GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:
if you want anyone to take you seriously, yes, I'd stop linking to Fox and the lesser spots for news. I have no idea why you keep posting the above and the likes. It does nothing for me

Martin, you are again just skipping over the issue. Delete FOX from the equation. You have the wikileaks email right there.
There is again, a conflict of interests.

you posted an email exchange about 2 different people making dinner arrangements...?

WTF is that supposed to show?

"Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik appears to have given Clinton advisor John Podesta a ‘heads up’ that Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails would be discussed at a House Judiciary Committee meeting, according to a new batch of Wikileaks emails released Tuesday."
How can their be impartiality here. Ring a bell?

someone sent someone else an email....? And?

When was this? And what's wrong about it? And why aren't you posting a link to the sources of this?

Kadzik who is the Assistant Attorney General, is investigating Hillary BUT he gave Podesta a warning about Hillary's email servers being investigated (short email here: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150.

There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division
will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another
filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that
indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the
emails.

And then there is the famous Podesta quote of Kadzik being a great lawyer and keeping him out of jail, see below. The connection is a bit ongoing, the dinner email I linked before, etc.
There can be no impartiality in an investigation such as Kadzik's of Clinton, in part because he already gave a warning to Podesta regarding the email investigation.
That is a personal relationship we see. And the connections don't stop there. It really looks like one big corrupt network.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/793285558487412736

Again, what law did Podesta or Kadzik break?

Inviting him to dinner? No law was broken.

When leaking info to Podesta about the DOJ investigation into the emails, i am not sure if a law was broken.

You seem to be getting hung up thinking the emails are full of crimes being committed, and if not, they are worthless.

In this case, the emails do not necessarily show laws broken. What they DO show is that Podesta and Kadzik have a history.

-They went to college together (Georgetown Law)
-They have dinner together
-KAdzik kept Podesta "out of jail" as per Podesta's email.
-Kadzik was Podesta's lawyer during the Lewinsky scandal
-They worked on the Marc Rich pardon together (another scandal of the WJC administration). - not in emails this in the FBI released docs about the Rich case
-Kadzik gave Podesta a heads up about the initial email investigation

-Kadzik is now in charge on the latest DOJ investigation into the emails.

Nothing to see here, just two old buddies helping each other out, right?

Sure that is possible but if that is the case, then be ethical and recuse yourself.

They have a long history together. It seems rather obvious to me, that Kadzik is too close to Podesta to be the lead on a case that involves Podesta's boss and Podesta's emails too. Hey but that's me. You can choose to not see it.

But if all you can say is that it might be criminal or might not be, then that's too ambiguous to justify anyone changing their votes. There's plenty of "might be criminal or might not be" stories for Trump too. Unless you have something that is undoubtedly criminal, then what you're posting can easily be counterbalanced by stories about Trump too.

Counter balance all you like. I am all for everyone making as informed decision as possible.

OK, fair enough then. Counterbalancing would have to weigh Hillary's e-mail server and Podesta e-mails like this one above against Trump's upcoming fraud and child rape trials, 73 other lawsuits, and sexual assault confession. I'd have to question anyone's motives if they thought Hillary's e-mails were more serious than the concerns about Trump.

Again, HRC email server is a national security issue. The FBI just said as many as 5 foreign entities hacked it. We know there was classified info on it. Its a matter of breaking the law as SOS of the US. Podesta's emails show how the operations work and how the mainstream media participates.

Trump's rape trial is a civil lawsuit not a criminal case. That being said, if there is evidence that comes out that shows he did what is claimed, he should be locked up.

I do not know what the other 73 lawsuits are. I am surprised that are so many. It seems to me that an even an ethical business man would have some lawsuits against them but not that many.

The NBC video is disturbing. He makes claims that he did it on tape and then walked that back under the guise of bragging. While it may have been bragging, it also could have been real. At this point there is no way of knowing for sure. Watching Trump and how he acts, I can see how someone would take that next step and conclude that he has done it before.

