Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

all hail HRCFollow

#77 Jul 09 2016 at 12:29 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
No, I didn't because they were irrelevant to whether or not Clinton's FBI case compared to previous FBI cases resulting in indictment.

"Thought experiments" are what Gbaji comes up with when he's losing an argument and wants to re-set it on his own terms.

Edited, Jul 9th 2016 1:29pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#78 Jul 09 2016 at 12:39 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,238 posts
Jophiel wrote:
No, I didn't because they were irrelevant to whether or not Clinton's FBI case compared to previous FBI cases resulting in indictment.

"Thought experiments" are what Gbaji comes up with when he's losing an argument and wants to re-set it on his own terms.

Edited, Jul 9th 2016 1:29pm by Jophiel


I beg to differ, but, in the parlance of today's youth, whatevs. For the record, thought experiments are a valid way of argumentation and happen to find its place in math, CS, physics and, surprise, philosophy. And last but not least, I am not Gbaji.

I get that you want to quit while you are ahead. I really do, but that does not automatically make me attempting to null your previous efforts any less valid just because of the method used.

Nice try though.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#79 Jul 09 2016 at 12:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
angrymnk wrote:
I get that you want to quit while you are ahead

Sweet! I'm ahead!

Winner-winner-chicken-dinner! Smiley: yippee
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#80 Jul 09 2016 at 12:54 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,238 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
I get that you want to quit while you are ahead

Sweet! I'm ahead!

Winner-winner-chicken-dinner! Smiley: yippee


I can't help but to chuckle.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#81 Jul 09 2016 at 3:03 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
angrymnk wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Agnrymnk wrote:
Interesting. It is, however, FBI's job to collect relevant evidence.
Exactly. Don't confuse the intent of the investigation.


That intent being to let her go? I am confused.
To determine whether or not classified information was mishandled to the point to indict someone. The information that you are claiming to be "relevant evidence" doesn't alter that outcome.
#82 Jul 11 2016 at 7:41 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
ABC-WP poll suggests that the whole event is largely a wash for Clinton. Although 56% of respondents said they thought Clinton should face charges of some sort, 30% of the total respondents said it made them less likely to vote for Clinton, 8% said "more likely" and 60% said it made no difference. Even among people who thought she should face charges, a plurality (47%) said it wouldn't impact their vote.

That's at peak news cycle. I'd assume that, a few months from now, it'll have even less impact.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#83 Jul 11 2016 at 7:48 AM Rating: Good
******
49,668 posts
Lying to the public isn't illegal, lying to federal agents in the course of their investigation is. Coming up next on the news after the break, water is wet.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#84 Jul 11 2016 at 10:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,369 posts
Jophiel wrote:
ABC-WP poll suggests that the whole event is largely a wash for Clinton. Although 56% of respondents said they thought Clinton should face charges of some sort, 30% of the total respondents said it made them less likely to vote for Clinton, 8% said "more likely" and 60% said it made no difference. Even among people who thought she should face charges, a plurality (47%) said it wouldn't impact their vote.
Really her and that husband have both been up to all kinds of mischief since their days in Arkansas. If you didn't already hate her for other reasons this probably wasn't going to be the tipping point.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#85 Jul 11 2016 at 10:37 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quite probably. It's a common suggestion that Clinton's negatives are "baked in" after decades of being in the press and GOP attacks so there isn't much at this point that'll make supporters say "Nope, that's it... I'm out"

A better GOP candidate could have potentially drawn people off but the Republican primary voters wanted Trump.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#86 Jul 11 2016 at 5:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
angrymnk wrote:
But because she technically did not lie to Comey directly she gets off with... nothing at all?

Rule of law is a bitch, huh? It's almost as though you need to lie to the FBI in order for the FBI to charge you with lying to the FBI and collected quotes pulled from the internet don't count.


If the only crime in the universe was "lying to the FBI", you'd have a point. But the FBI was not just investigating as to whether statements made by Clinton to the FBI under oath were true. They were investigating as to whether or not any of her actions involving the use of a private email server violated the law and should be prosecuted by the DoJ. You would think that this would also include statements made under oath to Congress, and her degree of cooperation or obstruction with regard to their original requests for information, given that this was the starting point of the very investigation they were conducting.

