cptau 169 Posted March 3, 2016 Share Posted March 3, 2016 Predicted comments to come from the partisan peanut gallery - Blah blah blah FOX News... Blah blah blah Rush Limbaugh is fat ... Blah blah Bush / Cheney / Halliburton. So, why would anyone need immunity if Hillary was 100% above board, transparent and did everything completely and totally legal ? Any reasonable attorney would insist on immunity given the political agendas at play-- look at you guys, aka, "the base" chomping at the bit for a certain outcome before the investigation is over and convinced that anything short of a felony conviction would be a travesty of justice. the Justice Department doesn't go around granting immunity to people unless the person getting the immunity may be able to shed light on an important part of the investigation. If Pagliano a) knew nothing or did nothing wrong, why would he need immunity to talk to the FBI? He's already taken the 5th, he knows about this mess and he's afraid. He should be very afraid and all of Mrs Bill Clinton's minions should be afraid as they at a minimum could be charged. Seriously? Seriously back at you............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,949 Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 TexasTiger - she's lied. That's not even up for debate. And look at you, the dutiful base, chomping at the bit to exonerate her from any and all wrong doing, despite what is already known. You're convinced that even though she'd done far worse than General Petraeus, she's Hillary! , and is as pure as the wind driven snow. No objective knowledgeable person believes her actions are even marginally worse than Petraeus. Just crazy haters like you that don't need no stinkin' facts. :roflol:/> !!!!! I know you don't actually read articles, and you clearly didn't read this one. No need to. Hillary is guilty as hell, and everyone knows it. There's no version of this where a guy who pleaded the 5th and then cuts an immunity deal doesn't turn out horribly for Hillary. Que sera sera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
augolf1716 21,208 Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,949 Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 TexasTiger - she's lied. That's not even up for debate. And look at you, the dutiful base, chomping at the bit to exonerate her from any and all wrong doing, despite what is already known. You're convinced that even though she'd done far worse than General Petraeus, she's Hillary! , and is as pure as the wind driven snow. No objective knowledgeable person believes her actions are even marginally worse than Petraeus. Just crazy haters like you that don't need no stinkin' facts. :roflol:/> !!!!! I know you don't actually read articles, and you clearly didn't read this one. No need to. Hillary is guilty as hell, and everyone knows it. There's no version of this where a guy who pleaded the 5th and then cuts an immunity deal doesn't turn out horribly for Hillary. He needs immunity for other reasons: "Multiple Clinton staffers have since become embroiled in the ongoing investigation. At the top of the list is Bryan Pagliano, a former State Department employee who earned an outside salary directly from the Clintons for IT services, now known to include setting up the family email server at issue. The State Department believes that he did not disclose this outside salary, a failure said by internal documents to be punishable by civil action of up to $10,000, as well as up to five years’ imprisonment. When subpoenaed by Congress regarding Benghazi, Pagliano pled the Fifth." http://heavy.com/news/2016/02/hillary-clinton-indicted-prosecuted-email-fbi-director-private-server/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,388 Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Predicted comments to come from the partisan peanut gallery - Blah blah blah FOX News... Blah blah blah Rush Limbaugh is fat ... Blah blah Bush / Cheney / Halliburton. So, why would anyone need immunity if Hillary was 100% above board, transparent and did everything completely and totally legal ? Any reasonable attorney would insist on immunity given the political agendas at play-- look at you guys, aka, "the base" chomping at the bit for a certain outcome before the investigation is over and convinced that anything short of a felony conviction would be a travesty of justice. the Justice Department doesn't go around granting immunity to people unless the person getting the immunity may be able to shed light on an important part of the investigation. If Pagliano a) knew nothing or did nothing wrong, why would he need immunity to talk to the FBI? He's already taken the 5th, he knows about this mess and he's afraid. He should be very afraid and all of Mrs Bill Clinton's minions should be afraid as they at a minimum could be charged. Seriously? Seriously back at you............ If you were in a position to negotiate immunity for your testimony why wouldn't you do it? Only a fool without legal council would take the risk of being charged for something on the basis he thinks he's innocent. Even if he is innocent there is always the possibility he could be charged with something. Why take the risk of having to spend money to defend yourself if you don't have to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUUSN 823 Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 TexasTiger - she's lied. That's not even up for debate. And look at you, the dutiful base, chomping at the bit to exonerate her from any and all wrong doing, despite what is already known. You're convinced that even though she'd done far worse than General Petraeus, she's Hillary! , and is as pure as the wind driven snow. No objective knowledgeable person believes her actions are even marginally worse than Petraeus. Just crazy haters like you that don't need no stinkin' facts. Actually Petraeus only had a notebook that was contained, H's server may have been breached and contained over 2000 emails that contained classified info (and those are the ones that she didn't destroy). They were on a private server that also was accessed by some of her staffers one of which worked for both her foundation and the state department at the time. Also, we don't know if she passed along any of those classified emails to people not in government but part of her foundation (we don't know what she deleted). She knowingly had classified material on her server (not up for debate as it was proven). Also she laid out how to put classified info on unclass system to one of her staffers (this knowingly is wrong and she knew it and the staffer knew it). All of this combined is far worse than what Petraeus did period as far as handling of classified material. Also, she gave a copy of all of these classified emails to a lawyer who didn't have proper clearance nor a secure approved government container to store it in. I think you need to do a little reading on what Petraeus did.*I still think he was a great General. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Well TexasTiger, that's one explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,463 Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 Dont need no evidince to no that she done lyed and people done died. You libturds is idiots an your boy barry is a pos. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 I have heard at least two judicial experts make the claim that a grand jury has already been called. Grand juries and immunity or not things you see in civil cases. They are the makings of a criminal case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted March 4, 2016 Share Posted March 4, 2016 TexasTiger - she's lied. That's not even up for debate. And look at you, the dutiful base, chomping at the bit to exonerate her from any and all wrong doing, despite what is already known. You're convinced that even though she'd done far worse than General Petraeus, she's Hillary! , and is as pure as the wind driven snow. No objective knowledgeable person believes her actions are even marginally worse than Petraeus. Just crazy haters like you that don't need no stinkin' facts. Actually Petraeus only had a notebook that was contained, H's server may have been breached and contained over 2000 emails that contained classified info (and those are the ones that she didn't destroy). They were on a private server that also was accessed by some of her staffers one of which worked for both her foundation and the state department at the time. Also, we don't know if she passed along any of those classified emails to people not in government but part of her foundation (we don't know what she deleted). She knowingly had classified material on her server (not up for debate as it was proven). Also she laid out how to put classified info on unclass system to one of her staffers (this knowingly is wrong and she knew it and the staffer knew it). All of this combined is far worse than what Petraeus did period as far as handling of classified material. Also, she gave a copy of all of these classified emails to a lawyer who didn't have proper clearance nor a secure approved government container to store it in. I think you need to do a little reading on what Petraeus did.*I still think he was a great General. Petraeus kept 8 unmarked personal notebooks containing his handwritten notes from classified meetings. He allowed his journalist girlfriend (who was a US Army Reserve Major in the Intelligence Corps and West Point graduate) unauthorized access to the notebooks He told the FBI he did not allowed unauthorized access to classified information He signed a statement acknowledging he had no classified information in his possession He kept the 8 notebooks at his home The FBI searched his home and found the 8 notebooks. The FBI and wanted felonies charges for: 1. Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information under the espionage act. 2. Lying to the FBI. The felony case fell apart for legal and political reasons. We don't know if Clinton has made statements under oath to the FBI or if she did, what she said. Clinton did direct the setup of the private email server that was used for unauthorized transmission and storage of classified information. Unauthorized support personnel did have access to the server and its classified contents. She did not return the classified information on the server upon leaving office The State Dept appears to have failed to have her sign a statement stating that she had returned classified information, although she did receive training on this requirement After Watergate no one keeps recordings of oval office conversations. After Petraeus there probably have been many ex Flag Officers running shredders in their basements and late night fires in their backyard fire pits. After Hillary no politician will keep or use a private