Here is Trey Gowdy, former prosecutor (never once lost a case) articulating to the media, the unanswered questions that justify the request for additional hearings.

These are significant questions. Have they been clearly answered already? If so, Gowdy whould explain why he says they are unanswered. If many of these are still unanswered (and I can't fathom why these wouldn't have been answered yet), that's valid reason for the hearings.

The Dems do not want thee hearings. Human Nature 101 suggests that when one has noting to hide, one does not quiver at the thought of answering a question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1jeJmeeMjs

The GOP picked the right guy. Sharp, committed conservative, won 100% of his cases as a prosecutor, and he's not a right-wing nut job, it won't be easy to paint him as a pure ideologue.

All unanswered reasonable questions. Know the truth and the truth
will set you free, on both sides.

lies = profit

I guess the good thing is that when we reviews all the documents and testimony gathered over the previous 7 investigations he'll find answers to his questions.

Most politically motivated show trial in history.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I guess the good thing is that when we reviews all the documents and testimony gathered over the previous 7 investigations he'll find answers to his questions.

Most politically motivated show trial in history.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Really ??? I guess you don't remember something that actually might have some similarities ...
Does Iran Contra ring a bell ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most politically motivated show trial in history.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The good news is, soon we'll all know. Interesting that the GOP can't wait to start the hearings, and the Democrats want nothing to do with it. I find that revealing, I am sure you do not.

Gowdy is not a party hack. He was named a US attorney by one Bill Clinton. He's respected on your side, though I'd imagine not for long, as I suspect he's about to take a lot of powerful Democrats out to the woodshed.

I just hope it lasts until 2016...

Really ??? I guess you don't remember something that actually might have some similarities ...
Does Iran Contra ring a bell ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got any evidence?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Got any evidence?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are unsolved murders everyday ....doesn't mean they didn't happen .
The evidence is coming . Cover ups take time . If it were easy then even you would be convinced that there just possible could be something not quite right here .
Think of this as a house of cards ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There are unsolved murders everyday ....doesn't mean they didn't happen .
The evidence is coming . Cover ups take time . If it were easy then even you would be convinced that there just possible could be something not quite right here .
Think of this as a house of cards ....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Gowdy is not an ideological simpleton. I don't think he would've agreed to chair this committee unless he suspected (or knew for a fact) that there was something there.

I cannot wait.

Most politically motivated show trial in history.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought that was the stained blue dress.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Count them ,,, 13 ,,, Not a Peep .. http://www.policymic.com/articles/40811/13-benghazis-happened-under-president-bush-and-fox-news-said-nothing

I guess the good thing is that when we reviews all the documents and testimony gathered over the previous 7 investigations he'll find answers to his questions.



The point of the investigation is ,to get "ALL" the documents, and testimony from the 6 that were on the ground that nobody has heard from.
A lot of drip, drip, drip, and stonewalling going on. Sixty one percent of the American People want the answers Gowdy outlined which is the purpose to get the at the unanswered questions.
Like I said a simple truth telling address to the American People by
the President and Hillary would clear it up in no time. If there is nothing to hide what's the problem ?

If there is nothing to hide what's the problem ?

We all already know the answer to that one...

testimony from the 6 that were on the ground that nobody has heard from.
They already testified in October to a House Intelligence Commitee.

Oh, is this news?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We all already know the answer to that one...
Don't you think that after so many (7 or 8) investigations, tens of thousands of documents, dozens of testimonies and participation by non-partisan and high ranking 40 year veterans of our military...that someone would think due diligence has been done?

Back in the day it would have long since been.

Wake up.

-spence

Don't you think that after so many (7 or 8) investigations, tens of thousands of documents, dozens of testimonies and participation by non-partisan and high ranking 40 year veterans of our military...that someone would think due diligence has been done?

Back in the day it would have long since been.

Wake up.

-spence

So where was the President during the time these brave men were fighting for their life's and begging for help ?
I missed that testimony
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't you think that after so many (7 or 8) investigations, tens of thousands of documents, dozens of testimonies and participation by non-partisan and high ranking 40 year veterans of our military...that someone would think due diligence has been done?

Back in the day it would have long since been.

Wake up.

-spence

Spence, let's let it play out, and see if anything new is uncovered.

You sound a little nervous about the hearings. I wonder why that is.

Spence, were special forces soldiers told to get to Benghazi ASAP? When was that order given.

And I'm sorry, as I have said (and as Gowdy said) when the administration justifies not sending in special forces because "they couldn't have gotten there in time", when obviously they had no way of knowing how long the attack would last, that alone tells me that either there is a cover up, or someone is too stupid to have the job they are in.

The House, led by the GOP, is getting this hearing. Spence, someone you absolutely adore once said "elections have consequences". Well, here you go.

So where was the President during the time these brave men were fighting for their life's and begging for help ?
I missed that testimony
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm not sure it's vital for me to know whether he was at Pebble Beach or Augusta, because he has the ability to implement decisions from anywhere, at least from any golf course or Jay-Z concert.

I'm supposed to believe that Susan Rice went on the Sunday morning talk shows, because the SecState doesn't like Sunday morning talk shows? I don't give a frog's fat ass what she likes, her ambassador was murdered after his requests for extra security were denied, so it's her responsibility. If she was sending hate mail to Monica Lewinski, she could take a morning off and do the talk show circuit.

Watch how fast she suddenly decides she likes those shows when she's running for President and they promise a friendly interview.

I care where he was. I'm of the understanding he knew the attack was taking place . If he shrugged it off and passed on the decision making to others then I would like someone held accountable..... for the first time in the past 6 years !!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I care where he was. I'm of the understanding he knew the attack was taking place . If he shrugged it off and passed on the decision making to others then I would like someone held accountable..... for the first time in the past 6 years !!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I'm of the understanding he knew the attack was taking place "

I'm sure you're right. He had to know.

"If he shrugged it off and passed on the decision making to others "

We shuold know whether or not he took the reins or passed it off. But I don't think that where he was, answers that question. He could have been on a golf course, but dropped everything to take charge of this. Or, he coud have been in the situation room, chatting online with Beyonce while it was unfolding. My point is, his exact location doesn't necessarily tell you whether or not he was leading here.

"I would like someone held accountable.."

