I thought she only had wedding planning and yoga schedules on there?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/19/inspector-general-clinton-emails-had-intel-from-most-secretive-classified-programs.html?intcmp=hpbt1

The Federal Inspector General for the Intelligence Community (the guy that runs inspections IN the Intelligence Community) did not have high enough clearance to review the emails she had on her personal home email server.

An intelligence official familiar with the matter told NBC News that the special access program in question was so sensitive that McCullough and some of his aides had to receive clearance to be read in on it before viewing the sworn declaration about the Clinton emails.
Clinton's campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hillary-clinton-emails-contained-info-above-top-secret-ig-n499886

But....but......but (insert excuse here)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But....but......but (insert excuse here)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'll put on my Spence hat and offer some excuses...

(1) ...they ALL do it.
(2) ... oh, you can't believe anything you read on Fauxnews
(3) ...are we still talking about this? Why can't we look forward, and discuss the issues that people CARE about, like getting free rubbers to first graders.

4) she hasn't stolen from the 1% yet. But when she does, then and only then will she be held accountable for her actions.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This on top of the other 1,300 classified e mails found.

#5 "It's just something people try to throw against the wall and hope it sticks." :hihi:

Like someone said, if she ever got elected she'd be spending her first
100 days between the White House and the Court House. :)

Saw this a few minutes ago:


Hillary: There is no classified material on my server

Intel IG: My clearance level isn't high enough to see all the crap on her server

Wait, I got it...

"the same vast right-wing conspiracy that framed my devoted husband to make it look like he was unfaithful, planted those emails on my server. It was the Koch brothers."

This on top of the other 1,300 classified e mails found.
Retroactively mind you. There also seems to be a lot of disagreements as to how different departments believe certain information should be handled. You could have info that considered top secret by one agency and yet published publicly in multiple sources but it's still considered classified.

There's not much new in this latest report, other than Republicans continuing to leak information to hurt Clinton's campaign. Wait that's not really new either.

I'd note Clinton's not under investigation and there's no yet evidence she broke any laws...

No matter what is on the server it is stupid for anyone that high up to use their private email. Easy for someone to type in the wrong email address and send something to an unsecured email address.

Retroactively mind you. There also seems to be a lot of disagreements as to how different departments believe certain information should be handled. You could have info that considered top secret by one agency and yet published publicly in multiple sources but it's still considered classified.

There's not much new in this latest report, other than Republicans continuing to leak information to hurt Clinton's campaign. Wait that's not really new either.

I'd note Clinton's not under investigation and there's no yet evidence she broke any laws...

"There also seems to be a lot of disagreements as to how different departments believe certain information should be handled"

No, there's not a lot of disagreement there. It's established practice that the agency that develops a piece of intelligence, has sole authority to classify it, and all other agencies are bound to accept that. So if the CIA takes a pic of North Korea missile movements and classifies it as top secret or higher, Hilary doesn't get to decide that it's no more sensitive that her yoga schedule.

"Retroactively mind you"

Absolutely, 100% false. The 2 emails cited in the story I posted, were deemed to have been higher than top secret before they got to Hilary's server. The IG considers that "a closed matter". The State Dept tried to change the classification, but as I said, they don't get to do that unless they developed the information.

When she said her server had nothing but wedding plans and yoga, it was a lie. Then she said it had no emails that were classified at the time. Also b.s.

Retroactively mind you. There also seems to be a lot of disagreements as to how different departments believe certain information should be handled. You could have info that considered top secret by one agency and yet published publicly in multiple sources but it's still considered classified.

There's not much new in this latest report, other than Republicans continuing to leak information to hurt Clinton's campaign. Wait that's not really new either.

I'd note Clinton's not under investigation and there's no yet evidence she broke any laws...

mutterings of a mind-numbed cultist

Hillary will be fine...I saw a poll a few days ago that indicated an impressive number of democrats were happy to see continue her campaign for president even after and if she finds herself under indictment

The last email report is not good. I work in this field. When you reveal sources and methods your basically stating exactly who our spies are, how they are getting the info, and from who. If these sources are still in country they and their friends, family, etc, are caught, incarcerated, or killed. This is far reaching.

No, there's not a lot of disagreement there. It's established practice that the agency that develops a piece of intelligence, has sole authority to classify it, and all other agencies are bound to accept that. So if the CIA takes a pic of North Korea missile movements and classifies it as top secret or higher, Hilary doesn't get to decide that it's no more sensitive that her yoga schedule.
But that's not what's happening. The information being discussed wasn't classified when she was at State. It was either classified after she left or classified as part of the email release process. Given the media scrutiny around there simply could be things they don't want to draw attention to.

Absolutely, 100% false. The 2 emails cited in the story I posted, were deemed to have been higher than top secret before they got to Hilary's server. The IG considers that "a closed matter". The State Dept tried to change the classification, but as I said, they don't get to do that unless they developed the information.
That's also not entirely true.

This is based on off the record information...but what appears to have happened is an aid forwarded Clinton a few emails citing public news reporting about the political fallout from drone strikes. Because the drone strikes weren't supposed to be happening (ssssshhhhhhhhhh) the program was considered top secret/SAP and so any government correspondence on the topic "should" be handled with that designation.

I'm sure some will clamor that Clinton would have known this and should have rang the alarm bell on mishandling information, but that's pretty silly...If the above is true you can toss this right back into the dust bin with all the other accusations.

But that's not what's happening. The information being discussed wasn't classified when she was at State. It was either classified after she left or classified as part of the email release process. Given the media scrutiny around there simply could be things they don't want to draw attention to.


That's also not entirely true.

This is based on off the record information...but what appears to have happened is an aid forwarded Clinton a few emails citing public news reporting about the political fallout from drone strikes. Because the drone strikes weren't supposed to be happening (ssssshhhhhhhhhh) the program was considered top secret/SAP and so any government correspondence on the topic "should" be handled with that designation.

I'm sure some will clamor that Clinton would have known this and should have rang the alarm bell on mishandling information, but that's pretty silly...If the above is true you can toss this right back into the dust bin with all the other accusations.

"The information being discussed wasn't classified when she was at State"

That is what Hilary is saying. That's not what the IG is saying. Read the link I posted...

"As Fox News first reported, those two emails were “top secret” when they hit the server, and it is now considered a settled matter."

At a minimum, Spence...what do you think of her initial claims that her server only had wedding plans, yoga schedules, things like that?

We will see.

Another story...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/15/sources-review-affirms-clinton-server-emails-were-top-secret-despite-department-challenge.html

From this article...

"An intelligence community review has re-affirmed that two classified emails were indeed “top secret” when they hit Hillary Clinton’s unsecured personal server despite a challenge to that designation by the State Department, according to two sources familiar with the review.

The sources described the dispute over whether the two emails were classified at the highest level as a “settled matter.”

mutterings of a mind-numbed cultist

Hillary will be fine...I saw a poll a few days ago that indicated an impressive number of democrats were happy to see continue her campaign for president even after and if she finds herself under indictment

You are correct, I doubt that an indictment keeps her from getting the Democratic nomination (Bill was humiliated, impeached, and disbarred, and no one holds that against him). It will hurt her in the general.

They are an awful lot like the Kennedys. No morals whatsoever, and a firm conviction that the world is better off if they are running it.

I'd note Clinton's not under investigation and there's no yet evidence she broke any laws...

Wait, what? She's not under investigation? What are those 150 FBI agents doing all day?

Wait, what? She's not under investigation? What are those 150 FBI agents doing all day?
Yes, Clinton is not a target of the Federal probe. This was falsely reported by the NYT months ago, another Republican leak intended to smear...

At a minimum, Spence...what do you think of her initial claims that her server only had wedding plans, yoga schedules, things like that?

I don't think she ever claimed that.

But anyway, you're getting your emails confused. The IG report is not about the same emails in your second link. FOX is spinning you around so fast the stories are getting all mixed together.

My prediction: Hillary will blame a staffer for sending or uploading the classified info on her server. But as she should be, Hillary is ultimately responsible because she was head of the department. That said the liberal community has tended to look at those other turncoats like Snowden as "heroes". There is actually a move to free this guy. Knowing that its not surprising that many on the left don't think this is a big deal.

And they want to reduce Petraeus rank for sending 2 emails....spence, not long ago one of hillary's email sent to her harem of confidence contained verbiage of how to get around sending classified info as non classified....did ya miss that one?...:)

My prediction: Hillary will blame a staffer for sending or uploading the classified info or her server. But as she should be, Hillary is ultimately responsible because she was head of the department.
I think we'll have to wait for the output of the FBI investigation before anything is really clear. To my knowledge there still has been no evidence that information was sent to Clinton that was classified at the time it was sent, nor is there any evidence that Clinton sent any classified information.

Wait, I got it...

"the same vast right-wing conspiracy that framed my devoted husband to make it look like he was unfaithful, planted those emails on my server. It was the Koch brothers."

Some of that is always at play with all sides, there was a spam email about the number of staff Michelle Obama had, claiming 1 staff person for the last X first ladies, something that was shown to be patently false.

She clearly made a huge mistake with this server. Period.
Does that disqualify her? Probably not if the FBI clears her.

This is a #^&#^&#^&#^&ty election for those of us left of center. I am not a Hillary fan, I don't feel the Bern, but Hillary is much closer on my policy perspectives than Trump, Cruz, Rubio etc.

What really troubles me is that Hillary is basically a neocon on foreign policy, and it worries me where we will have troops in 2017...

I don't think she ever claimed that.

But anyway, you're getting your emails confused. The IG report is not about the same emails in your second link. FOX is spinning you around so fast the stories are getting all mixed together.

I see...

So, then, what about the 2 emails that were top secret (or higher) at the time they hit her server?

Some of that is always at play with all sides, there was a spam email about the number of staff Michelle Obama had, claiming 1 staff person for the last X first ladies, something that was shown to be patently false.

She clearly made a huge mistake with this server. Period.
Does that disqualify her? Probably not if the FBI clears her.

This is a #^&#^&#^&#^&ty election for those of us left of center. I am not a Hillary fan, I don't feel the Bern, but Hillary is much closer on my policy perspectives than Trump, Cruz, Rubio etc.

What really troubles me is that Hillary is basically a neocon on foreign policy, and it worries me where we will have troops in 2017...

"Some of that is always at play with all sides"

Sadly, these days, that is true. Not enough discussion of the issues, too much energy wasted on digging up dirt. But where the Clintons are concerned, there are legitimate ethical concerns, it's not fabricated. These are truly disgusting people.

Here's what I don't get. She was married to Bill when he was President. The economy did great when he was President (and for years after). So why isn't she endorsing th esame economic policies that Bill enacted (cutting taxes, cutting spending, balancing the budget, kicking millions of lazy bums off welfare who, it turns out, were perfectly capable of working)? She will continue Obama's policies, which are the opposite of what worked for Bill.

"This is a #^&#^&#^&#^&ty election for those of us left of center."

Hey, it's no picnic on my side until Trump goes away so the adults can talk.

"it worries me where we will have troops in 2017"

I would say that's not Hilary's doing, it's the doing of the jihadists. I don't like it either, but we have to deal with it, don't we?

And they want to reduce Petraeus rank for sending 2 emails....spence, not long ago one of hillary's email sent to her harem of confidence contained verbiage of how to get around sending classified info as non classified....did ya miss that one?...:)
I doubt Petraeus gets demoted, he shouldn't, but in that case he did knowingly leak classified information...

As for Clinton, I believe what happened is that she needed unclassified talking points that they were attempting to transmit over the secure fax, or the unclassified talking points were part of a classified document. The secure fax wasn't working so she asked for the unclassified talking points to be sent via unsecured network which was perfectly legal. The reporting doesn't seem to indicate they were ever sent unsecured regardless.

As for Clinton, I believe what happened is that she needed unclassified talking points that they were attempting to transmit over the secure fax, or the unclassified talking points were part of a classified document. The secure fax wasn't working so she asked for the unclassified talking points to be sent via unsecured network which was perfectly legal. The reporting doesn't seem to indicate they were ever sent unsecured regardless.

no doubt you believe that nonsense :hihi:

I see...

So, then, what about the 2 emails that were top secret (or higher) at the time they hit her server?
I believe the situation here was that State acquired information through a casual channel they didn't deem should be classified while another agency acquired the same information through a more sensitive channel that they did deem was classified.

But the info as sent to Clinton's server was not market Top Secret nor did the originator believe it was classified at the time. The DNI got involved to review the discrepancy...

"DNI Clapper’s determination is further evidence that there was no wrongdoing by Secretary Clinton," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). "The classification process is complex and subjective, but this confirms Secretary Clinton did not send classified information through her email account. It’s time to put this issue behind us and move on.”

Quote:
"DNI Clapper’s determination is further evidence that there was no wrongdoing by Secretary Clinton," said Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.). "The classification process is complex and subjective, but this confirms Secretary Clinton did not send classified information through her email account. It’s time to put this issue behind us and move on.”

...

Clinton, Clapper and Feinstein...lot's a credibility there

I believe the situation here was that State acquired information through a casual channel they didn't deem should be classified while another agency acquired the same information through a more sensitive channel that they did deem was classified.

But the info as sent to Clinton's server was not market Top Secret nor did the originator believe it was classified at the time. The DNI got involved to review the discrepancy...

OK, you're saying that as one agency got that data and classified it as above top secret, State got the same infor and classified it as "nothing to see here, show it to the world".

I think that's merely your opinion, and in a stunning coincidence, it is an opinion which clears her of any wrongdoing.

The IG report states clearly, that after the email was discovered on her server, State tried to re-classify another agency's intelligence. That request was rejected.

We will see.

"But the info as sent to Clinton's server was not market Top Secret nor did the originator believe it was classified at the time"

The IG report disputes your claim here. They say it was top secret (or higher) at the time it hit her server.

"nor did the originator believe it was classified at the time"

If it was classified as top secret by the agency that developed it, the originator doesn't get to make that call.

Spence you keep saying that there is nothing wrong here.

A lot of that stuff was born classified. People actively had to make this stuff go to her system from another. Nobody does this on their own freewill.

I agree Rock - as some one a little right of center (and a former registered Democrat) there is nobody I can vote for there.

OK, you're saying that as one agency got that data and classified it as above top secret, State got the same infor and classified it as "nothing to see here, show it to the world".

I think that's merely your opinion, and in a stunning coincidence, it is an opinion which clears her of any wrongdoing.
That's what was reported.

The IG report states clearly, that after the email was discovered on her server, State tried to re-classify another agency's intelligence. That request was rejected.

We will see.

"But the info as sent to Clinton's server was not market Top Secret nor did the originator believe it was classified at the time"

The IG report disputes your claim here. They say it was top secret (or higher) at the time it hit her server.
You're mixing up your email reports again, I was talking about the two allegedly top secret emails from your second link.

All the IG provided (first link) was a letter that asserts there is currently classified information contained in old emails. This is classic political smear...the IG got ticked off and is now colluding with Republicans to offer them vague or old news in a convenient leakable form. It's leak crack for FOX News.

If it was classified as top secret by the agency that developed it, the originator doesn't get to make that call.
Like I said, the determination in this case (pay attention, second link here) was made by two agencies who derived the same info from different sources. There is now negotiation between the agencies on how to handle releasing the information.

Spence, from my second link...

"The sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, told Fox News that while the emails were indeed “top secret” when they hit Clinton’s server, one of them remains “top secret” to this day -- and must be handled at the highest security level. The second email is still considered classified but at the lower “secret” level because more information is publicly available about the event."

Spence, from my second link...

"The sources, who were not authorized to speak on the record, told Fox News that while the emails were indeed “top secret” when they hit Clinton’s server, one of them remains “top secret” to this day -- and must be handled at the highest security level. The second email is still considered classified but at the lower “secret” level because more information is publicly available about the event."
I've read your links and have already responded to this assertion.

Spence you keep saying that there is nothing wrong here.

A lot of that stuff was born classified. People actively had to make this stuff go to her system from another. Nobody does this on their own freewill.
I believe the vast majority of classified emails in question were not born classified, they are being classified as part of the release process. If you released all of Colin Powell's emails from his time at state you'd likely see the exact same pattern. Oh, and he didn't use state.gov either...

Certainly this entire affair has highlighted the risks of lose standards, but the impression that the State department was recklessly pumping known classified information through her server is simply not justified given what's public knowledge today.

I've read your links and have already responded to this assertion.

Right. That she didn't do it. Unless she did do it, in which case the IG is only making hay of it because they are angry...gotcha.

Right. That she didn't do it. Unless she did do it, in which case the IG is only making hay of it because they are angry...gotcha.
What has the IG accused Clinton of?

What has the IG accused Clinton of?

The way I read it, they have accused her of having emails on her server, that were top secret at the time they were received by her server.

The way I read it, they have accused her of having emails on her server, that were top secret at the time they were received by her server.

Holy #^&#^&#^&#^&!!! Are you sure?!?!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The way I read it, they have accused her of having emails on her server, that were top secret at the time they were received by her server.
The letter from the IG simply states that analysts believe there is classified information in some emails. It doesn't say anything about when the information was classified.

Why be so vague? Because it's LEAK CRACK.

The letter from the IG simply states that analysts believe there is classified information in some emails. It doesn't say anything about when the information was classified.

Why be so vague? Because it's LEAK CRACK.

I'm not talking about the letter, I am talking about what Fox says was leaked to them. Which, of course, may turn out to be b.s. Or not.

ha ha ha ha...:rotf2:

Clinton Campaign Accuses Obama-Appointed IG of Conspiring with GOP on E-mail Report


http://www.nationalreview.com/node/430061/print


she's a special sort of insane...

ha ha ha ha...:rotf2:

Clinton Campaign Accuses Obama-Appointed IG of Conspiring with GOP on E-mail Report


http://www.nationalreview.com/node/430061/print


she's a special sort of insane...

Spence, from Scott's link...

"The Politico report Fallon (Clinton spokesman) cites claimed that intelligence sources had determined that no “top secret” e-mails were discovered on Clinton’s e-mail server. It was immediately challenged by intelligence-community officials, and Politico itself backtracked in a December 15 story, admitting that two e-mails were, in fact, considered “top secret” at the time they were sent and retained by Clinton. Fallon offered no new evidence to contradict that assertion."

Listen to the bell, Spence, it tolls for thee she.

The letter from the IG simply states that analysts believe there is classified information in some emails. It doesn't say anything about when the information was classified.


Spence, did they simply state that Hilary deleted 34,000 e mails that she deemed personal?

Guess she had a lot of yoga classes. :hihi:

Spence, from Scott's link...

"The Politico report Fallon (Clinton spokesman) cites claimed that intelligence sources had determined that no “top secret” e-mails were discovered on Clinton’s e-mail server. It was immediately challenged by intelligence-community officials, and Politico itself backtracked in a December 15 story, admitting that two e-mails were, in fact, considered “top secret” at the time they were sent and retained by Clinton. Fallon offered no new evidence to contradict that assertion."

Listen to the bell, Spence, it tolls for thee she.
Issue already addressed in multiple posts above.

Actually, rule #1 she broke was she created, authorized, and used an unsafe and unregulated system for storing classified information setup and supported by people/organizations that were unauthorized, trained, or properly equipped to maintain such a system.

Even if it was legal (it was not) the simple fact of her running the situation the way she did on a home private email server allowed lots of bad guys to read our mail. Maybe Obama would have had great foreign policy of the Russians and Socialist Chinese were not reading our mail.

Actually, rule #1 she broke was she created, authorized, and used an unsafe and unregulated system for storing classified information setup and supported by people/organizations that were unauthorized, trained, or properly equipped to maintain such a system.
You're assuming she intended to store classified information which she clearly didn't intend to nor does it appear that she did.

Even if it was legal (it was not) the simple fact of her running the situation the way she did on a home private email server allowed lots of bad guys to read our mail. Maybe Obama would have had great foreign policy of the Russians and Socialist Chinese were not reading our mail.
Well, I believe the Justice Department has already said it wasn't illegal. I've not hear anyone claim it was hacked although it's certainly possible. But if she was using secure systems for classified communications it's not even clear if they could have gained meaningful insights.

Here's the thing that most people are missing. Had she not been using her personal server she would have been using state.gov. All this inter-agency squabbling over classification would have been exactly the same...and they've been having a terrible time keeping the Russians out of that system.

While I agree it would have been proper to use the work system for work, there' doesn't appear have been any legal or otherwise damage done. We'll see what the Feds say...

Step back and look at who you are supporting and forget the party affiliation. Is this really the person you want to hold the highest position in our government? My grandmother isn't a corrupt lying sack of _hit but I still wouldn't have wanted her in charge of the country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Step back and look at who you are supporting and forget the party affiliation. Is this really the person you want to hold the highest position in our government? My grandmother isn't a corrupt lying sack of _hit but I still wouldn't have wanted her in charge of the country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Of course Spence wants her , she will continue the policy's he holds dear and can also parden herself so he can say " I was right , no jail time , move along "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

While I agree it would have been proper to use the work system for work, there' doesn't appear have been any legal or otherwise damage done. We'll see what the Feds say...

