ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2016 elections , Clinton controversies , hillary clinton , James Comey , presidential candidates

Reply
Old 19th June 2018, 05:32 PM   #1
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 23,646
Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 4

Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
It isn't just about McCabe [...]
We don't know that. We don't know what role the grand jury has played in this. All we know is that one has been involved in some way at some point.

Quote:
[...]and because the doj IG just testified about it yesterday....
But we already knew McCabe had been referred to prosecutors, and this doesn't seem to add any information to that as far as I can tell. What in this story is actually new information?

Mod InfoThread continued from here. You can quote and reply to any posts from previous parts of this thread.
Posted By:zooterkin
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.

Last edited by zooterkin; 20th June 2018 at 03:36 AM.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 05:51 PM   #2
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Originally Posted by Squeegee Beckenheim View Post
We don't know that. We don't know what role the grand jury has played in this. All we know is that one has been involved in some way at some point.



But we already knew McCabe had been referred to prosecutors, and this doesn't seem to add any information to that as far as I can tell. What in this story is actually new information?
The admission that there was a grand jury.

Rubs temples....
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 06:53 PM   #3
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,950
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The admission that there was a grand jury.

Rubs temples....
So?
Quote:
Executive Summary
A Review of Various Actions by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Department of Justice in Advance of the 2016 Election
• Decisions to enter into “letter use” or “Queen for a Day” immunity agreements with three witnesses;
• The use of consent agreements and “act of production” immunity to obtain the laptops used by Clinton’s attorneys (Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson) to “cull” her personal and work-related emails; and
• The handling of Clinton’s interview on July 2, 2016. With regard to these investigative decisions, we found, as detailed in Chapter Five, that the Midyear team:
• Sought to obtain evidence whenever possible through consent but also used compulsory process, including grand jury subpoenas, search warrants, and 2703(d) orders (court orders for non-content email information) to obtain various evidence. We found that the prosecutors provided justifications for the preference for consent that were supported by Department and FBI policy and practice;
• Conducted voluntary witness interviews to obtain testimony, including from Clinton and her senior aides, and did not require any witnesses to testify before the grand jury. We found that one of the reasons for not using the grand jury for testimony involved concerns about exposing grand jurors to classified information.
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 07:06 PM   #4
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
So?
Oh man
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 07:41 PM   #5
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,950
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Oh man
And the fact they had used a grand jury (And not fully, by the way), as spelled out in the report, is significant to you, at this time, for what reason?
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 07:49 PM   #6
phiwum
Penultimate Amazing
 
phiwum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 11,129
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
And the fact they had used a grand jury (And not fully, by the way), as spelled out in the report, is significant to you, at this time, for what reason?
What does "not fully" mean here?
phiwum is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 07:50 PM   #7
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Originally Posted by LSSBB View Post
And the fact they had used a grand jury (And not fully, by the way), as spelled out in the report, is significant to you, at this time, for what reason?
It says that they did not use the grand jury... there was no grand jury for the Clinton investigation in 2016.....just a bit baffled how it was possible to get something so spectacularly wrong.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th June 2018, 08:03 PM   #8
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
 
LSSBB's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: An elusive house at Bachelors Grove Cemetery
Posts: 19,950
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
It says that they did not use the grand jury... there was no grand jury for the Clinton investigation in 2016.....just a bit baffled how it was possible to get something so spectacularly wrong.
It says they used grand jury subpoenas, and did not require any witnesses to testify before the grand jury. Therefore
  1. It says they used a grand jury
  2. They did not fully use the grand jury
__________________
"You must not let your need to be right be more important than your need to find out what's true." - Ray Dalio, Principles
LSSBB is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2018, 02:02 AM   #9
Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
 
Squeegee Beckenheim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 23,646
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
The admission that there was a grand jury.

Rubs temples....
Yes, but when you were asked what the significance of that was, you said that the significance was that there was "a view toward issuing criminal indictments" - which is something we already knew. Is there any significance beyond that, or is it really just a reiteration of information that we already knew?
__________________
I don't trust atoms. They make up everything.
Squeegee Beckenheim is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th June 2018, 09:31 AM   #10
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Real good summary of yesterday's testimony

Some highlights:

* Meadows outed two of the unidentified anti-Trump, pro-Hillary FBI investigators referred for punishment by Horowitz. Both work for the general counsel of FBI, not in counterintelligence as the FBI claimed – as an excuse to w/hold their names. They are Sally Moyer and Kevin Clinesmith.
*Meadows noted that both FBI attorneys work/worked for Trisha Anderson, then Office of Legal Counsel, FBI – not Counterintelligence.
* Following the IG’s testimony it was reported that FBI Agent "we'll stop him" Strzok was escorted out of the FBI Building on Friday.

https://themarketswork.com/2018/06/2...als-testimony/
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 18th October 2018, 01:55 PM   #11
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Judicial Watch announced today that in his opening remarks at a Friday, October 12 hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth strongly criticized the U.S. Department of State, stating, “The information that I was provided was clearly false regarding the adequacy of the [Clinton email] search and… what we now know turned out to be the Secretary’s email system.”

Turning his attention to the Department of Justice, Judge Lamberth said that he was “dumbfounded” by the agency’s Inspector General report revealing that Cheryl Mills had been given immunity and was allowed to accompany former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to her FBI interview:

I had myself found that Cheryl Mills had committed perjury and lied under oath in a published opinion I had issued in a Judicial Watch case where I found her unworthy of belief, and I was quite shocked to find out she had been given immunity in — by the Justice Department in the Hillary Clinton email case. So I did not know that until I read the IG report and learned that and that she had accompanied the Secretary to her interview.

(In an April 28, 2008, ruling relating to Mills’ conduct as a White House official in responding to concerns about lost White House email records, Judge Lamberth called Mills’ participation in the matter “loathsome.” He further stated Mills was responsible for “the most critical error made in this entire fiasco … Mills’ actions were totally inadequate to address the problem.”)

really appalling

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-...ce-department/
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 01:02 PM   #12
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Judge Excoriates State and DoJ for handling of Clinton Email Scandal

Calling the conduct “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency” a federal judge has raised speculation that Hillary Rodham Clinton and her State Department “colluded” to keep her missing emails secret from the public and courts, an escalation of scrutiny into Obama-era scandal.

Senior District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth said:

Quote:
Terming Clinton’s use of her private email system, “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency,” Lamberth wrote in his MEMORANDUM OPINION:

… his [President Barack Obama’s] State and Justice Departments fell far short. So far short that the court questions, even now, whether they are acting in good faith. Did Hillary Clinton use her private email as Secretary of State to thwart this lofty goal [Obama announced standard for transparency]? Was the State Department’s attempt to settle this FOIA case in 2014 an effort to avoid searching – and disclosing the existence of – Clinton’s missing emails? And has State ever adequately searched for records in this case?

***

At best, State’s attempt to pass-off its deficient search as legally adequate during settlement negotiations was negligence born out of incompetence. At worst, career employees in the State and Justice Departments colluded to scuttle public scrutiny of Clinton, skirt FOIA, and hoodwink this Court.
Even today we are being lied to about the gross misconduct of Clinton, Obama and the cover up of the Benghazi Murders.

The Court granted discovery because the government’s response to the Judicial Watch Benghazi FOIA request for Clinton emails “smacks of outrageous conduct.”

Where is the Special Prosecutor we really need?
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 06:35 PM   #13
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
In a ruling which excoriated both the State Dept & the DOJ, U.S. District Court Judge Lamberth ordered both to join Judicial Watch in submitting a discovery plan into whether Hillary Clinton tried to evade FOIA by using a private email system.

Avid readers of this thread know that the answer is:

Hell yeah she set up that homebrew cowboy server for the sole purpose of evading FOIA
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 09:38 PM   #14
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,576
Why, was that the reason Trump set up his server, the one all of his family use for their emails?
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 11:05 PM   #15
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
Why, was that the reason Trump set up his server, the one all of his family use for their emails?
No, the President is not subject to FOIA.

Hillary was, which is why she set up her own sleazy private server, which is what the thread is about, and why The Judge entered the order I just linked to.

Ooohhh, ouch! That has gotta hurt! But thanks for bumping the link while getting everything wrong.

Fantastic
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 11:14 PM   #16
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,076
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
No, the President is not subject to FOIA.

Hillary was, which is why she set up her own sleazy private server, which is what the thread is about, and why The Judge entered the order I just linked to.

Ooohhh, ouch! That has gotta hurt! But thanks for bumping the link while getting everything wrong.

Fantastic
Incorrect.
The President is subject to FOIA requests, but he can claim Executive Privilege to avoid compliance.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 7th December 2018, 11:23 PM   #17
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Incorrect.
The President is subject to FOIA requests, but he can claim Executive Privilege to avoid compliance.
False. Do yourself a super solid and do some research before y’all waste eveyone’s Time, particularly mine, you dig?
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 12:26 PM   #18
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,576
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
No, the President is not subject to FOIA.

