• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

FBI PROBING NEW CLINTON EMAILS

Bear with me since I'm relatively apolitical. If I've got this straight, some dork took a pic of his package in his skivvies and sent it to some lost soul via cellphone.
1) Must have been some johnson.
2) He should have called Tiger.
3) If this somehow influences this Presidential election, then why the hell not? May as well go all the way down the rabbit hole.
4) Write-in bluefish. I'm really the only one who can fix this mess.
 
Huma could write a great book; so much to work with between the Clinton's and Anthony Weiner.
 
So Weiner was allegedly emailing dick pics to a 15 girl in North Carolina. That was his follow up to sending a tighty whitey woodie while cuddling with his infant kid pic to someone else? Why didn't he just snag one of Huma's bhurkas and whip his penie out in a CLT women's bathroom? Sincerely hope that sick fuck gets his salad tossed in the big house. At least prison will turn him ghey.
 
Sometimes I marvel at how seemingly little people understand about email. There are a minimum of two parties involved in an email, and a sent/received email resides on more than one computer, by its very nature. Year long investigations, as well as hacks by foreign governments, have read hundreds of thousands of emails from this campaign. Chances are these have already been read through Podesta and Hillarys side of the transaction. You have to send the email to someone, shitheads.

Also, all I have seen is that Hillary may have been careless with her choice of email servers, but how does carelessness now equal corruption? Doesn't corruption imply that some willful act to defraud another party has occurred? If you send work related content - possibly secret - from your gmail account are you then automatically defrauding your employer? No. The feigned horror that this reveals massive corruption is ludicrous.
 
First quantitative measure of the new email bomb. After the first debate, Mexican peso rose 2% against the $. Yesterday peso declined 1% against the dollar.

Used plagiarism software to figure out Melania's speech was a sham. Figure out how many emails are new and examine the new ones as soon as possible. Very few people left who haven't factored in the private server or Trump's erratic behavior into account already.

AZ, GA, and UT have to be stoked since they won't be seeing either asshole in the next week. FL, PA, OH, NC, NV, NH, and IA won't be so fortunate and will have unlikable and uninvited trick or treaters.

Conway and Pence should confiscate Trump's phone and fit him with a ball gag until more information is available. Should kick in more than $10M for GOTV.
 
Last edited:
WakeandBake said:
Sometimes I marvel at how seemingly little people understand about email. There are a minimum of two parties involved in an email, and a sent/received email resides on more than one computer, by its very nature. Year long investigations, as well as hacks by foreign governments, have read hundreds of thousands of emails from this campaign. Chances are these have already been read through Podesta and Hillarys side of the transaction. You have to send the email to someone, shitheads.

Also, all I have seen is that Hillary may have been careless with her choice of email servers, but how does carelessness now equal corruption? Doesn't corruption imply that some willful act to defraud another party has occurred? If you send work related content - possibly secret - from your gmail account are you then automatically defrauding your employer? No. The feigned horror that this reveals massive corruption is ludicrous.
Click to expand...

If you really want to talk about Clinton corruption (though none of the Clinton voters here seem so inclined), we could start here:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/doesnt-c...ats-1477611135

Donald Trump wears his character flaws on his sleeve. Hillary Clinton seeks to prevent documentation of hers, even when the law requires it. Yet despite her best efforts, facts about Mrs. Clinton that are now public should trouble voters more than any of Mr. Trump’s remarks.
Not that it’s easy for Republicans to appear on a ballot with Mr. Trump, especially since media folk spend days after each controversial remark demanding responses from other GOP candidates. The objective is to force them to endorse or condemn Mr. Trump and suffer the consequences.
Fair enough, but reporters don’t force down-ballot Democrats to take a position on each new Clinton email revelation. The result is wall-to-wall media coverage focused on whether GOP voters can possibly support their candidate. But why should Republicans have all the fun? Democratic voters have every right to be ashamed of their nominee.

We’ll review some of the reasons in a moment, but first let’s consider the importance of party loyalty in this year’s presidential election. In recent polls, Mr. Trump often leads among independents. But he generally trails overall because Mrs. Clinton enjoys stronger support among Democrats than Mr. Trump does among Republicans—or because pollsters don’t believe Republicans will turn out and therefore include many more Democrats than Republicans in their survey samples. Clearly Mr. Trump needs more Republicans to support him. This could happen if holdout Republicans break his way or if some Democrats decide they can’t stomach another era of Clinton scandals.

History says it will probably have to be the former. Bill Clinton rallied his party and survived an impeachment vote in the 1990s not by disproving the charges against him, but by dedicating himself to partisan goals. Once he agreed to abandon entitlement reform, Democratic support in the Senate was rock solid.

Similarly, at the final debate last week Mrs. Clinton made no effort to embrace centrist policies. She called for higher taxes, expanded entitlements and an activist Supreme Court to impose strict limits on liberties enumerated in the Bill of Rights. Mrs. Clinton is speaking exclusively to the left wing of her party. Mr. Trump, for his part, deviates from many Republicans on trade and immigration but has otherwise embraced a growth agenda of lower taxes and regulatory relief for an economy that sorely needs it.

Beyond policy considerations, voters across the political spectrum should consider what it would mean to ratify Mrs. Clinton’s institutionalization of political corruption. We now know from emails published by WikiLeaks that before Mrs. Clinton formally launched her campaign, she arranged for the king of Morocco to donate $12 million to Clinton Foundation programs.

What’s significant about the Morocco case is that for years the Clintons peddled the fiction that donors write checks simply to support wondrous acts of Clintonian charity. But that cover story isn’t available here. Mrs. Clinton’s trusted aide Huma Abedin put it in writing: The Moroccans agreed to the deal on the condition that Mrs. Clinton would participate at a conference in their country.