I suspect that those who dropped the ball, are about to get, at long last, raked over the coals a bit.

"for the first time in the past 6 years "

Come on, give credit where it's due. Obama has held someone at fault for the events of the last 6 years - George Bush. And the wealthy 1% (excluding his pals in Hollywood, of course). And racists. And of course, Foxnews! Sorry, I mean Fauxnews, haw haw haw!!

Spence, let's let it play out, and see if anything new is uncovered.
I don't think the Select Committee has any greater subpoena power than the Issa Committees have.

Spence, were special forces soldiers told to get to Benghazi ASAP? When was that order given.

And I'm sorry, as I have said (and as Gowdy said) when the administration justifies not sending in special forces because "they couldn't have gotten there in time", when obviously they had no way of knowing how long the attack would last, that alone tells me that either there is a cover up, or someone is too stupid to have the job they are in.
This has been beaten to death. What I find amazing is that when dozens of top officials all come to the same conclusion there's still a conspiracy...one that would require the collusion of hundreds of people.

I'll say it again, the primary goal of the GOP is to use Benghazi to raise campaign cash and drag it into the mid-term election.

-spence

I don't think the Select Committee has any greater subpoena power than the Issa Committees have.


This has been beaten to death. What I find amazing is that when dozens of top officials all come to the same conclusion there's still a conspiracy...one that would require the collusion of hundreds of people.

I'll say it again, the primary goal of the GOP is to use Benghazi to raise campaign cash and drag it into the mid-term election.

-spence

"This has been beaten to death"

All due respect, you keep saying that, but not once have you provided specifics. I'm not suggesting that nothing was done, I just don't know exactly what was done. And I'm also telling you that you are 100% incorrect when you suggest it takes hours for a quick response team to get in the air. These guys are, in effect, "on call". Maybe not quite as simple as putting on a fire helmet and hopping in a fire truck. But the time it takes to get them airborne is measured in minutes, not hours. You can plan while you are in the air. You can decide not to engage. But you have to have someone there, as soon as physically possible, so you at least have the option of engaging. Did that happen?

"dozens of top officials all come to the same conclusion "

Is that what happened? How about the high-ranking guy who said we could, and should, have done more? I posted that, you said soimething to the effect that he changed his mind.

Trey Gowdy said in his statement (watch the video), that he doesn't have access to witnesses. Is he lying? If so, and I'm serious, let's impeach Gowdy. Do you have evidence he's lying?

Do we know who, exactly, denied Stevens' request for extra security? And why? And what happened to that person? Were they fired, or given a promotion?

I care where he was. I'm of the understanding he knew the attack was taking place . If he shrugged it off and passed on the decision making to others then I would like someone held accountable..... for the first time in the past 6 years !!!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is exactly the wrong kind of partisan conspiracy thinking that has no place in a Congressional investigation. It's not that there's any evidence Obama was out to lunch and this had a negative impact on our response, none at all.

Most of the Benghazi issues follow a similar thread. Wrap tin-foil around head, play connect the dots, then relentlessly pursue evidence to support your thinking. When you don't find any, it's not because your thinking is wrong, it's that you just haven't looked hard enough.

Same BS that got us into Iraq after 9/11. As #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney famously once said about the Atta meeting in Prague when challenged on the lack of basis...well, it hasn't totally been shot down either.

-spence

. It's not that there's any evidence Obama was out to lunch and this had a negative impact on our response, none at all.

Most of the Benghazi issues follow a similar thread. Wrap tin-foil around head, play connect the dots, then relentlessly pursue evidence to support your thinking. When you don't find any, it's not because your thinking is wrong, it's that you just haven't looked hard enough.

Same BS that got us into Iraq after 9/11. As #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney famously once said about the Atta meeting in Prague when challenged on the lack of basis...well, it hasn't totally been shot down either.

-spence

"It's not that there's any evidence Obama was out to lunch and this had a negative impact on our response, none at all. "

Similar to Jimmy Carter, chances are our folks under attack would be better off if the military leaders sent Obama out to get some magic beans while they handled this.

"relentlessly pursue evidence to support your thinking. When you don't find any, it's not because your thinking is wrong, it's that you just haven't looked hard enough."

Spence, you keep making fun at people who say there are unanswered questions. yet when I ask you which special forces teams were put on the move and when, what I get from you is either (1) that's been answered already, or (2) they were no troops close enough to get there within 12 hours. Those kinds of responses (either overly vague or outright nonsense) will result in people wanting more details. Neither you nor your hero seem to grasp that.

The hearings are coming. I cannot wait to watch Gowdy refuse to let anyone whitewash this. He is absolutely the perfect choice. If he scores political points, he's really going places. I'm sure that's on ereason why he wa spicked, he's being groomed for bigger things.

"This has been beaten to death"

All due respect, you keep saying that, but not once have you provided specifics. I'm not suggesting that nothing was done, I just don't know exactly what was done. And I'm also telling you that you are 100% incorrect when you suggest it takes hours for a quick response team to get in the air. These guys are, in effect, "on call". Maybe not quite as simple as putting on a fire helmet and hopping in a fire truck. But the time it takes to get them airborne is measured in minutes, not hours. You can plan while you are in the air. You can decide not to engage. But you have to have someone there, as soon as physically possible, so you at least have the option of engaging. Did that happen?
My understanding is that the FAST teams in Spain have to equip for the mission, that does take time. The special ops in Croatia can't just fly straight there. Both have to move to staging locations.

Also, I can't believe you'd just blindly fly in guns blazing. Without proper support the risk would be too high.

Ultimately though, I'll trust the opinion of our Military over a bunch of internet conspirators any day of the week.

Is that what happened? How about the high-ranking guy who said we could, and should, have done more? I posted that, you said soimething to the effect that he changed his mind.
I think he spoke a bit too freely up front, then when asked specifically he walked backwards. There's a big difference between "we could have done more" and "I wish we could have done more."

Trey Gowdy said in his statement (watch the video), that he doesn't have access to witnesses. Is he lying? If so, and I'm serious, let's impeach Gowdy. Do you have evidence he's lying?
All I know is that the men on the ground were interview by Congress behind closed doors. The CIA doesn't have to reveal everything they were doing in Benghazi to the open public, but if there's a Constitutional issue you can bet the House wouldn't let it slide.

Nothing happened.

Do we know who, exactly, denied Stevens' request for extra security? And why? And what happened to that person? Were they fired, or given a promotion?
The Mullen investigation looked at this specifically and found the problems mostly systemic in nature. There were several people identified as key parts of the problem who were moved out of that role, I don't believe they were fired, but with systemic issues it can be difficult to assign blame to one person.

-spence

They already testified in October to a House Intelligence Commitee.

Oh, is this news?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, this is news to me, I haven't been able to find anything on the 6
sent to Germany having been interviewed. :huh:

Yes, this is news to me, I haven't been able to find anything on the 6
sent to Germany having been interviewed. :huh:

The survivors who were CIA agents testified behind closed doors.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/14/stand-down-cia-benghazi-team-clash-led-controversi/?page=all

The others were interviewed by the FBI just after the attack. They're prohibited from speaking publicly by their non-disclosure agreements. CBS reported in 2013 these transcripts were turned over to Congress and they were interviewed again during the State investigation.

They'd also likely be protected as whistle blowers if they were revealing criminal wrong-doing.

There's plenty of reporting on this stuff.

-spence

There's plenty of reporting on this stuff.

-spence

Good one ! Been reported to death YOU might say
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good one ! Been reported to death YOU might say
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Are you mocking the casualties?

-spence

Are you mocking the casualties?

-spence

Nice spin . Are you calling yourself a casualty now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My understanding is that the FAST teams in Spain have to equip for the mission, that does take time. The special ops in Croatia can't just fly straight there. Both have to move to staging locations.

Also, I can't believe you'd just blindly fly in guns blazing. Without proper support the risk would be too high.

Ultimately though, I'll trust the opinion of our Military over a bunch of internet conspirators any day of the week.


I think he spoke a bit too freely up front, then when asked specifically he walked backwards. There's a big difference between "we could have done more" and "I wish we could have done more."


All I know is that the men on the ground were interview by Congress behind closed doors. The CIA doesn't have to reveal everything they were doing in Benghazi to the open public, but if there's a Constitutional issue you can bet the House wouldn't let it slide.

Nothing happened.


The Mullen investigation looked at this specifically and found the problems mostly systemic in nature. There were several people identified as key parts of the problem who were moved out of that role, I don't believe they were fired, but with systemic issues it can be difficult to assign blame to one person.

-spence

"The special ops in Croatia can't just fly straight there. Both have to move to staging locations."

I don't know if that's true. I mean, they couldn't drop right in front of the annex, but they could have been really, really close by. Were they? I don't know. But they absolutely should have been. A quick reaction team (FAST team) is supopsed to go from where they are, to the trouble spot, very quickly.

"I can't believe you'd just blindly fly in guns blazing"

I didn't say that. But if you don't have troops in the immediate vicinity (closest safe spot), you can't do anything. So I could just as easily say, "I can't believe Obama would leave those 4 Americans to die alone."

You don't necessarily go in guns blazing. But you don't always have hours to plan, either. You can't treat every operation as if it's the Normandy invasion.

Watch the movie, or read the book, Lone Survivor. 4 man seal team comes under attack, they radio for help, a helicopter is in the air within a few minutes. They didn't take days formulating a plan, going over maps, discussing logistics. Sometimes you have to react quickly. That's why we have special forces.

"I'll trust the opinion of our Military "

I'll also tryst them over an elected politician. Do you trust the guy who said we should have done more?

"I think he spoke a bit too freely up front, then when asked specifically he walked backwards"

In other words, you don't like what he said, so you dismiss it. I thought you just said you trust him?

"the men on the ground were interview by Congress behind closed doors."

Watch the 3 minute video I posted here. Trey Gowdy specifically said he didn't have access to witnesses. If he's lying, impeach him. If he's telling the truth, then clearly we need the hearings. Fair enough?

The Mullen investigation looked at this specifically and found the problems mostly systemic in nature. .

-spence

That's GREAT! And the person in charge of that system at the time, is your candidate fo President? Good lord...

If State Dept had a systemic problem with keeping people safe, how is the person in charge of that department fit to be promoted? Do we want the whole country to have those systemic problems? What if we all come under sniper fire like she did, due to the systemic problems she couldn't rectify?

Talk about backing yourself into a corner! Good luck responding to that...

I don't know if that's true. I mean, they couldn't drop right in front of the annex, but they could have been really, really close by. Were they? I don't know. But they absolutely should have been. A quick reaction team (FAST team) is supopsed to go from where they are, to the trouble spot, very quickly.
FAST stands for Fleet Anti-Terrorism Team. They're to provide reinforcements rapidly, not instantly...

I didn't say that. But if you don't have troops in the immediate vicinity (closest safe spot), you can't do anything. So I could just as easily say, "I can't believe Obama would leave those 4 Americans to die alone."

You don't necessarily go in guns blazing. But you don't always have hours to plan, either. You can't treat every operation as if it's the Normandy invasion.

Watch the movie, or read the book, Lone Survivor. 4 man seal team comes under attack, they radio for help, a helicopter is in the air within a few minutes. They didn't take days formulating a plan, going over maps, discussing logistics. Sometimes you have to react quickly. That's why we have special forces.
I believe in that context it was a quick reaction force that responded. They would be pre-positioned and at the ready to respond to the Seal operation. It's a totally different scenario.

I'll also tryst them over an elected politician. Do you trust the guy who said we should have done more?

In other words, you don't like what he said, so you dismiss it. I thought you just said you trust him?
By his own words I think he believes we should have been able to do more. I think he also believes that this wasn't feasible given the situation.

Watch the 3 minute video I posted here. Trey Gowdy specifically said he didn't have access to witnesses. If he's lying, impeach him. If he's telling the truth, then clearly we need the hearings. Fair enough?
Gowdy has been such a champion of Benghazi myths I'm surprised he doesn't have a retainer from FOX.

He probably doesn't have access to witnesses…right now. They would have to be subpoenaed or if classified worked out behind closed doors. Just because he doesn't have access doesn't mean other investigations have. Gowdy appears to be using a simple rhetorical trick to make you believe something is being withheld.

