2016 Presidential Horse Race

2016 Presidential Horse Race


  • Total voters
    183

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
Random thought while driving today: I finally figured out who Donald Trump is.

For those of us who grew up in the 90s watching WWF, Donald Trump is Stone Cold Steve Austin. It's him against the world, one man wrecking ball, doesn't care who he offends, speaks his mind, and isn't in it to make friends.

I hope he comes out with the Coors Lite beer truck and sprays the debate moderators at least one time.

On the flip side, Hillary Clinton is Stephanie McMahon. She has no achievements and is only in her position because of her last name.
 

Wild Bill

Well-known member
Messages
5,519
Reaction score
3,266
It isn't just his view on evolution, he has some pretty fringe views.

Views on war
Ben Carson Calls For No Rules In War

Prison making people gay

How about Congress should remove judges for voting for SSM.

“Obamacare is really I think the worst thing that has happened in this nation since slavery.” “And it is in a way, it is slavery in a way, because it is making all of us subservient to the government, and it was never about health care,” he added. “It was about control.”

Those are hardly things that impress moderates. Yes he was a good neurosurgeon, unfortunately that doesn't make him a good presidential candidate.

ETA: Those might play well during the primary but will most likely turn off many moderate voters.

He definitely has hurdles to overcome, no different than any other candidate.
 

ACamp1900

Counting my ‘bet against ND’ winnings
Messages
48,951
Reaction score
11,234
Random thought while driving today: I finally figured out who Donald Trump is.

For those of us who grew up in the 90s watching WWF, Donald Trump is Stone Cold Steve Austin. It's him against the world, one man wrecking ball, doesn't care who he offends, speaks his mind, and isn't in it to make friends.

I hope he comes out with the Coors Lite beer truck and sprays the debate moderators at least one time.

On the flip side, Hillary Clinton is Stephanie McMahon. She has no achievements and is only in her position because of her last name.

So Bern is Mankind?
 

EddytoNow

Vbuck Redistributor
Messages
1,481
Reaction score
235
Random thought while driving today: I finally figured out who Donald Trump is.

For those of us who grew up in the 90s watching WWF, Donald Trump is Stone Cold Steve Austin. It's him against the world, one man wrecking ball, doesn't care who he offends, speaks his mind, and isn't in it to make friends.

I hope he comes out with the Coors Lite beer truck and sprays the debate moderators at least one time.

On the flip side, Hillary Clinton is Stephanie McMahon. She has no achievements and is only in her position because of her last name.

You won't often find PolishLeppy and I agreeing on anything politically, but I've been thinking for some time that the Trump phenomena reminds me a whole lot of professional wrestiling (WWF or WWE). Grab the microphone, call out your opponents, say anything outrageous that comes into your head, never back away from your media persona, and rest reassured that it's all a show for public attention. The funny thing is that there is probably a very high correlation between wrestlig fans and supporters of Trump. Trump could probably solidify his base of support by appearing as a guest on one of the televised wrestling shows. Maybe he could even challenge one of the popular wrestlers to a face-to-face shouting match.
 

woolybug25

#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
Messages
17,677
Reaction score
3,018
Random thought while driving today: I finally figured out who Donald Trump is.

For those of us who grew up in the 90s watching WWF, Donald Trump is Stone Cold Steve Austin. It's him against the world, one man wrecking ball, doesn't care who he offends, speaks his mind, and isn't in it to make friends.

I hope he comes out with the Coors Lite beer truck and sprays the debate moderators at least one time.

On the flip side, Hillary Clinton is Stephanie McMahon. She has no achievements and is only in her position because of her last name.

And just like WWF... It's all fake...

Sounds right though... Don't we deserve better for the most important job on the planet? We really want to be able to compare candidates to WWF wrestlers?
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
For whatever this is worth, I am a born again Christian and I believe in both. I think both God and evolution can exist. I also look at data, science, etc.

I like to have my religious beliefs while also using common sense.

So, vote for me in 2020 when I go up against Kanye West.

I know you are joking around some, but yours is the attitude that many scientists I deal with have. The concept that someone can't make good scientific decisions, and be objective because they believe in God is absurd...
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
This is where I just can''t go and get recalcitrant over. Its not about believing...its about what you can prove and God is an unverifiable premise that is unnecessarily injected and therefore any data obtained with that goal in mind is erroneous. They won't ever generate really great data under these circumstances. No rational conclusion can be drawn when your conclusion is your premise. For example, the sun is yellow because of the wavelength of light it emits and the interference caused by our atmosphere and our eyes ability to discern those emitted wavelengths. Those are verifiable, scientifically obtained values. The sun is yellow because God said so is unverifiable and serves zero purpose in understanding our world.

Anyway... it should not be a charged discussion but it is because the people promoting creation based science with the premise of proving God's existence provide data (LOL) from a fundamentally poor and dangerous misuse of the scientific process. And it requires much debunking and correction in the public which is really wasted time, manpower and resources.

Hmm...not my intent...anyone with bias that bleeds into their work may not do great work. I look at it that people who believe in God are capable of exercising good science. If upon reflection they believe their findings support the existence of God...great. No one said they go in with a pre-conceived notion of anything. Thats just a bad generalization.

Often times you will find those with belief in God well inspired to conduct great science...sorry, but just such people make ICBMs, F-16s, F-22s, and all manner of space-based technology etc do what they do...right in front of my face. As for those who see God in the results...I also had a front seat to the development of DNA column separators (my team wrote the interface to the HPLC and parts of the UI). Some of scientists I worked with were God fearing men, who saw the grueling process as inspired work, and saw their invention afterword as God's work, and DNA as divine. Whatever, the shit worked and moved genotyping forward.

Cack, it has been my experience that great science is in the inspiration and the ability to keep it. I've seen far too many great men who were believers who were nothing like your description...were great disciplined scientists. I have no issue with your beliefs, as that may be your inspiration, but they are a very far cry from my experiences.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
LOL. I have read multiple books about the founders, at least one biography of most of the important ones (Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams, etc.) and I have taken college courses on the founders and the founding of the U.S. Shockingly most biographies touch upon the religiousness or lack there of, so I feel confident talking about not only their adult religious views but also their religious upbringing. Also we have a significant amount of letters and writings from the founders upon which to draw.

I agree that someone's religious affiliation or lack there of does not matter to me but unfortunately in our country it is very important.

Before you drag this too far off topic...

The debate is not about how deeply religious the founders were. The debate is about whether or not a man can effectively govern independent of those religious beliefs. The Founding Fathers are an example of men doing just that. Regardless of how deeply religious they were, this excerpt from one of your own readings, that you referenced in one of your own posts, indicates that religion was a major influence on the founding of America:

From: The Founders' Faith - George Washington, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Jay, religion, faith, beliefs, Thomas Jefferson

Faith and religion played a strong role in America's Founding. Historian Thomas S. Kidd noted that "the evangelical tradition supplied spiritual propulsion to the Patriot cause that was unsurpassed by any other element of Patriot ideology.

And yet these men established the original "separation of Church and State". That doesn't mean that Ben Carson would make a good President, but it does indicate that perhaps we can't automatically assume that a man of faith would govern poorly just because of that faith.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
Hmm...not my intent...anyone with bias that bleeds into their work may not do great work. I look at it that people who believe in God are capable of exercising good science. If upon reflection they believe their findings support the existence of God...great. No one said they go in with a pre-conceived notion of anything. Thats just a bad generalization.

Often times you will find those with belief in God well inspired to conduct great science...sorry, but just such people make ICBMs, F-16s, F-22s, and all manner of space-based technology etc do what they do...right in front of my face. As for those who see God in the results...I also had a front seat to the development of DNA column separators (my team wrote the interface to the HPLC and parts of the UI). Some of scientists I worked with were God fearing men, who saw the grueling process as inspired work, and saw their invention afterword as God's work, and DNA as divine. Whatever, the shit worked and moved genotyping forward.