Agree, we will have to wait, however being she said the only reason she used
her own server was for her convenience, used only for personal reasons, wedding plans etc. and NEVER contained classified info, she still deleted 34,000 e mails while 1300 others were reported classified and 4 reported top secret.
She is a serial liar and how can she be trusted when she changes her story?
Does she know what integrity is?

I'll just leave this here as a lesson on how a pathological liar operates.

http://youtu.be/fJaic2ek8aY
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Step back and look at who you are supporting and forget the party affiliation. Is this really the person you want to hold the highest position in our government? My grandmother isn't a corrupt lying sack of _hit but I still wouldn't have wanted her in charge of the country.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And yet Politifact say that EVERY Reb. candidate has lied more than her.

Were all the emails in question sent by someone else or where they created by Hillary?

Whether she put the emails on the server or someone else did is not the issue. She as head of the DOS is ultimately responsible for what is on the server. In government responsibility goes up the chain of the command and blame often goes down the chain. Think about how many department heads over the years were forced to resign when something happened on their watch even though they were not directly responsible.

What is troubling to me is that her campaign continues to state that there is no FBI investigation about her server or emails at all. I'm stumped by that.

So if someone had sent top secret files to Colin Powell's private email account, it would have been the same thing?

So if someone had sent top secret files to Colin Powell's private email account, it would have been the same thing?

Yes.

As I understand it, she created the situation where everything needed to be sent to her personal server. Thus, she forced others to send classified material to her personal server. If they had to modify the files in such a way to remove the "top secret" mark so that they could be sent to her server, that's even worse, and she would have to know that people were doing that, in order to send that stuff to her.

What is troubling to me is that her campaign continues to state that there is no FBI investigation about her server or emails at all. I'm stumped by that.

Spence said that here, and I was baffled by it. I saw a Hilary apologist on TV last night who said the same thing, she claimed that the FBI has declared that Hilary is not the subject of an investigation.

So what are those 100 FBI agents doing all day?

Spence said that here, and I was baffled by it. I saw a Hilary apologist on TV last night who said the same thing, she claimed that the FBI has declared that Hilary is not the subject of an investigation.

So what are those 100 FBI agents doing all day?

Not sure - I'm starting to wonder about the veracity of that statement. I would have thought there would have been a statement by the FBI to that effect but I haven't seen it. Just reporters stating their sources are FBI employees.

Yes.

As I understand it, she created the situation where everything needed to be sent to her personal server.Did not know that. Thus, she forced others to send classified material to her personal server. If they had to modify the files in such a way to remove the "top secret" mark so that they could be sent to her server, that's even worse, and she would have to know that people were doing that, in order to send that stuff to her.

Thanks

Thanks

Sure.

One of those deals where Democrats are saying she did nothing wrong, and Republicans are making her out to be the WikiLeaks guy. The truth is likely somewhere in between. Hopefully the investigation is fair and non-political.

It won't stop many Democrats from voting for her, it won't get any Republicans to vote for her. What will it do to the independents? WHo the heck knows.

The fundamental lack of understanding you guys have over this topic is most certainly mind boggling.

The fundamental lack of understanding you guys have over this topic is most certainly mind boggling.

Worst of all, bill had a ton of Asian tentacle porn on the server
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is who the Democrats want to run the country.
http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/clinton-foundation-bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-tax-records-revenue-grants/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is who the Democrats want to run the country.
http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/clinton-foundation-bill-hillary-chelsea-clinton-tax-records-revenue-grants/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
See, this is why the Internet sucks.

The Clinton foundation doesn't use the vast majority of it's funding for grants, instead it funds charity activities directly because they can get more benefit value for the dollar.

Yet people can write this crap and many just lap it up without any regard for the truth.

The fundamental lack of understanding you guys have over this topic is most certainly mind boggling.

I know right??...everyone is an idiot and your steadfast defense of a reprobate is perfectly normal :kewl: something else is quite mind boggling :hee:

See, this is why the Internet sucks.

The Clinton foundation doesn't use the vast majority of it's funding for grants, instead it funds charity activities directly because they can get more benefit value for the dollar.

Yet people can write this crap and many just lap it up without any regard for the truth.
So set me straight with some facts over how efficient the foundation is and how it isn't a gravy train for the Clintons. Scandals seem to surround these people that you try and portray as honorable and the beat choice to run the country.
I would be embarrassed to support someone who behaves the way they do.
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/klayman/130126
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And remember when McCain was too old to be president well judging how Hillary is just as old as he was the difference must be the vagina.

I know right??...everyone is an idiot and your steadfast defense of a reprobate is perfectly normal :kewl: something else is quite mind boggling :hee:
In this case...yes, that may be the case.

In this case...yes, that may be the case.

"your steadfast defense of a reprobate is perfectly normal"


this part anyway:hee:

See, this is why the Internet sucks.

The Clinton foundation doesn't use the vast majority of it's funding for grants, instead it funds charity activities directly because they can get more benefit value for the dollar.

Yet people can write this crap and many just lap it up without any regard for the truth.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm more concerned with who they get the money from
Through 2014 the foundation had raised almost $2 billion from U.S. corporations especially Wall Street; foreign governments and corporations...
No corruption there , I'm sure of it .
Why the duck would you give them the money over other charities ?

The fundamental lack of understanding you guys have over this topic is most certainly mind boggling.
I don't know, you have IT guys and guys with security clearances and IT guys with security clearances all telling you what she did was illegal and unsecure, yet the strategic messaging guy does not want believe it could possibly be true.

I've not hear anyone claim it was hacked although it's certainly possible.


The mark of a good hacker is the ability to get in, do what you need to do, and get out without anybody ever knowing you were there.

She bypassed security....end of discussion.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The fundamental lack of understanding you guys have over this topic is most certainly mind boggling.

Wow......just Wow...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yet the strategic messaging guy does not want believe it could possibly be true.

he knows it's true, the strategic message is more important than the truth in every case

I don't know, you have IT guys and guys with security clearances and IT guys with security clearances all telling you what she did was illegal and unsecure, yet the strategic messaging guy does not want believe it could possibly be true.
Good plan, when you need sound legal council...call tech support.

Why the duck would you give them the money over other charities ?
Because Bill Clinton is a rock star and rich people like to be affiliated with his work.

http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/klayman/130126
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And remember when McCain was too old to be president well judging how Hillary is just as old as he was the difference must be the vagina.
You forgot about Vince Foster.

That article was written by a founder of Judicial Watch, a fake think tank who's primary purpose is to use FOIA requests to take government records out of context and smear democrats.

I'll bet he's great at parties though.

Agree, we will have to wait, however being she said the only reason she used
her own server was for her convenience, used only for personal reasons, wedding plans etc. and NEVER contained classified info, she still deleted 34,000 e mails while 1300 others were reported classified and 4 reported top secret.
She is a serial liar and how can she be trusted when she changes her story?
Does she know what integrity is?
Funny you list a string of things that are not true then allege she's a liar.

Irony or humor?

Whether she put the emails on the server or someone else did is not the issue. She as head of the DOS is ultimately responsible for what is on the server. In government responsibility goes up the chain of the command and blame often goes down the chain. Think about how many department heads over the years were forced to resign when something happened on their watch even though they were not directly responsible.

What is troubling to me is that her campaign continues to state that there is no FBI investigation about her server or emails at all. I'm stumped by that.
If it was revealed that her use of the private server led to some calamity there would likely be some fallout, but to date there isn't any evidence of this.

They don't say there's no FBI investigation, it's that Clinton is not a target of a criminal investigation. This was wrongly reported I think by the NYTimes and just repeated over and over by FOX and all the fake news sites...

Spence - Keep telling yourself it is a vast RWC :laughs::doh:

So spence give me reasons why I should vote for Hillary. Seriously, unless you just like to stir the pot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If it was revealed that her use of the private server led to some calamity there would likely be some fallout, but to date there isn't any evidence of this.

Makes you wonder why they issue speeding tickets even if the speeding didn't lead to a calamity.

This was wrongly reported I think by the NYTimes , , , and all the other fake news sites...

Fixed,

Fixed,
Um, speeding is illegal...according to the DOJ her use of the server and to delete private emails wasn't.

So spence give me reasons why I should vote for Hillary. Seriously, unless you just like to stir the pot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Am I on your block list or do you have nothing to offer to sway people see what you see in Hillary?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Funny you list a string of things that are not true then allege she's a liar.

Irony or humor?

Neither Spence,it is the truth and the furthest thing from funny.
Unless you are living in a different universe you would know the list is the truth.
Please list the facts that counter the list I posted.
I would like to see your truth and sources.

If it was revealed that her use of the private server led to some calamity there would likely be some fallout, but to date there isn't any evidence of this.
.

Kinda like making it home driving Chit-faced....No harm, No Foul.

Pretty sure it's still illegal.....or at the very least irresponsible.

And at the very least I shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of the van pool...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kinda like making it home driving Chit-faced....No harm, No Foul.

Pretty sure it's still illegal.....or at the very least irresponsible.

And at the very least I shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of the van pool...And
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sounds like Spence believes it's OK to do wrong stupid stuff as long as calamity doesn't happen (or if it does, you can blame it on something else like a video). And if you're prone to do questionable, wrong, stupid, stuff, so long as no calamities are proved to happen as a result, you're a perfectly fine candidate for President of the U.S.

Most of us are taught not to do stupid stuff because bad things can happen if we do--even though most of the time we are fortunate enough to avoid calamity. But the more responsibility that we are given, the more strictly we must perform the right and prudent way. Wanton, wilful, carelessness should disqualify someone from positions of power over the lives of others.

Sounds like Spence believes it's OK to do wrong stupid stuff as long as calamity doesn't happen (or if it does, you can blame it on something else like a video). And if you're prone to do questionable, wrong, stupid, stuff, so long as no calamities are proved to happen as a result, you're a perfectly fine candidate for President of the U.S.

Most of us are taught not to do stupid stuff because bad things can happen if we do--even though most of the time we are fortunate enough to avoid calamity. But the more responsibility that we are given, the more strictly we must perform the right and prudent way. Wanton, wilful, carelessness should disqualify someone from positions of power over the lives of others.

Yep
Typical Democrat
Just like blaming things on someone or something else taking no responsibility

This attitude and moral weakness is killing this country among other things
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If it was revealed that her use of the private server led to some calamity there would likely be some fallout, but to date there isn't any evidence of this.
...