-spence

FAST stands for Fleet Anti-Terrorism Team. They're to provide reinforcements rapidly, not instantly...


I believe in that context it was a quick reaction force that responded. They would be pre-positioned and at the ready to respond to the Seal operation. It's a totally different scenario.


By his own words I think he believes we should have been able to do more. I think he also believes that this wasn't feasible given the situation.


Gowdy has been such a champion of Benghazi myths I'm surprised he doesn't have a retainer from FOX.

He probably doesn't have access to witnesses…right now. They would have to be subpoenaed or if classified worked out behind closed doors. Just because he doesn't have access doesn't mean other investigations have. Gowdy appears to be using a simple rhetorical trick to make you believe something is being withheld.

-spence

"FAST stands for Fleet Anti-Terrorism Team. They're to provide reinforcements rapidly, not instantly"

How many ways do you need me to say it? Who said anything about instantly? We had, as it turns out, 12 hours. That's more than enough time.

"I believe in that context it was a quick reaction force that responded. They would be pre-positioned and at the ready to respond "

Then you would be wrong. It was a SEAL base, but the SEALs weren't expecting to go out, so they were not nearly as ready as a quick reaction force team would be. They were not planning to go out in support of the 4-man SEAL team. But when they heard the call, they were in the air in short order. It must be very convenient when you always assume everything in a way that support your narrative. You never question anything that supports liberalism, you never give any consideration to anything else. It's incredible.

"Gowdy appears to be using a simple rhetorical trick to make you believe something is being withheld"

Fortunately for all of us, we'll soon know.

Check your facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Check your facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Boy, that's telling me.

Spence, you don't even need to post, ever. we'll just assume your position can be assumed thusly:

liberal = good
conservative = bad.

No exceptions, ever.

About right?

Just read the book Lone Survivor. It's all there. Those guys on the base were not expecting a rapid deployment, but when they heard a call for help, they grabbed their rifles and ran to a chopper.

I am so sorry that fact spit in the face of your fairy tale. Spence, if you need to ignore a large number of facts in order to cling to your position, maybe you should re-evaluate your position.

Check your facts.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I see you'd rather hide under your bed than explain why the person in charge at State who presided over what you called a "systemic" inability to keep her employees alive, deserves a promotion? You have fun with that one. Good night.

There's plenty of reporting on this stuff.

-spence

Yes, but not all. Let's get it ALL on the table and come to a final conclusion.
That should satisfy both sides and bring closure for the families.

Yes, but not all. Let's get it ALL on the table and come to a final conclusion.
That should satisfy both sides and bring closure for the families.


And if it doesn't reach a different conclusion from Mullen et al., the problem is, this issue will STILL be raised as a political item right up to 2016,

And if it doesn't reach a different conclusion from Mullen et al., the problem is, this issue will STILL be raised as a political item right up to 2016,

And it should be . Obama made it political by blaming the video for political purposes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Boy, that's telling me.

Spence, you don't even need to post, ever. we'll just assume your position can be assumed thusly:

liberal = good
conservative = bad.

No exceptions, ever.

About right?
No, you just usually post things that you've misinterpreted hence you think you're always wrong.

Just read the book Lone Survivor. It's all there. Those guys on the base were not expecting a rapid deployment, but when they heard a call for help, they grabbed their rifles and ran to a chopper.

I am so sorry that fact spit in the face of your fairy tale. Spence, if you need to ignore a large number of facts in order to cling to your position, maybe you should re-evaluate your position.
Everything I've read says that the response was a QRF made of US Army Special Ops and Navy Seals. Including a book written about the entire operation by a Marine.

-spence

Obama made it political by blaming the video for political purposes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, if he didn't we wouldn't even be talking about it.

Yes, but not all. Let's get it ALL on the table and come to a final conclusion.
That should satisfy both sides and bring closure for the families.

You'll never have everything, it's not possible. These investigations usually reach a point that satisfies the most important elements.

Do security issues persist at other US missions? Have internal escalation issues been addressed?

This is the most important stuff and something you don't hear from the GOP…because that's not their real concern…gotchya politics at it's best and at taxpayer expense.

That's why this issue is now driven by conspiracies desperate for evidence...

-spence

You'll never have everything, it's not possible. These investigations usually reach a point that satisfies the most important elements.



-spence

It would be possible to have all the info if the people involved were honest, had integrity and were truly doing their job in serving the people. If there was nothing untoward, wouldn't The Commander in Chief want to address the American people and follow up on his promise of "justice would be done"?

Check out Gowdy's questions in the first post and tell me we should be satisfied with the info we have been given so far. Latest polls show 61% aren't satisfied.

This is great...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/apnewsbreak-stand-order-benghazi-24507933

The more the House investigates the more they undermine their own baseless accusations. What did Einstein say about doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result?

-spence

This is great...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/apnewsbreak-stand-order-benghazi-24507933

The more the House investigates the more they undermine their own baseless accusations. What did Einstein say about doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result?

-spence

This rehash of the "news" is so old it is rancid.

Obamawan "These aren't the Droids you are looking for"

Insert major media news organization name here "These are not the Droids we are looking for, Move Along...."

This rehash of the "news" is so old it is rancid.
This is technically new news. It was old before it was new.

I guess one might ask why GOP leaders were still pushing the stand down conspiracy long after they knew it wasn't valid?

-spence

This is technically new news. It was old before it was new.

All those news which you have in the past dismissed as "old news" were "technically new news". As you've liked to say, it cuts both ways.

I guess one might ask why GOP leaders were still pushing the stand down conspiracy long after they knew it wasn't valid?

-spence

At the time, it "technically" was not a "stand down" order, as we've discussed previously. That is a "technical" military term which encompasses a great deal more than merely ordering, or deciding, not to go. But, in civilian perspective, it might not amount to much of a difference. They shouldn't have used the technical military phrase "Stand down." I don't think they've used the phrase recently, have they? I haven't followed that old story.