Hillary was, which is why she set up her own sleazy private server, which is what the thread is about, and why The Judge entered the order I just linked to.

Ooohhh, ouch! That has gotta hurt! But thanks for bumping the link while getting everything wrong.

Fantastic
Trump set up the server long before being President, so even if FOIA had an exemption for Presidents, it didn't for him at the time.
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 12:55 PM   #19
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
Trump set up the server long before being President, so even if FOIA had an exemption for Presidents, it didn't for him at the time.
Are you seriously suggesting that Trump's private server set up while he was a private citizen is subject to the Freedom of Information Act? That is amazeballs!

Listen fellas, no one like a little b-b-b-bu-bbububub-but TRUMP derangement syndrome attempt to divert discussion from Hillary's despicable conduct as much as The Big Dog, but lets try to keep the claims in this actual dimension, ok?

As such, anyone got anything to say about the actual ruling this week about Hillary's conduct, or y'all just gonna keep on with Trump nonsense??
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 01:04 PM   #20
Silly Green Monkey
Cowardly Lurking in the Shadows of Greatness
 
Silly Green Monkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Arizona
Posts: 4,576
A private server in use for classified government information is either a problem, or it isn't. It's either a legal matter subject to FOIA, or it isn't.
__________________
Normal is just a stereotype.
Silly Green Monkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 01:11 PM   #21
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Originally Posted by Silly Green Monkey View Post
A private server in use for classified government information is either a problem, or it isn't. It's either a legal matter subject to FOIA, or it isn't.
Please stop. The server being run by a private person before he became president is not subject to foia. A server being run by the President is not subject to foia.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 01:15 PM   #22
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 4,869
Seeing this thread bump made me realize how little of a **** I give about Hillary or her server.

The big dog doesn't even understands basic network or IT processes. No reason to listen to anything he posts about it.

Moving on.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 01:19 PM   #23
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 4,869
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
Please stop. The server being run by a private person before he became president is not subject to foia. A server being run by the President is not subject to foia.
Yes it is subject to FOIA. Do research son.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 01:39 PM   #24
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
"`[T]he President's immediate personal staff or units in the Executive Office whose sole function is to advise and assist the President' are not included within the term `agency' under the FOIA." Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136, 156, 100 S.Ct. 960, 971, 63 L.Ed.2d 267 (1980) (quoting H.R.CONF.REP. No. 1380, 93d Cong., 2d Sess. 15 (1974)), 1974 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6267.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 02:43 PM   #25
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,199
Originally Posted by plague311 View Post
Seeing this thread bump made me realize how little of a **** I give about Hillary or her server.

The big dog doesn't even understands basic network or IT processes. No reason to listen to anything he posts about it.

Moving on.
Cussing and insults - obviously you have no emotional stake in this at all. This is what critical thought is all about! Thanks for the demonstration. Hey, Plague311 doesn't care everyone, so you shouldn't either.

I didn't see any mention of I.T. by TBD but I saw some claims about the FOIA process.

Far as I can tell (I won't stake my life on it just yet) the President is not subject to FOIA and I've seen multiple sources.

https://freedomofinformationacts.usl...bject-to-foia/
Quote:
Advisers to elected officials usually are not subject to the provisions of FOIA. Although the executive office of the president is an agency under FOIA, neither the White House office which includes the President and his/her aides, nor the office of the President is subject to FOIA.
https://www.rcfp.org/federal-open-go...es-are-covered
Quote:
FOIA also applies to the Executive Office of the President and the Office of Management and Budget, but not to the President, his immediate staff, the Office of the Vice President or the Office of Administration, which advises the president.
White House formally exempts office from FOIA regs [this is from 2015 during the "Transparency Administration"]
https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...from-foia-regs

Quote:
While much of White House operations are not subject to FOIA laws and regulations – including the president, vice president and immediate advisors – one of its largest offices, the Executive Office of the President, must hand over certain documents when requested.

......

The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sued the office after being denied access to documents it had requested to obtain details about a slew of emails that had gone missing from White House servers.

After a lengthy appeal, the court upheld the ruling that the Office of Administration, which advises and assists the president, is not an “agency” as defined by the FOIA.

