Jiro posted:

I initially read that as Joe Don Baker and now I'm sad it isn't.

Tobermory posted:

I first read it as Jim Bakker, and thought it was entirely plausible.

Captain Monkey posted:

I am also curious about how Hillary Clinton is staying out of jail, despite DJT and the Republicans owning literally all 3 branches of government, and infiltrating the cops/fbi/military/etc. at almost every level.

Captain Monkey posted:

I am also curious about how Hillary Clinton is staying out of jail, despite DJT and the Republicans owning literally all 3 branches of government, and infiltrating the cops/fbi/military/etc. at almost every level.

Nessus posted:

Couple of questions here:

You say Hillary wanted to become President to make all the crimes go away. What crimes are you referring to, other than mishandling secured information? Do you believe this was her primary motivation in seeking the presidency?

Do you believe that avoiding criminal consequences is a common reason to seek the Presidency? Was it, for instance, a factor in Obama or W. Bush's pursuit of the campaign? Neither of them had to do it, and presumably Hillary did not either - she could have endorsed Biden or something in '16.

Captain Monkey posted:

I am also curious about how Hillary Clinton is staying out of jail, despite DJT and the Republicans owning literally all 3 branches of government, and infiltrating the cops/fbi/military/etc. at almost every level.

Blattdorf posted:

I'll try to make it more brief because these posts are actually taking quite a bit of time to write up.

It was never about just Hillary. Obama was communicating with her within that non-secure environment. We know this through the DNC leaks, and according to Shawn Rich's testimony from 2017 (CEO of Crowdstrike who analyzed the DNC server. Not the FBI. Notice a running theme here with how the Democrats always seem to put up a barrier between their stuff and the investigators, and then decide what is "relevant".). Henry says the Russians hacked the server and bases this conclusion on his experience in the business, but he couldn't conclusively say the data was even exfiltrated. He's basically guessing the Russians did it (page 52 for example, but this could just be my interpretation. I mean, Mueller said it was the GRU. Based on what Shawn Henry wrote in a draft report to the FBI.). But he did confirm there were no evident forgeries between what he had and what Wikileaks had published. So the e-mails are fair game.

We already know about Hillary's numerous scandals, the two biggest ones being Benghazi and Uranium One. What if - I'm speculating here, but let's entertain this possibility for a moment - what if there is something in those missing e-mails that would not only tie a sitting president to these scandals, but prove his active involvement in them? He already lied about finding out about this e-mail domain from the media. Maybe he wanted to avoid getting bogged down with a scandal for a benign reason, but he still lied about it. What if there is something even worse that we haven't heard of?

Remember /u/stonetear? Paul Combetta, Hillary's IT expert at the time, made a post on reddit asking about how to strip e-mail addresses from already sent e-mails, and this concerned a VVIP. If Obama was simply communicating with her about benign stuff, Obama could just eventually fess up and claim Hillary fooled him. He didn't know she was using a non-secure environment. Kind of dumb for Secretary of State and a sitting president to do it, but whatever. And yet they were actively trying to HIDE this. Combetta got immunity and was issued a subpeona to appear before Congress. He never came (because congressional subpoenas are merely a suggestion, as we learned that day). He did talk with Comey, and another exchange between Chaffetz and Comey reveals a few interesting details. Comey proves the post is real, that Combetta wrote it and that he truly wanted to alter records, but Comey says "Well, it depends on which records they were".

You do not destroy multiple phones, wipe hard drives, alter subpoenad records and give the investigators such a massive run-around (I mean, they wanted to PRINT OUT all the e-mails in the beginning, but then they said the printer broke halfway through, so this is all they could produce) if you do not have something to hide. This is why I'm so focused on Hillary. How much benefit of the doubt can you possibly be giving her in all of this? If you feel she's innocent and a victim of a Republican witch-hunt, everything that follows stops making a lick of sense. But if you think she's hiding something terrible, the only sure way to bury it forever is to seize the White House.

Why not bury it from the start, like the other scandals? Part of this was probably due to hubris. They never thought she would lose, to quote somebody. Whenever something happens swiftly, people pay attention. If you drag it out and muddy the waters, people eventually move on and forget about it. Just drag it out, throw scraps to the public and then slowly erase whatever incriminating evidence is left so that no one will ever be able to figure out the truth. If it wasn't for Wikileaks, it would have all ended up as just another Republican figment of imagination, too.

By the way, Hillary also conducted Clinton Foundation-related business using the same non-secure e-mail domain. Recall how donations from all around the world almost instantly dried up once she had lost the race. If she was doing such fantastic charity work, why wouldn't countries support a former US Secretary of State? Nobody also wanted to pay a dime to listen to her speak despite her and Bill receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in speaking fees in the past. What in the world could those speeches have been about? Moreover, she did misappropriate most of the funds gathered for Haiti relief (i.e. she stole the majority of them and installed her brother as the head of a gold mine in Haiti just to add insult to injury) so she is not above using the Clinton Foundation for her own ends. Remember Chelsea's wedding?

The funny thing is, and I know people are allergic to Trump, but he spent quite a bit of time talking about the Hillary server during a recent rally. He made a curious statement during this spiel: "I guarantee the (missing) e-mails are in the State Department. They are being protected." Now, this can be chalked up as campaign talk, but I wanted to put it out there. Considering everything that's been happening recently, is it possible these missing e-mails could finally resurface?

Blattdorf posted:

Blattdorf posted:

The funny thing is, and I know people are allergic to Trump, but he spent quite a bit of time talking about the Hillary server during a recent rally. He made a curious statement during this spiel: "I guarantee the (missing) e-mails are in the State Department. They are being protected." Now, this can be chalked up as campaign talk, but I wanted to put it out there. Considering everything that's been happening recently, is it possible these missing e-mails could finally resurface?

Nessus posted:

So if I am following you correctly, you are suggesting that The Emails were an effort to conceal some criminal activity of truly dire proportions which involved Obama as well as Hillary. (We do have some familarity with Benghazi in this community.) Is this accurate?

What do you believe the nature of this crime to be?

The Chairman posted:

Again I kind of wish you'd start with the conclusion and then explain how you got there instead of this "the Aristocrats!" story

Blattdorf posted:

Surprisingly enough, there are even crazier possibilities than these that do not necessarily tie to the e-mail server. The e-mail server is just one element of the big picture, but a pretty significant one. You can probably begin to imagine why it would be difficult to simply put her in jail just for what Comey stated in his first press conference.

90s Cringe Rock posted:

HIS NAME WAS SETH RICH

tigersklaw posted:

If he says “LIZARD PEOPLE” or “JEWS” right out of the gate nobody would take him seriously, he’s building an argument

Blattdorf posted:

Notice a running theme here with how the Democrats always seem to put up a barrier between their stuff and the investigators, and then decide what is "relevant".

Blattdorf posted:

Recall how donations from all around the world almost instantly dried up once she had lost the race. If she was doing such fantastic charity work, why wouldn't countries support a former US Secretary of State?

indiscriminately posted:

Just speaking to general principles, not the specific facts or context here (because I don't know them and am not too curious about them): wouldn't you do the same? Isn't it in your best interest to vet and limit what you provide to an investigative body, to the extent you can? If the FBI is investigating you, Blattdorf, and the stakes are very high for you here, and your career, finances, power, identity are closely tied to your professional image- wouldn't you be as cautious as the law allows you to be? Wouldn't you be quite foolish to do anything less, whatever your political affiliation?