Spence....Petraeus sent 2 emails to the lady friend, they did not cause any damage, or any disaster....so Y is he punished and not her....I know Y, she is the Affluenza lady....:)

Kinda like making it home driving Chit-faced....No harm, No Foul.

Pretty sure it's still illegal.....or at the very least irresponsible.

And at the very least I shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of the van pool...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good analogy.

Well, except we are fairly certain that other foreign governments were reading the emails of the SECRETARY OF STATE.

Yep
Typical Democrat
Just like blaming things on someone or something else taking no responsibility

This attitude and moral weakness is killing this country among other things
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is not a "democrat" thing, yes some democrats do it, and the Rs do it to a lesser extent too. All political persuasions do so at some point and level.

Spence....Petraeus sent 2 emails to the lady friend, they did not cause any damage, or any disaster....so Y is he punished and not her....I know Y, she is the Affluenza lady....:)

Petraeus shared his password with Broadwell (and she had a general security clearance)

Speaking of passwords what do you think Hillary used for a password?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So spence give me reasons why I should vote for Hillary. Seriously, unless you just like to stir the pot.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'm not really a big Clinton supporter to be honest. Hoping Bloomberg jumps in the race...

Yep
Typical Democrat
Just like blaming things on someone or something else taking no responsibility
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yep, just like a typical democrat.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/track-palin-domestic-violence-arrest-218028

Neither Spence,it is the truth and the furthest thing from funny.
Unless you are living in a different universe you would know the list is the truth.
Please list the facts that counter the list I posted.
I would like to see your truth and sources.
No, I've just read enough on the subject to have a good sense of what's sloppy or simply fabricated reporting versus what "appears" to have actually went down.

I can provide links, you'll just dismiss them. You have to put your time in and read for yourself.

Kinda like making it home driving Chit-faced....No harm, No Foul.

Pretty sure it's still illegal.....or at the very least irresponsible.

And at the very least I shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of the van pool...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You keep comparing illegal activity with legal but not perfect behavior. I'd say it's more akin to steering briefly with your knee.

Spence....Petraeus sent 2 emails to the lady friend, they did not cause any damage, or any disaster....so Y is he punished and not her....I know Y, she is the Affluenza lady....:)
Petraeus knowingly disclosed classified information, it's completely different. Had the info become public he'd have done time.

Well, except we are fairly certain that other foreign governments were reading the emails of the SECRETARY OF STATE.
We do know Russian hackers compromised state.gov.

What data makes you "fairly certain" that other foreign governments were in her server? Sounds like speculation.

Speaking of passwords what do you think Hillary used for a password?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Obviously hrc1947

I'm not really a big Clinton supporter to be honest. Hoping Bloomberg jumps in the race...
I assume it basically comes down to the D after the name is all that matters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We do know Russian hackers compromised state.gov.

What data makes you "fairly certain" that other foreign governments were in her server? Sounds like speculation.

Did " the investigations " ever really get her server and all the purged emails ? There has to be plenty of emails between foreign governments and Hillary discussing donations to the foundation . Does that assumption make sense ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yep, just like a typical democrat.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/track-palin-domestic-violence-arrest-218028

Palin is Hillary's alter ego. She has Hillary's shrieking, polarizing, accusatory, blame mongering style, but coming from the right instead of from the left. Except Palin is better looking and looks more like a woman.

Did " the investigations " ever really get her server and all the purged emails ? There has to be plenty of emails between foreign governments and Hillary discussing donations to the foundation . Does that assumption make sense ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Pretty sure the FBI has access to everything, but that's not the focus of this investigation either. For that to happen you'd have to provide some evidence she did anything wrong, which I don't think you have.

But why don't we just follow the model for most other investigations. Assume Clinton is guilty of mass deception and fraud and just dig and dig because you're going to find it eventually.

No, I've just read enough on the subject to have a good sense of what's sloppy or simply fabricated reporting versus what "appears" to have actually went down.

It "appears" that you think you've read just enough to have your "good sense" fabricate what you think "appears" to have actually went down. Especially when you're egotistical enough to believe that your ''good sense' is gooder than somebody else's "good sense."

I can provide links, you'll just dismiss them. You have to put your time in and read for yourself.

Those who live by links, die by links. If a reader's "good sense" likes Jusplugit's links better than yours, you lose the battle of links. But that's OK. Your superior egotistical "good sense" will always fabricate (in your own mind) the appearance that your links are winners.

Those who live by links, die by links. If a reader's "good sense" likes Jusplugit's links better than yours, you lose the battle of links. But that's OK. Your superior egotistical "good sense" will always fabricate the appearance that your links are winners.
And other opinions aren't formed by links?

You keep comparing illegal activity with legal but not perfect behavior. I'd say it's more akin to steering briefly with your knee.

He did throw in "at the very least irresponsible . . . And at the very least [she] shouldn't be allowed to be in charge of the van pool...

She's disqualified whether her actions were legal or illegal.

And other opinions aren't formed by links?

Yes, they can be, but your implication that your "good sense" is superior to others is offensive.

Yes, they can be, but your implication that your "good sense" is superior to others is offensive.
I never asserted I had better sense, I said I've done more homework.

I never asserted I had better sense, I said I've done more homework.

No, you didn't say that. And how do you know if you did more homework? And what, other than your sopposed "good sense" informs you that your homework is better than Justplugit's. Or that your links, which he asked for and you didn't give, were not more "appearance" than what actually "went down."

Your post was full of the implication that you somehow know better, have a better "sense." Similar to the previous post a little before this when you said: "The fundamental lack of understanding you guys have over this topic is most certainly mind boggling."

Your know better than the rest of us. Or so you think.

I never asserted I had better sense, I said I've done more homework.

See post 67 which I think pretty much sums up how you feel unless I am mistaken it seems you labeled me. I'll take it in here, and notice I kept my gloves on compared to other areas on this site where I feel insulting others is crossing a line.
How did you make out with the broken office chair by the way. I considered having you come to me and I would weld it for you but we don't really have that kind of relationship for lack of a better term. Besides if the weld fails I don't want you to try and hold me responsible for any injury.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, you didn't say that. And how do you know if you did more homework? And what, other than your sopposed "good sense" informs you that your homework is better than Justplugit's. Or that your links, which he asked for and you didn't give, were not more "appearance" than what actually "went down."

Your post was full of the implication that you somehow know better, have a better "sense." Similar to the previous post a little before this when you said: "The fundamental lack of understanding you guys have over this topic is most certainly mind boggling."

Your know better than the rest of us. Or so you think.


There is an old adage Spence, that "Pride goes before the fall." I personally have
found that to be true and have seen many others fall hard from the same thing. Just sayin. :hihi:
I asked very simple questions where we differ in the truth and facts. Being we are at different ends of the spectrum with this email thing I wondered where you got such 180 deg info. As bright and well read as you would have some believe, I thought it would be easy for you to show me your facts. But instead you throw it back on me that you are better read and versed than me. That's OK, I'll just assume you and Obama are cut from the same cloth and you know best. NOT. :)

Watch the Pride doesn't bite you in the arse. :hihi:

You keep comparing illegal activity with legal but not perfect behavior. I'd say it's more akin to steering briefly with your knee.

Its legal to own a car and drive a car, you can drive it 24/7 if you want. you can load it up with people or you can load it up with crap and drive it anywhere you want

Its illegal to operate under the influence, there is the crime.

You can own your own server. You can run it 24/7 if you want. You can load it up with all the files you want. Hillary is free to store all her leather thong and corset pics she wants (feel free to file that visual away in your spank bank)

Its illegal to mis-handle, whether with intent or through negligence, classified material. She signed an NDA to that fact saying that when she took her position as SecState.

Her defenders are always quick to say that she didn't do anything illegal by having her server and think that covers it.....its not the fact that she had a server.....its what she did with it that is the problem.

I don't know, you have IT guys and guys with security clearances and IT guys with security clearances all telling you what she did was illegal and unsecure, yet the strategic messaging guy does not want believe it could possibly be true.

That doesn't matter, John

Spence OBVIOUSLY stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night...

Yep, just like a typical democrat.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/track-palin-domestic-violence-arrest-218028

You are correct and I am wrong as John pointed out , I have no excuse.
Palin is an idiot.

Speaking of passwords what do you think Hillary used for a password?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Vrwc123

Petraeus knowingly disclosed classified information, it's completely different. Had the info become public he'd have done time.

True, he knowingly shared classified stuff with someone he knew wasn't cleared.

But if she created a situation, where her staff knew that if they wanted her to review stuff she needed to see, that it would have to go to her personal server...and if she knew that some of the stuff sent to her personal server was going to be stuff that doesn't belong there...one might be able to make a compelling case of a crime.

She said she didn't want to be inconvenienced with carrying two devices, right? So how can she handle all that being President entails?

True, he knowingly shared classified stuff with someone he knew wasn't cleared.

But if she created a situation, where her staff knew that if they wanted her to review stuff she needed to see, that it would have to go to her personal server...and if she knew that some of the stuff sent to her personal server was going to be stuff that doesn't belong there...one might be able to make a compelling case of a crime.

She said she didn't want to be inconvenienced with carrying two devices, right? So how can she handle all that being President entails?

How many times did you type " if " ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How many times did you type " if " ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's why we need investigations Nebe, not all criminals confess, particularly if your name is Clinton or Kennedy.

See post 67 which I think pretty much sums up how you feel unless I am mistaken it seems you labeled me. I'll take it in here, and notice I kept my gloves on compared to other areas on this site where I feel insulting others is crossing a line.
I don't think that was directed at you specifically. I'm not trying to label anyone, just calling things as I see them.

How did you make out with the broken office chair by the way. I considered having you come to me and I would weld it for you but we don't really have that kind of relationship for lack of a better term. Besides if the weld fails I don't want you to try and hold me responsible for any injury.
I remembered a certain glass blower on this site has a welder and it's pretty good now. I hadn't even considered suing when it breaks...Nebe, how much insurance do you have? :devil2: :hihi:

There is an old adage Spence, that "Pride goes before the fall." I personally have
found that to be true and have seen many others fall hard from the same thing. Just sayin. :hihi:
Never :eek:

Never :eek:

Whoa, you are one that takes pride in the lack of your pride ?????
LOL, get back to work. :)

Its illegal to mis-handle, whether with intent or through negligence, classified material. She signed an NDA to that fact saying that when she took her position as SecState.

Her defenders are always quick to say that she didn't do anything illegal by having her server and think that covers it.....its not the fact that she had a server.....its what she did with it that is the problem.
I think we all understand it's not just about the server. The issue here is there still isn't really evidence Clinton mishandled anything, yet people are all running around saying she did.

