Lol
http://news.yahoo.com/second-judge-says-clinton-email-setup-may-bad-195003177.html
Referring to the State Department, Clinton and Clinton's aides, he said there had been "constantly shifting admissions by the Government and the former government officials." Spokesmen for Clinton did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

I wonder why the FBI has requested the State department to stop it's investigation. Could it be to protect evidence or part of a cover up?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wonder why the FBI has requested the State department to stop it's investigation. Could it be to protect evidence or part of a cover up?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No, it's just their standard process to slot independent investigations until after the FBI is complete.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, it's just their standard process to slot independent investigations until after the FBI is complete.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I see how you left out investigation after FBI..LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I see how you left out investigation after FBI..LOL
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Already said investigation before, didn't need to be redundant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

i relish seeing her in jail bird orange

lying pos

I was just reading that she is polling nearly as poorly among women as the Trumpster is...

Already said investigation before, didn't need to be redundant.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not investigation..."witch hunt"....seriously

currently working for the government and if I had even 1 of her emails, especially the TS and above, I would be writing this from my cell......

There is NO excuse for this, but with her position, just like it has happened in the recent past, she will get prosecuted, slapped on the wrist or pardoned.

It is amazing that both parties have decided to put forth such crappy candidates.

It's like trying to choose a restaurant and realizing that all of the restaurants are taco bell. You can choose greasy tacos or greasy burritos, but no matter what you choose you will have the craps for 4 years........

It is amazing that both parties have decided to put forth such crappy candidates.

.......

Best post I've read in a while here, including my own! It is unbelievable.

currently working for the government and if I had even 1 of her emails, especially the TS and above, I would be writing this from my cell......
This is not true. Under US law you can not be prosecuted for mishandling information retroactively classified.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is not true. Under US law you can not be prosecuted for mishandling information retroactively classified.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Why don't you tell that to the FBI. How in the world does the government function without your expertise. Not that you will show you are unbiased but just for Chita and giggles is there an FBI investigation or not. I don't think your brain will allow you to type the words.......FBI investigating Hilary.
3 words..
. can you bring yourself to put those words together or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is not true. Under US law you can not be prosecuted for mishandling information retroactively classified.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And that seems fair to me.

However, I believe it has been argued that some of the emails were flagged as classified, then had the flags removed, before she sent them to her personal server. From what I understand, which isn't a lot, she couldn't send emails flagged as TS, to her personal email from her work account...unless the flag was removed before it was sent.

We'll see.

This is not true. Under US law you can not be prosecuted for mishandling information retroactively classified.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is the only reason she hasn't been prosecuted already.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What people keep forgetting is that if an email is labeled secret it stays on a network that holds that classification. In order for it to wind up on a non classified system it actually has to be physically copied to some sort of removable media and brought over to a non classified system so it could be emailed out.

A whole lot of intent to dis-regard and bypass security. It's not just an "Oops I hit the wrong key on my keyboard" moment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What people keep forgetting is that if an email is labeled secret it stays on a network that holds that classification. In order for it to wind up on a non classified system it actually has to be physically copied to some sort of removable media and brought over to a non classified system so it could be emailed out.

A whole lot of intent to dis-regard and bypass security. It's not just an "Oops I hit the wrong key on my keyboard" moment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's what I was trying to get at.

So every email on her server was necessarily "un-classified" at the time it was sent. Some were retroactively classified, and I don't know that you can argue she committed a crime regarding these.

The other possibility, as you suggested, is that there were some emails that were flagged, but had the flagged removed, so the emails could be forwarded to her server. If someone removed the classification flags just so they could then be sent to her server, that person likely committed a crime. I imagine that's part of the investigation thingy that is is not looking at Hilary.

What people keep forgetting is that if an email is labeled secret it stays on a network that holds that classification. In order for it to wind up on a non classified system it actually has to be physically copied to some sort of removable media and brought over to a non classified system so it could be emailed out.

A whole lot of intent to dis-regard and bypass security. It's not just an "Oops I hit the wrong key on my keyboard" moment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Absolutely correct....:)

This is not true. Under US law you can not be prosecuted for mishandling information retroactively classified.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All Top Secret and above information is classified upon creation. There is no time that it is not classified as such. It can only be read or accessed inside of secured locations on secured systems of that level. You can't even discus these items outside of secured and approved locations. There is no wiggle room.

That's what I was trying to get at.

So every email on her server was necessarily "un-classified" at the time it was sent. Some were retroactively classified, and I don't know that you can argue she committed a crime regarding these.

The other possibility, as you suggested, is that there were some emails that were flagged, but had the flagged removed, so the emails could be forwarded to her server. If someone removed the classification flags just so they could then be sent to her server, that person likely committed a crime. I imagine that's part of the investigation thingy that is is not looking at Hilary.

Kinda like that but Even if the classification label is removed , it still can't be forwarded to an unsecure system because there is no physical connection between the two. You literally have to move it yourself onto the unsecure network so you can email it....via CD or Memory stick or something comparable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What people keep forgetting is that if an email is labeled secret it stays on a network that holds that classification. In order for it to wind up on a non classified system it actually has to be physically copied to some sort of removable media and brought over to a non classified system so it could be emailed out.

A whole lot of intent to dis-regard and bypass security. It's not just an "Oops I hit the wrong key on my keyboard" moment.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have yet to see any reporting that suggests this happened.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why don't you tell that to the FBI. How in the world does the government function without your expertise. Not that you will show you are unbiased but just for Chita and giggles is there an FBI investigation or not. I don't think your brain will allow you to type the words.......FBI investigating Hilary.
3 words..
. can you bring yourself to put those words together or not.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The FBI is investigating handling of information, not the person.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All Top Secret and above information is classified upon creation. There is no time that it is not classified as such. It can only be read or accessed inside of secured locations on secured systems of that level. You can't even discus these items outside of secured and approved locations. There is no wiggle room.
Not if it's classified retroactively.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is the only reason she hasn't been prosecuted already.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
For what?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kinda like that but Even if the classification label is removed , it still can't be forwarded to an unsecure system because there is no physical connection between the two. You literally have to move it yourself onto the unsecure network so you can email it....via CD or Memory stick or something comparable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So it requires one more act of commission, quite possibly a criminal act of commission. Gotcha.

Not if it's classified retroactively.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All Top Secret and above information is classified UPON CREATION.

Never mind, I give up Spence, you win!

Somehow she innocently imagined up Top Secret information in her pretty little head and then sent it on her personal computer.

When Hillary poops it smells like roses and peppermint!

So it requires one more act of commission, quite possibly a criminal act of commission. Gotcha.

:uhuh:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is the only reason she hasn't been prosecuted already.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, the only reason is this one: Clinton

Had it been anyone else, the legal proceedings would be underway.

All Top Secret and above information is classified UPON CREATION.

