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 17th June 2016, 01:02 PM   #321
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,324
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
That's true, Comey specifically avoids that phrase.

It's a distinction without a difference, really. When the FBI investigates, they're trying to find evidence of criminal wrongdoing. What makes it such a good derail is Clinton tried to weasel out of even the word "investigation", by calling it a "security review".

It's just one of her many charms.
So the head of the FBI says it's not a criminal investigation. The State Department says they asked the FBI to investigate the security issues re classified documents and emails (not just Clinton's considering Colin Powell had the same issue with information in emails classified after the fact, a conclusion he also disagreed with).

And everyone that wants this to be a criminal investigation just call it that anyway.

Got it.

Last edited by Skeptic Ginger; 17th June 2016 at 01:03 PM.
Skeptic Ginger 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 17th June 2016, 01:15 PM   #322
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,906
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
So the head of the FBI says it's not a criminal investigation. The State Department says they asked the FBI to investigate the security issues re classified documents and emails (not just Clinton's considering Colin Powell had the same issue with information in emails classified after the fact, a conclusion he also disagreed with).

And everyone that wants this to be a criminal investigation just call it that anyway.

Got it.
Time to first lie?

First sentence! Yay!

Ya see folks, the FBI typically hands out use immunity agreements in "not" criminal investigations.

I learned that right here on the iSkep!

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Indeed, the privacy interests at stake are high because the government's criminal investigation through which Mr. Pagliano received limited immunity is ongoing and confidential. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
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 17th June 2016, 01:24 PM   #323
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,379
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
So when the FBI concludes that their investigation found no evidence of criminal wrongdoing on Hillary's part, how are you Republicans going to react?

Maybe some sort of conspiracy theory where Obama ordered them to cover it up?
For myself, I will react with a general meh. She was under criminal investigation and no wrongdoing was found. If and when they clear her of criminal charges, will you guys finally acknowledge that this was indeed a criminal investigation?

ETA: Forgot to say: And how can they even clear her of criminal charges if this isn't a criminal investigation? They are investigating whether crimes were committed; hence its a criminal investigation.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 17th June 2016 at 01:25 PM.
xjx388 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 17th June 2016, 01:29 PM   #324
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
For myself, I will react with a general meh. She was under criminal investigation and no wrongdoing was found. If and when they clear her of criminal charges, will you guys finally acknowledge that this was indeed a criminal investigation?

ETA: Forgot to say: And how can they even clear her of criminal charges if this isn't a criminal investigation? They are investigating whether crimes were committed; hence its a criminal investigation.
I will say it was an investigation where they explored the possibility of criminal wrongdoing and found no evidence whatsoever to support that hypothesis, despite the deepest hopes of Republicans. And I will laugh in the face of Republicans who have been obsessed with this for over a year (see 16.5).
Tony Stark 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 17th June 2016, 01:33 PM   #325
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,379
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
I will say it was an investigation where they explored the possibility of criminal wrongdoing and found no evidence whatsoever to support that hypothesis, despite the deepest hopes of Republicans. And I will laugh in the face of Republicans who have been obsessed with this for over a year (see 16.5).
Hmmm . . .and what do we call investigations that explore the possibility of criminal wrongdoing? Glad we agree that it's a criminal investigation.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 17th June 2016, 01:39 PM   #326
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Hmmm . . .and what do we call investigations that explore the possibility of criminal wrongdoing? Glad we agree that it's a criminal investigation.
Call it what you like. This whole thing is a big bunch of nothing. Just like every other Clinton "scandal".
Tony Stark 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 17th June 2016, 03:14 PM   #327
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
For myself, I will react with a general meh. She was under criminal investigation and no wrongdoing was found. If and when they clear her of criminal charges, will you guys finally acknowledge that this was indeed a criminal investigation?

ETA: Forgot to say: And how can they even clear her of criminal charges if this isn't a criminal investigation? They are investigating whether crimes were committed; hence its a criminal investigation.
Do you guys have some sort of contest going to see who can use the word "criminal" the most?