Cack, it has been my experience that great science is in the inspiration and the ability to keep it. I've seen far too many great men who were believers who were nothing like your description...were great disciplined scientists. I have no issue with your beliefs, as that may be your inspiration, but they are a very far cry from my experiences.

I don't know how my posts got pulled away from charlatans like those associated with the DI which is all that I have been posting about and that applied to men doing practical engineering and arms manufacturing that are god fearing. So if I am being misunderstood/misrepresented this much I will probably refrain from expressing those opinions.
 
C

Cackalacky

Guest
I know you are joking around some, but yours is the attitude that many scientists I deal with have. The concept that someone can't make good scientific decisions, and be objective because they believe in God is absurd...

That's NOT AT ALL what I have said and if that is what you think I said, I suggest re-reading my posts.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
I don't know how my posts got pulled away from charlatans like those associated with the DI which is all that I have been posting about and that applied to men doing practical engineering and arms manufacturing that are god fearing. So if I am being misunderstood/misrepresented this much I will probably refrain from expressing those opinions.


I think maybe between the Ben Carson assessment and the DI discussion I misunderstood your stance...my apologies. I'm not a "win the argument at all costs" kinda cat, so I would never try and misrepresent what you say...you can pretty much count on misunderstanding if I'm appearing to get you wrong.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
Another 57 Clinton email threads contain foreign governments' information | Reuters

By Jonathon Allen
9/2/15

"Here's my personal email," Hillary Clinton wrote to U.S. special envoy George Mitchell on a summer Sunday in 2010 as he telephoned one European official after another in an effort to keep peace talks between the Israelis and the Palestinians on track.

"Pls use this for reply," Clinton wrote in her email, sent from the clintonemail.com account she set up on an unsecured, private server in her New York home for her work as secretary of state.

Over the following hours, Mitchell wrote back to Clinton with summaries of his conversations, including one with Spain's foreign minister, who had briefed him on discussions with Palestinian leaders. The State Department has redacted the summary of the minister's thoughts, saying it is classified information.

The exchange is among dozens in a new batch of Clinton's emails released this week that shed further light on how Clinton handled information while she was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013.

Clinton, front-runner to be the Democratic candidate in the November 2016 presidential election, has faced steady criticism from political opponents since it emerged in March that she used a private set-up rather than a government-issued state.gov email address.

Clinton has maintained she did nothing wrong. She says she sent no information via email that was classified at the time, and received no material marked that way.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation is examining Clinton's server to see whether information was mishandled. No evidence has emerged suggesting Clinton's email practices harmed national security.

A review last month by Reuters of previously released Clinton emails found 30 email threads that the State Department has marked to show they include information shared in confidence by foreign government officials, from prime ministers to spy chiefs.

U.S. government regulations examined by Reuters say this sort of information, whether written or spoken, must be classified from the start, and handled through secure, government-controlled channels.

The Clinton-Mitchell correspondence is one of 57 email threads found by Reuters in the latest batch of emails released on Monday that the State Department has marked as including the same type of information.

In all the 87 email threads examined by Reuters, the State Department has blanked out the confidential information in the public copies, adding the classification code "1.4(B)", denoting foreign government information.

This is the only kind of information that presidential executive orders say is "presumed" to likely harm national security if wrongly disclosed. State Department regulations describe it as the "most important category of national security information" its officials encounter.

If the State Department's markings are correct, it appears that Clinton and her senior staff routinely did not follow the regulations in the department's Foreign Affairs Manual, which tells employees they "must" safeguard foreign government information by treating it as classified.

"It's hard to square the secretary's conduct with the strict letter of the FAM," Steven Aftergood, the director of the Federation of American Scientists' government secrecy project, said in an email.

The department and spokesmen for Clinton have declined requests to explain this apparent lapse.

