Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
97 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: The House is launching yet another investigation of Clinton rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Ben Foy
United States
Ellicott City
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
It never ends. Two House committees asked the Justice Department to investigate 4 claims of perjury. The first accusation is whether Clinton knew the very few e-mails marked classified were classified. This looks to be the most serious of the accusations. The devil is in the details for this, they will have to show that Clinton knew the e-mails were classified.

Number 2 centers on the word 'review', the House panel believes that the word means 'read'. Unless there is more to it then we can dismiss it out of hand. Number 3 centers on a technical detail (the # of servers) Clinton might have gotten wrong. If all the servers were given to the FBI, we can dismiss this out of hand. And 4 focuses on the number of e-mails. Unless it can be shown that Clinton knew there were work e-mails not sent to the FBI (which is unlikely since she didn't review the e-mails) then the accusation is baseless.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-panels-lay-out-...

Where do the investigations end? It is very possible that nothing is here and the House knows they have nothing.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BFoy wrote:
It never ends. Two House committees asked the Justice Department to investigate 4 claims of perjury. The first accusation is whether Clinton knew the very few e-mails marked classified were classified. This looks to be the most serious of the accusations. The devil is in the details for this, they will have to show that Clinton knew the e-mails were classified.

Number 2 centers on the word 'review', the House panel believes that the word means 'read'. Unless there is more to it then we can dismiss it out of hand. Number 3 centers on a technical detail (the # of servers) Clinton might have gotten wrong. If all the servers were given to the FBI, we can dismiss this out of hand. And 4 focuses on the number of e-mails. Unless it can be shown that Clinton knew there were work e-mails not sent to the FBI (which is unlikely since she didn't review the e-mails) then the accusation is baseless.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-panels-lay-out-...

Where do the investigations end? It is very possible that nothing is here and the House knows they have nothing.


It's like Land Before Time sequels, it never ends.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
フィル
Australia
Ashfield
NSW
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Pushing a lesbian old growth union-approved agenda since '94.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I think at this point it doesn't matter much. The voters don't seem to care about the email thing at all. They would be better served to try a different angle against Clinton.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ben Foy
United States
Ellicott City
Maryland
flag msg tools
Avatar
mb
sbszine wrote:
I think at this point it doesn't matter much. The voters don't seem to care about the email thing at all. They would be better served to try a different angle against Clinton.


Like Benghazi? The Republicans keep mentioning it. Surely 13 investigations is not enough...
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Benghazi yeah yeah yeah
Email yeah yeah yeah yeah

I think I did it again
I made you believe we're more than just friends
Oh baby
It might seem like a crush
But it doesn't mean that I'm serious
'Cause to lose all my reason
That is just so typically me
Oh Clinton, baby

Oops, I did it again
I investigated your art, got lost in the game
Oh Clinton, baby
Oops, you think I'm obsessed
That I'm sent from above
I'm just a republican

You see my problem is this
I'm wishing away
hoping that falsehoods, they truly exist
I cry, watching your ways
Can't you see I'm a fool lost in a haze
But to lose all my reason
That is just so typically me
Oh Clinton, oh

Oops, I did it again
I subpoenaed your heart, got lost in the game
Oh Clinton, baby
Oops, you think I'm obsessed
That I'm sent from above
I'm just a republican

Benghazi yeah yeah yeah
Email server yeah yeah

"All aboard"
"Ryan, before you go, there's something I want you to have"
"Oh, it's wonderful, but wait a minute, isn't this?"
"Yeah, yes it is"
"But I thought the old lady dropped him into the ocean in the end"
"Well baby, I went down and got him for you"
"Aww, you shouldn't have"

Oops, I did it again to voters
Got lost in this game, oh baby
Oops, you think that I'm sent from above
I'm just a republican

Oops, I did it again
I subpoenaed your heart, got lost in the game
Oh Clinton, baby
Oops, you think I'm obsessed
That I'm sent from above
I'm just a republican


Oops, I did it again
I subpoenaed your heart, got lost in the game
Oh Clinton, baby
Oops, you think I'm obsessed
That I'm sent from above
I'm just a republican
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BFoy wrote:
sbszine wrote:
I think at this point it doesn't matter much. The voters don't seem to care about the email thing at all. They would be better served to try a different angle against Clinton.


Like Benghazi? The Republicans keep mentioning it. Surely 13 investigations is not enough...


Heck, that's not even half the number of "no" votes on the ACA. Moar! Moar!
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chief Slovenly
United States
Burlington
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
A Hail Mary if there ever was one, in front of the Numbnuts Committee.

