PDA

View Full Version : It will soon be official, Hillary will not be indicted on the email scandal



peb
06-09-2016, 01:31 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/politics/president-barack-obama-endorses-hillary-clinton-in-video/index.html


During the primary season, I heard many times from the Trump supporters that he could win since Hillary would be indicted. That has been one of their hopes throughout this whole ordeal. Well, they should forget the dream, Obama would not endorse if an indictment was likely to be forthcoming.

Paul Pless
06-09-2016, 01:34 PM
oh man, this is a way better thread title than norm's. . .

Norman Bernstein
06-09-2016, 01:36 PM
During the primary season, I heard many times from the Trump supporters that he could win since Hillary would be indicted.

Well, as they say, hope springs eternal... but in real life, expectations sometimes lead to disappointment.

I suspect there is going to be a GREAT deal MORE disappointment in the cards for Trump supporters, between now and Election Day. No particular insight... just my hunch.

John of Phoenix
06-09-2016, 01:39 PM
PPPP - Presumed Preemptive Presidential Pardon.

peb
06-09-2016, 01:40 PM
oh man, this is a way better thread title than norm's. . .

Thankyou, I was rather pleased with myself for coming up with it.

Chip-skiff
06-09-2016, 01:52 PM
If there was a basis for a criminal indictment, the president would not have to "endorse" it. In fact, there would be considerable pressure on him to let it go forward.

The House "Benghazi" committee, headed by space alien Trey Gowdy (R-Mars) is sputtering to a stop, having chewed through millions of tax dollars trying to smear Hillary Clinton.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RjWzWk0k0RI/VibfSvRbd1I/AAAAAAAA8oU/aOe8UZW9tMo/s1600/image3.PNG

Most recently, they were offering rewards for the identities of anonymous posters on FaceBook and Twitter who claimed to have "the real story." This is the waste, fraud, and abuse that we taxpayers have been funding for some time as "defense," being used as an offensive political weapon.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/clinton-benghazi-gowdy-investigation-222986

John of Phoenix
06-09-2016, 02:08 PM
The House "Benghazi" committee, headed by space alien Trey Gowdy (R-Mars) is sputtering:D Fabulous ridicule. I literally LOL. :D

Osborne Russell
06-09-2016, 02:10 PM
Obama would not endorse if an indictment was likely to be forthcoming.

Man, the logic you people use. Obama would not endorse if an indictment for being a werewolf was likely to be forthcoming. He doesn't believe she's a werewolf but he's biased and that means she's a werewolf because he endorses her.

CWSmith
06-09-2016, 02:13 PM
The House "Benghazi" committee, headed by space alien Trey Gowdy (R-Mars) is sputtering to a stop, having chewed through millions of tax dollars trying to smear Hillary Clinton.



:D Fabulous ridicule. I literally LOL. :D

I don't know any space aliens, but I see no reason to offend them with such a comparison.

Jim Bow
06-09-2016, 02:16 PM
One editorial described Gowdy's leadership as like a blindfolded toddler swinging like mad at a non existant pinata.

peb
06-09-2016, 02:19 PM
Man, the logic you people use. Obama would not endorse if an indictment for being a werewolf was likely to be forthcoming. He doesn't believe she's a werewolf but he's biased and that means she's a werewolf because he endorses her.

I think my logic is fairly sound. All I said was that if (and its a huge if, since I have predicted no indictement publicly on this forum) an indictment was forthcoming, Obama would not be endorsing Clinton.

Jim Bow
06-09-2016, 02:23 PM
Draco Malfoy

http://static.seattletimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2023542042-1020x0.jpg

TomF
06-09-2016, 02:32 PM
Would use of taxpayers' funds solely for the purpose of partisan political gain qualify as a "high crime" or "misdemeanor"? How does laying about the shameless partisan use taxpayers' money stack up against lying about getting oral sex with an intern?

While a House Representative has never been impeached, the impeachment of Senator Blount was attempted in 1797. The Senate wouldn't confirm that impeachment, citing that the House had no authority to do so ... but did expel Blount themselves. Presumably, if the House decided it wanted to impeach Gowdy it could, and the Senate could decide whether they had the authority to confirm ...

Osborne Russell
06-09-2016, 06:06 PM
I think my logic is fairly sound. All I said was that if (and its a huge if, since I have predicted no indictement publicly on this forum) an indictment was forthcoming, Obama would not be endorsing Clinton.

If the decision had already been made, which it must have been if it will soon be "official", then why would the endorsement come first?

johnw
06-09-2016, 06:51 PM
Man, the logic you people use. Obama would not endorse if an indictment for being a werewolf was likely to be forthcoming. He doesn't believe she's a werewolf but he's biased and that means she's a werewolf because he endorses her.

I don't think that's what peb meant. He's saying that the president is in a good position to judge whether Clinton is in danger of indictment, and his endorsement of Clinton indicates that his best guess is that it's extremely unlikely.

Boatfix
06-09-2016, 07:01 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/politics/president-barack-obama-endorses-hillary-clinton-in-video/index.html


During the primary season, I heard many times from the Trump supporters that he could win since Hillary would be indicted. That has been one of their hopes throughout this whole ordeal. Well, they should forget the dream, Obama would not endorse if an indictment was likely to be forthcoming.

With his hubris he might. I sure hope your wrong. The FBI has to complete that investigation before the election. I read an article about it and the head of the FBI is cognizant of the importance of wrapping up the investigation.

Chip-skiff
06-09-2016, 07:02 PM
Obama would not endorse if an indictment for being a werewolf was likely to be forthcoming. He doesn't believe she's a werewolf but he's biased and that means she's a werewolf because he endorses her.

Hillary Clinton is definitely not a werewolf. Nor is it, prima facie, a criminal offense.

http://i2.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article6363289.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Werewolf.jpg

Take my word for that.

Osborne Russell
06-09-2016, 07:02 PM
I don't think that's what peb meant. He's saying that the president is in a good position to judge whether Clinton is in danger of indictment, and his endorsement of Clinton indicates that his best guess is that it's extremely unlikely.

He's saying that it will soon be "official", which means it's already happened. If it's already happened, Obama knows it. If Obama already knows it, why hasn't it been announced? Why would he endorse first and announce that there will be no indictment after?

The misconception begins with the idea that the President announces that so and so will not be indicted for such and such. He could, I suppose, but it would be Red-quality stupid. How does he know? Next day, some grand jury proves him wrong. Oops!

Peb's implication is that Obama has over-ruled someone that wanted to present an indictment. Peb can disclaim that implication if he wishes.

johnw
06-09-2016, 07:11 PM
He's saying that it will soon be "official", which means it's already happened. If it's already happened, Obama knows it. If Obama already knows it, why hasn't it been announced? Why would he endorse first and announce that there will be no indictment after?

The misconception begins with the idea that the President announces that so and so will not be indicted for such and such. He could, I suppose, but it would be Red-quality stupid. How does he know? Next day, some grand jury proves him wrong. Oops!

Peb's implication is that Obama has over-ruled someone that wanted to present an indictment. Peb can disclaim that implication if he wishes.

Well, I'd say peb hasn't said that, so let's ask him. Peb, is that what you meant?

peb
06-09-2016, 08:06 PM
If the decision had already been made, which it must have been if it will soon be "official", then why would the endorsement come first?

I might have been wrong on the word "soon". But Obama likely checked and was told any possible indictment would not target Hillary before he made the endorsement. That way he can go ahead and endorse safely, and further the line that the email scandal is much a do about nothing.

peb
06-09-2016, 08:09 PM
With his hubris he might. I sure hope your wrong. The FBI has to complete that investigation before the election. I read an article about it and the head of the FBI is cognizant of the importance of wrapping up the investigation.

I doubt I am wrong. If an indictment was coming soon, it would have been easy enough for Obama to not endorse and no one would have really noticed, and he would have no egg on his face.

If an indictment is the hope for victory by Trump folks, they will be sorely disappointed. It won't happen. And even if it did, it would be easy enough for the dems to swap out Hillary for Biden at the convention and then Trump would have an even more difficult time winning. Hillary is a weak candidate, Biden would not be so weak.

Paul Pless
06-09-2016, 08:11 PM
I might have been wrong on the word "soon". But Obama likely checked and was told any possible indictment would not target Hillary before he made the endorsement. That way he can go ahead and endorse safely, and further the line that the email scandal is much a do about nothing.

oh wait, you were being serious
i thought you were just trying to be funny. . .

Gerarddm
06-09-2016, 08:12 PM
They'd swap out for Bernie, not Biden.

peb
06-09-2016, 08:14 PM
They'd swap out for Bernie, not Biden.

We will never know, but I strongly suspect it would be Biden by a decent margin on the first ballot.

Nicholas Scheuer
06-10-2016, 05:50 AM
Well, "Bengazi, Bengazi, Bengazi" didn't work. "Email, Email, Email" isn't working. What's next from the Orange Heads?

Paul Pless
06-10-2016, 05:52 AM
Well, "Bengazi, Bengazi, Bengazi" didn't work. "Email, Email, Email" isn't working. What's next from the Orange Heads?they'll become more and more shrill that's for sure

L.W. Baxter
06-10-2016, 07:29 AM
Was a grand jury convened?

I don't think there is any requirement for the Justice Department to announce that someone won't be indicted. No announcement may ever be forthcoming.

SullivanB
06-10-2016, 08:03 AM
It's amazing, just how little I understand about the inner workings of our government. For example, I would have thought that information pertaining to proposed, specific, future drone strikes/targets would be, or at least should be, considered highly sensitive/classified information. Now I can know with certainty that I was wrong to think so, having been assured by Mrs. Clinton and some here that highly sensitive/ classified information was never handled by that private email system. And those assurances are only reinforced by President Obama's robust endorsement of Mrs. Clinton.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-emails-drone-strikes_us_575aa8c1e4b0e39a28ad47a3

Emails between U.S. diplomats in Islamabad and State Department officials in Washington about whether to challenge specific U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan are at the center of a criminal probe involving Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
The 2011 and 2012 emails were sent via the “low side” -government slang for a computer system for unclassified matters - as part of a secret arrangement that gave the State Department more of a voice in whether a CIA drone strike went ahead, according to congressional and law enforcement officials briefed on the FBI probe, the Journal said.
Some of the emails were then forwarded by Clinton’s aides to her personal email account, which routed them to a server she kept at her home in suburban New York when she was secretary of state, the officials said, according to the newspaper.
Investigators have raised concerns that Clinton’s personal server was less secure than State Department systems, and a recent report by the State Department inspector general found that Clinton had broken government rules by using a private email server without approval, undermining Clinton’s earlier defenses of her emails.
The still-secret emails are a key part of the FBI investigation that has long dogged Clinton’s presidential campaign, the officials told the Journal.
Clinton this week clinched the Democratic presidential nomination for the Nov. 8 election and was endorsed by President Barack Obama on Thursday.
The White House rebuffed questions by reporters on Thursday on whether Obama’s endorsement might be seen as unduly influencing a criminal investigation by the U.S. Justice Department involving Clinton.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters that Obama “has reiterated his commitment to this principle that any criminal investigation should be conducted independent of any sort of political interference.”
The emails, which did not mention the “CIA,” “drones” or details about the militant targets, were written within the often-narrow time frame in which State Department officials had to decide whether or not to object to drone strikes before the CIA pulled the trigger, the officials said, according to the Journal.
Law enforcement and intelligence officials said State Department deliberations about the covert CIA drone program should have been conducted over a more secure government computer system designed to handle classified information, the Journal reported.
(Writing by Eric Beech;

John Smith
06-10-2016, 08:20 AM
I've a slightly different theory. We hear "FBI investigation" and we assume crime of some kind.

Email is a relatively new technology. We know that Hillary is not the first public official to use a private server. We are told that nobody knew she was not using the government server, but is that something we can believe?

I expect her email address on the government server would have been something like @state.gov While on her private server it would be something like @hrc.net Everyone would have known.

It is entirely possible the goal of the FBI's investigation is to is simply how to solve the basic problem of keeping official communication separate from private communication, keeping the private private, and keeping both secure.

Rachel on night showed up how the present system works. If one receives an email, they print a copy and drop that copy into a box. If they send an email, they print a copy and drop that copy into a box. All those hard copies are just in random order.

It may be all that is being looked for is a better system.

TomF
06-10-2016, 08:34 AM
Sully, what is your project? If it is to support a 3rd Party, have at it.