Panicked Clinton-campaign aides persuaded Mrs. Clinton to avoid such a trip before launching her candidacy—and the foundation got the king to settle for Bill and Chelsea Clinton. But the record is clear. The king wanted the access, influence and prestige that all strongmen crave from legitimate democracies.
This wasn’t the first time the Clintons satisfied such a desire while collecting megadonations. When it comes to human rights, Kazakhstan’s dictator, Nursultan Nazarbayev, makes Morocco’s king look enlightened. In power since 1991 and never freely elected, Mr. Nazarbayev must have enjoyed the sensation of Mr. Clinton endorsing him to lead an international election-monitoring group in 2005.

The Kazakh strongman knows how to return a favor, and he granted valuable mining concessions to Clinton Foundation donors. The donors then built a global uranium powerhouse that was eventually sold to the Russians in a deal that required the 2010 approval of a U.S. government committee that included Mrs. Clinton’s State Department. To put the cherry on this sundae, the Clintons violated their promise to the Obama administration by failing to publicly identify all the foundation donors.

A cache of emails, recently made public via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by the Republican National Committee, exposes another fiction at the heart of the Clinton Foundation. Clinton aides have long asserted that nobody received preferential treatment from Secretary Clinton’s State Department as a result of foundation donations. Yet emails show the State Department giving special access to “FOBs” (Friends of Bill Clinton) or “WJC VIPs” (William Jefferson Clinton VIPs) identified by foundation staff.

WikiLeaks has revealed a draft 2011 report on Clinton Foundation governance from the Simpson Thacher & Bartlett law firm. The document notes that the foundation had a conflict-of-interest policy for directors, officers and key employees and a separate conflict-of-interest policy for other employees. “It appears that neither policy has been implemented,” reported the lawyers.

Of course not. Conflict of interest is the Clinton business model. And political influence is the product. That’s how Hillary and Bill managed to gross more than a Rolling Stones tour by delivering speeches. Looking at how successful Mrs. Clinton and her husband were in monetizing her position as secretary of state, why would any voter, of any party, want to see how much revenue she can squeeze from the Oval Office?

Voters who wish to reject the Clintonization of America’s governing institutions have a choice on Nov. 8. They can feel good about themselves by writing in the name of a third-party candidate. Or they can do right by the country by selecting the only person who can stop the Clintons: a very flawed candidate named Donald Trump.
 
WakeandBake said:
Brilliant retort. I'll pass it along to Comey. In an email.
Click to expand...

Why do you think Hillary chose to use a private server for handling all her emails instead of the State Department system? Why do you think it's necessary for a Secretary of State, who regularly deals in classified material, to not use a private server? Does it matter to you that Clinton has repeatedly lied, including under oath? There is no question Clinton mishandled classified material and in doing so put the United States at risk.
 
A regular person's email are not subject to FOIA requests. Clinton was clearly trying to get around the law with her private server. She did not feel government transparency should apply to her. So she chose to put the nation at risk by mishandling classified info. And repeatedly lied and tried to mislead the public when the facts started to come out. For W & B to act like her behavior is not corrupt and is no big deal is ridiculous.
 
I would at least like to see Trump's tax returns if we are judging candidates on their corruptness.
 
PhDeac said:
I would at least like to see Trump's tax returns if we are judging candidates on their corruptness.
Click to expand...

Seriously. Trump and his supporters claiming the the moral high ground is laughable. Did you guys forget about the sexual assault, alleged marital rape, charity fraud, campaign finance fraud, bankruptcies, possible tax evasion, Trump U fraud, more lawsuit happy than an ambulance chaser, racial discrimination in his housing units, campaign ties to the Kremlin and not having any respect for our democratic institutions? And this is only the tip of the iceberg. You think a man like this is going to be a man of integrity in the most powerful position in the world?
 
bobknightfan said:
The choice in this election comes down to whether you want a crude president or a corrupt president.
Click to expand...

Trump isn't just crude. He's paid millions in judgments for his corruption. He paid $1,000,000 for illegal hiring. He paid well in six figures for his racist and sexist employment practices. He was cited for rental discrimination for his properties. He's stiffed banks and other people for tens of millions of dollars. His modeling agency committed thousands of immigration violations. He's sexually assaulted many women.

You worry about your granddaughter going into a bathroom. You should be far more worried about what Trump might do to her if she got within his reach.

That's barely a start of his personal history, but you still support him.
 
BobStackFan4Life said:
Why do you think Hillary chose to use a private server for handling all her emails instead of the State Department system? Why do you think it's necessary for a Secretary of State, who regularly deals in classified material, to not use a private server? Does it matter to you that Clinton has repeatedly lied, including under oath? There is no question Clinton mishandled classified material and in doing so put the United States at risk.
Click to expand...

Talk more about this term "handling." Do you understand what you are even told you are supposed to be outraged about?
 
RJKarl said:
Trump isn't just crude. He's paid millions in judgments for his corruption. He paid $1,000,000 for illegal hiring. He paid well in six figures for his racist and sexist employment practices. He was cited for rental discrimination for his properties. He's stiffed banks and other people for tens of millions of dollars. His modeling agency committed thousands of immigration violations. He's sexually assaulted many women.

You worry about your granddaughter going into a bathroom. You should be far more worried about what Trump might do to her if she got within his reach.

That's barely a start of his personal history, but you still support him.
Click to expand...

RJ, there is one thing that you need to understand here: Just because you say something, that doesn't make it so. You are constantly throwing out accusations as facts....and you seem to be getting more & more desperate lately where Donald Trump is concerned.

I would like to compliment you on your last post, though. It was comprised of complete sentences and there were no words left out. The result was that the post was much easier to read....even if there was nothing in it that was worth reading.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top