree, therefore the whole claim that the emails are the fruits is utterly false.

So silly.
Click to expand...


Isn't an "expert analysis". It's your opinion unless you can support it.
 
Any citizen of the United States,...directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence...any disputes or controversies with the United States...shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
Click to expand...

Three years sounds about right. ;)
 
Minoosh said:
I saw.

Under normal circumstances I could easily see a judge denying the warrant based on the "fruit of the poison tree" doctrine.
Click to expand...

I don't think that doctrine applies.

It might if the original seizing of Wiener's laptop was illegal or otherwise improper. I don't think that's been asserted. So no "poisonous tree".

If you have a lawful warrant to search for something, in general anything found is evidence, even if evidence related to another crime.

But there are limits. The example sometimes given is that if you're searching an apartment for a stolen elephant, you can't start opening drawers. Anything found within the drawers would be inadmissible, since they were beyond the scope of the warrant. But find a stolen horse, and it could be lawfully seized.

Caveat: I'm clearly not a lawyer, and will yield to anyone with a deeper understanding of the concept.
 
acbytesla said:
I'll say this about this election. It is definitely the most interesting of my lifetime. But I wouldn't say that is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

And if we could come back in fifty years I think history will record the 2016 elections as one of the worst episodes in American political history. Unless we're living under a totalitarian dictatorship by then, in which case we'll probably find a statute of Donald Trump in every public square.
 
newyorkguy said:
Agreed.

And if we could come back in fifty years I think history will record the 2016 elections as one of the worst episodes in American political history. Unless we're living under a totalitarian dictatorship by then, in which case we'll probably find a statute of Donald Trump in every public square.
Click to expand...

Thanks, now I'm going to have nightmares.
 
newyorkguy said:
Agreed.

And if we could come back in fifty years I think history will record the 2016 elections as one of the worst episodes in American political history. Unless we're living under a totalitarian dictatorship by then, in which case we'll probably find a statute of Donald Trump in every public square.
Click to expand...

God King Barron will have rewritten history and replaced those with statues of himself by then. ;)
 
The Big Dog said:
You claimed I avoided it last time, which was false. Read better
Click to expand...

Ok! So the Big Dog wants to take a run around the track. My bet is he doesn't win, place or show.

You say didn't avoid this? Let's see:

The Big Dog said:
Uhh, y'all know that Hillary has a pretty severe drinking problem, right?
Click to expand...
cantonear1968 said:
Is that all you have to make such an accusation?

Thinking critically, how do you know this was referring to alcohol and not that Clinton needed to be soberly aware of the situation?
Click to expand...
The Big Dog said:
Clinton sure needed to be sobered up, that we know!
Click to expand...
cantonear1968 said:
Was it due to drinking too much?

That was your claim. Even to the point of calling it a "problem" instead of a one time thing.

Defend. If you can.
Click to expand...
The Big Dog said:
It's a reference to an old joke. Don't worry about it.
Click to expand...
cantonear1968 said:
Really? What's the joke?

And why do you say "Hillary will raise a glass or three" if it was just a joke?
Click to expand...
The Big Dog said:
Joke's on us, man... the joke's on us.
Click to expand...

So please show me where you addressed the evidence that Clinton has a "pretty severe drinking problem".

You know, the key to digging your own grave is you should stop when you can still climb out. If you keep digging you just get in over your head.
 
Hercules56 said:
It is illegal for a private citizen, such as Trump, to urge a foreign government or agents of that government to illegally hack into American servers and email accounts.
Click to expand...
Indicting Trump now would be seen as illegally trying to influence the election but he may well end up being indicted later. Racketeering is an area to explore. Also lets the U.S. seize his assets :)
 
cantonear1968 said:
Ok! So the Big Dog wants to take a run around the track. My bet is he doesn't win, place or show.

You say didn't avoid this? Let's see:









So please show me where you addressed the evidence that Clinton has a "pretty severe drinking problem".

You know, the key to digging your own grave is you should stop when you can still climb out. If you keep digging you just get in over your head.
Click to expand...

The part where Podesta had to go sober her drunk ass up at 4 o'clock in the afternoon.

Oh noes! I should stop pointing out that John Podesta was told to go sober her up at 4 o'clock in the afternoon! I am digging my own grave, filled with Hillary's empty whiskey bottles.
 
The Big Dog said:
The part where Podesta had to go sober her drunk ass up at 4 o'clock in the afternoon.

Oh noes! I should stop pointing out that John Podesta was told to go sober her up at 4 o'clock in the afternoon! I am digging my own grave, filled with Hillary's empty whiskey bottles.
Click to expand...

And we come full circle:
cantonear1968 said:
Is that all you have to make such an accusation?

Thinking critically, how do you know this was referring to alcohol and not that Clinton needed to be soberly aware of the situation?
Click to expand...

I'm willing to wait and see if you answer it this time or, again, claim it's an "old joke".
 
Argumemnon said:
I'd like to see them try anf fail tragically.

Mainly because I'm in a different country altogether.
Click to expand...

Since those guys in Oregon were acquitted some armed Trump fans may be emboldened to seize a federal building or something if Trump loses. I'm not sure any of Trump's diehard crowd really want this but the pool of potential recruits is large.
 
Last edited:
cantonear1968 said:
And we come full circle:


I'm willing to wait and see if you answer it this time or, again, claim it's an "old joke".
Click to expand...

Hey, jimbob, go down to the bar and make hillary soberly aware of the situation.

That is exactly the way people speak!

Glug, glug, glug!
 
The Big Dog said:
Hey, jimbob, go down to the bar and make hillary soberly aware of the situation.

That is exactly the way people speak!

Glug, glug, glug!
Click to expand...

And again we see you avoiding the question.

Well done.

I'm willing to keep asking as long as you have it in your sig:

What evidence do you have HRC is a "problem drinker"? You can just say it's that one email which is ambiguous at best and we'll be done.

But I am going to have to ask you to change your sig.
 
cantonear1968 said:
And again we see you avoiding the question.

Well done.

I'm willing to keep asking as long as you have it in your sig:

What evidence do you have HRC is a "problem drinker"? You can just say it's that one email which is ambiguous at best and we'll be done.

But I am going to have to ask you to change your sig.
Click to expand...

A new WikiLeaks email dump reveals Hillary Clinton may have been boozed up at 4:30 in the afternoon when her campaign tried to reach her in August 2015.

An Aug. 8, 2015, email exchange between Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and communications aide Jennifer Palmieri revealed the two discussing whether to call Hillary and “sober her up some.”

“Should I call her and talk this through or better leave with you?” Podesta asked at 2 p.m. “I’m worried she’ll get on with Cheryl [Mills] and we’ll end up in a bad place.”

It took Palmieri two hours to respond to Podesta’s question.

“I think you should call her and sober her up some,” she said.
 
The Big Dog said:
A new WikiLeaks email dump reveals Hillary Clinton may have been boozed up at 4:30 in the afternoon when her campaign tried to reach her in August 2015.

An Aug. 8, 2015, email exchange between Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta and communications aide Jennifer Palmieri revealed the two discussing whether to call Hillary and “sober her up some.”

“Should I call her and talk this through or better leave with you?” Podesta asked at 2 p.m. “I’m worried she’ll get on with Cheryl [Mills] and we’ll end up in a bad place.”

It took Palmieri two hours to respond to Podesta’s question.

“I think you should call her and sober her up some,” she said.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you're referencing the same email as if it is new.

Actually I do. Because you have nothing else.

What evidence do you have to accuse HRC of being a "problem drinker"?

Still waiting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom