bmags Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 02:58 PM) CNBC report: FBI concluded Russia is trying to undermine election but thought it was too close to election to say so I think it's worth noting that only one official is sourced for that story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 03:19 PM) I think it's worth noting that only one official is sourced for that story. Huh so better sourcing than the all of the hysteria surrounding Comey's letter from Friday? Good enough for me. sorry for the hot takes. Edited October 31, 2016 by StrangeSox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 03:09 PM) He could easily have chosen not to release that really vague but innuendo-laden letter while knowing precisely nothing beyond "Huma shared her husband's laptop, so there's some emails on it" a little less than two weeks before the election. Ultimately, even if this was "CYA" it's blown up in his face spectacularly as there's no way he continues on if/when Clinton wins. I would have had private convos with people. If that got leaked at least it doesn't come back on him. And if in 6 months they find some real dirt there, he can say that he notified the appropriate people before the election to show that not making it public wasn't politically motivated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lostfan Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 04:18 PM) "Ma'am, can you please let us look at your laptop 10 days before election day so that we can see if your boss, a presidential candidate, screwed up more than we previously thought?" "oh sure!" No way she lets them do that without a court order. If they knew there was nothing on there (or that the FBI had already seen everything on there) and they wanted to quietly get it over with knowing that the FBI was going to leak the warrant request and start a s***-show similar to this one, they probably would have done that, yeah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Would be interesting to see a list of admin positions that can/cannot be fired by exec. Fed chair/scotus/? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 The Associated Press ✔ @AP BREAKING: Justice Dept. says it'll dedicate all needed resources to quickly review emails in Clinton case. 3:16 PM - 31 Oct 2016 133 133 Retweets 72 72 likes and the other side of this is that the electorate is already pretty solidly baked in, so this doesn't seem to have moved the needle at all anyway. John HarwoodVerified account @JohnJHarwood new NBC/SurveyMonkey tracking poll shows race stable: Clinton 47%, Trump 41%, Johnson 6%, Stein 3%. (since last week Johnson -1, Clinton +1) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 03:20 PM) I would have had private convos with people. If that got leaked at least it doesn't come back on him. And if in 6 months they find some real dirt there, he can say that he notified the appropriate people before the election to show that not making it public wasn't politically motivated. It's hard right now, but there certainly seems to be a lot of innuendo that he was pressured by a subgroup of FBI agents or Chaffetz himself that they would leak if he did not advise congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 03:21 PM) If they knew there was nothing on there (or that the FBI had already seen everything on there) and they wanted to quietly get it over with knowing that the FBI was going to leak the warrant request and start a s***-show similar to this one, they probably would have done that, yeah. Worth noting that by everyone's account other than people actively in the Trump Campaign, the Clintons have been as forthcoming as technology allows in handing stuff over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (Ezio Auditore @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 03:21 PM) If they knew there was nothing on there (or that the FBI had already seen everything on there) and they wanted to quietly get it over with knowing that the FBI was going to leak the warrant request and start a s***-show similar to this one, they probably would have done that, yeah. Maybe, but i'm sure there's a ton of personal stuff they wouldn't want to see the light of day. Edited October 31, 2016 by JenksIsMyHero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 03:24 PM) Worth noting that by everyone's account other than people actively in the Trump Campaign, the Clintons have been as forthcoming as technology allows in handing stuff over. Right, it's not like they delete emails or anything... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 03:26 PM) Maybe, but i'm sure there's a ton of personal stuff they wouldn't want to see the light of day. Does this stuff become FOIA available once in FBI investigation? Or only the items a warrant would allow? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 03:29 PM) Does this stuff become FOIA available once in FBI investigation? Or only the items a warrant would allow? Definitely not DURING the investigation. Maybe after, after some heavy redaction (personal information, state security, etc.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 03:29 PM) Does this stuff become FOIA available once in FBI investigation? Or only the items a warrant would allow? The personal stuff does not - that's what has taken time in the Clinton case, with both personal and government matters on the same server they had the legal right to filter through them because content with personal details does not need to be handed over and should still retain privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Yeah, I have to say, I understand why considering stakes and confidence she may have granted, but I don't think anyone should be put in that position. Obviously with the warrant supposedly being granted they have cleared it by now, but at face value I'd have wanted to ensure 4th amendment wasn't violated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmags Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 03:19 PM) Huh so better sourcing than the all of the hysteria surrounding Comey's letter from Friday? Good enough for me. sorry for the hot takes. Well there have been a lot of "other end" stories justified by a single FBI official. And that's like half of Greg's news. I can't find the WSJ report, but there seems to be an internal group frothing at mouth to investigate anything clinton, and their presentation to the DOJ to investigate clinton foundation was supposedly embarrassing for it's thin support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Hurtin Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Trump knows something about deleting emails. http://www.newsweek.com/2016/11/11/donald-...nts-515120.