This topic has been locked by a moderator.
The twitter I found it on said it ran August 1st, 1974, 8 days before Nixon resigned.
The recording was ordered released July 24, 1974.
So it was not only released, but so recently released that it would be major headline-grabbing news everywhere in the country, yet old enough that there’s no way he could not have heard it yet.
Willful ignorance. We have a precedent. The Haldeman tape was fake news too, it seems.
EDIT: Dangit, the world operated more slowly back in those days. The court order was on the 24th, but Nixon didn’t actually release the tapes until August 5th. Nevertheless, the world knew they existed due to the Supreme Court case and subsequent order.
And that’s why Hillary Clinton committed a crime when she and her people setup their illicit email server. The law exists so that government business can be subject to oversight and public record, but like Nixon, she thought she was above the law.
That’s a very different conclusion from the ones reached by the FBI, and the relevant House and Senate investigations, none of which found she’d committed a crime. But okay.
Apparently Trey Gowdy is still posting here.
Apparently Trey Gowdy is still posting here.
Naw, Trey cleared her too. If she’d committed an actual crime, he’d still be investigating. It would be the only responsible thing to do.
Apparently Trey Gowdy is still posting here.
Naw, Trey cleared her too.
He did?
Apparently Trey Gowdy is still posting here.
Naw, Trey cleared her too.
He did?
He dropped the investigation. That’s as much of an admission of non-guilt you’re going to get out of him. Imagine a real crime had been committed and you had the power to investigate it. Would you drop the case just because your suspect no longer wielded political power–or would that actually help your investigation?
That’s a very different conclusion from the ones reached by the FBI, and the relevant House and Senate investigations, none of which found she’d committed a crime. But okay.
She wasn’t prosecuted because of who she is and the power that her and her husband and all of her supporters have in Washington. The 2009 Federal Records Act mandates that all government emails must be preserved for record keeping, in accordance with Freedom of Information Act requests. She and her people set up their own private email server in order to circumvent those laws. Lawrence O’Donnell (MSNBC host) agrees: http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/06/msnbcs-odonnell-clinton-email-system-obviously-set-up-to-circumvent-foia-requests-video/
Are you able to make a legal argument or logical argument that she did not commit a crime? Or are you just going to fall back on the “they didn’t prosecute her, so therefore she didn’t do anything wrong” defense?
That’s a very different conclusion from the ones reached by the FBI, and the relevant House and Senate investigations, none of which found she’d committed a crime.
She and her people set up their own private email server IN ORDER TO circumvent those laws.
No that’s wrong (CatBus is correct). As has been mentioned in this thread several times (along with quotes from the relevant laws). They NEEDED to prove intent, which they couldn’t. Hillary being possibly naive/lazy/foolish/incompetent is not enough and not a crime.
A more accurate way for you to phrase your assertion could have been…
“She and her people set up their own private email server because it was easier and less of a hassle, which happened to circumvent those laws.”
So like I say, not a crime, or not provable as a crime. Case closed.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
Are you able to make a legal argument or logical argument that she did not commit a crime? Or are you just going to fall back on the “they didn’t prosecute her, so therefore she didn’t do anything wrong” defense?
I’m making the argument that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case, which I don’t feel I actually need to argue because that’s precisely what the FBI said. Basically what she did was stupid and inadvisable, but there wasn’t enough evidence that it was criminal to bring a case.
Republicans control all three branches of government and both houses of Congress. The thought that Hillary somehow still holds the United States in some sort of death grip of influence from beyond is baffling to me. If she committed a crime, prosecute it. She can’t simply fire the FBI director. Unless of course the whole Emailghazi thing was political theatre and then just let it drop after she loses the election.
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/335048-trump-to-hold-campaign-rally-in-iowa-next-wednesday
Lol, such an insecure little baby.
The drip-drip-drip of Russia info continues.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/24/us/politics/russia-trump-manafort-flynn.html
American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers, according to three current and former American officials familiar with the intelligence.
The conversations focused on Paul Manafort, the Trump campaign chairman at the time, and Michael T. Flynn, a retired general who was advising Mr. Trump, the officials said. Both men had indirect ties to Russian officials, who appeared confident that each could be used to help shape Mr. Trump’s opinions on Russia.
Some Russians boasted about how well they knew Mr. Flynn. Others discussed leveraging their ties to Viktor F. Yanukovych, the deposed president of Ukraine living in exile in Russia, who at one time had worked closely with Mr. Manafort.