Bonn1997 wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:
if you want anyone to take you seriously, yes, I'd stop linking to Fox and the lesser spots for news. I have no idea why you keep posting the above and the likes. It does nothing for me

Martin, you are again just skipping over the issue. Delete FOX from the equation. You have the wikileaks email right there.
There is again, a conflict of interests.

you posted an email exchange about 2 different people making dinner arrangements...?

WTF is that supposed to show?

"Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik appears to have given Clinton advisor John Podesta a ‘heads up’ that Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails would be discussed at a House Judiciary Committee meeting, according to a new batch of Wikileaks emails released Tuesday."
How can their be impartiality here. Ring a bell?

someone sent someone else an email....? And?

When was this? And what's wrong about it? And why aren't you posting a link to the sources of this?

Kadzik who is the Assistant Attorney General, is investigating Hillary BUT he gave Podesta a warning about Hillary's email servers being investigated (short email here: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150.

There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division
will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another
filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that
indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the
emails.

And then there is the famous Podesta quote of Kadzik being a great lawyer and keeping him out of jail, see below. The connection is a bit ongoing, the dinner email I linked before, etc.
There can be no impartiality in an investigation such as Kadzik's of Clinton, in part because he already gave a warning to Podesta regarding the email investigation.
That is a personal relationship we see. And the connections don't stop there. It really looks like one big corrupt network.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/793285558487412736

Again, what law did Podesta or Kadzik break?

Inviting him to dinner? No law was broken.

When leaking info to Podesta about the DOJ investigation into the emails, i am not sure if a law was broken.

You seem to be getting hung up thinking the emails are full of crimes being committed, and if not, they are worthless.

In this case, the emails do not necessarily show laws broken. What they DO show is that Podesta and Kadzik have a history.

-They went to college together (Georgetown Law)
-They have dinner together
-KAdzik kept Podesta "out of jail" as per Podesta's email.
-Kadzik was Podesta's lawyer during the Lewinsky scandal
-They worked on the Marc Rich pardon together (another scandal of the WJC administration). - not in emails this in the FBI released docs about the Rich case
-Kadzik gave Podesta a heads up about the initial email investigation

-Kadzik is now in charge on the latest DOJ investigation into the emails.

Nothing to see here, just two old buddies helping each other out, right?

Sure that is possible but if that is the case, then be ethical and recuse yourself.

They have a long history together. It seems rather obvious to me, that Kadzik is too close to Podesta to be the lead on a case that involves Podesta's boss and Podesta's emails too. Hey but that's me. You can choose to not see it.

But if all you can say is that it might be criminal or might not be, then that's too ambiguous to justify anyone changing their votes. There's plenty of "might be criminal or might not be" stories for Trump too. Unless you have something that is undoubtedly criminal, then what you're posting can easily be counterbalanced by stories about Trump too.

Counter balance all you like. I am all for everyone making as informed decision as possible.

OK, fair enough then. Counterbalancing would have to weigh Hillary's e-mail server and Podesta e-mails like this one above against Trump's upcoming fraud and child rape trials, 73 other lawsuits, and sexual assault confession. I'd have to question anyone's motives if they thought Hillary's e-mails were more serious than the concerns about Trump.

Again, HRC email server is a national security issue. The FBI just said as many as 5 foreign entities hacked it. We know there was classified info on it. Its a matter of breaking the law as SOS of the US. Podesta's emails show how the operations work and how the mainstream media participates.

Trump's rape trial is a civil lawsuit not a criminal case. That being said, if there is evidence that comes out that shows he did what is claimed, he should be locked up.

I do not know what the other 73 lawsuits are. I am surprised that are so many. It seems to me that an even an ethical business man would have some lawsuits against them but not that many.

The NBC video is disturbing. He makes claims that he did it on tape and then walked that back under the guise of bragging. While it may have been bragging, it also could have been real. At this point there is no way of knowing for sure. Watching Trump and how he acts, I can see how someone would take that next step and conclude that he has done it before.