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 QUOTE (bmags @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 03:36 PM) Well there have been a lot of "other end" stories justified by a single FBI official. And that's like half of Greg's news. I can't find the WSJ report, but there seems to be an internal group frothing at mouth to investigate anything clinton, and their presentation to the DOJ to investigate clinton foundation was supposedly embarrassing for it's thin support. How about a second source? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/james-...c15cg5cvdxcg14i Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 QUOTE (RockRaines @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 07:26 PM) You love listening to conspiracy theorists and you are writing one in for president. And you wonder why nobody takes you seriously..... Yeah but you can't deny my complaint. You guys blast a lot of people like Limbaugh out of pocket and I get reamed when I blast Hillary without links, etc. Limbaugh, Meghan McCain, Herman Cain, some of the people I link to ... they immediately get dismissed as kooks or horrible people. Then when I blasted Hillary on occasion without proof I got told to cut it out. I even got told to quit putting negative Hillary stuff in the Democrat thread. Why is Limbaugh so bad a source? He's rich. He has a zillion listeners like Stern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 06:18 PM) Yeah but you can't deny my complaint. You guys blast a lot of people like Limbaugh out of pocket and I get reamed when I blast Hillary without links, etc. Limbaugh, Meghan McCain, Herman Cain, some of the people I link to ... they immediately get dismissed as kooks or horrible people. Then when I blasted Hillary on occasion without proof I got told to cut it out. I even got told to quit putting negative Hillary stuff in the Democrat thread. Why is Limbaugh so bad a source? He's rich. He has a zillion listeners like Stern. He's a racist bigoted sexist hateful terrible human being and anyone who thinks he is anything other than that is very likely in many of those same categories with him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Hurtin Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 07:24 PM) He's a racist bigoted sexist hateful terrible human being and anyone who thinks he is anything other than that is very likely in many of those same categories with him. I know, and the same can be said about Rush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 11:24 PM) He's a racist bigoted sexist hateful terrible human being and anyone who thinks he is anything other than that is very likely in many of those same categories with him. See? What a double standard. How many Americans love and listen to Limbaugh?? Tons. You can't just says millions of Americans are scum for loving Rush. Now your first sentence is interesting. Would I face suspension on here if I rattled off a similarly mean sentence about Hillary? Or Bill? What about mean unsubstantiated stuff about Obama? You issue no proof of his racism and sexist ways. Terrible human being? How the hell do you KNOW that. He may for all we know give more money to charity than some saint. At least I backed off when told to lay off Hillary. Now I only put criticism when I have the links. Edited October 31, 2016 by greg775 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Hurtin Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 07:40 PM) See? What a double standard. How many Americans love and listen to Limbaugh?? Tons. You can't just says millions of Americans are scum for loving Rush. Now your first sentence is interesting. Would I face suspension on here if I rattled off a similarly mean sentence about Hillary? Or Bill? What about mean unsubstantiated stuff about Obama? You issue no proof of his racism and sexist ways. Terrible human being? How the hell do you KNOW that. He may for all we know give more money to charity than some saint. At least I backed off when told to lay off Hillary. Now I only put criticism when I have the links. A. Why not? B. It's impossible for you to listen to him as much as you say and not know this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 06:40 PM) See? What a double standard. How many Americans love and listen to Limbaugh?? Tons. You can't just says millions of Americans are scum for loving Rush. Now your first sentence is interesting. Would I face suspension on here if I rattled off a similarly mean sentence about Hillary? Or Bill? What about mean unsubstantiated stuff about Obama? You issue no proof of his racism and sexist ways. Terrible human being? How the hell do you KNOW that. He may for all we know give more money to charity than some saint. At least I backed off when told to lay off Hillary. Now I only put criticism when I have the links. Want to hear him use the N-word? Want to hear him make fun of the fact that the Chinese Premier has an asian accent? His "Which team will win Survivor based on every racial stereotype you can come up with" would be funny if it weren't sick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 QUOTE (Tony @ Oct 31, 2016 -> 07:28 PM) Oh come on, he's rich, and he's been around forever. We all say crazy things sometimes. He's still very smart. WHAT ABOUT HILLARY? Hillary? She has the Democratic party in her, well... But that's all the least of this. The Clintons will not concede. If the superdelegates go Obama, the Clintons will not concede on the cheap. They have the threat of a lawsuit over Michigan and then the threat of a lawsuit over Florida. And as you know, lawsuits can go from a court to a court of appeals to the Supreme Court. Unless of course, the party pays tribute to the Clintons, and what might that tribute be, I have no clue, but whatever you might imagine it to be, double it or triple it. Because Mrs. Clinton's testicle lockbox is big enough for the entire Democrat hierarchy, not just some people in the media. And whether they have been taking steroids and the testicles are smaller than usual doesn't matter. Her lockbox, her testicle lockbox can handle everybody in the Democrat hierarchy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 Remember when Trump bragged about sexually assaulting women and then over a dozen women including some teenagers came forward with allegations of improper behavior and sexual assault? BUT EMAILS!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts