DrAlphaeus wrote:Earthmansurfer, thanks for the thoughtful response to my questions upthread. Now back to combat!

You also repeated this "at least 5 intelligence agencies" nugget. At the time I tried to run down the truth behind that, I couldn't find any details other than they were foreign. Is there any more details about this like what countries and details of the hacks? Or is this just Brett Baier's "with 99% accuracy" hearsay so people pay attention to him over there at Fox?

You're welcome. Wish I could have given it a better response. But after trying 10 times or so, I just went with the flow and let the cards fall as they may.

Regarding "combat", I found the original quote to be (I believe) from news host Bret Baier (FOX). All the quotes I found on it (so far), reference him.

“We learned there is a confidence from these sources that [Clinton’s] server had been hacked,” Baeir said. “And that it was about a 99% accuracy that it had been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and they believe that things had been taken from that.”

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:The Clinton-Attorney General Loretta Lynch relationship alone should be enough to keep Hillary far away from Washington. Even Kardashian watchers should know better

The relationship???..Did something happen??..I'm going to assume nothing happen other than the meet on the tarmac with Bill Clinton..You are more concerned about that than Putin's and Trump's bromance...

Not sure, but maybe he is talking about Bill Clinton miraculously bumping into Lynch at the airport, which is now a lawsuit.
ACLJ Sues Justice Dept. Over Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch Meeting on Airport Tarmac http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/law-justice-freedom-of/2016/11/02/id/756723/

And most recently there is the relationship that GoNyGoNyGo clearly pointed out between Podesta and Kadzik.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:
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, I would really be wondering just what the FBI found on Huma Abaden's phone, regarding the Weiner "situation", to re-open the investigation into Hillary.
It HAS TO BE BIG. The email stuff is small potato's (for Clinton).

Remember:
Hillary deleted thousands of emails after the State Department asked for them - AFTER! And then she used "Bleach Bit" to clean the servers professionally! But back in July/August Comey said she didn't have bad intent! lol Again, what changed his mind? You can't make this stuff up.

Some of those emails had been categorized as:
68 of 81 remain classified, 8 were top secret, 37 were secret, 36 were confidential.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

And now it comes out that 5 or so foreign intelligence agencies hacked the server. Wow, She can go to prison just on National Security grounds.

ps - Hope you enjoyed the links Bonn.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/forum.asp?f=2
You're an exception in that you do post links. I'll give you credit for that though they're always one sided stories. Trump has lawsuits against him too. It's not like Hillary is the only one with legal uncertainty.

Just to be clear, the FBI did not characterize this as "re-opening" the case. That's how the Republicans spun it. They're just reading e-mails, after which, I assume they'll decide whether to re-open the case or not.

Yeah but he doesn't acknowledge or accept facts...

You mean like you just didn't or do you have a specific example?

Yeah like you claiming Hillary and the US planned the invasion of Libya and ignored the generals and I showed you that it was France and the UK like 3 times and you still claim it was Hillary...

You can't say "it was France and the UK..." and just discount the fact that it was also the US with Hillary's help.
It is well accepted that Hillary was a driving force for the invasion. I'm not putting it all on her, but I'm definitely not giving France "sole credit" either.

But it was France, Lebanon and the U.K. that sponsored UN Security Council resolution 1973. It passed with no objections and 5 (not 3 sorry) abstentions. So what part does that have to play?

(and Holfresh)
Hillary was strongly involved getting the US to bomb. It was an article by Scott Shane of the NY times. Not sure if it was this one or not - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/libya-isis-hillary-clinton.html

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:The Clinton-Attorney General Loretta Lynch relationship alone should be enough to keep Hillary far away from Washington. Even Kardashian watchers should know better

The relationship???..Did something happen??..I'm going to assume nothing happen other than the meet on the tarmac with Bill Clinton..You are more concerned about that than Putin's and Trump's bromance...