Besides, the entire Benghazi issue is about a great deal more than using the phrase "stand down." As we have previously discussed, it is about administrative competence, including that of a person who is seeking the presidency. It is about why the administration was pushing the evil video conspiracy when they knew it wasn't valid as such. It is about the whole notion that the administration's policy negated the true presence and influence of Al Qaeda and its affiliates, and was validating its leading from behind policy and its developing disengagement from the Middle East by the notion that Al Qaeda was on the run and Islamic "extremism" was fueled by our meddling there and would be on the wane if our presence were diminished, even to the point of unconcern with who or what would emerge as a result of the so called "Arab Spring." Optimism about administration policy and perspective was spun for public consumption.

The current picture doesn't support the administration's spin. In those who are not driven by party politics it does not inspire the confidence worthy of maintaining this administration's, and its individual operatives, power.

If the GOP is using this, and a host of other "scandals," in order to replace the Democrat regime with its own, surely you can understand that. In response to Democrat shenanigans in some previous post you merely shrugged them off as "politics." Both parties play "politics." Right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander?

Besides, you often maintain that Bush, or Romney, or any Republican would do the same as Obama. So what's the difference? Why do you even care? You just prefer Frick instead of Frack? Or are you partial to Democrat politicking and spin because it is slicker, "smarter"? Maybe that's your gauge--those who have the "smartest" most influential spin are demonstrating superior ability and therefor most likely will rule the best?

Your article is your dreaded "old news" or "new old news" or shockingly new old stuff that is supposed to divert us from the heart of the matter to focus on peripheral fluff. That is the "competent" technique this administration and its press supporters use in a constant damage control mode. It is a very old, and very rancid technique which, when overplayed, begins to expose itself and wear out its effectiveness. Or not.

Anyway, the Benghazi thing is just another symptom of our broken political process. What has broken it goes to the core of who and what we are as a nation. It goes to the principles of our founding and the rejection of those principles in favor of an indeterminate process of governance. It is no wonder that we gravitate to the slickest, "smartest" spinners of what is good and right.

At the time, it "technically" was not a "stand down" order, as we've discussed previously. That is a "technical" military term which encompasses a great deal more than merely ordering, or deciding, not to go. But, in civilian perspective, it might not amount to much of a difference. They shouldn't have used the technical military phrase "Stand down." I don't think they've used the phrase recently, have they? I haven't followed that old story.

Besides, the entire Benghazi issue is about a great deal more than using the phrase "stand down." As we have previously discussed, it is about administrative competence, including that of a person who is seeking the presidency. It is about why the administration was pushing the evil video conspiracy when they knew it wasn't valid as such. It is about the whole notion that the administration's policy negated the true presence and influence of Al Qaeda and its affiliates, and was validating its leading from behind policy and its developing disengagement from the Middle East by the notion that Al Qaeda was on the run and Islamic "extremism" was fueled by our meddling there and would be on the wane if our presence were diminished, even to the point of unconcern with who or what would emerge as a result of the so called "Arab Spring." Optimism about administration policy and perspective was spun for public consumption.

The current picture doesn't support the administration's spin. In those who are not driven by party politics it does not inspire the confidence worthy of maintaining this administration's, and its individual operatives, power.

If the GOP is using this, and a host of other "scandals," in order to replace the Democrat regime with its own, surely you can understand that. In response to Democrat shenanigans in some previous post you merely shrugged them off as "politics." Both parties play "politics." Right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Besides, you often maintain that Bush, or Romney, or any Republican would do the same as Obama. So what's the difference? Why do you even care? You just prefer Frick instead of Frack? Or are you partial to Democrat politicking and spin because it is slicker, "smarter." Maybe that's your gauge--those who have the "smartest" most influential spin are demonstrating superior ability and therefor most likely will rule the best?

Your article is your dreaded "old news" or "new old news" or shockingly new old stuff that is supposed to divert us from the heart of the matter to focus on peripheral fluff. That is the "competent" technique this administration and its press supporters use in a constant damage control mode. It is a very old, and very rancid technique which,when overplayed, begins to expose itself and wear out its effectiveness. Or not.

Couldn't be summed up better than that.

The current picture doesn't support the administration's spin. In those who are not driven by party politics it does not inspire the confidence worthy of maintaining this administration's, and its individual operatives, power.
Actually it does support the administrations narrative, that's why the conspiracies haven't held. The legitimate critisim has long since been aired and addressed.

Besides, you often maintain that Bush, or Romney, or any Republican would do the same as Obama. So what's the difference? Why do you even care? You just prefer Frick instead of Frack? Or are you partial to Democrat politicking and spin because it is slicker, "smarter"? Maybe that's your gauge--those who have the "smartest" most influential spin are demonstrating superior ability and therefor most likely will rule the best?
If the best spin lead to the best rulers the GOP would reign supreme.

Your article is your dreaded "old news" or "new old news" or shockingly new old stuff that is supposed to divert us from the heart of the matter to focus on peripheral fluff. That is the "competent" technique this administration and its press supporters use in a constant damage control mode. It is a very old, and very rancid technique which, when overplayed, begins to expose itself and wear out its effectiveness. Or not.
By your own measure this is about the character of potential leadership. That some are disingenuously manipulating the perception of that leadership isn't just politics, it's dishonest. That they're wasting taxpayer money do it is even worse.

Anyway, the Benghazi thing is just another symptom of our broken political process. What has broken it goes to the core of who and what we are as a nation. It goes to the principles of our founding and the rejection of those principles in favor of an indeterminate process of governance. It is no wonder that we gravitate to the slickest, "smartest" spinners of what is good and right.
You still riding that tired train? :devil2:

-spence

Originally Posted by spence:

Actually it does support the administrations narrative,

No, the current picture in the Middle East does not support the Administration's "narrative." It is a narrative without basis.

spence:
that's why the conspiracies haven't held.

That's correct. The administration's conspiracies haven't held.

spence:
The legitimate critisim has long since been aired and addressed.

Important "legitimate" criticism has been deceitfully addressed, or evaded, by the administration. Of course, if Spence doesn't consider it "legitimate," it must not be. Not.

spence:
If the best spin lead to the best rulers the GOP would reign supreme.

Democrat (progressive) spin has absolutely been the most influential. It has "transformed America," and continues to fundamentally do so. I don't know if that makes it the best. I don't care for either.

You obviously are a sucker for one "side" and are so stuck in the "center" and its fleeting moment that you are oblivious of history.

spence:
By your own measure this is about the character of potential leadership. That some are disingenuously manipulating the perception of that leadership isn't just politics, it's dishonest. That they're wasting taxpayer money do it is even worse.

Could you be, at least once in this post, specific? Anyway, the disingenuous, dishonest, manipulation of the perception of Hillary's leadership potential or political accomplishments as being great stuff is a wasteful bunch of crap. Well . . . not so wasteful for her or the Dems if she gets elected. But that's the nature of influential spin . . . turning turds to gold.

As for wasting taxpayer's money, you must either be joking or are somehow blinded to how trivial a "waste" of spending that money on a search for answers is compared to what has actually been and is continuing to be and will further be the waste of our nation's wealth to the tune of unsustainable national debt. Until you address that and comment on how it can be reversed (other than the pitiful notion of politicians acting "responsibly") your perception of what is wasteful is not only disingenuous, dishonest, but just more caca.

spence:
You still riding that tired train? :devil2:

-spence[/QUOTE]

You were tired of it the moment it left the station. But, amazingly, you're not tired of this undisciplined, unprincipled, dishonest, disingenuous, corrupt, ad hoc, imposture of democratic government which determines for us, and against us, what is allowed, and spends our money in any way and amount it deems necessary to bend our will and mold our minds to accept its edicts as more beneficial and wise than our own desires.

And, amazingly, you cannot see that what you consider new, up to date, this so-called "progressive" rule, is as old as the tyrannical top down rule of men over men. IT is the tired old train, not that of our founding government. The train I "still ride" is still the newest concept of government . . . bottom up, consent of the governed.

It was getting off that founding train that has led us to your preferred top down soft despotism (which is progressively getting less soft and becoming harder and harsher). And has led us into the massive waste of profligate government spending. Your notion that it only requires "responsible" leaders (benevolent dictators?) to make us whole, efficient, and "moving in the right direction" (whatever that is), ignores human nature. It is that very nature which is the basis for our founding government.

That is why that original train works and why our current "tired train" of fake democracy doesn't.

I hate to bring this old thing up again . I mean "what does it matter " it's been done to death ........ Well except for the Sec of States secret email accounts ... Illegal email accoubts .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I hate to bring this old thing up again . I mean "what does it matter " it's been done to death ........ Well except for the Sec of States secret email accounts ... Illegal email accoubts .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Was it illegal?

Was it illegal?

Absolutely
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Absolutely
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I believe the law just says the emails have to be retained and made available. What law are you reading?

I believe the law just says the emails have to be retained and made available. What law are you reading?

How about this from 2012 in the State Departments own words as a reason for firing Ambassador Gration.

Gration violated State Department policy by using a private, unsanctioned e-mail service for official business. In its executive summary listing its key judgments against the U.S. ambassador to Kenya who served under Hillary Clinton, the inspector general stated that Gration’s decision to willfully violate departmental information security policies highlighted Gration’s “reluctance to accept clear-cut U.S. Government decisions.” The report claimed that this reluctance to obey governmental security policies was the former ambassador’s “greatest weakness.”
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I haven't read that it was illegal but certainty inappropriate in my mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I haven't read that it was illegal but certainty inappropriate in my mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
He wasn't fired, he resigned. It appears that use of private email was a concern but his leadership issues were the big problem.

I haven't read that it was illegal but certainty inappropriate in my mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why would she do it ?pops into my mind
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He wasn't fired, he resigned. It appears that use of private email was a concern but his leadership issues were the big problem.

It was a forced resignation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do as I say, not as I do...

Sent to Diplomatic and Consular Staff in June 2011, the unclassified cable, with Clinton’s electronic signature, makes clear to “avoid conducting official Department from your personal e-mail accounts” and employees should not “auto-forward Department email to personal email accounts which is prohibited by Department policy.”

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/414970/hillary-clinton-banned-use-private-email-state-department-employees-while-she

This was done for the sole reason to avoid scrutiny and protect her for a future presidential run.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was a forced resignation
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yea but there is a difference.

The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack.

Two weeks ago, the State Department, after reviewing Mrs. Clinton’s emails, provided the committee with about 300 emails — amounting to roughly 900 pages — about the Benghazi attacks.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0


How could they possibly have conducted a thorough investigation without The Sec of States correspondence.

When she testified before congress didn't she mention that all of her emails were locked up in her house and give me a year to clean them up and i'll forward them to you.
When the 1st committee received all the data for their investigation no one noticed there wasn't The Sec of States emails...... I say "bull#%&#.

The existence of Mrs. Clinton’s personal email account was discovered by a House committee investigating the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi as it sought correspondence between Mrs. Clinton and her aides about the attack.

Two weeks ago, the State Department, after reviewing Mrs. Clinton’s emails, provided the committee with about 300 emails — amounting to roughly 900 pages — about the Benghazi attacks.

[url]http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/us/politics/hillary-clintons-use-of-private-email-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0[/url

How could they possibly have conducted a thorough investigation without The Sec of States correspondence.

When she testified before congress didn't she mention that all of her emails were locked up in her house and give me a year to clean them up and i'll forward them to you.
When the 1st committee received all the data for their investigation no one noticed there wasn't The Sec of States emails...... I say "bull#%&#.

Spence only invokes the smell test if it applies to Cheney.

He wasn't fired, he resigned. It appears that use of private email was a concern but his leadership issues were the big problem.

I wasn't commenting on the whole thread but the fact that Hillary used the private email account. I heard that it wasn't illegal and that Pres. Obama actually stated that it shouldn't be done (not Hillary specifically but all Sr Gov. ees). I think it is innappropriate for gov. business to be conducted on private accts. Plus the issue of security.

I wasn't commenting on the whole thread but the fact that Hillary used the private email account. I heard that it wasn't illegal and that Pres. Obama actually stated that it shouldn't be done (not Hillary specifically but all Sr Gov. ees). I think it is innappropriate for gov. business to be conducted on private accts. Plus the issue of security.

That is a very fair assessment. One more item on a very long list of very questionable decision-making on her part. But I'd vote for her over Senator Warren (Princess Spreading Bull, who me thinks like-um the tee-pee of Great White Chief) any day of the week...

Now, given all the sniper fire she routinely came under as SecState, she was probably too afraid to leave her house to go to work. I still can't fathom how anyone recovers from that lie.

