Democratic Election 2016 - Hillary Clinton Megathread [OFFICIAL]

[zenkai]

Why the partisan shitpost at Chelsea's expense? Seems pretty dickish for no reason other than to be dickish.

It was a joke, saw an opening and I took it, I have nothing against Chelsea, if anything I feel sorry for her.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

It would be "criminal" only if she knew that the emails were on that PC, of which there is no evidence.
In fact, there's no evidence the emails came from Clinton at all.
In fact, there's no evidence there's a connection to Clinton at the moment at all.

Well, it came from her private server. They might not come from Clinton herself, but it has been used on her private server, that she hosted in her own house.

[0ptimo]

It was a joke, saw an opening and I took it, I have nothing against Chelsea, if anything I feel sorry for her.

Chelsea is going to read what you said and be really upset. You monster.

[Stommped]

When he's doing so for one candidate but not the other, yes it is.

It's also interfering with the election. Is there a specific reason why Comey has to do this -now- as opposed to after the election?

That's not how the law works. The FBI/Police/Prosecutors doesn't make sure to only investigate/charge said person when it's convenient for the person in question. When he has whatever he needs to open his investigation, he does so immediately, there is no waiting.

[anyaka21]

It would be "criminal" only if she knew that the emails were on that PC, of which there is no evidence.
In fact, there's no evidence the emails came from Clinton at all.
In fact, there's no evidence there's a connection to Clinton at the moment at all.

not really, it could be criminal if the emails she was supposed to turn over, did wind up on Weiners laptop. That would prove she lied, would prove she covered it up.

Further, proof of legitimacy of emails is pretty easily verifiable. Thus non-duplicates, meaning stuff that they don't have already, and if they come from the same origin of what they asked her to turn over, is also easily verifiable.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-em...AQAB-ADDADGADP

From:jbenenson@bsgco.com
To: Jim.Margolis@gmmb.com
Date: 2015-03-05 00:01
Subject: Re: Emails development






Definitely

Sent from my iPhone

> On Mar 4, 2015, at 8:01 PM, Margolis, Jim <Jim.Margolis@gmmb.com> wrote:
>
> Yes.
> If there is a release of the 55K, are there others that are not being
> released?
>
> On 3/4/15, 7:25 PM, "Jennifer Palmier I" <jennifer.m.palmieri@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Team - wanted to let you know that Cheryl is working with State to get
>> agreement on release of the 55k pages of emails she have to State. The
>> hope would be that we are able to say tonight to the press that we are
>> working with State to get emails released soon. Not sure where those
>> discussions will land, but hope is either State agrees to release on
>> timely basis or we pledge to release them ourselves in ten days/week.
>> Assume you all would agree this is right move?
>>
>> Sent from my iPhone
>

[Elegiac]

That's not how the law works. The FBI/Police/Prosecutors doesn't make sure to only investigate/charge said person when it's convenient for the person in question. When he has whatever he needs to open his investigation, he does so immediately, there is no waiting.

This is not about personal convenience, it's about influencing the election; something which -is- actually banned by law.

Here's a nice compromise; media blackout on election coverage for two weeks before the actual voting.

[Noxx79]

not really, it could be criminal if the emails she was supposed to turn over, did wind up on Weiners laptop. That would prove she lied, would prove she covered it up.

Further, proof of legitimacy of emails is pretty easily verifiable. Thus non-duplicates, meaning stuff that they don't have already, and if they come from the same origin of what they asked her to turn over, is also easily verifiable.

Nope, sorry, yours just wrong here. And you're completely uninformed. What does wieners laptop have to do with anything?

[Tijuana]

How are you guys not talking about this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...tion_case.html

1. The Clinton Foundation investigation is far more expansive than anybody has reported so far and has been going on for more than a year.

2. The laptops of Clinton aides Cherryl Mills and Heather Samuelson have not been destroyed, and agents are currently combing through them. The investigation has interviewed several people twice, and plans to interview some for a third time.

3. Agents have found emails believed to have originated on Hillary Clinton's secret server on Anthony Weiner's laptop. They say the emails are not duplicates and could potentially be classified in nature.

4. Sources within the FBI have told Baier that an indictment is "likely" in the case of pay-for-play at the Clinton Foundation, "barring some obstruction in some way" from the Justice Department.

5. FBI sources say with 99% accuracy that Hillary Clinton's server has been hacked by at least five foreign intelligence agencies, and that information have been taken from it.

[Elegiac]

How are you guys not talking about this:

Largely because Fox News was the originator for the story.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

How are you guys not talking about this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...tion_case.html

Wait -- what?

If this is true...

I'll wait until official confirmation. FOX is not void of bias itself.

[Edge-]

https://www.wikileaks.org/podesta-em...AQAB-ADDADGADP

Yes and? We already know there are others that aren't being released either because they were classified at the time (labeled or not), have been classified since she left the State Department, or were her personal emails.

Not sure what it supposed to be significant about this email.

How are you guys not talking about this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...tion_case.html

It's been linked multiple times. Folks are a bit skeptical given Fox New's record with anonymous sources lately, but there's really not much to discuss at this point until something is actually announced.

[cocoapuffs]

How are you guys not talking about this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...tion_case.html

because "anonymous sources" isnt sufficient proof

[DocSavageFan]

because "anonymous sources" isnt sufficient proof

Apparently standard protocol in the news industry just doesn't cut it for some.

[TZucchini]

How are you guys not talking about this:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...tion_case.html

That was posted several pages back and we talked about it then. Maybe you should be paying attention.

This was my response:

Hard to take much out of that. Thus far, we've seen no proof of pay for play with the Clinton Foundation. We have decades of their tax returns, from both the Foundation and the individuals.

Two anonymous sources within the FBI releasing this information now seems suspect. And of course, I'm not sure how they can comment on the likeliness of indictment, since they're not the ones that make the call.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Yes and? We already know there are others that aren't being released either because they were classified at the time (labeled or not), have been classified since she left the State Department, or were her personal emails.

Not sure what it supposed to be significant about this email.

This is speculation, however. It could indicate that, or it could indicate that there are, in fact, hidden e-mails. Which would correlate with the FBI finding non-duplicated e-mails from Weiner's laptop.

[TZucchini]

Apparently standard protocol in the news industry just doesn't cut it for some.

Well, if you're going to claim that Hillary is going to be indicted, we need something more than 2 anonymous individuals that have no control over the indictment process.

[Zandalarian Paladin]

And more than just Fox News reporting on this based on their anonymous sources.

Or CNN for that matter.

[zenkai]

because "anonymous sources" isnt sufficient proof

Unless it's about Trump, am I right?

[Zandalarian Paladin]

Unless it's about Trump, am I right?

Like those several claims of rape that all appeared a few weeks before elections?