Not true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So it requires one more act of commission, quite possibly a criminal act of commission. Gotcha.
No evidence of this Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No evidence of this Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes there is, and we have discussed this. There were at least 2 classified emails, flagged as classified, that made their way to her server. In order to make their way to her server, the flags had to have been removed. The intelligence in question was not generated by the State Dept, and only the agency that produced the intelligence, has the authority to remove the flag. Her defense of that, was her claim (I am trying to remember), something about the fact that what was in teh email, had been reported in the NY Times already?

Anyway, the FBI is part of the DOJ, which is headed by an OBama appointee. And they decided there was reason to spend a lot of time and manpower looking into this. They aren't doing it because Sean Hannity asked them to do it. But naturally, you know more about their procedures than anyone else...

No evidence of this Jim.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430157/hillary-clinton-email-server-classified-state-secrets

"Clinton’s flimsy claim never to have handled e-mails labeled classified imploded recently when an e-mail sent June 17, 2011, became public. That morning, Clinton’s aide Jacob Sullivan informed her that a document could not reach her via a secure fax. No sweat! Clinton replied, “ . . . turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” So, Clinton knew about these classified markings and, even worse, instructed her staffer to cover them up and forward her that document via a fax machine vulnerable to spies. Clinton’s “gross negligence” may have violated the federal Espionage Act, 18 U.S. Code § 793."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But if Hillary says she didn't do anything that should be good enough for everybody...

I mean Bill Cosby didn't do anything wrong.....it was those other 100+ women making crap up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

But if Hillary says she didn't do anything that should be good enough for everybody...

I mean Bill Cosby didn't do anything wrong.....it was those other 100+ women making crap up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Meanwhile, thanks to you, "the narrative" just tried to commit suicide.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/430157/hillary-clinton-email-server-classified-state-secrets

"Clinton’s flimsy claim never to have handled e-mails labeled classified imploded recently when an e-mail sent June 17, 2011, became public. That morning, Clinton’s aide Jacob Sullivan informed her that a document could not reach her via a secure fax. No sweat! Clinton replied, “ . . . turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure.” So, Clinton knew about these classified markings and, even worse, instructed her staffer to cover them up and forward her that document via a fax machine vulnerable to spies. Clinton’s “gross negligence” may have violated the federal Espionage Act, 18 U.S. Code § 793."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We've discussed this. The request was for unclassified talking points contained within a document on the classified system. That on its on is no indication of wrongdoing by anyone. I'd note the requested information was never even sent via email.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We've discussed this. The request was for unclassified talking points contained within a document on the classified system. That on its on is no indication of wrongdoing by anyone. I'd note the requested information was never even sent via email.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
She said to fax it, but you probably know better than Hillary what she said...oops I mean what she said in her email. Almost seems as though you hacked her emails also.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We've discussed this. The request was for unclassified talking points contained within a document on the classified system. That on its on is no indication of wrongdoing by anyone. I'd note the requested information was never even sent via email.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Newsflash......if it's on a classified system...it's a classified document. Until it has been OK'd for release from said system.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Newsflash......if it's on a classified system...it's a classified document. Until it has been OK'd for release from said system.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
From what the State Department has said you will find unclassified information on the classified system and that doesn't mean it's illegal to talk about it.

Then again, the State Department review says the incident reported never happened regardless.

So I guess we should hold Clinton to a standard where she's liable for retroactive classification and emails that weren't even ever sent. Nice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From what the State Department has said you will find unclassified information on the classified system and that doesn't mean it's illegal to talk about it.

Then again, the State Department review says the incident reported never happened regardless.

So I guess we should hold Clinton to a standard where she's liable for retroactive classification and emails that weren't even ever sent. Nice.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You will find unclassified on a classified system......but once it gets put on the classified system.....it is not allowed to leave without approval.....and Hillary is not the person allowed to provide that approval

I expect to hold Hillary to the same standards that everybody is held to who deals with classified material.....she's not exempt from proper security practices
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Newsflash......if it's on a classified system...it's a classified document. Until it has been OK'd for release from said system.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My bad I guess.....I should have said it is "Considered" a classified document.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hillary just lost in Wisconsin. :cheers:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You will find unclassified on a classified system......but once it gets put on the classified system.....it is not allowed to leave without approval.....and Hillary is not the person allowed to provide that approval
You're contradicting yourself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're contradicting yourself.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No I'm not....

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No I'm not....

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're not
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My bad I guess.....I should have said it is "Considered" a classified document.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
My understanding is they were trying to use a secure fax to transmit unclassified talking points.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

My understanding is they were trying to use a secure fax to transmit unclassified talking points.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

We've discussed this. The request was for unclassified talking points contained within a document on the classified system.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now who is contradicting themselves....or at the very least changing their story.

No such thing as non classified talking points on a classified document......if a document is labeled classified......everything with in it......including the page number......is classified
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now who is contradicting themselves....or at the very least changing their story.

No such thing as non classified talking points on a classified document......if a document is labeled classified......everything with in it......including the page number......is classified
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I was referring to the secure fax as part of the system. There are multiple ways to transmit electronically as you're well aware.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hillary just lost in Wisconsin. :cheers:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And Sanders picked up a massive 10 delegates. Didn't even budge the needle.

Nebe, did you see the interview Friday where Sanders couldn't even answer basic questions about how he would break up big banks...his signature policy issue?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well Sanders just said he believes gun dealers and gun manufacturers should be subject to victims of gun violence. That's going to cost him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well Sanders just said he believes gun dealers and gun manufacturers should be subject to victims of gun violence. That's going to cost him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't think he said that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't think he said that.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He said the opposite as I recall, that they COULD NOT be sued by the victims families, which I would agree with.

http://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-tries-negate-hillary-clintons-gun-criticisms-423228
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I heard him say it just before I posted (4/6) that he said it but could only find this reference without digging more.

There is a 47 second clip further down the page that has Sanders speaking on this where he does say at the end that the manufacturer should be liable.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3525726/Bernie-defends-gun-manufacturers-against-Sandy-Hook-lawsuit-saying-victims-families-SHOULDN-T-able-sue.html

This also wasn't what I heard him say on the 6th but it is as close as I could find.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9lDN5b6ET0I

spence

So what's the verdict on Hillary and Bernie, do they both want the gun manufacturer liable or not for gun violence? I say they both want people to sue the gun manufacturers to try and drive them out of business.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bernie doesn't
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bernie-sanders-reverses-position-gun-control-bill-article-1.2513093
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://m.nydailynews.com/news/politics/bernie-sanders-reverses-position-gun-control-bill-article-1.2513093
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Go to the source

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Go to the source

http://feelthebern.org/bernie-sanders-on-gun-policy/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I went to the video of him speaking, I posted a link because I don't know how to get the 47 second video from the link. 28 seconds in he says they should be held liable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I went to the video of him speaking, I posted a link because I don't know how to get the 47 second video from the link. 28 seconds in he says they should be held liable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he's very old and confused

This might be the only time I have seen him flip flop on something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This might be the only time I have seen him flip flop on something.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Wasn't it last week he said Hillary is not qualified and this week he said of course she is qualified?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he did but It was based on a reaction to a piece of bad reporting.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bad reporting or bad ice cube, at this point what does it matter ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would imagine it must be totally exhausting to campaign non stop for about a year to get the nomination. I'd imagine one would have a few slip ups along the way...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would imagine it must be totally exhausting to campaign non stop for about a year to get the nomination. I'd imagine one would have a few slip ups along the way...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

you are talking about Trump...right?

