US Election 2016, part II

[Wrath of Dagon]

 

 

 

 

But the FBI are the ones who have decided not to charge her....surly we not saying the FBI is under the influence of the Democrats and they not doing there job properly?

 

First of all the FBI has decided nothing of the sort. And they can't charge her. All they can do is recommend a charge to the United States Attorney General. Who just had a "secret" meeting with Bill Clinton which no reporters or photographers were allowed to see. Do you REALLY think they were talking about their grandchildren?

 

Except that it's not how it works. The FBI (or any other Federal law enforcement agency seeking a federal indictment) works together with the prosecutor (U.S. Attorney's Office) who presents the evidence to a federal grand jury --which makes the judgment to indict based on whether there is enough evidence for the accused to have committed the crime.

 

The Attorney General is not part of the process and it would not be ethical for her to be involved with the process, and she has EXPLICITLY stated that she will not be part of the process.

 

That's contrary to everything I've read on the subject. She would decide if the case was presented to the grand jury to start with, no?

 

 

Which begs the question from where and from whom have you read regarding the subject matter?

 

Look, we have senior career FBI agents, analysts, other specialists, and their supervisors making sure the investigation is done by the book and as thorough as possible. To which they are working directly with the jurisdictional U.S. Attorney's office -- led by a career senior Assistant U.S. Attorney (if not the chief of the division), and a team of AUSA's and paralegals, and with support of the U.S. Attorney. The U.S. Attorney General is not going to overrule her U.S. Attorney. These guys and gals know what they're doing and don't mess around. If they believe there is enough evidence of criminal wrongdoing, they will present it to the Grand Jury seeking an indictment. Federal cases going to court have a 92% conviction rate. If they don't believe they have enough evidence, neither the FBI or the USAO will seek an indictment. Pure and simple. The AG is not part of the decision making process.

 

What makes you so sure? Why wouldn't the AG get involved in all high profile decisions? I certainly wouldn't make any major decision for my company without checking with my boss first. What you're claiming is very hard to believe in this politicized and weaponized DOJ. Lynch has said on numerous occasions she doesn't have to follow the law, in particular with respect to Lois Lerner she specifically told Congress she didn't have to do what the law required her to do in plain language, because of "prosecutorial discretion". Edited July 4, 2016 by Wrath of Dagon

[Guard Dog]

 

OK, I make it a point not to talk about other forum members here (except maybe Volo but he likes it) but I think you guys are a little hard on Bruce here. Yes he does have some opinions that sound like they might be designed to get a rise out of everyone but I believe he really does think that. I think he's being straight with you.  Lets face it, there are folks in this world who will tell you grass is red even when you know it's green. Some of them ARE just screwing with you. Others genuinely can't understand why you keep calling that red grass green. I think Bruce is the latter. He sees things how he sees them and if he can't always back up his opinions with logic (referring to the SJW stuff here) at least he can do it with passion. Most of us came by our political philosophies honestly. We lived the lives we lived, learned the lessons we learned and it just grows from that. I figure Bruce is no different than anyone on that count. 

 

This board would be dull as hell if we all agreed with each other. We come here and debate with each other because it's fun to do it. Not because we are trying to convince anyone of anything. I'be been posting here for twelve years now (Jesus Christ really?) and I can't really say I've changed anyone's mind about anything, but I did get to find out what other folks think and WHY they think it. I figure that is the best part. 

 

Bull****, you made at least one member (me) more open to gun rights and freedom of speech. I don't know if it helps, but it is something rather than nothing.

sir

Thank you Sir!

 

My participation here has changed my opinions too. Particularly on the death penalty. I used to be in favor of it but now I'm against it. Although not for the reasons most people think. 

[Guard Dog]

 

 

But what would be an example of someone  assuming I'm trying to get  a rise from them, what do I say that creates this view ?

 

That part about imprisoning people who say racist things comes to mind.

[BruceVC]

 

Le sigh. If we could please conclude this latest dogpile, that would be apprecited. As always, feel free to debate the post, expose it and burn it to the ground, then salt the earth so it can never take hold again, but there is never an excuse to get personal and hurt insults.

 

I hope this is not aimed at me, I am trying to avoid it as much as I can

 

But dude, at least finish what you want to say

 

For example I understand someone ignoring me but what you tend to do is what others do. You will criticize me on some level and when I genuinely ask you for an example ....you dont respond ? So I'm just asking for consistency or rather not say anything about me

[Chilloutman]

No not aimed at you or anyone else in particular. Just tamping down the various brush fires and trying to steer back, more into a debate, and less into a venting of spleens.

 

Well, its nature of politics, it seems far away, but is actually quite personal

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

But what would be an example of someone  assuming I'm trying to get  a rise from them, what do I say that creates this view ?

 

That part about imprisoning people who say racist things comes to mind.

 

Okay now thats a good example where I would never guess 

 

So that point I made is uniquely SA, I did say its not something that would be accepted in the USA 

[Guard Dog]

Well the "bash Bruce" horse has been beaten to death... let's get back to business shall we?

 

Apparently Hillary didn't just want to destroy records of who she was communicating with and what was said, she also wanted to destroy records of who she met with: http://nypost.com/2016/07/04/huma-abedin-admits-that-clinton-burned-daily-schedules/

 

It's getting harder to dismiss all this as nothing. Even if nothing else comes of this she willingly and knowingly destroyed documents that were the property of the United States. Having been in the Military and having worked for the government a few times I can tell you for a fact that, while you probably won't go to jail for doing that, you better believe you would be fired and barred from ever working for the government again in any capacity.

[BruceVC]

Well the "bash Bruce" horse has been beaten to death... let's get back to business shall we?

 

Apparently Hillary didn't just want to destroy records of who she was communicating with and what was said, she also wanted to destroy records of who she met with: http://nypost.com/2016/07/04/huma-abedin-admits-that-clinton-burned-daily-schedules/

 

It's getting harder to dismiss all this as nothing. Even if nothing else comes of this she willingly and knowingly destroyed documents that were the property of the United States. Having been in the Military and having worked for the government a few times I can tell you for a fact that, while you probably won't go to jail for doing that, you better believe you would be fired and barred from ever working for the government again in any capacity.

I would like to get to the bottom of this whole email scandal because many people do share your view and I also want clarity 

 

For me if she intentionally deleted data that would incriminate her of course I wouldn't ignore this and I would stop supporting her

 

But the evidence just doesn't support this, now I  will go into more details so  my point is clear. So take a look at this link and tell me what you dont agree with if you dont mind 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/hillary-clinton-personal-email-server/index.html

[Guard Dog]

 

Well the "bash Bruce" horse has been beaten to death... let's get back to business shall we?

 

Apparently Hillary didn't just want to destroy records of who she was communicating with and what was said, she also wanted to destroy records of who she met with: http://nypost.com/2016/07/04/huma-abedin-admits-that-clinton-burned-daily-schedules/

 

It's getting harder to dismiss all this as nothing. Even if nothing else comes of this she willingly and knowingly destroyed documents that were the property of the United States. Having been in the Military and having worked for the government a few times I can tell you for a fact that, while you probably won't go to jail for doing that, you better believe you would be fired and barred from ever working for the government again in any capacity.

I would like to get to the bottom of this whole email scandal because many people do share your view and I also want clarity 

 

For me if she intentionally deleted data that would incriminate her of course I wouldn't ignore this and I would stop supporting her

 

But the evidence just doesn't support this, now I  will go into more details so  my point is clear. So take a look at this link and tell me what you dont agree with if you dont mind 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/hillary-clinton-personal-email-server/index.html

 

There is no question in my mind she is covering up something criminal. She had those servers professionally wiped. You are more than familiar with IT, you know what that means. And she only did that AFTER she lost in court and was compelled to turn them over. This IS a cover up. No questions about it. Now WHAT is being covered up is a question. I think, my opinion only, the deleted documents refer to donations made to the Clinton Foundation from foreign interests who received favorable treatment from the State Dept during her tenure.

 

Then there is this quote: "But she "has maintained and preserved copies" of work-related, or potentially work-related emails she turned over to the State Department late last year." So we are to accept the word of a potential criminal defendant that the evidence they destroyed was not germane to their case? Only in the Democrat Party would that fly.

 

Here is a homework assignment for you Bruce. Do a little reading about a business called Uranium One and how it came into being and then tell me if you think everything is above board on that.

[BruceVC]

 

 

Well the "bash Bruce" horse has been beaten to death... let's get back to business shall we?