Look, it's obviously a partisan spin to try to attach the word "criminal" to the investigation that the FBI is doing, as evidenced by the FBI not using the word, while a few partisans here and on Fox news use it as many times as they can.
wareyin 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 17th June 2016, 03:31 PM   #328
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,324
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
It obscures the fact that it is a criminal investigation related to security issues. That's what I got from that. The FBI doesn't do investigations related to security issues that don't have criminal possibilities.

He very clearly acknowledged that it's a criminal investigation. I'm not sure how this is supposed to be evidence that he "refused" to call it that or that it isn't indeed a criminal investigation. He may not have used the word but he didn't correct "Catherine's" use of the term. "Right," was his answer to, "but the FBI does criminal investigations." He may be limited in what he can say -for many reasons legal and political- but he acknowledged it very clearly there.
OMG!

Investigation is in the name not crime or criminal investigation.

Let's read that again:
Quote:
Catherine: So it’s a criminal investigation?

Director Comey: We’re conducting an investigation. That’s the bureau’s business. That’s what we do. That’s probably all I can say about it.

Catherine: The reason I ask is because Mrs. Clinton consistently refers to it as a security inquiry, but the FBI does criminal investigations. I just want to see if you can clear that up.

Director Comey: Right, it’s in our name.
So your claim is this is some soooper secret code for criminal investigation?
Skeptic Ginger 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 17th June 2016, 03:55 PM   #329
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 6,194
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
OMG!

Investigation is in the name not crime or criminal investigation.

Let's read that again:

So your claim is this is some soooper secret code for criminal investigation?
It appears that xjx388 takes Comey's dislike of the term "inquiry" and preference for "investigation" instead as some sort of secret code for "criminal". Either that or it's just another partisan attempt to associate Clinton with the smear of the day.
wareyin 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 17th June 2016, 04:17 PM   #330
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,906
Judge Sullivan, appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton, calls it a criminal investigation.

Shillaries, without the slightest recognition of irony, declare it partisan.

Fantastic.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
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 17th June 2016, 04:21 PM   #331
The_Animus
Master Poster
 
The_Animus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 2,601
The semantics games over this has to be the most asanine thing I've ever seen on these forums.
__________________
Straw Man, Ad Hominem, Moving the Goalposts, and a massive post count are all good indicators that a poster is intellectually dishonest and not interested in real discussion.

Feeding trolls only makes them stronger, yet it is so hard to refrain.
The_Animus 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 17th June 2016, 04:22 PM   #332
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,379
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
OMG!

Investigation is in the name not crime or criminal investigation.

Let's read that again:

So your claim is this is some soooper secret code for criminal investigation?
indeed. Since "Investigation" is in the name, I gather you think they do all sorts of investigations: insurance claim investigation, female body investigation, scientific investigation . . .

No, I tend to go by what they actually say their investigations revolve around.

Quote:
“to protect and defend the United States against terrorist and foreign intelligence threats and to enforce the criminal laws of the United States.”
So unless you are suggesting that they are investigating Hillary for terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, criminal it is.

More:
Quote:
What does the FBI stand for?

The FBI stands for Federal Bureau of Investigation. “Federal” refers to the national government of the United States. “Bureau” is another word for department or division of government. “Investigation” is what we do—gathering facts and evidence to solve and prevent crimes.
So if this isn't a criminal investigation, what kind of investigation is it?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 17th June 2016, 04:22 PM   #333
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Judge Sullivan, appointed to the bench by Bill Clinton, calls it a criminal investigation.

Shillaries, without the slightest recognition of irony, declare it partisan.