email system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 12,949 Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 http://selfishcitizenship.com/2013/01/02/obama-recording-oval-office-conversations-presidential-taping-continues/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urdeaf 0 Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 Dont need no evidince to no that she done lyed and people done died. You libturds is idiots an your boy barry is a pos. You conservatives are idiots. She did this for the greater good. The ends support the means. Grow up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted March 5, 2016 Share Posted March 5, 2016 http://selfishcitize...ping-continues/ If he is, he is taking a chance. Nixon gave away the precedent of executive privilege on white house recordings. Nixon also had no manual off switch on his secret service managed recording system as all previous president had. Perhaps Obama does have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elephant Tipper 430 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 I'm curious if there is/has been/will be support to rename structures at AU. For example, Bibb Graves Amphitheater and BG Drive are named for the progressive Democrat Bibb Graves, former governor of Alabama who was an ardent racist. Further thoughts on the matter of renaming structures because of their past ? Hardy Jackson is a liberal who has been a writer for a group of newspapers in northeast Alabama owned by Brandt Ayers, devoted friend and supporter of President and Mrs. Clinton. HARDY JACKSON: Purged history is bad history Posted: Saturday, January 30, 2016 2:15 pm By HARDY JACKSON, Special to The Daily Home You may have read about “The Great Renaming Craze of 2015.” All over this land of ours, people are demanding the names of flawed public figures be removed from buildings and streets and such, places that were named by people who didn’t know the honoree was flawed or didn’t think the flaws were much to write home about. Now, let me say up front, I think this is a bad idea. Why? Because the folks doing the renaming are taking away what teachers call a “teaching moment” – the opportunity to point out the reason those things were named for those folks in the first place. Let’s take an example close to home. Back when I taught at of Jacksonville State University, someone thought it might be nice for a senior faculty member to speak to the newly hired, tell them about the school and make them happy to be there. So they asked me. Knowing that -- in addition to new hires -- in the audience would be the folks who signed my paycheck, I resolved to be on my best behavior, which my wife will tell you is an “iffy” proposition under any circumstances. I prepared my remarks carefully. I would give them a little history of the place, throw in a few student jokes, mention our athletic prowess and come down hard on academic excellence – safe stuff. Then I would finish with a general welcome and sit down. If only I had. Instead, inspired by my own eloquence, at the conclusion I went off the prepared script and asked the group assembled to look out the window (we were on the 11th floor of the library) and gaze upon Bibb Graves Hall – the administrative center of campus. “Bibb Graves,” I intoned, “an Alabama governor who did more for education than any governor before (and maybe since) and who was also the Exalted Cyclops of the Montgomery chapter of the Ku Klux Klan. Today, nine of our universities have buildings named after him – including historically black Alabama State University and Alabama A&M. “Reconcile that, and you are on your way to understanding the state in which you now reside.” I don’t know how many in the audience went out reconciling, but I suspect that some did ask themselves why so many universities named buildings after a man who led an organization that verbally (and in some cases, physically) attacked blacks, Jews, Catholics and “foreigners” in general? The answer lay in the fact that Graves, like so many of his era, saw the Klan as a refuge for working class whites who had been cut out of the political process by the bankers, industrialists and such that Graves called the “Big Mules.” As an active Klansman, he could count on their votes, and in return for their support, he promoted programs – education, health care, etc. – that benefitted that constituency. That these programs also benefitted African-Americans and others on the Klan “hate list,” only adds to the complexity of the time and of the man. Bibb Graves was a progressive, a term that is derided in some circles today but back then reflected the thinking of men like Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson and Theodore’s cousin, Franklin. They wanted to use the power of government to make the nation a more just and fair place for all its citizens. However, they were also racist, xenophobic, jingoistic, imperialistic and a whole bunch of other things common to their era and repugnant in ours. Would that repugnancy justify renaming Bibb Graves Hall? Or would it deny folks like me the opportunity to call attention to the fact that Bibb Graves’ career was about more than race. Like it or not, what happened in the past seldom, if ever, revolved around a single issue. Therefore, using a single issue to judge a person’s career and contributions enables, indeed encourages, us to ignore those things that