She absolutely did lie to Congress. She, at the very very least, committed perjury and obstruction of justice. Amusing the exact same charges that Libby was convicted of, during an investigation in which the investigators knew going in who had committed the "crime" (which apparently wasn't actually a crime at all), and essentially existed solely as a fishing expedition in the Bush White House. But that's justice and Clinton's lack of even a prosecution is justice as well?

Hard to imagine that justice is still wearing that blindfold when you see such a ridiculous double standard in play.

The irony is that Comey's recommendation may actually play out to be worse for Clinton. If he'd recommended prosecution, then Lynch could have simply declined to do so (and taken the heat for it herself). Or she could have strung her own investigation along with promises to determine charges if any "in good time", call anyone pushing for more action "partisan", etc. Or she could have rushed it, put together a kangaroo panel of attorney's, determined that there were no charges to file, and then dropped the whole thing with some pretty pretty speech about how all the evidence really did clear Clinton of all wrongdoing, etc, etc, etc... Heck. If they were really clever, they'd pull the same trick they did with the PP investigation and maybe level charges at some prominent GOP member (maybe Gowdy) for some silly thing or other. Just because that never gets old.

Comey's action actually takes control of the message out of Clinton and the Obama administrations hands. It puts the assessment of Comey's recommendation front and center before the American people. And I don't think they like what they see. I get that well inside the liberal echo chamber this is all seen as just partisan unfairness, but I'm pretty sure that far far more people think Clinton just got away with a crime than think otherwise. And in an election cycle where "crooked politics as usual" is one of the major themes, this will almost certainly hurt Clinton.

Then again, Clinton was going to have problems with this no matter what. So it's possible that perception was just baked into the cake from day one and this one extra example wont make much difference. Hard to say really. You've got someone with such a long history of questionable actions, that even her most ardent supporters have to kinda hold their noses and look the other way. I suppose it does put the issue right into the minds of the voters. Whether it's still there in November is a whole different matter though.

Edited, Jul 11th 2016 4:57pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#87 Jul 11 2016 at 5:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Lying to the public isn't illegal, lying to federal agents in the course of their investigation is. Coming up next on the news after the break, water is wet.


Lying to Congress is illegal too.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#88 Jul 11 2016 at 6:07 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
ABC-WP poll suggests that the whole event is largely a wash for Clinton. Although 56% of respondents said they thought Clinton should face charges of some sort, 30% of the total respondents said it made them less likely to vote for Clinton, 8% said "more likely" and 60% said it made no difference. Even among people who thought she should face charges, a plurality (47%) said it wouldn't impact their vote.


Uh... Presumably because most of those who thought she should have faced chargers were already not going to vote for her. I would hardly call an event that 30% of respondents said would make them less likely to vote for Clinton "a wash". That's wishful thinking in the extreme. A wash would have been an equal number being more likely as less likely to vote for Clinton, and that's not close to what happened.

Quote:
That's at peak news cycle. I'd assume that, a few months from now, it'll have even less impact.


This, on the other hand, is not wishful thinking at all. I see you mentioned the whole "baked in" bit (I didn't read back through all the posts before replying), and I totally agree. How much this actually affects her come November is really hard to say. If you're voting for Clinton it's because you've already decided that the pattern of behavior she (and her husband) exhibit is not sufficient to counteract whatever list of "good things" you think voting for her (or just for *any* Dem) brings. So one more thing that's part of that same dishonest pattern probably wont influence your vote in the long run (even among those who say it will today).

Of course, if we didn't spend time arguing about this, the forum would be even more deader than it is now. So... I officially declare that this will be the issue that sinks the Clinton campaign. Absolutely. Definitely! No doubt! Anyone who disagrees just has their head shoved in the sand or something. A vote for Clinton is a vote for Hitler! Rargh!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#89 Jul 11 2016 at 6:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
But the FBI was not just investigating as to whether statements made by Clinton to the FBI under oath were true. They were investigating as to whether or not any of her actions involving the use of a private email server violated the law and should be prosecuted by the DoJ. You would think that this would also include statements made under oath to Congress, and her degree of cooperation or obstruction with regard to their original requests for information, given that this was the starting point of the very investigation they were conducting.