 

Apparently Hillary didn't just want to destroy records of who she was communicating with and what was said, she also wanted to destroy records of who she met with: http://nypost.com/2016/07/04/huma-abedin-admits-that-clinton-burned-daily-schedules/

 

It's getting harder to dismiss all this as nothing. Even if nothing else comes of this she willingly and knowingly destroyed documents that were the property of the United States. Having been in the Military and having worked for the government a few times I can tell you for a fact that, while you probably won't go to jail for doing that, you better believe you would be fired and barred from ever working for the government again in any capacity.

I would like to get to the bottom of this whole email scandal because many people do share your view and I also want clarity 

 

For me if she intentionally deleted data that would incriminate her of course I wouldn't ignore this and I would stop supporting her

 

But the evidence just doesn't support this, now I  will go into more details so  my point is clear. So take a look at this link and tell me what you dont agree with if you dont mind 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/hillary-clinton-personal-email-server/index.html

 

There is no question in my mind she is covering up something criminal. She had those servers professionally wiped. You are more than familiar with IT, you know what that means. And she only did that AFTER she lost in court and was compelled to turn them over. This IS a cover up. No questions about it. Now WHAT is being covered up is a question. I think, my opinion only, the deleted documents refer to donations made to the Clinton Foundation from foreign interests who received favorable treatment from the State Dept during her tenure.

 

Then there is this quote: "But she "has maintained and preserved copies" of work-related, or potentially work-related emails she turned over to the State Department late last year." So we are to accept the word of a potential criminal defendant that the evidence they destroyed was not germane to their case? Only in the Democrat Party would that fly.

 

Here is a homework assignment for you Bruce. Do a little reading about a business called Uranium One and how it came into being and then tell me if you think everything is above board on that.

 

Okay but lets focus on one thing at a time if you dont mind so we can create  a  foundation of common agreement 

 

So based on the link I posted do you agree

 

• She handed over 55,000 emails and 30, 000 she said could be for public viewing
• She also admitted deleting only personal emails which is fine

 

Now I'm not sure if you aware but when people delete data it can  normally always be recovered using data recovery software 

 

 

Here is a link explaining this 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/us/politics/investigators-find-emails-hillary-clinton-said-were-erased.html?_r=0

 

 

So the  FBI was able to view all data she attempted  to  delete and they found nothing incriminating? 

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Well the "bash Bruce" horse has been beaten to death... let's get back to business shall we?

 

Apparently Hillary didn't just want to destroy records of who she was communicating with and what was said, she also wanted to destroy records of who she met with: http://nypost.com/2016/07/04/huma-abedin-admits-that-clinton-burned-daily-schedules/

 

It's getting harder to dismiss all this as nothing. Even if nothing else comes of this she willingly and knowingly destroyed documents that were the property of the United States. Having been in the Military and having worked for the government a few times I can tell you for a fact that, while you probably won't go to jail for doing that, you better believe you would be fired and barred from ever working for the government again in any capacity.

I would like to get to the bottom of this whole email scandal because many people do share your view and I also want clarity 

 

For me if she intentionally deleted data that would incriminate her of course I wouldn't ignore this and I would stop supporting her

 

But the evidence just doesn't support this, now I  will go into more details so  my point is clear. So take a look at this link and tell me what you dont agree with if you dont mind 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/hillary-clinton-personal-email-server/index.html

 

There is no question in my mind she is covering up something criminal. She had those servers professionally wiped. You are more than familiar with IT, you know what that means. And she only did that AFTER she lost in court and was compelled to turn them over. This IS a cover up. No questions about it. Now WHAT is being covered up is a question. I think, my opinion only, the deleted documents refer to donations made to the Clinton Foundation from foreign interests who received favorable treatment from the State Dept during her tenure.

 

Then there is this quote: "But she "has maintained and preserved copies" of work-related, or potentially work-related emails she turned over to the State Department late last year." So we are to accept the word of a potential criminal defendant that the evidence they destroyed was not germane to their case? Only in the Democrat Party would that fly.

 

Here is a homework assignment for you Bruce. Do a little reading about a business called Uranium One and how it came into being and then tell me if you think everything is above board on that.

 

Okay but lets focus on one thing at a time if you dont mind so we can create  a  foundation of common agreement 

 

So based on the link I posted do you agree

 

• She handed over 55,000 emails and 30, 000 she said could be for public viewing
• She also admitted deleting only personal emails which is fine

 

Now I'm not sure if you aware but when people delete data it can  normally always be recovered using data recovery software 

 

 

Here is a link explaining this 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/us/politics/investigators-find-emails-hillary-clinton-said-were-erased.html?_r=0

 

 

So the  FBI was able to view all data she attempted  to  delete and they found nothing incriminating? 