Who? Never heard of him
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

he did but It was based on a reaction to a piece of bad reporting.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No it wasn't, it was a stump speech where he said she was unqualified because of her policy positions...it was absurd. He's cracking big time.

Did you see he won Wyoming and picked up a SINGLE pledged delegate :rtfm:

Do you know what the pledged delegates did when Obama came from behind and won the popular vote? :rtfm:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I would imagine it must be totally exhausting to campaign non stop for about a year to get the nomination. I'd imagine one would have a few slip ups along the way...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then how's he going to handle running the country non-stop for four years.....slip ups can have some devastating consequences
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then how's he going to handle running the country non-stop for four years.....slip ups can have some devastating consequences
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
We will find out in a few years :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you know what the pledged delegates did when Obama came from behind and won the popular vote? :rtfm:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Different dynamics. The race was already much closer at this time and Obama had more appeal in states that will likely go Clinton.

Sanders will make it interesting but these "wins" he's piling up aren't really building the kinds of numbers he needs.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Different dynamics. The race was already much closer at this time and Obama had more appeal in states that will likely go Clinton.

Sanders will make it interesting but these "wins" he's piling up aren't really building the kinds of numbers he needs.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agreed.

Question - will the Bernie supporters be pissed that he lost a rigged game and stay home? Or will they support Hilary?

Fascinating...both parties could be in a place where huge numbers of voters feel that the system was rigged against their candidate. Who knows what effect that will have?

Agreed.

Question - will the Bernie supporters be pissed that he lost a rigged game and stay home? Or will they support Hilary?

Fascinating...both parties could be in a place where huge numbers of voters feel that the system was rigged against their candidate. Who knows what effect that will have?
I think it will have an impact but likely would favor Clinton. Aside from Nebe, most of the groundswell Sanders has been able to create will be well motivated to ensure Trump isn't elected. If somehow a moderate Repub could get the nomination (not likely) it could be different.

Trump's base is increasingly getting frustrated with their candidate and Trump's negatives are so low I just don't see how he can really compete in the general election.

I wouldn't discount how Bill has upset the African Americans recently. Hillary is at 1287 and Bernie is at 1037 so it is closer than it is being reported to be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wouldn't discount how Bill has upset the African Americans recently. Hillary is at 1287 and Bernie is at 1037 so it is closer than it is being reported to be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Not really, at this point in 2008 Obama was taking the lead in super delegates, right now Clinton has well over 400 to Sanders 39. They aren't all just going to flip because Nebe stroked his magic pony.

I also wouldn't take a single heckler incident like it's going to push off black voters. Bill didn't handle it well but he was also totally right.

I think once the Democratic candidate faces a Republican candidate the public will finally get to see the dirty laundry of the Democratic candidate.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama just came out and said Hillary's emails were no security risk....hmm does he know the head of the FBI keeps a post it note on the camera lens on his laptop fearing it could be hacked and someone may see him furiously shredding papers?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And obama said, This is somebody who has served her country for four years as secretary of state,and did nothing wrong and did an outstanding job.".....apparently he forgot about Petreus mishandling of classified information....he spent a life time serving his country...same,same:)

And spence will come to her rescue

I got two growlers of beer riding on Hillary being the next president.....if she wins I'll need to drink heavily.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I got two growlers of beer riding on Hillary being the next president.....if she wins I'll need to drink heavily.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You'll need more than 2 growlers. I suggest a MMJ card and cancel cable for 4 years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ohhh - this could be fun - two contested and horrible conventions - hard to say who will have more disaffected voters

You'll need more than 2 growlers. I suggest a MMJ card and cancel cable for 4 years.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Who says I'm stopping after two....

At least the first two will be free....kinda like Bernie gave them to me :hee:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And obama said, This is somebody who has served her country for four years as secretary of state,and did nothing wrong and did an outstanding job.".....apparently he forgot about Petreus mishandling of classified information....he spent a life time serving his country...same,same:)

And spence will come to her rescue
Petraeus intentionally mishandled previously classified information and then lied about it. It's a completely different situation.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse...

And pretending that you use a cloth to wipe a hard drive is a lame excuse....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What was her original excuse for this server anyway? Seems to me that having a private server is just a digital way of being able to burn your mail before an investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ignorance of the law is no excuse...

And pretending that you use a cloth to wipe a hard drive is a lame excuse....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
According to the DOJ her server wasn't illegal. Still have yet to see any laws broken with mishandling of information either.

Just as important, intent makes a huge difference in taking legal action.

What was her original excuse for this server anyway? Seems to me that having a private server is just a digital way of being able to burn your mail before an investigation.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
She had gotten used to having everything on a single Blackberry, they requested a secure Blackberry like POTUS has which for some reason which I still can't comprehend was denied so she just used the server they already had set up for non-confidential work email.

The idea that she would do this for some nefarious reason doesn't hold much water. You're communicating with people on government systems so anything work related is going to be out there. If you really wanted to hide something you'd never mix the two either.

The idea that she would do this for some nefarious reason doesn't hold much water.



ne·far·i·ous
nəˈferēəs/
adjective
(typically of an action or activity) wicked or criminal. = Hillary Clinton

I keep saying this....she was SecState....every piece of communication she received should be treated, at the very least, as unclassified but sensitive. Even a lunch date with someone shows the movement of the 5th highest official in the United States. Total disregard on her part for securing her communications

So she's either to big of a liar to be president or to stupid to be president.....it's one or the other.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She's untouchable. It's as simple as that. If she was lower on the totem pole she would have bee reprimanded. If she was even lower she would have been fired. And if she was even lower she would go to jail. Imagine if a super low ranking federal employee had a private server.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I keep saying this....she was SecState....every piece of communication she received should be treated, at the very least, as unclassified but sensitive. Even a lunch date with someone shows the movement of the 5th highest official in the United States. Total disregard on her part for securing her communications

So she's either to big of a liar to be president or to stupid to be president.....it's one or the other.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Then why not issue her a secure blackberry? From what we know right now the emails on her sever were safer than the ones on state.gov :hee:

http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/the-real-clinton-scandal-it-might-be-what-she-did-legally/

And then there is this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then why not issue her a secure blackberry? From what we know right now the emails on her sever were safer than the ones on state.gov :hee:

She didn't want the blackBerry. Remember she want to carry too many devices ? Lmao she's an idiot
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/04/famous-hacker-extradited-amid-hillary-probe/
I don't remember if this was brought up here but it seems as though it should be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I used to read her emails for hours and then garden". :rotfl:

I'd be reading the emails and day trading.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And I suppose we can expect more of this since both Hillary and Bernie Sanders want amnesty for illegal aliens.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/12/world/asia/navy-officer-china-edward-lin-espionage.html?referer=
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.investors.com/politics/capital-hill/the-real-clinton-scandal-it-might-be-what-she-did-legally/

And then there is this.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It's just shocking that the State Department would help large US businesses navigate trade issues with foreign governments isn't it?

