HILLARY FOR PRESIDENT

[username]

Just to be clear, your premise is that Hillary knew the difference between classified and non-classified material OR she needed to be told the difference?

As I understand it, emails were clearly labeled classified or not classified. A classified email shouldn't have been sent to her from some just .gov address. The emails she responded to or forwarded have been subsequently "classified". They weren't at the time that she received or responded to them.

ETA: I could see how emails might transition from unclassified to classified based on following events.

[Duchess]

The Clintons are like Pavlovs dog to some people. They are as entertaining as Trump.

[HairOfTheDog]

Is it just me, or has the Donald's hair never looked so good? He must have found Hillary's hair dresser!

Now that you mention it, he has been having better hair days as of late.

[FAHQTOO]

Of course they're criminals...but they're not running for president so who gives a shit until it matters.

I don't understand what you're NOT seeing that everyone else is. The woman lies every time she gets in front a of the camera. She didn't get subpoenaed...wait...yes she did!
She didn't have any classified e-mails...wait...yes she did! She had no knowledge of the classified e-mails...wait...Weiner's wife will take the fall.

Her stupid snap chat joke is going to make her look like a fool...wait...

As far as I know, the emails that are now considered "classified" weren't classified at the time that she exchanged them.

It's like if I called you a horse's ass now, it's okay. Two years from now, calling FQ a horse's ass becomes classified. WTF? The emails (as far as I know) that she exchanged weren't CLASSIFED at the time that they were exchanged. And even now, they're looking at the supposed "breach of classification" and it was minor. Already public knowledge. Not like she was sending out information that wasn't already available to the public. They're classifying tiny bits of this shit in hindsight.

But go ahead and ignore the logic, ignorant sheephole.

Ignorant sheephole? That's classic coming from you. Go take some more drugs.

[HairOfTheDog]

This headline is in the Daily Mail today.

Trump predicts Hillary could get 'up to 20 years in prison' for deleting more than 30,000 emails – and a federal law that she voted for backs him up!

The Sarbanes-Oxley Act was passed in 2002 with a 'yes' vote from then-Senator Hillary Clinton. One of its provisions, known as the 'anti-shredding' law, forbids destroying documents 'in contemplation of' a federal investigation. The laws was meant to apply to corporate bad-actors, the law prescribes a maximum 20-year prison sentence.

I think any suspicion or hope that Trump is secretly backing Hillary can be buried.

Story: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3203517/Trump-predicts-Hillary-20-years-prison-federal-law-voted-backs-up.html#ixzz3jMZpnpnZ

[BlueTiki]

Like Sanders not willing to forgo his SS check to redistribute wealth, it's hard to me to take Trump seriously, pushing to punish Hillary, based on "laws on the books".

If he can ignore the 14^th Amendment . . . ?

[HairOfTheDog]

Like Sanders not willing to forgo his SS check to redistribute wealth, it's hard to me to take Trump seriously, pushing to punish Hillary, based on "laws on the books".

If he can ignore the 14^th Amendment . . . ?

I get your point. But, Trump's not ignoring the 14^th Amendment any longer. He's denouncing it and looking to have it amended or abolished so that he can attempt to legally deport not only illegal immigrants, but also American citizens.

I don't get your Sanders bit though. Bernie's position is that everyone who paid Social Security taxes is entitled to full SS benefits, without exception. He doesn't want anyone, rich or poor, to be asked to forego their expected benefits and has put forth plans designed to keep the fund solvent 50+ years into the future. Not everyone will like his solvency plans, of course. But, I don't this it's disputable that Sanders the socialist is working to ensure everyone (which naturally includes himself) who contributed to the fund gets the SS benefits. There's no pot/kettle there; offering to give up his own SS benefits would contradict rather than strengthen his position.

[BlueTiki]

SS is a tax . . . it is NOT a retirement plan or pension.

Sanders wants to tax the "rich" and give to the less fortunate (Robin Hood Tax).

Sanders is guaranteed a very healthy pension, due to his service as a Senator.

Forfeit the SS payment and view it as a tax, if you can "survive" without it.

Lead the way and demonstrate your own willingness to walk your talk.

That's my point.

Congress determines who is a US citizen . . . not the fact you happen to be delivered on US soil.

There is no need to amend the Constitution.

[HairOfTheDog]

I understand Social Security and how/why you don't view it as a retirement entitlement for those who've paid SS taxes.

I also understand why a lot of people, including Sanders, don't view it the same way as you do.

I think it would be a really bad move for Sanders' actions to conflict with his message; it would only (possibly) please a small group of people who are not likely to vote for Sanders even if he offered to give up his SS benefits.

P.s. I see now that I was wrong about Trump looking to amend or abolish the 14^th Amendment at this time. He is instead essentially ignoring it, as you stated. Sorry about that.

[Blindgreed1]

[Maggot]

I love watching clowns backpeddle in the center ring. He should get a lawyer. Just to coach him a bit.


Hillary had nothing on this one though.

[Jimbone]

I wouldn't want to be in Gowdy's crosshairs, and Koskinen has been a disgrace since being placed.

But that's exactly what he was put there, as a place holder to take a beating until the clock runs out.

[Blindgreed1]

I love watching clowns backpeddle in the center ring. He should get a lawyer. Just to coach him a bit.


Hillary had nothing on this one though.

Except for disposing of any evidence.

[Blindgreed1]

Just to be clear, your premise is that Hillary knew the difference between classified and non-classified material OR she needed to be told the difference?

As I understand it, emails were clearly labeled classified or not classified. A classified email shouldn't have been sent to her from some just .gov address. The emails she responded to or forwarded have been subsequently "classified". They weren't at the time that she received or responded to them.

ETA: I could see how emails might transition from unclassified to classified based on following events.

Hmmm... well: When Hillary Clinton decided not to use a State Department email address for her official or personal business, it must have seemed like a great idea. Today, even she might regret it. She, after all, is the "employee" the judge was referring to at a hearing on a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit"We wouldn't be here today if this employee had followed government policy."
— U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, Aug. 20, 2015.

Had the former secretary of state relied on a state.gov account, her lawyers would not be in court facing an exasperated Judge Sullivan — one of three federal jurists now dealing with records excavations from her time at State. Her presidential campaign would be able to focus fully on the issues she wants to talk about — instead of being dogged by questions about a persistent controversy that has left her looking evasive and secretive.

Might these inquiries about Clinton's time in the Obama administration be just politics — one "Gotcha!" moment in an election cycle sure to be rife with them?

No. This is serious. Political operatives only dream of entangling their foes in this much federal scrutiny: The FBI is now on the case, and those judges sound impatient for responses.

To recap what's known: Clinton set up her own email address and private server at her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., rather than use a State Department account. After she left office and the department requested copies of all work-related messages, she turned over some 30,000 of them — after deleting another 31,000 that she deemed personal.

What's the problem? There are several. One is that her system gave her complete control over her email archive, sheltering communications from legitimate inquiries. Another is that she flouted the policy of President Barack Obama, as well as the State Department's own guidelines for its employees. Using a private server also put official communications at risk of being compromised by hackers worldwide.

The entire brouhaha is a self-inflicted injury that she keeps aggravating. And it clearly poses serious risks to her White House hopes. A recent Quinnipiac University poll of voters in three large swing states, Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania, found that only 1 in 3 regards Clinton as "honest and trustworthy" — compared with over half for Jeb
Bush.

Clinton's defenses have repeatedly turned out to be implausible, incomplete, doubtful or just wrong. She said she didn't violate government policy — but Sullivan said last week that she did. She said she did nothing different from her predecessors, but State says Colin Powell is the only one who used personal email for government matters. She said none of her emails contained classified information — but two federal inspectors general said at least two of her messages contained "top secret" material that should have been labeled as such but wasn't.

She said she deleted only personal communications — but among those she did not turn over were several about Libya from a former aide; their existence became known when he provided them. She said all her official emails to and from State employees would have been preserved in the department's system — but one of her top aides also had a private account on Clinton's server.

Did she violate the law? We won't prejudge the still-unfolding evidence, although the FBI's inquiry may provide more answers. But it's clear she used poor judgment. Former National Security Agency Director Michael Hayden said, "Put legality aside for just a second, it's stupid and dangerous."

Questions about her dubious conduct dog Clinton at every turn. She and her campaign staff keep trying to deal with the suspicions by shrugging them off, making jokes about them or attributing them to the cynical motives of Republicans. But that approach has only contributed to the sense that she has something to hide.

With those three federal judges now frequently making news about records from Clinton's time at State, her opponents don't have to lift a finger to keep the controversy alive. Nor have her explanations quashed it.