She'll be up another couple points.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Binkowski
United States
Rochester
Michigan
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
It's blatantly obvious that she lied to Congress. She lied about her email issue every single step of the way. You guys are ridiculous. Open your eyes.


That we have to continuously step over the fact that she had PRIVATE SERVERS FOR STATE COMMUNICATIONS just so we can debate about whether she perjured herself over said servers baffles me.

But in Clinton's case, it doesn't surprise me.

What's the definition of "Is" again?


1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
It's blatantly obvious that she lied to Congress. She lied about her email issue every single step of the way. You guys are ridiculous. Open your eyes.

BJ;

Yes of course it's obvious she lied but can that be legally proven to a sufficient standard? I strongly doubt it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
It's blatantly obvious that she lied to Congress. She lied about her email issue every single step of the way. You guys are ridiculous. Open your eyes.
Yes, and if this had all been done now you might had had a chance of using this agasint her.

But there have been too many "cry wolf" investigations if Clinton now. No one cars or believes what they say.

It's like the dodgy dossier, if you try to make mountains out of mole hills when you finally find a mountain everyone thinks it's a molehill.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sarxis wrote:
bjlillo wrote:
It's blatantly obvious that she lied to Congress. She lied about her email issue every single step of the way. You guys are ridiculous. Open your eyes.


That we have to continuously step over the fact that she had PRIVATE SERVERS FOR STATE COMMUNICATIONS just so we can debate about whether she perjured herself over said servers baffles me.

But in Clinton's case, it doesn't surprise me.

What's the definition of "Is" again?




It was established practice. Now established practice will change for future SoS. So you need not worry.
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I heard they had to delay it because of the upcoming vote to repeal Obamacare.
14 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
BFoy wrote:
It never ends. Two House committees asked the Justice Department to investigate 4 claims of perjury. The first accusation is whether Clinton knew the very few e-mails marked classified were classified. This looks to be the most serious of the accusations. The devil is in the details for this, they will have to show that Clinton knew the e-mails were classified.

Number 2 centers on the word 'review', the House panel believes that the word means 'read'. Unless there is more to it then we can dismiss it out of hand. Number 3 centers on a technical detail (the # of servers) Clinton might have gotten wrong. If all the servers were given to the FBI, we can dismiss this out of hand. And 4 focuses on the number of e-mails. Unless it can be shown that Clinton knew there were work e-mails not sent to the FBI (which is unlikely since she didn't review the e-mails) then the accusation is baseless.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-panels-lay-out-...

Where do the investigations end? It is very possible that nothing is here and the House knows they have nothing.



The perjury is obvious if one watches the video. She either lied to Congress, or lied to the FBI.




Ferret
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
BFoy wrote:
It never ends. Two House committees asked the Justice Department to investigate 4 claims of perjury. The first accusation is whether Clinton knew the very few e-mails marked classified were classified. This looks to be the most serious of the accusations. The devil is in the details for this, they will have to show that Clinton knew the e-mails were classified.

Number 2 centers on the word 'review', the House panel believes that the word means 'read'. Unless there is more to it then we can dismiss it out of hand. Number 3 centers on a technical detail (the # of servers) Clinton might have gotten wrong. If all the servers were given to the FBI, we can dismiss this out of hand. And 4 focuses on the number of e-mails. Unless it can be shown that Clinton knew there were work e-mails not sent to the FBI (which is unlikely since she didn't review the e-mails) then the accusation is baseless.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-panels-lay-out-...

Where do the investigations end? It is very possible that nothing is here and the House knows they have nothing.



The perjury is obvious if one watches the video. She either lied to Congress, or lied to the FBI.




Ferret
Then she needs to be charged, by the law.

What good will another "see, See, nudge, nudge, wink, wink" investigation do?

Either charge her or drop the matter.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Sam I am
United States
Portage
Michigan
flag msg tools
What did I tell you...
badge
NO PICKLE!
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
BFoy wrote:
It never ends. Two House committees asked the Justice Department to investigate 4 claims of perjury. The first accusation is whether Clinton knew the very few e-mails marked classified were classified. This looks to be the most serious of the accusations. The devil is in the details for this, they will have to show that Clinton knew the e-mails were classified.

Number 2 centers on the word 'review', the House panel believes that the word means 'read'. Unless there is more to it then we can dismiss it out of hand. Number 3 centers on a technical detail (the # of servers) Clinton might have gotten wrong. If all the servers were given to the FBI, we can dismiss this out of hand. And 4 focuses on the number of e-mails. Unless it can be shown that Clinton knew there were work e-mails not sent to the FBI (which is unlikely since she didn't review the e-mails) then the accusation is baseless.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/house-panels-lay-out-...