It's just shocking that the State Department would help large US businesses navigate trade issues with foreign governments isn't it?
As the article points out, that is called crony capitalism. Something Hillary is so much against, and which she promises to clean up. And what's even more smelly is the money Corning donated to Hilary and to her foundation. Not illegal. But . . . remember, Spence . . . the smell test. Your beloved smell test. Do you detect a stink there, Spence?

As the article points out, that is called crony capitalism. Something Hillary is so much against, and which she promises to clean up. And what's even more smelly is the money Corning donated to Hilary and to her foundation. Not illegal. But . . . remember, Spence . . . the smell test. Your beloved smell test. Do you detect a stink there, Spence?
Not based on that information alone. It's no secret that as NY Senator Clinton developed a good relationship with Corning which actually was part of her job. If it's crony capitalism or not would really depend on the dynamics of the relationship.

If Clinton's back is scratched for helping Corning with funding or a trade issue that's beneficial for the US economy or workers, that's not the same thing as routing tax dollars for weapons the DoD doesn't want or a bridge to nowhere...

It's also wrong to assume that just because money is changing there's an under the table deal in play. Often the business interest who's working the hardest to educate the legislator will shape their opinion and certainly gain influence.

I'd note that as Sec State she helped other big US businesses beyond Corning.

Not based on that information alone. It's no secret that as NY Senator Clinton developed a good relationship with Corning which actually was part of her job. If it's crony capitalism or not would really depend on the dynamics of the relationship.

If Clinton's back is scratched for helping Corning with funding or a trade issue that's beneficial for the US economy or workers, that's not the same thing as routing tax dollars for weapons the DoD doesn't want or a bridge to nowhere...

It's also wrong to assume that just because money is changing there's an under the table deal in play. Often the business interest who's working the hardest to educate the legislator will shape their opinion and certainly gain influence.

I'd note that as Sec State she helped other big US businesses beyond Corning.

that's a steaming pile :hihi:

Then why not issue her a secure blackberry? From what we know right now the emails on her sever were safer than the ones on state.gov :hee:

So her convenience comes before security....

Again.....too big of a liar or too stupid????
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She didn't want the blackBerry. Remember she want to carry too many devices ? Lmao she's an idiot
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's one check mark in the "Too Stupid" column
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure she has multiple devices in the back of her sock drawer :hidin:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not based on that information alone.

Aha . . . the Clintonesque parsing of words . . .

It's no secret that as NY Senator Clinton developed a good relationship with Corning which actually was part of her job.

Oh, really? It's a Senator's job to develop relationships with individual businesses in their State? Did she touch base with all the mom and pop stores in NY? Or all the other businesses? Did she develop better "relationships" with businesses which didn't contribute money to her?

If it's crony capitalism or not would really depend on the dynamics of the relationship.

It's crony CAPITALISM. It's about capital, about money. Giving money for influence and favors and advantage over competitors. Getting money to pay for acquisition of power. Returning favors, influence, and privilege in order to maintain power. You know . . . the everyday politics which drives our oligarchic system of "relationships" between BIG business and BIG government. That's the type of "dynamic" that voters, with at least a marginal awareness of how we are ruled, are angry about. And Hillary is good at preaching what she will do for the little guy while she gets her back scratched by the big guys.

If Clinton's back is scratched for helping Corning with funding or a trade issue that's beneficial for the US economy Corning which was a big contributor to HIllary's political campaigns and her foundation or its workers, that's not the same thing as routing tax dollars for weapons the DoD doesn't want or a bridge to nowhere... No, not the"same" kind of cronyism, just one of the different kinds.

It's also wrong to assume that just because money is changing there's an under the table deal in play.

And it's wrong to assume that there isn't.

Often the business interest who's working the hardest by paying the most to educate :biglaugh::biglaugh: the legislator will shape their opinion and certainly gain influence.

Yup, gaining influence. That's one of the purposes of crony capitalism.

I'd note that as Sec State she helped other big US businesses beyond Corning.

I'd note that our political oligarchs need to "help" more than one "big" business. The more they "help," the more they can entrench their power.

I'm sure she has multiple devices in the back of her sock drawer :hidin:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wonder if she keeps them in a cigar box
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/01/17/wsjnbc-poll-hillary-clinton-exits-with-69-approval-rating/

So her convenience comes before security....
I'm sure she had people telling her it was ok. She's not an expert and wouldn't have moved forward without at least legal council doing a review. Again, this was before they changed the policy...

Seems like this is one that slipped through the cracks. Doesn't appear to be mal intent, nobody was hurt that we know of, what's the problem again?

The problem is your candidate is a poor decision maker. This is really not up for debate, it just happens to be highlighted due to the fact she is running for president. Other than that Mrs Lincoln,did you enjoy the play?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The problem is your candidate is a poor decision maker. This is really not up for debate, it just happens to be highlighted due to the fact she is running for president. Other than that Mrs Lincoln,did you enjoy the play?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Considering her lengthy and impressive resume, to call out an issue over email hosting as a definitive measure is pretty insignificant and trite.

Jeff, you are on the Hillary bandwagon regardless of the shortcomings. You have zero credibility when it comes to evaluating her accomplishments. Picture Slip as a line judge for a Pats game and you may understand my point more clearly. I am guessing Hillary could eat your young and you would grant her a pardon.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm sure she had people telling her it was ok. She's not an expert and wouldn't have moved forward without at least legal council doing a review. Again, this was before they changed the policy...

Seems like this is one that slipped through the cracks. Doesn't appear to be mal intent, nobody was hurt that we know of, what's the problem again?

....and there's another check mark in the "Too Stupid" column.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

....and there's another check mark in the "Too Stupid" column.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
With that criteria you'd invalidate anyone from running for POTUS.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd make a Great line judge, I would eject Rex Ryan in the first quarter for sure:uhuh:

With that criteria you'd invalidate anyone from running for POTUS.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

With this years crop of candidates.....absolutely
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then why not issue her a secure blackberry? From what we know right now the emails on her sever were safer than the ones on state.gov :hee:

No. The secure emails on the state secure system were far more secure than on sec.state.bathroom

If it's crony capitalism or not would really depend on the dynamics of the relationship.