Quote:
Silly Green Monkey
A private server in use for classified government information is either a problem, or it isn't.
It is a problem, but for some people it is only so when the "other side" does it.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 8th December 2018, 06:53 PM   #26
varwoche
Penultimate Amazing
 
varwoche's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Puget Sound
Posts: 12,615
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
... Far as I can tell (I won't stake my life on it just yet) the President is not subject to FOIA and I've seen multiple sources.

https://freedomofinformationacts.usl...bject-to-foia/

https://www.rcfp.org/federal-open-go...es-are-covered

White House formally exempts office from FOIA regs [this is from 2015 during the "Transparency Administration"]
https://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...from-foia-regs
Thank you!
__________________
To survive election season on a skeptics forum, one must understand Hymie-the-Robot.
varwoche is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 04:30 PM   #27
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 4,869
For 5 years.... They are exempt for 5 years.

Thanks.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 04:42 PM   #28
plague311
Great minds think...
 
plague311's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: North Dakota
Posts: 4,869
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Cussing and insults - obviously you have no emotional stake in this at all. This is what critical thought is all about! Thanks for the demonstration. Hey, Plague311 doesn't care everyone, so you shouldn't either.
Neat. Thanks for sharing.

Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
I didn't see any mention of I.T. by TBD but I saw some claims about the FOIA process.
Then read the ******* thread. No, he didn't mention IT in that specific post, but he's made several failed attempts previously...like not understanding the difference between bytes and bits. I tend to not listen to people who have proven they know nothing about the topic at hand. Your post is another prime example of this.

Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
Far as I can tell (I won't stake my life on it just yet) the President is not subject to FOIA and I've seen multiple sources.
As I said, for 5 years. They're exempt for 5 years and the incoming POTUS can raise it to 12 years I believe. Then it's just like every other FOIA request.

Also, just to make a point, Presidents don't ******* run servers. Ya dig?

Hillary didn't "run" her server. Trump doesn't "run" his server, etc. It's just not part of their job description. So the initial premise is ******* stupid.

Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
It is a problem, but for some people it is only so when the "other side" does it.
Obviously.
__________________
"All acts performed in the world begin in the imagination."--Barbara Grizzuti Harrison

“There are times when the mind is dealt such a blow it hides itself in insanity. While this may not seem beneficial, it is. There are times when reality is nothing but pain, and to escape that pain the mind must leave reality behind.” - Patrick Rothfuss
plague311 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 04:48 PM   #29
Allen773
Muse
 
Allen773's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Cali Four Neea
Posts: 958
Are we done with this topic yet?
Allen773 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 06:15 PM   #30
eerok
Quixoticist
 
eerok's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 1,707
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
Are we done with this topic yet?
Not a chance. Those who still hate Hillary at this point are holding a deep, existential grudge, and this taint on their sensibilities is as indelible as cheap curry spilled on a white T-shirt.
__________________
"Every saint has a past and every sinner has a future." - Oscar Wilde
eerok is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 06:36 PM   #31
pgwenthold
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 17,773
Originally Posted by eerok View Post
Not a chance. Those who still hate Hillary at this point are holding a deep, existential grudge, and this taint on their sensibilities is as indelible as cheap curry spilled on a white T-shirt.
Besides, things are getting ugly for Trump and republicans. Therefore, they need to attack Clinton.
__________________
"As your friend, I have to be honest with you: I don't care about you or your problems" - Gidget, Secret Life of Pets
pgwenthold is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 11:30 PM   #32
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Originally Posted by Allen773 View Post
Are we done with this topic yet?
oh golly, if only that were true! Unfortunately a federal court judge entered an order this week that hillary and others were deliberately evading the law

Golly i guess you want us to bury our head? Oh no , the big dog is going to continue to expose these ******* lying criminal *****

so? not done! Thanks for asking.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th December 2018, 11:59 PM   #33
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,076
Talk is cheap for some judges - but if he could make anything stick, he would.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isn’t.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 12:12 PM   #34
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
The Fix was in from the Beginning

We all know that one of the seminal events in Hillary email abuse was the fact that the intelligence community inspector general said that they had evidence that classified to Top Secret level date was in Hillary's emails.

Peter Strzok testimony: DOJ declined to get a warrant to obtain possession of Clinton's private email server but instead entered into an agreement with Clinton lawyers to get the server. Part of the agreement? Not searching Clinton Foundation emails.

He said that DoJ lawyers concluded that they could not satisfy the probable cause requirement. This is despite having been told by the Inspector General for the CIA and other agencies that there was classified data improperly stored on the server.