Clinton being forwarded what's considered at the time benign information, that years later is deemed sensitive during a public release process is not mishandling information.

I think we all understand it's not just about the server. The issue here is there still isn't really evidence Clinton mishandled anything, yet people are all running around saying she did.

Clinton being forwarded what's considered at the time benign information, that years later is deemed sensitive during a public release process is not mishandling information.

"The issue here is there still isn't really evidence Clinton mishandled anything"

The existence of some of that data on her personal server, is problematic to some people. She created the atmosphere, which made it necessaru to have that data on her personal server.

"Clinton being forwarded what's considered at the time benign information"

I don't know that we know, that 100% of what made its way to her server, was believed to be benign at the time.

I wonder why she deleted all those emails. Didn't she say that everything she deleted was personal, not work-related? Wedding plans, yoga classes, and th elike?

And when a reporter asked her is she had the server "wiped", she relpied "you mean with a cloth?" Yeah, that's the kind of honest leadership we need.

But if she created a situation, where her staff knew that if they wanted her to review stuff she needed to see, that it would have to go to her personal server...and if she knew that some of the stuff sent to her personal server was going to be stuff that doesn't belong there...one might be able to make a compelling case of a crime.
Jim, the rules regarding the handling of sensitive information were really no different between her personal server and a state.gov address which also is an unclassified system. You wouldn't knowingly put classified information on either...

Jim, the rules regarding the handling of sensitive information were really no different between her personal server and a state.gov address which also is an unclassified system. You wouldn't knowingly put classified information on either...

Spence, I don't understand all the rules or the IT mumbo jumbo, nor do I care to.

I know that I posted a link last week, where the IG claimed that one of the emails was flagged as top secret (or higher) at the time it hit her server. You claimed I was confusing one email with another, or one link with another, or that I was confusing Hilary with Aldrich Ames or the WikiLeaks guy. All I did was quote the IG.

i don't think we know for sure, that material known to be classified, wasn't intentionally put on her server. If it was, she lied (once again).

You have to admit, you approach these things with a slight...shall we say...point of view.

I know that I posted a link last week, where the IG claimed that one of the emails was flagged as top secret (or higher) at the time it hit her server. You claimed I was confusing one email with another, or one link with another, or that I was confusing Hilary with Aldrich Ames or the WikiLeaks guy. All I did was quote the IG.
No, you didn't quote the IG. Did you even read the letter? It doesn't mention when the information was classified, only that that a few emails did contain classified information...when it was classified and for what reasons makes a big difference.

What's worse is that the info about drone strikes that led to all this "beyond top secret" hype was actually disclosed and reported on back in August. This IG letter was a trick played by Republicans to recycle already spent news. The conflict of interest here is big...it's a terrible abuse of authority.

I wonder why she deleted all those emails. Didn't she say that everything she deleted was personal, not work-related? Wedding plans, yoga classes, and th elike?
Why would you turn over personal emails?

Why would you turn over personal emails?

Regardless of what you think Spence, the diabolical way she went about it and the amount of money the Clinton's have raked in since 2014 , obviously, shows that the Clintons have a tough time keeping personal business separate from government business . To them it's one in the same. They need to prove they are not crooked because everything they do points to the fact that they are .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This IG letter was a trick played by Republicans .



:rotflmao::rotflmao::screwy:

Regardless of what you think Spence, the diabolical way she went about it and the amount of money the Clinton's have raked in since 2014 , obviously, shows that the Clintons have a tough time keeping personal business separate from government business . To them it's one in the same. They need to prove they are not crooked because everything they do points to the fact that they are .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Colin Powell got Congress to buy 44,000 new computers for the State Department and drove the organization to get onto the State's email system.

Except he used his own personal email as well.

Was that diabolical?

Bush 43 get's paid six figures to speak and his foundation has similar assets to the Clinton's. Shouldn't we be investigating Jeb in case he becomes president and starts to return all those favors?

No, you didn't quote the IG. Did you even read the letter? It doesn't mention when the information was classified, only that that a few emails did contain classified information...when it was classified and for what reasons makes a big difference.

What's worse is that the info about drone strikes that led to all this "beyond top secret" hype was actually disclosed and reported on back in August. This IG letter was a trick played by Republicans to recycle already spent news. The conflict of interest here is big...it's a terrible abuse of authority.

"No, you didn't quote the IG. Did you even read the letter?"

See, maybe you are confused. I was not quoting the letter, I was quoting another comment from the IG, which was not part of the letter (I believe what I quoted was prior to the letter). Maybe you are ignoring the evidence that doesn't make her out to be a saint. Maybe there is more to the IG than just that one letter.

Why would you turn over personal emails?

Don't we know for a fact, that some of the deleted emails were work-related? Are you feeling OK?

Spence, here is the link I referred to, which makes no mention of the IG letter...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/15/sources-review-affirms-clinton-server-emails-were-top-secret-despite-department-challenge.html

From the article...there were 2 emails on her server, 1 with data from the CIA, 1 with data from the NGA. The article states that officials from both agencies confirmed that each email was top secret when it hit her server. The State Department is challenging that. The 2 agencies consider it a closed matter.

The CIA can gather its own intelligence and decide what classification to give it. What it cannot do (and thi sI know for sure) is modify the classification that another agency gives to its own data. Only the agency that generated th edata, can do that.

Somehow, you have concluded that she did nothing wrong. Let's see what the investogation turns up.

And why did the IG, appointed by Obama, work in secret with the GOP, as you claim?

See, maybe you are confused. I was not quoting the letter, I was quoting another comment from the IG, which was not part of the letter (I believe what I quoted was prior to the letter). Maybe you are ignoring the evidence that doesn't make her out to be a saint. Maybe there is more to the IG than just that one letter.
The IG is giving interviews now? Haven't seen any of those. Perhaps you're just reading what FOX is saying and assuming it's true?

The IG is giving interviews now? Haven't seen any of those. Perhaps you're just reading what FOX is saying and assuming it's true?

Nope, it wasn't the IG I was referring to, my bad there. It was a source from each of the 2 agencies (CIA and NGA) stating that the emails on her server, which they claim came from their respective agencies, were flagged as top secret when they hit her server.

This was Fox reporting this story. They have an ideological bias, clearly...as do you, just as clearly. If Fox made it up, they should go out of business. But I hope it gets looked into.

On what basis do you automatically dismiss this report, as untrustworthy?

"Perhaps you're just reading what FOX is saying and assuming it's true"

Nope, I'm not saying it's true. I'm saying it needs to be investigated. You are the one making a declaration, that it is not true. Again, what's your source for that?

Perhaps, on the other hand, you are listening to what Hilary is saying and assuming it's all true.

Ask yourself why you give default credibility to the self-serving statements of a serial liar?

Spence, here is the link I referred to, which makes no mention of the IG letter...

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/12/15/sources-review-affirms-clinton-server-emails-were-top-secret-despite-department-challenge.html

From the article...there were 2 emails on her server, 1 with data from the CIA, 1 with data from the NGA. The article states that officials from both agencies confirmed that each email was top secret when it hit her server. The State Department is challenging that. The 2 agencies consider it a closed matter.

The CIA can gather its own intelligence and decide what classification to give it. What it cannot do (and thi sI know for sure) is modify the classification that another agency gives to its own data. Only the agency that generated th edata, can do that.

Somehow, you have concluded that she did nothing wrong. Let's see what the investogation turns up.

And why did the IG, appointed by Obama, work in secret with the GOP, as you claim?
Jim, we've discussed this before. The State Department was gathering information in parallel from different sources that didn't require classification.

Sen. Feinstein has also confirmed that no emails were marked top secret.

“As someone who regularly reviews classified material, I can say that those documents are always clearly marked as containing classified information,” she said. “Every official who writes classified material, whether in email or on paper, must mark the information as classified. They would also be required to use a separate classified email system to transmit the information. The emails identified did not contain these markings.”

What will be interesting is that the IG was supposed to be reviewing email practices from the last 5 Secretaries of State.

Jim, we've discussed this before. The State Department was gathering information in parallel from different sources that didn't require classification.

Sen. Feinstein has also confirmed that no emails were marked top secret.



What will be interesting is that the IG was supposed to be reviewing email practices from the last 5 Secretaries of State.

"The State Department was gathering information in parallel from different sources that didn't require classification."

The State Dept is entitled to gather its own intelligence, and to classify data as it sees fit. But how do you know that's what too kplace, in the case of these 2 emails? Other than taking her word for it, what else you got?

"Sen. Feinstein has also confirmed that no emails were marked top secret."

How does she know?

Let's let the investigation pan out, how about that?

According to you, everyone who defends her is credible, everyone who hints she acted improperly, is a partisan hack, including Obama's IG. We get it.

"What will be interesting is that the IG was supposed to be reviewing email practices from the last 5 Secretaries of State"

yes, that will be interesting.

Spence, what of her response to the question, "did you wipe the server?", and she said "what, you mean with a cloth?" Is that a presidential answer to a fair question?

Sen. Feinstein has also confirmed that no emails were marked top secret..

Oh. What Feinstein said, is what Hilary has been saying, that the emails "were not marked as top secret".

There was a guy on TV last week addressing this. He said it's meaningless, because security measures would prohibit an email marked as top secret from being sent to an unclassified server, meaning, it's physicaly impossible for her server to have emails flagged as top secret. Meaning, if those emails were on her server (as the CIA and NGA claim they were) but not "marked", it means either someone removed the mark so the emails could be sent to her server, or that someone made an unsecure, unmarked, copy of those emails, and sent those to her server.

Either way, if this IT guy was correct, it means NOTHING that she had no 'marked' emails on her server, because that was not physically possible.

She is parsing her words very carefully, isn't she? I wonder why?

The State Dept is entitled to gather its own intelligence, and to classify data as it sees fit. But how do you know that's what too kplace, in the case of these 2 emails? Other than taking her word for it, what else you got?
That's what the State Department said, I don't have any reason to doubt them.

How does she know?
She's been a chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. I'd say she's as well positioned to know as anyone.

According to you, everyone who defends her is credible, everyone who hints she acted improperly, is a partisan hack, including Obama's IG. We get it.
You have that nagging feeling I'm right don't you?

Spence, what of her response to the question, "did you wipe the server?", and she said "what, you mean with a cloth?" Is that a presidential answer to a fair question?
Bad attempt at humor, likely suggested by an aid.

That's what the State Department said, I don't have any reason to doubt them.


She's been a chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. I'd say she's as well positioned to know as anyone.


You have that nagging feeling I'm right don't you?


Bad attempt at humor, likely suggested by an aid.