UNCLEAR HOW CLOSELY REGULATIONS FOLLOWED

It is not clear if Clinton approached classified information differently than other secretaries of state before or after.

Several career diplomats, who joined the department before Clinton's tenure, also sent foreign government information through their unclassified .gov email accounts, the marked redactions on Clinton's emails show, suggesting that the regulations may be commonly ignored in favor of speedier communications.

Asked whether John Kerry, the current secretary of state, has sent such information via unsecured channels, a State Department spokesman declined to say either way.

The department declined to say whether Clinton adhered to the relevant regulations and laws while she was in charge, or whether the secretary of state is even bound by the department's regulations.

The department has said the information in some of Clinton's emails is being newly classified now, but it has also said it cannot know for sure whether the information should have been handled as classified all along.

Nearly 8,000 emails have been released, about a quarter of the total Clinton returned to the department last year. They are being published in monthly batches following a federal judge's orders. The State Department has redacted classified information from nearly 200 of them so far. All but one of them is marked "Confidential," the lowest level of classified information.

Several emails show Clinton and her staff were mindful of handling sensitive information with care: there are repeated references to setting up conversations over secure telephone lines.

In a September 2010 email, Jake Sullivan, a senior aide now working as an adviser for Clinton's presidential campaign, tells Clinton he just met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for several hours.

"Happy to talk secure at your convenience," he wrote. He went on to summarize "highlights" from the conversation. Five or six lines of text follow, all now blanked out, classified and stamped "CONFIDENTIAL."
 
Last edited:

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
Has she ever explained why she would go about using a personal email address, instead of an @state.gov one?
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
New emails show Hillary assisting for-profit college that paid Bill $16M | Fox News

By Blake Neff

9/3/15

New emails released from Hillary Clinton’s email server reveal that while she was secretary of state, Clinton did a favor for a for-profit education company that later paid her husband more than $16 million.

In 2009, just a few months after Hillary took over at the Department of State, she was involved in planning a private dinner on education policy that featured herself, several State Department staff, and about a dozen individuals involved with higher education.

In one email, sent Aug. 2, 2009 and first noted by Inside Higher Ed, Clinton discusses the upcoming dinner and what guests should be invited. She urges the department to invite a representative of the for-profit chain Laureate International Universities to the dinner.

“And [redacted] works for the fastest-growing college network in the world, Laureate Universities, started by Doug Becker who Bill likes a lot,” Clinton says. “It’s a for-profit model that should be represented.”

A second email shows that Clinton’s wish was carried out, as Laureate Senior Vice President Joseph Duffey was one of 20 guests at the Aug. 17 dinner. Laureate wasn’t the only school to be invited due to Clinton. Methodist-run Africa University had a representative at the dinner after Clinton proposed it (Clinton is a United Methodist).

The emails were released by the State Department as part of its ongoing disclosure of tens of thousands of emails handed over from Clinton’s private email server.

Just a few months later, in spring 2010, Bill Clinton was named as Laureate’s honorary chancellor, a post he held until stepping down in April 2015. His pay at the time wasn’t disclosed, but in July, Hillary’s publication of her tax returns revealed that Bill was paid over $16.5 million by Laureate from 2010 through 2015. (RELATED: Bill Clinton Was Paid More Than $16.5 MILLION By A For-Profit College Company)

The email exchange itself is minor, but it is another example of the State Department showing a favorable disposition towards Laureate. The company’s non-profit wing also received a $1.9 million grant from the department, and in 2010 Laureate became a part of the State Department’s Global Partnership.

While on the campaign trail, Clinton has been sharply critical of for-profit education, pledging in her college plan to “crack down on law-breaking for-profits” and promising to “bring integrity” to the field of online education, which for-profits are strongly associated with. She’s never criticized Laureate, though, while Bill has offered substantial praise for the company. (RELATED: Does Hillary Think Online Education Is The Same As For-Profit?)

