The Clinton Thread II - Part 2

[2kt09]

Source?

https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/1637

Hillary apparently trying to out trump diablo naranja by calling Muslims, blacks, and Romas "never-do-wells"

 

[DarthSkywalker]

If you drop a bunch of fakes, then how are you suppose to judge what is real?

 

[Thundercrack85]

Perhaps deliberate misinformation put in by the government / military to make all the documents seem questionable.

 

[2kt09]

The Week in Emailgate: Vanishing Evidence, White House Meddling, Sweetheart Deals
-Coordinated White House damage control from the very beginning
-Two boxes of printed Clinton emails went missing during the investigation
-Withheld work-related emails pertained to the Clinton Foundation

Clinton Foundation officials quietly refiled three years of tax-related forms this week after the New York attorney general acknowledged the charity had failed to disclose all of its donors in accordance with state law.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Honestly, even if those emails were a real controversy, and the Clinton Foundation was a front for HYDRA, I would still support Hillary over Trump.

 

[2kt09]

Honestly, even if those emails were a real controversy, and the Clinton Foundation was a front for HYDRA, I would still support Hillary over Trump.

this goes back to the whole deceased pet over Trump from a while back

 

[Thundercrack85]

this goes back to the whole deceased pet over Trump from a while back

Deceased pet, I'd take a chest burster over Trump.

 

[2kt09]

Deceased pet, I'd take a chest burster over Trump.

A chest burster is arguably better than a deceased pet, so not sure where you were going with that.

 

[KevanG]

Chest bursters are pretty awesome. You can watch them grow from little guys to giant monsters in just a few days.

Most politicians take years to do that.

 

[2kt09]

I thought Hillary was "victimized" for that before Trump came along.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

Electoral vote history from the past 100 years:

Biggest win

1. 1936 - F. Roosevelt (D) 98%, Landon (R) 2%
2. 1984 - Reagan (R) 98%, Mondale (D) 2%
3. 1972 - Nixon (R) 97%, McGovern (D) 3%
4. 1980 - Reagan (R) 91%, Carter (D) 9%
5. 1964 - Johnson (D) 90%, Goldwater (R) 10%
6. 1932 - F. Roosevelt (D) 89%, Hoover (R) 11%
7. 1956 - Eisenhower (R) 86%, Stevenson (D) 14%
8. 1940 - F. Roosevelt (D) 85%, Willkie (R) 15%
9. 1928 - Hoover (R) 84%, Smith (D) 16%
10. 1952 - Eisenhower (R) 83%, Stevenson (D) 17%
11. 1944 - F. Roosevelt (D) 81%, Dewey (R) 19%
12. 1988 - G. Bush (R) 79%, Dukakis (D) 21%
13. 1920 - Harding (R) 76%, Cox (D) 24%
14. 1924 - Coolidge (R) 72%, Davis (D) 26%
15. 1996 - W. Clinton (D) 70%, Dole (R) 30%
16. 1992 - W. Clinton (D) 69%, G. Bush (R) 31%
17. 2008 - Obama (D) 68%, McCain (R) 32%
18. 2012 - Obama (D) 62%, Romney (R) 38%
19. 1948 - Truman (D) 57%, Dewey (R) 36%
20. 1968 - Nixon (R) 56%, Humphrey (D) 36%
21. 1960 - Kennedy (D) 56%, Nixon (R) 41%
22. 1976 - Carter (D) 55%, Ford (R) 45%
23. 2004 - G. W. Bush (R) 53%, Kerry (D) 47%
24. 1916 - Wilson (D) 52%, Hughes (R) 48%
25. 2000 - G. W. Bush (R) 50%, Gore (D) 49%

Smallest win

Popular vote history from the past 100 years:

Biggest margin

1. 1920 - Harding (R) 60%, Cox (D) 34% (+26 R)
2. 1924 - Coolidge (R) 54%, Davis (D) 29% (+25 R)
3. 1936 - F. Roosevelt (D) 61%, Landon (R) 37% (+24 D)
4. 1972 - Nixon (R) 61%, McGovern (D) 38% (+23 R)
5. 1964 - Johnson (D) 61%, Goldwater (R) 38% (+23 D)
6. 1984 - Reagan (R) 59%, Mondale (D) 41% (+18 R)
7. 1932 - F. Roosevelt (D) 57%, Hoover (R) 40% (+17 D)
8. 1928 - Hoover (R) 58%, Smith (D) 41% (+17 R)
9. 1956 - Eisenhower (R) 57%, Stevenson (D) 42% (+15 R)
10. 1952 - Eisenhower (R) 55%, Stevenson (D) 44% (+11 R)
11. 1940 - F. Roosevelt (D) 55%, Willkie (R) 45% (+10 D)
12. 1980 - Reagan (R) 51%, Carter (D) 41% (+10 R)
13. 1996 - W. Clinton (D) 49%, Dole (R) 41% (+8 D)
14. 1988 - G. Bush (R) 53%, Dukakis (D) 46% (+7 R)
15. 1944 - F. Roosevelt (D) 53%, Dewey (R) 46% (+7 D)
16. 2008 - Obama (D) 53%, McCain (R) 46% (+7 D)
17. 1992 - W. Clinton (D) 43%, G. Bush (R) 37% (+6 D)
18. 1948 - Truman (D) 50%, Dewey (R) 45% (+5 D)
19. 2012 - Obama (D) 51%, Romney (R) 47% (+4 D)
20. 1916 - Wilson (D) 49%, Hughes (R) 46% (+3 D)
21. 2004 - G. W. Bush (R) 51%, Kerry (D) 48% (+3 R)
22. 1976 - Carter (D) 50%, Ford (R) 48% (+2 D)
23. 1968 - Nixon (R) 43%, Humphrey (D) 43% (+0.70 R)
24. 2000 - Gore (D) 48%, G. W. Bush* (R) 48% (+0.51 D)
25. 1960 - Kennedy (D) 50%, Nixon (R) 50% (+0.17 D)

Smallest margin

* won the electoral vote

http://uselectionatlas.org/

 

[Clark-Kent]

Originally Posted by Victarion
Hillary apparently trying to out trump diablo naranja by calling Muslims, blacks, and Romas "never-do-wells"

At least she dropped the super predators line

 

[2kt09]

Is this yet the Sony Hack equivalent? ((Attachments for full email))

Our hope is that the goal of a potential HRC campaign and the DNC would be one-in-the-same: to make whomever the
Republicans nominate unpalatable to a majority of the electorate. We have outlined three strategies to obtain our goal:
1) Force all Republican candidates to lock themselves into extreme conservative positions that will hurt them in a
general election;
2) Undermine any credibility/trust Republican presidential candidates have to make inroads to our coalition or
independents;
3) Muddy the waters on any potential attack lodged against HRC.

http://www.inquisitr.com/3572960/wi...rategy-which-included-elevating-trump-in-gop/

------------------------------

Yellow Journalism vs Muckraking
[YT]GOv09Dc8hzM[/YT]

 

[KRYPTON INC.]

Huh?

 

[2kt09]

A sensible stance on fracking?

"We were even up against phony environmental groups, and I'm a big
environmentalist, but these were funded by the Russians to stand against any effort, oh that
pipeline, that fracking, that whatever will be a problem for you, and a lot of the money supporting
that message was coming from Russia.” [Remarks at tinePublic, 6/18/14]

((Leak Source))

----------------------------------

Bill and Chelsea Clinton nearly drove Foundation Staffer to Suicide ((Leak Source))

 

[Donner]

I hope that story about Clinton getting a child rapist freed isn't still going around. But if so:

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

 

[Orba]

I hope that story about Clinton getting a child rapist freed isn't still going around. But if so:

http://www.snopes.com/hillary-clinton-freed-child-rapist-laughed-about-it/

Trump brought her to his event before the debate along with Bill's accusers, not really seen much about it since.

Although today's thing seems to be that in the latest wikileaks dump it has two staffers talking about speeches and one of them says "she doesn't like everyday Americans" which is sending the right nuts. Of course they are ignoring the fact that its clear in the e-mail that they were talking about her not liking the term "every Americans".

 

[2kt09]

Trump brought her to his event before the debate along with Bill's accusers, not really seen much about it since.

Although today's thing seems to be that in the latest wikileaks dump it has two staffers talking about speeches and one of them says "she doesn't like everyday Americans" which is sending the right nuts. Of course they are ignoring the fact that its clear in the e-mail that they were talking about her not liking the term "every Americans".

"Today's thing also seems to be" staffers talking about the repercussions for Hillary doing that grossly negligent thing.

While we all know of the occasional use of personal email addresses for business, none of my friends circle can understand how it was viewed as ok/secure/appropriate to use a private server for secure documents AND why further Hillary took it upon herself to review them and delete documents without providing anyone outside her circle a chance to weigh in. It smacks of acting above the law and it smacks of the type of thing I've either gotten discovery sanctions for, fired people for, etc.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Every secretary of state in the digital age has not only used private emails but deleted them at their leisure. Is this a good idea? Of course not. But this which hunt is pretty hilarious considering they aren't calling for the heads of Powell and Condi too. This is the exact reason no charges could be filed because if your predecessors do it and you continue the trend no laws are being broken.

I'm def thrilled this dumbassery has been brought to the public's attention and won't be continued in the future. It's just such a non-issue when one is familiar with the actual facts.