"That's what the State Department said, I don't have any reason to doubt them."

But you have reason to doubt the CIA and the NGA? What would that be?

"She's been a chair of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee. I'd say she's as well positioned to know as anyone"

And Clinton was secstate. What they said is true, but if the guy I saw was correct, what they said also proves nothing. Because he said it was not possible for her to have marked emails on her personal server. So Hilary could also have said "I am not 10 feet tall", and while that's true, I'm not sure it's all then enlightening, is it?

"You have that nagging feeling I'm right don't you?"

I have no idea. That's why I want an investigation.

Spence, have her past lies diminished her credibility in your eyes, at all?

Either way, if this IT guy was correct, it means NOTHING that she had no 'marked' emails on her server, because that was not physically possible.
Your IT guy is likely describing a secure environment where record attributes and user credentials control information behavior. Yes, an unsecure system wouldn't have these, but documents or email content could unless it was deliberately removed which would be a crime. Note though there's been no evidence of this happening.

Bad attempt at humor, likely suggested by an aid.

Now how could you know that it was suggested by an aide, and not something she came up with? What do you base that on?

Colin Powell got Congress to buy 44,000 new computers for the State Department and drove the organization to get onto the State's email system.

Except he used his own personal email as well.

Was that diabolical?

Bush 43 get's paid six figures to speak and his foundation has similar assets to the Clinton's. Shouldn't we be investigating Jeb in case he becomes president and starts to return all those favors?

And I suppose you can't understand that a government run computer system , when it's new takes a while to be up and running correctly ( The Obama care system comes in to mind ) Colin Powell probably had to use his personal email server .

Are you seriously using the Bush did it too excuse ? Apples and oranges . George Bush is an honorable man from an honorable family . Hillary Clinton not so much
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would also add that the Clintons
accepted donations while Hillary was in a position of power.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your IT guy is likely describing a secure environment where record attributes and user credentials control information behavior. Yes, an unsecure system wouldn't have these, but documents or email content could unless it was deliberately removed which would be a crime. Note though there's been no evidence of this happening.

You mean a properly secure environment that has all the needed safeguards and monitoring in place, an Environment contained behind proper firewalls with filters in place to make sure certain data is kept from leaving the enclave.....

Unlike Hillary's E-mail server..

Is that what you mean?

You mean a properly secure environment that has all the needed safeguards and monitoring in place, an Environment contained behind proper firewalls with filters in place to make sure certain data is kept from leaving the enclave.....

Unlike Hillary's E-mail server..

Is that what you mean?
No, I mean a system designed to compartmentalize classified information. State.gov doesn't even meet this criteria.

And I suppose you can't understand that a government run computer system , when it's new takes a while to be up and running correctly ( The Obama care system comes in to mind ) Colin Powell probably had to use his personal email server .
Really?

Are you seriously using the Bush did it too excuse ? Apples and oranges . George Bush is an honorable man from an honorable family . Hillary Clinton not so much
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'm not accusing Bush of doing anything, but think you should hold them to the same standards you're expecting of Clinton.

No, I mean a system designed to compartmentalize classified information. State.gov doesn't even meet this criteria.


State.gov does on the classified side. On the unclassified side they still have better mechanisms at State than on the bathroom side.

Now how could you know that it was suggested by an aide, and not something she came up with? What do you base that on?
Intuition.

State.gov does on the classified side. On the unclassified side they still have better mechanisms at State than on the bathroom side.
My understanding is that it's a totally different system. Agree state.gov has more resources, but that didn't make her use of a server illegal. It was a security gap that they corrected. Clinton's not an IT person, she likely had someone tell her it was good enough for non-sensitive communication. Powell certainly did and there were plenty of hackers in 2005.

My understanding is that it's a totally different system. Agree state.gov has more resources, but that didn't make her use of a server illegal.

You keep getting stuck on the legality issue (which is still being investigated?) but avoiding the "stupid, incompetent" issue.

It was a security gap that they corrected. Clinton's not an IT person, she likely had someone tell her (intuition?) it was good enough for non-sensitive communication. Powell certainly did and there were plenty of hackers in 2005.

"had someone tell her"? Stephens told her that it was good enough and probably "smart" enough to not have a show of American force at the consulate, or in Libya in general. That really turned out well. Yeah, her style of leading on bad advice will make her a "good enough" President.

State.gov does on the classified side. On the unclassified side they still have better mechanisms at State than on the bathroom side.

Bingo.....

But then again there's that whole "Holiday Inn Express" thing you're arguing with.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You keep getting stuck on the legality issue (which is still being investigated?) but avoiding the "stupid, incompetent" issue.
I don't believe the legality of the server is not being investigated as the DOJ has already chimed in on this. The FBI is more broadly investigating if any classified information was mishandled by the last 5 Secretaries including Clinton.

I don't believe the legality of the server is not being investigated as the DOJ has already chimed in on this. The FBI is more broadly investigating if any classified information was mishandled by the last 5 Secretaries including Clinton.

Still avoiding the stupid, incompetent issue.

Still avoiding the stupid, incompetent issue.
I think that's long since been addressed.

I don't believe the legality of the server is not being investigated as the DOJ has already chimed in on this. The FBI is more broadly investigating if any classified information was mishandled by the last 5 Secretaries including Clinton.

That's the first time I have heard reference to the "last 5 Secretaries. Please post a source of your talking points
Are they not investigating her server ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's the first time I have heard reference to the "last 5 Secretaries. Please post a source of your talking points
Are they not investigating her server ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yes, the FBI is investigating her server to determine if any classified material was mishandled.

In October 2014, the State Department asked four former secretaries to turn over e-mails in their private possession.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/fbi-looks-into-security-of-clintons-private-e-mail-setup/2015/08/04/2bdd85ec-3aae-11e5-8e98-115a3cf7d7ae_story.html

Yes, the FBI is investigating her server to determine if any classified material was mishandled.

So she is being investigated . You lied again but I can see where you have a tough time with that .

And of course the state department would ask for the last four Secretaries of State to be investgated also . A predictable move and typical of this administration and of the Clintons.
So freaking pathetic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, the FBI is investigating her server to determine if any classified material was mishandled.

right...so her server will get indicted for mishandling classified material and she can continue to run for president

So she is being investigated . You lied again but I can see where you have a tough time with that .

And of course the state department would ask for the last four Secretaries of State to be investgated also . A predictable move and typical of this administration and of the Clintons.
So freaking pathetic
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You guys use the word lie so much I'm not sure what it means any more.

The FBI investigation is about potential mishandling of information, it's not focused on Hillary Clinton. The NYT wrongly reported at the onset she was the target of a criminal probe which was not true.

If other Secretaries like Colin Powell were using private email it would only make sense to investigate that as well. If there's demand for those emails to be released you'll very likely see the same pattern of redactions and retroactive classification we're seeing with Clinton.

right...so her server will get indicted for mishandling classified material and she can continue to run for president
The FBI doesn't have the power to indict neither Clinton or her server. If they did find evidence of criminal behavior there would have to be a grand jury and federal prosecutor before anyone could be indicted, which isn't likely in any case...

You guys use the word lie so much I'm not sure what it means any more.



if you need a refresher course...just read any of your posts :rtfm:

"A lie is a statement that is known or intended by its source to be misleading, inaccurate, or false"

don't fret...if we've learned anything from the Clinton's it's that lies are frequent, necessary and often admirable when well told....

If other Secretaries like Colin Powell were using private email it would only make sense to investigate that as well. If there's demand for those emails to be released you'll very likely see the same pattern of redactions and retroactive classification we're seeing with Clinton.

That is the defense strategy of a guilty administration . You're making my argument.
Do you keep picking on Colin Powell because he's black ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

right...so her server will get indicted for mishandling classified material and she can continue to run for president

To quote Mater, "I don't care who ya are, that's funny right there!"

To quote Mater, "I don't care who ya are, that's funny right there!"

even funnier when Spence didn't get it:laughs:

I think that's long since been addressed.

Yup, and Hillary has been found to be incompetent.

Yup, and Hillary has been found to be incompetent.

And yet as unlikeable as she is, the GOP is on the verge of nominating someone who would not only hand her the Presidency, he might well give Congress back to them, too. There are a lot more GOP senate seats up for re-election that Democrat (twice as many, I think). Trump will galvanize Democrats, and keep conservatives home. Incredible.

The Democrats are begging us to take the Oval Office by going with her, and we are saying "no, thanks, and you can keep Congress, too".

Sigh.

I hear Paraguay is pretty nice.

if you need a refresher course...just read any of your posts :rtfm:

"A lie is a statement that is known or intended by its source to be misleading, inaccurate, or false"

don't fret...if we've learned anything from the Clinton's it's that lies are frequent, necessary and often admirable when well told....
Can you name ONE?

Can you name ONE?

Really? My text in quotation marks is to the best of my recollection...

Bill: "I did not have inappropriate sexual relations with that girl (Monica Lewinski)". The man was disbarred. Even among lawyers, he stands out as being immoral, and that's saying something.

Hilary - (1) "Bill did not cheat on me (see his lie above), but we are the victims (violins, please) of a vast right-wing conspiracy". Not just any right-wing conspiracy mind you, but a vast one. Vast. (2) "We were 'broke' when we left the White House". If that's true, and it's not, where did they get the money to reimburse the feds for all the loot they stole out of the White House and Air Force One, on their way out of town? I think they took the piano, rugs, ashtrays, light fixtures, copper wiring, dinner china, etc...(3) something about coming under sniper fire somewhere...?

Is that enough?

That is the defense strategy of a guilty administration . You're making my argument.
Do you keep picking on Colin Powell because he's black ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Did you even read my post? That doesn't make any sense.

I'm not picking on Powell, he came out and said he basically did the same thing.

Did you even read my post? That doesn't make any sense.

I'm not picking on Powell, he came out and said he basically did the same thing.

sounded pretty racist to me ;)

Really? My text in quotation marks is to the best of my recollection...
If you're going to use quotes you should actually quote.

He said every one of my posts I assumed he was calling me a liar.

Yup, and Hillary has been found to be incompetent.
Well, at least your not stretching :huh:

Did you even read my post? That doesn't make any sense.

I'm not picking on Powell, he came out and said he basically did the same thing.

Yes I read your post. We all know that the state department would not be investigating the other Secretaries of State, in the hope of finding somebody who did something halfway similar to what Hillary did unless it could be used to somehow justify what Hillary had done .
You keep bringing up Powell for some reason , as bringing up his name makes him somehow guilty of the same thing . You know he had a new system , an undependable system and you know they were working on problems. So my only conclusion is , you don't like black people .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, at least your not stretching :huh:

Why on earth would I imitate your style? :screwy:

You will find that I was spot on if you would do the search. Of course, knowing how you wander off topic into your own version of the context, the search would only confirm your own perspective. Which would just turn up apples instead of oranges.