Laureate has emerged as one of the largest for-profit education companies in the world, thought its presence in the U.S. is quite small. Its largest presence is in Latin America, where it has courted controversy for allegedly buying existing school and jacking up enrollment while reducing academic quality. One of the company’s schools in Chile had its accreditation revoke in 2014
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
Which is, of course, ridiculous. I get email from four different accounts on the same device.

That really isn't how it works with government e-mail though. I can't, for example, get my government e-mails on my iPhone because the rules don't allow it. The ridiculous part to me is that the shrugging of the rules mentality always seems to be part of the Clinton MO. That said, this isn't something she could have done on her own. There would have had to be special permissions to do the whole private server thing that is at the center of all of this. I assume that if she ordered someone to do something that was illegal, it would surely have come out by now. Hillary does not strike me as a techy that went down to Best Buy and did this on her own.

I think this whole thing is neither as big a deal as the Clinton detractors want it to be, or as insignificant and innocent as the Clinton camp wants it to be.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
That really isn't how it works with government e-mail though. I can't, for example, get my government e-mails on my iPhone because the rules don't allow it.
Maybe you can't get government e-mails on your personal device, but you could get personal emails on your government device.

Also, she's Hillary Clinton. Bullshit that she couldn't get someone in the government to set her up with a secured device that received bother personal and work e-mails.
 

kmoose

Banned
Messages
10,298
Reaction score
1,181
Convenience of not having to carry more than one device.

She probably would have to carry more than one device, due to the encryption that I would imagine is required for a device to operate on a secure State Dept. network. But still........
That's bvllshit, and anyone with half a brain should be able to see right through it. Like the Secretary of State can't delegate carrying one of the devices to one of the half dozen aides that follows her around? And that aide can't tap her on the shoulder and let her know that an email came in to the device? (Not that they would be able to read it, but they would have noticed that the notification for new email had gone off)
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
Clinton email staffer subpoenaed, plans to plead the Fifth | MSNBC

By Alex Seitz-Wald
9/3/15

A former Hillary Clinton staffer who helped set up the former secretary of state’s private email server has vowed to plead the Fifth and refuse to answer questions after a congressional committee subpoenaed him, msnbc confirmed late Wednesday.

Bryan Pagliano, who worked for Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign and at the State Department, has been identified in digital records as the person who set up her email server in 2009.

The House Select Committee on Benghazi, which is investigating Clinton’s emails, subpoenaed Pagliano last month to testify. But his lawyer said Monday that the IT specialist would refuse to answer questions, asserting his constitutional right against self-incrimination, The Washington Post first reported Wednesday.

“While we understand that Mr. Pagliano’s response to this subpoena may be controversial in the current political environment, we hope that the members of the Select Committee will respect our client’s right,” attorney Mark MacDougall wrote in a letter obtained by msnbc to Benghazi Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy.

The letter cites the fact the FBI is already investigating the security of Clinton’s email server, and notes that Pagliano had been contacted in the past week by two separate Senate committees also looking into the matter.

RELATED: Clinton’s gefilte fish mystery, solved

Pagliano was IT director for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before serving as special advisor to the Department of State under Clinton from May 2009 through February 2013, according to his LinkedIn page.

Pagliano’s move will likely pour fuel on partisan fire over Clinton’s email server, with opponents sure to cite it as evidence that Clinton and her team are stonewalling investigators.

It’s unclear what, if anything, Pagliano could be held accountable for. Refusing to testify could be an attempt to avoid accidentally perjuring himself under oath.

Clinton’s campaign said late Wednesday that they had hoped Pagliano would answer the committee’s questions and encouraged him to do so. “His decision is both understandable and yet also disappointing to us,” a campaign aide said in a statement.

“We have been confident from the beginning that Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email was allowed and that she did not send or receive anything marked classified, facts confirmed by the State Department and the Inspector General. She has made every effort to answer questions and be as helpful as possible, and has encouraged her aides, current and former, to do the same, including Bryan Pagliano. In fact, two of those aides are due to testify this week, and she is eager to testify in a public hearing in October,” the aide added.

