Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Hillary and the email

Hillary and the email (Page 3)
Thread Tools
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2016, 04:41 PM
 
Hillary is not the natural liar that Bill is.

This past weekend, the Democrat presidential candidate told a story she allegedly just heard the day before from a supporter.

Clinton told WHO TV in Iowa the following analogy about her private email scandal, alleging that what she did was perfectly legal at the time:

“The best explanation I hear of this I heard yesterday in Des Moines from a man I was talking to… He said, ‘This is like you drive through the same intersection for years and the speed limit is 35 and they you move out of town and they change the speed limit to 25. And then they start sending you tickets.'”
To be clear, that is a story she claims she heard “yesterday” as told by a random man from Des Moines.

Unfortunately for Clinton, the story she allegedly heard yesterday was told three weeks ago … by her.

At a meeting with the Des Moines Register editorial board in mid-January, Clinton gave the same speed limit analogy.

“If you’re going to be retroactively classifying materials that’s an impossible standard. You know it’d be like somebody in the Department of Transportation setting speed limits that had cameras where cars were going down a road, and pictures of license plates were being taken and let’s say the speed limit was 35. And then retroactively the police say that speed limit should’ve been 25, so let’s go back and look at anybody who drove down that road and exceeded 25, we need to follow up on that.”
Fox News’ Ed Henry pointed out the similarities which left he, Megyn Kelly, and the rest of the crew on set, laughing at Mrs. Clinton.



Read more: What Is Hillary Lying About Now? This Will Leave You Shaking Your Head
45/47
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2016, 06:29 PM
 
Could someone who ACTUALLY (not calling anyone out, just looking for first hand knowledge, not speculation) understands how the government deals with classified information explain something?

If one person with clearance is sending classified information to someone else with clearance and there is no expectation the information will go beyond them or outside of a secure system, is it protocol or common practice to mark it as classified?

So for example, if one of the 22 emails that have been 'retroactively' classified had never left a secure system, by protocol, should it have been marked classified? From the descriptions of the emails, it seems obvious to layman that they contained sensitive data.

I guess what I am getting at, is Hillary's argument that the emails were not classified at the time a red-herring? I would imagine if two security cleared people are having a conversation about sensitive data in a secure facility, I doubt they bother saying to each other that their conversation is classified- verbally marking it. I would think there was an assumption of security.

If people sending her the emails assumed she was using a secure system, were they still in violation of protocol by not designating what what obviously sensitive data as classified?

This is not directly relevant to the issue of her guilt or innocence, I'm just curious.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2016, 06:39 PM
 
And another thing. For those of you who are convinced an inditement is inevitable, why do you think it is taking so long?

If it's political interference, who is benefiting from the delay? Certainly not the democrats- the ones who control the justice department.

If they are going to indite her, the longer they wait the more damage it is going to do the whomever the eventual democratic ends up being. The only democrat (I know, technically an independent) that could possibly benefit is Sanders, and I don't think he has the power to force a delay.

Even if the delay was because the justice needs the time build a rock-solid case, you would think someone would have whispered in Hillary's ear that she needs to step aside now. And if the did and she refused, you would think Obama et al would have put up another candidate or gotten behind O'Malley.

My feeling is at this point, no inditement is going to come, either because it's genuinely not warranted, or the justice department is corruptly burying it for all time.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2016, 06:47 PM
 
https://en.www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cl..._United_States

To be properly classified, a classification authority (an individual charged by the U.S. government with the right and responsibility to properly determine the level of classification and the reason for classification) must determine the appropriate classification level, as well as the reason information is to be classified. A determination must be made as to how and when the document will be declassified, and the document marked accordingly.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2016, 08:16 PM
 
One would think the Secretary of State might be authorised to classify stuff. Or not to.


I just read this article which seems pretty close to the mark:

If You're Liberal and You Think Hillary Clinton Is Corrupt and Untrustworthy, You're Rewarding 25 Years of GOP Smears - The Daily Banter

And this
All the terrible things Hillary Clinton has done — in one big list - MarketWatch
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2016, 08:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Close to what mark ? I mentions the email scandal in HALF a sentence.

