# Hillary Clinton's Private E-Mail Draws Scrutiny



## Red-Dot (Mar 7, 2015)

This should be interesting.... Let the games begin.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/investigation/hillary-clinton-private-e-mail-account-897531


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 7, 2015)

But... but... but... war on wimminz!!!  /sarc

I hope that shriveled old moldy-raisin-vag cunt wipe finally gets raped by the letter of the law that she so erroneously believes does not apply to her.


----------



## AKkeith (Mar 7, 2015)

And @racing_kitty comes in hot, as usual hahaha.


----------



## AWP (Mar 7, 2015)

Senior gov't officials already have a certain amount of latitude in what they keep or discard, even on .gov servers. She's dead wrong on all counts, but even .gov servers don't archive every email. They should, but don't. You and I? We're hosed. High enough in the food chain? You can select or deselect email for archiving.


----------



## 0699 (Mar 7, 2015)

Does anyone really believe this will impact her election to the presidency in 2016?  We all know it's going to happen.  Too many sheep believe in her, the democrats give away too much free shit, and the republicans can't get their heads out of each others asses.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 7, 2015)

0699 said:


> Does anyone really believe this will impact her election to the presidency in 2016?  We all know it's going to happen.  Too many sheep believe in her, the democrats give away too much free shit, and the republicans can't get their heads out of each others asses.


 
Yep. Plus she's already been annointed by the media as the next in line.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 7, 2015)

I don't like it one bit. Her whole goal in life is power and upward mobility.  Another fucking case of people in power doing what they want.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 8, 2015)

Marine0311 said:


> I don't like it one bit. Her whole goal in life is power and upward mobility.  Another fucking case of people in power doing what they want.


 
Yeah, they make quite a pair. Bill was into power for the fringe benefits, she's into power because she's a power-junkie...

...a carpet munchin power junkie.


----------



## Scotth (Mar 8, 2015)

Immensely stupid thing to do.  To not understand that this would eventually become an issue is staggering to understand.

Will they find any smoking guns.  Doubtful but yet to be determined.


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 8, 2015)

She'll probably use it as an election issue, she couldn't trust the .gov servers; cause only she knows right.  And if elected she'll fix it and everyone gets their own server...


----------



## 0699 (Mar 8, 2015)

Scotth said:


> *Immensely stupid thing to do*.  To not understand that this would eventually become an issue is staggering to understand.
> 
> Will they find any smoking guns.  Doubtful but yet to be determined.


 
I disagree.  In her view, it's none of our business what she does.  Her actions since her husband was governor of Arkansas demonstrate her lack of regard for the "common man".  She truly believes that we are too ignorant and stupid to know what's good for us and we should be grateful for her service.


----------



## Scotth (Mar 8, 2015)

After the email issues with the Bush administration and now the email games still continuing now.  Congress really needs to act and make a law that says you only use your .gov email address period.  No ambiguity and no excuses.

Doubtful it will happen even though we will be talking about email through 2016.  Clinton probably isn't the only one playing this game today.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 8, 2015)

Scotth said:


> After the email issues with the Bush administration and now the email games still continuing now.  Congress really needs to act and make a law that says you only use your .gov email address period..



My understanding is that an amendment to the Federal Records act, which would essentially require the things that you stated, was passed in late 2014.  However, that would have been years after Hilldog stepped down from the State position.  So to my layman understanding, there is no violation of record-keeping standards.  The fact that she voluntarily released over 55,000 pages of emails last year seems to strengthen this notion that she was interested in transparency.  Though one could respond that setting up a private email server indicates a desire to control the narrative, (at the time) there was nothing illegal about doing that.  Do I think that she should have used an official email account?  Yes.  The use of a private email seems like poor judgement, though not a breach of the law.

*However*, if the allegations in the article above are true and she stored classified or otherwise sensitive material on her home server, she absolutely ought to be burned to the ground.  I would hope that then-Secretary Clinton would be smart enough to use classified networks for the appropriate level of correspondence, but seeing how other government officials have been burned for doing the exact same thing, I wouldn't put it past her.

Another point to discuss is those 55,000 pages of emails she voluntarily released to the National Archives.  Was that really everything she sent during her tenure at state?  55,000 pages sure is a lot of email.  Over 4 years, that amounts to a little under 40 pages a day.  I'm going to assume that that's both emails sent and received.  It seems like the head of a major government organization would be receiving more than that daily, but we can't be certain.  I'm very curious as to how her numbers compare to Secretaries Powell and Kerry.  It might shed some light on what percentage of email those 55,000 pages really represent.

Anyway, withholding my judgement for now.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 8, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> My understanding is that an amendment to the Federal Records act, which would essentially require the things that you stated, was passed in late 2014.  However, that would have been years after Hilldog stepped down from the State position.  So to my layman understanding, there is no violation of record-keeping standards.  The fact that she voluntarily released over 55,000 pages of emails last year seems to strengthen this notion that she was interested in transparency.  Though one could respond that setting up a private email server indicates a desire to control the narrative, (at the time) there was nothing illegal about doing that.  Do I think that she should have used an official email account?  Yes.  The use of a private email seems like poor judgement, though not a breach of the law.
> 
> *However*, if the allegations in the article above are true and she stored classified or otherwise sensitive material on her home server, she absolutely ought to be burned to the ground.  I would hope that then-Secretary Clinton would be smart enough to use classified networks for the appropriate level of correspondence, but seeing how other government officials have been burned for doing the exact same thing, I wouldn't put it past her.
> 
> ...



I'm not well-read on it, but the Cornell Law School site appears to indicate that the FRA went into effect in 2011.  Clinton was SECSTATE until 2013.


----------



## AWP (Mar 8, 2015)

There's "legal" and there's "right." Given technology and the importance of her office there is absolutely ZERO bloody reason to house her own server. I won't even speculate on the email address used....

When Petraeus and McChrystal ran Afghanistan they both had hand-picked Comm teams; literal experts in their field at every aspect of IT and communications. SECSTATE's so low on the totem pole she doesn't rate the same or we're to believe it was too difficult to use the provided communications? (All jokes about AKO aside....) She was SECSTATE, not Joe Snuffy National Guard squad leader trying to coordinate a drill weekend... Hell, one of the deputy or assistant SECDEF's came through once and he had at least two NCO's to handle everything for him...with a pallet of comm gear. And she needs her own email server?

Even IF she were legal at the time (not bloody likely) she's still 50 shades of wrong because there's no reason for anyone at her level to do that unless they had something to hide...


----------



## Brill (Mar 8, 2015)

How did she receive classified updates with a .sgov account?


----------



## RackMaster (Mar 8, 2015)

lindy said:


> How did she receive classified updates with a .sgov account?



She didn't need them, she already knew.... :-"


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 8, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> My understanding is that an amendment to the Federal Records act, which would essentially require the things that you stated, was passed in late 2014.  However, that would have been years after Hilldog stepped down from the State position.  So to my layman understanding, there is no violation of record-keeping standards.  The fact that she voluntarily released over 55,000 pages of emails last year seems to strengthen this notion that she was interested in transparency.  Though one could respond that setting up a private email server indicates a desire to control the narrative, (at the time) there was nothing illegal about doing that.  Do I think that she should have used an official email account?  Yes.  The use of a private email seems like poor judgement, though not a breach of the law.
> 
> *However*, if the allegations in the article above are true and she stored classified or otherwise sensitive material on her home server, she absolutely ought to be burned to the ground.  I would hope that then-Secretary Clinton would be smart enough to use classified networks for the appropriate level of correspondence, but seeing how other government officials have been burned for doing the exact same thing, I wouldn't put it past her.
> 
> ...


Remember fuzzy math.  We can shoot e-mails back and forth all day long, and each one counts as a separate e-mail.

FWIW- A retired 4-star just plead guilty for mishandling classified, how is this different?


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 8, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> I'm not well-read on it, but the Cornell Law School site appears to indicate that the FRA went into effect in 2011.  Clinton was SECSTATE until 2013.


You are correct in that it has been on the books for a while, but from what I understand from the smart people who are analyzing this topic, the requirement to use an official email for correspondence was not introduced until the act was amended in 2014.

This article lays it out: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/officials-detail-obama-administration-email-policies/


> The former official emphasized that there was no legal requirement for cabinet secretaries to conduct all email correspondence on an official account until the Federal Records Act was revised in 2014. Still, the former official underscored that everyone was put on notice that if they did official work, to make sure it was preserved for federal records.
> 
> Neither White House officials nor Hillary Clinton's aides have said whether she was given permission to set up her own system and use only her private email, but she fell into a different category than most cabinet officials. Given her history -- as Mr. Obama's chief rival for the Democratic nomination, a former senator and former first lady -- she came into the post with carve-outs and was given more leeway, allowing her to run a different operation than most of the other cabinet agencies.



I grant that the whole thing is very shady, and does reflect on Mrs. Clinton's character, but it doesn't really look like that's a charge that's going to stick.  Really, it seems like the mishandling of classified material has more traction to it.


----------



## Marine0311 (Mar 8, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> You are correct in that it has been on the books for a while, but from what I understand from the smart people who are analyzing this topic, the requirement to use an official email for correspondence was not introduced until the act was amended in 2014.
> 
> This article lays it out: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/officials-detail-obama-administration-email-policies/
> 
> ...



I am still not clear was she legally required to or not? 

You know what gets me still? Words that are used to split hairs. "Legal", "Guidelines", "required" "not required but recommended". :wall:


----------



## AWP (Mar 8, 2015)

Cross domain still happens and while we peasants have our USB ports blocked, do we think that applies to the ruling class?


----------



## RetPara (Mar 9, 2015)

So...   I wonder how along before her server gets hacked....


----------



## AWP (Mar 9, 2015)

RetPara said:


> So...   I wonder how along before her server gets hacked....


 
I'm rooting for the hackers.


----------



## Scotth (Mar 9, 2015)

My problem is the Federal Records Act is it should include everyone in all three branches of government.  They should all meet the same requirements.


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 9, 2015)

RetPara said:


> So...   I wonder how along before her server gets hacked....


 Who knows.. seems like it has been done before


> *Hillary Clinton's Email Domain Hosted By 'Consumer Grade' Company That Was Hacked In 2010 And Had Ties To Ukraine*
> http://www.hngn.com/articles/75355/...as-hacked-in-2010-and-had-ties-to-ukraine.htm


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 9, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I'm rooting for the hackers.


My understanding is her server was hacked, and that is how we found out about the "secret" e-mail accounts.


----------



## AWP (Mar 9, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> My understanding is her server was hacked, and that is how we found out about the "secret" e-mail accounts.


 
Even better.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 9, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> You are correct in that it has been on the books for a while, but from what I understand from the smart people who are analyzing this topic, the requirement to use an official email for correspondence was not introduced until the act was amended in 2014.
> 
> This article lays it out: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/officials-detail-obama-administration-email-policies/
> 
> ...



No "legal requirement," only the US Code, signed by the President of the United States.  I'll take what I can read with my own eyes over what some "former official" who isn't even willing to go on the record has to say.


----------



## Brill (Mar 9, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> No "legal requirement," only the US Code, signed by the President of the United States.  I'll take what I can read with my own eyes over what some "former official" who isn't even willing to go on the record has to say.



Yeah and ??? 

Prosecutorial discretion comes to mind.

Regardless if the actions were in fact lawful (I personally believe there was most likely "spillage"), were her actions as SECSTATE ethical?  I do not believe they were simply because the creation and exclusive usage of a private server was done for the sole purpose of complete and total privacy.  This violates the ENTIRE inspectors general process by not allowing for oversight and, moreover, as a public servant whose salary is provided for by tax dollars, she absolutely has ZERO right to privacy when using a government computer system (PII excluded). Every email she sent belongs to we the people and not her.

I hope the AP sues the shit out of her for violating the FOIA.  But in order to prove she destroyed USG property (a crime) by deleting emails, they would have to ask the Chinese for copies.

This is no worse than the 18 1/2 minutes gap in the Oval Office tapes. "When the Secretary of State does it, IT is not illegal!"


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 9, 2015)

Oops.....

"Obama Knew About Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Address, Aide Says"
"“He was aware of her email address. He traded emails with her," an aide said"

http://time.com/3738386/obama-hillary-emails/


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 9, 2015)

lindy said:


> Yeah and ???
> 
> Prosecutorial discretion comes to mind.
> 
> ...



What does "yeah, and???" mean?  The USC was a lawfully enacted statute signed by the President of the United States, there is no "and."


----------



## Jay (Mar 10, 2015)

Secretary Clinton is apparently addressing this at the UN this afternoon? Interesting.


----------



## Brill (Mar 10, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> What does "yeah, and???" mean?  The USC was a lawfully enacted statute signed by the President of the United States, there is no "and."



Sir, meaning that you are completely right however the DOJ would never prosecute and the People would most likely have a difficult case showing that they were harmed by her flagrant lawbreaking.  Nothing will come from this.

Her condescending excuse for using a private account sounded like Carville wrote it himself (queue the right wing conspiracy).  I, like most teenagers, had no trouble setting up multiple email accounts from multiple web-based servers on my phone.  But this is too difficult for the Department of State's IT department?  If I were a State Information Management Specialist, I'd write an OpEd in the NYT that started with something like "Look bitch,.."

Her private tech people cannot set up two accounts on her phone but they can run their own server at home?


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 10, 2015)

I wonder if Bildo coached the Hilldebeast before she went up for that televised late term abortion of a presser?  






Looks familiar enough....  NAAAAAAAAAH!  It's nothing.  I must be seeing things.


----------



## Brill (Mar 10, 2015)

racing_kitty said:


> I wonder if Bildo coached the Hilldebeast before she went up for that televised late term abortion of a presser?
> 
> Looks familiar enough....  NAAAAAAAAAH!  It's nothing.  I must be seeing things.



HA!  She said she did not SEND...but did she *RECEIVE* any SECRET sitreps?  Those were just PERSONAL//REL CLINTON


----------



## policemedic (Mar 10, 2015)

She also said "I".  Did an aide handle her email with delegated authority?


----------



## Brill (Mar 15, 2015)

"No expectation of privacy When using USG information systems." Same disclaimer when you login to enterprise email.

http://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/clintons-email-and-the-privacy-privilege/


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 15, 2015)

RUMINT is starting to churn out now that Valerie Jarrett was the one responsible for leaking the information about HRC's email server.  How true that is, I don't know, especially considering HRC's emails had already been hacked by Guccifer some time ago (the time frame escapes me at the moment).  I'm linking to the search result from Google under the news tab, so that those with the time can choose their sources that they want to read through.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 15, 2015)

racing_kitty said:


> RUMINT is starting to churn out now that Valerie Jarrett was the one responsible for leaking the information about HRC's email server.  How true that is, I don't know, especially considering HRC's emails had already been hacked by Guccifer some time ago (the time frame escapes me at the moment).  I'm linking to the search result from Google under the news tab, so that those with the time can choose their sources that they want to read through.


If true then ROTFLMAO!!!

Anyone with minimal ties to Chicago knows the two camps hate each other, and wondered why he picked her for Sec State.


----------



## 0699 (Mar 15, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> If true then ROTFLMAO!!!
> 
> Anyone with minimal ties to Chicago knows the two camps hate each other, and *wondered why he picked her for Sec State*.


 
I think he did it in an effort to control her.  Much easier to control someone who "reports" to you than it is to control a US senator.   I think the bigger question is why did she accept and serve?  She'd have been much better off to stay a senator IMO.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 15, 2015)

racing_kitty said:


> RUMINT is starting to churn out now that Valerie Jarrett was the one responsible for leaking the information about HRC's email server.  How true that is, I don't know, especially considering HRC's emails had already been hacked by Guccifer some time ago (the time frame escapes me at the moment).  I'm linking to the search result from Google under the news tab, so that those with the time can choose their sources that they want to read through.


The NY Post seems to confirm that story.  The motivation behind this action sounds like some very Frank Underwood shit:



> Last fall, during the run-up to the 2014 midterm elections, Jarrett was heard to complain bitterly that the Clintons were turning congressmen, senators, governors and grass-root party members against Obama by portraying him as an unpopular president who was an albatross around the neck of the party.
> 
> Jarrett was said to be livid that most Democrats running for election refused to be seen campaigning with the president. She blamed the Clintons for marginalizing the president and for trying to wrestle control of the Democratic Party away from Obama.
> 
> And she vowed payback.



That bit about the Clintons trying to marginalize the President seems a little spurious.  Several polls conducted in the months leading up to the midterms showed Obama polling unfavorably among likely voters, and the general "feeling" amongst democrats was that successful democrats were going to have to distance themselves from the President and his signature legislation, the Affordable Care Act.  The winds were definitely not in the President's favor and any (D) with two eyes could see it.  Essentially, if Hillary Clinton really saw the need to manipulate congressional democrats against Obama, then she was either incredibly oblivious to the zeitgeist or she executed an INCREDIBLE smear campaign against a politician who was set to retire in two years.  In short: for no good reason.  It just seems incredibly unlikely.

I have two other issues with this piece: the first is that it comes from the NY Post.  That should be enough.  The second is the author, Edward Klein.  His short Wikipedia page should tell you enough about him.  He _loves_ unsourced quotes and anonymous sources.  They're the bread and butter of his craft.  He's a terrible, thoroughly discredited journalist who in all likelihood should not be taken seriously.  I'm not even saying that because he leans conservative.  I don't even particularly like Hillary.  I say that because this type of garbage journalism is abhorrent and is poisoning the well of discourse.  And if this report turns out to contain the same level of falsehood as some of his other works, then Columbia ought to just go ahead and rescind his journalism degree.  It may very well be that an Obama staffer deliberately sabotaged the campaign of the likely democratic nominee for some previous slight.  That kind of storyline would work amazingly well in the narrative framework set up set up by his most recently-published book.  But knowing the history of the author, it's beginning to seem more far-fetched.

I'm going to bookmark this post, and if later details confirm what this story is saying, I will absolutely come back here and say that I was wrong.


----------



## AWP (Mar 15, 2015)

The Clintons may bring short term success to the DNC, but they are long term poison at this stage.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 15, 2015)

0699 said:


> I think he did it in an effort to control her.  Much easier to control someone who "reports" to you than it is to control a US senator.   I think the bigger question is why did she accept and serve?  She'd have been much better off to stay a senator IMO.


Agree on the control part.
She took the job to develop her resume.
SecState, U.S. Senator on the resume would (in her mind) put her ahead of any opposition in the primaries (don't believe for a second that she believes she is the anointed one).
It may not matter in the end, JEB Bush or some other RINO will piss off the base and contribute to a Democratic President in 2016 (which is really sad at this point).



Freefalling said:


> The Clintons may bring short term success to the DNC, but they are long term poison at this stage.


maybe not.
He is still likeable and wildly popular.
She isn't likeable and I think the liberal media would love to kill her career (win,win for them).


----------



## AWP (Mar 16, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> maybe not.
> He is still likeable and wildly popular.
> She isn't likeable and I think the liberal media would love to kill her career (win,win for them).


 
I agree except that he always has his hands in her business. He mucked up her run in 2008, doing what he wanted when he wanted until reined in. I think the Clinton Show is wearing thin, but the DNC will still go with her in 2016 because she's their best shot right now...otherwise her baggage/ family name could be too much to bear. He's good with fundraising and crowds, but I think her star is burning out and will her ego allow her to admit it?


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 16, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I agree except that he always has his hands in her business. He mucked up her run in 2008, doing what he wanted when he wanted until reined in. I think the Clinton Show is wearing thin, but the DNC will still go with her in 2016 because she's their best shot right now...otherwise her baggage/ family name could be too much to bear. He's good with fundraising and crowds, but I think her star is burning out and will her ego allow her to admit it?


Agree, but State just lost a court case regarding her travels as Sec State, they now have to release the pax manifests for all her flights.  There is speculation that she was taking donors on taxpayer funded airplanes.
Don't forget, she is from Chicago, and I think 8 years of Chicago politics is wearing thin on most people.
I do not see her as a shoe in for the 2016 nomination.


----------



## AWP (Mar 16, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> I do not see her as a shoe in for the 2016 nomination.


 
I hope you're right because they are a juggernaut.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 16, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I hope you're right because they are a juggernaut.


Same thing was said in 2007/2008, didn't turn out that way.


----------



## Brill (Mar 16, 2015)

The deep web has a screenshot of Obama's real birth certificate in Hillary's sent box dated 19 Nov 2008.  Incredibly, she accepted the position of SECSTATE the very next day.


----------



## AWP (Mar 16, 2015)

lindy said:


> The deep web has a screenshot of Obama's real birth certificate in Hillary's sent box dated 19 Nov 2008.  Incredibly, she accepted the position of SECSTATE the very next day.


 
No doubt, Mr. Finch. You are being watched...


----------



## Brill (Mar 16, 2015)




----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 16, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I'm going to bookmark this post, and if later details confirm what this story is saying, I will absolutely come back here and say that I was wrong.



The White House is emphatically denying the Jarrett story, on the same lines that I outlined above for what it's worth.

Ohhhhh boy, here we go


> Clinton hit with racketeering lawsuit over emails
> *Clinton hit with racketeering lawsuit over emails*
> The conservative group Freedom Watch has filed a racketeering lawsuit against former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton that accuses her of failing to produce documents under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
> 
> ...



Looks like someone is trying to get in front of this scandal and ride any potential waves.  If it turns into something big, this group could make out pretty well, with no repercussions if it fizzles out.

Honestly, I'm starting to lose faith in Hillary.  This constant stonewalling has seemingly made her go from an "Okay" candidate to an "Ehhhhh, maybe look elsewhere" candidate.  The primaries are still a ways out which will probably buffer the effect of this scandal somewhat.  But that's assuming that she gets away with no charges filed.  If the Republicans get what they want and find something explosive OR manage to file charges and get her on perjury or obstruction, then it's all over.  

Still withholding judgement, but it's getting more difficult.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 25, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Ohhhhh boy, here we go
> 
> 
> Looks like someone is trying to get in front of this scandal and ride any potential waves.  If it turns into something big, this group could make out pretty well, with no repercussions if it fizzles out.
> ...



Bold face part

ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!

Starting to lose faith?  She is a mean, nasty, cantankerous bitch.
She is also a product of the Chicago Political Machine.


----------



## Brill (Mar 25, 2015)

Ouch! The civil complaint is interesting but got me thinking; RICO standing as a private citizen?

Apparently so and ONLY tried in Federal courts.

https://tollefsenlaw.com/civil-actions-under-rico/

The best "prayer for relief":


An order pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2071(b) that Defendant Hillary Clinton be disqualified from holding any office under the United States.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 25, 2015)

Hillary Clinton will become President if she is the Democratic Party's candidate next election.


----------



## 0699 (Mar 25, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Honestly, I'm starting to lose faith in Hillary.



I worked in WHMO when the Clintons were in office the first time.  I sat no more than five feet from her on many occasions.  Believe me when I say that 1) you do NOT want her to be POTUS, and 2) she is not a nice person when away from the cameras and the press.

If you believe she would be a good choice for president, that fancy northern education is not serving you well. :wall:

Having said that, she will be our next president.


----------



## Red-Dot (Mar 25, 2015)

I'm taking bets... Hillary won't be President. In addition she will driven out of town on a rail. Plus she just makes me nauseous...like tequila hangover nauseous.


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 25, 2015)

0699 said:


> I worked in WHMO when the Clintons were in office the first time.  I sat no more than five feet from her on many occasions.  Believe me when I say that 1) you do NOT want her to be POTUS, and 2) she is not a nice person when away from the cameras and the press.
> 
> If you believe she would be a good choice for president, that fancy northern education is not serving you well. :wall:
> 
> Having said that, she will be our next president.



Having talked to some EOD types who had to work VIPPSA missions and ran into her during her tenure as FLOTUS, I've heard #2 a number of times.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 25, 2015)

0699 said:


> I worked in WHMO when the Clintons were in office the first time.  I sat no more than five feet from her on many occasions.  Believe me when I say that 1) you do NOT want her to be POTUS, and 2) she is not a nice person when away from the cameras and the press.
> 
> If you believe she would be a good choice for president, that fancy northern education is not serving you well. :wall:
> 
> Having said that, she will be our next president.



Agreed.  I've done protection details for her where I was so close to her we were literally touching.  She is neither nice nor suited for public office.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 26, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> Hillary Clinton will become President if she is the Democratic Party's candidate next election.



Yep. I cannot think of a single GOP candidate that can fund-raise the way she can. Or has the name recognition.


----------



## 0699 (Mar 26, 2015)

Red-Dot said:


> I'm taking bets... Hillary won't be President. In addition she will driven out of town on a rail. Plus she just makes me nauseous...like tequila hangover nauseous.


 
You're on.  What are we betting?

I hope I lose... :-/


----------



## Red-Dot (Mar 26, 2015)

0699 said:


> You're on.  What are we betting?
> 
> I hope I lose... :-/


Name your single malt....then I'll name mine.


----------



## Totentanz (Mar 26, 2015)

0699 said:


> You're on.  What are we betting?
> 
> I hope I lose... :-/



I'd gladly pay a bottle of Scotch to be wrong on that matter.


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 26, 2015)

I'd pony up a bottle of Edradour to lose that bet.


----------



## Red-Dot (Mar 26, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Yep. I cannot think of a single GOP candidate that can fund-raise the way she can. Or has the name recognition.



Yep...she can fund raise.

Hillary Clinton Exposed Part 2 – Clinton Foundation Took Millions From Countries That Also Fund ISIS

I'd bet you all but the single malt bet is between 0699 and myself!


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 26, 2015)

Red-Dot said:


> Yep...she can fund raise.
> 
> http://www.infowars.com/hillary-cli...-millions-from-countries-that-also-fund-isis/



So outside of this argument, if there is a link to an actual article about something on infowars, please link to that. 
http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...937c1e-bc3f-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html


----------



## Brill (Mar 26, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Yep. I cannot think of a single GOP candidate that can fund-raise the way she can.



No smiley...are you serious?

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...-donor-guilty-of-illegal-fundraising-n1825868
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/19/us-hsu-clinton-idUSTRE54I56Y20090519
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/415131/clinton-foreign-fundraising-machine-rich-lowry
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...on-TopStories+(USATODAY+-+Nation+Top+Stories)

I Googled "democratic party illegal fundraising" and I no shit got a call  from Mountain View asking me NOT to do that again...my search was crashing their East Coast servers because it brought back so many results.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 26, 2015)

>1.4 million isn't a small result amount, that's for sure.


----------



## Red-Dot (Mar 26, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> So outside of this argument, if there is a link to an actual article about something on infowars, please link to that.
> Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State



That's funny.

But this is more funny, funnier, funniest whatever.

http://www.maniacworld.com/flv/Hillary-Clinton-Talks-About-Her-Concussion.mp4


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 26, 2015)

If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party nominee, she will win the next election.  IMO it has already been decided.  I'd be willing to make a small wager on the outcome.


----------



## Red-Dot (Mar 26, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> If Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Party nominee, she will win the next election.  IMO it has already been decided.  I'd be willing to make a small wager on the outcome.


Please do tell! I'm all ears.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 26, 2015)

What's to tell?  She is the anointed one of the Democrat Party, she is a seasoned political infighter with name recognition, the ability to raise HUGE amounts of cash, and oh yeah she has some pretty decent creds.  Additionally, no one on the Republican side can beat her.  If she gets the nom, she wins.  The Democrats would love to follow up the first black president with the first woman president, so it will either be her or Elizabeth Warren.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 26, 2015)

Is it too soon for a 2016 election betting thread?


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 26, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Is it too soon for a 2016 election betting thread?



Hillary.  You heard it here first.  ;)


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 26, 2015)

lindy said:


> No smiley...are you serious?
> 
> http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...-donor-guilty-of-illegal-fundraising-n1825868
> http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/05/19/us-hsu-clinton-idUSTRE54I56Y20090519
> ...



Yeah I never said she was the best in the legal way. But she will get more money for sure.


Red-Dot said:


> That's funny.



Well I was serious. Infowars is a trash site with an obvious heavy drama slant on everything they put out. The article links to a WaPO article that is actually full of facts, so you could have posted that. Speaking as an admin, keep it to legit news sources. I would be bashing on move on.org or any left wing website as well.