Fantastic.
So what are you going to say when the result of the investigation is that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing on Hillary's part? Go with some conspiracy theory?
Tony Stark 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 17th June 2016, 04:38 PM   #334
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,379
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
So what are you going to say when the result of the investigation is that there is no evidence of criminal wrongdoing on Hillary's part? Go with some conspiracy theory?
I just thought of something else to say if and when this happens: "Boy, for a President, she sure has had a lot of criminal investigations involving her!"
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 17th June 2016, 04:52 PM   #335
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,906
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I just thought of something else to say if and when this happens: "Boy, for a President, she sure has had a lot of criminal investigations involving her!"
The thing is that the her getting indicted is only the worst case scenario, there are numerous events short of that that would be absolute disaster for her campaign, from the disclosure that she had withheld emails that should have been turned over to state, that her emails had been hacked by foreign entities, that third party friends (blumenthal in particular) get indicted, that her top staff gets indicted.

Hillary 2016. not indicted yet!
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
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 17th June 2016, 04:57 PM   #336
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
The thing is that the her getting indicted is only the worst case scenario, there are numerous events short of that that would be absolute disaster for her campaign, from the disclosure that she had withheld emails that should have been turned over to state, that her emails had been hacked by foreign entities, that third party friends (blumenthal in particular) get indicted, that her top staff gets indicted.

Hillary 2016. not indicted yet!
Yeah, sure.

How mad are you going to be when it turns out that none of this garbage prevented her from being elected President and you wasted over a year and half of your life obsessing over it for nothing?
Tony Stark 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 17th June 2016, 06:03 PM   #337
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
Yeah, sure.

How mad are you going to be when it turns out that none of this garbage prevented her from being elected President and you wasted over a year and half of your life obsessing over it for nothing?
Why for nothing? I'm sure 16.5 has found the whole thing very entertaining. I know that I have.
sunmaster14 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 17th June 2016, 06:14 PM   #338
Tony Stark
Philosopher
 
Tony Stark's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 9,626
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
Why for nothing? I'm sure 16.5 has found the whole thing very entertaining. I know that I have.
You don't seem like you are completely obsessed with Hillary Clinton like he is.
Tony Stark 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 17th June 2016, 06:17 PM   #339
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,906
Originally Posted by Tony Stark View Post
You don't seem like you are completely obsessed with Hillary Clinton like he is.
Beats being obsessed with 16.5 as some of our posters appear to be.

__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
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 17th June 2016, 07:25 PM   #340
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,789
Edited by jsfisher:  Moderated text removed and response to same removed.


By the way, since none of our faux lawyers wanted to tackle the question....

The FBI has divisions other than their Criminal Investigation. But that was a trick objection in itself. I wanted to see if anyone bothered to check anything out. The FBI doesn't have "divisions". They refer to them as "branches". As usual, when asked to tell where they get their, er, interesting conclusions not a one of the Judge Janine fans was able to find that information. And please note that the second from the left.... National Security.... is the branch that's investigating the server/email issues. Please note the column next to it... that's the Criminal Investigation group. See the difference? Well, no... you won't. But that's largely the point, isn't it?

https://www.justice.gov/jmd/organiza...-investigation

"No, no, no" reply the poorly informed "we have a real judge and he used the word "criminal" so it's criminal, by golly, neener neener neener I'm not listening....."

Never mind that some of the knee-jerk poorly informed didn't even understand that the judge in a civil case has nothing to do with the investigation of the FBI, and didn't even realize that they are separate cases. It's FtD.... follow the dots.... the favored investigative method of conspiracy theorists, everywhere.

"But a judge said it. A judge, man. That's got to mean a lot, right?"
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!

Last edited by jsfisher; 21st June 2016 at 04:17 PM.
Foolmewunz 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 17th June 2016, 07:40 PM   #341
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,789
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Are you saying here that it's not a criminal investigation? If so, then:

Given that:

1. Comey has indicated that it's an investigation and has never heard of a security inquiry.
2. The judge who reviewed relevant paperwork regarding a connected immunity deal called it a criminal investigation.

What else can we, desirous as we are to be as non-partisan as possible, possibly call this?
Call it what it is and the DoJ and FBI have described it as..... "an investigation". If you've got to have "criminal" to make your day complete, you're welcome to it. Just don't expect to be taken seriously by people who can actually read.