It's a pro-Clinton propaganda piece. You think this will do to explain things away ?

Are you Brits that easily pleased?
Oh, sorry, scratch that, the answer is obviously yes, looking at your political landscape.

-t
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2016, 09:04 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Could someone who ACTUALLY (not calling anyone out, just looking for first hand knowledge, not speculation) understands how the government deals with classified information explain something?

If one person with clearance is sending classified information to someone else with clearance and there is no expectation the information will go beyond them or outside of a secure system, is it protocol or common practice to mark it as classified?

So for example, if one of the 22 emails that have been 'retroactively' classified had never left a secure system, by protocol, should it have been marked classified? From the descriptions of the emails, it seems obvious to layman that they contained sensitive data.

I guess what I am getting at, is Hillary's argument that the emails were not classified at the time a red-herring? I would imagine if two security cleared people are having a conversation about sensitive data in a secure facility, I doubt they bother saying to each other that their conversation is classified- verbally marking it. I would think there was an assumption of security.

If people sending her the emails assumed she was using a secure system, were they still in violation of protocol by not designating what what obviously sensitive data as classified?

This is not directly relevant to the issue of her guilt or innocence, I'm just curious.
As I said, I have a family member that worked as an Army Intelligence Analyst, compiling classified information first hand.
All I get is laughter when I mention how Hilary is trying to explain things.

Plus, it really doesn't matter if Hilary was reckless, or just insanely f*cking stupid.
It clearly disqualifies her, both on a professional and ethical level.

-t
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2016, 09:34 PM
 
The quote from wikipedia doesn't really answer my question, and I spent some time with the full article, but couldn't find the answer either.

I'm not sure if I'm not asking the question correctly or if thus far, no one that knows the answer has responded.

What I am curious about is if the emails which have since been classified should have been before they were sent. The information in them (at least as it has been reported) seems obviously confidential. If the sender believed they were sending them to a secure system, should they have somehow been marked as classified?

I'm not trying to defend or attack Hillary here, I'm just curious. It seems to me it would be overly cumbersome to have to run every email by a classification authority before sending it. Email and paper documents are necessarily very different beasts. Is email treated like paper documents or like (I imagine) conversations?

I guess how this relates to the case is that if there was no expectation that all classified material sent in email would necessarily be marked as such, but that all communications on a 'secure' system should be treated as though it was, Hillary's argument holds no water. If, on the other hand, she should have expected that any classified material sent to her would be marked as such, it's a bit more credible.

I'm of the camp that regardless of the legality of it, it was phenomenally stupid and borderline unbelievable that she was permitted to run State Department business on a private, unsecured mail server. It was obviously a mistake, and while she bears some if not the bulk of the responsibility, someone should have stopped it form happening.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2016, 09:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Could someone who ACTUALLY (not calling anyone out, just looking for first hand knowledge, not speculation) understands how the government deals with classified information explain something?
Why would they waste their time? You live in the UK.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 5, 2016, 09:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Why would they waste their time? You live in the UK.
Ummm, because I'm a voter and I asked nicely?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2016, 02:51 AM
 
Google's broken for you?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2016, 06:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Google's broken for you?
Your graciousness is matched only by your wit.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2016, 02:25 PM
 
Not to get in the way or anything, but was my source not acceptable?
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2016, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Not to get in the way or anything, but was my source not acceptable?
Thank you for trying, but as I said a few posts up, I didn't find the answer in the article.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2016, 03:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
What I am curious about is if the emails which have since been classified should have been before they were sent. The information in them (at least as it has been reported) seems obviously confidential. If the sender believed they were sending them to a secure system, should they have somehow been marked as classified?
YES. They would have been marked classified if the source was any intelligence community within the US government or military.
At the source level (original document), they would have been marked.

What we don't know is through how many hands and document alterations this information has gone until it was received by Hilary.