Besides, this has long since been addressed.

Yes I read your post. We all know that the state department would not be investigating the other Secretaries of State, in the hope of finding somebody who did something halfway similar to what Hillary did unless it could be used to somehow justify what Hillary had done .
You keep bringing up Powell for some reason , as bringing up his name makes him somehow guilty of the same thing . You know he had a new system , an undependable system and you know they were working on problems. So my only conclusion is , you don't like black people .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The State Department isn't investigating the former Secretaries email, the FBI is...I don't believe it was State's request. I would assume they're trying to ascertain if this is a systemic issue or something more recent.

Your Powell remark continues to make no sense. At the time he was trying to modernize the state.gov computers get people to use email, he's publicly stated he didn't realize there was any issue with using private email.

sounded pretty racist to me ;)

It's probably some code . . .

Can you name ONE?

If you're going to use quotes you should actually quote.

He said every one of my posts I assumed he was calling me a liar.

"You guys use the word lie so much I'm not sure what it means any more."I don't believe you

"I don't believe the legality of the server is not being investigated" this is a good one :)

"The FBI doesn't have the power to indict neither Clinton or her server." you have this weird double negative thing going on lately

"I would assume they're trying to ascertain if this is a systemic issue or something more recent." it's an HRC issue

"If they did find evidence of criminal behavior there would have to be a grand jury and federal prosecutor before anyone could be indicted, which isn't likely in any case..." really?

"The FBI investigation is about potential mishandling of information, it's not focused on Hillary Clinton." again...it's an HRC issue

"Clinton's not an IT person, she likely had someone tell her it was good enough for non-sensitive communication. " this is laughable for so many reasons

"Intuition." even more laughable


you can assume what you'd like, perhaps the reason you can't tell what lie means anymore is actually because you spend so much time torturing the truth and it's all just a blur to you, it certainly is with the Clinton's where we've learned that we need to dissect each statement because they amuse themselves by playing wordsmith with each in order to deflect or cover their asses ....I'm sure you have a more "gray" concept of what a lie is but I provided a simple black and white definition for you....
"A lie is a statement that is known or intended by its source to be misleading, inaccurate, or false"....this is just the current page, the previous contain a wealth of dubious sophistry....I know...I know...all taken out of "context":D

And of course the state department would ask for the last four Secretaries of State to be investgated also .

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

of course, don't you recall when Nixon was being investigated....I mean when Nixon's TAPES were being investigate for wrong doing.... the previous 5 Presidents tapes were also investigated to determine if there was anything incriminating on them or if they erased stuff...or....you know...if the tapes had somehow mishandled themselves ?

If other Secretaries like Colin Powell were using private email it would only make sense to investigate that as well. If there's demand for those emails to be released you'll very likely see the same pattern of redactions and retroactive classification we're seeing with Clinton.

How about we focus on the one SOS who is actually RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How about we focus on the one SOS who is actually RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Well, you have to establish a baseline. If others using private email to transfer similar information then Clinton's behavior isn't quite so scandalous now is it?

So now we are fine tuning the rules against a baseline? Thought rules were rules
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yup, and Hillary has been found to be incompetent.


"Stupid is what stupid does."

Oh, and she changed her tune again, yesterday I saw where she said,
I did nothing wrong, where several weeks ago she apologized. Unstable at the least.

oh my!?!@...must be a Friday

The State Department is refusing to release another seven e-mail chains comprising 37 pages of correspondence, with one intelligence official telling Fox News the messages are “too damaging” to make public under any circumstances. Intelligence sources said they were concerned copies of the e-mails may exist elsewhere, and even a partial release could allow those actors to identify “special access programs,” intelligence that exists at a level of classification above “top secret.” It’s a reversal for the State Department, who for months argued against the intelligence community’s assessment that at least 2 of Clinton’s e-mails contained highly classified information. Now the number has ballooned to 22, and the State Department refuses to challenge the intelligence community’s assessment.

January 29 at 9:22 PM
The State Department acknowledged for the first time Friday that “top secret” information has been found in emails that passed through the private email server Hillary Clinton used while leading the agency, elevating the issue in the presidential campaign three days before the hotly contested Iowa caucuses.

The State Department’s conclusion came as it has worked to process 55,000 pages of Clinton’s correspondence for public release, including about 1,000 pages that were released Friday night. Clinton has said that she deleted 31,000 additional emails in 2014, deeming them purely personal.

The State Department has been under a court order to release the documents in batches, once a month, as part of a lawsuit filed by reporter Jason Leopold of Vice News, who sued after the department failed to respond promptly to his request for the public documents.

A judge had ordered the department to release all of the emails by the end of January, but attorneys for the department said this week that they would miss the deadline, (we know how this administration treats redlines and deadlines)and requested another month.

That means the last of Clinton’s emails will not be released until the end of February — after the Iowa caucuses and the New Hampshire primary — and just before Super Tuesday, when voters in 11 states will cast ballots.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/29/the-state-department-concludes-there-is-top-secret-material-in-hillary-clintons-email-correspondence-from-her-time-as-secretary-of-state/

I'm not really a big Clinton supporter to be honest. Hoping Bloomberg jumps in the race...

brilliant

If former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg carries through and runs for president as an independent, a Reuters poll shows that his candidacy would hurt the Democrats and give a boost to Donald Trump.

In a matchup between Trump and Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton, adding Bloomberg's name to the ballot would trim Clinton's lead over Trump to six percentage points from 10, according to the poll conducted from Jan. 23 to Jan. 27.

In a Trump versus Democratic hopeful Bernie Sanders matchup, adding Bloomberg would erode Sanders' lead over Trump to seven points from 12, the poll results showed.

In all matchups, Bloomberg himself would land just 10 percent or less of the vote in November.

she's even a terrible liar....

The State Department said the messages were "top secret" and could not be released.

Spokesman John Kirby said the emails were not marked classified at the time they were sent.

You can't retroactively commit a crime .. no matter how much you dislike a person

Clintons emails are like a slot machine for conservatives just like Benghazi they keep throwing money into it and pulling the lever like an old lady at Foxwoods and getting a few quarters now and them to keep them hopeful waiting to hit the jackpot ??

I think only a blind partisan could dismiss a high level government official running all of this government business through their personal email and private unsecured server...;)

I think only a blind partisan could dismiss a high level government official running all of this government business through their personal email and private unsecured server...;)

See, but, it only matters if it is "legal" or not. Being stupid or incompetent does not matter . . . can make you fit to be POTUS.

I think only a blind partisan could dismiss a high level government official running all of this government business through their personal email and private unsecured server...;)


and only a blind partisan would think her Server was a was a secret

From the Government she worked for..

Trump for President

and only a blind partisan would think her Server was a was a secret

From the Government she worked for..


I guess you're referring to Obama :rolleyes:

"President Obama discovered former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email at the same time as news readers.

Obama, after delivering a Saturday speech in Selma, Ala., was asked when he found out about Clinton’s personal email system run from her Chappaqua home.

“The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,” he told CBS News."

Aren't you guys sick of this yet?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Aren't you guys sick of this yet?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Not till we see how the teflon doll squirms out of it. :)

Aren't you guys sick of this yet?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Yes

I look forward to seeing a picture of her doing the perp walk.

GO TRUMP

The proper rallying cry is Heil Trump!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The proper rallying cry is Heil Trump!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If anyone here did what Shillary did, they would be behind bars right now.

The average joe is sick of how Washington is being run now and finally waking up.

The main thing I see with Trump is that he is beholden to no one.
That scares Washington elites as he wants to upset the apple cart.

I say go for it.

The majority of politicians forgot that they work for us.

The proper rallying cry is Heil Trump!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you seem to keep forgetting or you are unaware that Hitler was a democratic socialist and a very independent thinker :spin:

If those are our two choices come November I will be writing in " Common Sense" as my vote for president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If those are our two choices come November I will be writing in " Common Sense" as my vote for president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't like Trump, I listen to him speak and he says absolutely nothing....he does have entertainment value in that he's an equal opportunity offender...you need only to look at National Review online to see that he has no love from Conservatives and the establishment has bristled but may be cautiously warming as they begin to think he's inevitable, he makes many on the left insane because he provides and easy target for their pent up rage.....I believe he just referred to Cruz as an "Anchor Baby" which is hilarious.....he appears to be most popular from what I can see with people that aren't that politically motivated at other times and from both sides of the aisle that are just frustrated in general particularly with political correctness always being rubbed in their noses...he's popular with union members, younger blue collar folks that I know and has a more broad appeal than any current candidate....we'll see....I don't understand it...but we'll see.....he might be a better "community organizer" than Obama

you seem to keep forgetting or you are unaware that Hitler was a democratic socialist and a very independent thinker :spin:

True. And even going further back in time, democrats in the south were wealthy slave owners.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you seem to keep forgetting or you are unaware that Hitler was a democratic socialist and a very independent thinker :spin:

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/oct/16/jason-villalba/jason-villalba-said-bernie-sanders-democratic-soci/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, you have to establish a baseline. If others using private email to transfer similar information then Clinton's behavior isn't quite so scandalous now is it?

I would suggest that if other SoS violated those rules an investigation should be done. What Hillary did goes WAY beyond anything (known) before her. You know this you just chose to play HC Advocate

The State Department said the messages were "top secret" and could not be released.

Spokesman John Kirby said the emails were not marked classified at the time they were sent.

You can't retroactively commit a crime .. no matter how much you dislike a person

Clintons emails are like a slot machine for conservatives just like Benghazi they keep throwing money into it and pulling the lever like an old lady at Foxwoods and getting a few quarters now and them to keep them hopeful waiting to hit the jackpot ??

It is not dislike, it is procedures, if you do did that you would be doing time and you know it.

PS - former moderate Democrat here, now unaffiliated.

Trump for President

HI MAC!!!!!

(God, no please no Trump)

Aren't you guys sick of this yet?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes but doesn't make a difference, you can be sick of it but it still needs to be investigated properly.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2015/oct/16/jason-villalba/jason-villalba-said-bernie-sanders-democratic-soci/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lots of ambiguity on where Nazi-ism shows up on political spectrum, taking bits of left wing and right wing elements that do not fit with a broad brush. Plus European L&R politics don't always line up with US L&R

It is not dislike, it is procedures, if you do did that you would be doing time and you know it.

