Inspector General's Report / Hillary Clinton

[Rich]

also in your system post it says you have had electrostats. but you were curious about mbl. and you told a member in 2009 you would post pictures of said speakers. and you have been ask about how they sound. but no pics no post on sound. that was seven years ago. you wouldnt just tell members your getting these very expensive speakers to look cool would you. NEW! June 2011 MBL 116F Large Floorstanding Speakers $32,000. would theses be the speakers you are talking about?
i would love to see speakers. and also get your opinion on how they sound.

Hey Norway, I've been to Gordon's house a few times and heard both his Summits and his MBL's. They sound, as you would expect, fantastic. Your attempt to imply that he would lie about such a thing to impress others is a rather pathetic and juvenile pot shot.

And are you really trying to say Memorial Day isn't a holiday? That sure is news to everyone who had off of work yesterday.

 

[Gordon Gray]

also in your system post it says you have had electrostats. but you were curious about mbl. and you told a member in 2009 you would post pictures of said speakers. and you have been ask about how they sound. but no pics no post on sound. that was seven years ago. you wouldnt just tell members your getting these very expensive speakers to look cool would you. NEW! June 2011 MBL 116F Large Floorstanding Speakers $32,000. would theses be the speakers you are talking about?
i would love to see speakers. and also get your opinion on how they sound.

Hi wadia,

Glad to discuss my system. I have had the 116's for some five years or so now I think. Could be more.

My nephew, who took the pictures, will be here in late July so hopefully I can update.

I bought the legacy model with a couple of dings in the finish so I paid substantially less than current retail.

How do they sound? Hard to describe unless you've heard omnis but suffice to say they energize the room in a very unique way and try to mimic what goes on in a live concert or jazz club.

Not a head in the vice speaker. They can sound really good far off axis, which is very appealing to me since I usually sit right of the right speaker and about six feet or so from the front.

Big soundstage in all directions.

And no, I don't misrepresent the truth. That was pretty low.

I am probably too honest to my own detriment.

Gordon

 

[RCHeliGuy]

You really want to start on "misrepresenting the truth" while comparing presidential candidates?

"In his presidential disclosure Trump valued the golf course and its massive clubhouse at more than $50 million. In tax documents Trump valued the same property at just $1.35 million.

"That is a 97% variance, an irreconcilable difference that raises yet again questions about Trump’s integrity, not to mention the size of his fortune, which he has testified he values differently as his emotional state shifts,regardless of objective facts."

 

[RUR]

As far as your speakers your quote. big soundstage in all directions. so I understand MBL. they sound like bose.

Wow. Apparently you're no better equipped to discuss MBL's than you are psychoacoustics.

 

[Rich]

I find it interesting how Wadia150 says he's done with this thread, yet keeps coming back to respond to every comment. Almost like he can't stand not having the last word. Seems like someone else exhibited this exact same behavior recently. Who was it? Oh yeah, that's right. It was Norway84. Who was banned from the forum a few days before Wadia suddenly appeared. Whose grammar, writing style, and argumentative nature seem virtually identical to Wadia's. What an odd coincidence. It's almost as if they were the same person.

 

[RUR]

Bahahaha:ROFL:

Q.E.D.

I find it interesting how Wadia150 says he's done with this thread, yet keeps coming back to respond to every comment. Almost like he can't stand not having the last word. Seems like someone else exhibited this exact same behavior recently. Who was it? Oh yeah, that's right. It was Norway84. Who was banned from the forum a few days before Wadia suddenly appeared. Whose grammar, writing style, and argumentative nature seem virtually identical to Wadia's. What an odd coincidence. It's almost as if they were the same person.

You know, Rich, in nine years as a member I've never, ever felt the need to use the ignore feature.

Until Norway.

And now, Norway II.

 

[Rich]

I have a buddy that has Bose 901

With Bose 901 home stereo speakers, you'll hear balanced audio no matter where you sit.

Must be a Texas thing, this fascination with Bose 901 speakers. Probably the only two mentions of this speaker In the history of this forum, and only two weeks apart. From such similar individuals.

 

[Gordon Gray]

Well all,

I really tried to play nice and tried to understand wadia.

Seems now he's comparing the MBL sound to be the equal of Bose.

Too bad that another thread seems destined to be closed as the result of one individual.

 

[repman]

Wow!!! some things never change. I have been a member here for 7 years and this and the other political posts always end the same way. the Liberals never convince the conservatives and vice versa ,I think I am correct in that statement it always ends up here. I have made the mistake of trying to engage in these fruitless contests of literary skill and only came away frustrated. I tip my hat to Gordon and Rich you guys are the reigning champs, nobody can wear you guys down. If this was the WWE you guys would have the championship belt in tag team. I know I have met my match in the past with the relentless zeal you both possess. Wadia/Norway give it up dude you are seriously outgunned!!! Hilarious.

 

[Rich]

You know, Rich, in nine years as a member I've never, ever felt the need to use the ignore feature.

Until Norway.

And now, Norway II.

You are right, RUR. It's well past time I took advantage of that feature. Done!