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 27, 2015)

Apparently, the Hildebeast's enforcers are starting early. From the Twitter feed of one Amy Chozick of the NY Times...

Tweet 1/2.  Tweet 2/2. Tweet 3.

For those not inclined to follow the links...



> A group called HRC Super Volunteers just warned me "We will be watching, reading, listening and protesting coded sexism..." (1/2)
> 
> 2/2 Sexist words, they say, include "polarizing, calculating, disingenuous, insincere, ambitious, inevitable, entitled, over confident..."
> 
> Also sexist, according to HRC Super Volunteers: "Secretive" and "will do anything to win, represents the past, out of touch..."



If true, I've got no words. None.


----------



## Brill (Mar 27, 2015)

Marauder06 said:


> Hillary.  You heard it here first.  ;)



HA HA!  You will serve at the pleasure of Hillary and won't be able to say a negative word about her!!!



racing_kitty said:


> If true, I've got no words. None.



I find your comments sexist.  If those tweets were written by a man, you'd have plenty to say.:dead:

@TLDR20 I think you'll enjoy this...whatever it is.

MONICA CROWLEY: Another murky mystery surrounding Hillary’s private email


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 27, 2015)

lindy said:


> HA HA!  You will serve at the pleasure of Hillary and won't be able to say a negative word about her!!!



That won't be a problem, I rarely have anything negative to say about anyone anyway.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 27, 2015)

Looks like there's blood in the water: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/2...rman-clinton-wiped-private-email-server-clean


----------



## racing_kitty (Mar 28, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Looks like there's blood in the water: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/2...rman-clinton-wiped-private-email-server-clean


Anybody who DIDN'T see that coming a mile away is either legally blind or a shill for the Hill.


----------



## Brill (Mar 28, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Looks like there's blood in the water: http://thehill.com/policy/defense/2...rman-clinton-wiped-private-email-server-clean



Her lawyer's letter to the committee is pretty much a "go piss up a rope".  Holder (contempt) and Lerner (delete) have taught her well.  I foresee the first husband and wife presidents who have both been impeached (she will no doubt be convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors when she occupies the oval office)!


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 28, 2015)

lindy said:


> Her lawyer's letter to the committee is pretty much a "go piss up a rope".  Holder (contempt) and Lerner (delete) have taught her well.  I foresee the first husband and wife presidents who have both been impeached (she will no doubt be convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors when she occupies the oval office)!


Yeah, I just got a chance to read the letter and I can just feel the smugness wafting off of it.  Have to hand it to the Hilldawg, wiping the whole server after furnishing all of your emails to the State Department is very clever, but in the right context just screams "SCUMBAG". 

As far as legal ramifications go, can they really hit her on anything?  The subpoena they issued was somewhat broad, only requesting emails from a specified time period relating to the Benghazi incident and Libya in general.  If the commission accepts the defense's argument that the emails already furnished to the State Department are enough to satisfy the subpoena, and they don't find anything within those emails, what else can they do?  I see that the commission already requested that Hillary turn the server over to a neutral third party, but it looks like they won't do that.  Do they grounds to subpoena the entire server?  That would the smart thing to do, as forensic examiners could see if the servers deletions match up with Hillary's previous statements.    But it also begs the question: When did Hillary wipe the server?  Trey Gowdy indicated that it was sometime after October of last year, but that allows for a lot of leeway.  If it turns out that she wiped the server AFTER the issuance of the subpoena, she'll go down hard.  Though I imagine that will be difficult to prove without physical access to the server, so we're back at square one.

It's times like these that I wish we had a lawyer on the board who could answer some of these broader legal questions.


----------



## Marauder06 (Mar 28, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> ...
> 
> It's times like these that I wish we had a lawyer on the board who could answer some of these broader legal questions.



I have had the same thought MANY times over the years.

Stay where you are and go to law school after you get your MA, and you can be our guy!


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 28, 2015)

Like hell I'll ever be a lawyer!


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 28, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Yeah, I just got a chance to read the letter and I can just feel the smugness wafting off of it.  Have to hand it to the Hilldawg, wiping the whole server after furnishing all of your emails to the State Department is very clever, but in the right context just screams "SCUMBAG".
> 
> As far as legal ramifications go, can they really hit her on anything?  The subpoena they issued was somewhat broad, only requesting emails from a specified time period relating to the Benghazi incident and Libya in general.  If the commission accepts the defense's argument that the emails already furnished to the State Department are enough to satisfy the subpoena, and they don't find anything within those emails, what else can they do?  I see that the commission already requested that Hillary turn the server over to a neutral third party, but it looks like they won't do that.  Do they grounds to subpoena the entire server?  That would the smart thing to do, as forensic examiners could see if the servers deletions match up with Hillary's previous statements.    But it also begs the question: When did Hillary wipe the server?  Trey Gowdy indicated that it was sometime after October of last year, but that allows for a lot of leeway.  If it turns out that she wiped the server AFTER the issuance of the subpoena, she'll go down hard.  Though I imagine that will be difficult to prove without physical access to the server, so we're back at square one.
> 
> It's times like these that I wish we had a lawyer on the board who could answer some of these broader legal questions.


Obstruction of Justice is a charge she could be hit with, but won't as long as a Dem is in charge at Justice.


----------



## 0699 (Mar 28, 2015)

Red-Dot said:


> Name your single malt....then I'll name mine.


 
I'm not a fussy drinker, but if you want to put up booze, I'll throw out a bottle of a local whiskey distilled here in Fredericksburg...

http://www.asmithbowman.com/home.aspx


----------



## policemedic (Mar 29, 2015)

Mmmm bourbon....


----------



## Brill (Mar 29, 2015)

calling @Roguish Lawyer, Esq!



Deathy McDeath said:


> As far as legal ramifications go, can they really hit her on anything?



Current Admin won't do anything and she won't prosecute herself so probably nothing from the USG however, this sure seems to lend credibility to that civil suit alleging RICO violations.

Clintons as a criminal enterprise...best description EVER!


----------



## Red-Dot (Mar 30, 2015)

0699 said:


> I'm not a fussy drinker, but if you want to put up booze, I'll throw out a bottle of a local whiskey distilled here in Fredericksburg...
> 
> A. Smith Bowman Distillery
> 
> View attachment 12891


That will work. They are right up the road from me. Tried the Bowman brothers a couple weeks ago, good stuff.

We will revisit this as time grows closer.



TLDR20 said:


> Yeah I never said she was the best in the legal way. But she will get more money for sure.
> 
> 
> Well I was serious. Infowars is a trash site with an obvious heavy drama slant on everything they put out. The article links to a WaPO article that is actually full of facts, so you could have posted that. Speaking as an admin, keep it to legit news sources. I would be bashing on move on.org or any left wing website as well.


Point taken...I should have maybe found other sources. They are plentiful however.


----------



## Scotth (Mar 31, 2015)

Nobody is getting charged with a crime.  Nobody got charged with any crimes when 88 White House staffers were using RNC email accounts and RNC provided phone and laptops for their work.  No emails were ever turned over from those accounts.

Nobody has established the government can even get their hands on the server so the chance to prove obstruction is going to be hard to say the least.  About the only way to prove obstruction is for somebody to produce an email from Hilary that she didn't release herself.  That might still happen but probably would have already happened because everyone saw this day coming for quite some time.

SNL did a bit on Hilary and the email issue and kind of hit the nail on the head.  They basically said, what do you think I did wrote an email about how I screwed up on Benghazi?

In the end, much will be made about the situation by politicians and the talking class because they need something to talk about and it will last until November of 2016.  The people that hate the Clinton's will still hate the Clinton's.  The people that love the Clinton's will still love the Clinton's and everyone else in the middle will ignore this whole issue out of disgust for how much people talk about and because they are concerned about other things.  Not many minds will be changed one way or the other.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 31, 2015)

Scotth said:


> Nobody is getting charged with a crime.  Nobody got charged with any crimes when 88 White House staffers were using RNC email accounts and RNC provided phone and laptops for their work.  No emails were ever turned over from those accounts.
> 
> Nobody has established the government can even get their hands on the server so the chance to prove obstruction is going to be hard to say the least.  About the only way to prove obstruction is for somebody to produce an email from Hilary that she didn't release herself.  That might still happen but probably would have already happened because everyone saw this day coming for quite some time.
> 
> ...


Nixon's tape recorder wasn't considered off limits.
My brother had a computer taken/replaced by the Navy when they found out he used it to computerize his shop (back in the day).
Gov't can demand access if she was using for official business.
Funny how the Lawyer convinced that Nixon needed to be punished did the same thing, and now wants to weasel out.


----------



## AWP (Mar 31, 2015)

An interesting story. I don't have a lot of faith in polls, but I have to think there are some nuggets of truth here.

http://touch.orlandosentinel.com/#section/1229/article/p2p-83184903/



> Voters in Florida and two other swing states have trust issues with Democratic presidential prospect Hillary Clinton because of her email controversy and now prefer Jeb Bush in Florida and Rand Paul in Pennsylvania.
> In Florida, in head-to-head match-ups, Bush, the former Florida governor, gets 45 percent to Clinton's 42 percent in the Qunnipiac University Swing States Poll released Tuesday morning, testing her standing as the dominant Democratic prospect. The former First Lady, U.S. senator and secretary of state still holds slight leads on the rest of the field.


----------



## RetPara (Mar 31, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Funny how the Lawyer convinced that Nixon needed to be punished did the same thing, and now wants to weasel out.


Is there any truth to the Urban Legend that she was fired from the Watergate Committee for ethics violations?


----------



## Scotth (Mar 31, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Nixon's tape recorder wasn't considered off limits.
> My brother had a computer taken/replaced by the Navy when they found out he used it to computerize his shop (back in the day).
> Gov't can demand access if she was using for official business.
> Funny how the Lawyer convinced that Nixon needed to be punished did the same thing, and now wants to weasel out.



The big difference was the tapes and laptop were government property and the server is private property.

Why I suspect they can't touch the email server is the Republican's haven't tried to subpoena it yet.  The House Oversight Committee can issue a subpoena for what ever they want and it has yet to force the issue.  Maybe the lawyers are still working on it but I suspect they would have moved on it already if they had the legal rights to do it.  I'm certainly not a lawyer but the lack of action gives me pause.


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 31, 2015)

Private server or not, if she used her personal email for official business...it's all discoverable.


----------



## AWP (Mar 31, 2015)

Scotth said:


> Why I suspect they can't touch the email server is the Republican's haven't tried to subpoena it yet.  The House Oversight Committee can issue a subpoena for what ever they want and it has yet to force the issue.  Maybe the lawyers are still working on it but I suspect they would have moved on it already if they had the legal rights to do it.  I'm certainly not a lawyer but the lack of action gives me pause.


 
At least one committee has issued a subpoena, for whatever good that will do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...cec61c-c29b-11e4-9ec2-b418f57a4a99_story.html



> “The Select Committee on Benghazi today issued subpoenas for all communications of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton related to Libya and to the State Department for other individuals who have information pertinent to the investigation,” according to a statement by committee spokesman Jamal Ware. “The Committee also has issued preservation letters to internet firms informing them of their legal obligation to protect all relevant documents.”


 
Legal rights?

http://consumer.findlaw.com/online-scams/email-privacy-concerns.html

Then there's this hypocrisy:

http://www.cnet.com/news/doj-we-dont-need-warrants-for-e-mail-facebook-chats/



> The U.S. Department of Justice and the FBI believe they don't need a search warrant to review Americans' e-mails, Facebook chats, Twitter direct messages, and other private files, internal documents reveal.
> Government documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union and provided to CNET show a split over electronic privacy rights within the Obama administration, with Justice Department prosecutors and investigators privately insisting they're not legally required to obtain search warrants for e-mail. The IRS, on the other hand, publicly said last month that it would abandon a controversial policy that claimed it could get warrantless access to e-mail correspondence


 
For an added bonus:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...0621fa-e61f-11e1-8f62-58260e3940a0_story.html



> The former head of the Obama administration’s controversial clean-energy loan program warned a staff member last year not to include personal e-mail addresses in official correspondence, to prevent the personal accounts from being subpoenaed, documents show.
> Jonathan Silver, a political appointee who oversaw the Energy Department’s $38 billion program, sent the warning days before a centerpiece of the program — solar-panel maker Solyndra — declared bankruptcy, pushing a congressional investigation into high gear.
> 
> *“Don’t ever send an email on doe email with a personal email addresses,” Silver wrote Aug. 21, 2011, from his personal account to a program official’s private Gmail account. “That makes them subpoenable.”*


So, why haven't they moved on it yet? No bloody clue.


----------



## policemedic (Mar 31, 2015)

There's  sufficient legal authority to acquire the server.  Seizing it isn't the problem.   The issue is strategic, in my opinion. 

If they seize it and HRC has managed to completely eradicate everything from the drives, they gain nothing and look a little silly.  It may even bolster her case, at least in the court of  public opinion.  On the other hand, if they leave it in place they don't risk much and may still be able to prove what they need to. 

Sometimes you have to play it where it lies.


----------



## Scotth (Mar 31, 2015)

policemedic said:


> There's  sufficient legal authority to acquire the server.  Seizing it isn't the problem.   The issue is strategic, in my opinion.
> 
> If they seize it and HRC has managed to completely eradicate everything from the drives, they gain nothing and look a little silly.  It may even bolster her case, at least in the court of  public opinion.  On the other hand, if they leave it in place they don't risk much and may still be able to prove what they need to.
> 
> Sometimes you have to play it where it lies.



I have to agree with that rationale.  You obviously have a much greater knowledge of the legal issue.


----------



## Salt USMC (Mar 31, 2015)

policemedic said:


> If they seize it and HRC has managed to completely eradicate everything from the drives, they gain nothing and look a little silly.  It may even bolster her case, at least in the court of  public opinion.  On the other hand, if they leave it in place they don't risk much and may still be able to prove what they need to.
> 
> Sometimes you have to play it where it lies.


I don't know.  It looks like her poll numbers are taking a beating already (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...s-poll-numbers-crumble/?tid=pm_opinions_pop_b) and that's just on speculation.  If they seize the server and get nothing, I feel like the damage has already been done.  Of course, if they find something then it would likely be game over.  It doesn't seem like the Gowdy committee has anything to lose on this.


----------



## 0699 (Mar 31, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It looks like her poll numbers are taking a beating already ...


 
Good, she should  get it out of the way now.  By the time the next election rolls around, this will be a dead issue (HRC and the DNC will claim "we've already covered all of this") and won't effect her election.  Anyone bringing it up will be castigated by the media for dredging up old news.  In the eyes of her handlers, better to get all the dirty laundry out in the open now, so it has time to become old news before the election ramps up.


----------



## TLDR20 (Mar 31, 2015)

0699 said:


> Good, she should  get it out of the way now.  By the time the next election rolls around, this will be a dead issue (HRC and the DNC will claim "we've already covered all of this") and won't effect her election.  Anyone bringing it up will be castigated by the media for dredging up old news.  In the eyes of her handlers, better to get all the dirty laundry out in the open now, so it has time to become old news before the election ramps up.



Yup.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 1, 2015)

0699 said:


> Good, she should  get it out of the way now.  By the time the next election rolls around, this will be a dead issue (HRC and the DNC will claim "we've already covered all of this") and won't effect her election.  Anyone bringing it up will be castigated by the media for dredging up old news.  In the eyes of her handlers, better to get all the dirty laundry out in the open now, so it has time to become old news before the election ramps up.


Her opponents can use it against her in the Primary Elections.


----------



## 0699 (Apr 1, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Her opponents can use it against her in the Primary Elections.


 
I'll be interested to see how it's handled by the democrats at large.


----------



## Dienekes (Apr 15, 2015)

Last post was terrible and I can't edit.

What kind of match-ups could you see as being very competitive? For example, I think combination (President and VP) of two of the three: Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, and Trey Gowdy.


----------



## racing_kitty (Apr 15, 2015)

The thread is starting to drift a bit.  I'm going to go ahead and start up another thread to discuss the Roman circuses... oops, I mean the 2016 presidential election season.


----------



## Brill (May 23, 2015)

Anyone read the released emails?  I saw only a few and after I saw some that were CLEARLY marked S//NF and C, I stopped reading out of disgust.

She should be punished as those to forwarded the classified material to an unsecure email account.


----------



## DA SWO (May 23, 2015)

lindy said:


> Anyone read the released emails?  I saw only a few and after I saw some that were CLEARLY marked S//NF and C, I stopped reading out of disgust.
> 
> She should be punished as those to forwarded the classified material to an unsecure email account.


Isn't that the gist of the General Petraus indictment?


----------



## Brill (May 24, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Isn't that the gist of the General Petraus indictment?



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## AWP (May 24, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> Isn't that the gist of the General Petraus indictment?



What difference does it make?


----------



## SpitfireV (May 24, 2015)

I was under the impression that the FBI retrospectively declared some of the stuff to be classified but it wasn't at the time it was sent? So they weren't marked at the time, rather after the release. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending her- I think it was very poor judgement on her part.


----------



## Brill (Jun 30, 2015)

More "stuff".


----------



## pardus (Jun 30, 2015)

She is disgusting. The fact that she is attempting to run for office as the POTUS after shit like this is an insult to all Americans.


----------



## CDG (Jul 1, 2015)

pardus said:


> She is disgusting. The fact that she is attempting to run for office as the POTUS after shit like this is an insult to all Americans.



Considering she's in the running in all the polls, we insult ourselves.  Most people believe she will be the next POTUS, something which is entirely in the hands of all Americans.  Yet we allow ourselves to swirl further down the toilet bowl.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jul 1, 2015)

pardus said:


> She is disgusting. The fact that she is attempting to run for office as the POTUS after shit like this is an insult to all Americans.



If she becomes our next POTUS, and I fear she will, it will be as a result of a "One Party" nation. After eight years of obama at the helm, with HRC being the supported  Dem front runner. No one else, in eight friggin years has been identified, and supported as a front runner. There should be at least three solid electable Republican candidates, after eight years of trying to get it together. And government continues to grow.


----------



## Brill (Jul 2, 2015)

CDG said:


> Considering she's in the running in all the polls, we insult ourselves.  Most people believe she will be the next POTUS, something which is entirely in the hands of all Americans.  Yet we allow ourselves to swirl further down the toilet bowl.



They're already working on her oil portrait and setting up her Presidential library. I wonder what kind of china Bill will pick out?


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 7, 2015)

The FBI has opened a criminal probe into Hillary Clinton's email shenanigans

FBI investigation of Hillary's emails is 'criminal probe'


> *FBI investigation of Hillary’s emails is ‘criminal probe’*
> The FBI investigation into former Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton’s unsecured email account is not just a fact-finding venture — it’s a criminal probe, sources told The Post on Wednesday.
> 
> The feds are investigating to what extent Clinton relied on her home server and other private devices to send and store classified documents, according to a federal source with knowledge of the inquiry.
> ...




Shit's getting real, folks.  If this probe digs up something and the AG files charges, she's pretty much toast.  

Personally speaking, I know a lot of (former) Hillary supporters who do not plan on voting for her because of this scandal.  Even if no charges are filed, this will give her future opponents tons of campaign ammunition.  She's pretty much toast either way.


----------



## pardus (Aug 7, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The FBI has opened a criminal probe into Hillary Clinton's email shenanigans
> 
> 
> Shit's getting real, folks.  If this probe digs up something and the AG files charges, she's pretty much toast.
> ...




I'd like to think so but I'm not confident of that at all.


----------



## Brill (Aug 7, 2015)

pardus said:


> I'd like to think so but I'm not confident of that at all.



Agree, prosecutorial discretion will come into play. For an Admin that disregards the Constitution, they won't let a USC get in the way.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 7, 2015)

pardus said:


> I'd like to think so but I'm not confident of that at all.


Don't know.

RumInt says neither camp likes each other, so a criminal probe or charge could be Obama's walking out the door fuck you to the Clinton camp.  

Problem is who gets the Dem nod?

I want to see if Biden runs, Hillary getting charged would put our Crazy Uncle Joe on the fast track to a nomination.


----------



## AWP (Aug 7, 2015)

Even if Obama wanted her charged, would the DNC allow that to happen?

I doubt they would break ranks in an election year. They may gnash their teeth behind closed doors, but sink their ship and help the Republicans? Nope. Two years ago, maybe, but not an election year.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 7, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Even if Obama wanted her charged, would the DNC allow that to happen?
> 
> I doubt they would break ranks in an election year. They may gnash their teeth behind closed doors, but sink their ship and help the Republicans? Nope. Two years ago, maybe, but not an election year.



Hillary is divisive enough that she could lose, so sink her now and let someone else get elected.  I have to assume her e-mails are sitting in a classified vault waiting to be leaked.
Republicans can't win against most of the Dem field (Hildabeast being an exception).
Demographics are not in their favor, and they are too fractured and haven't carried out a single campaign promise.  
They lose the Presidential Race, and keep a razor slim majority in the Senate.


----------



## Brill (Aug 11, 2015)

News is reporting that at least two (the IG only looked at 40) had TS (edit: not just TS, but SCI!!!) info in her emails.  Someone deliberately removed TS data from a very secure network, removed the control markings, then put it out in an unclass realm.

W
T
F
?

How in hell could the DNC seriously put her name forward to become POTUS?


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 11, 2015)

lindy said:


> News is reporting that at least two (the IG only looked at 40) had TS info in her emails.  Someone deliberately removed TS data from a very secure network, removed the control markings, then put it out in an unclass realm.
> 
> W
> T
> ...



I would have lost my clearance if I did that and maybe more


----------



## Brill (Aug 11, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> I would have lost my clearance if I did that and maybe more



And due to the certain felony conviction, you would lose your ability to vote!


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 11, 2015)

lindy said:


> And due to the certain felony conviction, you would lose your ability to vote!



I guess the question is.. Do I lose my ability to be voted for?


----------



## policemedic (Aug 11, 2015)

lindy said:


> News is reporting that at least two (the IG only looked at 40) had TS (edit: not just TS, but SCI!!!) info in her emails.  Someone deliberately removed TS data from a very secure network, removed the control markings, then put it out in an unclass realm.
> 
> W
> T
> ...


 

 So, 5% of a very small sample even using Common Core math.  Bet the number increases with a larger review.


----------



## AWP (Aug 11, 2015)

What difference does it make?


----------



## policemedic (Aug 11, 2015)

None.  I just find the numbers interesting.


----------



## AWP (Aug 11, 2015)

policemedic said:


> None.  I just find the numbers interesting.



Um...

Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Testimony: What Difference Will it Make? - The New Yorker



> The _Times_’ Lede blog points out that #WhatDifferenceDoesItMake is now a hashtag, and not one used by Hillary fans. Her unfortunate defense might be that the reading of the line depends on what the meaning of “it” is.


----------



## policemedic (Aug 12, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Um...
> 
> Hillary Clinton’s Benghazi Testimony: What Difference Will it Make? - The New Yorker


 
:wall::wall::wall:

Shoulda caught that one......


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 12, 2015)

Shamelessly stolen off facebook.


----------



## CQB (Aug 12, 2015)

Computer security, always compromised. I buried my old server in concrete, but I still don't feel safe.


----------



## Brill (Aug 12, 2015)

CQB said:


> Computer security, always compromised. I buried my old server in concrete, but I still don't feel safe.



I think that's what the EPA was doing in that abandoned mine in CO: dumping her server but accidentally release that toxic sludge.



Freefalling said:


> What difference does it make?



#classified servers matter


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 12, 2015)

lindy said:


> News is reporting that at least two (the IG only looked at 40) had TS (edit: not just TS, but SCI!!!) info in her emails.  Someone deliberately removed TS data from a very secure network, removed the control markings, then put it out in an unclass realm.


The State Department gave a rather weak explanation for this spillage:



> Those two emails were among four that had previously been determined by the inspector general of the intelligence community to have been classified at the time they were sent. The State Department disputes that the emails were classified at that time.
> 
> "Department employees circulated these emails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011 and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton," said State Department spokesman John Kirby. "They were not marked as classified."



Just for fun, let's assume that things happened the way that State explained it.  Something was mentioned in an unclass email, perhaps a program name or some operational detail, and someone notices the goof later on.  Are there procedures in place for retroactive classification and spillage cleanup?  Would they have to prove that Clinton was not only cognizant of the spillage, but didn't take actions to contain or report it?

Not trying to give Clinton an out here - I really don't like her, but this might not be the slam-dunk evidence that some are portraying.  Gonna go ahead and quote myself from back in March:



Deathy McDeath said:


> *However*, if the allegations in the article above are true and she stored classified or otherwise sensitive material on her home server, she absolutely ought to be burned to the ground.  I would hope that then-Secretary Clinton would be smart enough to use classified networks for the appropriate level of correspondence, but seeing how other government officials have been burned for doing the exact same thing, I wouldn't put it past her.


----------



## Blizzard (Aug 12, 2015)

Does anyone truly believe at this point there will be any consequences/repercussions?

To dovetail on Freefalling's comment earlier:  #whatdifferencedoesitmake

It's not going to change the view of her base of followers and no one is going to throw her in jail.


----------



## Brill (Aug 12, 2015)

It's sad that the Chinese and Russian security services know more about the Clintons (via her emails) than the American people.


----------



## AWP (Aug 12, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Just for fun, let's assume that things happened the way that State explained it.  Something was mentioned in an unclass email, perhaps a program name or some operational detail, and someone notices the goof later on.  Are there procedures in place for retroactive classification and spillage cleanup?  Would they have to prove that Clinton was not only cognizant of the spillage, but didn't take actions to contain or report it?



Let's say an email hit my desk with something operationally related or whatever, something outside of my area of expertise, it would have to be kind of blatant for me to think it was classified.

I know the in's an out's of what is classified and what isn't where my job is concerned. A one- or two-off event that made it to her desk? I can maybe buy that she was ignorant, but repeated violations and she didn't have her suspicions? She kept using those emails on her unofficial server? With that argument her credibility starts to tank. The next problem is "who spilled the email." HRC either said "Bring me everything on...." or she had a staffer or two who pulled that data and cross-domained it; they should go to jail.

I have an exceptionally hard time believing she didn't know what was going on.

In the end I doubt it will matter and THAT is the real tragedy. Nothing will change, she and her ilk will profit.

'Merica.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 12, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Let's say an email hit my desk with something operationally related or whatever, something outside of my area of expertise, it would have to be kind of blatant for me to think it was classified.
> 
> I know the in's an out's of what is classified and what isn't where my job is concerned. A one- or two-off event that made it to her desk? I can maybe buy that she was ignorant, but repeated violations and she didn't have her suspicions? She kept using those emails on her unofficial server? With that argument her credibility starts to tank. The next problem is "who spilled the email." HRC either said "Bring me everything on...." or she had a staffer or two who pulled that data and cross-domained it; they should go to jail.
> 
> ...




Rules are things for those other people to follow


----------



## Brill (Aug 12, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I have an exceptionally hard time believing she didn't know what was going on.
> 
> In the end I doubt it will matter and THAT is the real tragedy. Nothing will change, she and her ilk will profit.
> 
> 'Merica.



You're missing the point:

Clinton planned, coordinated, and instructed others to exclusively email her on the private domain with the express purpose of isolating the binary trail away from USG servers.  There is definitely conspiracy and subterfuge afoot here.  The cover-up is worse than the crime...so Clintonian.

America needs a deep throat now more than ever.


----------



## AWP (Aug 12, 2015)

lindy said:


> You're missing the point:
> 
> Clinton planned, coordinated, and instructed others to exclusively email her on the private domain with the express purpose of isolating the binary trail away from USG servers.  There is definitely conspiracy and subterfuge afoot here.  The cover-up is worse than the crime...so Clintonian.
> 
> America needs a deep throat now more than ever.



I'm not missing anything. I'm playing Devil's Advocate, but showing how even the benefit of the doubt doesn't work in this scenario. Even when someone tries to give her an "out" the logic falls short.

Like this:


----------



## compforce (Aug 12, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Just for fun, let's assume that things happened the way that State explained it.  Something was mentioned in an unclass email, perhaps a program name or some operational detail, and someone notices the goof later on.  Are there procedures in place for retroactive classification and spillage cleanup?


Yes...