The Dem nominee won't ever embody the fairly narrow focus and ideals of a 3rd party candidate. The Dems are a "Big Tent" party, like the Reps used to be and perhaps ought to be again. They're a party of compromise among a variety of centrist-to-Left viewpoints, in which change really occurs over time ... but rarely in purist ways. But for instance, the Dems really won't become the Greens; they'll likely always include folks who'd feel fairly at home among Greens, but also others who wouldn't.

That's why Bernie didn't win the nomination; on reflection, he was correct through his long political career to remain an Independent. I suggest that you continue to follow his lead.

SullivanB
06-10-2016, 09:36 AM
Sully, what is your project? If it is to support a 3rd Party, have at it.

The Dem nominee won't ever embody the fairly narrow focus and ideals of a 3rd party candidate. The Dems are a "Big Tent" party, like the Reps used to be and perhaps ought to be again. They're a party of compromise among a variety of centrist-to-Left viewpoints, in which change really occurs over time ... but rarely in purist ways. But for instance, the Dems really won't become the Greens; they'll likely always include folks who'd feel fairly at home among Greens, but also others who wouldn't.

That's why Bernie didn't win the nomination; on reflection, he was correct through his long political career to remain an Independent. I suggest that you continue to follow his lead.

Hey, I think being a "Big Tent" party is great; being the party of the neo-liberal ideas and policies that helped to drive the country to its knees, well, not so great. That's what one supports when one seeks to return the Clintons to the White House. I think that's bad for the country. More importantly, so do millions of others who are dissatisfied with where the Dems are headed.

What is your project, Tom, to ignore or explain away or defend the very real and still surfacing flaws of a candidate the Dems have yet to put up against a man like Donald Trump and a party like today's Republicans? Do you not believe that story I posted is relevant to the discussion? Is it not important, if true? Do you believe that if we simply ignore matters like that, they're of no consequence?

Do you believe that highly sensitive/classified information was transmitted on Mrs. Clinton's private email system? Do you believe it should matter whether it was or not? Are the abuses of the Republicans sufficient to excuse illegality at the highest levels, if such has occurred?

I think you misunderstand my concern. It's not about Sanders not getting the nod. It's about Hill and Bill getting it. Despite the love fest playing on the msm right now, she's not yet the nominee. Those questions up there will travel with her right up to and even after November.

oznabrag
06-10-2016, 09:37 AM
It's amazing, just how little I understand about the inner workings of our government. For example, I would have thought that information pertaining to proposed, specific, future drone strikes/targets would be, or at least should be, considered highly sensitive/classified information. Now I can know with certainty that I was wrong to think so, having been assured by Mrs. Clinton and some here that highly sensitive/ classified information was never handled by that private email system. And those assurances are only reinforced by President Obama's robust endorsement of Mrs. Clinton.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/clinton-emails-drone-strikes_us_575aa8c1e4b0e39a28ad47a3

Emails between U.S. diplomats in Islamabad and State Department officials in Washington about whether to challenge specific U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan are at the center of a criminal probe involving Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information, the Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
The 2011 and 2012 emails were sent via the “low side” -government slang for a computer system for unclassified matters - as part of a secret arrangement that gave the State Department more of a voice in whether a CIA drone strike went ahead, according to congressional and law enforcement officials briefed on the FBI probe, the Journal said.
Some of the emails were then forwarded by Clinton’s aides to her personal email account, which routed them to a server she kept at her home in suburban New York when she was secretary of state, the officials said, according to the newspaper.
Investigators have raised concerns that Clinton’s personal server was less secure than State Department systems, and a recent report by the State Department inspector general found that Clinton had broken government rules by using a private email server without approval, undermining Clinton’s earlier defenses of her emails.
The still-secret emails are a key part of the FBI investigation that has long dogged Clinton’s presidential campaign, the officials told the Journal.
Clinton this week clinched the Democratic presidential nomination for the Nov. 8 election and was endorsed by President Barack Obama on Thursday.
The White House rebuffed questions by reporters on Thursday on whether Obama’s endorsement might be seen as unduly influencing a criminal investigation by the U.S. Justice Department involving Clinton.
White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters that Obama “has reiterated his commitment to this principle that any criminal investigation should be conducted independent of any sort of political interference.”
The emails, which did not mention the “CIA,” “drones” or details about the militant targets, were written within the often-narrow time frame in which State Department officials had to decide whether or not to object to drone strikes before the CIA pulled the trigger, the officials said, according to the Journal.
Law enforcement and intelligence officials said State Department deliberations about the covert CIA drone program should have been conducted over a more secure government computer system designed to handle classified information, the Journal reported.
(Writing by Eric Beech;

OK, so now that Bernie's out, you keep trashing Clinton.