Not sure, but maybe he is talking about Bill Clinton miraculously bumping into Lynch at the airport, which is now a lawsuit.
ACLJ Sues Justice Dept. Over Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch Meeting on Airport Tarmac http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/law-justice-freedom-of/2016/11/02/id/756723/

And most recently there is the relationship that GoNyGoNyGo clearly pointed out between Podesta and Kadzik.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:
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, I would really be wondering just what the FBI found on Huma Abaden's phone, regarding the Weiner "situation", to re-open the investigation into Hillary.
It HAS TO BE BIG. The email stuff is small potato's (for Clinton).

Remember:
Hillary deleted thousands of emails after the State Department asked for them - AFTER! And then she used "Bleach Bit" to clean the servers professionally! But back in July/August Comey said she didn't have bad intent! lol Again, what changed his mind? You can't make this stuff up.

Some of those emails had been categorized as:
68 of 81 remain classified, 8 were top secret, 37 were secret, 36 were confidential.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

And now it comes out that 5 or so foreign intelligence agencies hacked the server. Wow, She can go to prison just on National Security grounds.

ps - Hope you enjoyed the links Bonn.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/forum.asp?f=2
You're an exception in that you do post links. I'll give you credit for that though they're always one sided stories. Trump has lawsuits against him too. It's not like Hillary is the only one with legal uncertainty.

Just to be clear, the FBI did not characterize this as "re-opening" the case. That's how the Republicans spun it. They're just reading e-mails, after which, I assume they'll decide whether to re-open the case or not.

Yeah but he doesn't acknowledge or accept facts...

You mean like you just didn't or do you have a specific example?

Yeah like you claiming Hillary and the US planned the invasion of Libya and ignored the generals and I showed you that it was France and the UK like 3 times and you still claim it was Hillary...

You can't say "it was France and the UK..." and just discount the fact that it was also the US with Hillary's help.
It is well accepted that Hillary was a driving force for the invasion. I'm not putting it all on her, but I'm definitely not giving France "sole credit" either.

But it was France, Lebanon and the U.K. that sponsored UN Security Council resolution 1973. It passed with no objections and 5 (not 3 sorry) abstentions. So what part does that have to play?

(and Holfresh)
Hillary was strongly involved getting the US to bomb. It was an article by Scott Shane of the NY times. Not sure if it was this one or not - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/libya-isis-hillary-clinton.html

She pushed involvement in a war weary rebel-skeptic administration? I accept that. She pushed bombing? I need more.

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:The Clinton-Attorney General Loretta Lynch relationship alone should be enough to keep Hillary far away from Washington. Even Kardashian watchers should know better

The relationship???..Did something happen??..I'm going to assume nothing happen other than the meet on the tarmac with Bill Clinton..You are more concerned about that than Putin's and Trump's bromance...

Not sure, but maybe he is talking about Bill Clinton miraculously bumping into Lynch at the airport, which is now a lawsuit.
ACLJ Sues Justice Dept. Over Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch Meeting on Airport Tarmac http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/law-justice-freedom-of/2016/11/02/id/756723/

And most recently there is the relationship that GoNyGoNyGo clearly pointed out between Podesta and Kadzik.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:
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, I would really be wondering just what the FBI found on Huma Abaden's phone, regarding the Weiner "situation", to re-open the investigation into Hillary.
It HAS TO BE BIG. The email stuff is small potato's (for Clinton).

Remember:
Hillary deleted thousands of emails after the State Department asked for them - AFTER! And then she used "Bleach Bit" to clean the servers professionally! But back in July/August Comey said she didn't have bad intent! lol Again, what changed his mind? You can't make this stuff up.

Some of those emails had been categorized as:
68 of 81 remain classified, 8 were top secret, 37 were secret, 36 were confidential.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

And now it comes out that 5 or so foreign intelligence agencies hacked the server. Wow, She can go to prison just on National Security grounds.

ps - Hope you enjoyed the links Bonn.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/forum.asp?f=2
You're an exception in that you do post links. I'll give you credit for that though they're always one sided stories. Trump has lawsuits against him too. It's not like Hillary is the only one with legal uncertainty.

Just to be clear, the FBI did not characterize this as "re-opening" the case. That's how the Republicans spun it. They're just reading e-mails, after which, I assume they'll decide whether to re-open the case or not.

Yeah but he doesn't acknowledge or accept facts...

You mean like you just didn't or do you have a specific example?

Yeah like you claiming Hillary and the US planned the invasion of Libya and ignored the generals and I showed you that it was France and the UK like 3 times and you still claim it was Hillary...

You can't say "it was France and the UK..." and just discount the fact that it was also the US with Hillary's help.
It is well accepted that Hillary was a driving force for the invasion. I'm not putting it all on her, but I'm definitely not giving France "sole credit" either.

Again the chronological order of events in Libya...

Chronology

21 February 2011: Libyan deputy Permanent Representative to the UN Ibrahim Dabbashi called "on the UN to impose a no-fly zone on all Tripoli to cut off all supplies of arms and mercenaries to the regime."[40]
23 February 2011: French President Nicolas Sarkozy pushed for the European Union (EU) to pass sanctions against Gaddafi (freezing Gaddafi family funds abroad) and demand he stop attacks against civilians.
25 February 2011: Sarkozy said Gaddafi "must go."[55]
26 February 2011: United Nations Security Council Resolution 1970 was passed unanimously, referring the Libyan government to the International Criminal Court for gross human rights violations. It imposed an arms embargo on the country and a travel ban and assets freeze on the family of Muammar Al-Qadhafi and certain Government officials.[56]
28 February 2011: British Prime Minister David Cameron proposed the idea of a no-fly zone to prevent Gaddafi from "airlifting mercenaries" and "using his military aeroplanes and armoured helicopters against civilians."[45]
1 March 2011: The US Senate unanimously passed non-binding Senate resolution S.RES.85 urging the United Nations Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone and encouraging Gaddafi to step down. The US had naval forces positioned off the coast of Libya, as well as forces already in the region, including the aircraft carrier USS Enterprise.[57]
2 March 2011: The Governor General of Canada-in-Council authorised, on the advice of Prime Minister of Canada Stephen Harper, the deployment of the Royal Canadian Navy frigate HMCS Charlottetown to the Mediterranean, off the coast of Libya.[58] Canadian National Defence Minister Peter MacKay stated that "[w]e are there for all inevitabilities. And NATO is looking at this as well ... This is taken as a precautionary and staged measure."[57]
7 March 2011: US Ambassador to NATO Ivo Daalder announced that NATO decided to step up surveillance missions of E-3 AWACS aircraft to twenty-four hours a day. On the same day, it was reported that an anonymous UN diplomat confirmed to Agence France Presse that France and Britain were drawing up a resolution on the no-fly zone that would be considered by the UN Security Council during the same week.[44] The Gulf Cooperation Council also on that day called upon the UN Security Council to "take all necessary measures to protect civilians, including enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya."
9 March 2011: The head of the Libyan National Transitional Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, "pleaded for the international community to move quickly to impose a no-fly zone over Libya, declaring that any delay would result in more casualties."[41] Three days later, he stated that if pro-Gaddafi forces reached Benghazi, then they would kill "half a million" people. He stated, "If there is no no-fly zone imposed on Gaddafi's regime, and his ships are not checked, we will have a catastrophe in Libya."[42]
10 March 2011: France recognized the Libyan NTC as the legitimate government of Libya soon after Sarkozy met with them in Paris. This meeting was arranged by Bernard-Henri Lévy.[59]
11 March 2011: Cameron joined forces with Sarkozy after Sarkozy demanded immediate action from international community for a no-fly zone against air attacks by Gaddafi.[60]
12 March 2011: The Arab League "called on the United Nations Security Council to impose a no-fly zone over Libya in a bid to protect civilians from air attack."[49][50][51][61] The Arab League's request was announced by Omani Foreign Minister Yusuf bin Alawi bin Abdullah, who stated that all member states present at the meeting agreed with the proposal.[49] On 12 March, thousands of Libyan women marched in the streets of the rebel-held town of Benghazi, calling for the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya.[43]
14 March 2011: In Paris at the Élysée Palace, before the summit with the G8 Minister for Foreign Affairs, Sarkozy, who is also the president of the G8, along with French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and pressed her to push for intervention in Libya.[62]

File:US Supports No-Fly Zone Against Libya.ogvPlay media
VOA News report on the United States joining Lebanon, France and United Kingdom to support the no-fly zone.

15 March 2011: A resolution for a no-fly zone was proposed by Nawaf Salam, Lebanon's Ambassador to the UN. The resolution was immediately backed by France and the United Kingdom.[63]
17 March 2011: The UN Security Council, acting under the authority of Chapter VII of the UN Charter, approved a no-fly zone by a vote of ten in favour, zero against, and five abstentions, via United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. The five abstentions were: Brazil, Russia, India, China, and Germany.[52][53][54][64][65] Less than twenty-four hours later, Libya announced that it would halt all military operations in response to the UN Security Council resolution.[66][67]

Libyan anti-government rebels, 1 March 2011

18 March 2011: The Libyan foreign minister, Moussa Koussa, said that he had declared a ceasefire, attributing the UN resolution.[68] However, artillery shelling on Misrata and Ajdabiya continued, and government soldiers continued approaching Benghazi.[20][69] Government troops and tanks entered the city on 19 March.[70] Artillery and mortars were also fired into the city.[71] US President Barack Obama held a meeting with eighteen senior lawmakers at the White House on the afternoon of 18 March[72]
19 March 2011: French[73] forces began the military intervention in Libya, later joined by coalition forces with strikes against armoured units south of Benghazi and attacks on Libyan air-defence systems, as UN Security Council Resolution 1973 called for using "all necessary means" to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas from attack, imposed a no-fly zone, and called for an immediate and with-standing cease-fire, while also strengthening travel bans on members of the regime, arms embargoes, and asset freezes.[19]
21 March 2011: Obama sent a letter to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro Tempore of the Senate.[74]
24 March 2011: In telephone negotiations, French foreign minister Alain Juppé agreed to let NATO take over all military operations on 29 March at the latest, allowing Turkey to veto strikes on Gaddafi ground forces from that point forward.[75] Later reports stated that NATO would take over enforcement of the no-fly zone and the arms embargo, but discussions were still under way about whether NATO would take over the protection of civilians mission. Turkey reportedly wanted the power to veto airstrikes, while France wanted to prevent Turkey from having such a veto.[76][77]

File:Weekly Address-The Military Mission in Libya.ogvPlay media
US President Barack Obama addressing the people of the United States about the US intervention in Libya

25 March 2011: NATO Allied Joint Force Command in Naples took command of the no-fly zone over Libya and combined it with the ongoing arms embargo operation under the name Operation Unified Protector.[78]

28 March 2011: Obama addressed the American people on Libya.[79]

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:The Clinton-Attorney General Loretta Lynch relationship alone should be enough to keep Hillary far away from Washington. Even Kardashian watchers should know better

The relationship???..Did something happen??..I'm going to assume nothing happen other than the meet on the tarmac with Bill Clinton..You are more concerned about that than Putin's and Trump's bromance...

Not sure, but maybe he is talking about Bill Clinton miraculously bumping into Lynch at the airport, which is now a lawsuit.
ACLJ Sues Justice Dept. Over Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch Meeting on Airport Tarmac http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/law-justice-freedom-of/2016/11/02/id/756723/

And most recently there is the relationship that GoNyGoNyGo clearly pointed out between Podesta and Kadzik.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:
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, I would really be wondering just what the FBI found on Huma Abaden's phone, regarding the Weiner "situation", to re-open the investigation into Hillary.
It HAS TO BE BIG. The email stuff is small potato's (for Clinton).

Remember:
Hillary deleted thousands of emails after the State Department asked for them - AFTER! And then she used "Bleach Bit" to clean the servers professionally! But back in July/August Comey said she didn't have bad intent! lol Again, what changed his mind? You can't make this stuff up.

Some of those emails had been categorized as:
68 of 81 remain classified, 8 were top secret, 37 were secret, 36 were confidential.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

And now it comes out that 5 or so foreign intelligence agencies hacked the server. Wow, She can go to prison just on National Security grounds.

ps - Hope you enjoyed the links Bonn.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/forum.asp?f=2
You're an exception in that you do post links. I'll give you credit for that though they're always one sided stories. Trump has lawsuits against him too. It's not like Hillary is the only one with legal uncertainty.

Just to be clear, the FBI did not characterize this as "re-opening" the case. That's how the Republicans spun it. They're just reading e-mails, after which, I assume they'll decide whether to re-open the case or not.

Yeah but he doesn't acknowledge or accept facts...

You mean like you just didn't or do you have a specific example?

Yeah like you claiming Hillary and the US planned the invasion of Libya and ignored the generals and I showed you that it was France and the UK like 3 times and you still claim it was Hillary...

You can't say "it was France and the UK..." and just discount the fact that it was also the US with Hillary's help.
It is well accepted that Hillary was a driving force for the invasion. I'm not putting it all on her, but I'm definitely not giving France "sole credit" either.

But it was France, Lebanon and the U.K. that sponsored UN Security Council resolution 1973. It passed with no objections and 5 (not 3 sorry) abstentions. So what part does that have to play?

(and Holfresh)
Hillary was strongly involved getting the US to bomb. It was an article by Scott Shane of the NY times. Not sure if it was this one or not - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/libya-isis-hillary-clinton.html

She pushed involvement in a war weary rebel-skeptic administration? I accept that. She pushed bombing? I need more.

This wasn’t the only track that Clinton’s State Department failed to pursue. Tapes obtained by the Times showed that Pentagon officials became so frustrated with Clinton’s Libya policy that they maintained their own line of communication with Gaddafi regime, even after Clinton had allegedly ordered them to cease such contact. “Everything I am getting from the State Department is that they do not care about being part of this. Secretary Clinton does not want to negotiate at all,” a Pentagon intelligence asset told Gaddafi’s son, Saif, in one of the phone calls. Former Representative Dennis Kucinich had also made contact with Libyan officials, but he said he was ignored by the State Department and White House.

https://newrepublic.com/article/121879/hillary-clinton-should-take-blame-disastrous-libyan-intervention

holfresh wrote:1 March 2011: The US REPUBLICAN Senate unanimously passed non-binding Senate resolution S.RES.85 urging the United Nations Security Council to impose a Libyan no-fly zone and encouraging Gaddafi to step down.


The Republican Senate pressed for intervention before Hillary did...Fox News didn't tell you that did they????

I don't mind the accusations if they were principled and educated, but this is a great point, holfresh. The discussion about this never talks about the United Nations, Security Council resolutions, NATO, the decisions of Congress who could have stopped the Executive branch from entering this conflict, and the strong desire of regime change in Libya that straddled the aisle. You know some of the Republicans were doing that to "win one for the Gipper". It reveals a profound lack of education about international affairs.

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

DrAlphaeus wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:

earthmansurfer wrote:

holfresh wrote:

gunsnewing wrote:The Clinton-Attorney General Loretta Lynch relationship alone should be enough to keep Hillary far away from Washington. Even Kardashian watchers should know better

The relationship???..Did something happen??..I'm going to assume nothing happen other than the meet on the tarmac with Bill Clinton..You are more concerned about that than Putin's and Trump's bromance...

Not sure, but maybe he is talking about Bill Clinton miraculously bumping into Lynch at the airport, which is now a lawsuit.
ACLJ Sues Justice Dept. Over Bill Clinton-Loretta Lynch Meeting on Airport Tarmac http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/law-justice-freedom-of/2016/11/02/id/756723/

And most recently there is the relationship that GoNyGoNyGo clearly pointed out between Podesta and Kadzik.