> b. Any transfer to and/or processing or storage of SCI on SIPRNET or an unclassified system constitutes an unauthorized disclosure and must be reported in accordance with those procedures. The SSO shall contact and work with the information assurance staff to ensure appropriate and timely resolution of the incident.


http://dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/510521m_vol1.pdf
_
DoDM 5105.21-V1, October 19, 2012 _
Enclosure 5, 1-b.

It's worth noting that DoD Manuals are all restating of parts of USC.  Although I am posting the DOD reg, the same information applies to all agencies and is in their manuals almost word for word.  I just failed to find the source reg in all the garbage google throws out.



> Would they have to prove that Clinton was not only cognizant of the spillage, but didn't take actions to contain or report it?



Yes,  but they won't be able to because SoS has the ability to declassify anything unilaterally, just as the Joint Chiefs can declassify any mil documents.  All she has to do is make a memo declassifying that material "appear" with a date prior to the emails.  There's not even a form, it's just a memo at that level.  I'm pretty sure that she took an electronic copy of her letterhead home with her and has a friendly person in the administration to "find" it...

For us Joes, if we notice it, we report it to the SSO and the command makes a determination on whether the leaker keeps his clearance.  Either way a 15-6 happens and the IASO is charged with trying to contain the damage and assess the risk of spread of the leak.  Been there done that, someone went cross-domain while I was IASO in a contingency area.  I had to provide the audit trail for the investigation showing the access and the media used to go cross domain after cleaning up the mess.  There was more, but not for a forum.  Let's just say it was a giant PITA.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 12, 2015)

compforce said:


> Yes...
> 
> 
> http://dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/510521m_vol1.pdf
> ...


I thought she could only declassify State Dept stuff, wouldn't a SCI document originating from DoD require a DoD downgrade?


----------



## compforce (Aug 12, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> I thought she could only declassify State Dept stuff, wouldn't a SCI document originating from DoD require a DoD downgrade?



Not necessarily.  DoD controls classification within DoD networks.  When you talk about documents that are passed from one agency to another, it falls under a program called OCA (Original Classification Authorities).  These are the top level folks that can decide to classify, at what level to classify and to declassify.  All others that classify documents all the way down to the intel specialist working in a SCIF have that ability delegated from the OCA's.  Declassification can only be delegated as far as the SSO additional duty, which cannot be delegated to NCOs unless an appropriate Officer is not available.  All members of the cabinet, including SoS have that ability either innately by position or delegated from the President under his OCA authority (Executive Order 13526).  Since DoD information passed outside of DoD departmental control, it would fall under the broader OCA that derives from the President.

Here's some light reading on OCAs 

http://www.cdse.edu/documents/cdse/oca-desktop-reference.pdf

Here's the Executive Order that gives Secret/TS OCA authority to the SoS. 

Executive Order 13526- Original Classification Authority


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 12, 2015)

I don't think anyone is going to give a shit. To be honest, I don't really give a shit. Why would I? No one has ever said why I should give a fuck.

She broke the rules? Okay, which candidate for president hasn't done something stupid? She was a high level employee who prob ably has very little to do with her own low level shit. What do I mean? She probably doesn't handle her own email stuff, some GS4-5 does that stuff for her.

Why else do I as a potential voter care about this?

Donald Trump is calling women pigs, Ted Cruz is.....well Ted Cruz. The entire GOP is a shitshow, and the only hope they have is this email "scandal"? Goddamn they are out of touch.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 12, 2015)

Telling, considering your position regarding burning servicemembers who attended to their own defense when the goddamn military and government tossed them out sans T10 or reserve, effectively.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 13, 2015)

compforce said:


> Since DoD information passed outside of DoD departmental control, it would fall under the broader OCA that derives from the President.


I'd say unless the information was ORCON right?


----------



## compforce (Aug 13, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> I'd say unless the information was ORCON right?



yes.  The media is reporting that the emails were not annotated so I left that out.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 13, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> Telling, considering your position regarding burning servicemembers who attended to their own defense when the goddamn military and government tossed them out sans T10 or reserve, effectively.



What position is that?

I said I as a voter don't really care... As a person who was entrusted with information I care a great deal. Maybe I am jaded but I also understand how shit happens at that level. Everyone is looking at it from the perspective of her being the person that is handling her own shit. People like her exist in bubbles, with assistants and convoys and 757's to fly them around. 

Then We all pretend she has time to look at email classifications?

I think that someone fucked up. Yes some private would have been burned probably, and I bet some other low level employees have been burned by this. But that is the way things go unfortunately.


----------



## compforce (Aug 13, 2015)

A new report just came out that invalidates the "self declassification" I described above.  It was NSA information that should have been marked TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN 



> Most seriously, the Inspector General assessed that Clinton’s emails included information that was highly classified—yet mislabeled as unclassified. Worse, the information in question should have been classified up to the level of “TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN,” according to the Inspector General’s report.


The Spy Satellite Secrets in Hillary’s Emails

SI/TK changes the rules.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 13, 2015)

Here's the memo from the IG:


----------



## Brill (Aug 13, 2015)

compforce said:


> A new report just came out that invalidates the "self declassification" I described above.  It was NSA information that should have been marked TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN
> 
> 
> The Spy Satellite Secrets in Hillary’s Emails
> ...



They're missing the caveat REL CHINA.

"News outlets" seem to be carrying the story but where is it on CNN?

Very telling.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 13, 2015)

lindy said:


> "News outlets" seem to be carrying the story but where is it on CNN?
> 
> Very telling.



Hillary Clinton to turn over private email server to Justice - CNNPolitics.com



> Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton agreed to turn over her private email server to authorities on Tuesday, the same day an intelligence community inspector general told congressional committees that at least five emails from the server did contain classified information.


----------



## AWP (Aug 13, 2015)

Deathy McDeath said:


>



I can't speak for Lindy's intent, but looking at the "Front pages" for CNN, Fox, CBS News, and ABC News, only CNN doesn't show the story. I tried both CNN's main site and the US regional version....nada.

CNN may carry it on their site, but they've buried the story. Maybe it will appear later today, but as I type this it isn't on the main page.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 13, 2015)

compforce said:


> A new report just came out that invalidates the "self declassification" I described above.  It was NSA information that should have been marked TOP SECRET//SI//TK//NOFORN
> 
> 
> The Spy Satellite Secrets in Hillary’s Emails
> ...


 
Seems like it could have been FINTEL then.. You don't find much SI/TK together in single source information except in over-classifications.  Now we just have to wait for them to find some Gamma and HCS.



Freefalling said:


> I can't speak for Lindy's intent, but looking at the "Front pages" for CNN, Fox, CBS News, and ABC News, only CNN doesn't show the story. I tried both CNN's main site and the US regional version....nada.
> 
> CNN may carry it on their site, but they've buried the story. Maybe it will appear later today, but as I type this it isn't on the main page.


 
LOL.. The Clinton News Network is coming back!

I see this as destroying her and making way for Biden/Castro or Biden/Warren. Depending on if they are going for the Latino or women vote.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 13, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I can't speak for Lindy's intent, but looking at the "Front pages" for CNN, Fox, CBS News, and ABC News, only CNN doesn't show the story. I tried both CNN's main site and the US regional version....nada.


Gotcha.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 13, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> What position is that?
> 
> I said I as a voter don't really care... As a person who was entrusted with information I care a great deal. Maybe I am jaded but I also understand how shit happens at that level. Everyone is looking at it from the perspective of her being the person that is handling her own shit. People like her exist in bubbles, with assistants and convoys and 757's to fly them around.
> 
> ...



_I think these are the quotes being remembered.
_


TLDR20 said:


> So disobeying a lawful order is breaking policy? Sweet. I guess we can all do whatever the fuck we want.





TLDR20 said:


> After the Fort Hood shooting MP's set out checkpoints and caught a ton of guys bringing concealed weapons onto Bragg. Those guys that had weapons caught the Green weenie the same as this guys should.



She did the same thing Petraeus (and Broadwell) did, they were punished for it, but it's ok with you (for Hillary to do this), as a voter?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 13, 2015)

It's President George W. Bush's fault, I'm sure of it; they just haven't thought of it yet:wall:.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 13, 2015)

I may be speaking poorly. If she knowingly broke the law she should obviously be punished. I just think she is less in control of her email and such as everyone is portraying. My "as a voter who cares" argument is because honestly most people(read people not religiously watching Fox) don't know or care about this scandal.


----------



## Ranger Psych (Aug 13, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> *What position is that?*
> 
> I said I as a voter don't really care... As a person who was entrusted with information I care a great deal. Maybe I am jaded but I also understand how shit happens at that level. Everyone is looking at it from the perspective of her being the person that is handling her own shit. People like her exist in bubbles, with assistants and convoys and 757's to fly them around.
> 
> ...






TLDR20 said:


> *So disobeying a lawful order is breaking policy? Sweet. I guess we can all do whatever the fuck we want*.





TLDR20 said:


> *He broke the law! He should be punished. The fact that there was a shooting doesn't absolve him of being guilty of flat out ignoring regulations. You don't get to be on your OFP.*





TLDR20 said:


> I don't think anyone is going to give a shit. To be honest, I don't really give a shit. Why would I? No one has ever said why I should give a fuck.
> 
> She broke the rules? Okay, which candidate for president hasn't done something stupid? She was a high level employee who prob ably has very little to do with her own low level shit. What do I mean? She probably doesn't handle her own email stuff, some GS4-5 does that stuff for her.
> 
> ...



You're honestly part of the problem at this point.

*What difference does it make*, though?

And as to being in control of her email: SHE PURPOSELY MADE A FUCKING OFF-NETWORK SERVER. That's the MOST control for email you can have, other than actually flat out being the admin for that server.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 13, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> I may be speaking poorly. If she knowingly broke the law she should obviously be punished. I just think she is less in control of her email and such as everyone is portraying. My "as a voter who cares" argument is because honestly most people(read people not religiously watching Fox) don't know or care about this scandal.



Concur^^^^and that is the national disaster we are facing, apathy, lack of responsibility for one's own actions. The mainstream media has control of so much right now, there is so little news, and way too much political posturing. An awful lot is riding on the upcoming election, and people who don't care, are uninfromed, and mis-infromed are going to the poles. The Nation that went to war in WW II, to free Europe, no longer exists. We are so far from that sense of global, national, and personal responsibility is so far away, I doubt if we will ever see that sense of national pride again. It was there for a brief period right after 9/11. American Flags on vehicles were so good to see, do we have any chance of seeing that again?


----------



## Grunt (Aug 13, 2015)

Unfortunately, I know of many who have no concept of the subject in which we are talking about in this thread. Not only do they not know about it -- or seriously care about it if they are aware -- it doesn't play any part in their decision making as to their choice with regards to the presidential election.

Uninformed, apathetic electorate...one of the banes of our elections.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 13, 2015)

Ranger Psych said:


> You're honestly part of the problem at this point.
> 
> *What difference does it make*, though?
> 
> And as to being in control of her email: SHE PURPOSELY MADE A FUCKING OFF-NETWORK SERVER. That's the MOST control for email you can have, other than actually flat out being the admin for that server.



Yeah you are right, and when she is shown to have been personally in charge she should go down. Comparing this to a sailor knowingly carrying a firearm on government property is apples and oranges to the highest degree.


----------



## Centermass (Aug 13, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> I may be speaking poorly. If she knowingly broke the law she should obviously be punished.* I just think she is less in control of her email and such as everyone is portraying. *My "as a voter who cares" argument is because honestly most people(read people not religiously watching Fox) don't know or care about this scandal.



Well,

There you go. If she can't manage her e-mail, what happens when it comes to managing our country? 

And as far as managing her e-mail, seems she's done a pretty damn good job since being asked to produce all things connected with it.  

All I know is I hate LIARS - to the ENTH degree.


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 13, 2015)

Centermass said:


> Well,
> 
> There you go. If she can't manage her e-mail, what happens when it comes to managing our country?
> 
> ...



Do you honestly believe that our president, And cabinet level employees are the only ones who look at their emails, have access to them, and respond or mark them in any way? Further do you really believe honestly that Those same cabinet employees are up to date on the latest document marking procedures, and safeguarding procedures? 

I'll fill you in, they are not. They have people that do that shit for them. These are people that fly on 757's wherever they say to fly, have their day palanned out to the second, who take a shit at a designated time. These people don't have time for minutiae. 

I understand the outrage at some of the things Hillary has done here, the private server is bullshit, the usage of a private email at all is BS, but getting after the marking of docs, and the classification stuff is going to into the minutiae for me.


----------



## Brill (Aug 13, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I can't speak for Lindy's intent, but looking at the "Front pages" for CNN, Fox, CBS News, and ABC News, only CNN doesn't show the story. I tried both CNN's main site and the US regional version....nada.
> 
> CNN may carry it on their site, but they've buried the story. Maybe it will appear later today, but as I type this it isn't on the main page.


Spot on!



Freefalling said:


> I can't speak for Lindy's intent, but looking at the "Front pages" for CNN, Fox, CBS News, and ABC News, only CNN doesn't show the story. I tried both CNN's main site and the US regional version....nada.
> 
> CNN may carry it on their site, but they've buried the story. Maybe it will appear later today, but as I type this it isn't on the main page.



Correction...they're all over it (at the bottom).

Emoji OMG: Clinton's student debt Twitter push backfires

I don't normally "acquire" from other websites, but when I do, it's a doosey.

The Countless Crimes of Hillary Clinton: Special Prosecutor Needed Now

After years of holding herself above the law, telling lie after lie, and months of flat-out obstruction, HIllary Clinton has finally produced to the FBI her server and three thumb drives. Apparently, the server has been professionally wiped clean of any useable information, and the thumb drives contain only what she selectively culled. *Myriad criminal offenses apply to this conduct.* Anyone with knowledge of government workings has known from inception that Hillary’s communications necessarily would contain classified and national security related information. Thanks to the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community, it is now beyond dispute that she had ultra-Top Secret information and more that should never have left the State Department. Equal to Ms. Clinton’s outrageous misconduct is that of the entire federal law enforcement community. It has long chosen to be deliberately blind to these flagrant infractions of laws designed to protect national security—laws for which other people, even reporters, have endured atrocious investigations, prosecutions, and some served years in prison for comparatively minor infractions.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 14, 2015)

How can this woman not be behind bars yet?


----------



## Brill (Aug 17, 2015)

I am without speech.

Hillary Clinton emails: Safe provided to lawyer among irregularities seen in review


----------



## Centermass (Aug 17, 2015)

lindy said:


> I am without speech.



If any of us acted in the same manner, with regards to handling, safekeeping and storage of ANY classified material, we'd be strung up by the balls, facing a GCM. 

More Revelations

A year ago, Catherine Duval was embroiled in the scandal over former IRS official Lois Lerner’s lost emails.

Now the top government attorney is heading up another document project in the cross hairs of Congress: the State Department’s release of Hillary Clinton’s emails and Libya documents to the House Select Committee on Benghazi.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 17, 2015)

Centermass said:


> If any of us acted in the same manner, with regards to handling, safekeeping and storage of ANY classified material, we'd be strung up by the balls, facing a GCM.
> 
> More Revelations
> 
> ...



And still the anointed one for the party. It matters not who they really are, what they have, or have not done. Liars and those blatently distorting facts are a plus, and frankly seems to be a requirement. Emails are good, because you can do anything with and to them. For some reason, the POTUS after President Bush has had little to say on this; wonder what his email system/content is like?

Here's a thought, Why don't we have a requirement, or checklist item for POTUS candidates, that are honest, have a documented history of doing what they say they will do? Lastly, consider only those who take responsibility for what is said and/or does?


----------



## CDG (Aug 17, 2015)

TLDR20 said:


> Do you honestly believe that our president, And cabinet level employees are the only ones who look at their emails, have access to them, and respond or mark them in any way? Further do you really believe honestly that Those same cabinet employees are up to date on the latest document marking procedures, and safeguarding procedures?
> 
> I'll fill you in, they are not. They have people that do that shit for them. These are people that fly on 757's wherever they say to fly, have their day palanned out to the second, who take a shit at a designated time. These people don't have time for minutiae.
> 
> I understand the outrage at some of the things Hillary has done here, the private server is bullshit, the usage of a private email at all is BS, but getting after the marking of docs, and the classification stuff is going to into the minutiae for me.



I am sure you are right.  However, that's no excuse.  Who does the responsibility ultimately rest with?  Her!!  A Battalion commander doesn't get to say, "Ah, fuck. Yeah, my junior enlisted guys were the ones really running that op.  I didn't have direct knowledge, so it ain't my fault.  I'm too busy running a battalion to worry about the minutiae of platoon ops."  Heavy is the head that wears the crown and all that.  It's her responsibility to know what her people are doing and to periodically make sure everything is kosher.  That being said, I don't believe for one second she didn't know what her minions were doing.  She insulated herself, played the CYA game, and is trying to weasel out of any responsibility.  She is absolutely unfit to run a country.  She epitomizes everything that is wrong with the political elite and the political status quo in this country.  That is why you as a voter should care.


----------



## Brill (Aug 18, 2015)

Is the Hillary email scandal Watergate all over again? | Fox News

Will the investigations find any evidence of wrongdoing? *Once special prosecutors are appointed, or congressional investigations begun, they always find something.* Watergate, Iran-Contra, Whitewater.

Secretary Clinton has gone from saying she never received classified emails on her personal email account, to saying she never received emails that were marked classified. That’s a big leap. If they were classified, and someone deleted the classification, that’s an offense.

*We are not at the end of investigations into Hillary Clinton. They are likely just beginning.* Once the emails are recreated, which they will be with time, where will the trail lead?


----------



## Dame (Aug 18, 2015)

Aaaaand...
Here's the best story of the day. Suck it, Biatch.


> *IT firm hired by Hillary Clinton: It's 'highly likely' there's a backup of emails she deleted*
> The IT firm hired by Hillary Clinton to oversee her private server has told ABC it is "highly likely" a backup copy of the server was made, meaning any emails Clinton deleted before she handed the server over to investigators may still be accessible.
> 
> Being able to access the deleted emails via a backup server would most likely make investigators' job much easier, cybersecurity expert Alex McGeorge of Immunity Inc. told Business Insider on Friday.
> ...


IT firm hired by Hillary Clinton: It's 'highly likely' there's a backup of emails she deleted


----------



## Brill (Aug 18, 2015)

Dame said:


> Aaaaand...
> Here's the best story of the day. Suck it, Biatch.
> 
> IT firm hired by Hillary Clinton: It's 'highly likely' there's a backup of emails she deleted



I think The Doors wrote a song about this.


----------



## Dame (Aug 18, 2015)

lindy said:


> I think The Doors wrote a song about this.


Er, "_Has It Definitely Been Decided That You're Going to Jail?" _


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 19, 2015)

The irony of her doing everything in her power to fry Nixon, and then getting caught doing the 21st century version of an erased tape.

I'll vote Bidon.


----------



## Centermass (Aug 19, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> I'll vote Bidon.



I'm confused. 

You gonna vote or bid on something??


----------



## poison (Aug 19, 2015)

Reporter: did you wipe the server? 

Hillary: er uh huh wha you mean like with a cloth or something? Pshaw.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 19, 2015)

poison said:


> Reporter: did you wipe the server?
> 
> Hillary: er uh huh wha you mean like with a cloth or something? Pshaw.


The smartest woman in the world is suddenly not.
Can't have it both ways.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 19, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> The irony of her doing everything in her power to fry Nixon, and then getting caught doing the 21st century version of an erased tape.
> 
> I'll vote Bidon.



One word describes the difference: Media.


----------



## Brill (Aug 24, 2015)

Hope and Change!  Hope and Change!  An opinion piece that probably echoes many sentiments of the "silent majority".

The inspector general blasted Deutch for his failure to follow an “elementary practice . . . to separately process classified and unclassified information,” adding that “*ecause Deutch’s computers configured for unclassified use had connections to the Internet, all classified information on those computers was at risk of compromise.”

The same could be said of Clinton. Indeed, we know that Chinese hackers successfully penetrated the private e-mail accounts of “many” senior Obama White House officials. If investigators find that Clinton’s private server containing top-secret intelligence was penetrated by foreign intelligence service, she is going to be in serious trouble.

But here is one important difference: While Deutch expressed regret for putting classified information at risk, Clinton is making public jokes about it — joking about wiping her server “with a cloth” and signing up for a Snapchat account because “those messages disappear all by themselves.”

I’m sure the folks at the FBI investigating her e-mail setup found that funny.

An ominous precedent for Hillary Clinton*


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 26, 2015)

Well.. there's a start...


> *Hillary Clinton Takes ‘Responsibility’ for Email Use, Saying It ‘Wasn’t the Best Choice’*


http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 26, 2015)

Guess we'll see how long the left can support ole Hillary. There's lots-a-love for "Hil" out still there, and November is still two political conventions away.


----------



## Brill (Aug 26, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> Well.. there's a start...
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...n-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0



At this point, what is the difference between "I never sent or received any emails that were marked classified." and "I never had sexual intercourse with that woman."?
:-/

Hillary for Prison 2016!!!

This is incredible.  Our "democracy" is a total sham.

The public MUST demand the assignment of a special prosecutor immediately!

*EXCLUSIVE: At least four classified Hillary Clinton emails had their markings changed to a category that shields the content from Congress and the public, Fox News has learned, in what State Department whistleblowers said may be an effort to hide the true extent of classified information on the former secretary of state’s server.*

The changes, which came to light after the first tranche of 296 Benghazi emails was released in May, was confirmed by two sources -- one congressional, the other intelligence. The four emails originally were marked classified after a review by career officials at the State Department. But after a second review by the department's legal office, *the designation was switched* to "B5" -- also known as "deliberative process," which refers to internal deliberations by the Executive Branch. Such discussions are exempt from public release.  

The B5 coding has the effect, according to a congressional source, of dropping the email content "down a deep black hole."

-
The whistleblowers told intelligence community officials that they did not agree with the B5 changes, and *the changes had the effect of shielding the full extent of classified content on the server.* The incident was referenced in a Washington Times report mid-August, but this is the first time fuller details have been available. Because the emails are now marked B5, or deliberative, it is impossible to know the content and relevance to the congressional and FBI investigations.

Sources: Clinton email markings changed to hide classified info


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 1, 2015)

Thank our lucky stars that we have an administration with such transparency. God I hate all this crap. The assumption must be, that we are a nation of mindless idiots.


----------



## AWP (Sep 1, 2015)

Wait...in an effort to hide the classified nature of the email and thus implicate herself, they went and upgraded the classification so no one could conclude she hid classified info on her server?

What the hell?


----------



## Dame (Sep 1, 2015)

Pay no attention to the Manchurian behind the curtain.


----------



## Brill (Sep 3, 2015)

Is CNN covering the same story?

Clinton's email controversy, explained
Hillary Clinton's email controversy, explained - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 3, 2015)

lindy said:


> Is CNN covering the same story?
> 
> Clinton's email controversy, explained
> Hillary Clinton's email controversy, explained - CNNPolitics.com



It's the Clinton News Network, baybeeee!  What else would you expect?  Someone could roll out a video tomorrow morning showing Bill receiving fellatio from a 12 year old paraplegic after he's just knocked out half of her teeth, Hillary running the camera, and Chelsea acting as producer, and CNN would run with the headline that they were promoting dental health for the underprivileged by sizing said 12yo for dentures.

Something I'm still pondering over, that I read earlier on a blog, referencing the Model Penal Code and the definition of "knowingly" (link leads to University of Dayton, not the blog) when it comes to bringing up charges (emphasis mine):



> (2) Kinds of Culpability Defined
> 
> (a) Purposely.
> 
> ...



I'm not sure that CNN's use of the word is in line with the legal context of what the Hildebeast's accused of.  We'll see soon enough, since the FBI's looking around.  

Maybe.  

Some day.


----------



## Florida173 (Sep 3, 2015)

> Tomkins wrote this week in USA Today that Clinton committed no crime because she didn't "knowingly" share classified materials.



Interesting that she knows what Clinton "knowingly" did or not. With such insight this shouldn't even be an issue apparently.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 3, 2015)

racing_kitty said:


> It's the Clinton News Network, baybeeee!  What else would you expect?  Someone could roll out a video tomorrow morning showing Bill receiving fellatio from a 12 year old paraplegic after he's just knocked out half of her teeth, Hillary running the camera, and Chelsea acting as producer, and CNN would run with the headline that they were promoting dental health for the underprivileged by sizing said 12yo for dentures.
> 
> Something I'm still pondering over, that I read earlier on a blog, referencing the Model Penal Code and the definition of "knowingly" (link leads to University of Dayton, not the blog) when it comes to bringing up charges (emphasis mine):
> 
> ...



For the last 8-9years, CNN, and the MSM, has had the same profile of reporting on the present administration, as Pravda has with it's leaders. We may be looking at the end of a two party system of govenment for the USA. Not so much because of the greatness of the Democtatic Party, as much as the absolute failure of the GOP to get it's shit together to find and support a sucessful candidate.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 3, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> For the last 8-9years, CNN, and the MSM, has had the same profile of reporting on the present administration, as Pravda has with it's leaders. We may be looking at the end of a two party system of govenment for the USA. Not so much because of the greatness of the Democtatic Party, as much as the absolute failure of the GOP to get it's shit together to find and support a sucessful candidate.


GOP also fails to follow through on campaign promises which is why the dems win the White House and two years later we vote a bunch of Republicans in.
GOP needs to split in two with RINOs becoming "Moderate Democrats" and the Conservative Wing becoming a new party.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 3, 2015)

DA SWO said:


> GOP also fails to follow through on campaign promises which is why the dems win the White House and two years later we vote a bunch of Republicans in.
> GOP needs to split in two with RINOs becoming "Moderate Democrats" and the Conservative Wing becoming a new party.



With no follow through after the midterm gains, GOP is a huge fail. GOP has had eight years to find, groom and prep at least one candidate for a supported run for POTUS. HRC has been in the wings for the DIMS for years, and with all the dirt, and slime sticking to her, she still has support; the GOP has NADA. Both parties are in the business of finding and supporting a CEO to run the nation, how many really think the GOP can do the job? The track record is a fail.


----------



## Florida173 (Sep 10, 2015)

I don't know how this is damning on its own merit...


> Former Clinton IT staffer to lawmakers: No testimony without immunity
> 
> Hillary Clinton’s former IT staffer who is asserting his Fifth Amendment right not to answer self-incriminating questions rejected two Senate chairmen’s request for sneak peek at what he’d say if given immunity.
> 
> Former Clinton IT staffer to lawmakers: No testimony without immunity - POLITICO


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 10, 2015)

Florida173 said:


> I don't know how this is damning on its own merit...


He won't get immunity without a sneak peek.
Give him immunity and he can perjure himself without fear of prosecution.
Slap charges on his ass and see how loyal he stays.


----------



## Brill (Sep 28, 2015)

I don't understand how an attorney's office could even be certified to store TS info, which is NEVER private property but can ONLY be USG property.  The SCI caveat is a whores of a different color.

State Dept: Clinton email storage safe not secure for some messages

Well, well, well.

That Private Email Server ....

What If Russia's Foreign Minister Conducted Official Business on an Unsecured Private Server?

COTTON:

Are the communications of the senior-most advisers to the president of the United States, even those that may be unclassified, a top priority for foreign intelligence services, in your opinion?

ROGERS:

Yes.

COTTON:

If an NSA employee came to you and said, "Hey, boss, we have reason to believe that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov or Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif is conducting official business on a private server." How would you respond?

ROGERS:

*From a foreign intelligence perspective, that represents opportunity.*

Oh, if only this would turn out to be true!

Hillary Clinton's lawbreaking and lying have caught up with her | Fox News


----------



## AWP (Oct 15, 2015)

She's had so many scandals she's scandal-proof. If she isn't charged with a crime this will all blow over.


----------



## Brill (Oct 15, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> If she isn't charged with a crime *this will all blow over*.



Ref to Monica?


----------



## Centermass (Oct 16, 2015)

Mess with the bull, and you'll get the horns.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 16, 2015)

Centermass said:


> Mess with the bull, and you'll get the horns.


That former staffer is an idiot.


----------



## AWP (Oct 16, 2015)

Even a rather liberal journalist for Vice.com (itself pretty liberal) has a problem with her email story. For him it is more about how government didn't work and how she's concerned with her image, but he eventually touches upon the illegality of her actions.

Why You Actually Should Care About Hillary Clinton's Damn Emails | VICE | United States



> The most important aspect of her emails that anyone should be paying attention to is the fact that we don't have answers as to why she was using a private email account, _and_ avoiding the Federal Records Act—which is a law—_and_ why the State Department failed to respond to legitimate requests from journalists under the Freedom of Information Act for her emails years before this scandal was ever revealed.
> 
> She changes her story time and time and time again. These are things that anyone should care about when it comes to an elected official. My takeaway is that the rules, for some reason, did not apply to Hillary Clinton, as they would have applied to anyone in the federal government. It's also a failure on the part of the State Department, which did not reign her in.



If the media would focus on being journalists instead of money-whoring vermin they could bust this thing wide open. Sadly, this will take the little guys like Vice staying on the story and the DOJ pressing charges (HAHAHAHAHA!) for this to go anywhere.


----------



## Brill (Oct 16, 2015)

Honestly, whoever doesn't realize WHY she was using a private server is a fucking moron.  Even diehard Clitonites know EXACTLY why a private vice public server was used: total control over who had access.

Prosecutorial discretion will come into play here...if it hasn't already.


----------



## Dienekes (Oct 19, 2015)

I wish Gowdy wanted to run for higher office such as Speaker of the House, Whip, or even President. He's not a name you hear often, but when he speaks, he really seems to be a no bullshit, doing it for people kind of guy.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 19, 2015)

Dienekes said:


> I wish Gowdy wanted to run for higher office such as Speaker of the House, Whip, or even President. He's not a name you hear often, but when he speaks, he really seems to be a no bullshit, doing it for people kind of guy.



He's one of the few Rep's that I acutally enjoy listening to. He's also one of the few that talk the least "PC" of them all.


----------



## Brill (Oct 21, 2015)

Pretty damning language...if only it were true.

FBN Exclusive: DOJ Officials Fear Foreign Telecoms Hacked Clinton Emails, Server


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 21, 2015)

Somehow, even if it was lawful to read classified emails, I don't think she the SA to protect/shield what she is doing. If it's not standing in front of her, with an, "I'm a spy" 4'x4'  sign, she would consider anyone a threat. You would not need to hack the email, she would let you read it over her shoulder.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 21, 2015)

racing_kitty said:


> ...*Someone could roll out a video tomorrow morning showing Bill receiving fellatio from a 12 year old paraplegic after he's just knocked out half of her teeth, Hillary running the camera, and Chelsea acting as producer, and CNN would run with the headline that they were promoting dental health for the underprivileged...*


 
Goddam that is some beautiful shit right there


----------



## Centermass (Oct 22, 2015)

Trey Gowdy is taking Clinton downtown right now.


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (Oct 22, 2015)

He did everything but make her a pitcher of ice tea before they started. Nothing is going to come of this.


----------



## AWP (Oct 22, 2015)

MilkTruckCoPilot said:


> He did everything but make her a pitcher of ice tea before they started. Nothing is going to come of this.



Watching her face says everything though, the utter contempt she has for the questioning and process. She doesn't have to GAS about the committee and she knows it. She could bite the head off a puppy and suck it dry without more than a 2 point drop in her poll numbers.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 22, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> Watching her face says everything though, the utter contempt she has for the questioning and process. She doesn't have to GAS about the committee and she knows it. She could bite the head off a puppy and suck it dry without more than a 2 point drop in her poll numbers.



Indeed! She has a cult following that will vote for her no matter what comes up. She is in their "Voter DNA." They can't do anything about it...they feel "compelled" to vote for her. Numbers don't matter...facts don't matter...she WILL get their votes.


----------



## Brill (Oct 22, 2015)

Agoge said:


> Indeed! She has a cult following that will vote for her no matter what comes up. She is in their "Voter DNA." They can't do anything about it...they feel "compelled" to vote for her. Numbers don't matter...facts don't matter...she WILL get their votes.



Just imagine how she would fair if those voters were actually alive vice having zip codes from the cemeteries!


----------



## Centermass (Oct 22, 2015)

This segment pretty much sums up the whole mess. Remember, the talking points the administration ran with, starting with Susan Rice, Jay Carney and the rest, blasting the reason all over every media outlet she could get her ass in front of, blaming the attack on this fricking video, and continued to do so, even when everyone else in the world intelligence services, knew full well, right from the start, it was a terrorist attack.

All this after the fluff and buff prior about how great things were, just before a national, presidential election. It had to be a video. Couldn't have been anything else. Otherwise, the pendulum would of and could of, swung in the other direction, come November 6, 2012, for failures and the loss of life on September 11, 2012.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 22, 2015)

After re-election, those voters will express dismay when they find out the Russians, Chinese, and Saudi's own her ass.
Then they will vote for her Vice President, the Hispanic guy.

The "Evangelical" morons, err Republicans will whine and cry, until you ask them why they didn't vote that day.


----------



## Brill (Oct 22, 2015)

Centermass said:


> This segment pretty much sums up the whole mess.



So hand on the face/chin is the new middle finger?


----------



## Hillclimb (Oct 22, 2015)

It's like watching SERE all over again. 

I'm still streaming it, and it's driving me nuts.


----------



## AWP (Oct 22, 2015)

lindy said:


>



- Fucking peasants. Don't they know I'm their next queen? Christ, I have to wait this long for the inevitable? Fucking peasants...

- Aww, you motherfuckers. Okay. Alright. I'm putting cases on all you bitches. Huh. You think you can do this shit... You think you can do this to me? You motherfuckers will be playing basketball in Pelican Bay when I get finished with you. SHU program, homie. 23 hour lockdown. I'm the man up in this piece. You'll never see the light of... who the fuck do you think you're fucking with? I'm a Clinton, I run shit around here. You just live here. Yeah, that's right, you better walk away. Go on and walk away... 'cause I'm gonna' burn this motherfucker down. King Kong ain't got shit on me. That's right, that's right. Shit, I don't, fuck. I'm winning anyway, I'm winning... I'm winning any motherfucking way. I can't lose. Yeah, you can shoot me, but you can't kill me.

- Do they have any idea how many Americans I'll kill for this job? I can think of four who believe in "The Process."

- First order of business, ethics investigations for EVERYBODY!!!! I can play this committee game, bitches.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 22, 2015)

When I see her in the bottom photo...all I can think of is that she is hearing "Charlie Brown's teacher" talking...wahwawanwhawaha....

She doesn't think she did anything wrong and no one can convince her otherwise.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 22, 2015)

Agoge said:


> When I see her in the bottom photo...all I can think of is that she is hearing "Charlie Brown's teacher" talking...wahwawanwhawaha....
> 
> She doesn't think she did anything wrong and no one can convince her otherwise.


Think, no.
She fucking doesn't care as laws don't apply to her (or any family member).


----------



## The Accountant (Oct 22, 2015)

Over 600 requests for additional security..

Over 600..


----------



## Brill (Oct 23, 2015)

But she lost sleep over those requests @K9Quest


----------



## x SF med (Oct 23, 2015)

lindy said:


> But she lost sleep over those requests @K9Quest



Only because her cell phone kept 'dinging'....


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (Oct 23, 2015)

K9Quest said:


> Over 600 requests for additional security..
> 
> Over 600..



If the situation was that bad, I would of popped smoke after request #100. Also, I would be interested in seeing if other consulates/embassy's/facilities around the world in various hotspots didn't have a similar issue. How many requests for additional security were they sending out? Was this just an issue in Libya or worldwide?


----------



## AWP (Oct 23, 2015)

This morning CNN has one little blurb on their front page and Fox has a tiny, buried under the Lincoln Chaffee announcement, bit about the hearing. The vermin are already burying this event despite a day's worth of testimony.

Anyway, the two links on those "news" pages are the following:

11 Benghazi takeaways: One for each hour - CNNPolitics.com

I can save you a lot of reading, it says Hillary knocked it out of the park even as it admits, several times, that she was openly contemptuous of the proceedings.

AP FACT CHECK: Clinton and critics on Benghazi, emails

That link at least does some fact checking and comes from the AP. Unlike CNN it points out that some of her statements are wrong (it doesn't spare Gowdy either) whereas CNN defends her. This week Biden declines to run, the panel, and Chaffee and Webb drop out (never strong candidates to be sure)? This is the week that made her a president. 

I'd like nothing more than to be wrong, but short of a miracle is there any other ending?


----------



## MilkTruckCoPilot (Oct 23, 2015)

She's going to win, it's going to happen. If we were stupid enough to put the current POTUS in a SECOND time, then I have no doubt idiots will flock towards the voting booths just so they can help the first woman get elected.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 23, 2015)

MilkTruckCoPilot said:


> She's going to win, it's going to happen. If we were stupid enough to put the current POTUS in a SECOND time, then I have no doubt idiots will flock towards the voting booths just so they can help the first woman get elected.



It is part of the downword spiral. We are in it, and Clinton will have no interest in, as she feels above the fray. This will be yet another GOP failure in it's long string of  short shigted screw ups. The only real hope we have is The Donald, I think he could slow the fall, and perhaps bring about a reversal. The trouble is, that the media will spin for clinton, and the under informed will behave as lemmings headed for the cliff. With family and property in England, I have an out, the question is when to make the move.


----------



## Dame (Oct 23, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> It is part of the downword spiral. We are in it, and Clinton will have no interest in, as she feels above the fray. This will be yet another GOP failure in it's long string of  short shigted screw ups. The only real hop we have is The Donald, I think he could slow the fall, and perhaps bring about a reversal. The trouble is, that the media will spin for clinton, and the under informed will behave as lemmings headed for the cliff. With family and property in England, I have an out, the question is when to make the move.


Yup. All very sad but true. Looking for an island in Belize personally.

Dear America,
Hillary lied about Benghazi to grieving parents' faces. Don't you even want to know WHY? No, I don't suppose you do.


----------



## Brill (Oct 23, 2015)

Shit...that's gonna leave a mark. Won't it?


----------



## Tbone (Oct 23, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> It is part of the downword spiral. We are in it, and Clinton will have no interest in, as she feels above the fray. This will be yet another GOP failure in it's long string of  short shigted screw ups. The only real hop we have is The Donald, I think he could slow the fall, and perhaps bring about a reversal. The trouble is, that the media will spin for clinton, and the under informed will behave as lemmings headed for the cliff. With family and property in England, I have an out, the question is when to make the move.



Man I hate to break it to you but things are just as bad there if not worse because of the immigration... but I'm going to assume you knew that already:wall:


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 23, 2015)

As long as we don't lose the house and senate.
I think the republicans will be more willing to disagree with her than Jeb Bush.
I think split government isn't always a bad thing, and it allows more establishment republicans an opportunity to get voted out and replaced by a more conservative individual.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 23, 2015)

Tbone said:


> Man I hate to break it to you but things are just as bad there if not worse because of the immigration... but I'm going to assume you knew that already:wall:



The England setting we have is very rural, rather old, and on substantial acerage; well south east of London. Public transportation is safe, very convenient and punctual. England is socialism that has been in place for a long time. It seems socialism is where the US is headed, and it is not going well at all. At least England has worked some of the problems out of their system. My biggest problem here is the MEDIA/POLITICO binding that seems to be deciding everything. I believe nothing from major media. I do not trust our President, or anyone from the House, or Senate. The USA is broken, and there is no fix in sight. To get to the heart of the matter, my impression is that no one gives a shit about it. I am ready to leave; the outcome of the November elections will help make my decision.


----------



## Brill (Oct 23, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> The England setting we have is very rural, rather old, and on substantial acerage; well south east of London. Public transportation is safe, very convenient and punctual. England is socialism that has been in place for a long time. It seems socialism is where the US is headed, and it is not going well at all. At least England has worked some of the problems out of their system. My biggest problem here is the MEDIA/POLITICO binding that seems to be deciding everything. I believe nothing from major media. I do not trust our President, or anyone from the Congress or Senate. The USA is broken, and there is no fix in sight. To get to the heart of the matter, my impression is that no one gives a shit about it. I am ready to leave; the outcome of the November elections will help make my decision.



Why would they give a shit when they're getting stuff for free? All they need to do is get out and vote to get more free shit!


----------



## Dame (Oct 23, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> The England setting we have is very rural, rather old, and on substantial acerage; well south east of London. Public transportation is safe, very convenient and punctual. England is socialism that has been in place for a long time. It seems socialism is where the US is headed, and it is not going well at all. At least England has worked some of the problems out of their system. My biggest problem here is the MEDIA/POLITICO binding that seems to be deciding everything. I believe nothing from major media. I do not trust our President, or anyone from the House, or Senate. The USA is broken, and there is no fix in sight. To get to the heart of the matter, my impression is that no one gives a shit about it. I am ready to leave; the outcome of the November elections will help make my decision.


Marry me.


----------



## Tbone (Oct 23, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> The England setting we have is very rural, rather old, and on substantial acerage; well south east of London. Public transportation is safe, very convenient and punctual. England is socialism that has been in place for a long time. It seems socialism is where the US is headed, and it is not going well at all. At least England has worked some of the problems out of their system. My biggest problem here is the MEDIA/POLITICO binding that seems to be deciding everything. I believe nothing from major media. I do not trust our President, or anyone from the House, or Senate. The USA is broken, and there is no fix in sight. To get to the heart of the matter, my impression is that no one gives a shit about it. I am ready to leave; the outcome of the November elections will help make my decision.



You mean this run-away train like a bat out of hell looney toon government doesn't provide you with enough entertainment to stay?

Well if things don't work out to your liking just don't throw away your popcorn cuz I get hungry when things get crazy


----------



## Brill (Oct 25, 2015)

@Red Flag 1 , an example of broken accountability...or is this just an unofficial extension of TARP?  Seriously, how does a bunch of accountants "loose" $1.6 billion? Isn't there an email trail?

Missing Money? Report questions how states spent ObamaCare funds


----------



## TH15 (Oct 25, 2015)

lindy said:


> @Red Flag 1 , an example of broken accountability...or is this just an unofficial extension of TARP?  Seriously, how does a bunch of accountants "loose" $1.6 billion? Isn't there an email trail?
> 
> Missing Money? Report questions how states spent ObamaCare funds


If they are government accountants, I'm sure it is second nature for them. I would bet they are all still employed as well. This reminds me of how the government used healthcare spending that should have been applied to Q1 2014 GDP to boost Q3 2014 GDP.
Link: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-23/here-reason-surge-q3-gdp


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 25, 2015)

In this administration, the "one" will call all the shots, and no one will dare/care enough to act. Remember, obama controls the media. The IRS lady got away with a slap on the wrist for breaking the law. Think of Nixion and what happened to him. obama makes Carter look like John Wayne, and Nixion a saint. I am so sick of this. I should probably stop putting my opinions out there. I may just loose my passport, and have black rotory winged aircraft overhead. Back to my wee cave in The Valley.


----------



## AWP (Oct 25, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Remember, obama controls the media....Think of Nixion and what happened to him.



I think the problem goes beyond ownership though I'll touch upon that first. I recently read how Dan Snyder has basically co-opted the entire DC media establishment on behalf of his team. If he couldn't buy a media outlet or forum, he sponsored it. If he couldn't hire a journalist or talking head, he sponsored their radio or TV show. He spent money over the years to stack the deck around his team; negative local press is rare. Those who do speak out suddenly find they and their company's press credentials reduced by 80%.

The media also plays to ratings, so content takes a back seat to selling advertising. Remember Dan Snyder from the above? If you can't buy a media outlet then buy ad space. Problem solved. Still have a problem? Limit access. All of that is on top of the personal bias of the journalists, editors, producers, and owners involved.

You'd think social media could bridge the gap or offset the above, but it fails because of a common weakness: mankind. We're emotional but we lack emotional stamina. Regardless of the cause it burns bright, hot, and fast. Nixon would absolutely walk if it happened today because people are fickle and lack the discipline, energy, and passion to see something through.

Between money, personal beliefs, and personal weakness information doesn't stand a chance and causes are a flash in the pan.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 25, 2015)

Freefalling said:


> I think the problem goes beyond ownership though I'll touch upon that first. I recently read how Dan Snyder has basically co-opted the entire DC media establishment on behalf of his team. If he couldn't buy a media outlet or forum, he sponsored it. If he couldn't hire a journalist or talking head, he sponsored their radio or TV show. He spent money over the years to stack the deck around his team; negative local press is rare. Those who do speak out suddenly find they and their company's press credentials reduced by 80%.
> 
> The media also plays to ratings, so content takes a back seat to selling advertising. Remember Dan Snyder from the above? If you can't buy a media outlet then buy ad space. Problem solved. Still have a problem? Limit access. All of that is on top of the personal bias of the journalists, editors, producers, and owners involved.
> 
> ...



This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^, concur! It's all $$, and Sheepole, one half notch above lemmings.


----------



## Tbone (Oct 25, 2015)

Red Flag 1 said:


> The England setting we have is very rural, rather old, and on substantial acerage; well south east of London. Public transportation is safe, very convenient and punctual. England is socialism that has been in place for a long time. It seems socialism is where the US is headed, and it is not going well at all. At least England has worked some of the problems out of their system. My biggest problem here is the MEDIA/POLITICO binding that seems to be deciding everything. I believe nothing from major media. I do not trust our President, or anyone from the House, or Senate. The USA is broken, and there is no fix in sight. To get to the heart of the matter, my impression is that no one gives a shit about it. I am ready to leave; the outcome of the November elections will help make my decision.


Can't argue with that


----------



## Brill (Nov 2, 2015)

Unbelievable.

"At this point, *between 600 and 700 emails have been identified containing classified information*. An intelligence official familiar with the review says there is no such thing as "retroactive classification," the information is born classified, and *the State Department only has the right to declassify information it produced*."

State Department emails conflict with Clinton’s Benghazi testimony


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 2, 2015)

lindy said:


> Unbelievable.
> 
> "At this point, *between 600 and 700 emails have been identified containing classified information.* An intelligence official familiar with the review says there is no such thing as "retroactive classification," the information is born classified, and *the State Department only has the right to declassify information it produced.*"
> 
> State Department emails conflict with Clinton’s Benghazi testimony



Last line; ahem, cough, cough


----------



## AWP (Dec 17, 2015)

I hate to say "this administration" and paint with a broad brush, but....."C'mon, man!" This shit's insane and I hope the Republicans start digging into everyone.

Report: Ash Carter used personal email for some government business - CNNPolitics.com



> The Defense Secretary reportedly kept using private email after news about Hillary Clinton's use of a personal email server during her service as Secretary of State triggered attacks by Republican lawmakers.


----------



## Grunt (Dec 17, 2015)

One has to have an over-abundance of arrogance to do the very thing that someone else at their level is being investigated for.

If true...it's pathetic!


----------



## pardus (Dec 17, 2015)

Kick that fuck in the balls repeatedly until he collapses, wake him up and do it again, and again...


----------



## Brill (Jan 1, 2016)

> The latest batch of 3,105 emails includes 275 documents upgraded to "classified" since they landed in the former Secretary's personal inbox. That brings the total number of classified docs found in the emails to 1,274. A State Department official told Fox News on Thursday that two of those emails were upgraded to "secret," while most of the others were upgraded to "confidential."



State Department releases over 3,000 Clinton emails on New Year's Eve | Fox News

As said before, DOS does not, nor has it EVER had the authority to "upgrade" or even "downgrade" the classification of ANY information unless the Department produced it.

Someone within the organization willfully, intentionally, and unlawfully took classified info from classified servers, REMOVED classification and special handling markings, and uploaded it onto unclassified servers in order to email to the former SECSTATE.

Every bit of that is illegal as hell. *EVERYONE who came into contact with the information and emails were duty bound to report it to appropriate authority.*

This conspiracy and obstruction of justice make Nixon look like an amateur.


----------



## pardus (Jan 1, 2016)

I'm shaking my fucking head... Voters don't give a fuck either. 



lindy said:


> State Department releases over 3,000 Clinton emails on New Year's Eve | Fox News
> 
> As said before, DOS does not, nor has it EVER had the authority to "upgrade" or even "downgrade" the classification of ANY information unless the Department produced it.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gunz (Jan 1, 2016)

I wonder if _13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi _will have any impact on HRCs campaign? Or will the bullets bounce off?


----------



## Brill (Jan 1, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I wonder if _13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi _will have any impact on HRCs campaign? Or will the bullets bounce off?



Nobody blinked an eye at this shit...so I doubt "it" will be affected.








> However, one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means.
> 
> In response to Clinton's request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, "They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it." Clinton responds "If they can't, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure."



Latest batch of Clinton emails contains 66 more classified messages | Fox News

This is what's known as a smoking gun and point to willfully breaking the law.  Personally, I hope a Republican wins the WH so they can prosecute her because there's no way Obama will. I wonder what dirt the Clinton's have on him?


----------



## Dame (Jan 8, 2016)

lindy said:


> This is what's known as a smoking gun and point to willfully breaking the law.  Personally, I hope a Republican wins the WH so they can prosecute her because there's no way Obama will. I wonder what dirt the Clinton's have on him?


Needs to be a poster. With WANTED: at the top and her picture on it.


----------



## Brill (Jan 8, 2016)

Dame said:


> Needs to be a poster. With WANTED: at the top and her picture on it.



Exactly!  We have several "interesting" security reminders hanging the hallways.


----------



## Jay_Pew (Jan 8, 2016)

Something I've never understood, how could Hillary even do her job as Secretary of State WITHOUT sending classified, secret, or top secret information via email?! She claims none was ever sent through her private email. Well if that's the only email she used how else did she send such information when need me? Did she not do her job or something? I mean a person in her position would undoubtedly be coming in contact with and sending out such information. It honestly blows my mind as to why this isn't being talked about.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 8, 2016)

Yep, I think that bitch is going to jail...


----------



## compforce (Jan 8, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Yep, I think that bitch is going to jail...



There was an email released in this latest batch where she told one of her aides that "If you can't get the secure fax working, just remove the headers and send it to my regular email"  -  That's actually a direct violation of Federal Law and proves willful intent.  But...  she'll never see a courtroom.


----------



## Marine0311 (Jan 8, 2016)

compforce said:


> There was an email released in this latest batch where she told one of her aides that "If you can't get the secure fax working, just remove the headers and send it to my regular email"  -  That's actually a direct violation of Federal Law and proves willful intent.  But...  she'll never see a courtroom.



How would you remove the headers?


----------



## compforce (Jan 8, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> How would you remove the headers?



She was referring to the classified caveats.  My quote may be a paraphrase rather than a direct quote.  That said, if they were going to send it via email, someone would likely either scan it or retype it into the email.  Either way it's easy to exclude the caveats.

here's the direct quote:



> However, one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means.
> 
> In response to Clinton's request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, "They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it." Clinton responds "If they can't, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure."


Latest batch of Clinton emails contains 66 more classified messages | Fox News


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 8, 2016)

compforce said:


> There was an email released in this latest batch where she told one of her aides that "If you can't get the secure fax working, just remove the headers and send it to my regular email"  -  That's actually a direct violation of Federal Law and proves willful intent.  But...  she'll never see a courtroom.



Yeah, I'd just watched in on fox news, I don't see how she cannot be charged at this point.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 8, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Yeah, I'd just watched in on fox news, I don't see how she cannot be charged at this point.



She's a Clinton, and the presumptive Democratic nominee for POTUS.  She won't be charged.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 9, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> She's a Clinton, and the presumptive Democratic nominee for POTUS.  She won't be charged.



If that happens, I'm going to become an insurgent.


----------



## Brill (Jan 9, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> She's a Clinton, and the presumptive Democratic nominee for POTUS.  She won't be charged.



Rumor is that, once elected, she'll nominate Bill to SCOTUS.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 9, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> She's a Clinton, and the presumptive Democratic nominee for POTUS.  She won't be charged.



She has the full, and strong backing from nearly all the media. Compare what Nixon did, with what Clintion has done. Then tell me why Clinton is still considered the Democrat front runner.


----------



## Brill (Jan 10, 2016)

First heard for me but quality nevertheless.

Dick Morris again falsely claimed Clinton said Chelsea "was jogging around the World Trade Center on 9/11"







Interesting. Obama is definitely n a dilemma.  Wonder if THIS is why he won't back a Democrat until after the convention? He'd be screwed to backed a criminal.



> Further speculation has suggested that if Attorney General Lynch refuses to file formal charges against Hillary Clinton, it will cause ripples within the FBI that could then lead to all out revolt.  Former U.S. attorney, Joe DiGenova recently said this regarding the matter:
> 
> _“I believe that the evidence that the FBI is compiling will be so compelling that, unless [Lynch] agrees to the charges, there will be a massive revolt inside the FBI, which she will not be able to survive as an attorney general. It will be like Watergate. It will be unbelievable…”_
> 
> ...


----------



## Gunz (Jan 10, 2016)

She'll never get charged much less convicted. If there's a "revolt" inside the Bureau--which I doubt--heads will roll, as many as it takes to quash the dissent. This woman is powerful, she's spent all her political life building her power-base. The international media supports her. The Democratic Party supports her and at least half the nation--if Obama's election and re-election is any example--will support the next Democratic nominee for President. Anything negative about her will be written off as partisan politics.  And, on top of all that, she's married to a former 2-term president who's no stranger to arm-twisting and backroom deals.


----------



## policemedic (Jan 11, 2016)

compforce said:


> here's the direct quote:
> 
> 
> Latest batch of Clinton emails contains 66 more classified messages | Fox News



Yep. She suborned a federal felony (I wish there were a better, stronger term for national security offenses).  Assuming Jake sent the email, he and anyone involved also committed felonies.  But no worri..._squirrel_!


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 11, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> She'll never get charged much less convicted. If there's a "revolt" inside the Bureau--which I doubt--heads will roll, as many as it takes to quash the dissent. This woman is powerful, she's spent all her political life building her power-base. The international media supports her. The Democratic Party supports her and at least half the nation--if Obama's election and re-election is any example--will support the next Democratic nominee for President. Anything negative about her will be written off as partisan politics.  And, on top of all that, she's married to a former 2-term president who's no stranger to arm-twisting and backroom deals.



Truth.  Additionally, the FBI has to forward results of the investigation to the DOJ, and who in their right mind thinks that ass-licker Lynch is going to prosecute??  Even if the FBI in a full-court press delivered unimpeachable evidence to the DOJ, they will table it and it will fade into obscurity.....


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 11, 2016)

Man I really hope you guys are wrong, if they let her slide on this, it will destroy any and all faith I had left in the justice system.


----------



## AWP (Jan 11, 2016)

A handful of these and I can sigh and move on. It is wrong, but you can explain away something relatively minor like that.

With a total count in the hundreds and even HRC telling her staff to break the law....she should be in jail. Charged. SOMETHING, but she won't see charges. Lady Justice isn't blind, she's on a date with Bill Cosby.


----------



## Grunt (Jan 11, 2016)

The theory behind "justice for all" is a great theory...I simply wish it was attainable. Unfortunately, it is a lofty goal that is seldom achieved at high levels.


----------



## Brill (Jan 11, 2016)

FBI is allegedly looking into public corruption.

If she's not formally charged, ours truly is a House of Cards.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 11, 2016)

Agoge said:


> The theory behind "justice for all" is a great theory...I simply wish it was attainable. Unfortunately, it is a lofty goal that is seldom achieved at high levels.



I sure hope that the law, and ethics, get this one right. If it fails, the writting on the wall for the USA will be pretty ugly.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 11, 2016)

Fox is reporting the FBI investigation is expanding into possible corruption violations.


----------



## Brill (Jan 11, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Fox is reporting the FBI investigation is expanding into possible corruption violations.



Really?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 11, 2016)

lindy said:


> Really?



Didn't see your post.


----------



## Brill (Jan 11, 2016)

For those unfamiliar (@compforce , please clarify as necessary), if information that is unclassified, with either the FOUO or SBU caveats, there is NO REASON to remove the headings to send via insecure email regardless if server is private or USG.  While it is true that much unclassified info DOES transmit on classified systems, there is ZERO reason to send unclassified via secure means because it ONLY adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy...especially when sending unclassified is more efficient.

The ONLY purpose of removing headings is to DEFEAT mechanisms that flag potential spillage from USG servers (e.g. state.gov to .com or in this case prob info that was on state.sgov, which CANNOT be sent outside the network).