“Although multiple legal experts agree there is no evidence of criminal activity, it is certainly understandable that this witness’ attorneys advised him to assert his Fifth Amendment rights,” said the Benghazi Committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings.

Cummings went on to suggest that Republicans’ asserts that Clinton had committed a crime could have lead Pagliano’s attorney to advise against testimony. “Their insatiable desire to derail Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign at all costs has real consequences for any serious congressional effort,” Cummings said.

In a memo shared with Democratic members of the committee, the committee staff point to numerous examples of Republican presidential candidates claiming Clinton had committed a crime. They also note that one can plead the Fifth even if there is no criminal investigation.
 

wizards8507

Well-known member
Messages
20,660
Reaction score
2,661
She probably would have to carry more than one device, due to the encryption that I would imagine is required for a device to operate on a secure State Dept. network.
Encryption doesn't mean shit. Any big company worth a damn is using military-grade encryption on work devices or personal devices with access to company infrastructure. Encryption doesn't break the Gmail app.
 

GoIrish41

Paterfamilius
Messages
9,929
Reaction score
2,120
She probably would have to carry more than one device, due to the encryption that I would imagine is required for a device to operate on a secure State Dept. network. But still........
That's bvllshit, and anyone with half a brain should be able to see right through it. Like the Secretary of State can't delegate carrying one of the devices to one of the half dozen aides that follows her around? And that aide can't tap her on the shoulder and let her know that an email came in to the device? (Not that they would be able to read it, but they would have noticed that the notification for new email had gone off)

We do not disagree on this. This is a typical Clintonesque, self-inflicted problem. It is almost if her and Bill do things that they know will cause controversy so they can continue to claim victimization when people call them out. This causes people to take sides in support or rejection of them, and when it happens enough they claim there is a pattern -- a vast right wing conspiracy. It is pessimistic, low ball politics. This is why I don't think I could vote for Hillary.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
She probably would have to carry more than one device, due to the encryption that I would imagine is required for a device to operate on a secure State Dept. network. But still........
That's bvllshit, and anyone with half a brain should be able to see right through it. Like the Secretary of State can't delegate carrying one of the devices to one of the half dozen aides that follows her around? And that aide can't tap her on the shoulder and let her know that an email came in to the device? (Not that they would be able to read it, but they would have noticed that the notification for new email had gone off)

She also had an IPad.

She could have an aide serve as caddy AND the aide could be vetted and granted the appropriate clearance level.
 

phgreek

New member
Messages
6,956
Reaction score
433
Clinton email staffer subpoenaed, plans to plead the Fifth | MSNBC

By Alex Seitz-Wald
9/3/15

A former Hillary Clinton staffer who helped set up the former secretary of state’s private email server has vowed to plead the Fifth and refuse to answer questions after a congressional committee subpoenaed him, msnbc confirmed late Wednesday.

Bryan Pagliano, who worked for Clinton during her 2008 presidential campaign and at the State Department, has been identified in digital records as the person who set up her email server in 2009.

The House Select Committee on Benghazi, which is investigating Clinton’s emails, subpoenaed Pagliano last month to testify. But his lawyer said Monday that the IT specialist would refuse to answer questions, asserting his constitutional right against self-incrimination, The Washington Post first reported Wednesday.

“While we understand that Mr. Pagliano’s response to this subpoena may be controversial in the current political environment, we hope that the members of the Select Committee will respect our client’s right,” attorney Mark MacDougall wrote in a letter obtained by msnbc to Benghazi Committee Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy.

The letter cites the fact the FBI is already investigating the security of Clinton’s email server, and notes that Pagliano had been contacted in the past week by two separate Senate committees also looking into the matter.

RELATED: Clinton’s gefilte fish mystery, solved

Pagliano was IT director for Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign before serving as special advisor to the Department of State under Clinton from May 2009 through February 2013, according to his LinkedIn page.