Well, the server is at best a *potential* national security issue, not a proven security issue. But when Donald Trump says things like "I love war" and "you want to be unpredictable" (when asked about use of nuclear weapons), it has be be considered a bigger national security issue.

Is there any truth to the 100 federal officers who wanted to resign over these e-mails? There has to be some significance here, if that story is true...

- Doesn't seem like y'all mean this was an official FBI report. So this was a leak? From an unnamed source I imagine? Why should I trust it?
- What agencies? Foreign, domestic, or a combination? If foreign, what countries?
- Got link?

Thanks!

I personally couldn't ever be President because my moral compass would go haywire leading the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the armed forces. Espionage is fun and sexy to watch in the movies but the reality is much grimmer.

I guess what I'm saying is I empathize with your outrage at the machinations of the Clinton camp in general, even if I disagree with the accuracy of some of your specific accusations. And maybe I'm just trying to justify a vote for Clinton because like we discussed, I'm much more afraid of Trump's domestic policy and white Christian nationalist enabling than I am of Clinton's war hawk tendencies (which I hope are checked by her allies to her left).

A lot of these Washington people are all buddy buddy, no doubt. They pretend they are mortal enemies in public and then go to the bar together afterwards like WWF wrestlers after a match. I guess I'm wondering what your bigger point is. I know Hillary scares you yet you aren't going to vote. So what is your prescription? What do you see as your ideal way forward?

I just want to move away from the meme du jour and image macros and try to have some more constructive conversation. Thanks.

DrAlphaeus wrote:Is there any truth to the report twice repeated here that the FBI say 5 intelligence agencies hacked Hillary's server? Because I have some questions:

- Doesn't seem like y'all mean this was an official FBI report. So this was a leak? From an unnamed source I imagine? Why should I trust it?
- What agencies? Foreign, domestic, or a combination? If foreign, what countries?
- Got link?

Thanks!

It came from Brett Baier of Fox News as far as I can tell. He cited FBI sources. It is Not official for sure. So with that in mind, there is no official proof it was hacked.

Here is a link to a report on what he reported:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/11/02/fbi_sources_tell_fox_news_indictment_likely_in_clinton_foundation_case.html

The second video references the hack.

Nalod wrote:Has HRC compromised the safety of the of the country? of so, was it intentional?
Motive.

Bush and Chaney deleted 22 million emails. Grow up folks, there is precedent.
Republicans with house majority abuses the power instead of governing.

I dont want to grow up!

I think it is fair to say she has. An unsecured server with classified docs is one part of it. Deleting emails after subpoena is also a violation of the law and that if that is true than she is trying to be above the law which compromises our democracy. This is how I look at it.

Additionally, she has allegedly sold access to foreign govts by accepting milliions in donations for her and WJC's personal benefit. There is no telling what promises were made or favors were done in return. This is the pay to play and CF part of it. Once you know you are getting $$ for favors it is intentional.

I know that in your opinion, there is not enough proof yet. I can understand and respect that.

There is allegedly more to come, we will see. Some are saying that Bush's and Clinton's are partners in some of the stuff that may come out. If so, the Bush's should go down too.

Please share link and any information you have on the Bush/Cheney deletions.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Nalod wrote:Has HRC compromised the safety of the of the country? of so, was it intentional?
Motive.

Bush and Chaney deleted 22 million emails. Grow up folks, there is precedent.
Republicans with house majority abuses the power instead of governing.

I dont want to grow up!

I think it is fair to say she has. An unsecured server with classified docs is one part of it. Deleting emails after subpoena is also a violation of the law and that if that is true than she is trying to be above the law which compromises our democracy. This is how I look at it.

Additionally, she has allegedly sold access to foreign govts by accepting milliions in donations for her and WJC's personal benefit. There is no telling what promises were made or favors were done in return. This is the pay to play and CF part of it. Once you know you are getting $$ for favors it is intentional.