US administration allegedly leaking even more sensitive UK intelligence on the Manchester bombing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-40038630
Andy Burnham (Manchester Mayor) told Newsnight a decision had been taken to adopt a “cautious approach” to making information public, “and yet the first reports were coming seemingly out of the United States… it worries me greatly and in fact I made known my concerns about it to the US ambassador,”
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
You know that Montana special election which under normal circumstances would be a Republican cakewalk, but is unexpectedly tight? The one where the election is being held TOMORROW?
Yeah, that one.
The Republican candidate just physically assaulted a reporter, in front of witnesses. The attack was recorded.
The funny thing is, prior to this, the polls still showed him with a slight lead…
Probably had something to do with this article Jacobs published a few weeks ago about said candidate’s Russian dealings…
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
Assaulting people will certainly be a net positive for Trump fans, and a negative for everyone else. Hard to say what this would mean in Montana, which is a kind of complicated state politically, but generally leans pretty strongly Republican with notable exceptions.
I do wonder if he might end up in prison for part of his term, if elected. That would be weird.
That’s a very different conclusion from the ones reached by the FBI, and the relevant House and Senate investigations, none of which found she’d committed a crime.
She and her people set up their own private email server IN ORDER TO circumvent those laws.
No that’s wrong (CatBus is correct). As has been mentioned in this thread several times (along with quotes from the relevant laws). They NEEDED to prove intent, which they couldn’t. Hillary being possibly naive/lazy/foolish/incompetent is not enough and not a crime.
This is just wrong. Intent is not mentioned or inferred anywhere in the relevant statutes. Additionally, the Republicans in Congress have claimed that the FBI notes on the investigation never refer to intent. According to them, Hillary and her subordinates were never questioned on their intent, and they never offered any answers about intent. No Democrat in Congress has refuted those assertions, and the FBI has refused to release details on the interviews and the investigation.
There are countless cases of right-wing media, supporters, and politicians claiming that Hillary Clinton committed a crime and should have been prosecuted. For the most part, their opinion is politically motivated. And there are countless cases of left-wing media, supporters, and politicians who claim that Hillary Clinton was just incompetent, didn’t mean to do anything bad, you can’t prove intent, yada-yada, and she should be left alone because she did nothing illegal. For the most part, the opinions of these people are also politically motivated.
Although I’m a liberal, I consider myself an independent leftist and don’t care for party politics. I believe in a higher right/wrong moral standard. I don’t think there is any question about what Hillary and her team were up to. She didn’t want her communications subject to outside oversight. Despite the existence of laws mandating that government communications be preserved and subject to review, she setup the private email server anyway, because she’s Hillary Clinton, and who the hell is going to stop her.
You Democrats sound awfully high and mighty accusing the Republicans of only pushing this case for political theater; but I would argue that the mock investigation was the only thing that constituted political theater. Starting with the government never utilizing its powers of subpoena, to the FBI granting immunity to everyone and everybody who ever worked for Hillary Clinton, to the Attorney General meeting on the tarmac with the husband of the person being investigated, to the FBI director then calling a press conference and announcing there would be no prosecution (which is clearly not his call), to this nonsense about intent when her intentions were neither asked nor supplied, nor were they relevant anyway.
Republicans control all three branches of government
Barack Obama, a Democrat, was the President and in control of the Executive Branch during the investigation.
By the way, none of that even touches on her reckless handling of classified information which she forwarded to her pal, Sid Blumenthal, who was hacked by foreign governments, and did not have a security clearance or authorization to view any of those top secret communications.
Is she not to be prosecuted for that, in the same way that Kristian Saucier, U.S. Navy, was sentenced to 1 year in prison last summer for having old pictures on his cell phone of classified information?
The double standard exists because of who she is, period.
The CBO is out with their score on the new Republican health care bill.
Of course these clowns couldn’t stand the heat from their constituents, and that’s why they tried to ram the bill through congress before the score even came out.
Republicans control all three branches of government
Barack Obama, a Democrat, was the President and in control of the Executive Branch during the investigation.
You can have as many investigations as you want. Double jeopardy only applies to actual trials. If a crime was really committed, it would seem terrible negligence to fail to investigate. Right now, in 2017, while Hillary has no influence anywhere over anyone. But why isn’t it happening? Do you think Trump is covering up for Hillary? What does she have on him? He promised to investigate her, has the power to investigate her, has a slam-dunk case according to you, and yet he isn’t doing it. Hmm. What about Gowdy? Why did he suddenly stop investigating the moment Hillary lost? The very moment her ability to wield her awesome government power for evil was lost, he just gave up and said nevermind, I guess there was nothing to see here after all! He always seemed to be in the tank for Hillary. I smell conspiracy.