do not fit neatly into our own narrow notion of what is or is not acceptable today. At the same time, to ignore the racial dimensions of Graves career encourages the same narrow-mindedness. So, keep the names on those buildings and on those other public places and institutions. Don’t take down the statues or the street signs. But leave them there to stand as monuments to our willingness to confront a past that is not always heroic and leaders who as flawed as we all are. With one reservation. If leaving things as they are has just the opposite effect, if it causes us to gloss over past failings and ignore shortcomings, if there is no lesson to be learned from them being there, then get on with the renaming. And in a decade or so, they will be renamed again. Harvey H. (Hardy) Jackson is professor emeritus of history at Jacksonville State University. He can be reached at hjackson@cableone.net. http://www.annistons...Ak73Gkh14.email Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aujeff11 6,243 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Auburn, UNA, Bama, and JSU all have a Bibb Graves building serving as an academic building of some sort. I know because I took a dual enrollment class at UNA, did three years at Bama, 1 year to finish up my undergrad at JSU, and a prep class at Auburn. With that said, changing the name because of his racist views are unnecessary. I didn't even know who the heck he was and what he stood for when I was a student. How far down this slippery slope do we want to go to eliminate slavery and racism from our history? Should we white out the names on the Declaration of Independence that held slaves, including the author of it, too just to appease the dissonance we experience when we look at our past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
icanthearyou 4,463 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Changing the name on a building is not purging history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homersapien 11,388 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 "But leave them there to stand as monuments to our willingness to confront a past that is not always heroic and leaders who as flawed as we all are." I hardly see how that's "confronting" our past. Seems just the opposite to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Auburn4life 24 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Wha racist Democrat? Musta beena typo them there don't exist. Only dem Republicans are dem dere racist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AURaptor 1,125 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Wha racist Democrat? Musta beena typo them there don't exist. Only dem Republicans are dem dere racist. I see what you did there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cole256 17,084 Posted March 9, 2016 Share Posted March 9, 2016 Wha racist Democrat? Musta beena typo them there don't exist. Only dem Republicans are dem dere racist. Not quite as good as the original though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 Wha racist Democrat? Musta beena typo them there don't exist. Only dem Republicans are dem dere racist. Not quite as good as the original though One and the same. Still elementary. Spurn the butt hurt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cole256 17,084 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 It pretty much comes down with left and right on this forum. Watching you carry your team makes me feel bad. You're the only one with a brain it seems. It's like watching Kobe carry the Lakers the last three years before this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 It pretty much comes down with left and right on this forum. Watching you carry your team makes me feel bad. You're the only one with a brain it seems. It's like watching Kobe carry the Lakers the last three years before this one You talking to me? LOL. For the most part you are correct about left/right, but give a shout out to those that at least have a toe on the middle. The rest of your post was sheer flattery. Gracias........if you were talking to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mims44 1,872 Posted March 10, 2016 Share Posted March 10, 2016 We're living in the "yeah, but" times. Mention any historical figure from any time Napoleon, Peter the great, Washington, JFK, MLK... and it's a given after naming their accomplishments you are going to a hear a "yeaahh, but ..." Which leads to the move for renaming. I think people put too much stock into having a building, bridge, or road named after someone. It doesn't mean they are perfect, hell they could have mostly screwed up in their lives. They get the building, bridge, or road usually because of one great thing they did, not because of the screw ups. If we only name stuff after perfect people then everything is going to be named "Jesus"... and maybe some named after that one prince in Sleeping Beauty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Proud Tiger 4,261 Posted March 20, 2016 Share Posted March 20, 2016 If she escapes all of these we should just forget any expectation of her ever being found guilty of anything. http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/hillary-could-face-a-dozen-or-more-charges/?utm_content=buffere56bb&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=laura_ingraham_buffer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.