GoNyGoNyGo wrote:

Bonn1997 wrote:
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, I would really be wondering just what the FBI found on Huma Abaden's phone, regarding the Weiner "situation", to re-open the investigation into Hillary.
It HAS TO BE BIG. The email stuff is small potato's (for Clinton).

Remember:
Hillary deleted thousands of emails after the State Department asked for them - AFTER! And then she used "Bleach Bit" to clean the servers professionally! But back in July/August Comey said she didn't have bad intent! lol Again, what changed his mind? You can't make this stuff up.

Some of those emails had been categorized as:
68 of 81 remain classified, 8 were top secret, 37 were secret, 36 were confidential.
https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

And now it comes out that 5 or so foreign intelligence agencies hacked the server. Wow, She can go to prison just on National Security grounds.

ps - Hope you enjoyed the links Bonn.

http://www.ultimateknicks.com/forum/forum.asp?f=2
You're an exception in that you do post links. I'll give you credit for that though they're always one sided stories. Trump has lawsuits against him too. It's not like Hillary is the only one with legal uncertainty.

Just to be clear, the FBI did not characterize this as "re-opening" the case. That's how the Republicans spun it. They're just reading e-mails, after which, I assume they'll decide whether to re-open the case or not.

Yeah but he doesn't acknowledge or accept facts...

You mean like you just didn't or do you have a specific example?

Yeah like you claiming Hillary and the US planned the invasion of Libya and ignored the generals and I showed you that it was France and the UK like 3 times and you still claim it was Hillary...

You can't say "it was France and the UK..." and just discount the fact that it was also the US with Hillary's help.
It is well accepted that Hillary was a driving force for the invasion. I'm not putting it all on her, but I'm definitely not giving France "sole credit" either.

But it was France, Lebanon and the U.K. that sponsored UN Security Council resolution 1973. It passed with no objections and 5 (not 3 sorry) abstentions. So what part does that have to play?

(and Holfresh)
Hillary was strongly involved getting the US to bomb. It was an article by Scott Shane of the NY times. Not sure if it was this one or not - http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/28/us/politics/libya-isis-hillary-clinton.html

She pushed involvement in a war weary rebel-skeptic administration? I accept that. She pushed bombing? I need more.

This wasn’t the only track that Clinton’s State Department failed to pursue. Tapes obtained by the Times showed that Pentagon officials became so frustrated with Clinton’s Libya policy that they maintained their own line of communication with Gaddafi regime, even after Clinton had allegedly ordered them to cease such contact. “Everything I am getting from the State Department is that they do not care about being part of this. Secretary Clinton does not want to negotiate at all,” a Pentagon intelligence asset told Gaddafi’s son, Saif, in one of the phone calls. Former Representative Dennis Kucinich had also made contact with Libyan officials, but he said he was ignored by the State Department and White House.

https://newrepublic.com/article/121879/hillary-clinton-should-take-blame-disastrous-libyan-intervention

Good article, thanks. Some other quotes from that article:

“We came, we saw, he died,” Clinton laughed after learning of dictator Muammar Gaddafi’s death. She's probably less triumphant today, given that Libya is now a failing state. GOP presidential aspirant Rand Paul and the Washington Post have even, for different reasons, called it “Hillary’s war.” That's a misnomer; she was far from alone in supporting it, and others played a similar role in the decision to topple Gaddafi. Yet some of the mistakes made in Libya fall primarily on Clinton's shoulders.

Of course, the threat of any civilian death is a legitimate concern, and “there was no reason to believe [the regime] wouldn’t get nasty,” El Amrani said. After all, Gaddafi brutally massacred more than 1,000 unarmed prisoners in 1996. But human rights violations and even a regime’s killing of its “own people” are generally tolerated by the U.S., particularly when an ally is responsible. “We have a killer in Egypt next door who killed far more protesters than Gaddafi ever did, who’s being rewarded with U.S. arms. So I don’t think the U.S. has a consistent standard,” Whitson said.