 

Professionally wiped Bruce. She didn't "right-click-delete". The data on those servers, that I will remind you was the property of the United States, was professionally destroyed.  

 

As for the e-mails she handed over we now have only her word that was all the "work" e-mails she had. Let's say I was the number one suspect in a murder that was committed using a caliber of weapon I was known to own. Now let's I was compelled to surrender that weapon for testing and I fought hard not to do it. And when I did the police found I had replaced the barrel and firing pin. Would that arouse any suspicions?

 

Another thing Bruce, the FBI has made no recommendations yet. This is an ongoing investigation. You seem to think it's all wrapped up. It's not. 

Edited July 4, 2016 by Guard Dog

[BruceVC]

 

 

 

 

Well the "bash Bruce" horse has been beaten to death... let's get back to business shall we?

 

Apparently Hillary didn't just want to destroy records of who she was communicating with and what was said, she also wanted to destroy records of who she met with: http://nypost.com/2016/07/04/huma-abedin-admits-that-clinton-burned-daily-schedules/

 

It's getting harder to dismiss all this as nothing. Even if nothing else comes of this she willingly and knowingly destroyed documents that were the property of the United States. Having been in the Military and having worked for the government a few times I can tell you for a fact that, while you probably won't go to jail for doing that, you better believe you would be fired and barred from ever working for the government again in any capacity.

I would like to get to the bottom of this whole email scandal because many people do share your view and I also want clarity 

 

For me if she intentionally deleted data that would incriminate her of course I wouldn't ignore this and I would stop supporting her

 

But the evidence just doesn't support this, now I  will go into more details so  my point is clear. So take a look at this link and tell me what you dont agree with if you dont mind 

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/03/27/politics/hillary-clinton-personal-email-server/index.html

 

There is no question in my mind she is covering up something criminal. She had those servers professionally wiped. You are more than familiar with IT, you know what that means. And she only did that AFTER she lost in court and was compelled to turn them over. This IS a cover up. No questions about it. Now WHAT is being covered up is a question. I think, my opinion only, the deleted documents refer to donations made to the Clinton Foundation from foreign interests who received favorable treatment from the State Dept during her tenure.

 

Then there is this quote: "But she "has maintained and preserved copies" of work-related, or potentially work-related emails she turned over to the State Department late last year." So we are to accept the word of a potential criminal defendant that the evidence they destroyed was not germane to their case? Only in the Democrat Party would that fly.

 

Here is a homework assignment for you Bruce. Do a little reading about a business called Uranium One and how it came into being and then tell me if you think everything is above board on that.

 

Okay but lets focus on one thing at a time if you dont mind so we can create  a  foundation of common agreement 

 

So based on the link I posted do you agree

 

• She handed over 55,000 emails and 30, 000 she said could be for public viewing
• She also admitted deleting only personal emails which is fine

 

Now I'm not sure if you aware but when people delete data it can  normally always be recovered using data recovery software 

 

 

Here is a link explaining this 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/23/us/politics/investigators-find-emails-hillary-clinton-said-were-erased.html?_r=0

 

 

So the  FBI was able to view all data she attempted  to  delete and they found nothing incriminating? 

 

Professionally wiped Bruce. She didn't "right-click-delete". The data on those servers, that I will remind you was the property of the United States, was professionally destroyed.  

 

As for the e-mails she handed over we now have only her word that was all the "work" e-mails she had. Let's say I was the number one suspect in a murder that was committed using a caliber of weapon I was known to own. Now let's I was compelled to surrender that weapon for testing and I fought hard not to do it. And when I did the police found I had replaced the barrel and firing pin. Would that arouse any suspicions?

 

Another thing Bruce, the FBI has made no recommendations yet. This is an ongoing investigation. You seem to think it's all wrapped up. It's not. 