However, there is a second aspect: Hilary MUST have know that some of the information was classified, even if it was NOT marked.
Hiding behind a "I didn't know it was classified" defense is ludicrous for someone at that level in government.
If she really didn't know, she was neither qualified to be Secretary of State, nor a future president.

-t
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2016, 03:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Not to get in the way or anything, but was my source not acceptable?
it was, but that's not what he was fishing for, obviously.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2016, 03:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Your graciousness is matched only by your wit.
You treat people you don't agree with like garbage, but then expect them to be gracious to you? That's quite a privilege.

Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
YES. They would have been marked classified if the source was any intelligence community within the US government or military.
At the source level (original document), they would have been marked.

What we don't know is through how many hands and document alterations this information has gone until it was received by Hilary.

However, there is a second aspect: Hilary MUST have know that some of the information was classified, even if it was NOT marked.
Hiding behind a "I didn't know it was classified" defense is ludicrous for someone at that level in government.
If she really didn't know, she was neither qualified to be Secretary of State, nor a future president.

-t
and now she's playing the damsel in distress card. You know, if elected, she'd try that on Putin and the Chinese (like she did as SoS). There's no doubt they'd enjoy smacking her around for 4 years.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2016, 03:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Thank you for trying, but as I said a few posts up, I didn't find the answer in the article.
Whoops! Missed that!

Reading your rephrased question now.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2016, 04:12 PM
 
@Paco500

I'm confused.

I'll just state flat-out: if they were only classified retroactively, then I don't care. They weren't classified at the time, and discussing unclassified material is legal.

I'm even willing to cut her slack when it comes to bullshit classified material. Like articles from the NYT about Snowden. AFAIC, the choice to classify that was an abuse of the classification system.

What I care about is non-bullshit classified material which was classified at the time she disseminated it on her server. That material must be marked classified (as per wiki).
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2016, 05:07 PM
 
That's what they're trying to avoid. The "Hey, it's not classified now!" routine is getting ridiculous.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2016, 05:43 PM
 
I thought it was odd she doubled down on that so hard considering:

https://oig.state.gov/system/files/s...ly_24_2015.pdf

They found 1 in 10 emails they looked at had then classified material with no markings.
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2016, 05:51 PM
 
First of all, 8 years, Submarine fleet, US Navy Nuclear Power.

Originally Posted by subego View Post
@Paco500

I'm confused.

I'll just state flat-out: if they were only classified retroactively, then I don't care. They weren't classified at the time, and discussing unclassified material is legal.
Sort of. If you have the expectation that the material may be classified in the future, because of origination or path, then you are mandated to treat it as such.

I'm even willing to cut her slack when it comes to bullshit classified material. Like articles from the NYT about Snowden. AFAIC, the choice to classify that was an abuse of the classification system.
Doesn't matter. If she's not the declassification authority, then no deal.

What I care about is non-bullshit classified material which was classified at the time she disseminated it on her server. That material must be marked classified (as per wiki).
Yeah.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2016, 09:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@Paco500

I'm confused.
I understand. My question is only slightly tangental to the Hillary issue. Let me try again.

If the news reports are correct, there was information in the emails that have since been classified that to an ignorant layman such as myself was clearly sensitive- names of foreign agents.

If the original sender believed they were sending these to a secure system, was it ok that they were not marked as classified? It seems to me, given the nature of email, it would be overly cumbersome to have every email reviewed and then, if appropriate, be marked as classified IF, AND ONLY IF, it was never going to leave a secure system.

The answer to this possibly has implications on the Hillary case, but I'm just curios for the sake of curiosity.
     
Paco500
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Berkshire, UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2016, 09:17 PM
 
Subego-

In the article you linked to, it reads:

Originally Posted by the article
These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.
This bit:

Originally Posted by the article
This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.
Would it have been ok to send these on a secure system without a classification marking?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2016, 09:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele View Post
Sort of. If you have the expectation that the material may be classified in the future, because of origination or path, then you are mandated to treat it as such.
Since these particular emails (22 was it) haven't been released for public consumption because they are classified [/i]now[/i], surely we must infer that if they should have been treated as such then, an indictment would have been issued by now. (Assuming issuing is what one does with indictments. Initiated?)


Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele View Post
Doesn't matter. If she's not the declassification authority, then no deal.

Can someone of higher rank or clearance 'overrule' a classification that was issued by a subordinate and declassify things?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2016, 09:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Close to what mark ? I mentions the email scandal in HALF a sentence.
Close to the truth. Because thats what that phrase means.

Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
It's a pro-Clinton propaganda piece. You think this will do to explain things away ?
This has been my position for a long time now. The Republicans have been attacking Hilary since the first time they heard someone suggest she might one day want to run for President. They've seized on non-stories and half truths, they've made bizarre claims, and they've made a lot of shit up completely. None of it has stuck in 20 years, no matter how hard or long they try to flog it so my point is they have completely undermined any credibility they might have had when it comes to what they say about Hilary. Even if she literally sold secrets to China and caused thousands of US deaths, no-one should believe it because it just looks like yet another boring, moronic, unsubstantiated GOP witch hunt.


Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Are you Brits that easily pleased?
Oh, sorry, scratch that, the answer is obviously yes, looking at your political landscape.

-t
You guys are in no position to criticise anyone else's political landscapes.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2016, 09:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
As I said, I have a family member that worked as an Army Intelligence Analyst, compiling classified information first hand.
All I get is laughter when I mention how Hilary is trying to explain things.
Assuming they have much in common with you, you might find you need to make the question look like a hypothetical about someone else that they don't see through in order to get a real answer.

Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Plus, it really doesn't matter if Hilary was reckless, or just insanely f*cking stupid.
It clearly disqualifies her, both on a professional and ethical level.

-t

Always fun to see conservatives preaching about other people's ethics. Didn't the pope just try to lecture someone about child abuse the other day?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2016, 10:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
That's what they're trying to avoid. The "Hey, it's not classified now!" routine is getting ridiculous.
I thought it was a "they weren't classified then" argument.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 6, 2016, 11:35 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Since these particular emails (22 was it) haven't been released for public consumption because they are classified [/i]now[/i], surely we must infer that if they should have been treated as such then, an indictment would have been issued by now. (Assuming issuing is what one does with indictments. Initiated?)
Depends on how much of an issue that the various committees looking into it want to make it, and the precedent they want to set. I have a suspicion that secretaries of state have been doing crap like this for a long time, and it'll turn into a goose/gander situation if they start throwing indictments around.

What I know is this. When I was in the service, had I handled classified so cavalierly, I'd probably still be making big rocks into little rocks someplace.

As SOS, at the very least, she should have known better, and did know better, and just didn't care. Saying that "hey, this person did it too" is no defense.

Can someone of higher rank or clearance 'overrule' a classification that was issued by a subordinate and declassify things?
Short answer: No. Slightly longer answer: Classification is easy, and can be done by just about anybody. Declassification is hard, and takes a lot of review, submissions, paperwork, and more review. Years, if not decades, to declassify. There are secrets from my time in the service that aren't relevant to anybody anymore that I've got lodged in my cranium, that will never be declassified, I think, just because its far too much of a pain in the ass to do it. Just because something is in the news, doesn't mean that it's not classified, or will be unclassified by fiat.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2016, 01:37 AM
 
Originally Posted by Mike Wuerthele View Post
First of all, 8 years, Submarine fleet, US Navy Nuclear Power.



Sort of. If you have the expectation that the material may be classified in the future, because of origination or path, then you are mandated to treat it as such.



Doesn't matter. If she's not the declassification authority, then no deal.



Yeah.
Thank you!

Glad I didn't mung it up too much as a layman.