 

[slowGEEZR]

You are right, RUR. It's well past time I took advantage of that feature. Done!

It's sad isn't it?

 

[TomDac]

Norway and Wadia150 were indeed the same person - same IP address. I've banned Wadia150 and his IP address.

 

[Kevin]

With the State Department IG's report stating that Hillary did not have approval for her private server, how was she not in violation of this law? Honestly, as an insurance agent, I sometimes read the language in insurance policies, with all the legalese, and have a hard time coming to a conclusion about exactly what is covered in certain claim situations and what is not. I read this, and it seems quite clear. How could Hillary, a lawyer, not question if she was violating this code?

18 U.S. Code § 1924-- Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

 

[Rich]

With the State Department IG's report stating that Hillary did not have approval for her private server, how was she not in violation of this law?

I think it's a valid question, Kevin. And one which the Justice department will ultimately have to decide. Here is a good analysis of some of the legal issues involved:
http://www.law.com/sites/jamesching...tion-1924-connection/?slreturn=20160501161230

 

[RCHeliGuy]

With the State Department IG's report stating that Hillary did not have approval for her private server, how was she not in violation of this law? Honestly, as an insurance agent, I sometimes read the language in insurance policies, with all the legalese, and have a hard time coming to a conclusion about exactly what is covered in certain claim situations and what is not. I read this, and it seems quite clear. How could Hillary, a lawyer, not question if she was violating this code?

18 U.S. Code § 1924-- Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

I'm not making any judgement about what happened, but this is my understanding of why she won't be prosecuted.

There is no precedent before her. The first person to actually use the specified email server was Hillary's successor.
The materials were not classified until years later.
The State Department knew about her email server for quite some time so even though she did not ask permission, the State Department by having knowledge of her email server and not making any formal request that she stop using it was giving her "tacit" approval.
Her predecessors did the same thing and were never questioned about it.

 

[Rich]

Wow!!! some things never change. I have been a member here for 7 years and this and the other political posts always end the same way. the Liberals never convince the conservatives and vice versa ,I think I am correct in that statement it always ends up here. I have made the mistake of trying to engage in these fruitless contests of literary skill and only came away frustrated. I tip my hat to Gordon and Rich you guys are the reigning champs, nobody can wear you guys down.

Hang around a few more years, Larry. We'll have you feeling the Bern in no time.

 

[Kevin]

I'm not making any judgement about what happened, but this is my understanding of why she won't be prosecuted.

There is no precedent before her. The first person to actually use the specified email server was Hillary's successor.
The materials were not classified until years later.
The State Department knew about her email server for quite some time so even though she did not ask permission, the State Department by having knowledge of her email server and not making any formal request that she stop using it was giving her "tacit" approval.
Her predecessors did the same thing and were never questioned about it.

There isn't that much of a history of email use prior to Hillary to really set a "precedent". Both Albright and Rice have stated that they didn't use email. That really only leaves Powell to have used email prior to Hillary. Powell stated he used a personal email, but only for non-classified information, however, 2 emails have since been retroactively switched to being classified. I am not sure why you keep saying, "her predecessors did the same thing". The report itself makes clear the differences. The main one being that no one else ever had emails routed or sent through a private server located in their home, which seems to have been an unauthorized location. Also, some of the emails that were found to be classified were "born" that way. In other words, the material in the emails, when it was first written, is what makes it classified. Classified information is usually marked, but what makes information classified is not the markings. The law mentions how classified information is to be handled, not how information that is "marked classified" should be handled.

I am not sure about the "State Department knew about her email server". I am not saying you are wrong with statement, I am just not sure that it matters. Many did know of her private server, but did the "right" person know? Hillary was the head person at State, so I am not sure if it matters if people below her knew of the private server. Just because others know you are doing something illegal and don't stop it, doesn't make what you are doing legal. Instead, it might mean that others besides Hillary could be in trouble as well. Which might be the reason why Bryan Pagliano had accepted an immunity deal with the FBI.

Most of what I read now doesn't really make the case that she didn't break the law. Instead, most of what I read and hear focuses on whether she had either "intent" to break the law, or if any harm was done from her having the private server. The Washington Post even went as far as to title one of their articles, "Officials: Scant evidence that Clinton had malicious intent in handling of emails". Malicious intent? I wonder if I can use that as an excuse should I ever find myself in legal trouble?

 

[RCHeliGuy]

I guess we'll see what happens. I doubt anything, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if Bernie ended up running instead of Hillary. Most polls give him a better margin over Trump.

Either way I'll be voting against Trump in this election cycle whether it be Bernie or Hillary running.

 

[repman]

Hang around a few more years, Larry. We'll have you feeling the Bern in no time. [/QUOTE

Tempting Rich But I'll have to pass. I got Berned once hurt like hell. Ha

 

[timm]

I guess we'll see what happens. I doubt anything, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings if Bernie ended up running instead of Hillary. Most polls give him a better margin over Trump.

Either way I'll be voting against Trump in this election cycle whether it be Bernie or Hillary running.

And it's a shame. As I believe a vast majority will be 'voting against' as opposed to 'voting for' someone in this election. I think you summed it up Mark.