 

Okay so just to add something important, I mentioned to you I work with eDiscovery software for living. So we sell, consult and implement this software for corporations mostly in the financial sector. This doesnt  make me an expert on what Hilary did and why but I do understand the  correct legal and technical requirements 

 

So in this case a couple of facts about how these things technically work ...you can decide if they relevant 

 

• For me, you and about 99 % of the world it would be impossible for us to delete data completely from any disk drive. The reality is there are expensive solutions that can be used to recover most data because there is residual resonance left on the magnetic disk drive or solid state drive always.This is not data that can be read by a PC but for example the best data recovery solutions will freeze a disk in liquid nitrogen and then they can use  a laser to recover that data. I have seen this, so unless Hilary knew some hardcore developers or hackers and I mean hardcore any data she deleted thinking it was gone was merely inaccessible to computer technology. But not the FBI who would have been pedantic about getting this back
• Also the method I mentioned is not 100 % full proof but with email audits you can always see missing data as there are obvious gaps in the sequence of email flow. So for example lets say she didnt delete the data but actually copied if off ( which is always the better way ) the FBI would have noticed certain gaps where there was no email. It is actually obvious when you use  software that allows you to see the chain of custody of email flow 

 

So in closing I still cannot assume she lied or intentionally deleted data to cover up wrong doing because it would have honestly been recoverable ?

[Wrath of Dagon]

This whole discussion will probably become moot once the FBI announces their findings, which hopefully will be soon.

[Blarghagh]

In more serious matters, this website exists and singlehandidly turns this election into something other than a massive waste of time between two rich morons who answer to richer morons: http://trumpdonald.org/

[Bartimaeus]

FBI Director is having a press conference to announce something very likely related to the Clinton case in half an hour. Based on the fact that it's a public press conference (an unusual format for this sort of thing), I am guessing there will be no indictment. Regardless, we'll know something soon! Knowing our luck, this is probably just an announcement of an announcement of an announcement.

[Guard Dog]

It looks like Trump's VP candidate list is down to four. Here is my take for those who care to read it:

 

• New Gingrich: Former speaker of the House & Congressman from Georgia. Pro: Smart, expert on handling Congress. Most of his dirty laundry is already common knowledge. Con: That dirty laundry is pretty bad. While he's never been accused of anything criminal he's certainly a heartless SOB who makes Trump look like Santa Claus by comparison. But that may be the point.
• Mike Pence: Governor of Indiana. Pro: "Little r" Republican. Considered a moderate. Both fiscally & socially conservative but more of a "non interventionist" internationally. Was in favor of a spending limit on Congress and opposed NAFTA & TPP. CON: Who is he again?
• Chris Christie: Governor of New Jersey. Pro: He's well known, no surprises and might put New Jersey in play. Considered to be a capable politician but he's on the outs with the "establishment". Con: Ne's got a big mouth and often sticks his foot in it. He's like Trump in a size 46 jacket. Pro Gun Control makes him a hard sell to the south & west and Trump will need them all.
• Joni Ernst: Senator from Iowa. Pro: Army National Guard & Iraq War veteran. Very smart and capable and can give a great speech. She is the rising star of the republican senate and is a future Presidential candidate. Con: Still in her first term of public office so experience is a factor.

 

I am a fan of Joni Ernst but that's still Donald Trump on top of the ticket so it would not change my vote. But any of these other than Gingrich would be a solid choice. Gingrich would be a mistake. Probably a fatal one.

[Guard Dog]

So that's that. The FBI has determined Clinton was stupid and reckless but did not "intentionally" attempt to cover up or hide anything or jeopardize the security of the country.

 

For what it's worth I'm satisfied.

[Bartimaeus]

Yep, just as I said: mentioned gross negligence on her part and her staff in various ways, but no recommendation to indict. Ah well. Trump 2016!

Edited July 5, 2016 by Bartimaeus

[Leferd]

FBI Director James Comey on Clinton email investigation: "Our judgement is no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

[Raithe]

[Volourn]

https://twitter.com/ameeritalsham/status/748294518743699456

 

 

L0L bruce loves Hilary and loves Obama. Obama is buddies with iran while Clinton wants to DESTROY them.  Who to side with? Hmmm...

[Wrath of Dagon]

So gross negligence that causes harm to national security is no longer a crime?

[Nonek]

 

Pardon me for not really paying attention (its not really my business,) but these two clowns surely aren't your only options are they?

[Guard Dog]

So gross negligence that causes harm to national security is no longer a crime?

Yep! When I fill out my tax return next year and don't report all my income the IRS will just say "It was gross negligence but you didn't 'intend' to defraud the government. We won't charge you" right?

[Bartimaeus]

Yeah, based on how he went on and on about saying that there was no way a person could've reasonably done what she had done without knowing it to be negligent, I actually thought it was going to be a recommendation to indict. I mean, how does saying something like that not lead one to believing an indiction would be out of place?

Edited July 5, 2016 by Bartimaeus