 

[2kt09]

Every secretary of state in the digital age has not only used private emails but deleted them at their leisure. Is this a good idea? Of course not. But this which hunt is pretty hilarious considering they aren't calling for the heads of Powell and Condi too. This is the exact reason no charges could be filed because if your predecessors do it and you continue the trend no laws are being broken.

I'm def thrilled this dumbassery has been brought to the public's attention and won't be continued in the future. It's just such a non-issue when one is familiar with the actual facts.

I think a lot of people seem to still have no idea why something as simple as an email is becoming that big of an issue.

A private server to go with the private email. Terrible security while that's in operation. The cover-up that follows even whilst under subpoena before that pivotal hearing. The lying OR contradiction under oath to what the director laid out in a more recent hearing to that hearing. The cover-up that continues. The multiple national security risks the FBI uncovers. The lawyers who had no security clearance to look through and wipe emails pleading the 5th. The FBI giving immunity to her aids filling in for lawyers who are witnesses. The FBI letting them destroy evidence during their investigation. And best of all the judge ruling not to let emails go public until after election day.

A private email would be pretty much what we use. If those Secretaries of State passed classified stuff in that way unsecured, absolutely reprimand them.

An active crime/corruption is in progress and people would rather look the other way when it concerns this election.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

Nobody is looking the other way. She received a hearing and their was insufficient evidence to bring about charges. Protocol has since been changed. Others did it is not an excuse nor should it be but those are the facts. There is no massive conspiracy to cover-up anything and if you really think that's the case please do some research on Occam's Razor.

Do you even know any hackers? I have several friends that are hackers and regardless of whether you're using a private server or a Gmail/yahoo/etc. if one uses an 8 character or more password containing at least one capital letter and at least one special character it takes about 7 years to brute force attack it and that's assuming you have the best dictionary around and the person you were hacking is dumb enough to use common words. Add to that 2 step authentication and it becomes almost impossible to hack.

Were these measures used? Probably not because old people are not tech savvy and also tend to be lazy. But some basic understanding of how this stuff works can go a long way and as the old guard exits things like this will be less and less likely until the new tech gets here that our generation has a hard time with then rinse and repeat.

 

[MagnarTheGreat]

I'll be proud to have a President who will stand up to Russian government scum and their hackers and allies instead of the people who celebrate them.

 

[2kt09]

Nobody is looking the other way. She received a hearing and their was insufficient evidence to bring about charges. Protocol has since been changed. Others did it is not an excuse nor should it be but those are the facts. There is no massive conspiracy to cover-up anything and if you really think that's the case please do some research on Occam's Razor.

That insufficient evidence boiling down to proof of "criminal intent".
The FBI director, himself stated, she would be prosecuted for EITHER gross negligence or criminal intent.

Heck, even if there is no conspiracy and she + her staff haven't broken any laws if not through the act of maintaining this unauthorized server or the various ways in which they messed with the evidence they were repeatedly & lawfully supposed to hand over, the lies/"contradictions" under oath hangs over Clinton's head and the footage is right there in front of you.

 

[DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs]

You're just so categorically wrong it's comical. There were no laws in place in place saying what she did couldn't be done. The reason for that was because all of her predecessors in the digital age did the same thing. Incompetence and/or ignorance fall well below what is needed in a court of law to prove gross negligence. No criminal intent can be proven because the only law which could have provided criminal intent would be is she willfully turned over classified documents to a foreign agent which she did not do. You're quoting words which have specific legal definitions which have to be met. Just because you have a laymen's understanding of them does not make you an expert. If you'd like more education on this matter I'd suggest you PM Matt and I'm sure he'd be happy to walk you through the exact legalise of all this.

 

[2kt09]

You're just so categorically wrong it's comical. There were no laws in place in place saying what she did couldn't be done. The reason for that was because all of her predecessors in the digital age did the same thing. If you'd like more education on this matter I'd suggest you PM Matt and I'm sure he'd be happy to walk you through the exact legalise of all this.

I'll be sure to ask Matt of underlined (seriously her predecessors + their staff did every single thing that is being considered a potential offense? Heck, Powell keeps trying to get out of this because he claims to have never gone nor insisted she go as far as she did), Federal Records Act, subpoenas, perjury, spoliation of evidence, and security clearances pertaining to classified material.

Incompetence and/or ignorance fall well below what is needed in a court of law to prove gross negligence.

They have already proven gross negligence.

No criminal intent can be proven because the only law which could have provided criminal intent would be is she willfully turned over classified documents to a foreign agent which she did not do.

That's not the point I was making nor have I said it couldn't be proven.

You're quoting words which have specific legal definitions which have to be met. Just because you have a laymen's understanding of them does not make you an expert.

We could bring this back to incompetence/ignorance and if she is that ignorant/incompetent ("couldn't recall" being briefed on what she's supposed to do meanwhile her signature is still on the form)...that's pretty damn pitiful.