Hmmm, Solyndra concurs

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/01/17/wsjnbc-poll-hillary-clinton-exits-with-69-approval-rating/

In 2013 when this was written, only a handful of folks knew about her server (well, plus the Russians, Chinese, Israelis, NORKS, Germans, Iran, and other competent intelligence services)



I'd make a Great line judge, I would eject Rex Ryan in the first quarter for sure:uhuh: Hahaha

You have zero credibility when it comes to evaluating her accomplishments.
Please expand.

No. The secure emails on the state secure system were far more secure than on sec.state.bathroom
We know that state.gov was hacked. No evidence her private server was to date...

We know that state.gov was hacked. No evidence her private server was to date...

Pretty hard to determine if a system was hacked when there is nothing in place to monitor for it.

Part of the safeguards in place on the government systems is the actual ability to determine that something has happened.

Little things like IDS, Baselining, and log collection and review are a couple that were lacking in her case.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Please expand.

For starters, you don't think she lied about coming under sniper fire. Let's say you are a wee bit hesitant to be critical of those you adore.

Please expand.

Softball?
You are Hillarys lackey Jeff. Apologist,need I go on. I honestly think you would hand wash her underpants. You can not evaluate her with clarity and you have proven that countless times.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Softball?
You are Hillarys lackey Jeff. Apologist,need I go on. I honestly think you would hand wash her underpants. You can not evaluate her with clarity and you have proven that countless times.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Oh, you're breaking my heart. It's precisely the clarity with which I evaluate that I think you can't deal with.

Oh, you're breaking my heart. It's precisely the clarity with which I evaluate that I think you can't deal with.

Get out the washboard,no making tea either,just washy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You are Hillarys lackey Jeff.

I honestly think you would hand wash her underpants.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

that was damn funny :hihi:

It's precisely the clarity with which I evaluate

even funnier...

:wid::wid::wid::wid::wid:

Now that's funny
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you guys know about the Hillary fund? The fund gives huge contributions to super delegates if they support her.

This is so #^&#^&#^&#^&ed up.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Still nothing to see here......
http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/04/state-dept-admits-key-benghazi-email-withheld/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

“Now we know the Obama administration consciously refused to give up key information about Hillary Clinton’s email in 2014, said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton."

of course they did

Still nothing to see here......
http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/04/state-dept-admits-key-benghazi-email-withheld/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

doesn't get more clear than that

doesn't get more clear than that

That's the way I see it too, I just was trying to put some sugar on top for spence. :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is made up news, wait, it's not even actually news.

This is made up news, wait, it's not even actually news.

so it's on snopes as made up then?
I didn't see it

http://rare.us/story/the-government-just-made-a-big-admission-about-hillary-clintons-email-investigation/


It’s official: the Justice Department has publicly recognized that its investigation into former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server is a criminal probe, not a “security review.”

Is this made up news too?

looks for real to me

http://rare.us/story/the-government-just-made-a-big-admission-about-hillary-clintons-email-investigation/


It’s official: the Justice Department has publicly recognized that its investigation into former secretary of state Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server is a criminal probe, not a “security review.”

Is this made up news too?

looks for real to me
Nope, that's not at all what that story says. I'd note that the Judge doesn't have a great track record on facts either.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd note that the Judge doesn't have a great track record on facts either.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How ironic......neither does Hillary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

How ironic......neither does Hillary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I thought we were going to start using Madame President from this point on?

I thought we were going to start using Madame President from this point on?
Doesn't surprise me at all Bill would marry a madame.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought we were going to start using Madame President from this point on?

Let me guess.....you're going to put on that little white number and sing to her...

"Happy Birth...day Madame Pres...I...dent"
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence will have a job in her cabinet
Chief underpants sniffer😹😷
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought we were going to start using Madame President from this point on?

President Trump !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I thought we were going to start using Madame President from this point on?

What are you going to do when Bernie wins? She just lost Indiana. California is the most liberal state in the country Jeff. Hillary is more republican leaning than trump! Bernie will win California by a land slide and win a contested convention. Just my opinion of course and I could be wrong. As a reference, don't forget that Obama was further behind than Bernie is at this point and we all know he came from behind at the end. I don't assume history to repeat itself, but if it happened once it can happen again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What are you going to do when Bernie wins? She just lost Indiana. California is the most liberal state in the country Jeff. Hillary is more republican leaning than trump! Bernie will win California by a land slide and win a contested convention. Just my opinion of course and I could be wrong. As a reference, don't forget that Obama was further behind than Bernie is at this point and we all know he came from behind at the end. I don't assume history to repeat itself, but if it happened once it can happen again.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Bernie isn't going to win. Clinton is up by 10 points in CA and it's not a winner take all state. There is no chance of a landslide, the worst case for Clinton is it's a wash...

At this point in 2008 the media was already calling Obama the winner and the super delegate differential was never even close to being as big.

Time to jump on the Clinton train because your other choice is Trump. I think we're going to start seeing the high profile GOP defections start soon...

I'd vote for trump before Hillary, and a LOT of Bernie supporters would as well. Not that we think trump is what we want. Bernie will be the next Ralph Nader and disrupt a democratic victory.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'd vote for trump before Hillary, and a LOT of Bernie supporters would as well. Not that we think trump is what we want. Bernie will be the next Ralph Nader and disrupt a democratic victory.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You'd be an outlier then, Sanders platform doesn't map to trump at all. At the end of the day people will care less about the past and more about what they think the candidate can do for them.

Time to jump on the Clinton train because your other choice is Trump.

You do know there are other candidates on the ballot that aren't R or D...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

vermont sucks

You'd be an outlier then, Sanders platform doesn't map to trump at all. At the end of the day people will care less about the past and more about what they think the candidate can do for them.

All I see is Hillary polarizing this country more than Obama has
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:uhuh:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Term limits for direct family members and term limits in congress and senate please !
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hillary Clinton Should Concede to Bernie Sanders Before The FBI Reveals Its Findings http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9836720
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Time to jump on the Clinton train because your other choice is Trump. I think we're going to start seeing the high profile GOP defections start soon...

Don't be surprised if the Democrats turn on Clinton and she gets indicted so that they can put a candidate up that might win . She can barely beat Berney ...she has zero chance against Trump

The last thing we need is crooked Hillary appointing Supreme Court justices .

The reason Bernie voters will flock to Trump, is because America hates politicians . That is Obama's legacy
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hillary Clinton Should Concede to Bernie Sanders Before The FBI Reveals Its Findings http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9836720
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Sanders fanboy should at least get some basic facts right about the issue.

Maybe they can do a spin off series from Orange is the New Black.....

Just think about it, we may have a president that never goes on vacation...or on diplomatic missions for that matter.

She won't be able to go out of range of her Ankle Tether
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jeff, do you think Hillary switched to a thong after the (alleged) Lewinsky tryst? It will be easier for you to wash ( floss with).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jeff, do you think Hillary switched to a thong after the (alleged) Lewinsky tryst? It will be easier for you to wash ( floss with).
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You're fixated, at least we know what's on your mind...