No, Comey was very clear about what the limits of the investigation were. The fact that they aren't what you wish they were is 100% irrelevant. What Clinton said at a Congressional hearing or a public interview or what was posted on her website, etc wasn't what the FBI was investigating.
gbaji wrote:
Uh... Presumably because most of those who thought she should have faced chargers were already not going to vote for her. I would hardly call an event that 30% of respondents said would make them less likely to vote for Clinton "a wash".

As you just stated, the people who are saying it makes them "less likely" weren't voting for her anyway. If the number of people saying that was near or exceeding her polling numbers, THAT would be a problem. A bunch of Trump supporters saying "we're less likely to vote for Clinton" is meaningless. When you're polling at 46% and 70% of the country shrugs their shoulders about something, it's a wash.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 Jul 11 2016 at 7:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,867 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But the FBI was not just investigating as to whether statements made by Clinton to the FBI under oath were true. They were investigating as to whether or not any of her actions involving the use of a private email server violated the law and should be prosecuted by the DoJ. You would think that this would also include statements made under oath to Congress, and her degree of cooperation or obstruction with regard to their original requests for information, given that this was the starting point of the very investigation they were conducting.

No, Comey was very clear about what the limits of the investigation were.


In his final report, sure. It's pretty clear from the grilling he got from Congress that most of the people who asked for the investigation in the first place thought it was going to investigate the entire process from start to finish, including the numerous hearings and testimony she gave to Congress. They were pretty shocked, in fact, when they asked if she lied about the email on her server and he responded only with "well, she didn't like to the FBI". Um... Again, most people would assume they were investigating all of her actions with regard to her handling of the server and the information contained within, not just her interactions with the investigative body itself.

Quote:
The fact that they aren't what you wish they were is 100% irrelevant. What Clinton said at a Congressional hearing ... wasn't what the FBI was investigating.


Why not? Don't you think that their investigation should have included that? Given that the only reason they had any evidence to work with in the first place was because congress ordered the state department to hand it over as part of the Benghazi investigation, then discovered it wasn't there but was on Clinton's private email server, and she then proceeded to lie and obstruct them when they demanded those documents as well making it take a year or so to get documents that should have been readily available if they'd been properly stored on State Dept servers, it seems silly to leave that whole process out when investigating whether Clinton committed a crime.

The old saying is that the coverup is often worse than the crime. Except in this case, Comey chose to not bother to look at the very overt attempt to cover up what she did. Which is bizarre at the very least.


Quote:
As you just stated, the people who are saying it makes them "less likely" weren't voting for her anyway.


That's not what I said. I said that the large percentage of people who thought she should face charges but also said it wouldn't affect their vote was because they were already not going to vote for Clinton. In the same way, those who were already not going to vote for Clinton are presumably most present in the 60% who said it made no difference. If they weren't voting for her before, and are not voting for her now, then the action did not make a difference in their vote.

On the other hand, one kinda has to assume that the 30% who said they were "less likely" to vote for Clinton as a result of this, were at least somewhat on the fence. They can only be less likely to vote for her if there was some likelihood that they would have absent this event. So yeah, the whole "30% less likely vs 8% more likely" is not remotely "a wash". It's a whole bunch of people who were at least somewhat undecided tilting away from Clinton as a result. You kinda have to really double think the poll results to see it otherwise.

Quote:
If the number of people saying that was near or exceeding her polling numbers, THAT would be a problem. A bunch of Trump supporters saying "we're less likely to vote for Clinton" is meaningless. When you're polling at 46% and 70% of the country shrugs their shoulders about something, it's a wash.


Yeah, right... If the polling numbers were reversed you'd be declaring victory though, right? If the poll said that 30% were "more likely" to vote for Clinton and only 8% "less likely", you'd never accept a counter argument that those who were "more likely" were just people who were already going to vote for her anyway so they really didn't count. You'd toss that out immediately, yet eagerly grab on to the opposite conclusion. You are nothing if not consistent in your inconsistency though!

Edited, Jul 11th 2016 6:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#91 Jul 11 2016 at 7:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Why not? Don't you think that their investigation should have included that?

Who cares what I think? The FBI had what they were asked to investigate and they investigated it.
Quote:
On the other hand, one kinda has to assume that the 30% who said they were "less likely" to vote for Clinton as a result of this, were at least somewhat on the fence.