Hillary Clinton Says ‘Nonpaper’ Email a Nonissue


----------



## Gunz (Jan 11, 2016)

Forget anything reported on Fox. True or not it will be shouted down by the overpowering voices of the Leftist MSM.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 11, 2016)

"“But, oftentimes, there’s a lot of information that isn’t at all classified. So, whatever information can appropriately be transmitted unclassified often was. That’s true for every agency in the government and everybody who does business with the government,” she said."

True, but that is why the government uses Government systems for official emails....just saying


----------



## compforce (Jan 11, 2016)

lindy said:


> For those unfamiliar (@compforce , please clarify as necessary), if information that is unclassified, with either the FOUO or SBU caveats, there is NO REASON to remove the headings to send via insecure email regardless if server is private or USG.  While it is true that much unclassified info DOES transmit on classified systems, there is ZERO reason to send unclassified via secure means because it ONLY adds an unnecessary layer of bureaucracy...especially when sending unclassified is more efficient.
> 
> The ONLY purpose of removing headings is to DEFEAT mechanisms that flag potential spillage from USG servers (e.g. state.gov to .com or in this case prob info that was on state.sgov, which CANNOT be sent outside the network).
> 
> Hillary Clinton Says ‘Nonpaper’ Email a Nonissue



Pretty much on the head with one detail left out.  If an unclassified document is introduced to a secure system (like SIPR).  It CANNOT be transmitted and then brought back to an unsecure network without going through a formal declassification process, just as if it had originated on SIPR to begin with.  Nothing can be moved down the chain without formal signoff (and accompanying documentation) from the assigned Security Officer. 

As an example, if you had a thumb drive (that had been cleared for use on Government computers), brand new, still in the box.  You accidentally stick it into the USB port of a SIPR computer and immediately remove it without doing anything else.  That thumb drive is now classified Secret//NOFORN until you get a signoff from the ISO/ISM.  If you then stick the, still empty, thumb drive into a NIPR computer, you have committed a security violation.  More than that, if someone saw you do it, they are required by law to report it to the S2, who then has to report it to the MACOM G/J-2.  After which @Freefalling will spend the next several days cursing your name while he does his part of the spillage investigation.

Why in the world would anyone ever choose to send unclass by secure means?  It would be less of a PITA to walk to the office next door or go to the nearest place that had a working system.  I'm pretty sure there are more than one secure fax machine at DoS.

For Unclass//FOUO type docs, you can send those across personal email all you want as long as the recipient has the requisite "need to know" for the info.  The heading should remain in place.  NO security caveats are authorized to be removed for any purpose, including public dissemination, without ISO/ISM and PAO approvals.


----------



## compforce (Jan 11, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> "“But, oftentimes, there’s a lot of information that isn’t at all classified. So, whatever information can appropriately be transmitted unclassified often was. That’s true for every agency in the government and everybody who does business with the government,” she said."
> 
> True, but that is why the government uses Government systems for official emails....just saying



Yes, however the declassification process and documentation still has to be done.  If there is one sentence that is classified and 16 paragraphs of stuff that didn't need to be classified, it still has to be declassified and redacted appropriately before it can be sent.  If it is wholly stuff that doesn't have to be classified, but it was on a secure network, it still needs to be declassified before it can be introduced into an unclass network.

She's full of crap...as usual


----------



## ZmanTX (Jan 11, 2016)

I think the FBI will find more than what they were looking for. Personally I think that's the reason why Obama hasn't fully endorsed her. At least I hope.


----------



## Jay_Pew (Jan 11, 2016)

ZmanTX said:


> I think the FBI will find more than what they were looking for. Personally I think that's the reason why Obama hasn't fully endorsed her. At least I hope.



My mother actually said the same exact thing today. Makes perfect sense.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 12, 2016)

ZmanTX said:


> I think the FBI will find more than what they were looking for.



I think FBI and DOJ will have far more than enough, HRC will claim she was told wrong/she did not know what she was doing/her advisers were at fault, a shitload of people will be fired and possibly have charges brought against her, and she will skate.  I believe this only because this is how Clinton, Inc., has operated for the past 45 years.

I hope I am wrong and finally "they" will do the right, legal, and ethical thing.  But I am not holding my breath.


----------



## Grunt (Jan 12, 2016)

She may make those claims...and, they may work for her because of who she is. 

But, it will be hard to legitimately make those claims after being the First Lady for eight years and then the Secretary of State. She has been around classified information for plenty of years. If she is allowed to claim ignorance, it is simply because she is "allowed" to.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 12, 2016)

Agoge said:


> If she is allowed to claim ignorance, it is simply because she is "allowed" to.



And this is how it shall come to pass.....


----------



## Florida173 (Jan 12, 2016)

Agoge said:


> She may make those claims...and, they may work for her because of who she is.
> 
> But, it will be hard to legitimately make those claims after being the First Lady for eight years and then the Secretary of State. She has been around classified information for plenty of years. If she is allowed to claim ignorance, it is simply because she is "allowed" to.


 
I'd believe she would be accountable for all the yearly requirements of having access to classified system that I have. Hard to pull an ignorance card if you have email directing an aide on how to specifically send classified information by stripping it of the classification headings.

End of the day, spillage is spillage. People have lost their clearance for so much less.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 12, 2016)

Hillary's Iowa Poll numbers seem to be dropping a bit.
I think a lot of people are getting tired of the Bill and Hill show.  
I hope Mr Sanders does well enough in Iowa and New Hampshire that Hillary actually has to start campaigning and making speeches.


----------



## Brill (Jan 12, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> I'd believe she would be accountable for all the yearly requirements of having access to classified system that I have. Hard to pull an ignorance card if you have email directing an aide on how to specifically send classified information by stripping it of the classification headings.
> 
> End of the day, spillage is spillage. People have lost their clearance for so much less.



Perhaps, but her husband was a sitting President and LIED under oath, interfered with evidence, and tried to influence witnesses but still kept his job (not his law license though).

F'ing 20 years old but written like it was just yesterday.

Essay;Blizzard of Lies

This shit is unbelievable.

State Department Discovers ‘Thousands’ of Previously Undisclosed Clinton Documents


----------



## Grunt (Jan 13, 2016)

lindy said:


> This shit is unbelievable.
> 
> State Department Discovers ‘Thousands’ of Previously Undisclosed Clinton Documents



Even then...they are probably just scratching the surface.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 13, 2016)

lindy said:


> This shit is unbelievable.
> 
> State Department Discovers ‘Thousands’ of Previously Undisclosed Clinton Documents


This has got to start pissing people off eventually.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 14, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> This has got to start pissing people off eventually.



I wish I shared your faith in that.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 14, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> This has got to start pissing people off eventually.



You would think so. The media is handeling a lot of the exposure, and impact from all this this for their friend Hil. Compare the press coverage with Nixion, and Mrs. Clinton.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 15, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> This has got to start pissing people off eventually.



I agree, but who?  Who would get pissed off?  I would like to think it would piss off everyone.  The criminality, the unethical behavior, the immorality.  But the only people getting pissed are the people who don't like her anyway....certainly not her camp, not her supporters, not the Fourth Estate.

This is all a vast right-wing conspiracy...it was years ago, and that is how it is being portrayed today.


----------



## Grunt (Jan 15, 2016)

The reason that I know it won't make people mad is because I can pick 10 random people on the street who have no idea about her and her e-mail debacle.

In fact, I was talking about it not long ago with a group of people during the holidays who looked at me like I had an elephant trunk growing out of my forehead. They had no idea what I was talking about.

There are many who are simply walking around on auto-pilot who have no clue as to what is going on around them.


----------



## Brill (Jan 15, 2016)

I like where this may lead!

Why Hillary Clinton's legal woes are grave or even fatal: A tale of two smoking guns | Fox News

The charges will consist of some of the following:

*1. Improper disclosure or retention of classified information.
2. Destruction of government records.
3. Lying to federal agents.
4. Lying under oath.
5. Obstruction of justice.*

One source told me that “the top floor of the FBI [the leadership] is deeply engaged in the investigation.” And another said the Bureau has “no choice” but to ask Attorney General Loretta Lynch for indictments. The FBI’s director James Comey has a reputation for being incorruptible. He wanted to indict General David Petraeus on far fewer charges than his investigators have come up with on Hillary. *Now his chief of staff has reportedly said that the Bureau plans to seek indictments of Hillary and her aides despite the politics of the case.* One source told me, “the Bureau doesn’t care about politics.” This case is seen as a national security matter.

*If it is ignored, the fear within the intelligence community is that it will be impossible to prosecute future defendants being charged with the mishandling of classified information. The intelligence agencies would mutiny if Hillary were given a pass.* Said DiGenova last week, “The intelligence community will not stand for that. They will fight for indictment and they are already in the process of gearing themselves basically to revolt if [the Attorney General] refuses to bring charges.” This is apparently one of those processes that takes on a life of its own.

Hillary’s Problems Grow


----------



## AWP (Jan 16, 2016)

I hope she's nuked from orbit, but given the state of politics and generalized apathy in this country I'm skeptical to the nth degree.


----------



## compforce (Jan 16, 2016)

lindy said:


> The charges will consist of some of the following:
> 
> *1. Improper disclosure or retention of classified information.
> 2. Destruction of government records.
> ...



Prediction: 
FBI Recommends indictment
DOJ Indicts
Obama Pardons

All without a bump in the campaigning


----------



## Brill (Jan 16, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I hope she's nuked from orbit, but given the state of politics and generalized apathy in this country I'm skeptical to the nth degree.



I dunno because there is quite a bit of speculation, starting with Obama not backing Hillary (or any Democrat yet), that this is a convenient way to get her out of the way.  Sanders will never get the party's nomination and RUMINT has started that the Democrats will demand Crazy Joe jump "back" in at the 9th hour without campaigning (FDR didn't campaign for a 3rd term).  Or Obama challenges the 3rd term because it's clear that he views the Constitution as a living document.

On the opposite end, the Republican establishment will not allow Trump to get the nom so a brokered convention is all but "certain" and that is when the real games will begin in earnest.

This election year will be interesting in American politics and will most likely highlight that our current system is now akin to Halliburton's "operations" in Iraq.


----------



## AWP (Jan 16, 2016)

"Hope? Let me tell you something, my friend. Hope is a dangerous thing. Hope can drive a man insane. It's got no use on the inside. You'd better get used to that idea."

@lindy and @compforce both make sense, but I can't see it given our rotten, rotten process and an administration I view as one of the most corrupt in a long time. She's dodged bullets, though not in Bosnia, and lied so much and so often people shrug it off. She's a part of a dynasty, a juggernaut, and corrupt mofos don't charge corrupt mofos. Obama will do whatever the party tells him to do and the only real "out" to not filing charges is if FBI agents stage a minor revolt. Director/ executive level stuff on every media outlet possible. That won't happen, careers are at stake. People will whine and complain, but the Yes Men will prevail and allow a felon to walk. Like the FBI. the Intel community will be ignored or bought off, again unless Director level folks come forward and make some noise.

I think politics and strong arming will delay this, if not stop it, before the elections.

I want to be wrong and I've love for the "I told you so, Free" posts; hell, start a thread. I want to be wrong, but I have zero faith in the system and the people.


----------



## Florida173 (Jan 16, 2016)

compforce said:


> Prediction:
> FBI Recommends indictment
> DOJ Indicts
> Obama Pardons
> ...



Most political pundits agree Obama doesn't want Clinton to be president


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 16, 2016)

lindy said:


> The charges will consist of some of the following:
> 
> *1. Improper disclosure or retention of classified information.
> 2. Destruction of government records.
> ...



Could he be the first in line to turn the tables, and perhaps shift public opinion. This ship, that is our Nation, is badly in need of getting centered back over it's keel.


----------



## compforce (Jan 16, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Most political pundits agree Obama doesn't want Clinton to be president



Yes, but the DNC owes her too much and don't forget that list of skeletons in the closet that she has from all the years in politics.  If they do it the way that I suggested, everyone that's involved wins.

FBI Recommends indictment - clears the FBI of any fallout.
DOJ indicts - clears the DOJ of any chance of being called partisan (over this particular decision).  It also avoids the threats of FBI going out of control.
Obama pardons/grants clemency - Repays the debt to Clinton, keeps her out of jail, but makes her unelectable.  Win for Obama and the DNC.  Clinton goes into retirement with her permanent salary from being a Senator.  It also sets up a DNC debt to the Clintons to be cashed in later by Chelsea as part of the deal to keep that blacklist out of the public eye.

It really is a win for everyone involved.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 16, 2016)

compforce said:


> Yes, but the DNC owes her too much and don't forget that list of skeletons in the closet that she has from all the years in politics.  If they do it the way that I suggested, everyone that's involved wins.
> 
> FBI Recommends indictment - clears the FBI of any fallout.
> DOJ indicts - clears the DOJ of any chance of being called partisan (over this particular decision).  It also avoids the threats of FBI going out of control.
> ...



I'd like to see some defenative ruling for the email security failures. There also needs to be a return to reality, and personal responsibility, that should have been there all long. This insanity of a front running candidate, with all the questionable past behavior is simply mind blowing. The other plus here is that it is a nice step into the face of the media and all of the spin we have come to see as normal behavior. Time to bring a halt to the coverup, the corruption, and the lack of promised transparency........but that's just me.


----------



## Brill (Jan 18, 2016)

I bet there's a new vacancy on the Clinton campaign staff for a social media manager.

Clinton's 'no individual too big to jail' tweet backfires | Fox News


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 18, 2016)

compforce said:


> Prediction:
> FBI Recommends indictment
> DOJ Indicts
> Obama Pardons
> ...



Yep/maybe.  Her numbers against Bernie are tight, I think Obama/Biden are working this together, but they still have to be careful as the electorate could suddenly swing to Comrade Sanders making a brokered convention impossible.



Florida173 said:


> Most political pundits agree Obama doesn't want Clinton to be president



Common knowledge that both camps hate each other.  Most of my friends still in Chicago wonder what dirt the Clintons have on Obama (that is the accepted reason for offering her Sec State).



compforce said:


> Yes, but the DNC owes her too much and don't forget that list of skeletons in the closet that she has from all the years in politics.  If they do it the way that I suggested, everyone that's involved wins.
> 
> FBI Recommends indictment - clears the FBI of any fallout.
> DOJ indicts - clears the DOJ of any chance of being called partisan (over this particular decision).  It also avoids the threats of FBI going out of control.
> ...



I think this takes Chelsea out too as her fingers are already dirty (Clinton's "foundation")



Red Flag 1 said:


> I'd like to see some defenative ruling for the email security failures. There also needs to be a return to reality, and personal responsibility, that should have been there all long. This insanity of a front running candidate, with all the questionable past behavior is simply mind blowing. The other plus here is that it is a nice step into the face of the media and all of the spin we have come to see as normal behavior. Time to bring a halt to the coverup, the corruption, and the lack of promised transparency........but that's just me.



The Intel Community has to be concerned, if this gets a wink and a nod then future Defense Attorneys will use Government inaction here to successfully sway juries.

This is actually starting to reach Watergate Levels of corruption/cover-up which is ironic in so many ways.

I agree with previous posts that Biden wins the nomination via a brokered convention, he can't debate worth a shit so the only way to get him in is to nuke the competition (Obama's standard campaign tactic).

Obama has wiped out the party machines that put him in the White House (Daley Machine is dead), so wiping the Clinton machine would just add another scalp to the wall.  He'd also be in position to take Wassermann-Schultz out by putting one of his people into the seat.  He's not going away soon, and I don't see him being nice after he leaves the White House.


----------



## compforce (Jan 18, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I think this takes Chelsea out too as her fingers are already dirty (Clinton's "foundation")



She's 20 years away from anything for which the DNC would need to support her.  By then the Foundation's issues will be a faded memory.  The DNC can afford to take the chance that they'll owe a favor in the far distant future if it means that they eliminate the threat of Hillary's Black Book.


----------



## Polar Bear (Jan 18, 2016)

VOTE FOR HILLARY


----------



## Brill (Jan 19, 2016)

Polar Bear said:


> VOTE FOR HILLARY



For prison? Deportation? Where ya going with this?


----------



## AWP (Jan 19, 2016)

lindy said:


> For prison? Deportation? Where ya going with this?


----------



## Polar Bear (Jan 19, 2016)




----------



## ZmanTX (Jan 19, 2016)

Report: Hillary Clinton server contained highly classified intel - CNNPolitics.com

Article not from Fox News talking about her servers. I really hope she goes down for this. 
ZM


----------



## Polar Bear (Jan 19, 2016)

I don't care if she had naked pictures of George Foreman and the Pope together. If the GOP does not quit candidate on candidate bashing the GOP will lose even if Ronald Reagan came back from the dead.


----------



## Florida173 (Jan 19, 2016)

Polar Bear said:


> I don't care if she had naked pictures of George Foreman and the Pope together. If the GOP does not quit candidate on candidate bashing the GOP will lose even if Ronald Reagan came back from the dead.


It's politics..


----------



## Polar Bear (Jan 19, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> It's politics..


Don't care. The GOP wants to win this election, they have zero chance on the path they are headed down now. I will bet Trump is paying her, she is shallow just like me...if she wants me to be a Trump supporter she better start showing some more skin.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 20, 2016)

Polar Bear said:


> Don't care. The GOP wants to win this election, they have zero chance on the path they are headed down now. I will bet Trump is paying her, she is shallow just like me...if she wants me to be a Trump supporter she better start showing some more skin.



Remember, that the media is who is reporting what. This happens in both parties; the press shapes and spins to take followers down a particular path. Then they sit back and watch the bickering, to be further shaped, spun and reported. I so much replay the Watergate, and Mrs. Clinton cases side by side. The difference in coverage is huge.


----------



## Brill (Jan 20, 2016)

IG's staff had to be read in to the SAP just to read Hillary's email.  Yeah, nothing to see here...totally allowable.

Clinton Email Investigators Needed Clearance Upgrade "Beyond Top Secret" to Search Server


----------



## Dame (Jan 20, 2016)

lindy said:


> IG's staff had to be read in to the SAP just to read Hillary's email.  Yeah, nothing to see here...totally allowable.
> Clinton Email Investigators Needed Clearance Upgrade "Beyond Top Secret" to Search Server



Oh man. That is just the fuckin' end. Bitch is going to get more people killed and she doesn't even give a rat's ass. I hate that woman.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 21, 2016)

lindy said:


> IG's staff had to be read in to the SAP just to read Hillary's email.  Yeah, nothing to see here...totally allowable.
> 
> Clinton Email Investigators Needed Clearance Upgrade "Beyond Top Secret" to Search Server



And this is what fucking kills me.  All the claims of "I didn't know," or "it wasn't _really_ secret," yet the IG staff had to be cleared to read some of the stuff.

And none if it will matter.


----------



## AWP (Jan 21, 2016)

Oh, that rascally scamp Hillary. I thought this was a humor piece.

Hillary Clinton: Cure for Citizens United is more democracy - CNN.com



> As president, I'll appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that Citizens United is bad for America. And if necessary, I'll fight for a constitutional amendment that overturns it.



A Constitutional amendment....no one with a brain will touch that one or any other amendment.



> Meanwhile, we need more transparency in our politics. In the last three elections, more than $600 million in donations came from unknown, untraceable sources. That's a lot of secret, unaccountable money. As president, I'll require federal contractors to fully disclose their political spending. I'll call on the Securities and Exchange Commission to require that publicly traded companies do the same. And I'll fight for legislation requiring the disclosure of all significant political donations, no matter where they come from or who they benefit. Whether you're a Democrat or a Republican, you should have to identify your donors.



I guarandamntee you she's taking money from those she decries and admitting to it? If you believe she'll open her books I have some things to sell you.



> So that's what we need now: more transparency, more accountability, and above all, more citizens exercising their right to vote.



I don't know if I should laugh or cry. Transparency and accountability? Like the email server or any one of a dozen scandals she or her party were involved with since 2008? That's what infuriates me, she'll talk about accountability while actively working to avoid it for herself and party.


----------



## 8654Maine (Jan 21, 2016)

At this point, what difference does it make?  (partly sarcastic).

All the entreaties will only harden the Pharaoh's heart.  Her backers will not see the light.


----------



## Brill (Jan 21, 2016)

How the hell can a lawyer NOT know how the Constitution gets amended?

Regarding her editorial, if Citizens United started in '08 and restricted Democracy, how did a Democrat majority Congress and President get elected the same year?

She cray cray.

Holy shit @Freefalling , did you see what she is REALLY talking about?

Hillary: The Movie - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Examples from her source of how states are restricting voting rights:

Election 2012: Voting Laws Roundup


----------



## Florida173 (Jan 21, 2016)

Why the use of "beyond top secret."


----------



## Brill (Jan 21, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Why the use of "beyond top secret."



First rule of BTS...



Devildoc said:


> And this is what fucking kills me.  All the claims of "I didn't know," or "it wasn't _really_ secret," yet the IG staff had to be cleared to read some of the stuff.



Leadership!


----------



## x SF med (Jan 21, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Why the use of "beyond top secret."



Because "double quiet super secret nobody should know but me" just sounded so déclassé....


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 21, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Why the use of "beyond top secret."



The common person has no idea what SCI or SAP is, and it sounds cooler.


----------



## Florida173 (Jan 21, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> The common person has no idea what SCI or SAP is, and it sounds cooler.


And I get it to a degree.. but why play into the ignorance. I would think this would be a good opportunity to inform the people on what the classifications are actually for and how we determine "damage" if released. It seems it would give a people a better understanding of how this is actually really bad case of spillage and completely irresponsible. In our industry this ends careers.


----------



## Brill (Jan 23, 2016)

So DOS has stalled to release more emails until AFTER Iowa and New Hampshire. Transparency my ass!



The department asked the court to push the deadline for the full collection of documents back to Feb. 29.

A delay in the release of the emails would push the final batch even later into the presidential primary season, after the first four state nominating contests.

Republicans have repeatedly accused the Obama administration of coming to Clinton’s political aid, and said on Friday that the State Department’s move was just the latest example.

The delay “is all about ensuring any further damaging developments in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal are revealed only after the votes are counted in the early nominating states,” Republican National Committee Chairman Reince Priebus said in a statement.

“The American people should be outraged at the Obama administration’s gamesmanship to protect someone who recklessly *exposed classified information on more than 1,300 occasions, including highly sensitive top secret intelligence,” he added.*

State tries to delay Clinton email release, blaming snowstorm


----------



## Brill (Jan 24, 2016)

Wow...Hillary's use of unsecure sever connected to DOS and White House network attack in 2014????

John Schindler, the NSA ‘Spook’ Who Speaks His Mind, by Elaina Plott, National Review

State Dept computers hacked, email shut down

I wonder HOW this is connected to the OPM hack?


----------



## Gunz (Jan 24, 2016)

She would have to be caught eating babies for any of this to matter one squat.


----------



## Brill (Jan 24, 2016)

Republicans are responsible for Hillary's email scandal.

Clinton blames GOP leaders for email troubles


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 24, 2016)

lindy said:


> Republicans are responsible for Hillary's email scandal.
> 
> Clinton blames GOP leaders for email troubles



Yeah, because the Chinese are so far to the right they make US centrists look like Lenin.


----------



## CDG (Jan 24, 2016)

For someone as entitled as Hillary Clinton to so blatantly and massively violate national security, and then try and turn it into a partisan political issue and act like a victim is maybe expected, but infuriating nonetheless.  What a fucking cunt.


----------



## Grunt (Jan 24, 2016)

lindy said:


> Republicans are responsible for Hillary's email scandal.
> 
> Clinton blames GOP leaders for email troubles



Yet another politician who has no clue as to what integrity, honor, and personal accountability mean. Yet...in her clouded way of thinking...she believes she deserves to be POTUS. 

What a career politician!


----------



## Brill (Jan 27, 2016)

Interesting opinion piece that consolidates a series of her lies.

Hillary Clinton’s historical problem with honesty


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 29, 2016)

Ruh-ro...

Official: Some Clinton emails 'too damaging' to release | Fox News


----------



## Brill (Jan 29, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Ruh-ro...
> 
> Official: Some Clinton emails 'too damaging' to release | Fox News



Amazing to think there are Americans (and immigrants as well as the dead) who will vote for this lady to actually have access to the nuke codes.


----------



## Devildoc (Jan 29, 2016)

I have no doubt--zero--that this gets spun, and spun well:  "I didn't know, this was my staff's responsibility, my staff didn't tell me, it should have been marked better......"

I have no doubt--zero--that even if the evidence is abundantly clear AND she confesses to being the second gunman on the grassy knoll, there are people who will vote for her.


----------



## AWP (Jan 29, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> She would have to be caught eating babies for any of this to matter one squat.





Devildoc said:


> I have no doubt--zero--that even if the evidence is abundantly clear AND she confesses to being the second gunman on the grassy knoll, there are people who will vote for her.



She could eat a live baby by ripping the flesh from its limbs and still pull 20% of the vote. She's scandal proof. She's done so much and had it blown off or away that people shrug at a new Hillary scandal. No matter how guilty she is the US has become numb to her criminal activity.


----------



## Gunz (Jan 29, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> She could eat a live baby by ripping the flesh from its limbs and still pull 20% of the vote. She's scandal proof. She's done so much and had it blown off or away that people shrug at a new Hillary scandal. No matter how guilty she is the US has become numb to her criminal activity.



I stand corrected. :wall::wall:


----------



## Dame (Jan 29, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> *TOP SECRET // DO NOT PRINT*​FROM: Huma A.
> TO: John K.
> RE: HRC​She could eat a live baby by ripping the flesh from its limbs and still pull 20% of the vote. She's scandal proof.
> She's done so much and had it blown off or away that people shrug at a new Hillary scandal. No matter how guilty she is the US has become numb to her criminal activity.
> *TOP SECRET // DO NOT PRINT*​



That deserves to be an official e-mail in order to get it the widest dissemination possible.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jan 29, 2016)

I guess I'm still hoping that some form of justice is left in this country. I am hoping that Hillary is brought into the light, and given the trial she deserves, and than hopefully sent to prison where she belongs, for the rest of her life.


----------



## Brill (Jan 29, 2016)

CBS has a story where her spox said this was over classification run amok and interagency infighting. Yep, that's what we need: a CINC who already bashes the IC.

Pfft...what am I talking about?  This from the leader of the free world:

“I don’t think it posed a national security problem,” Mr. Obama said Sunday on CBS’s “60 Minutes.” He said it had been a mistake for Mrs. Clinton to use a private email account when she was secretary of state, but his conclusion was unmistakable:* “This is not a situation in which America’s national security was endangered.”*

A server, like guys riding around in the back of pickups, will not destroy this nation.   Perhaps not, but they damn sure can cause "exceptional grave damage" to these United States.

Same guy, who emailed her at least 8 times on her private email domain...not @state.gov like all other DOS employees, said:


----------



## Brill (Jan 29, 2016)

Clinton email scandal: how we got to where we are.  Amazing history.  Every voter should watch this...your White House may be in the balance.


----------



## Dame (Jan 29, 2016)




----------



## RackMaster (Jan 29, 2016)

lindy said:


> Amazing to think there are Americans (and immigrants as well as the dead) who will vote for this lady to actually have access to the nuke codes.



Cause then we all get access to the codes.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jan 30, 2016)

On the couple of occasions I've fucked up and wandered into the comments sections of various articles on this subject, I have seen too many people declaring in all-caps that this is exponentially more of a nothing burger than Benghazi. I want to believe they're professional trolls, getting paid to lie and propagandize in the comments, but I have no faith left in humanity. They really are stupid enough to believe this is a right-wing snipe hunt meant to keep her off of the throne.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 30, 2016)

The New York Times is endorsing Hillary Clinton for President

Fuckers :wall:


----------



## AWP (Jan 30, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The New York Times is endorsing Hillary Clinton for President
> 
> Fuckers :wall:



You're surprised?


----------



## Salt USMC (Jan 30, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> You're surprised?


Yeah, actually.  I have a lot of respect for the NYT writers, and this just seems totally out of the ordinary.  Their premise is correct - Hillary is without a doubt the most "qualified" (deliberate scare quotes there) candidate here.  Insomuch as she has held several important positions both in and out of government.  However, this email business is just waiting to blow the fuck up and knock her out of the race.  We'll see what happens next week in Iowa.