Pagliano’s move will likely pour fuel on partisan fire over Clinton’s email server, with opponents sure to cite it as evidence that Clinton and her team are stonewalling investigators.

It’s unclear what, if anything, Pagliano could be held accountable for. Refusing to testify could be an attempt to avoid accidentally perjuring himself under oath.

Clinton’s campaign said late Wednesday that they had hoped Pagliano would answer the committee’s questions and encouraged him to do so. “His decision is both understandable and yet also disappointing to us,” a campaign aide said in a statement.

“We have been confident from the beginning that Hillary Clinton’s use of a personal email was allowed and that she did not send or receive anything marked classified, facts confirmed by the State Department and the Inspector General. She has made every effort to answer questions and be as helpful as possible, and has encouraged her aides, current and former, to do the same, including Bryan Pagliano. In fact, two of those aides are due to testify this week, and she is eager to testify in a public hearing in October,” the aide added.

“Although multiple legal experts agree there is no evidence of criminal activity, it is certainly understandable that this witness’ attorneys advised him to assert his Fifth Amendment rights,” said the Benghazi Committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Elijah Cummings.

Cummings went on to suggest that Republicans’ asserts that Clinton had committed a crime could have lead Pagliano’s attorney to advise against testimony. “Their insatiable desire to derail Secretary Clinton’s presidential campaign at all costs has real consequences for any serious congressional effort,” Cummings said.

In a memo shared with Democratic members of the committee, the committee staff point to numerous examples of Republican presidential candidates claiming Clinton had committed a crime. They also note that one can plead the Fifth even if there is no criminal investigation.

Well I hope Pagliano does it better than Lois Lerner.

...many people incriminated in organized crime plead the 5th...Its kinda refreshing to see the oath of Omerta so strong with the Clinton family.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
Encryption doesn't mean shit. Any big company worth a damn is using military-grade encryption on work devices or personal devices with access to company infrastructure. Encryption doesn't break the Gmail app.


If I recall correctly, there was a controversy when Obama first became President. He was accustomed to his Blackberry but Secret Service said it couldn't handle the encryption. The problem was fixed.
 

Polish Leppy 22

Well-known member
Messages
6,594
Reaction score
2,009
This is getting worse before it gets better. The Dems front runner is one email away from prison, the backup plan is a socialist promising free everything, and last resort is crazy Uncle Joe Biden. Man is 2016 going to be fun to watch
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
Whoever (white, late 30's, glasses) is substituting for Chris Mathews on Hard Ball tonight did a piece on the e-mail fiasco with commenrary from 3 or 4 people (MSNBC, Wash Post). Consensus was while severity of legal issues is still unknown, the Clinton Team has handled this poorly. The most favorable weasel spin was Hillary and staff were focus on Iowa and New Hampshire and they didn't pay attention to the e-mail/server issue as THEY didn't think it was an issue.

I echo 41's comment about arrogance and they simply thought they could just stone wall it. "What does it matter anyway." "Do you mean wipe it (the server) with a cloth?"

Whoever the substitute host is added that the Obama Administrion was not happy at the time when Clinton set up her e-mail system. It struck me that I don't recall there being any controversy being mentioned before. He also noted that now both the White House and State spokespersons are sidestepping who was responsible. He stressed that the State spokesperson won't even identify the person or department within their own house that approved the measures.

The talking heads don't see this going away and it will continue to undermine Clinton.
 

BGIF

Varsity Club
Messages
43,946
Reaction score
2,922
This same Hard Ball, Mathews substitute followed the e-mail segment with a current PPP General Election Poll conducted late Aug showing Hillary head to head against various Republicans.

46%-42 v Bush
45-43 v Fiorina
46-44 v Trump
44-44 v Carson ... A dead heat

But in each case 10-13% unspoken for. No mention if they were undecided or refused to select either in the match ups.
 
Top