You're... joking, right? You really think that's how people respond in polls? For real? Please, answer me and tell me that you're being serious here because I'd feel silly having a belly laugh if you're just casting around for debating points right now.
Quote:
Yeah, right... If the polling numbers were reversed you'd be declaring victory though, right?

Well, no. Because, again, if you're dealing with a number like 30% during a partisan election it's pretty easy to guess where that 30% is coming from.

Not to put too fine a point on it but, if I thought these were terrible numbers and was trying desperately to put a brave face on them while knowing it was all a farce... I'd just not post them? I mean, I wouldn't bother volunteering the info if I thought I was going to have to spin a web of lies around it. More in reality, I'd post it (just cause I find it interesting) and say "Bad news for Camp Clinton..."

Edited, Jul 11th 2016 9:02pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Jul 11 2016 at 7:56 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Gbaji wrote:
In his final report, sure. It's pretty clear from the grilling he got from Congress that most of the people who asked for the investigation in the first place thought it was going to investigate the entire process from start to finish, including the numerous hearings and testimony she gave to Congress
From my understanding, the emails had classified markings, but were not marked classified. If that's the case, then she didn't lie about not sending or receiving any emails marked classified.
#93 Jul 12 2016 at 12:07 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,221 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
In his final report, sure. It's pretty clear from the grilling he got from Congress that most of the people who asked for the investigation in the first place thought it was going to investigate the entire process from start to finish, including the numerous hearings and testimony she gave to Congress
From my understanding, the emails had classified markings, but were not marked classified. If that's the case, then she didn't lie about not sending or receiving any emails marked classified.
Yeah, If Mark Classified send them it wouldn't be sending Classified Mark Materials. Just classic Mark behavior.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#94 Jul 12 2016 at 1:07 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,278 posts
Bush's did nothing wrong
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#95 Jul 12 2016 at 5:43 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,152 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
In his final report, sure. It's pretty clear from the grilling he got from Congress that most of the people who asked for the investigation in the first place thought it was going to investigate the entire process from start to finish, including the numerous hearings and testimony she gave to Congress
From my understanding, the emails had classified markings, but were not marked classified. If that's the case, then she didn't lie about not sending or receiving any emails marked classified.
Yeah, If Mark Classified send them it wouldn't be sending Classified Mark Materials. Just classic Mark behavior.
?
#96 Jul 12 2016 at 7:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Timelordwho wrote:
Yeah, If Mark Classified send them it wouldn't be sending Classified Mark Materials. Just classic Mark behavior.

My understanding is that classified documents are supposed to be marked across the header as classified and then, within the body of text, symbols are used to denote the sensitive material. The emails Comey found were marked with a (c) within the document but lacked the headers designed to let you know at a glance that the document was classified.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#97 Jul 12 2016 at 7:14 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,221 posts
So, uh, just thousands and thousands of pages of super sloppy state dept. paperwork?

This really isn't making it better...
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#98 Jul 12 2016 at 7:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Where are you getting "thousands and thousands" from? There weren't "thousands" of classified emails involved.

In any case, I'm not trying to make you feel better but rather clarify what Alma was trying to say.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#99 Jul 12 2016 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
******
49,668 posts
gbaji wrote:
Lying to Congress is illegal too.
What you want to be illegal and what actually is illegal are two different things.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#100 Jul 12 2016 at 8:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Perjury before Congress is illegal but nearly impossible to prosecute since, again, you have to be able to prove intent. Clinton says she didn't send/receive any classified documents, FBI finds that 0.3% of the documents were classified, Clinton says "Don't remember those out of the tens of thousands of emails. You can see from the tiny percentage of classified documents that it was an extremely uncommon event that something must have slipped through; I thought my statement was accurate and truthful" and... how do you prove otherwise? Thus, getting DoJ to indict on perjury is a longer shot than indicting on the initial charges.

Edited, Jul 12th 2016 9:06am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#101 Jul 12 2016 at 8:11 AM Rating: Good
******
49,668 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Perjury before Congress is illegal but nearly impossible to prosecute since, again, you have to be able to prove intent.
You were just waiting for the chance to explain it on a technical level, weren't you?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 57 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (57)