It's a right wing desperation fantasy. Two examples of people saying "criminal investigation", one walked back already by the speaker and completely ignored by the HDS-o-sphere, and even blatantly misrepresented as "Obama said" by one of your star internet sleuths.

The other statement, by a judge who has nothing to do with the FBI investigation and was not ruling on whether this was an "Investigation", a "Criminal Investigation" or a "Large and Swell Investigation" or a "Very Important Investigation". It was used as an adjective.

Just for David James.... It's "Pull It" all over again.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz 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 17th June 2016, 07:48 PM   #342
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,906
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post

By the way, since none of our faux lawyers wanted to tackle the question....

The FBI has divisions other than their Criminal Investigation. But that was a trick objection in itself. I wanted to see if anyone bothered to check anything out. The FBI doesn't have "divisions". They refer to them as "branches". As usual, when asked to tell where they get their, er, interesting conclusions not a one of the Judge Janine fans was able to find that information. And please note that the second from the left.... National Security.... is the branch that's investigating the server/email issues. Please note the column next to it... that's the Criminal Investigation group. See the difference? Well, no... you won't. But that's largely the point, isn't it?

https://www.justice.gov/jmd/organiza...-investigation

....

Never mind that some of the knee-jerk poorly informed didn't even understand that the judge in a civil case has nothing to do with the investigation of the FBI, and didn't even realize that they are separate cases.
Ugh, reading your poorly written sarcasm is painful...

What do you base your claim that the case is being investigated by "national Security." The FBI claimed that the identity of the Agents and their branch had to be sealed. Moreover, what makes you think that National Security does not investigate criminal acts??? Take a look at the Espionage Act.

Next your claim that we should disregard the Federal Court Judge who read and relied on the FBI's immunity agreement as the basis of his order is spectacularly specious.

Do you know what an immunity agreement is or why the Judge was looking at it? The answer appears to be no, but why don't you go ahead and type some more of that insipid "sarcasm."
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
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 17th June 2016, 07:52 PM   #343
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 63,324
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
indeed. Since "Investigation" is in the name, I gather you think they do all sorts of investigations: insurance claim investigation, female body investigation, scientific investigation . . .

No, I tend to go by what they actually say their investigations revolve around.

So unless you are suggesting that they are investigating Hillary for terrorist and foreign intelligence threats, criminal it is.

More:


So if this isn't a criminal investigation, what kind of investigation is it?
According to the State Department, a security investigation. Do you think it's possible to conduct a security investigation that doesn't involve criminal activity?
Skeptic Ginger 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 17th June 2016, 09:32 PM   #344
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,789
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Ugh, reading your poorly written sarcasm is painful...
I wouldn't want to cause you any pain.... actually having to read evidence and know what you're talking about and all. And I'm truly sorry if you find me sarcastic. I have such high regard for your opinions.

Quote:
What do you base your claim that the case is being investigated by "national Security."
Statement by the DoJ in the Leopold case. I know it's not the Drudge Report, but will "Law Newz" do? http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/fbi-...investigation/

Let's read that to the class, shall we?


Quote:
The FBI has publicly stated that it is working on a referral from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State in connection with former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a private e-mail server….The referral was ‘a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes.” ….Records responsive to plaintiff’s FOIA request were obtained or created by the FBI in furtherance of a pending investigation being conducted as a result of this referral.
bolding mine.


Quote:
The FBI claimed that the identity of the Agents and their branch had to be sealed. Moreover, what makes you think that National Security does not investigate criminal acts??? Take a look at the Espionage Act.
Well, let's examine that. Did the FBI say that the identity of the agents and their branch would not be revealed. See how "agents" is connected to "branch" with a conjunction? How does that compare to had they said "Neither the agents nor their branch"?

I never said they don't investigate criminal issues. All we are saying... is give peace a.... sorry, flashback to my days in Taos.... All we are saying is that your building blocks have porous holes in them.

