Milo Yiannopoulos

[spence]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

How many were simply lost?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Always possible but the FBI recovered most if not all the work emails from her server as well as just looking into the accounts who sent/received. That's the thing, if you're trying to hide things you don't email them around.

Here's a gem, of the 15,000 recovered only 1 about Benghazi was new and it was someone praising her service

"Please extend to the Secretary my congratulations for her testimony today before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. I watched with great admiration as she dealt with a tough and personally painful issue in a fair, candid, and determined manner,"

“I was especially impressed by her ability to turn aside the obvious efforts to politicize the events in Benghazi, reminding Americans of the tremendous sacrifice made by Chris Stevens and his colleagues but also insisting that our ability to play a positive role in the world and protect U.S. interests requires a willingness to take risks.”

http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politi...ton/index.html

We need another investigation.

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Always possible but the FBI recovered most if not all the work emails from her server as well as just looking into the accounts who sent/received. That's the thing, if you're trying to hide things you don't email them around.

Here's a gem, of the 15,000 recovered only 1 about Benghazi was new and it was someone praising her service



http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politi...ton/index.html

We need another investigation.

Everything stated above is total bull#^&#^&#^&#^& 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Everything stated above is total bull#^&#^&#^&#^& 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Because it doesn't fit your narrative of Hillary as a Bond villain?

How come they keep releasing, releasing, releasing and nothing sticks? Is your lack of faith in our best investigators that bad?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

Because it doesn't fit your narrative of Hillary as a Bond villain?

How come they keep releasing, releasing, releasing and nothing sticks? Is your lack of faith in our best investigators that bad?

Yes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Always possible but the FBI recovered most if not all the work emails from her server as well as just looking into the accounts who sent/received. That's the thing, if you're trying to hide things you don't email them around.

Here's a gem, of the 15,000 recovered only 1 about Benghazi was new and it was someone praising her service



http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politi...ton/index.html

We need another investigation.

CNN said last nit hat according to the FBI report, the original request to delete the emails came before the subpoena. But after the subpoena was delivered to team Clinton, the IT company told them "we haven't deleted these emails yet, what do you want us to do", and Team Hilary said "go ahead and delete them."

And if Hilary can't grasp that a "C" means classified, then can you seriously claim she is up for this job?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

CNN said last nit hat according to the FBI report, the original request to delete the emails came before the subpoena. But after the subpoena was delivered to team Clinton, the IT company told them "we haven't deleted these emails yet, what do you want us to do", and Team Hilary said "go ahead and delete them."

And if Hilary can't grasp that a "C" means classified, then can you seriously claim she is up for this job?

Jim, you're using quotes again for items that aren't quotes.

As for the C marking, it doesn't mean classified. Even Comey said it wouldn't be reasonable for a person to understand the sensitivity of the information based on that marking alone. And even with that, State said it was marked incorrectly.

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, you're using quotes again for items that aren't quotes.

As for the C marking, it doesn't mean classified. Even Comey said it wouldn't be reasonable for a person to understand the sensitivity of the information based on that marking alone. And even with that, State said it was marked incorrectly.

Really....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-handling.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

Really....
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-handling.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do you read any of this stuff before you post it?

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

Do you read any of this stuff before you post it?

What is your point.
She didn't know what she was signing or......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, you're using quotes again for items that aren't quotes.

As for the C marking, it doesn't mean classified.

No, it means "Confidential" which is a classification.

The FBI described what it found:

"The FBI identified three email chains, encompassing eight individual email exchanges to or from Clinton's personal email accounts, which contained at least one paragraph marked '(C),' a marking ostensibly indicating the presence of information classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level."

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

No, it means "Confidential" which is a classification.

The FBI described what it found:

"The FBI identified three email chains, encompassing eight individual email exchanges to or from Clinton's personal email accounts, which contained at least one paragraph marked '(C),' a marking ostensibly indicating the presence of information classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level."

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They asked Comey directly if someone would know this was classified by those markings alone and he said no. Clinton says she doesn't even remember seeing it.

Hell, I don't get 1/2 the emails she did at work and I probably don't read fully more than a fraction and couldn't recall 90%. And I'm for the most part not relying on surrogates to execute my work. Clinton's being held to an impossibly high and unprecedented standard.

And she's still leading by a wide margin

More from those wacky left winger Clinton lovers at the FBI.

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/im.../07/comey2.pdf

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

They asked Comey directly if someone would know this was classified by those markings alone and he said no. Clinton says she doesn't even remember seeing it

And she's still leading by a wide margin

Actually she doesn't even recall having any instructions or training on classified information. Does that sound normal to you ?

Also she's not leading at all anymore.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Also she's not leading at all anymore.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Electoral college. Come on Buck...

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Hell, I don't get 1/2 the emails she did at work and I probably don't read fully more than a fraction and couldn't recall 90%. And I'm for the most part not relying on surrogates to execute my work. Clinton's being held to an impossibly high and unprecedented standard.