That is a very fair assessment. One more item on a very long list of very questionable decision-making on her part. But I'd vote for her over Senator Warren (Princess Spreading Bull, who me thinks like-um the tee-pee of Great White Chief) any day of the week...

Now, given all the sniper fire she routinely came under as SecState, she was probably too afraid to leave her house to go to work. I still can't fathom how anyone recovers from that lie.

Because just like that lie Jim , this story also won't get any serious play by the media . Its just not as important as say .... Someone saying Obama doesn't love his country . You would think it would be seeing how hypocritical this was, as well as dangerous to this country's national security. I'm sure her emails have been scrubbed by now . Trey dropped the ball on this as he knew about this in August .
Complete BS and another reason why I don't think this President does love this country !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because just like that lie Jim , this story also won't get any serious play by the media . Its just not as important as say .... Someone saying Obama doesn't love his country . You would think it would be seeing how hypocritical this was, as well as dangerous to this country's national security. I'm sure her emails have been scrubbed by now . Trey dropped the ball on this as he knew about this in August .
Complete BS and another reason why I don't think this President does love this country !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

no one can sit in Rev Wright's church for 20 years, call that man his spiritual advisor, let that man baptize your kids, and truly love what the country stands for. It's not possible. I'm supposed to believe that Obama just happened to skip all those sermons with viscious anti-American rhetoric? Sorry, if I sat in a church led by a white supremacist for 20 years, I cannot claim to love black people. It doesn't make sense.

Nor can one choose to be a political lapdog of Bill Ayers, who tried to bomb the US Capital Building, and love this country.

Because just like that lie Jim , this story also won't get any serious play by the media.
It's pretty funny you'd make this statement after the Clinton email thing has been one of the dominant news stories of the week. Oh, and broken by your evil NY Times no less.

It's pretty funny you'd make this statement after the Clinton email thing has been one of the dominant news stories of the week. Oh, and broken by your evil NY Times no less.

It was ?? I thought Ford's plane crash and the wag the dog Holder move
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It was ?? I thought Ford's plane crash and the wag the dog Holder move
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I love it, Feds uncover massive racial corruption by a government agency and it's of no worth...move along, nothing to see here...

I love it, Feds uncover massive racial corruption by a government agency and it's of no worth...move along, nothing to see here...

Massive ??? You're hilarious.
And when the networks report something so obviously negative about this administration they "Spencerize" it. they don't report it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Massive ??? You're hilarious.
And when the networks report something so obviously negative about this administration they "Spencerize" it. they don't report it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So you're alleging the Clinton story is being buried?

So you're alleging the Clinton story is being buried?

Facing your problem and admitting what you do is a good step. 😊
What the media in general does is add a "but" to every potentially damaging story. There was no "but" when Bush was president. Or either downplay the story or blow it out of proportion ,depending on how it makes the administration look.
You know like calling the Fergason story " massive" but downplaying an obviously corrupt and diabolical Secretary of State.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clinton story is being burried?!? How about obamas big trade deal with Asia?? Absolutely no coverage. Why?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clinton story is being burried?!? How about obamas big trade deal with Asia?? Absolutely no coverage. Why?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I can't find anything either . Maybe "big" is a stretch
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You know like calling the Fergason story " massive" but downplaying an obviously corrupt and diabolical Secretary of State.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Ferguson - corrupt system shaking down black people to fund the city.

Clinton - tells agency to release all emails

Obviously corrupt and diabolical.

The fishing expedition that is going to ensure will be hilarious.

BREAKING NEWS

NEW INFORMATION OBTAINED BY FOX NEWS THROUGH A VERIFIED SOURCE FAMILIAR WITH THE CLINTON EMAILS REPORTS THAT ON MAY 29TH 2010 ACTING SECRETARY OF STATE HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON ENDED A SENTENCE WITH A PREPOSITION IN VIOLATION OF CLASSICAL GRAMMAR RULES AND AN AFFRONT TO THE TRIVIUM.

Ferguson - corrupt system shaking down black people to fund the city.

Clinton - tells agency to release all emails

Obviously corrupt and diabolical.

Yes that correctly sums up the two stories .

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And red flags here Spence ?
"Because the emails were housed on her private account, the process was overseen by Clinton and her aides, not archivists like it would have been if the email was housed on government servers."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And red flags here Spence ?
"Because the emails were housed on her private account, the process was overseen by Clinton and her aides, not archivists like it would have been if the email was housed on government servers."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

A perfect way to "edit" your legacy. God I hope she isn't out next president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I love it, Feds uncover massive racial corruption by a government agency and it's of no worth...move along, nothing to see here...

Massive? Seven distasteful emails (out of 10 years' worth of emails?) and the fact that blacks account for a greater percentage of stops and arrests than they do of the general population. Which means exactly zilch if blacks represent that same proportion of people who actually break the law.

Come on, Spence. If there's racism in that PD, it needs to be fixed, but their chief of police isn't running for President.

Ferguson - corrupt system shaking down black people to fund the city.

Clinton - tells agency to release all emails

Obviously corrupt and diabolical.

"Clinton - tells agency to release all emails "

How do we know what she deleted?

Ferguson is a local matter, Clinton's character is obviously a national concern if she's running for POTUS...she may get an actual challenge from Lie-awatha.

I'm thinking the Trey Gowdy renewed vigor into Clinton could backfire big time.

He's going to stir the pot and dig deeper, likely find nothing, and exonerate her in the process...just wait and see.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not if she testifies truthfully.

I'm thinking the Trey Gowdy renewed vigor into Clinton could backfire big time.

He's going to stir the pot and dig deeper, likely find nothing, and exonerate her in the process...just wait and see.
It will be a tall task to exonerate her stupidity in this instance. This was reckless at best for a person of her position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It will be a tall task to exonerate her stupidity in this instance. This was reckless at best for a person of her position.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Whiplash effect. Because of who she is, the more outrageous the offense once it turns out there's no there there the more likely it goes away.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not if she testifies truthfully.
Guilty before proven innocent. God bless America.

Guilty before proven innocent. God bless America.