People keep asserting this but unless there is clear intent or disregard with the mishandlng of classified information I don't think there will be any penalties even for staffers.

Funny how classified information is leaked to the media all the time and nobody turns a blind eye.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clintons emails are like a slot machine for conservatives just like Benghazi they keep throwing money into it and pulling the lever like an old lady at Foxwoods and getting a few quarters now and them to keep them hopeful waiting to hit the jackpot ??

The IG and the FBI, at this time, work for one Barack Obama. Is he a conservative now?

Some agencies have said very clearly that 2 emais were marked as flagged when they hit her server. I don't know if that's true, neoither do you. That's why we need an investigation.

How many times has she changed the semantics of her excuses?

Hey Mac, :wavey: :)

http://www.politico.com/blogs/iowa-caucus-2016-live-updates/2016/02/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-liar-218599



geez...and I thought it was just hate filled right wing ignorers or facts and logic.....:huh:

Just this morning ...

Bill tried to cheer up Hillary by reminding her that Nelson Mandela wasn't elected president until after he had served 27 years in prison.

(Believe it was a phone call, as he was 'busy' elsewheres :heybaby:)

Oops...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/state-dept-classified-data-found-ex-secretaries-personal-email-john-kerry-condeleezza-rice-colin-powell.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/13/white.house.email/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Can't wait to see the indictments.

But those were different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But those were different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually they are different. They were not on a privately owned server of a person who was in line to potentially become the next president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Actually they are different. They were not on a privately owned server of a person who was in line to potentially become the next president.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You see PaulS, if you want to become president the rules are different.

That makes, um, sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You see ecduz, if others broke the rules before, it's OK if you do it to.

You see PaulS, if you want to become president the rules are different.

That makes, um, sense.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Who used their own PRIVATE server?
Did they all or just Hillary?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who used their own PRIVATE server?
Did they all or just Hillary?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/01/tracking-the-clinton-controversies-from-whitewater-to-benghazi/396182/Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I knew it was different. So it is ok if you don't use a private server. Got it. Thanks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I knew it was different. So it is ok if you don't use a private server. Got it. Thanks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I never said that but I don't expect you to comprehend the meaning of different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I knew it was different. So it is ok if you don't use a private server. Got it. Thanks
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

pretty sure the whole point is the

"private unsecured server"

which, according to her boss..Obama, no one knew about, including him until he read it in the newspapers.....which I guess would also make it a secret private unsecured server

Spence told us that what was being investigate was Hillary's "private server", not Hillary....and looking for some systemic failure rather than at the arrogance and negligence of the owner of the secret private unsecured server

so by Spence logic, if they were not using private servers there is no private server to investigate

which means it would, in fact, be different

got it?

How long did she have the Server? How long was it off line before Conservatives became magically outraged .. i'll tell you ( around election time ?)
Because if it was such an issue it should have been addressed when she United States Secretary of State, from 2009 to 2013, However it wasn't an issue until March 2015

So are we suggesting that she was able to keep that she was using it a Secret from other Government agency's .. until 2015?

and FYI not Clinton or the POTUS decides what is classified and what is not.. . its others whom responsibility it is to make sure only those who have a need to know see classified documents .. So if someone emailed you a secret document that was stamped secret the fault is theirs for miss handling classified information.. Seems some are confusing a Secret Document .. over and email which may have information that has been determined today as sensitive ...

again it falls into how The republicans work Historically work Benghazi, emails , planned parent hood , Obama a Muslim its endless they just keep repeating and investigating the same thing over and over and over , praying for Something to Show their Base.. They are the Party of the Boy who Cried wolf ! Sadly when they do find something and they may someday .. no one is except the faithful will believe them ..

Andy McCarthy sums thing up nicely today

"We could go on at length about Clinton’s arrogance in setting up a homebrew communications network, an outrageous violation of the transparency standards that were her responsibility as secretary of state to enforce. It was a familiar exercise in Clintonian self-dealing: Anticipating running for president in 2016, she realized she was enmeshed in the Clinton Foundation’s global scheme to sell influence for money, so she devised a way to avoid a paper trail. Accountability, after all, is for peons: the yoke of recordkeeping requirements, Freedom of Information Act productions, congressional inquiries, and the government’s disclosure duties in judicial proceedings was not for her Highness. Instead, it would be: No Records, No Problems — a convenient arrangement for a lifetime “public servant” of no discernible accomplishment whom disaster has a habit of stalking. The homebrew server was for Hillary’s State Department what an on-site drycleaner might have been for Bill’s White House.

And we’re not done, not even close. The State Department continues to slow-walk production of Clinton e-mails despite court orders for more rapid disclosure. Only some of the delay owes to the functioning of Clinton’s former department as an arm of her current campaign. The rest is attributable to the staggering breadth of classified information — some of it, the most tightly guarded national secrets — strewn through Clinton’s e-mails. Not just her e-mails but e-mail “trains,” communications involving several exchanges and multiple participants — as to which it will be difficult, if not impossible, to calculate how often and how widely recipients forwarded the information.

Moreover, we’re still talking only about the 30,000 or so e-mails, constituting 55,000 pages, that Mrs. Clinton deigned to surrender to the State Department nearly two years after she resigned. There are another 30,000 “personal” e-mails she attempted to destroy. Has the FBI been able to recover them so the intelligence community has some hope of assessing the damage? Virtually nothing Clinton has said about her non-secure e-mail system since its public revelation has been true. "


Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430879/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-assume-intelligence-compromised

Because if it was such an issue it should have been addressed when she United States Secretary of State, from 2009 to 2013, However it wasn't an issue until March 2015

..

ummmmm...her boss, Obama... he didn't even find out about it, until everyone else found out about it in the news reports...last spring...pretty sure I provided that quote for you a page or two back...

March 2015 "President Obama discovered former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of personal email at the same time as news readers.

Obama, after delivering a Saturday speech in Selma, Ala., was asked when he found out about Clinton’s personal email system run from her Chappaqua home.

“The same time everybody else learned it through news reports,” he told CBS News."

I never said that but I don't expect you to comprehend the meaning of different.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure you did. No one can read it any different. You only qualified it by saying she is running for Pres. Pls explain why when Hillary did it, it is bad (bc she is running for Pres.) but when 2 former SOS did it, it is not bad. A classified message on a public or a private server is still wrong, isn't it? And please explain it so I can "comprehend the meaning of different". And maybe you can explain why you dont think I would understand the meaning of different ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's the same logic as why there was no investigations into all the deaths from embasy attacks under Bush's watch but the Benghazi moment was treated like the end of the world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's the same logic as why there was no investigations into all the deaths from embasy attacks under Bush's watch but the Benghazi moment was treated like the end of the world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you still haven't checked you facts on that after I asked you to 3 or 4 times...see, this is part of the problem :rolleyes:

It's the same logic as why there was no investigations into all the deaths from embasy attacks under Bush's watch but the Benghazi moment was treated like the end of the world.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There weren't any .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

There weren't any .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
100% wrong
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oops...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/02/05/us/politics/state-dept-classified-data-found-ex-secretaries-personal-email-john-kerry-condeleezza-rice-colin-powell.html?smid=fb-nytimes&smtyp=cur&_r=0

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/13/white.house.email/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

Can't wait to see the indictments.

Explain how the server they used is the same or is it actually different since only Hillary and her cohorts had access to HER PRIVATE server.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

100% wrong
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

please check your facts Eben, there were no American Ambassadors killed in embassy attacks or anywhere else that I'm aware of under Bush and I don't believe there were any Americans killed in embassy attacks under Bush

here's a little more....4 Pinnochio's

POLITICS
Fact Checker: Bill Clinton’s ‘Dubious’ Comparison Regarding Benghazi and Bush
Jul. 1, 2014

Former President Bill Clinton wasn’t completely accurate in drawing a parallel between the terrorist attack on the U.S. compound in Benghazi under the watch of his wife, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and previous attacks on diplomatic outposts.

Even this Liberal Newspaper said Bill Clintons Comments on Benghazi Bush Dubious
Former President Bill Clinton has a discussion with David Gregory of NBC’s “Meet the Press,” during a session of the annual gathering of the Clinton Global Initiative America, at the Sheraton Downtown, in Denver, Tuesday, June 24, 2014.

That’s the conclusion of the Washington Post’s Fact Checker, which gave Clinton two out of four “Pinocchios” for his assertion in a recent interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“When 10 different instances occurred when President Bush was in office where American diplomatic personnel were killed around the world, how many outraged Republican members of Congress were there?” Clinton asked. “Zero.”

In fact, the Post noted, congressional hearings were held following the deaths of diplomats when George W. Bush was president, even if those cases did not get as much attention from Congress or the media as Benghazi has:

In service of a dubious comparison, Clinton exaggerated when he claimed that there was “zero” Republican outrage about the deaths of Americans under Bush’s watch.

At least one of the deaths led to congressional hearings and a government report. That’s not the same level of attention as the myriad Benghazi probes, but it is more than zero. Moreover, in making his claim, Clinton ignores the similar one-off attacks that have killed diplomatic personnel during Obama’s presidency, making it an unbalanced comparison.

The 10 instances Clinton referenced under Bush are listed on a memorial plaque on the first floor of the State Department, the newspaper said.

In one case, Barbara Green, an employee at the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad, was killed in a hand grenade attack on a church in 2002. The attack prompted a congressional investigation and resulted in a Government Accountability Office report that said the State Department had inadequate safeguards to protect officials when they were outside the embassy perimeter.

“The other question is whether Clinton is comparing apples and oranges. He compares Benghazi to ’10 different instances’ during Bush’s presidency. Benghazi was a single event—an attack on a diplomatic post in which four Americans died. Most of the deaths during Bush’s presidency took place away from the embassy grounds,” the Post noted.

The Post cited four other diplomats killed in Iraq and Afghanistan during the Obama administration.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/01/26/hillarys-non-secure-blackberry-vulnerability-china-trip/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3419920/Report-Hillary-chief-staff-lost-Blackberry-2010-classified-messages-it.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Explain how the server they used is the same or is it actually different since only Hillary and her cohorts had access to HER PRIVATE server.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Not sure what they used but if it was personal it was either a private server or perhaps worse a public service?

I can't wait for the indictments, surely forthcoming...

Not sure what they used but if it was personal it was either a private server or perhaps worse a public service?

I can't wait for the indictments, surely forthcoming...

I guess you don't read links, including one that you posted....here is link you posted previously.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/04/13/white.house.email/index.html?eref=rss_topstories

The Clintons and Bush may have been involved in drug smuggling????

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/billclintonscriminalbackground.htm

https://youtu.be/nxaFGsdGxnc
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device