"Yuk yuk, it's the Federal Bureau of INVESTIGATION." Why, yes. Yes it is. It is not the Federal Bureau of CRIMINAL Investigation. If you want to call it a "criminal investigation", have fun. Their focus is going to be "wrong doing", "illegalities", "criminals". It's what they do. But what do you call an "unsuccessful" criminal investigation? An "innocent investigation"?

It's all about the language. You're reading from the 90s playbook. Keep repeating the slogans and they'll stick. "Why won't he/she say "Islamic Fundamentalism, huh huh? Got something to hide, do they?"

Quote:
Next your claim that we should disregard the Federal Court Judge who read and relied on the FBI's immunity agreement as the basis of his order is spectacularly specious.
Yeah, that would be horrible if I'd said it. I didn't so please take your truckload of straw and manure elsewhere. I'm saying that we can look at his inclusion of the word "criminal" in several possible lights. That seems to be the "skeptical" approach. Isn't that what the sea lions all promote? Skepticism? Compare that to "It means X because I need it to mean X. It further means X because he's a judge and he said it. A judge, I say." How many classic fallacies can you, even with your proven limited understanding of logical fallacies, find in that stand.

Quote:
Do you know what an immunity agreement is or why the Judge was looking at it? The answer appears to be no, but why don't you go ahead and type some more of that insipid "sarcasm."
Do you know where we get the "innocent until proven guilty" assumption is?

And considering the fact that you've starred in these threads with your feeble attempts at sarcasm, if you think mentioning mine is going to get me to shy away from it, you're sorely, per your norm, mistaken. I just happen to do it well.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz 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 June 2016, 05:41 AM   #345
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,379
Hillary is absolutely innocent til proven guilty. But to see if there is enough evidence to bring a criminal case against her the FBI has to conduct an investigation. We all agree this is what is happening, correct?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 June 2016, 06:11 AM   #346
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,789
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Hillary is absolutely innocent til proven guilty. But to see if there is enough evidence to bring a criminal case against her the FBI has to conduct an investigation. We all agree this is what is happening, correct?
You've got me sold. Now convince 16.5 of that.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz 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 June 2016, 07:10 AM   #347
sunmaster14
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Posts: 10,017
This discussion is ridiculous. It's clearly a criminal investigation, and the judge's interpretation of the immunity agreement is as dispositive as we're going to get. The FBI obviously is going to be as tight-lipped as possible. That's what they're trained to do: keep their mouths shut.

The fact that the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation doesn't mean that a crime occurred, nor that even if one had occurred that anybody will be charged.

There is other evidence available, however, to suggest that Hillary has committed serious crimes. There is really nothing more to be said that hasn't been said many times in the thread already, until more information is available. Hillary was in charge of the entire State Department, and she used her influence and authority to run a completely rogue server through which dozens, and possibly hundreds, of classified emails passed and were stored. This server was completely outside of the control of the US government, and by maintaining it that way Hillary compromised three important functions of the government. To wit, recordkeeping, responsiveness to FOIA requests, and keeping classified information secure.

If Hillary is not indicted, it will only be because she has become "too big to jail."
sunmaster14 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 June 2016, 07:43 AM   #348
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,789
Originally Posted by sunmaster14 View Post
This discussion is ridiculous. It's clearly a criminal investigation, and the judge's interpretation of the immunity agreement is as dispositive as we're going to get. The FBI obviously is going to be as tight-lipped as possible. That's what they're trained to do: keep their mouths shut.

The fact that the FBI is conducting a criminal investigation doesn't mean that a crime occurred, nor that even if one had occurred that anybody will be charged.

There is other evidence available, however, to suggest that Hillary has committed serious crimes. There is really nothing more to be said that hasn't been said many times in the thread already, until more information is available. Hillary was in charge of the entire State Department, and she used her influence and authority to run a completely rogue server through which dozens, and possibly hundreds, of classified emails passed and were stored. This server was completely outside of the control of the US government, and by maintaining it that way Hillary compromised three important functions of the government. To wit, recordkeeping, responsiveness to FOIA requests, and keeping classified information secure.