To be clear, I'm only stating what slack I'd be willing to cut her. Standard protocol would understandably be more rigid.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2016, 01:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I thought it was a "they weren't classified then" argument.
But as I pointed out, the Investigator General took a sample of 40 emails. Of these, four were classified at the time.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2016, 02:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Would it have been ok to send these on a secure system without a classification marking?
Hopefully Mike can chime in, but my conjecture is no.

How would the person at the other end be able to differentiate that from an actual unclassified email? It'd be a leak just waiting to happen.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2016, 05:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I thought it was a "they weren't classified then" argument.
No, opposite of that, and not just once "oops, we goofed", but many, many times.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Mike Wuerthele
Managing Editor
Join Date: Jul 2012
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2016, 09:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by Paco500 View Post
Would it have been ok to send these on a secure system without a classification marking?
Nope. Even on a classified system, there are varying degrees of classification. If its marked once, it needs to remain so.
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 7, 2016, 03:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
Assuming they have much in common with you, you might find you need to make the question look like a hypothetical about someone else that they don't see through in order to get a real answer.
What a load of crock. What's the "real" answer in this context ?
Mike pretty much confirmed what I have been saying.

You just dont like the answer you're getting, and start with the only thing
you got left - thinly veiled personal attacks.

-t
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2016, 10:30 AM
 
Hillary RECEIVED the classified data and removed the classification (ILLEGAL) and then pasted parts into other non-secure emails(ILLEGAL), on an unencrypted server(ILLEGAL). Hillary did not classify the info herself, but others in other agencies did. SAP data, which could have info that points to a spy undercover some place should NEVER have been put on any email system.(how irresponsible, stupid, lax, careless and naive would she be?) Claiming others did the same is JUST MORE BS, from Hillary the liar.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2016, 03:11 PM
 
She's got her hands full with her husband's mountain of rape allegations too, which she's ignoring, despite her, "we must believe all rape victims" rhetoric. That doesn't apply to women who were (allegedly) molested by Bill, apparently.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 8, 2016, 10:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
What a load of crock. What's the "real" answer in this context ?
Mike pretty much confirmed what I have been saying.

You just dont like the answer you're getting, and start with the only thing
you got left - thinly veiled personal attacks.

-t
The "answer" you gave was laughter plus an implication applied by you. The "real" answer to which I referred was an unbiased one. If calling you biased is a personal attack, so be it, I thought you had thicker skin. It might have been thinly veiled if I thought you would miss it. I didn't.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2016, 11:09 AM
 
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2016, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Then there is this looming.
Hillary Clinton Whitewater Indictment Draft Sought in Judicial Watch Lawsuit | National Review Online

It looks like an indictment was prepared, but not filed. One radio report said it was not file because the Clintons were "too powerful"
45/47
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 9, 2016, 01:45 PM
 


-t
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2016, 12:00 AM
 
45/47
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2016, 10:12 AM
 
The Washington Post is calling for Biden "to start warming up in the bullpen"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...2c9_story.html
45/47
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2016, 11:41 AM
 
A judge has asked the DoS WHY it's taking SOOOO LONG to get those emails to Judicial Watch, and the investigators. Just keep making them mad, and see how that works out.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2016, 02:56 PM
 
Beyond the rhetoric from the Right, it's looking more and more like she's in real shit.

Chance of indictment has gone up from 20% to ~30.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2016, 03:19 PM
 
12 folks had access to her unencrypted server/emails.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2016, 03:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
12 folks had access to her unencrypted server/emails.
Does this include the server farm where her server was housed in a converted bathroom?
45/47
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 10, 2016, 03:43 PM
 
Perhaps. I'm thinking the guy who set them up, Hill, Uma, Chelsea, Bubba, and a few others.
Those who tampered with classifications will go down hardest.
The guy who set things up KNEW BETTER so he will go down hard as well.
I buying some popcorn!
     
BadKosh  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 11, 2016, 02:17 PM
 
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2016, 10:55 PM
 
Look for this guy to have an accident.

Justice Dept. grants immunity to staffer who set up Clinton email server
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...571_story.html

He took the fifth when he appeared before Congress.
45/47
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:42 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,