Clinton has to answer all the questions, assume responsibility for her mistakes and tell the public what she's learned from this episode. She is the only person who has the ability to put it to rest.

[Blindgreed1]

^^^From an editorial in a chi town rag.

[Duchess]

Meh. It's just more of the same blahblahfuckingblah and not unexpected at all.

Go Hillary!

[HairOfTheDog]

It seems that Hillary is in agreement with the last line of that editorial from yesterday's Chicago Tribune.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opini...story.html

Yesterday she told an audience in Iowa that her exclusive use of a private email account during her tenure at the State Department "clearly wasn't the best choice" and that she understood why there were so many questions swirling around that decision.

“I get it,” Clinton said at a campaign stop, as quoted by The New York Times. “So here’s what I want the American people to know: My use of personal email was allowed by the State Department. It clearly wasn’t the best choice. I should’ve used two emails: one personal, one for work.” “I take responsibility for that decision," she added. Ref: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/hill...ar-BBmauBL

I think her current strategy is much wiser than continuing to ignore or joke about the email controversy.

[pyropappy]

I don't want to bust your bubble, but these woes are coming from the White House; the Great BO {pbuh} and Vallerie Jarrett hate her guts. This DOJ won't investigate anything they don't allow to be investigated.

Benghazi was about running the weapons they gave to the Libyan rebels to the Syrian rebels through Turkey. The CIA team was there trying to find weapons hidden by the Libyan rebels.

In an interview with ABC News last month, Glen Doherty, a 42-year-old former Navy SEAL who worked as a contractor with the State Department, said he personally went into the field to track down so-called MANPADS, shoulder-fired surface-to-air missiles, and destroy them. After the fall of dictator Moammar Gadhafi, the State Department launched a mission to round up thousands of MANPADS that may have been looted from military installations across the country. U.S. officials previously told ABC News they were concerned the MANPADS could fall into the hands of terrorists, creating a threat to commercial airliners.

article

The story created by the Great BO {pbuh} and the Hellbitch was a lie to cover their illegal activities. They knew the useful idiots in this country would swallow it hook line and sinker.

Has any of her supporters here ever heard of Iran-Contra?

I could go on about a litany of the lies and scandals perpetrated on this country by her and her husband. I strongly suggest you inform yourselves before you decide to support her. The truth is out there, but you have to do the work. The lame stream media sure isn't doing their job.

[HairOfTheDog]

Well, pappy, the factual part of your post has been public information for years and testified-to by Clinton during the Congressional hearings way back in January 2013. It's not a secret that Doherty was on an arms mission in Libya, nor that Ambassador Stevens had voiced serious security concerns prior to the Benghazi attack; serious security concerns which were not addressed seriously enough (in my opinion) by the U.S. State Department under Clinton's leadership.

I'm not sure whose bubble would be burst by hearing that old news again today. Next thing you know, you're gonna blow our minds by telling us that many of the weapons in question were supplied to Libya by Russia way back in the day, and that Mr. Putin might be none-too-pleased if he ever gets wind of your scoop that they're now being used in the fight against his ally Assad's regime in Syria.

Seriously, what's your big reveal here? Are you claiming as a matter of fact that it was the U.S., rather than Qatar, who was financially backing and coordinating the movement of Gaddafi's loose arsenal stockpile from Libyan rebels to Syrian opposition leaders in Turkey back in 2011?

[pyropappy]

She is a liar.

lie 1

lie a second time

This administration supplied weapons to the Libyan rebels; using various cut outs.

The Times further reported in 2012 the White House “secretly gave its blessing to arms shipments to Libyan rebels from Qatar last year, but American officials later grew alarmed as evidence grew that Qatar was turning some of the weapons over to Islamic militants, according to United States officials and foreign diplomats.”

There is more evidence of the Obama administration OKing arms to Libyan rebels. In March 2011, Reuters broke the story that Obama had signed a secret order authorizing covert U.S. government support for rebel forces seeking to oust Gadhafi, quoting U.S. government officials.

article

So why did she continue to blame the video when they knew for a fact it wasn't true? It was a planned coordinated attack. What was Stevens doing there? Why did Stevens meet with the Turkish attache just prior to the attack? What don't they want you to know?

What are the Clinton's ties to China? The Muslim Brotherhood? What really happened in Serbia? Rose law? Their foundation?

What I am saying is get your head out of your ass and find out for yourself. Don't parrot the lame stream media talking points. You are being lied to; she is nothing more than a self serving cunt.