Clinton doesn't bear all the responsibility for this. Indeed, many establishment politicians are unable to offer sincere criticisms of her on Libya: The liberal interventionists of the Obama administration backed the war, as did Republican hawks. This leaves the far-left and libertarian-ish conservatives to criticize her—and on this issue, at least, they're right.

OK now we are getting closer to the real picture... not saying that's even that possible for plebs on the ground like us. But the article emphasizes she shouldn't be held solely responsible for Benghazi or the State Department's move from the original mission of intervention/cease fire towards regime change. Something Susan Rice as then-UN Ambassador, Samantha Power who is our current UN ambassador, and John Kerry our current Secretary of State also supported according to that article.

That's a fair point and we can talk about that as one of those "far-left" critics, because it was this very regime change and the extrajudicial assassination of Ghadaffi that made me not vote for Obama in 2012, something that now in retrospect seems petty on my part compared to what's going on now. Obama didn't start out saying that was the goal, and suddenly the goalposts shifted. Ultimately, that's on Obama, and because of that he lost my vote.

That all said, can you admit to being a bit extra with lumping this all on Hillary's doormat? Tallying up the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan and Libya and putting her name on it like she was alone and used the same contract killer she used on Vince Foster, haha.

We know you aren't voting for her, or anyone. I'd only vote for her because I respect her current political allies who will have influence in her administration, fingers crossed.

I'm exaggerating when I put Libya (solely) on Clinton. But she really had a strong effect on the decisions there. I bring up Iraq, in particular, because I think we all can agree it was an unjust war. The evidence was fabricated. I'm very leery of the US presence in the Middle East as well. With all of Hillary's connections and such, she had to know about Iraq. Lumping things - hey, it is Hillary's record of judgment we are talking about. If she wants to be president and comes across as pro-war, I'm gonna bring it up. If what is in that article is true - the part about the military going around Hillary to negotiate with Gaddafi, that is a pretty damning statement and that alone is extremely worrying to me. To say lumping when these wars destroyed over a million lives is a bit of an understatement, especially for someone with her connections.

My perspective on this whole election, if I can put it in a nutshell is this:
I pray that Hillary doesn't win and instead goes to prison for the illegal activities she has done (and I'm going to harp on saying that I think the Clinton Foundation is the real story but I'm only going by leaks here and there. Hard to know what is true, but it adds up nicely). Even More So I also pray that the corruption in the FBI, DOJ, Whitehouse, etc. is exposed (meaning the connections - Hillary shouldn't take the whole fall.) So, we clear out 1/2 of Washington, Trump gets into office and we watch him closely. I think he is not "one of them", so he will be on a short leash, but with his mouth, he can rally the people, so he is indeed dangerous, or can be. But if he at all means what he says about cleaning things up and bringing jobs back to America, being pro "middle class" (or the like), then give him that chance. If we can clean things up and we discover Trump is also of the like, then he can join them. I have no rose colored glasses on this election.

Help me out earthmansurfer... show me that your trust of Trump isn't just a reactionary pendulum swing from your distrust of Clinton.

DrAlphaeus wrote:Trump had the chance to bring jobs back to America when he was a "job creator" making ties abroad, or importing Chinese steel. What he chose were to maximize his profits. Why would any business leader put patriotism over profits during Trump/Pence administration? Would he do this with more regulation? Tariffs? Policy that slows down automation? Is everyone just working for ICE and therefore he's growing the government and the deficit?

Help me out earthmansurfer... show me that your trust of Trump isn't just a reactionary pendulum swing from your distrust of Clinton.

Doc when rules are given all businessmen would outsource. What Trump has been saying the system needs to be changed so big corporations don't have to continually look abroad for labor or altogether leave. The deals made with foreign countries severely one sided. That is why the trade debt is a negative. Trump in his debate said to Hillary you have been doing this for over 25 year why didn't you change the laws.

With Trump you have a guy who has profited handsomely from this and yet he feels they need to be changed. The other Billionaire are all on the side of Hillary because they like the way things are. They know they can buy the Clinton's why would they want to listen to any type of change.