I know that in your opinion, there is not enough proof yet. I can understand and respect that.

There is allegedly more to come, we will see. Some are saying that Bush's and Clinton's are partners in some of the stuff that may come out. If so, the Bush's should go down too.

Please share link and any information you have on the Bush/Cheney deletions.

So this is weird part for me and I have expressed this before.

Our whole political process is built on pay for play. Corporations donate to politicians all the time. They also donate to political action parties. In turn, those politicians let corporations literally write laws for them. This is commonplace and happens all the time, no one hides this.

For example, the oil industry and the NRA owns politicians. They literally hand over written laws to the politicians they donate to; literal pay for play.

The Clintons have one of the more respected charities out there. For sure they personally meet and get money from a wide variety of US based and non US based people, as do a TON of charities and the people that are associated with them. When a charity receives money, is there an automatic assumption of pay for play?

If we feel that the Clintons or ANY political member should NOT be part of a Charity because of a whiff of pay for play, then EVERY member of our political system should be banned from charities.

Lots and lots of former presidents have received money to build libraries. Are they shady for just accepting the money?

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Nalod wrote:Has HRC compromised the safety of the of the country? of so, was it intentional?
Motive.

Bush and Chaney deleted 22 million emails. Grow up folks, there is precedent.
Republicans with house majority abuses the power instead of governing.

I dont want to grow up!

I think it is fair to say she has. An unsecured server with classified docs is one part of it. Deleting emails after subpoena is also a violation of the law and that if that is true than she is trying to be above the law which compromises our democracy. This is how I look at it.

Additionally, she has allegedly sold access to foreign govts by accepting milliions in donations for her and WJC's personal benefit. There is no telling what promises were made or favors were done in return. This is the pay to play and CF part of it. Once you know you are getting $$ for favors it is intentional.

I know that in your opinion, there is not enough proof yet. I can understand and respect that.

There is allegedly more to come, we will see. Some are saying that Bush's and Clinton's are partners in some of the stuff that may come out. If so, the Bush's should go down too.

Please share link and any information you have on the Bush/Cheney deletions.

I found this on Snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/g-w-bush-lost-22-million-e-mails/

ooodles of stories:

http://www.newsweek.com/2016/09/23/george-w-bush-white-house-lost-22-million-emails-497373.html

Clinton’s email habits look positively transparent when compared with the subpoena-dodging, email-hiding, private-server-using George W. Bush administration. Between 2003 and 2009, the Bush White House “lost” 22 million emails. This correspondence included millions of emails written during the darkest period in America’s recent history, when the Bush administration was ginning up support for what turned out to be a disastrous war in Iraq with false claims that the country possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD), and, later, when it was firing U.S. attorneys for political reasons.

Like Clinton, the Bush White House used a private email server—its was owned by the Republican National Committee. And the Bush administration failed to store its emails, as required by law, and then refused to comply with a congressional subpoena seeking some of those emails. “It’s about as amazing a double standard as you can get,” says Eric Boehlert, who works with the pro-Clinton group Media Matters. “If you look at the Bush emails, he was a sitting president, and 95 percent of his chief advisers’ emails were on a private email system set up by the RNC. Imagine if for the last year and a half we had been talking about Hillary Clinton’s emails set up on a private DNC server?”

gr33d wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

martin wrote:
if you want anyone to take you seriously, yes, I'd stop linking to Fox and the lesser spots for news. I have no idea why you keep posting the above and the likes. It does nothing for me

Martin, you are again just skipping over the issue. Delete FOX from the equation. You have the wikileaks email right there.
There is again, a conflict of interests.

you posted an email exchange about 2 different people making dinner arrangements...?

WTF is that supposed to show?

"Assistant Attorney General Peter Kadzik appears to have given Clinton advisor John Podesta a ‘heads up’ that Hillary Clinton’s State Department emails would be discussed at a House Judiciary Committee meeting, according to a new batch of Wikileaks emails released Tuesday."
How can their be impartiality here. Ring a bell?

someone sent someone else an email....? And?