If Hillary is not indicted, it will only be because she has become "too big to jail."
Well, that's settled then.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz 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 June 2016, 07:57 AM   #349
DavidJames
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Front Range, CO
Posts: 10,493
You've gotta love it. Internet Judge and Jury then if their dream goes south, a built in excuse.

Cause that's way of skepticism.
__________________
For 15 years I never put anyone on ignore. I felt it important to see everyone's view point. Finally I realized the value of some views can be measured in negative terms and were personally destructive.
DavidJames 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 June 2016, 08:23 AM   #350
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,906
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post


Statement by the DoJ in the Leopold case. I know it's not the Drudge Report, but will "Law Newz" do? http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/fbi-...investigation/
You cut out my reference to the criminal penalties under the espionage act??

The link you provided does not in anyway support your claim, in fact it completely destroys it:

“This less exacting judicial scrutiny of a criminal law enforcement agency’s purpose in the context of the FOIA Exemption 7 threshold is . . . bolstered by Congress’ concern that inadvertent disclosure of criminal investigations . . . might cause serious harm to the legitimate interests of law enforcement agencies.” Pratt v. Webster , 673 F.2d 408, 418 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Because the FBI’s principal function is law enforcement, the FBI’s claimed purpose for the withheld records is entitled to deference here.

(Page 2, ellipses in the original)

Fantastic!
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
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 June 2016, 08:51 AM   #351
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,789
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
You cut out my reference to the criminal penalties under the espionage act??
I cut nothing. Look again. I split a paragraph.


Quote:
The link you provided does not in anyway support your claim, in fact it completely destroys it:

“This less exacting judicial scrutiny of a criminal law enforcement agency’s purpose in the context of the FOIA Exemption 7 threshold is . . . bolstered by Congress’ concern that inadvertent disclosure of criminal investigations . . . might cause serious harm to the legitimate interests of law enforcement agencies.” Pratt v. Webster , 673 F.2d 408, 418 (D.C. Cir. 1982). Because the FBI’s principal function is law enforcement, the FBI’s claimed purpose for the withheld records is entitled to deference here.

(Page 2, ellipses in the original)

Fantastic!
Destroys it? I'm so sorry I gave you more work for your Local. As the shop steward of UFQMCPWH [UnAmerican Federation of Quote Miners, Cherry Pickers and Witch Hunters], you abused your powers and send the lads off to find any use of the word "criminal", even if it's citations of other cases and not pertaining to this one?

Why don't you address the bloc quote, which is the point I was making and which you far-from-address.... That the investigation was/is being handled by the counter-intelligence branch. Address that.

The response is standard fare from the clone conservative army. "Look why don't we all just agree to call it a criminal investigation?" Go ahead. Call it what you like. Don't expect sane people to agree with you, though.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz 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 June 2016, 09:01 AM   #352
The Big Dog
Penultimate Amazing
 
The Big Dog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 20,906
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post

Why don't you address the bloc quote, which is the point I was making and which you far-from-address.... That the investigation was/is being handled by the counter-intelligence branch. Address that.
.
Your link contradicts your claim. The FBI is specifically refusing to disclose the identity of the agent and his branch. This is so basic....

Sure! The bloc quote relates to the referral from the IC IG to the FBI.

The ICIG does not make "criminal" referrals, because that is the job of the FBI to decide. Let me make this simple: the bloc quote relates to what the ICIG did, it does not relate to what the FBI did after they got the referral.

I don't expect you to understand this, of course. Type more "funny" acronyms.
__________________
Cleanliness is next to Godliness.
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 June 2016, 09:13 AM   #353
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,502
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Yep. It's sort of like sitting around on your veranda enjoying your morning cup of latte when your crazy neighbor comes over, stips down and does the weenie dance all around your yard, then takes a dump in the begonias. When you react with a vocal "What the ****, dude?", the response heard through these threads.....

"Why is this all about me, all of a sudden? I think you're obsessed."


By the way, since none of our faux lawyers wanted to tackle the question....