----------



## AWP (Jan 30, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Yeah, actually.  I have a lot of respect for the NYT writers, and this just seems totally out of the ordinary.  Their premise is correct - Hillary is without a doubt the most "qualified" (deliberate scare quotes there) candidate here.  Insomuch as she has held several important positions both in and out of government.  However, this email business is just waiting to blow the fuck up and knock her out of the race.  We'll see what happens next week in Iowa.



When it pointed out they endorsed her three previous times, it was no shock to me. The whole piece read like she or her staff wrote it, right down to the little dig at Bill.

If she's charged I will be amazed, particularly if it is before the election. It is almost like the DOJ will hedge its bets. If she wins, drop it. If she loses, charge her.


----------



## Grunt (Jan 30, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> ...It is almost like the DOJ will hedge its bets. If she wins, drop it. If she loses, charge her.



Yep...the DoJ officials at that level of decision making are politicians. They will go with the ebb and flow of what they are told by their handlers.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 31, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> When it pointed out they endorsed her three previous times, it was no shock to me. The whole piece read like she or her staff wrote it, right down to the little dig at Bill.
> 
> If she's charged I will be amazed, particularly if it is before the election. It is almost like the DOJ will hedge its bets. If she wins, drop it. If she loses, charge her.



I just hate that kind of stance, or lack there of. It just underscores the reality of life in the USA today. The laws on the books, apply to the people outside of the government, but not to the upper crust of America. If you are in office, or close to the power, you are untouchable. It seems that includes murder too, if you consider all that went on with Bengazi.


----------



## Totentanz (Jan 31, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I just hate that kind of stance, or lack there of. It just underscores the reality of life in the USA today. The laws on the books, apply to the people outside of the government, but not to the upper crust of America. If you are in office, or close to the power, you are untouchable. It seems that includes murder too, if you consider all that went on with Bengazi.



The phrase "too big to jail" comes immediately to mind...


----------



## Marauder06 (Jan 31, 2016)

In other news...  ;)



> Just hours before the Department of Justice was set to announce an indictment against her for illegal storage of classified information, reports have confirmed that Hillary Clinton has gone into hiding in an effort to flee Federal authorities.


----------



## Brill (Jan 31, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Yeah, actually.  I have a lot of respect for the NYT writers, and this just seems totally out of the ordinary.  Their premise is correct - Hillary is without a doubt the most "qualified" (deliberate scare quotes there) candidate here.  Insomuch as she has held several important positions both in and out of government.



Other than raise money for the Foundation (offer access to Senate and Admin for payment), what DID she accomplish in either position? Don't focus on email setup or Benghazi but remember the FBI is investigating her for PUBLIC CORRUPTION!

The Clinton Foundation Reeks of Crooks, Thieves, and Hoods, by Deroy Murdock, National Review

Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State


----------



## AWP (Jan 31, 2016)

Bernie Sanders, Oct 13, 2015 at the first Democratic Party debate:

Bernie Sanders: Americans Are Sick Of Hearing About Hillary Clinton's 'Damn Emails'



> "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails," Sanders said. The Democratic candidate then went on to list a series of issues including money in politics, trade policy and inequality that are more important than the former secretary of state's emails.
> 
> "Enough of the emails. Let's talk about the real issues facing America," Sanders said to loud applause in the debate hall. Sanders' campaign also quickly sent a fundraising email to supporters during the debate with a video of the Vermont senator's comments.



Bernie Sanders, Jan 31, 2016:

Sanders: Clinton emails 'very serious issue' - CNNPolitics.com



> Asked Sunday by CNN's Jake Tapper on "State of the Union" whether voters should interpret his refusal to engage Clinton on the email issue to mean that Clinton did nothing wrong, Sanders replied with a firm, "No."
> 
> "Nope, nope. That is not, I think, a fair assessment. That is, I think, a very serious issue," Sanders said. "There is a legal process taking place, I do not want to politicize that issue. It is not my style."



Sure, he's her opponent, but even the party stalwarts have to be nervous at this point. If he's even bringing it up then it has to be a topic of discussion. I will still be surprised if anything's done, but FFS even her party can see this is a problem. I hope she attacks him and he drags this off the shelf...if the DNC will allow it.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 31, 2016)

I think Bernie was saying that it isn't an issue for the debate. I agree. If something comes of it, great, but if it doesn't, voters need to be informed about how people feel about policies.

So much of today's politics is just driven by scandal. I care much more about policies than tabloid headlines.


----------



## CDG (Jan 31, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think Bernie was saying that it isn't an issue for the debate. I agree. If something comes of it, great, but if it doesn't, voters need to be informed about how people feel about policies.
> 
> So much of today's politics is just driven by scandal. I care much more about policies than tabloid headlines.



This isn't a run of the mill scandal though.  It's an extremely serious issue, especially considering she is running for President.  I absolutely think it's a debate issue in the sense of getting the candidates views on what should happen, how they would try to prevent happening from a Cabinet member in the future, and what steps they would take to reverse any damage caused.  This was SAP level stuff.  It becomes its own policy issue if she is allowed to walk after such a blatant disregard for the rules.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jan 31, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> In other news...  ;)
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 14878



If only the 107 news was real


----------



## TLDR20 (Jan 31, 2016)

CDG said:


> This isn't a run of the mill scandal though.  It's an extremely serious issue, especially considering she is running for President.  I absolutely think it's a debate issue in the sense of getting the candidates views on what should happen, how they would try to prevent happening from a Cabinet member in the future, and what steps they would take to reverse any damage caused.  This was SAP level stuff.  It becomes its own policy issue if she is allowed to walk after such a blatant disregard for the rules.


Fair enough.


----------



## Brill (Jan 31, 2016)

CDG said:


> This isn't a run of the mill scandal though.  It's an extremely serious issue, especially considering she is running for President.  I absolutely think it's a debate issue in the sense of getting the candidates views on what should happen, how they would try to prevent happening from a Cabinet member in the future, and what steps they would take to reverse any damage caused.  This was SAP level stuff.  It becomes its own policy issue if she is allowed to walk after such a blatant disregard for the rules.



(EDIT: This is merely speculation as I have no knowledge of the facts but am keenly aware of how a reasonable person could go about defrauding the American public of information rightfully theirs.  Either she acted as our SECSTATE or she was acting as a private person for the Clinton Foundation (if so, this was done via your taxes and was illegal).)

It's just the tip of the iceberg and WHY attention is being focused on the server setup. 

As standing SECSTATE, she, by,with, and through her staff, conspired to set up private email system for the sole purpose to keep her communications outside Federal records controls and with the intention to subvert FOIA.  There can be no other reason why her IT guy, Bryan Pagliano, who set up the server and THEN was employed by DOS, invoked his 5th Amendment protection:  He knows everything and will surely be rewarded for his support to Clinton.

1) She did not have the authority to determine what was private and what was public correspondence. She or her staff destroyed 50% of her email correspondence...in violation of Federal law.

2) She or her staff conspired to send and receive classified information from both SECRET and TOP SECRET systems to her private server...in violation of Federal law.  She then provided her server, which contained classified information, to an uncleared person who stored the server in an unapproved manner...in violation of Federal law.

3) She or her staff "wiped" the email server AFTER it was supeaoned by Congress...in violation of Federal law.

4) When her emails were finally provided, as required by law, they, 50K pages...not 50K worth of emails but PAGES...were delivered in paper form with the sole purpose of encumbering and delaying the search and discovery of the contents of the emails.

I suspect that the FBI has recovered some of her deleted emails and THIS is why they expanded their probe to include public corruption.

Every Federal employee is REQUIRED to have annual training regarding the Federal Records Act.  Everyone with a clearance signs a NDA which clearly outlines the responsibilities for protecting classified information and penalties for violating those responsibilities.  Every American knows that it is illegal to destroy evidence that is the subject of legal inquiry.


----------



## Centermass (Jan 31, 2016)

The more I see the follow ups into what's been found and uncovered, and the more I read this thread, the uglier in my eyes, this woman gets....if that's even possible. 

TLDR20 hit the nail on the head. So what if someone breaks the law, or doesn't have the makeup of what someone should have, regarding their personal good moral character, belief and values, who is running for any office and is corrupt....fuck all that non sense.  It only matters so long as they're likable and how much free stuff and entitlements I'm going to get.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jan 31, 2016)

If she get away with it....wonder what General Patreaus will say publically....or did the below buy his silence on the issue.

"Retired general, ex-CIA chief David Petraeus to receive no further punishment"

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Defense Secretary Ashton Carter has decided not to impose further punishment on David Petraeus, a former U.S. military commander and CIA director who admitted sharing classified information with his mistress, according to a letter seen by Reuters

So no retired demotion of rank....


----------



## Brill (Feb 1, 2016)

DeLay: FBI 'Ready to Indict' Hillary



> The FBI is ready to indict Hillary Clinton and if its recommendation isn't followed by the U.S. attorney general, the agency's investigators plan to blow the whistle and go public with their findings, former U.S. House Majority leader Tom DeLay tells Newsmax TV.
> 
> "I have friends that are in the FBI and they tell me they're ready to indict," DeLay said Monday on "The Steve Malzberg Show."
> 
> ...


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 1, 2016)

lindy said:


> DeLay: FBI 'Ready to Indict' Hillary



Coming soon to a theatre near you! The Purge III: Federal Bloodbath

Because Navy leadership desperately craves the aura of stability.


----------



## Kraut783 (Feb 1, 2016)

FBI doesn't indict anyone......DOJ USAO does, AG going to have to sign off on any indictment process...wonder which way the winds of politics will blow on this issue.  I think for POTUS, he needs to do the right thing.


----------



## racing_kitty (Feb 1, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> FBI doesn't indict anyone......DOJ USAO does, AG going to have to sign off on any indictment process...wonder which way the winds of politics will blow on this issue.  I think for POTUS, he needs to do the right thing.


The FBI may not indict, but their heads will roll the moment the recommendation is officially made to the AG. Can't have that kind of negativity when we appoint Comrade Hillary to the throne.


----------



## Dame (Feb 1, 2016)

Interesting point. Winning the Presidency could turn out to be her own personal hell compliments of the FBI.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 1, 2016)

I still think the fix is in, and they indict her a month prior to the convention.
"Crazy Uncle Joe" gets the nomination via a brokered convention.
She would have creamed Biden in a no-shit debate and keeping him off the street ensures a minimum number of gaffes.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 1, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I still think the fix is in, and they indict her a month prior to the convention.
> "Crazy Uncle Joe" gets the nomination via a brokered convention.
> She would have creamed Biden in a no-shit debate and keeping him off the street ensures a minimum number of gaffes.



Bernie isn't out of it yet. He is tied as of now for delegates in Iowa which honestly surprised me.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 1, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Bernie isn't out of it yet. He is tied as of now for delegates in Iowa which honestly surprised me.


I think it surprised Bernie too.
I think he'd be ahead (way ahead) if he had taken the kid gloves off during the first debate.:blkeye:
The email thing is starting to drag her down, plus she comes across as a shrill bitch (so does Palin IMO).
Wonder what dirt Obama has on him


----------



## Centermass (Feb 2, 2016)




----------



## AWP (Feb 2, 2016)

I'm skeptical of an FBI en masse bru-ha-ha if she isn't charged. A bunch of agents giving up their pensions over this? Not happening. A bunch of guys with their pensions, steeped in the system that promoted them? Not bloody likely.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 2, 2016)

There is no shortage of incidents whereby the Agents themselves were in 100% opposition to the USAO's refusing to prosecute cases. They simply drive on after they are rejected and move to the next case. At this point, it will fall on the AG and who knows at that point.


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 2, 2016)

I have no connection to high places or the ears of anyone of significance or consequence.  From a former career and through networking, though, I do have people who "hear" things (albeit of dubious value and veracity).  A friend said he "heard" (in quotes because it is meaningless and not sourced and therefore not trusted) that were HRC to be "indicted" chances are charges would be plead, jail time avoided, maybe some fines.  He also said there would be a reasonable chance that HRC could deflect the blame enough onto other people that they could be indicted instead.  He claimed this was all based on politics and not the law.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 2, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> He claimed this was all based on politics and not the law.



Unfortunately, in these days and times..."politics" have become laws in and of themselves. Those operating in the political realm at that level are "often exempt" from the laws governing the masses.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 2, 2016)

If it really gets too hot for Hil, obama will likely step in, and everything will grind to a halt. If the worst that can happen to Clinton happens, she will be only an hour or so away from a full obama pardon. This will wind up all show, and nothing worth while will happen. My $.02.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 2, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> If it really gets too hot for Hil, obama will likely step in, and everything will grind to a halt. If the worst that can happen to Clinton happens, she will be only an hour or so away from a full obama pardon. This will wind up all show, and nothing worth while will happen. My $.02.


Obama granting a pardon becomes campaign fodder for the other side, DoJ doing nothing becomes debate fodder (Cruz or Trump will chew her up in a no-shit debate)


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 2, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Obama granting a pardon becomes campaign fodder for the other side, DoJ doing nothing becomes debate fodder (Cruz or Trump will chew her up in a no-shit debate)



I hope you are right. My trust in the current administration is zero. There is no transparency, and underhanded actions seem all too common in DC; all of DC. Benghazi should have been campagin fodder last time, and no discussion/debate ever surfaced from the GOP; and the Democrates sure as hell were not going to bring it up. I can see the same thing repeating in this election cycle, over the former SOS treating classified information as "just some email stuff". The Embassy in Libya under direct attack, the Ambassador tortured, sodomized, and murdered, gets a , "who cares" response from the SOS. Having gotten away with that, hell the sky's the limit for Clinton; unless someone steps in and stops it. I just don't see that happening.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 2, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I'm skeptical of an FBI en masse bru-ha-ha if she isn't charged. A bunch of agents giving up their pensions over this? Not happening. A bunch of guys with their pensions, steeped in the system that promoted them? Not bloody likely.



I agree that SA's are not going to toss their careers over this. However, the FBI is not an agency to fuck around with. From their inception, they have been dirt collectors and the amount dirty secrets they hold over many politicians and government people can be a huge driver of influence. DoJ, POTUS, etc are not exempt.

That said, if this was just politics it would be FBI dudes on TV breaking this shit down either for or against Clinton. The fact that nothing is "officially" being said, tells me they actually have a real investigation going and are going to drop a bomb on her so big that she has zero chance of becoming POTUS, as they are not going to chance backlash from her if by some crazy situation she still is elected.

I think Clinton knows she is fucked and is waiting for a parachute from POTUS, but I don't see how that benefits him. Benghazi and an ambassador being killed during his administration is a bad mark. If he can legally point the finger at all his failures at Hillary's mismanagement of classified information, corruption, etc. Its a win for him and his legacy, and we all know POTUS's in their last year all turn to the legacy aspects and try to cover the bad shit up or deflect it onto others.

To be honest, Obama has probably more interest in whoever becoming next POTUS failing than supporting his agenda's. He wants to go down as the guy who saved American, made it better, etc. In order to do that, he needs to be able to deflect his failures, and needs to be able to historically show that someone was far worse than him. I really think he will toss Clinton under the bus, and I don't think she will get a deal, I think they will want her locked away and kept quite.

Just my $.02


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 2, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I hope you are right. My trust in the current administration is zero. There is no transparency, and underhanded actions seem all too common in DC; all of DC. Benghazi should have been campagin fodder last time, and no discussion/debate ever surfaced from the GOP; and the Democrates sure as hell were not going to bring it up.


Did you watch the debates?  Benghazi was mentioned numerous times by Romney in every single debate.  Ctrl+F the phrase "Benghazi" on the wikipedia page United States presidential election debates, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Red Flag 1 said:


> the Ambassador tortured, sodomized,


It should also be pointed out that this didn't happen.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 3, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Did you watch the debates?  Benghazi was mentioned numerous times by Romney in every single debate.  Ctrl+F the phrase "Benghazi" on the wikipedia page United States presidential election debates, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> It should also be pointed out that this didn't happen.



I did watch the debates. What I came away with at the time, was that Romney did not push the issue as much as he might have. To me, Benghazi was a pretty obvious misread, and mishandled across the board. It seemed to me that more could have been said about Benghazi.

I read more than one account of how the Ambassador was dealt with after his captue, and before he died. I will dig around some to see if I can find the reference. If I have it wrong, then I stand corrected.


----------



## Brill (Feb 3, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It should also be pointed out that this didn't happen.



Source?


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 3, 2016)

lindy said:


> Source?


Official DoS report on the attack: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf
Pages 22-26

CNN video purporting to be Libyans pulling a still-living Amb. Stevens from the annex

CBS article about the video and testimony from the doctor who worked on Stevens


----------



## Brill (Feb 3, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Official DoS report on the attack: http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/202446.pdf
> Pages 22-26
> 
> CNN video purporting to be Libyans pulling a still-living Amb. Stevens from the annex
> ...



Check out this video and compare the reaction of the crowd with how Qaddafi was treated.  Do you think they are celebrating because they found the Ambo alive?

'He is still alive!': Video shows the moment ambassador's body is pulled from embassy . . . as witness says he was breathing


----------



## Salt USMC (Feb 3, 2016)

That's the same video bro.  It says the dude's named, Fahad al-Bakoush, in the first two seconds.  I'm not really sure what your point is.


----------



## Brill (Feb 3, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> That's the same video bro.  It says the dude's named, Fahad al-Bakoush, in the first two seconds.  I'm not really sure what your point is.



My point is you are taking the word of the same people who said the attack on the annex was the result of an anti-Islamic video when the facts clearly show that was not the case.  Based on that, anything related to that night in Bengazhi is merely speculation until facts are presented.

While you can present American press reports of how the Ambo was swiftly taken to the hospital there is also a Lebanese website that says his body was mutilated and dragged through the streets.

Any notion that a well-known US facility is attacked with SAF, overrun, and ransacked by Ansar al-Sharia elements and then suddenly peaceful locals occupy the site to render assistance...is...just...pure...fantasy.  6 "good Samaritans" miraculously appeared among the "hordes of looters and bystanders"?  That idea totally defies "rioting mentality" let alone North African mentality ESPECIALLY in Benghazi in 2012.

I have never been involved in a firefight and then been welcomed by any locals.  Quite the opposite actually.

I don't know what happened in Benghazi.  I know that I do not believe the USG's narrative of the story.


----------



## Kraut783 (Feb 3, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> If it really gets too hot for Hil, obama will likely step in, and everything will grind to a halt. If the worst that can happen to Clinton happens, she will be only an hour or so away from a full obama pardon. This will wind up all show, and nothing worth while will happen. My $.02.



If she gets indicted, goes to trail and found/pleas guilty and then granted a pardon....I'm fine with that....it's the best that I can hope for these days with politicians


----------



## Brill (Feb 4, 2016)

What the fuck is going on within our government? DOS IG now comes forward that Powell and Rice had classified emails on their NIPR email? 

I cannot believe this shit.

State Department: Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice staffers received classified info via personal email - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## Dame (Feb 4, 2016)

lindy said:


> What the fuck is going on within our government? DOS IG now comes forward that Powell and Rice had classified emails on their NIPR email?
> I cannot believe this shit.
> State Department: Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice staffers received classified info via personal email - CNNPolitics.com



Oh I can. This has got to be the "throw everyone under the bus so I don't get crushed" strategy. The State Department is now going to pile the bodies high so the emphasis isn't so much on HRC.


----------



## Totentanz (Feb 4, 2016)

lindy said:


> What the fuck is going on within our government? DOS IG now comes forward that Powell and Rice had classified emails on their NIPR email?
> 
> I cannot believe this shit.
> 
> State Department: Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice staffers received classified info via personal email - CNNPolitics.com



"If I'm going down, you're ALL coming with me..."


----------



## Brill (Feb 5, 2016)

I seriously feel like I've invested 27 years worth of "intellectual savings" into a Madoff-type Ponzi scheme. I pray the guy on the white horse rides in and destroys this dragon.

Clinton: '100 percent confident' nothing will come of FBI email probe | Fox News


----------



## Marauder06 (Feb 5, 2016)

lindy said:


> What the fuck is going on within our government? DOS IG now comes forward that Powell and Rice had classified emails on their NIPR email?
> 
> I cannot believe this shit.
> 
> State Department: Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice staffers received classified info via personal email - CNNPolitics.com



Article says:  
"Unlike Clinton, Powell's emails remained in government computer servers."

How can said emails have been on "personal accounts" yet also "remain in government servers?"  Sounds more like potential spillage (which happens to just about everyone, eventually) than malfeasance.


----------



## Poccington (Feb 5, 2016)

It seems like her defence is gonna be "Look, everybody else was doing it as well!".

There's no real accountability in politics, anywhere in the world.


----------



## AWP (Feb 5, 2016)

If the media were impartial reporters of truth they would ask her why her story keeps changing. "I didn't do it" led to "a small amount" to "it isn't a big deal" to "other people did it" plus other stops I've forgotten about. Even Fox doesn't address this rolling barrage of ever changing excuses. The media in this country isn't just partisan, they are also grossly incompetent.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 5, 2016)

lindy said:


> My point is you are taking the word of the same people who said the attack on the annex was the result of an anti-Islamic video when the facts clearly show that was not the case.  Based on that, anything related to that night in Bengazhi is merely speculation until facts are presented.
> 
> While you can present American press reports of how the Ambo was swiftly taken to the hospital there is also a Lebanese website that says his body was mutilated and dragged through the streets.
> 
> ...


Forget the attack...how the hell do you allow an ambassador to role in a war zone without a deep PSD?


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 5, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Forget the attack...how the hell do you allow an ambassador to role in a war zone without a deep PSD?



At some point the responsibility does come back to the ambassador himself.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 5, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> At some point the responsibility does come back to the ambassador himself.


Agree, with a maybe.
I have not followed this for awhile.  Did he ask for extra protection and not get it?
I still think hiring locals for your main security element isn't the smartest thing Sec State could do.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 5, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Agree, with a maybe.
> I have not followed this for awhile.  Did he ask for extra protection and not get it?
> I still think hiring locals for your main security element isn't the smartest thing Sec State could do.



Locals provide the main security element at every embassy I have been to.


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 5, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Locals provide the main security element at every embassy I have been to.


With Marines as the real security.
I have only walked into 4 Embassies, and once past the booger eater I had to show ID to a Marine.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 5, 2016)

You have to have trustworthy LN's, otherwise your Intel becomes limited and extremely hard to verify. Every good security crew, uses LN's in three ways, 1) first person interactions with locals (locals deal with locals). 2) informants, Intel collection and verification (from routs to community leaders to knowing/understanding the groups and players). 3) low profile security, intelligence gathering and personnel recovery (nothing better than a few LN's in the crowd feeding you info and able to act immediately, etc).

That said they have to be well vetted, completely trustworthy and well integrated into the team and very well compensated...otherwise they feed you to the wolves.

Ambassador Stevens had shit security, had bad Intel through the local community level and had LN's that walked. Honestly, whoever was AIC of that security team should have a lot to answer for. The fact that they bailed on him while he was alive should put them out of the industry for life. Keep in mind I'm talking about the DoS guys, not the CIA guys. The CIA security contractors should all be wearing the Congressional Medal of Honor for what they did. Someone must follow those guy's around with a wheelbarrow to keep their balls from dragging.


----------



## Brill (Feb 5, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> Article says:
> "Unlike Clinton, Powell's emails remained in government computer servers."
> 
> How can said emails have been on "personal accounts" yet also "remain in government servers?"  Sounds more like potential spillage (which happens to just about everyone, eventually) than malfeasance.



Well, after research, the info appears to have had the NODIS caveat which is used with Dept of State info ONLY!  SECSTATE has authority to declass the info since it would have originated by that agency. INR does not produce any SAP info.

Apples & oranges.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 5, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> With Marines as the real security.
> I have only walked into 4 Embassies, and once past the booger eater I had to show ID to a Marine.



Marines are not there to keep the embassy or inhabitants safe, they are there to safeguard classified information. The DSS people are responsible for personal security of the installation.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Marines are not there to keep the embassy or inhabitants safe, they are there to safeguard classified information. The DSS people are responsible for personal security of the installation.



My brother was a firearms instructor for DSS. He said his job, in some ways, was to scare the crap out of the embassy staff; all of them.


----------



## policemedic (Feb 6, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> With Marines as the real security.
> I have only walked into 4 Embassies, and once past the booger eater I had to show ID to a Marine.


 
I know what you mean, but it seems that often the LNs outnumber the Marines.


----------



## Marine0311 (Feb 6, 2016)

policemedic said:


> I know what you mean, but it seems that often the LNs outnumber the Marines.



They can and do depending on manpower (numbers).

I was always under the impression that Marine MSG's were responsible for physical security of said embassy?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Feb 7, 2016)

We have a lot of low security embassies that I'm tracking...those are in countries that are primarily about as safe as being at home. I drew that evidence from this bad article.  If certain embassies only get 7 Marine Guards, I'm guessing that's somewhere like Canada, the UK, or Australia.  With how shitty Libya was at the time, I cannot fathom there wasn't at least a platoon (-) of Marine Guards and a shit ton of DSS.  But apparently that is not the case.  This is more or less what should have occured:


----------



## Kraut783 (Feb 7, 2016)

Aren't we forgetting it was a small consulate, no MSG, only local and DSS for security. Ambassador believed his relationships in the area was good and felt comfortable there, this wasn't the first time the was at the consulate and had a false sense of security.


----------



## TLDR20 (Feb 7, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> Aren't we forgetting it was a small consulate, no MSG, only local and DSS for security. Ambassador believed his relationships in the area was good and felt comfortable there, this wasn't the first time the was at the consulate and had a false sense of security.



I'm not forgetting. I'm just saying this wasn't all on Washington. The Ambassador still had some personal responsibility.


----------



## Kraut783 (Feb 7, 2016)

I agree....he calls the shots in country, much to the RSO disagreement and warnings.


----------



## compforce (Feb 12, 2016)

LOL


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 12, 2016)

compforce said:


> LOL



That's awesome...


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 12, 2016)

Shit!  @compforce I was just going to post that.  I want that as a ring tone.  lol


----------



## AWP (Feb 13, 2016)

And the newest update is?

3 marked Secret, a bunch marked Confidential. Fortunately, we learned why this batch was delayed. It has nothing to do with the elections, the State Department is too efficient!

15 percent of latest Hillary Clinton emails marked classified



> In a filing late Friday, a top State Department open-records official took blame for his department breaking the end-of-January deadline.
> 
> Eric F. Stein, senior adviser to the deputy assistant secretary for global information services, said they got too good at meeting monthly deadlines that they pushed the toughest documents back, and only belatedly discovered they’d forgotten to run all the traps on them.



Oh, the Feb. 29 deadline is the day before Super Tuesday. I can't wait to see what they are hiding until the day before the biggest day of the primaries. Mad props for dropping this batch on a  Saturday. Christ, anyone with a brain can see what's going on but nothing's being done nor will be done.


----------



## Brill (Feb 14, 2016)

Interesting analysis: Will Hillary's buddies take one for the Team?

FBI questions Hillary Clinton’s top advisors


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 14, 2016)

Is there a bus running in the obama garage with Mrs. Clinton's name on it? Or will he step up and stop everything with yet another White House order?


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 14, 2016)

I still think this is a way for Biden to get the nomination without running the Primary gauntlet.  She get's indicted on numerous counts a month before the democratic convention forcing a brokered convention.


----------



## AWP (Feb 18, 2016)

How could you see it and not immediately realize it's classified? "C'mon man...." This is ridiculous and she needs to be charged.

Clinton email chain discussed Afghan national's CIA ties, official says | Fox News



> EXCLUSIVE: One of the classified email chains discovered on Hillary Clinton’s personal unsecured server discussed an Afghan national’s ties to the CIA and a report that he was on the agency’s payroll, a U.S. government official with knowledge of the document told Fox News.
> 
> The discussion of a foreign national working with the U.S. government raises security implications – an executive order signed by President Obama said such unauthorized disclosures are “presumed to cause damage to the national security."


----------



## Grunt (Feb 18, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> How could you see it and not immediately realize it's classified?