When was this? And what's wrong about it? And why aren't you posting a link to the sources of this?

Kadzik who is the Assistant Attorney General, is investigating Hillary BUT he gave Podesta a warning about Hillary's email servers being investigated (short email here: https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/43150.

There is a HJC oversight hearing today where the head of our Civil Division
will testify. Likely to get questions on State Department emails. Another
filing in the FOIA case went in last night or will go in this am that
indicates it will be awhile (2016) before the State Department posts the
emails.

And then there is the famous Podesta quote of Kadzik being a great lawyer and keeping him out of jail, see below. The connection is a bit ongoing, the dinner email I linked before, etc.
There can be no impartiality in an investigation such as Kadzik's of Clinton, in part because he already gave a warning to Podesta regarding the email investigation.
That is a personal relationship we see. And the connections don't stop there. It really looks like one big corrupt network.

Tweet was deleted or there was problem with the URL:

https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/793285558487412736

Again, what law did Podesta or Kadzik break?

Inviting him to dinner? No law was broken.

When leaking info to Podesta about the DOJ investigation into the emails, i am not sure if a law was broken.

You seem to be getting hung up thinking the emails are full of crimes being committed, and if not, they are worthless.

In this case, the emails do not necessarily show laws broken. What they DO show is that Podesta and Kadzik have a history.

-They went to college together (Georgetown Law)
-They have dinner together
-KAdzik kept Podesta "out of jail" as per Podesta's email.
-Kadzik was Podesta's lawyer during the Lewinsky scandal
-They worked on the Marc Rich pardon together (another scandal of the WJC administration). - not in emails this in the FBI released docs about the Rich case
-Kadzik gave Podesta a heads up about the initial email investigation

-Kadzik is now in charge on the latest DOJ investigation into the emails.

Nothing to see here, just two old buddies helping each other out, right?

Sure that is possible but if that is the case, then be ethical and recuse yourself.

They have a long history together. It seems rather obvious to me, that Kadzik is too close to Podesta to be the lead on a case that involves Podesta's boss and Podesta's emails too. Hey but that's me. You can choose to not see it.

But if all you can say is that it might be criminal or might not be, then that's too ambiguous to justify anyone changing their votes. There's plenty of "might be criminal or might not be" stories for Trump too. Unless you have something that is undoubtedly criminal, then what you're posting can easily be counterbalanced by stories about Trump too.

Counter balance all you like. I am all for everyone making as informed decision as possible.

OK, fair enough then. Counterbalancing would have to weigh Hillary's e-mail server and Podesta e-mails like this one above against Trump's upcoming fraud and child rape trials, 73 other lawsuits, and sexual assault confession. I'd have to question anyone's motives if they thought Hillary's e-mails were more serious than the concerns about Trump.

Again, HRC email server is a national security issue. The FBI just said as many as 5 foreign entities hacked it. We know there was classified info on it. Its a matter of breaking the law as SOS of the US. Podesta's emails show how the operations work and how the mainstream media participates.

Trump's rape trial is a civil lawsuit not a criminal case. That being said, if there is evidence that comes out that shows he did what is claimed, he should be locked up.

I do not know what the other 73 lawsuits are. I am surprised that are so many. It seems to me that an even an ethical business man would have some lawsuits against them but not that many.

The NBC video is disturbing. He makes claims that he did it on tape and then walked that back under the guise of bragging. While it may have been bragging, it also could have been real. At this point there is no way of knowing for sure. Watching Trump and how he acts, I can see how someone would take that next step and conclude that he has done it before.

Well, the server is at best a *potential* national security issue, not a proven security issue. But when Donald Trump says things like "I love war" and "you want to be unpredictable" (when asked about use of nuclear weapons), it has be be considered a bigger national security issue.

Is there any truth to the 100 federal officers who wanted to resign over these e-mails? There has to be some significance here, if that story is true...