Seems I was right about you.

Paul Pless
06-10-2016, 09:39 AM
OK, so now that Bernie's out, you keep trashing Clinton.

Seems I was right about you.

maybe Kieth should post another sock puppet speculation thread. . .

oznabrag
06-10-2016, 09:40 AM
I've a slightly different theory. We hear "FBI investigation" and we assume crime of some kind.

Email is a relatively new technology. We know that Hillary is not the first public official to use a private server. We are told that nobody knew she was not using the government server, but is that something we can believe?

I expect her email address on the government server would have been something like @state.gov While on her private server it would be something like @hrc.net Everyone would have known.

It is entirely possible the goal of the FBI's investigation is to is simply how to solve the basic problem of keeping official communication separate from private communication, keeping the private private, and keeping both secure.

Rachel on night showed up how the present system works. If one receives an email, they print a copy and drop that copy into a box. If they send an email, they print a copy and drop that copy into a box. All those hard copies are just in random order.

It may be all that is being looked for is a better system.

No, they are in chronological order.

oznabrag
06-10-2016, 09:40 AM
maybe Kieth should post another sock puppet speculation thread. . .

. . .

SullivanB
06-10-2016, 09:50 AM
OK, so now that Bernie's out, you keep trashing Clinton.

Seems I was right about you.

Until the coronation, Bernie's still an option for the Party. Those super delegates could still get it right.

Norman Bernstein
06-10-2016, 09:53 AM
Until the coronation, Bernie's still an option for the Party. Those super delegates could still get it right.

As they say, hope springs eternal.

TomF
06-10-2016, 11:43 AM
My project is advocating for harm reduction in voting behavior. I feel fairly confident that the Clintons are not neocons, though they are certainly not socialists. I'm also fairly confident that she will again try to advance health reform, gender equity, and at least not a completely terrifying change in foreign policy. If not exactly the policy I'd prefer.

Osborne Russell
06-10-2016, 12:12 PM
The 2011 and 2012 emails were sent via the “low side” -government slang for a computer system for unclassified matters - as part of a secret arrangement that gave the State Department more of a voice in whether a CIA drone strike went ahead, according to congressional and law enforcement officials briefed on the FBI probe, the Journal said.

Who were the parties to this secret arrangement? When and how was the secret arrangement discovered?

Shang
06-10-2016, 02:01 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/09/politics/president-barack-obama-endorses-hillary-clinton-in-video/index.html


...I heard many times from the Trump supporters that he could win since Hillary would be indicted...

An instead, Trump is likely to go up the river for fraud. Whoda thunkit?

bobbys
06-10-2016, 02:27 PM
Well, "Bengazi, Bengazi, Bengazi" didn't work. "Email, Email, Email" isn't working. What's next from the Orange Heads?.

Just 4 dead guys and national security...
Hey ,look over there at that real estate class!

johnw
06-10-2016, 03:00 PM
No, they are in chronological order.

Sedimentary.

johnw
06-10-2016, 03:01 PM
An instead, Trump is likely to go up the river for fraud. Whoda thunkit?

That trial will happen after the election.

oznabrag
06-10-2016, 03:14 PM
Sedimentary.
In this case, there is no difference that I can see. At any rate it is not 'random'.

Canoeyawl
06-10-2016, 03:18 PM
.

Just 4 dead guys and national security...
Hey ,look over there at that real estate class!

You need $35k to look over there...

S.V. Airlie
06-10-2016, 03:21 PM
bobbys would probably shell out 35K, don't give him any ideas!:(

johnw
06-10-2016, 03:23 PM
In this case, there is no difference that I can see. At any rate it is not 'random'.

Quite right. I hope you're not offended that I agree with you.