Next time you think that Obama and Lynch are not corrupt, remember this.

They disgust me
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 01:48 PM   #35
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,763
Not going to get into a discussion, but the outrage here and I've seen elsewhere is both stupid and inconsistent.

First, the emails were not suspected to be related to the Foundation, had no reason to be suspected to be related to the Foundation, and were not indicated to be related to the Foundation by what the CIA said; DoJ searched what they needed to search.

Second, looking at the Strozk testimony it becomes clear that both Strozk and Comey were not trying to protect Clinton but were trying hard to do their jobs thoroughly.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 02:19 PM   #36
The Big Dog
Suspended
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,551
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
Not going to get into a discussion, but the outrage here and I've seen elsewhere is both stupid and inconsistent.

First, the emails were not suspected to be related to the Foundation, had no reason to be suspected to be related to the Foundation, and were not indicated to be related to the Foundation by what the CIA said; DoJ searched what they needed to search.

Second, looking at the Strozk testimony it becomes clear that both Strozk and Comey were not trying to protect Clinton but were trying hard to do their jobs thoroughly.
1. assertion without evidence
2. Strozk and comey were writing the exoneration memo before they interviewed her.

By the way, nothing you have said at all contradicts what I wrote about DoJ/Lynch or Comey.

Lynch's DoJ also nixed the espionage act charges that Comey suggested and they handed out immunity like candy to Clinton's sleazy associates.

That tarmac meeting is not looking any better now, is it?
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 03:39 PM   #37
Garrette
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 14,763
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
1. assertion without evidence
2. Strozk and comey were writing the exoneration memo before they interviewed her.

By the way, nothing you have said at all contradicts what I wrote about DoJ/Lynch or Comey.

Lynch's DoJ also nixed the espionage act charges that Comey suggested and they handed out immunity like candy to Clinton's sleazy associates.

That tarmac meeting is not looking any better now, is it?
My last involvement as I am familiar with your tactics -- and, no, your tactics do not comprise honest posts honestly discussed .

1. Subtle attempt to reverse burden of proof
2. Make up your mind. Did Comey want to exonerate or to press espionage charges?

As to DoJ and Lynch, they may be sleazy as hell, but what you have here is neither smoke nor gun and certainly falls far short if what you hand wave away in other threads about Trump and cronies.

And the floor is yours.
__________________
My kids still love me.
Garrette is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 04:22 PM   #38
WilliamSeger
Illuminator
 
WilliamSeger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 4,419
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
1. assertion without evidence
2. Strozk and comey were writing the exoneration memo before they interviewed her.

By the way, nothing you have said at all contradicts what I wrote about DoJ/Lynch or Comey.

Lynch's DoJ also nixed the espionage act charges that Comey suggested and they handed out immunity like candy to Clinton's sleazy associates.

That tarmac meeting is not looking any better now, is it?
If you're such a legal beagle, why do you ignore the reason Comey gave for not bringing charges against Clinton? Basically, it was that to bring criminal charges, you have to prove intent.

If you don't answer honestly, don't expect a reply.
__________________
"We're done! We're done! GET OUT!"
WilliamSeger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 04:49 PM   #39
PhantomWolf
Penultimate Amazing
 
PhantomWolf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 18,173
Originally Posted by Garrette View Post
And the floor is yours.
Originally Posted by WilliamSeger View Post
If you don't answer honestly, don't expect a reply.
Don't expect a reply for at least 2 weeks.

Originally Posted by zooterkin View Post
The Big Dog has been suspended for a fortnight for multiple breaches of the MA including ignoring moderator directions.
__________________

It must be fun to lead a life completely unburdened by reality. -- JayUtah
I am not able to rightly apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question. -- Charles Babbage (1791-1871)

PhantomWolf is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2019, 07:07 PM   #40
Loss Leader
I would save the receptionist.
Moderator
 
Loss Leader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,168
Originally Posted by The Big Dog View Post
We all know that one of the seminal events in Hillary email abuse was the fact that the intelligence community inspector general said that they had evidence that classified to Top Secret level date was in Hillary's emails.

My memory is that a couple emails contained information that, while not classified at the time they were written, later became classified. I don't know of any email that contained information that was classified at the time the email was sent. I think that's a pretty important distinction.
__________________
I have the honor to be
Your Obdt. St

L. Leader
Loss Leader is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:30 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.