The FBI has divisions other than their Criminal Investigation. But that was a trick objection in itself. I wanted to see if anyone bothered to check anything out. The FBI doesn't have "divisions". They refer to them as "branches". As usual, when asked to tell where they get their, er, interesting conclusions not a one of the Judge Janine fans was able to find that information. And please note that the second from the left.... National Security.... is the branch that's investigating the server/email issues. Please note the column next to it... that's the Criminal Investigation group. See the difference? Well, no... you won't. But that's largely the point, isn't it?

https://www.justice.gov/jmd/organiza...-investigation

"No, no, no" reply the poorly informed "we have a real judge and he used the word "criminal" so it's criminal, by golly, neener neener neener I'm not listening....."

Never mind that some of the knee-jerk poorly informed didn't even understand that the judge in a civil case has nothing to do with the investigation of the FBI, and didn't even realize that they are separate cases. It's FtD.... follow the dots.... the favored investigative method of conspiracy theorists, everywhere.

"But a judge said it. A judge, man. That's got to mean a lot, right?"
If that were true, the Judge would have no reason to even comment on any of this. The civil case DOES have something to do with the investigation because Bryan Pagliano is involved in both, forcing the judge to take into account the ongoing criminal investigation when ruling on whether Bryan's immunity agreement should be made public.
Fudbucker 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 18th June 2016, 09:17 AM   #354
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,379
Originally Posted by DavidJames View Post
You've gotta love it. Internet Judge and Jury then if their dream goes south, a built in excuse.

Cause that's way of skepticism.
I would think skepticism requires us to call things as they are and not put a spin on the truth. The plain, unvarnished truth is that Hillary Clinton is the subject of a criminal investigation. She is still innocent until proven guilty.

Insisting that this is a "security inquiry," or some undefined kind of investigation is just a biased spin on the truth. I don't fault Hillary supporters for doing this; I just recognize it for what it is.

If she isn't indicted, some people will be mad and some will be happy. Me personally, I feel like there is political pressure not to indict her, just like there was in many of the other scandals Hillary and Bill faced. But I'll live if she isn't indicted and I'm sure America will survive her Presidency if she makes it that far.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 June 2016, 09:20 AM   #355
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,502
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
I cut nothing. Look again. I split a paragraph.




Destroys it? I'm so sorry I gave you more work for your Local. As the shop steward of UFQMCPWH [UnAmerican Federation of Quote Miners, Cherry Pickers and Witch Hunters], you abused your powers and send the lads off to find any use of the word "criminal", even if it's citations of other cases and not pertaining to this one?

Why don't you address the bloc quote, which is the point I was making and which you far-from-address.... That the investigation was/is being handled by the counter-intelligence branch. Address that.

The response is standard fare from the clone conservative army. "Look why don't we all just agree to call it a criminal investigation?" Go ahead. Call it what you like. Don't expect sane people to agree with you, though.
Except the judge who called it a criminal investigation when determining whether the immunity agreement of the person INVOLVED in the investigation should be made public.

But other than that judge, yeah. No sane person would call it a "criminal investigation". Oh, except the White House Press Secretary.

Oh, and Ellen Glasser, retired FBI special agent who worked on cases regarding mishandled classified information: "My experience tells me that Hillary Clinton is a subject of a criminal investigation,"

So aside from these three obviously insane people, you're right.
Fudbucker 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 18th June 2016, 09:26 AM   #356
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,789
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
Except the judge who called it a criminal investigation when determining whether the immunity agreement of the person INVOLVED in the investigation should be made public.

But other than that judge, yeah. No sane person would call it a "criminal investigation". Oh, except the White House Press Secretary.

Oh, and Ellen Glasser, retired FBI special agent who worked on cases regarding mishandled classified information: "My experience tells me that Hillary Clinton is a subject of a criminal investigation,"

So aside from these three obviously insane people, you're right.
Hilited: That reminds me. You never did fix up the original mention of that quote, did you. You deleted entire chunks of the article, which when read is actually a fairly sane discussion.