No, it was not an impossibly high standard to use State Dept. servers instead of her own private one.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Jim, you're using quotes again for items that aren't quotes.

As for the C marking, it doesn't mean classified. Even Comey said it wouldn't be reasonable for a person to understand the sensitivity of the information based on that marking alone. And even with that, State said it was marked incorrectly.

Spence, did the head of the FBI state that she was "extremely careless", yes or no?

Maybe she didn't break the law. Maybe. But the FBI affirmed that she was extremely careless with sensitive information.

We get to decide how much we care. Most Democrats won't hold it against her. You are one of the very few who refuse to concede that there was any kind of a lapse in judgment.

And the fact that (1) 2 days before the announcement, Bill was on the Attorney General's plane for a private chat , and (2) the day after the announcement, the Hilary campaign said they'd consider keeping Loretta Lunch as AG...those things speak for themselves.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

We get to decide how much we care. Most Democrats won't hold it against her. You are one of the very few who refuse to concede that there was any kind of a lapse in judgment.

I've said many times she should have known better. I don't think she had any mal intent, but the risk of it causing a future issue was clear.

Most Dems won't hold it against her because they see the net value of her leadership. The way things are going a lot of Republicans are taking a similar position. The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I've said many times she should have known better. I don't think she had any mal intent, but the risk of it causing a future issue was clear.

Most Dems won't hold it against her because they see the net value of her leadership. The way things are going a lot of Republicans are taking a similar position. The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding.

"Most Dems won't hold it against her because they see the net value of her leadership"

That's fair. I can't stand Trump, but in total, I think he is better (God help us). But you make it seem like everyone who is saying she did anything inappropriate, is on a witch hunt, of has the facts wrong. And you believe everything she says, without question, always.

You downplay everything. You are the only person who will not concede that she lied about coming under sniper fire. I have never, ever heard anyone else deny that she lied. It causes you to lose all credibility, because it's not reasonable to say she didn't lie (unless you think she actually believes that she got shot at, in which case you are saying she is delusional).

"The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding"

True. It was a horrible, horrible nomination. See, I can admit that. I can admit flaws, even serious flaws, in my own candidate, when the evidence is clear. And that makes one of us.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

That's fair. I can't stand Trump, but in total, I think he is better (God help us). But you make it seem like everyone who is saying she did anything inappropriate, is on a witch hunt, of has the facts wrong. And you believe everything she says, without question, always.

No, I've said many times she has flaws but that so much of how people perceive her is a product of a decades long effort to destroy her character. Even with her flaws I think she's a very capable person.

As a veteran I'm surprised you could vote for someone who so openly disparages our military and has more admiration for Russia over our own leadership.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

I've said many times she should have known better. I don't think she had any mal intent, but the risk of it causing a future issue was clear.

Most Dems won't hold it against her because they see the net value of her leadership. The way things are going a lot of Republicans are taking a similar position. The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding.

"the net value of her leadership"

She voted for the Iraq war, in her own words, "with conviction".

Then, when General Petreus pitched the idea of the Surge, she said that to believe the Surge would do what he claimed, "requires the willful suspension of disbelief". Those were her exact words. In other words, she accused the man of lying. And of course, the Surge did exactly what they hoped it would do.

As Secstate, she inherited a stable Iraq. When she resigned, it was in chaos.

Net value? It's debatable...and a serial liar, to boot. But if the election were today, I think it would be an electoral landslide for her.

"The number of conservative papers and prominent figures endorsing her is astounding"

And do you know why that is? Because people on my side are way more capable than people on your side, of being critical of fellow Republicans. On your side, all that matters is protecting anyone with a D after their last name. Her disapproval ratings are astronomical also, but you don't see liberals breaking ranks.

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by spence

I've said many times she should have known better.

Actually you've said she didn't know nor should she have....that's a tad different....

Originally Posted by spence

From what I've read an admin was asked to clean up her email archives a year earlier, forgot, had his oh bleep moment then did it after the fact. Clinton knew nothing about it.

Originally Posted by spence

They asked Comey directly if someone would know this was classified by those markings alone and he said no. Clinton says she doesn't even remember seeing it.

Hell, I don't get 1/2 the emails she did at work and I probably don't read fully more than a fraction and couldn't recall 90%. And I'm for the most part not relying on surrogates to execute my work. Clinton's being held to an impossibly high and unprecedented standard.

[spence]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Actually you've said she didn't know nor should she have....that's a tad different....

There are things that happened I'm sure she had little visibility to. You're quoting me out of context by the way.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Always possible but the FBI recovered most if not all the work emails from her server as well as just looking into the accounts who sent/received. That's the thing, if you're trying to hide things you don't email them around.

If you're trying to hide things you delete them. The FBI shouldn't have had to recover her work emails. They should not have been deleted.

Here's a gem, of the 15,000 recovered only 1 about Benghazi was new and it was someone praising her service



http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/07/politi...ton/index.html

We need another investigation.

No, Spence, another investigation would reveal that you sent that email.