Don't be surprised if the Democrats turn on Clinton and she gets indicted so that they can put a candidate up that might win . She can barely beat Berney ...she has zero chance against Trump
Funny, with all the negativity she's still polling 10 points above him, but she has zero chance.

Wait until the debates, she's going to make him look like the fool he is.

Funny, with all the negativity she's still polling 10 points above him, but she has zero chance.

Wait until the debates, she's going to make him look like the fool he is.

Your selectively picking polls, She is not ahead . Does your wife know about your fantasies?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your selectively picking polls, She is not ahead . Does your wife know about your fantasies?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You're right, new CNN poll has her up by 13 now.

Wife, loves Clinton. Have not discussed Sea Dangles curiosity with her. I'm a bit concerned she won't be able to get past his name.

Funny, with all the negativity she's still polling 10 points above him, but she has zero chance.

Wait until the debates, she's going to make him look like the fool he is.

She is way up in just about every poll. I don't think he has a prayer.

"Wait until the debates, she's going to make him look like the fool he is"

I wouldn't be so sure of that. It is irrefutable that she can (and should) pound him on what he said about John McCain and Carly Fiorina. However, one of the very few things i like about Trump, is that unlike other recent GOP candidates, he won't let her spew dishonest bile (which she is doing 75% of the time when she is speaking). McCain and Romney let Obama say whever he wanted, and they did not strike back, for fear of being called racist.

Trump has zero concerns about these things. If she takes off the gloves, he will follow suit, and will also happily put on brass knuckles. For example, she touts herself as a feminist. When she did that, Trump said something like "some feminist! You attacked your husband's victims, you said they were just out for celebrity. Then you stuck by him. What the hell kind of feminist does that?" And boy howdy, did that shut her up. She is one of the very few people on this planet, who probably has more baggage, fewer ethics and less sincerity than he does. That fact that many people (certainly including you) refuse to hold that baggage against her, doesn't mean that baggage isn't there. And he will gleefully club her like a baby seal with it. It likely won't be nearly enough to save him.

Unless she gets indicted (unlikely but possible, and God help you if it happens), it's going to be, as he would say, a yuge victory for her. Believe me, a yuge victory. Believe me. Yuge.

He's a self-congratulatory, crass, moronic simpleton. A horse's ass.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. It is irrefutable that she can (and should) pound him on what he said about John McCain and Carly Fiorina. However, one of the very few things i like about Trump, is that unlike other recent GOP candidates, he won't let her spew dishonest bile (which she is doing 75% of the time when she is speaking). McCain and Romney let Obama say whever he wanted, and they did not strike back, for fear of being called racist.
I don't think she'll need to go there. The moderators will bring it up for her and there is going to be a mountain of private money spent on ads that will just let Trump's own words speak for themselves.

She is one of the very few people on this planet, who probably has more baggage, fewer ethics and less sincerity than he does. That fact that many people (certainly including you) refuse to hold that baggage against her, doesn't mean that baggage isn't there. And he will gleefully club her like a baby seal with it. It likely won't be nearly enough to save him.
Clinton also has a massive resume of working for issues she believes in. I think a lot of your baggage is manufactured, especially your ethics and sincerity. The reality is almost nobody on the planet has had the well funded opposition for decades trying to tear her down...and yet she's leading the race. That should say something.

Unless she gets indicted (unlikely but possible, and God help you if it happens), it's going to be, as he would say, a yuge victory for her. Believe me, a yuge victory. Believe me. Yuge.
I think if there was any chance the DNC would have promoted an alternative to Sanders. They have known for quite some time what the real situation is and what the risks are. I don't think it's a gamble, they simply don't think there was any significant wrong doing and no evidence has been revealed that contradicts this. Obama can't cover anything up...

He's a self-congratulatory, crass, moronic simpleton. A horse's ass.
Agree and then some. So are you going to vote for Gary Johnson?

If you like ...
Expensive shoddy healthcare , a leader who has no respect for the military and will keep the rules of engagement that keep our military at a disadvantage , hate gun ownership , have no issues with politicians that extort money for favors then vote for The Clintons !!
I'll take my chances with Trump
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If you like ...
Expensive shoddy healthcare ,
She was trying to address this 20 years ago but was blocked by the GOP. Can't blame her...

a leader who has no respect for the military and will keep the rules of engagement that keep our military at a disadvantage
Why do you say this? Her record as Senator on vets issues and defense spending is pretty solid. Can you cite a single policy reference that alludes to her position on ROE's?

hate gun ownership ,
Hate? Here are her three top priorities from her website...

1) Strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in the current system.

2) Hold irresponsible dealers and manufacturers accountable.

3) Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill.

Do you disagree with any of these?

have no issues with politicians that extort money for favors then vote for The Clintons !!
Any evidence of any of this?

I don't think she'll need to go there. The moderators will bring it up for her and there is going to be a mountain of private money spent on ads that will just let Trump's own words speak for themselves.


Clinton also has a massive resume of working for issues she believes in. I think a lot of your baggage is manufactured, especially your ethics and sincerity. The reality is almost nobody on the planet has had the well funded opposition for decades trying to tear her down...and yet she's leading the race. That should say something.


I think if there was any chance the DNC would have promoted an alternative to Sanders. They have known for quite some time what the real situation is and what the risks are. I don't think it's a gamble, they simply don't think there was any significant wrong doing and no evidence has been revealed that contradicts this. Obama can't cover anything up...


Agree and then some. So are you going to vote for Gary Johnson?

"I don't think she'll need to go there"

It's what liberals do. When you are wrong on just about everything, you go on the attack. Most conservatives just sit there and take it. Trump doesn't give them that luxury.

"Clinton also has a massive resume of working for issues she believes in"

What has she done, exactly? Besides making herself obscenely wealthy, that is?

"I think a lot of your baggage is manufactured"

We know you think that, bless your heart. "My husband didn't cheat on me, we are victims of a vast right-wing conspiracy!!"

"Shot at by sniper fire"

Manufactured? I don't believe so...

"and yet she's leading the race. That should say something."

It sure does. It says that if your name is Kennedy or Clinton, then liberals don't give a darn what you do.

3) Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists




some profound brilliance right there

some profound brilliance right there
Considering your post perhaps she's just stating the obvious, but I wouldn't want a terrorist to be denied their Second Amendments Rights either.

but I wouldn't want a terrorist to be denied their Second Amendments Rights either.

Do you have any evidence of this?

You're fixated, at least we know what's on your mind...

You love it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=spence;1099928]She was trying to address this 20 years ago but was blocked by the GOP. Can't blame her...

Of course not , and 7+ years Into the Obama administration and he has no personal responsibility either. She will continue and expand the failed policies of this administration.

Why do you say this? Her record as Senator on vets issues and defense spending is pretty solid. Can you cite a single policy reference that alludes to her position on ROE's?

She had no problem openly lying in the face parents receiving Their sons remains at an airport. What percentage of the military do you think agrees with me on this?