One of the saddest parts about this whole issue for me is the theory behind "the fish rots from the head down." This reverses the order if something isn't done about it. When the Boss is breaking the law, those beneath her...especially those "close" to her feel they can do it as well because they will be protected by her. However, when charges start coming down the pike -- if they do at all -- it's usually the followers that get the charges and not the "rotten head". I'm afraid that may end up being the case here.


----------



## BloodStripe (Feb 18, 2016)




----------



## Brill (Feb 18, 2016)

@NavyBuyer , I've hated that guy for YEARS now!


----------



## Dame (Feb 18, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> How could you see it and not immediately realize it's classified? "C'mon man...." This is ridiculous and she needs to be charged.
> 
> Clinton email chain discussed Afghan national's CIA ties, official says | Fox News


Agreed. But where's the national whistleblower hotline that doesn't serve as a travel agent to Air Siberia? _*Not*_ saying I like Snowden! He's an idiot and a traitor.
BUT... trying to report a security breach ain't no easy thing especially if it goes through your boss or didn't happen in your AO. I've tried.


----------



## Blizzard (Feb 19, 2016)

You are all over-reacting.  Hillary says she's never lied and I believe her.  Some apologies are in order.

Hillary Clinton: 'I Don't Believe' I Have Ever Lied


----------



## Dame (Feb 19, 2016)

"I did not have textual relations with those headers."


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 19, 2016)

That recent interview "I don't believe I've ever lied" is everything that is wrong with politics and the news in this country. She is full of shit, and the reporter should have hammered her on her response, but he played ball. Fucking corrupt motherfuckers make my skin crawl.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 19, 2016)

Unfortunately, I have come to expect politicians to lie because they have been allowed to since the beginning of time. I suspect that it will always be that way until we -- the US citizenry -- put a quick and final death to PC. Call a liar a liar and hold them accountable for the words they say and the deeds they do. They are no longer accountable to anyone and act with impunity. They change their stories and opinions like the wind changes direction. They simply will not change until they are forced to. We have the politicians that we have asked for as a nation.


----------



## Brill (Feb 23, 2016)

Who the hell timed this fuse?

Judge inches toward subpoenas in Clinton email server case - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 23, 2016)

lindy said:


> Who the hell timed this fuse?
> 
> Judge inches toward subpoenas in Clinton email server case - CNNPolitics.com


I still think Obama will pull the trigger on her just before the convention.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 23, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> How could you see it and not immediately realize it's classified? "C'mon man...." This is ridiculous and she needs to be charged.
> 
> Clinton email chain discussed Afghan national's CIA ties, official says | Fox News



I wondered if obama would step up and stop the bus from running over ole Hilary. I was actually pretty sure he would use his Executive power to shield his former SOS. This pretty well closes the door on that protection.


----------



## Florida173 (Feb 24, 2016)

> *Spy agencies say Clinton emails closely matched top secret documents: sources*
> U.S. spy agencies have told Congress that Hillary Clinton's home computer server contained some emails that should have been treated as "top secret" because their wording matched sections of some of the government's most highly classified documents, four sources familiar with the agency reports said.




Sounds like she may have missed her derivative classification course


----------



## Kraut783 (Feb 24, 2016)

"As I'm sure you know, that matter is being handled by career independent law enforcement agents, FBI agents, as well as the career independent attorneys in the Department of Justice. They follow the evidence, they look at the law, and they'll make a recommendation to me when the time is appropriate," Lynch said.

:whatever:

AG Lynch: FBI Still Conducting Hillary Investigation


----------



## Brill (Feb 24, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I wondered if obama would step up and stop the bus from running over ole Hilary. I was actually pretty sure he would use his Executive power to shield his former SOS. This pretty well closes the door on that protection.



I assume that will be the case: she walks but her loyal subordinates face the penalties.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 24, 2016)

All politicians at her level have "disposable" people on staff to throw away when they need some cannon fodder to take the blame for their actions.


----------



## AWP (Feb 24, 2016)

Agoge said:


> All politicians at her level have "disposable" people on staff to throw away when they need some cannon fodder to take the blame for their actions.



The NFL has them so we're fools if we think the real power brokers of this country don't have disposable employees.


----------



## Brill (Feb 25, 2016)

Interesting video.

Is Hillary Clinton Above the Law?  | Fox Business


----------



## AWP (Feb 27, 2016)

Neither CNN nor Fox have this story on their "front pages" as it were. Short version, another batch of emails totaling 1500 pages dropped Friday night. The total so far across all releases?



> The State Department's interagency FOIA review team has classified more than 1,800 of them, *two-dozen* of which were deemed to be *Top Secret* and *21 Secret*, because intelligence officials who reviewed the communications said they contain sensitive information.



Hours Before South Carolina Primary, 1,500 Pages of Hillary Clinton Emails Are Released | VICE News


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 27, 2016)

lindy said:


> Interesting video.
> 
> Is Hillary Clinton Above the Law?  | Fox Business



So basically if her staffers are willing to plead to felonies, Hillary will get a pass? Way to be a fucking leader, let all your minions fall on their swords for your misdeeds and preach to the nation that your "leadership" is what this country needs...for fuck sake, you would be hard pressed to believe this shit if it was written in a Novel, much less real life.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 27, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> So basically if her staffers are willing to plead to felonies, Hillary will get a pass? Way to be a fucking leader, let all your minions fall on their swords for your misdeeds and preach to the nation that your "leadership" is what this country needs...for fuck sake, you would be hard pressed to believe this shit if it was written in a Novel, much less real life.



She has never been a leader. A manager at best, but never a leader!


----------



## AWP (Feb 28, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> So basically if her staffers are willing to plead to felonies, Hillary will get a pass? Way to be a fucking leader, let all your minions fall on their swords for your misdeeds and preach to the nation that your "leadership" is what this country needs...for fuck sake, you would be hard pressed to believe this shit if it was written in a Novel, much less real life.



Oliver North agrees.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 28, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Oliver North agrees.




Good point bro, and I am not stating that its something new or restricted to individuals or party lines. I just think it's disgusting and sad.

The fact that the American people (or mainly their representatives) would buy that a lone LTC Marine officer ran the Contras, gun trading and the like is mind blowing. The fact that Reagan/Bush and the Pentagon allowed him to take the heat for it, was just as disgusting as what Hillary Clinton is attempting to get away with.


----------



## AWP (Feb 28, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Good point bro, and I am not stating that its something new or restricted to individuals or party lines. I just think it's disgusting and sad.
> 
> The fact that the American people (or mainly their representatives) would buy that a lone LTC Marine officer ran the Contras, gun trading and the like is mind blowing. The fact that Reagan/Bush and the Pentagon allowed him to take the heat for it, was just as disgusting as what Hillary Clinton is attempting to get away with.



Stepping beyond Hillary, there's a history of famous (note I didn't use "great") people using a fall guy when needed. Ray Lewis, Steve Jobs, Cris Carter (telling NFL rookies to use them), rappers I can't think of (nor care about), drug cartels and other criminal organizations, and who knows how many people have "resigned" to take the heat off of a politician or business. My memory's a bit thin, but I can Google if you want to find more names.

The reality though is the same regardless of the persons involved. You sacrifice one or more people to protect the big dog. "I didn't know" "I wasn't fully briefed" "He may have said that" and a sacrificial underling later...and the "leader" walks away.

I HATE Hillary Clinton. I am serious when I use that word because she's everything wrong on almost every level with our political process today, but if she weasels out of any prosecution by "killing" a minion, she won't be the first or last. She'll join a long distinguished list of guilty who escaped because of a ritual sacrifice.

It sucks, but that's the world in which we live.


----------



## Brill (Feb 28, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The reality though is the same regardless of the persons involved. You sacrifice one or more people to protect the big dog. "I didn't know" "I wasn't fully briefed" "He may have said that" and a sacrificial underling later...and the "leader" walks away.



Nixon would disagree but I'm smellin' what you're feelin'.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 28, 2016)

lindy said:


> Nixon would disagree but I'm smellin' what you're feelin'.



Very true, Nixon was caught, he didn't have room to wiggle out of his reckoning. I guess the question would be if Hillary has any possible deniability of receiving, releasing's and or failing to protect classified information. On face value, it would appear with her requesting documents be retyped to avoid classification protocol's that she would not. But yet again, if the prosecution says we'll hang these minion's to make this go away and the Clinton's history with use of presidential pardon's, I'm wondering now if this a rabbit hole of wasting tax payers money.


----------



## Brill (Feb 28, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Very true, Nixon was caught, he didn't have room to wiggle out of his reckoning. I guess the question would be if Hillary has any possible deniability of receiving, releasing's and or failing to protect classified information. On face value, it would appear with her requesting documents be retyped to avoid classification protocol's that she would not. But yet again, if the prosecution says we'll hang these minion's to make this go away and the Clinton's history with use of presidential pardon's, I'm wondering now if this a rabbit hole of wasting tax payers money.



Don't forget that the investigation of Hillary's "serve her" has expanded to include public corruption.  Personally, I think that the FBI has recovered some "deleted" materials off the server and this material is more damning (using her position to funnel money to the foundation in exchange for foreign policy changes) than any compromise of TS//SI.

Again, I have no knowledge of the investigation but it's just a hunch.


----------



## AWP (Feb 28, 2016)

I'm cynical enough to think that even if they had her on corruption she won't take a charge. They hang an office staffer who handled the money or whatever OR (if charges are even made) they hang someone over the email debacle, but she walks. She's a Clinton and this is America during an election year where she's the favorite for the Dem. nomination and eventual White House residency. There is almost no way in hell the AG allows the FBI to charge her with jaywalking, much less something substantial.

We all know she did it, can anyone on this board legitimately (not devil's advocate, but a legit belief and case) argue she's innocent based upon what we know?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Feb 28, 2016)

Not to change the current discussion, but ran into this gem of an interview of the Clinton's trying to explain his whoring around during the 92 election year.

What happened to that southern draw Hillary? I guess some shit never changes, lies, cover up, never actually taking responsibility and putting on a show to impress the masses.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 28, 2016)

They are two piles of crap that draw flies non stop. It has been going on for decades, and nothing seems to change with the Clintons. They will forever get away with drawing flies.


----------



## Gunz (Feb 28, 2016)

Any accusations, any charges will be disregarded as partisan politics. Her husband was impeached but not convicted...even though he clearly committed perjury under oath. He was just an "innocent" victim of GOP persecution. He had the media on his side, as she does now. The facts will be rationalized in her favor.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 28, 2016)

The "Clinton Machine" is so entrenched in the various levels of government that I imagine there are hundreds who are willing to "draw fire" on their behalf just to be able to be associated with them. I have been to several of their functions and to watch people fawn over them is truly a work of art.


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 28, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Any accusations, any charges will be disregarded as partisan politics. Her husband was impeached but not convicted...even though he clearly committed perjury under oath. He was just an "innocent" victim of GOP persecution. He had the media on his side, as she does now. The facts will be rationalized in her favor.


Here is the problem with slick willie's perjury charge... it means nothing in the legal system. It can be argued successfully that the fall of the Republican party began with the Republican hunt to prosecute 42 for getting what amounted to a blowjob and not wanting his wife to find out. Whoop-die-do. He cheated on his wife, so what? Did the Republican establishment really think they would shame him into resigning? He displayed "immoral" behavior? To whose standard of morals are we talking about? Maybe they had an agreement for side options? Who cares? The only thing this prosecution did was to begin the groundings of a divide between the parties and the larger country.

Oh! But perjury is illegal! Yeah, and? So is having sex in any position other than missionary in some states, or engaging in sodomy, or many of the other bullshit religiously based laws out there. The simple fact is (not that I agree, but it is true nonetheless) perjury is relegated to chickenshit status as far as the criminal justice system is concerned. I cannot count the number of times a witness, complainant, or victim has recanted an official testimony or sworn statement when they were caught in a lie. One particular case that comes to mind is a domestic violence case where the wife was high on cocaine and began beating the husband and child. Arrested woman, husband and son provided sworn affidavits as to what occurred, and the case went to trial. When I get to court, the husband and the child recant on their statements, on the stand, and the woman is found not guilty. When I asked the prosecutor why were we not following up on charges for perjury (which a statement of such is written on the sworn statement and the statement is signed), the prosecutor stated that it would not "look good" for the state to do that. My point in all of this is that perjury is rarely ever prosecuted unless it is used as leverage by the state, it is a chicken shit charge similar to getting pulled over for having your tag light out.

While I am all for going after the corrupt clinton dynasty, we need to more carefully choose what arguments we make, if we don't then we potentially lose the force of our arguments, and we get the media bias that you mentioned.


----------



## Grunt (Feb 28, 2016)

Well said, @ke4gde!


----------



## Brill (Feb 29, 2016)

I cannot believe the double-standard.

Senior Clinton aide maintained top secret clearance amid email probe, letters show | Fox News


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 29, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Stepping beyond Hillary, there's a history of famous (note I didn't use "great") people using a fall guy when needed. Ray Lewis, Steve Jobs, Cris Carter (telling NFL rookies to use them), rappers I can't think of (nor care about), drug cartels and other criminal organizations, and who knows how many people have "resigned" to take the heat off of a politician or business. My memory's a bit thin, but I can Google if you want to find more names.
> 
> The reality though is the same regardless of the persons involved. You sacrifice one or more people to protect the big dog. "I didn't know" "I wasn't fully briefed" "He may have said that" and a sacrificial underling later...and the "leader" walks away.
> 
> ...


NCAA Football (and other) Head Coaches.

Most of the people who take the hit think they will get a light sentence or just community service; every now and then they get a crappy surprise.


----------



## Brill (Feb 29, 2016)

One thing to keep in mind is that Mills sent classified material to Hillary AS WELL AS to the Clinton Foundation.

Private entities are NEVER authorized to receive or retain classified material because it is ALWAYS government information.


----------



## Brill (Feb 29, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Here is the problem with slick willie's perjury charge... it means nothing in the legal system. It can be argued successfully that the fall of the Republican party began with the Republican hunt to prosecute 42 for getting what amounted to a blowjob and not wanting his wife to find out. Whoop-die-do. He cheated on his wife, so what? Did the Republican establishment really think they would shame him into resigning? He displayed "immoral" behavior? To whose standard of morals are we talking about? Maybe they had an agreement for side options? Who cares? The only thing this prosecution did was to begin the groundings of a divide between the parties and the larger country.
> 
> Oh! But perjury is illegal! Yeah, and? So is having sex in any position other than missionary in some states, or engaging in sodomy, or many of the other bullshit religiously based laws out there. The simple fact is (not that I agree, but it is true nonetheless) perjury is relegated to chickenshit status as far as the criminal justice system is concerned. I cannot count the number of times a witness, complainant, or victim has recanted an official testimony or sworn statement when they were caught in a lie. One particular case that comes to mind is a domestic violence case where the wife was high on cocaine and began beating the husband and child. Arrested woman, husband and son provided sworn affidavits as to what occurred, and the case went to trial. When I get to court, the husband and the child recant on their statements, on the stand, and the woman is found not guilty. When I asked the prosecutor why were we not following up on charges for perjury (which a statement of such is written on the sworn statement and the statement is signed), the prosecutor stated that it would not "look good" for the state to do that. My point in all of this is that perjury is rarely ever prosecuted unless it is used as leverage by the state, it is a chicken shit charge similar to getting pulled over for having your tag light out.
> 
> While I am all for going after the corrupt clinton dynasty, we need to more carefully choose what arguments we make, if we don't then we potentially lose the force of our arguments, and we get the media bias that you mentioned.



When the head of the Executive branch is impeached for obstructing justice, it's a pretty fucking big deal because he swore an oath to preserve the Contitution and therefore his CORE job is ensure that laws of these United States are obeyed.

Also cited by a Federal judge for contempt...a sitting President ignoring a judges orders.

Going full circle, Mills defended Bill during his impeachment trial. Shit is too crazy even for cable tv!


----------



## nobodythank you (Feb 29, 2016)

lindy said:


> When the head of the Executive branch is impeached for obstructing justice, it's a pretty fucking big deal because he swore an oath to preserve the Contitution and therefore his CORE job is ensure that laws of these United States are obeyed.
> 
> Also cited by a Federal judge for contempt...a sitting President ignoring a judges orders.
> 
> Going full circle, Mills defended Bill during his impeachment trial. Shit is too crazy even for cable tv!


Yes and no. A sitting President ignoring a judge's order is no different than a sitting Attorney General that ignores a Congressional subpoena to appear before congress and present evidence. The battle between branches rages on for less.

What was the core reason for the investigation? He got a blowjob. If you were a court official that asked a person if the sky is blue, or some other nonsense, and the person said no (when it was clearly blue) then you could, through subterfuge, technically charge the person with perjury or obstruction. Is that acting within the spirit of the law? No. Is it the letter of the law? Yes. 

We can rationalize the process for going after 42 all we want with patriotic and legal platitudes, but in the end it was a waste of time and political ammo that garnered us nothing. Instead, people now actually believe that what is going on with hillary is an extension of what happened to bill. Instead of the fact that hillary willfully and wantonly broke federal law and attempted to bypass federal oversight. Those in political power need to rethink what constitutes a breach of office/illegal act ect... versus what is just a boneheaded move of the individual's part. People eat, shit, fuck, and sleep. Even those in power. In the grand scheme of things, getting your knobber slobbered pales in comparison with what hillary did to those 4 Americans and the rest of the country in passing classified materials.


----------



## Frank S. (Feb 29, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> drawing flies.



Which a man of wealth and taste might refer to as sky raisins...


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Feb 29, 2016)

Frank S. said:


> Which a man of wealth and taste might refer to as sky raisins...



Indeed.


----------



## Brill (Mar 1, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Yes and no. A sitting President ignoring a judge's order is no different than a sitting Attorney General that ignores a Congressional subpoena to appear before congress and present evidence. The battle between branches rages on for less.
> 
> What was the core reason for the investigation? He got a blowjob. If you were a court official that asked a person if the sky is blue, or some other nonsense, and the person said no (when it was clearly blue) then you could, through subterfuge, technically charge the person with perjury or obstruction. Is that acting within the spirit of the law? No. Is it the letter of the law? Yes.
> 
> We can rationalize the process for going after 42 all we want with patriotic and legal platitudes, but in the end it was a waste of time and political ammo that garnered us nothing. Instead, people now actually believe that what is going on with hillary is an extension of what happened to bill. Instead of the fact that hillary willfully and wantonly broke federal law and attempted to bypass federal oversight. Those in political power need to rethink what constitutes a breach of office/illegal act ect... versus what is just a boneheaded move of the individual's part. People eat, shit, fuck, and sleep. Even those in power. In the grand scheme of things, getting your knobber slobbered pales in comparison with what hillary did to those 4 Americans and the rest of the country in passing classified materials.



The reason for the investigation was the sexual harassment suit from Paula Jones and Clinton's stalling tactics went all the wat to SCOTUS (he claimed immunity from civil lawsuits by being President).  The OIC investigated Lewinsky when trying to determine if there was a pattern of harassment.

I disagree it was a waste for it shone a light into the darkness of American politics.

From Rep Hyde's closing arguments:

"A failure to convict will make the statement that lying under oath, while unpleasant and to be avoided, is not all that serious...We have reduced lying under oath to a breach of etiquette, but only if you are the President...And now let us all take our place in history on the side of honor, and, oh, yes, let right be done."


----------



## nobodythank you (Mar 1, 2016)

lindy said:


> The reason for the investigation was the sexual harassment suit from Paula Jones and Clinton's stalling tactics went all the wat to SCOTUS (he claimed immunity from civil lawsuits by being President).  The OIC investigated Lewinsky when trying to determine if there was a pattern of harassment.
> 
> I disagree it was a waste for it shone a light into the darkness of American politics.
> 
> ...


Sexual harassment, in and of itself is not criminal, civil yes, but not criminal. Additionally, IIRC a judge at the time dismissed the case on the grounds that she failed to prove any damages. This case was in no way a legal requirement for going after 42. If by darkness you mean the depths at which waste and fraud are prevalent in politics to meet political agendas then sure. However, in the long run it was a waste of time and a bad move for the Republicans. How many party members, and the overall party, have been hurt by their illicit affairs with women, men, hell even some men who just liked to get freaky with their wives, all in the name of pious Republicans? This double standard hunt helped to further divide us into two more distinct camps, as people began to see Republicans as sore losers that will take any opportunity to go after someone that beat them. Outside of staunch Republicans, no one cared that he got a blowjob and tried to hide it from his wife. Nor should they care as it is between him and his wife.

Rep Hyde? You mean the same staunch, pious Republican that wanted to go after clinton for extramarital affairs when he himself was found having done the same thing in a Salon.com article that revealed his affair? Where was the honor in that indiscretion? As I mentioned before, lying under oath carries little if any weight because it is not applied equally to everyone. It is only used by the state as leverage, otherwise it is a waste of time for the state to bother with it. Look, don't get me wrong, at the time I was wanting to see clinton get in trouble and impeached, but in truth even if he was found guilty during the impeachment it would not necessarily have meant his removal from office. Worse yet, we would have had gore as a CnC.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 1, 2016)

Many, many of our Presidents had a bit of a "wandering eye"; some more than others. Considering that, Bill Clinton was not plowing any new:-"..........ground. What his wife has been accused of is in a different world all together. Nixon got nailed for lying to the American people, and his cover up what was a single event; Watergate. That Mrs Clinton mishandled classified information for most her time as SOS, and throwing a blanket over the whole thing, is proving to have no effect at all on her electability. Things have changed, and I doubt they will ever change back. It's OK now to lie about a lot, cover it up, get caught red handed, and get away with it. Perhaps action will be taken. Maybe the FBI will come through in the end; but I really doubt it. If Mrs. Clinton is found accountable, charged and brought to court, maybe, just maybe the pendulum is slowing it's swing away from personal accountability. There are only a few months left to work this. If she does become POTUS, the swing away from who we have been will just keep going. The question then is, just how far will this go? How do we redefine personal accountability? Where will the line between right and wrong be?


----------



## DocIllinois (Mar 1, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Many, many of our Presidents had a bit of a "wandering eye"; some more than others. Considering that, Bill Clinton was not plowing any new:-"..........ground. What his wife has been accused of is in a different world all together. Nixon got nailed for lying to the American people, and his cover up what was a single event; Watergate. That Mrs Clinton mishandled classified information for most her time as SOS, and throwing a blanket over the whole thing, is proving to have no effect at all on her electability. Things have changed, and I doubt they will ever change back. It's OK now to lie about a lot, cover it up, get caught red handed, and get away with it. Perhaps action will be taken. Maybe the FBI will come through in the end; but I really doubt it. If Mrs. Clinton is found accountable, charged and brought to court, maybe, just maybe the pendulum is slowing it's swing away from personal accountability. There are only a few months left to work this. If she does become POTUS, the swing away from who we have been will just keep going. The question then is, just how far will this go? How do we redefine personal accountability? Where will the line between right and wrong be?



For corrupt political "leadership" unfamiliar with these moral basics, I would start with consulting with top Doctors of Philosophy who concentrate on Moral Philosophy, specifically normative and applied ethics.

(But, you know, actual qualification and expertise in a specific field seem to account for less and less these days.  Just look at the leading Republican POTUS candidate.  )


The following would also be a fine starting point, IMO:

Marine Corps Leadership Traits

*Video Form*


----------



## Brill (Mar 1, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Sexual harassment, in and of itself is not criminal, civil yes, but not criminal. Additionally, IIRC a judge at the time dismissed the case on the grounds that she failed to prove any damages. This case was in no way a legal requirement for going after 42. *If by darkness you mean the depths at which waste and fraud are prevalent in politics to meet political agendas then sure.* However, in the long run it was a waste of time and a bad move for the Republicans. How many party members, and the overall party, have been hurt by their illicit affairs with women, men, hell even some men who just liked to get freaky with their wives, all in the name of pious Republicans? This double standard hunt helped to further divide us into two more distinct camps, as people began to see Republicans as sore losers that will take any opportunity to go after someone that beat them. Outside of staunch Republicans, no one cared that he got a blowjob and tried to hide it from his wife. Nor should they care as it is between him and his wife.
> 
> Rep Hyde? You mean the same staunch, pious Republican that wanted to go after clinton for extramarital affairs when he himself was found having done the same thing in a Salon.com article that revealed his affair? Where was the honor in that indiscretion? As I mentioned before, lying under oath carries little if any weight because it is not applied equally to everyone. It is only used by the state as leverage, otherwise it is a waste of time for the state to bother with it. Look, don't get me wrong, at the time I was wanting to see clinton get in trouble and impeached, but in truth even if he was found guilty during the impeachment it would not necessarily have meant his removal from office. Worse yet, we would have had gore as a CnC.



I seriously do not know how to respond to this.

You wrote a bunch of words and opinions that are not supported by the facts of the investigation and impeachment proceedings.

Didn't Hillary come out and say that previous SECSTATEs had used personal emails to conduct official business?  Is that where you're going with the idea that everybody in DC is whoring around?

Hyde prosecuted Clinton's impeachment because he was the Chairman of the Judiciary committee.  If he had moral indiscretions, he did not make false statements, did not conspire to have others do the same, he did not pay just under $1 mil to any victim, and he did not lose his license to practice law.

Justify his actions all you want.  I personally don't care what he did with whom.  The bottom line is he broke the law, the House, as a body, agreed the he broke two laws however, the Senate did not think his lying and obstruction presented a clear and present danger to the peoples' liberties so they acquitted.

He, like Hillary, had the chance to "call their shots" and own it yet in typical Clinton fashion, they lie, accuse, and bomb Serbia.


----------



## Gunz (Mar 1, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Here is the problem with slick willie's perjury charge... it means nothing in the legal system. It can be argued successfully that the fall of the Republican party began with the Republican hunt to prosecute 42 for getting what amounted to a blowjob and not wanting his wife to find out. Whoop-die-do. He cheated on his wife, so what? Did the Republican establishment really think they would shame him into resigning? He displayed "immoral" behavior? To whose standard of morals are we talking about? Maybe they had an agreement for side options? Who cares? The only thing this prosecution did was to begin the groundings of a divide between the parties and the larger country.
> 
> Oh! But perjury is illegal! Yeah, and? So is having sex in any position other than missionary in some states, or engaging in sodomy, or many of the other bullshit religiously based laws out there. The simple fact is (not that I agree, but it is true nonetheless) perjury is relegated to chickenshit status as far as the criminal justice system is concerned. I cannot count the number of times a witness, complainant, or victim has recanted an official testimony or sworn statement when they were caught in a lie. One particular case that comes to mind is a domestic violence case where the wife was high on cocaine and began beating the husband and child. Arrested woman, husband and son provided sworn affidavits as to what occurred, and the case went to trial. When I get to court, the husband and the child recant on their statements, on the stand, and the woman is found not guilty. When I asked the prosecutor why were we not following up on charges for perjury (which a statement of such is written on the sworn statement and the statement is signed), the prosecutor stated that it would not "look good" for the state to do that. My point in all of this is that perjury is rarely ever prosecuted unless it is used as leverage by the state, it is a chicken shit charge similar to getting pulled over for having your tag light out.
> 
> While I am all for going after the corrupt clinton dynasty, we need to more carefully choose what arguments we make, if we don't then we potentially lose the force of our arguments, and we get the media bias that you mentioned.



I see what you're saying. I have less tolerance for Presidential indiscretions, especially when the Oval Office--which belongs to the people--is used as a fuck chamber by the First Executive. Other Presidents may have had their concubines, but that doesn't make it right. My opinion is that if a man will lie to and betray his own family, he's not going to think twice about lying to and betraying strangers...in this case the American people. Okay, so it's not Murder One...but my point is still that any flak aimed at the Clintons, whether chicken shit or something of substance, will be denigrated to nothing more than partisan politics and because of their cushy relationship with the liberal media most of the lemmings will believe what they are told.


----------



## nobodythank you (Mar 1, 2016)

lindy said:


> I seriously do not know how to respond to this.
> 
> You wrote a bunch of words and opinions that are not supported by the facts of the investigation and impeachment proceedings.
> 
> ...


Bravo, good job attempting to dismiss or belittle my argument with the appearance of supposition and ignorance. Let us use our analytical and comprehension skills when reading over facts from the investigation and proceedings.