Where do the investigations end? It is very possible that nothing is here and the House knows they have nothing.



The perjury is obvious if one watches the video. She either lied to Congress, or lied to the FBI.




Ferret
Then she needs to be charged, by the law.

What good will another "see, See, nudge, nudge, wink, wink" investigation do?

Either charge her or drop the matter.


If you keep investigating a Clinton long enough you can find the real crime, blow jobs.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
galad2003 wrote:
I don't get how you guys can still dismiss the Benghazi investigations, by doing this it directly led to the discovery that Hillary Clinton had private email servers. It directly led to the discovery of a massive breach of government security and the recovery of lost emails. Just because it took so long and so many investigations is because is of how well covered up everything was. To dismiss Benghazi investigations as pointless is absurd. Without these investigations we would have not found out high ranking government officials were using their own unsecure email servers and this practice may have continued. Important information vital to the State Department cybersecurity infrastructure was uncovered that hopefully will be fixed so this doesn't happen again.
So then investigate the system, not one person.

It is time that they stopped targeting Clinton and looked at the wider issues (the ones that need fixing). By just going after Clinton they are ignoring (and indeed on might argue whitewashing) the wider failures.

-
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
Then she needs to be charged, by the law.

What good will another "see, See, nudge, nudge, wink, wink" investigation do?

Either charge her or drop the matter.


Here is a rare moment when we agree...I'd issue formal charges myself. Not sure what the logic is for an investigation, unless it's to gather evidence, but if so they should state that quite clearly.





Ferret
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Steven Woodcock
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
rcbevco wrote:

If you keep investigating a Clinton long enough you can find the real crime, blow jobs.


I like how the liberals keep forgetting what the real crime there was.

The blow jobs weren't the crime....lying to Congress (Hillary learned it from Bill) were the crime.

Nice try though.


Ferret
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Ferretman wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
Then she needs to be charged, by the law.

What good will another "see, See, nudge, nudge, wink, wink" investigation do?

Either charge her or drop the matter.


Here is a rare moment when we agree...I'd issue formal charges myself. Not sure what the logic is for an investigation, unless it's to gather evidence, but if so they should state that quite clearly.





Ferret
I think that is the point, they are looking for evidence, which means they d not have any.

It is time for the police to take over, and the FBI.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Scott Russell
United States
Clarkston
Michigan
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I don't know why they bother.

The Clinton loyalists literally wouldn't care (enough to change their mind) about anything Clinton had done.

(Any of you out there, feel free to pipe up with a scenario no matter how farfetched that would cause you to change your opinion/vote.)

And I don't think the investigation will swing many or any independents. Is this just a pep rally for the faithful?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
qzhdad wrote:
I don't know why they bother.

The Clinton loyalists literally wouldn't care (enough to change their mind) about anything Clinton had done.

(Any of you out there, feel free to pipe up with a scenario no matter how farfetched that would cause you to change your opinion/vote.)

And I don't think the investigation will swing many or any independents. Is this just a pep rally for the faithful?
Conviction.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
Ferretman wrote:
I like how the liberals keep forgetting what the real crime there was.


Hillary's crimes are slated for the memory hole as well.

I invite the Hillary-lickers to listen to Comey's testimony again. He made them quite clear. Then later in his appearance before the House he provided a rather large list of her lies.

People who think that Hillary is innocent or was just using standard operating procedure are too stupid to be allowed a vote.
"We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI," Comey told Chaffetz during one of his opening exchanges


8 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chad Ellis
United States
Brookline
Massachusetts
flag msg tools
designer
publisher
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
bjlillo wrote:
It's blatantly obvious that she lied to Congress. She lied about her email issue every single step of the way. You guys are ridiculous. Open your eyes.


I believe the following:

1. She lied to Congress.
2. It would be/will be impossible to prove that she lied to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for a criminal conviction.
3. The motivation for the investigation is political.
15 
 Thumb up
0.30
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Drew1365 wrote:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/07/rep_trey_g...

It's made very clear here -- and Comey is forced to admit -- that she lied multiple times.
So why did he say she did not lie?

Seems to be that it is the FBI and not Clinton that needs investigating as they are lying to the committee (and if they are lying can we trust anything they say?).
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Chad_Ellis wrote:
I believe the following:

1. She lied to Congress.
2. It would be/will be impossible to prove that she lied to the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard for a criminal conviction.
3. The motivation for the investigation is political.
If you believe #1, do the motives for #3 matter? If there are enough people who suspect/believe #1, than #3 should happen to see if #2 is possible at all, regardless of what people are doing it.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.