Hate? Here are her three top priorities from her website...

1) Strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in the current system.



2) Hold irresponsible dealers and manufacturers accountable.

The dealers are not breaking any laws . I know how important that is to you ,to walk the fine line , but they don't even do that .

Why would manufactures be responsible? I see a big donation from the lawyers . What a crock of bull#^&#^&#^&#^&

3) Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill.

This is campaign bull#^&#^&#^&#^& . What are hero state and the obvious .


Do you disagree with any of these?


Any evidence of any of this?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=spence;1099937but I wouldn't want a terrorist to be denied their Second Amendments Rights either.[/QUOTE]

That reminds me, if you love illegal immigration or immigration from radicalized area of the world. Vote for the Clintons
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you have any evidence of this?
Sure, Syed Rizwan Farook.

Sure, Syed Rizwan Farook.

You mean that guy who got his guns illegally.....that guy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You mean that guy who got his guns illegally.....that guy.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The two rifles were purchased legally by his friend and transferred illegally. All the handguns were purchased legally by licensed dealers.

The two rifles were purchased legally by his friend and transferred illegally. All the handguns were purchased legally by licensed dealers.
Your just being a pain in the ass now. The guns used in the terrorist attack were acquired illegally by the terrorist . Perhaps you would like to make the gun manufacture liable ? Whatever you do don't put the blame where it belongs .
The real fix is in making sure people like them do not get here I'm the first place .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The two rifles were purchased legally by his friend and transferred illegally

They're still illegal...

If go fill a prescription for pain meds and then give them to my neighbor, the junkie....does that mean he got them legally?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your just being a pain in the ass now. The guns used in the terrorist attack were acquired illegally by the terrorist . Perhaps you would like to make the gun manufacture liable ? Whatever you do don't put the blame where it belongs .
The real fix is in making sure people like them do not get here I'm the first place .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No, they were all bought legally from licensed dealers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/suspects-in-san-bernadino-shooting-had-a-small-arsenal/2015/12/03/9b5d7b52-99db-11e5-94f0-9eeaff906ef3_story.html

I don't think that's really even that important part of the issue though...the question is the threshold for the feds to deny rights under current law without sufficient evidence there's a clear threat to public safety.

They're still illegal...

If go fill a prescription for pain meds and then give them to my neighbor, the junkie....does that mean he got them legally?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'm going to moot you. There, you've been mooted.

I'm going to moot you. There, you've been mooted.

Just like all the red flags Hillary waves
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just like all the red flags Hillary waves
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's right, you're a Trump fan now.

No, they were all bought legally from licensed dealers.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/suspects-in-san-bernadino-shooting-had-a-small-arsenal/2015/12/03/9b5d7b52-99db-11e5-94f0-9eeaff906ef3_story.html

I don't think that's really even that important part of the issue though...the question is the threshold for the feds to deny rights under current law without sufficient evidence there's a clear threat to public safety.

Is there something wrong with you? The weapons were purchased by Enrique Marquez. He then lent them to the shooters. That is illegal ,and he faces multiple charges for it .
A lot of illegally held guns were one time purchased legally..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is there something wrong with you? The weapons were purchased by Enrique Marquez. He then lent them to the shooters. That is illegal ,and he faces multiple charges for it .
A lot of illegally held guns were one time purchased legally..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Reread.

[QUOTE=spence;1100019]Reread.[/QUOTE

Reading that crap article from the Post was painful enough once but I read it again . It never mentions that the "legally "purchased fire arms used in the killings were not purchased by the shooters . It's more of an anti-gun article then a truthful one . I expected nothing else
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No, they were all bought legally from licensed dealers.

I don't think that's really even that important part of the issue though...the question is the threshold for the feds to deny rights under current law without sufficient evidence there's a clear threat to public safety.

Huh? is this a question? can you form this into a sentence or put a verb in so we can comprehend what you are saying?






"There is no limit on the amount of ammunition that U.S. citizens can buy and keep in their homes; " from your link https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/suspects-in-san-bernadino-shooting-had-a-small-arsenal/2015/12/03/9b5d7b52-99db-11e5-94f0-9eeaff906ef3_story.html
Is FALSE information and simply not true, there is a limit, there might not be for all states, but here in the People's Republic of Mass. there is. These journalists should get things correct if they want to be taken seriously instead of trying to put fear into their articles.

Reading that crap article from the Post was painful enough once but I read it again . It never mentions that the "legally "purchased fire arms used in the killings were not purchased by the shooters . It's more of an anti-gun article then a truthful one . I expected nothing else
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Yep

just more dividing the country, anti gun bull

[QUOTE=spence;1100019]Reread.[/QUOTE

Reading that crap article from the Post was painful enough once but I read it again . It never mentions that the "legally "purchased fire arms used in the killings were not purchased by the shooters . It's more of an anti-gun article then a truthful one . I expected nothing else
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Actually it does, you didn't read it did you?

"There is no limit on the amount of ammunition that U.S. citizens can buy and keep in their homes; " from your link https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/suspects-in-san-bernadino-shooting-had-a-small-arsenal/2015/12/03/9b5d7b52-99db-11e5-94f0-9eeaff906ef3_story.html
Is FALSE information and simply not true, there is a limit, there might not be for all states, but here in the People's Republic of Mass. there is. These journalists should get things correct if they want to be taken seriously instead of trying to put fear into their articles.
What is the legal ammo possession limit in MA?

What is the legal ammo possession limit in MA?

I don't think there is a limit .
You always want to make sure you have one more than you need and you never know how many you'll need .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I don't think there is a limit .
You always want to make sure you have one more than you need and you never know how many you'll need .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Slip doesn't agree.

Oh I agree with buckman
but as far as the law states,

here we are allowed 10,000 rounds of rimfire and 10,000 rounds of centerfire
if you are a reloader and have a need for a chitload of primers because they are sold in large quantity, then you can get a permit at your fire dept. for a few bucks and can have I think more than twice that amount of ammo. I am sure it is online at massgov someplace

Some people don't realize there is a limit, like reporters obviously.

Oh I agree with buckman
but as far as the law states,

here we are allowed 10,000 rounds of rimfire and 10,000 rounds of centerfire
if you are a reloader and have a need for a chitload of primers because they are sold in large quantity, then you can get a permit at your fire dept. for a few bucks and can have I think more than twice that amount of ammo. I am sure it is online at massgov someplace

Some people don't realize there is a limit, like reporters obviously.

Well I finally learned something from this thread .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure, Syed Rizwan Farook.

You misread my question. Read it again, in the proper context. Amazing that someone who is as contextually attuned to and driven by CONTEXT would miss the context in which I asked my question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post
but I wouldn't want a terrorist to be denied their Second Amendments Rights either.
Detbuch reply: Do you have any evidence of this?

The context was your "want." Do you have any evidence that you wouldn't want a terrorist to be denied their Second Amendment rights?

