Hilary email

[spence]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

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

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

You forgot about Vince Foster.

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

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

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

See, this is why the Internet sucks.

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

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

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

Why the duck would you give them the money over other charities ?

Because Bill Clinton is a rock star and rich people like to be affiliated with his work.

[ecduzitgood]

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

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

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

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

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

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

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

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

I assume it basically comes down to the D after the name is all that matters.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

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

brilliant

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

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

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

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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

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

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

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

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

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

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

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

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Yep
Typical Democrat
Just like blaming things on someone or something else taking no responsibility
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yep, just like a typical democrat.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...-arrest-218028

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yep, just like a typical democrat.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...-arrest-218028

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

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

Yep, just like a typical democrat.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...-arrest-218028

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

[ecduzitgood]

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

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

Obviously hrc1947

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by ecduzitgood

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

Vrwc123

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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

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

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

And other opinions aren't formed by links?

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

And other opinions aren't formed by links?

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

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

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

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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

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

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

[ecduzitgood]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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

[Jim in CT]

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

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...challenge.html

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

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

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

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...challenge.html

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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



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

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

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

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

How does she know?

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

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

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

yes, that will be interesting.

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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

How does she know?

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

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

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

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

Bad attempt at humor, likely suggested by an aid.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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


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


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


Bad attempt at humor, likely suggested by an aid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Bad attempt at humor, likely suggested by an aid.

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

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

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

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

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

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

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

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

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

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