Either that or show trial, they smell very much alike.
That’s a very different conclusion from the ones reached by the FBI, and the relevant House and Senate investigations, none of which found she’d committed a crime.
She and her people set up their own private email server IN ORDER TO circumvent those laws.
No that’s wrong (CatBus is correct). As has been mentioned in this thread several times (along with quotes from the relevant laws). They NEEDED to prove intent, which they couldn’t. Hillary being possibly naive/lazy/foolish/incompetent is not enough and not a crime.
This is just wrong. Intent is not mentioned or inferred anywhere in the relevant statutes.
I can’t be bothered to look it all up again, so you can have that one.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
Audio recording of Guardian reporter being assaulted…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/24/greg-gianforte-bodyslams-reporter-ben-jacobs-montana
A statement by campaign spokesman Shane Scanlon blamed Jacobs for the altercation, saying that he “entered the office without permission, aggressively shoved a recorder in Greg’s face, and began asking badgering questions”.
“Jacobs was asked to leave,” the statement reads. “After asking Jacobs to lower the recorder, Jacobs declined. Greg then attempted to grab the phone that was pushed in his face. Jacobs grabbed Greg’s wrist, and spun away from Greg, pushing them both to the ground.
“It’s unfortunate that this aggressive behavior from a liberal journalist created this scene at our campaign volunteer BBQ.”
^ LOL. They might as well have gone with “I was just holding out my fist and the guy ran into it. There was nothing I could do”.
To remove any doubt, even the Fox news reporter who was there said…
“Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him.
“Faith, Keith and I watched in disbelief as Gianforte then began punching the man, as he moved on top the reporter and began yelling something to the effect of ‘I’m sick and tired of this!’ … To be clear, at no point did any of us who witnessed this assault see Jacobs show any form of physical aggression toward Gianforte, who left the area after giving statements to local sheriff’s deputies.”
In other news…
Another Guardian reporter Vikram Dodd just posted…
The Guardian can confirm that Britain has stopped sharing evidence from the investigation into the Manchester bombing with the United States after a series of leaks left investigators and government furious.
The ban is limited to the Manchester investigation only, with Britain believing the leaks are unprecedented in their scope, frequency and potential damage.
A sad day.
VIZ TOP TIPS! - PARENTS. Impress your children by showing them a floppy disk and telling them it’s a 3D model of a save icon.
If that’s not a real album cover, it should be.
It works as a perfect Megadeth album cover.
Audio recording of Guardian reporter being assaulted…
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/24/greg-gianforte-bodyslams-reporter-ben-jacobs-montana
A statement by campaign spokesman Shane Scanlon blamed Jacobs for the altercation, saying that he “entered the office without permission, aggressively shoved a recorder in Greg’s face, and began asking badgering questions”.
“Jacobs was asked to leave,” the statement reads. “After asking Jacobs to lower the recorder, Jacobs declined. Greg then attempted to grab the phone that was pushed in his face. Jacobs grabbed Greg’s wrist, and spun away from Greg, pushing them both to the ground.
“It’s unfortunate that this aggressive behavior from a liberal journalist created this scene at our campaign volunteer BBQ.”
^ LOL. They might as well have gone with “I was just holding out my fist and the guy ran into it. There was nothing I could do”.
To remove any doubt, even the Fox news reporter who was there said…
“Gianforte grabbed Jacobs by the neck with both hands and slammed him into the ground behind him.
“Faith, Keith and I watched in disbelief as Gianforte then began punching the man, as he moved on top the reporter and began yelling something to the effect of ‘I’m sick and tired of this!’ … To be clear, at no point did any of us who witnessed this assault see Jacobs show any form of physical aggression toward Gianforte, who left the area after giving statements to local sheriff’s deputies.”
In other news…
Another Guardian reporter Vikram Dodd just posted…
The Guardian can confirm that Britain has stopped sharing evidence from the investigation into the Manchester bombing with the United States after a series of leaks left investigators and government furious.
The ban is limited to the Manchester investigation only, with Britain believing the leaks are unprecedented in their scope, frequency and potential damage.
A sad day.
On behalf of my country, I apologize for the leaks. I am embarrassed for my country.
If that’s not a real album cover, it should be.
It works as a perfect Megadeth album cover.
It kindof looks like an already existing anthrax cover. Kind of.