I was yanking your chain regarding your usual "do you have any evidence of this" type of rebuttal of someone's opinion of a politician formed and based on obviously circumstantial occurrences of past speeches, position papers, legislation, and repetitive talking points.

Can you provide any "evidence," circumstantial or positive, that you wouldn't want a terrorist to be denied their Second Amendment right to bear arms?

Silly question? It was meant to be as silly as your non sequiturs or often straw man statements, and then insisting on "evidence" for someone else's opinions.

On the other hand, you were attempting what you think is clarity when you said: "I don't think that's really even that important part of the issue though...the question is the threshold for the feds to deny rights under current law without sufficient evidence there's a clear threat to public safety."

To begin with, what you think is clearly the question is muddled again by your situational ethics. When it suited you, you backed up Nebe's assertion that your chances of being killed by a terror attack were very rare. But it suits you in this thread to posit that there's a clear threat to public safety if the feds threshold to deny rights is not raised (made sufficient) in order, among other things, to " Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists."

But what is clear to me, not only in this assertion by you, but in consistently similar statements by you in many other posts, is that the federal government simply doesn't have enough authority over the individuals in this country. Any occurrence which you conveniently deemed rare in another instance, now conveniently becomes a threat to public safety and should be cause to give the federal government the power to deny rights. So any contrived crisis must not be wasted if it can be used to expand the federal government's scope of power.

The federal government actually does have within its original constitutional scope of power the ability to severely limit the immigration of any category of groups into this country. But applying that power in order to mitigate the "threat to public safety" is not acceptable to you, or other Progressives who ply such bromides as "that is not us." It clearly has been us over most of our history, but Progressives, among the arsenal of anti-American and Constitution busting tactics, have in the importation of massive numbers of immigrants who provide no special qualities or abilities to strengthen what were actually once considered American values, found another way of actually watering down those values while at the same time creating a large populace of allies who will add to and strengthen the Progressive trajectory of central government's intrusion into every aspect of our lives.

I do not have actual "evidence" that you really do wish to limit our once unalienable rights and making those rights government rights rather than individual rights. But it just seems, clearly, that you do.

http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-economics/the-fbi-email-server-investigation/?utm_content=inf_10_1164_2&tse_id=INF_d30b447b1a1a46c3bb74c1490547666e
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://secondnexus.com/politics-and-economics/the-fbi-email-server-investigation/?utm_content=inf_10_1164_2&tse_id=INF_d30b447b1a1a46c3bb74c1490547666e
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interesting . . . no evidence that she intentionally or willingly broke the law. Does that mean she did, but she just didn't know that she did?

Wikipedia:
Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.

But in Hillary's case, ignorance is merely bliss. Is being unaware that one is breaking a law a positive qualification for the reputedly highest office in the land? Is the lack of proper procedure which leads to the unintentional breaking of a federal law a qualification for the chief law enforcer of the land?

"There is no limit on the amount of ammunition that U.S. citizens can buy and keep in their homes;


Is FALSE information and simply not true, there is a limit, there might not be for all states, but here in the People's Republic of Mass. there is. These journalists should get things correct if they want to be taken seriously instead of trying to put fear into their articles.

So there's no federal law, but Massachusetts -- perhaps the most liberal state in the nation -- caps you at a measly 20,000 rounds? The government tyranny here is beyond reproach!

Buck, what would you estimate as the most ammo you've ever had at one time?

This nitpick also doesn't do anything to dismiss the fact the weapons were all purchased legally at a FLL. This has been reported many times...

Interesting . . . no evidence that she intentionally or willingly broke the law. Does that mean she did, but she just didn't know that she did?

Wikipedia:
Ignorantia juris non excusat or ignorantia legis neminem excusat is a legal principle holding that a person who is unaware of a law may not escape liability for violating that law merely because he or she was unaware of its content.

But in Hillary's case, ignorance is merely bliss. Is being unaware that one is breaking a law a positive qualification for the reputedly highest office in the land? Is the lack of proper procedure which leads to the unintentional breaking of a federal law a qualification for the chief law enforcer of the land?
You're presuming a law was broken, this is still just speculation. I read a legal paper some months ago though that was very specific that intent is everything in this cases. If not they'd have to indict most of the CIA and DoD.

so what?

he also entered the country legally
had a job
but somewhere along the line was radicalized into the murderer he was

why is it important that the weapons were at some point in their existence purchased at an FFL?

Guns don't kill people, people do
Guns are inanimate objects just like a knife or a car
Why is everything a gun control issue?

because it is about control

I am not on the side of giving up control, I enjoy freedom

Romanian Hacker 'Guccifer' Just Gave Bernie Sanders the Democratic Nomination http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9856196
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Romanian Hacker 'Guccifer' Just Gave Bernie Sanders the Democratic Nomination http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/9856196
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yet the FBI found no evidence, he can't provide any evidence and he's regarded as 3rd rate hack...

He's just making crap up because he's in jail.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

What is the legal ammo possession limit in MA?

here is what I or anyone can store without a special permit if ya have a gun permit


•Not more than 10,000 rounds of rimfire ammunition
•Not more than 10,000 rounds of centerfire rifle/pistol ammunition
•Not more than 5,000 rounds of shotgun ammunition
•Not more than 1000 primers
•Not more than 16 pounds of smokeless powder
•Not more than 2 pounds of black powder

With a local permit from your local fire department

•Up to 30,000 rounds of rimfire ammunition*
•Up to 50,000 rounds of centerfire rifle/pistol ammunition*
•Up to 50,000 rounds of shotgun ammunition*
•Up to 10,000 primers
•Not more than 48 pounds of smokeless powder
•Not more than 5 pounds of black powder

So what is your point spence?....:)

Yet the FBI found no evidence, he can't provide any evidence and he's regarded as 3rd rate hack...

He's just making crap up because he's in jail.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I haven't heard the FBI say anything yet.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

spence, plus a fellon can not legally possess a firearm in mass, but yet they can have a musket....:)...no sense at all....:)

https://gma.yahoo.com/emails-hillary-clinton-director-state-department-appear-missing-205506182.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://gma.yahoo.com/emails-hillary-clinton-director-state-department-appear-missing-205506182.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Old news.

No it's not old news unless you call tonight's news old.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No it's not old news unless you call tonight's news old.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This was reported in December by Politico.

Old news.

Oldies but goodies.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/05/hillarys-emails-hacked-russia-kremlin-deciding-whether-release-20000-emails-hacked/

Iran probably has them also.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/05/hillarys-emails-hacked-russia-kremlin-deciding-whether-release-20000-emails-hacked/

Iran probably has them also.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That email cited in the story came from the known hack of Sidney Bluemthal's server...not Clinton's. It was his email sent to her.

You're reading made up news.

That email cited in the story came from the known hack of Sidney Bluemthal's server...not Clinton's. It was his email sent to her.

You're reading made up news.

Oh that makes it better
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh that makes it better
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It makes it irrelevant.