She said she never emailed classified information . Do you think that is true ?
She said she only has one email because she didn't want to carry two phones . Clearly BS . Maybe if you're 90 you buy that excuse but do you Spence ? Everyone I know has two or more emails on one phone . I have work and personal .
We won't get the server and I'm sure the hard drive has been destroyed .
Acting guilty as sin that's for sure .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She said she never emailed classified information . Do you think that is true ?
I think it's believable. Even Senator Harman came out today and said they don't really email around classified info.

She said she only has one email because she didn't want to carry two phones . Clearly BS . Maybe if you're 90 you buy that excuse but do you Spence ? Everyone I know has two or more emails on one phone . I have work and personal.
I don't have two emails on one phone, neither does my wife.

The server was already set up by Bill. I think they just looked at the simple solution, saw that it would be legal and didn't think how things could go sour. Poor judgement but not necessarily scandal worthy.

We won't get the server and I'm sure the hard drive has been destroyed .
Acting guilty as sin that's for sure .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If someone has evidence of wrong doing there's a legal process to get the server. Otherwise I don't think this goes any further.

She said the reason she didn't have two emails if she didn't want to carry around two Devices and that in retrospect maybe she should've carried around two devices. It's a pathetic excuse. Everybody I know has their work email and then their personal email. And I have it on 1 phone . You and your wife have to get with the times
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She said the reason she didn't have two emails if she didn't want to carry around two Devices and that in retrospect maybe she should've carried around two devices. It's a pathetic excuse. Everybody I know has their work email and then their personal email and they have it on 1 phone . You and your wife have to get with the times
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Everybody I know has their work email and then their personal email. And I have it on 1 phone .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't have email on my phone, period.....

I don't have email on my phone, period.....

Neither does my mom 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She said she never emailed classified information . Do you think that is true ?

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There is also a "Classification" called Unclassified but Sensitive....which is data that should be for official use only.

Nobody can tell me that as Secretary of State that most of her e-mail correspondence doesn't fall, at the very least, into this category.

I call it pretty damn irresponsible of her to step outside of the D.O.D. network and bypass the safeguards that are in place.

The server was already set up by Bill.

Unless that's Bill Gates I wouldn't exactly call her husband an IT super-guru.

Knowing Bill, He probably used it to host the Whitehouse.com website :hihi:

There is also a "Classification" called Unclassified but Sensitive....which is data that should be for official use only.

Nobody can tell me that as Secretary of State that most of her e-mail correspondence doesn't fall, at the very least, into this category.

I call it pretty damn irresponsible of her to step outside of the D.O.D. network and bypass the safeguards that are in place.
If that was the case the GOP would already have hard evidence that Clinton had broken the law, when it appears clear that the law doesn't prohibit employees from using private email.

A more interesting question may be which Republican leaked the information to the NY Times to start this whole mess? Have you considered that it's just a manufactured scandal to disrupt the timing Hillary's Presidential announcement?

If that was the case the GOP would already have hard evidence that Clinton had broken the law, when it appears clear that the law doesn't prohibit employees from using private email.

A more interesting question may be which Republican leaked the information to the NY Times to start this whole mess? Have you considered that it's just a manufactured scandal to disrupt the timing Hillary's Presidential announcement?

we really need to start a thread criticizing Satan.... so that Spence can spend several pages defending, excusing, explaining in a positive light and putting into context ...Satan

The server was already set up by Bill. I think they just looked at the simple solution, saw that it would be legal and didn't think how things could go sour. Poor judgement but not necessarily scandal worthy.

Really? Link to where it shows that?
The clintonemail.com domain was registered in early January 2009, a couple weeks Obama's inauguration. Now if it was attached to a Clinton domain already running on a server in their house basement, which domain would that be? Clintonfoundation.org being hosted not in there basement at the time (and currently hosted with Microsoft O365)

On a side note there are rules and laws on official correspondence and sensitive data that applied prior to 2014.

There is also a "Classification" called Unclassified but Sensitive....which is data that should be for official use only.

Nobody can tell me that as Secretary of State that most of her e-mail correspondence doesn't fall, at the very least, into this category.

I call it pretty damn irresponsible of her to step outside of the D.O.D. network and bypass the safeguards that are in place.

Absolutely correct. Most tech guys understand how blatantly bad this is from a security standpoint and how most of the email is sensitive, even if its the lunch order from the caf.

A home server running MS Exchange, in the basement of a home (even guarded by Secret Service), accessible via OWA, connected to an Optima Online cable modem is NOT, repeat NOT, secure.


Knowing Bill, He probably used it to host the Whitehouse.com website :hihi:

:hihi::hihi: - Had not seen that one mentioned in a while. Too afraid to check

If that was the case the GOP would already have hard evidence that Clinton had broken the law, when it appears clear that the law doesn't prohibit employees from using private email.

?

True, the law doesn't seem to prohibit private email.

However...last night Megyn Kelly said there is a document that every state dept empolyee is required to sign...the document is an affadavit, whereby the signee is stating, under criminal penalty of perjury, that upon their departure from the State Dept, they have turned over all files and communictions related to work. The files are required to be turned over upon their departure from the state department, not two years later, which was when Hilay finally got around to doing it.

IF Megyn Kelly is correct...than if she signed that document, I think one could make a compelling case that she broke the law. If she didn't sign the document, why not?

we really need to start a thread criticizing Satan.... so that Spence can spend several pages defending, excusing, explaining in a positive light and putting into context ...Satan

That woukd only work if Sataan was a registered Democrat...

True, the law doesn't seem to prohibit private email.



She can have as many e-mail accounts as she wants.

The problem comes from her using an Unsecure account to e-mail sensitive material. As Secretary of State I would think that all communications done in the context of her job are considered Sensitive Material.

Anything from Travel itineraries to Phone numbers to when one of her aides is picking up little Susie from daycare can be used by unscrupulous types that get their hands on that info.

Keep it Safe, Keep it Secure

She can have as many e-mail accounts as she wants.

The problem comes from her using an Unsecure account to e-mail sensitive material. As Secretary of State I would think that all communications done in the context of her job are considered Sensitive Material.

Anything from Travel itineraries to Phone numbers to when one of her aides is picking up little Susie from daycare can be used by unscrupulous types that get their hands on that info.

Keep it Safe, Keep it Secure

It would have been worth hacking her email just to know which yoga class to avoid 😵
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device