Don't do that. People will think you're dishonest.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz 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 June 2016, 09:28 AM   #357
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 17,049
I've read very little of this thread, and I haven't followed the email issue very closely, but if I may, I would like to ask a question related to Hillary and her emails.

I listen to right wing talk radio, and they always present her server as if it were some computer in someone's house. Sean Hannity seems to always say it was "in a bathroom". I heard another talk about it as "in a friend's basement".

They are constantly talking about how insecure it was.

I don't believe it.

Whatever else one might say about the Clintons, I believe they are smart, at least in the intellectual sense. I think they understand that there are some systems that are more secure than others. I think the whole purpose of using an email system that was not in the government network directly was to keep things secret. She wanted to keep some things secret from from Russia, but she wanted to keep as much as possible secret from a far more dangerous and powerful enemy, the Republicans in Congress. Oh, and the press.

I will take bets that that server was locked down as tight as a drum, and encrypted about a billion different ways. I'll bet that the company she hired to set it up was not some "mom and pop" shop, as Hannity has said, but a consulting firm that specializes in secure communication. And if that's not true, I will be dreadfully disappointed, because I think Hillary is smart enough and rich enough to do that.

ETA: And if this is off topic for this thread, I apologize. Feel free to split it or delete it as you see fit. I didn't think it was quite worthy of a new thread, and this seemed like a good place to ask.
__________________
See you in 2018, maybe.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 18th June 2016 at 09:30 AM.
Meadmaker 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 June 2016, 09:43 AM   #358
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 5,379
See, here's a good example of spin:

Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
<snip for brevity>

By the way, since none of our faux lawyers wanted to tackle the question....

The FBI has divisions other than their Criminal Investigation. But that was a trick objection in itself.
Those other divisions investigate crimes related to their purview. And what's with the tricks? Aren't we supposed to be engaging in a rational debate?
Quote:
I wanted to see if anyone bothered to check anything out. The FBI doesn't have "divisions". They refer to them as "branches".
Oh, what a gotcha!
Quote:
As usual, when asked to tell where they get their, er, interesting conclusions not a one of the Judge Janine fans was able to find that information. And please note that the second from the left.... National Security.... is the branch that's investigating the server/email issues. Please note the column next to it... that's the Criminal Investigation group. See the difference? Well, no... you won't. But that's largely the point, isn't it?
Again, what do you think the National Security Branch investigates? They investigate whether or not any of the laws that make National Security breaches a criminal act were broken. Do you think they just check computers to see if they are secure? As PolitiFact put it in it's interview with an ex FBI chief of computer forensics:

Quote:
A reasonable person might take Clinton’s phrasing to mean the FBI is simply conducting a risk assessment of her server to see whether it’s secure. Agents might do that as part of an investigation, but it’s not the end game, Pollitt said.
The rest of that article makes it clear that the "end game" is whether or not to bring criminal charges.

I understand that spinning this into a "security inquiry," or some other non-criminal kind of investigation helps to relieve cognitive dissonance. It's tough to support a Presidential candidate who is under criminal investigation.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 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 June 2016, 09:48 AM   #359
Fudbucker
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 6,502
Originally Posted by Foolmewunz View Post
Hilited: That reminds me. You never did fix up the original mention of that quote, did you. You deleted entire chunks of the article, which when read is actually a fairly sane discussion.

Don't do that. People will think you're dishonest.
You're not very good at this, are you?
Fudbucker 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 18th June 2016, 09:50 AM   #360
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader
TLA Dictator
 
Foolmewunz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Pattaya, Thailand
Posts: 36,789
Originally Posted by Fudbucker View Post
You're not very good at this, are you?
And that means? Did you respond and I missed it? It's late over here and I'm in no mood to hash over the repeated assertions that we will all never agree on. So all I want to know is whether or not you addressed your elisions.
__________________
Ha! Foolmewunz has just been added to the list of people who aren't complete idiots. Hokulele

Help! We're being attacked by sea lions!
Foolmewunz 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 12:39 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
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.