The larger issue for hillary is her distribution of classified materials and the destruction of evidence. Previous SECSTATEs have not been investigated for distribution of classified material AND have not impeded any investigation by destroying evidence. However, as previous SECSTATE Colin Powell correctly stated "The State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't...If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share." As to using a personal email to conduct business, that is likely a protocol or policy violation that does not meet the same level of damage as the distribution of classified materials. 

What was the origin of the investigation? His activities with an intern. Were his activities a threat to national security or did they impair his ability to govern? Obviously not as the investigation was centered on his false statements. It is also fact that Hyde had moral indiscretions (which is relevant to the discussion) as he admitted to them later. Which is irrelevant to the clinton investigation, but shows an alarming bit of hypocrisy. We can come up with any bullshit investigation to ask questions and go after someone for lying about being asked. Similar to the example I provided earlier of stopping someone for a tag light in order to fish for a reason to arrest. Legal yes, but a waste of time that borders on the unethical. 

Nowhere in any of my posts did I even attempt to justify his actions. I despise the clintons and everything they stand for. However, I also despise my former party because they chose poorly in their desire to discredit the then President, and therefore caused the party to be in the state of affairs it is in today.


----------



## Il Duce (Mar 1, 2016)

@ke4gde - on a different thread many months ago you once blasted me for pigeon-holing you as a conservative.  You said something to the effect that you have opinions that are critical of both parties.  I will admit, I did not believe you.  I figured hatred/love of one ideology drove your opinions as it does for most (and I'm ashamed to say at times my own).  I was wrong.  You were right.


----------



## nobodythank you (Mar 1, 2016)

Il Duce said:


> @ke4gde - on a different thread many months ago you once blasted me for pigeon-holing you as a conservative.  You said something to the effect that you have opinions that are critical of both parties.  I will admit, I did not believe you.  I figured hatred/love of one ideology drove your opinions as it does for most (and I'm ashamed to say at times my own).  I was wrong.  You were right.


Thank you. You honor me with your words. I appreciate the lively debates we engage in as they help me to grow.


----------



## nobodythank you (Mar 1, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I see what you're saying. I have less tolerance for Presidential indiscretions, especially when the Oval Office--which belongs to the people--is used as a fuck chamber by the First Executive. Other Presidents may have had their concubines, but that doesn't make it right. My opinion is that if a man will lie to and betray his own family, he's not going to think twice about lying to and betraying strangers...in this case the American people. Okay, so it's not Murder One...but my point is still that any flak aimed at the Clintons, whether chicken shit or something of substance, will be denigrated to nothing more than partisan politics and because of their cushy relationship with the liberal media most of the lemmings will believe what they are told.


I can respect that feeling completely. Look, I don't think anyone should be using the O office (lol) as their personal conquest quarters. If it isn't right then it should not be accepted as the norm. However, mistakes are made as we are human. In that light, everyone should look inward and think about how they have dishonored themselves or their family at some point in their lives. There is not a man among us who has not done so at one point in their lives at the very least. Sometimes we are caught, other times we are not. In the end, most of us try to make amends and better ourselves through out deeds. It is how we learn to be better, and why we encourage our children to be better. That is one reason why it is never wise to judge another person for their infidelities.

You are correct in stating that the media and the worshipers will believe as they like. However, if I am going to make an argument for something, personally, I want to bring the strongest evidence to bear that is supported by fact and law. Morality is such a subjective area, that I feel we lose the force of our argument when we try to evoke our morality onto someone else. That is of course only my opinion with words unsupported by fact :-":troll:


----------



## Brill (Mar 1, 2016)

@ke4gde, I wasn't trying to belittle your opinion (ok, maybe just a bit...ok, geez, a lot) but let my try to understand your position:

-Clinton's perjury charge "it means nothing in the legal system" and you cited several examples of such.

-The investigation was because he got hummer.  "People eat, shit, fuck, and sleep. Even those in power."

My position is that a President lying under oath SHOULD be a big deal and the House agreed.

The the Lewinsky "affair" was actually part of a larger and ongoing investigation.  Tripp's tapes were given to Starr, who was already appointed Independent Counsel by the DOJ for the Jones' civil suit and that line of inquiry begat the two charges because of Clinton's action during the investigation (1998) vice during the President's actions with Lewinsky in 1995.

I should have used the words condone vice justify as it appeared to me your position was that Hyde and others did/have done basically the same thing the most people do.

I disagree this was a waste: surely this and the email server will come up again.  Hillary either ignored Bill's activity as well as her subordinates thereby demonstrating that she is aloof and incapable of knowing what's going on under her own roof OR she allowed it.  If the latter, she was complicit or was powerless to stop it.  In either case, it shows a HUGE character flaw.  Shit is only going to get harder if she gets in the White House (pun intended???).

Regarding using personal email for Federal business (as well as its destruction), it is a violation of the Federal Records Act.  It does not equate to mishandling classified material but yet it shows yet another Clinton character flaw (or tendency) that they actually believe they are above the law (when a Clinton does it, it's not illegal).

Bill's acquittal set precedence as will Hillary's if unindicted.


----------



## nobodythank you (Mar 1, 2016)

lindy said:


> @ke4gde, I wasn't trying to belittle your opinion (ok, maybe just a bit...ok, geez, a lot) but let my try to understand your position:
> 
> -Clinton's perjury charge "it means nothing in the legal system" and you cited several examples of such.
> 
> ...


Well thanks for admitting as such. Theoretically, I agree that his lying under oath SHOULD be a big deal, but it is not because our own system has relegated that offense to misdemeanor joke status. Afterall, any cop in the nation can lose his credentials at ANY time for the simple act of lying during an official proceeding. That is of course not to say that we should make lying illegal (as it is not except in official proceedings), but there has to be some balance and common sense. From a legal standpoint, he should be in trouble for it and punished. That is under the assumption that partisan politics is ignored and the truth sought. However, that is not the world we live in (and that saddens me). It should be a big deal to everyone of all parties that he lied under oath, and not that he had his penile track vacuum tested. Which is why I still believe going after him was a long term mistake.

Worse yet is that we all pretty much know that hillary is going to likely get away with it unless someone radical, with little or not party ties (hint hint), gets into office and makes her answer for her crimes. Perhaps it is my distaste for the religious agenda/hypocrisy that is prevalent within the the Republican party that is biasing my outlook. Or it could be that I feel that the Republicans chose poorly, yet again, on which battles to fight. In any event, it set the stage for the current atmosphere of belief that hillary has done no wrong and is being persecuted by a large portion of the country (as is evidenced by her standing in the polls).

As for the records act, it is a violation, but in what context, criminal or civil? Mishandling classified data is the criminal fish to fry that will derail her political aspirations for good. Along with the whole clinton trio. Regardless, I look forward to the day (that likely will never come) where we can all lift our drinks in celebration, and continue to belittle each other a lot or a little


----------



## Grunt (Mar 1, 2016)

Aren't y'all trying to say that a lying, perjuring, dirtbag should be held accountable regardless of their lot in life. Like one law for all...something like that....


----------



## Brill (Mar 1, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> In any event, it set the stage for the current atmosphere of belief that hillary has done no wrong and is being persecuted by a large portion of the country (as is evidenced by her standing in the polls).
> 
> As for the records act, it is a violation, but in what context, criminal or civil? Mishandling classified data is the criminal fish to fry that will derail her political aspirations for good.



I think the media isn't telling the entire story about WHY her email server is such a big deal (yoga routines???).  Anyone who tries to explain is labeled as a "Trump"-er.

The Records Act falls under USC 44, which violations this gross, would result in firing but the destruction of work emails falls under destruction of Federal property and USC 18, which (this gross) felony charges.

I think they will pressure the little guys (IT staffers, DOS employees, etc) and seriously follow the money.  This incident makes Nixon look like a saint.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 1, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> For corrupt political "leadership" unfamiliar with these moral basics, I would start with consulting with top Doctors of Philosophy who concentrate on Moral Philosophy, specifically normative and applied ethics.
> 
> (But, you know, actual qualification and expertise in a specific field seem to account for less and less these days.  Just look at the leading Republican POTUS candidate.  )
> 
> ...




I fully concur @DocIllinois; those seeking public office should have in their hearts and minds, pure ethic responsibility, and insight. Sadly we are talking about people who are, in some cases, already corrupted. They could care less about ethics, morals, or a sense of responsibility to those who have elected them to office. Words of wisdom from our greatest moralists, and ethical behavior experts would be found in a book rack in their john, if at all. Things can be turned around, and they should be. Debates for the highest office in our country is reduced to name calling, and backing up claims of everyone else lying. We have already seen that lying is accepted behavior; hell, it is nearly condoned in recent "debates".  I am beginning to believe that the voting public today, has no idea of the issues facing our nation today. The candidates aren't helping all that much either. Debate winners today are the ones with the least amount of mud sticking on them at the end; and that is decided by the media.The words of the great thinkers will go unread by the voting public, watching the news on TV tells them all they need to know. The "reporters" are all well groomed, attractive to look at, and use big words. The talking heads they bring before other cameras, show just more of the same; and it takes all day. Who has time to read anything besides "People","Time", "Rolling Stone" and other such trusted publications ?


----------



## ZmanTX (Mar 1, 2016)

lindy said:


> I think the media isn't telling the entire story about WHY her email server is such a big deal (yoga routines???).  Anyone who tries to explain is labeled as a "Trump"-er.
> 
> The Records Act falls under USC 44, which violations this gross, would result in firing but the destruction of work emails falls under destruction of Federal property and USC 18, which (this gross) felony charges.
> 
> I think they will pressure the little guys (IT staffers, DOS employees, etc) and seriously follow the money.  This incident makes Nixon look like a saint.



Couldn't agree with you more. It's like CNN refuses to even acknowledge that it's an issue anymore. I think they hope everyone will forget about it. If it does come up it's simply brushed away as partisan politics.


----------



## nobodythank you (Mar 1, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I don't think it's unfair to hold the President of the United States to a higher standard of morality. He is the principal representative of our nation, our heritage, our image. He is the living symbol of America. Is it that hard to be loyal to your family and keep your pants zipped for 4 years? Or 8? Clinton didn't stray morally, he wasn't making a mistake in judgement...he was hunting pussy like a teenage boy. He thought he was a rock star. He didn't give a shit about the respectability of the Office of the Presidency, he just wanted the fringe benefits. He loved partying with celebrities.
> 
> His wife, she's different. She's in love with Power. That's always been her weakness. Bill's obsessed with poontang, she's obsessed with raw power.


Higher standard of morality I disagree with. Only because we all have differing standards of morality. It is too ambiguous. Standards of conduct on the other hand can be clearly and objectively displayed. As to is it that hard to keep his pants zipped, I don't know. I am not in his shoes. Just like I wouldn't judge you or your decisions without knowing you or what you are doing. For all we know those two worked out an agreement and as long as he didn't get caught she didn't care. It isn't the strangest idea. 

Don't misunderstand me, I am by no means excusing his actions, or justifying them. I also won't condemn the man for taking advantage of the perks of his position either. Like anything else in life, it has to be taken into context. I don't take offense to desiring to seek justice, I take offense at the motivations behind that pursuit.


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 2, 2016)

Marilyn Monroe I can understand.....Monica, nope


----------



## Ranger Psych (Mar 2, 2016)

Off my FB feed:

Bryan Pagliano, who helped set up Clinton's private email server when she was secretary of state, has been granted immunity by the DOJ and FBI to provide information to investigators.

Dun dun DUNNNNNNNNN


----------



## AWP (Mar 3, 2016)

Ranger Psych said:


> Off my FB feed:
> 
> Bryan Pagliano, who helped set up Clinton's private email server when she was secretary of state, has been granted immunity by the DOJ and FBI to provide information to investigators.
> 
> Dun dun DUNNNNNNNNN



Fox is running the same story. The AG says she and the DOJ haven't decided to prosecute, claims they aren't operating against the election or a date, and are pretty tight-lipped about the whole process.

Yet here we are with a staffer receiving immunity, immunity in a case which may or may not result in charges? Makes me wonder what he knows and who he's diming out.


----------



## Grunt (Mar 3, 2016)

There is much "quaking in their boots" going on this morning. We may see several rats jumping off of the sinking ship shortly. I do, however, believe those rats consist of "fall guys."


----------



## Totentanz (Mar 3, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The AG says she and the DOJ haven't decided to prosecute, *claims they aren't operating against the election or a date*, and are pretty tight-lipped about the whole process.



*cough*bullshit*cough*


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 3, 2016)

I still think Obama hangs her out to dry just before the convention starts allowing Biden to step in and save the day.


----------



## Brill (Mar 3, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Fox is running the same story. The AG says she and the DOJ haven't decided to prosecute, claims they aren't operating against the election or a date, and are pretty tight-lipped about the whole process.
> 
> Yet here we are with a staffer receiving immunity, immunity in a case which may or may not result in charges? Makes me wonder what he knows and who he's diming out.



This Admin OPENLY discusses JSOC ops but is tight lipped about ANYTHING? Interesting indeed.

Napolitano: Hillary 'conspiracy' is starting to unveil


----------



## ZmanTX (Mar 3, 2016)

Obama's Justice Department Just Gave Bryan Pagliano Immunity and Bernie Sanders the Presidency
*
"However, only Bryan Pagliano can explain to the FBI why Clinton needed the server, it's political utility, and most importantly, how the computer network was protected. Also, Pagliano can help with understanding the computer server's connection to other Clinton projects like their foundation, or other activities."*

Wonder what Hillary thought when she heard that Pagliano was given immunity... 

ZM


----------



## Brill (Mar 4, 2016)

An aspiring attorney should file suit against Hillary and DOS for wasting taxpayer dollars.

How much time did Federal employees spend working all scanning her emails, investigating, handling press, etc. when they SHOULD have been doing their core jobs?

Had she followed the rules, this would not have been an issue.


----------



## Brill (Mar 4, 2016)

Whew "they" found no traces of intrusion (cause I'm sure it had advanced tech used to detect such)!  Good thing hackers only target one machine vice looking at an entire network of connected users.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/u...said-to-show-no-evidence-of-hacking.html?_r=0


----------



## AWP (Mar 4, 2016)

lindy said:


> Whew "they" found no traces of intrusion (cause I'm sure it had advanced tech used to detect such)!  Good thing hackers only target one machine vice looking at an entire network of connected users.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/04/u...said-to-show-no-evidence-of-hacking.html?_r=0



Very true, but on a certain level this is a good thing. No one can use the "we were hacked" defense.


----------



## Florida173 (Mar 4, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Very true, but on a certain level this is a good thing. No one can use the "we were hacked" defense.


 
Although the requirement for spillage isn't having been compromised by hackers, so it will be interesting how people will spin this.


----------



## Brill (Mar 4, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Very true, but on a certain level this is a good thing. No one can use the "we were hacked" defense.



What about the devices/machines used by Umma, Cheryl, and Sydney? Just cuz Hill's server doesnt allegedly show signs of intrusion (I'm sure hostile Intel services are afraid of networking logs), what about her other devices?

It is naive to think anyone within a President's cabinet wouldn't be a target of foreign intel. Especially one with questionable morales such as close Clinton associates.


----------



## DA SWO (Mar 4, 2016)

lindy said:


> What about the devices/machines used by Umma, Cheryl, and Sydney? Just cuz Hill's server doesnt allegedly show signs of intrusion (I'm sure hostile Intel services are afraid of networking logs), what about her other devices?
> 
> It is naive to think anyone within a President's cabinet wouldn't be a target of foreign intel. Especially one with questionable morales such as close Clinton associates.


Or the trojans were removed when word leaked out.
You wouldn't necessarily have to force a hack, sending an "invoice" as a .exe would give you access, likewise another .exe could erase your presence.


----------



## 8654Maine (Mar 5, 2016)

Agoge said:


> Aren't y'all trying to say that a lying, perjuring, dirtbag should be held accountable regardless of their lot in life. Like one law for all...something like that....



I got that sense as well.


----------



## Brill (Mar 7, 2016)

This is like telling a judge "I wasn't drinking when I blew a .26 so I wasn't drinking and driving."

Clinton: Nothing I sent or received was marked classified

For those who aren't in "the know", her explanation that info is only classified when it is reviewed for public released is absolutely untrue and she should have known this...it's fucking skill level one shit that every 35-series soldier learns in MOS training.

Sad day with an E-3 is more knowledgeable than a candidate for POTUS.


----------



## SpitfireV (Mar 7, 2016)

It's not a case of that though. It's a case of her using spin. She would know.


----------



## AWP (Mar 7, 2016)

lindy said:


> For those who aren't in "the know", her explanation that info is only classified when it is reviewed for public released is absolutely untrue and she should have known this...it's fucking skill level one shit that every 35-series soldier learns in MOS training.
> 
> Sad day with an E-3 is more knowledgeable than a candidate for POTUS.



It is something EVERYONE learns as part of their annual IA training. It was in there last year and the year before that and is there this year when I took mine last week.


----------



## CDG (Mar 8, 2016)

You know what the problem is?  Cabinet officials aren't taking the annual IA CBT.  How is she supposed to know when she never had to earn those trophies?


----------



## AWP (Mar 8, 2016)

CDG said:


> earn those trophies?



Free beer for you if we ever meet. All the lulz.


----------



## poison (Mar 8, 2016)

Hurry up and indict her.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 11, 2016)

And the plot thickens....

Source: Clinton IT specialist revealing server details to FBI, 'devastating witness' | Fox News


----------



## RetPara (Mar 11, 2016)

Mondays story.....

Source: Clinton IT specialist working with FBI dies in hit and run accident, 'devastating to the investigation' | Fox News


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 11, 2016)

RetPara said:


> Mondays story.....
> 
> Source: Clinton IT specialist working with FBI dies in hit and run accident, 'devastating to the investigation' | Fox News



I can't open link and I didn't see anything in Google.  What was the source?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 11, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I can't open link and I didn't see anything in Google.  What was the source?



He rewrote it as a joke, its the same article you posted. lol

With the Clinton's past, it wouldn't surprise me if the young IT guy had a "heartache" or got over depressed all the sudden and shot himself in the back of the head. lol


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 11, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I can't open link and I didn't see anything in Google.  What was the source?



You have to get the color just right, or no one will bite. RetPara is a master at that.


----------



## Devildoc (Mar 11, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> He rewrote it as a joke, its the same article you posted. lol
> 
> With the Clinton's past, it wouldn't surprise me if the young IT guy had a "heartache" or got over depressed all the sudden and shot himself in the back of the head. lol



I admit when I saw the headline I thought, "fuck, _another_ one?"  But sadly, I am not sure an untimely and surely tragic demise would be entirely unsurprising.....


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Mar 11, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I admit when I saw the headline I thought, "fuck, _another_ one?"  But sadly, I am not sure an untimely and surely tragic demise would be entirely unsurprising.....



With good reason.


----------



## Frank S. (Mar 11, 2016)

It's Clintonian for "shut the fuck up".


----------



## Brill (Mar 12, 2016)

I wonder when the MSNBC and CNN will start posting stories that discredit him as a knowledgable IT professional...as well as targeting him personally.

"Pagliano wrote bad review of The Snoopy Movie" on Amazon!" Gasp!


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 15, 2016)

Article: Exposing the Libyan Agenda: A Closer Look at Hillary's Emails

Interesting read, I'm not sure how true everything in it is, but the Iraqis/Saddam switching to euro's from dollars for oil payment is true. Saddam had also made comments regarding trading in gold currency as well. The same has been stated by Iran, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, China, etc.

Anyway, I'm off to start fact checking the article, if you have a few minutes its worth the read.


----------



## Brill (Mar 15, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Article: Exposing the Libyan Agenda: A Closer Look at Hillary's Emails
> 
> Interesting read, I'm not sure how true everything in it is, but the Iraqis/Saddam switching to euro's from dollars for oil payment is true. Saddam had also made comments regarding trading in gold currency as well. The same has been stated by Iran, Libya, Syria, Venezuela, China, etc.
> 
> Anyway, I'm off to start fact checking the article, if you have a few minutes its worth the read.



Truth matters about as much as Mitt Romney not paying taxes for 10 years.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Mar 15, 2016)

lindy said:


> Truth matters about as much as Mitt Romney not paying taxes for 10 years.



Matters to me...

So apparently we did blow up the Libyan "great man made river" project and the factory that built the pipe needed to repair it. The 140 tons of gold and the "gold dinar" is true. It's pretty hard to fact check the emails, as I'm not going to waste time filing FOIA requests. But based on the little bit of digging on the easy stuff, I would conclude a majority of the article is legit.


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 15, 2016)

Today's quote  

'We didn't lose a single person in Libya,' Hillary Says

Wow: 'We didn't lose a single person in Libya,' Hillary Says


----------



## Brill (Mar 16, 2016)

Oh, she is REALLY fucked now.

Clinton tried to change rules to use BlackBerry in secure facility for classified information | Fox News

I like the part where it says she was hooked on the BB and leaves the SCIF to check it multiple times a day.  Dollars to doughnuts she renamed her pocket/purse SCIF. I have no doubt her device was in her office...a SCIF.


----------



## Dame (Mar 17, 2016)

> The State Department said Wednesday no computer was set up but confirmed there was a space created to accommodate Clinton's personal email use.  ‎"There is an area dedicated to supporting the secretary outside but in the immediate vicinity of the secretary's secure office. Secretary Clinton, as with anyone, could use such non-SCIF spaces to check personal devices.," a State Department official said.



Oh what bullshit! You have to leave the building. NO personal device use inside the facility anywhere. Stand alone government computer yes. Personal blackberry? Fuck no.


----------



## AWP (Mar 17, 2016)

I saw an Op-Ed that essentially stated "DoS has one view on security and DoD has another view. State can't function with security but Defense needs security. It is no surprise State did this and in fact we should expect this to happen."

I was blown away.


----------



## RetPara (Mar 17, 2016)

There have been networked computers in SCIF's for a long time.  They are linked on secure network.  That network was early model of the internet and has been running since the early 80's.  Still in existence with... a few upgrades....

DoS 's concept of security is to have a conversation about compartmentalized information in a bar.... but whisper.


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 17, 2016)

So...little confused here.  Couldn't she have checked her unclass email on an unclass computer in the SCIF?  Or was it the way her private server access was set up?


----------



## Brill (Mar 18, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> So...little confused here.  Couldn't she have checked her unclass email on an unclass computer in the SCIF?  Or was it the way her private server access was set up?



She was clearly afraid of using anything affiliated with a DOS domain. I bet the stand alone in her office wasn't linked to the State network at all. No traces of her acty at all on USG systems.

I'm sure this system was NEVER detected as not being behind their firewall. She thinks the public is just so stupid.


----------



## Dame (Mar 18, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> So...little confused here.  Couldn't she have checked her unclass email on an unclass computer in the SCIF?  Or was it the way her private server access was set up?


No. PM inbound.


----------



## Kraut783 (Mar 18, 2016)

PM responded.


----------



## Brill (Mar 24, 2016)

Well, this isn't a good sign for the objectivity of the DOJ.



> “The lawyers in the Department of Justice have a long and storied tradition of defending the nation’s interests and enforcing its laws … The conduct of the IRS’s attorneys in the district court falls outside that tradition,” the opinion said.



Federal appeals court slams IRS in Tea Party case, demands documents | Fox News


----------



## Brill (Mar 26, 2016)

I like Judicial Watch's claim that Clinton's view on truth is "catch me if you can".  How can any American SERIOUSLY vote for her to be President? I bet they'll be the first presidential couple to be impeached.

State Dept. underlings tried to warn Clinton about server


----------



## Brill (Mar 28, 2016)

GREAT article on the issue! A must read!

How Clinton’s email scandal took root


----------



## Brill (Mar 29, 2016)

Two judges now think the email setup was a little "odd".

Second judge says Clinton email setup may have been in 'bad faith'


----------



## AWP (Apr 8, 2016)

Other news sources reported the extradition (curiously none of the mainstream US news sites did), but Fox has connected the dots. This one should be fun to watch. Why else bring this guy to the US?

Source: No 'coincidence' Romanian hacker Guccifer extradited amid Clinton probe | Fox News

The extradition of Romanian hacker “Guccifer” to the U.S. at a critical point in the FBI’s criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton’s email use is “not a coincidence,” according to an intelligence source close to the case.

One of the notches on Guccifer’s cyber-crime belt was allegedly accessing the email account of Clinton confidant Sidney Blumenthal, one of Clinton’s most prolific advice-givers when she was secretary of state. It was through that hack that Clinton's use of a personal account -- clintonemail.com -- first came to light.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 8, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Other news sources reported the extradition (curiously none of the mainstream US news sites did), but Fox has connected the dots. This one should be fun to watch. Why else bring this guy to the US?
> 
> Source: No 'coincidence' Romanian hacker Guccifer extradited amid Clinton probe | Fox News
> 
> ...



I have a hard time believing in coincidences, and I think the intelligence source close to the case could see that most rational people can put two and two together and see the links.  What I am curious about is, why did they say anything at all?  They didn't have to, and really could have made Clinton and Co. sweat bullets about an anonymous "deep throat" source that could underscore the emails.  Unless, of course, it was to send a shot across the bow.

This shit is too Alice-in-Wonderlandish for me.


----------



## Brill (Apr 9, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Other news sources reported the extradition (curiously none of the mainstream US news sites did), but Fox has connected the dots. This one should be fun to watch. Why else bring this guy to the US?
> 
> Source: No 'coincidence' Romanian hacker Guccifer extradited amid Clinton probe | Fox News
> 
> ...



I wonder if this move is to put more pressure on Pagliano despite the immunity?


----------



## AWP (Apr 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> I wonder if this move is to put more pressure on Pagliano despite the immunity?



Good point. I would think immunity deals are based upon what you can say and prove, not what you know but don't tell. Pagliano could (we don't know) be dragging his feet or holding out. This guy could turn up the heat and/ or corroborate Pagliano's statements.

One way or the other, we wouldn't fly a guy in from a European prison because we were bored or bluffing. At least I'd hope we weren't that stupid. Of course, we also have Afghanistan....


----------



## Salt USMC (Apr 9, 2016)

Folks, I am shocked and with all of you.  A grand oversight has occurred within this very thread, and even the moderating staff completely failed to notice it.  What am I talking about, exactly?  Why, the one year anniversary of this thread passed last month!

Happy birthday thread (and scandal)!


----------



## AWP (Apr 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Folks, I am shocked and with all of you.  A grand oversight has occurred within this very thread, and even the moderating staff completely failed to notice it.  What am I talking about, exactly?  Why, the one year anniversary of this thread passed last month!
> 
> Happy birthday thread (and scandal)!



What is dead may never die.


----------



## Brill (Apr 10, 2016)

Orange is the new black.


----------



## Brill (Apr 10, 2016)

Trust in the Dear Leader as his judgement is superior to all others.

"There's classified and then there's classified," Obama told interviewer Chris Wallace with a smile.

No political influence in Clinton email probe, Obama says


----------



## AWP (Apr 10, 2016)

There's transparent and then there's transparent.


----------



## Marauder06 (Apr 10, 2016)

lindy said:


> ''.
> 
> "There's classified and then there's classified,"



"There's rules for people like you, and then there are rules for people like us."


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 10, 2016)

Vote for 'Joe' signs are probably already being printed, boxed and strategically placed all over the country.


----------



## DA SWO (Apr 10, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Vote for 'Joe' signs are probably already being printed, boxed and strategically placed all over the country.


He can put Crazy Uncle Joe in the WH, get himself nominated/confirmed to the Supreme Court, and take the Clinton's out of politics forever.

Bill has to be asking himself how she never learned anything watching him all these years.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 10, 2016)

That would be such an insane turn of events, and would fully and completely solidify the corruption running rampant within our government.

I remember making a comment on here several years ago, that the United States government is one of the most corrupt in the world. I was told how dumb I am or whatever, yep...big dummy!


----------



## Brill (Apr 10, 2016)

WSJ ain't buying what attorney Obama is selling.

Careless vs intentional.

Was her server set up, which 100% bypassed Dept of State's rules and procedures, an intentional act or was it just careless?

It is careless to walk away from your system without CTRL+ALT+DEL and screen lock.

It is intentional to disable your screen lock setting.

Obama on Hillary’s Email Intent


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Apr 10, 2016)

With all that has been said, in all the media coverage, I don't believe that Mrs. Clintion has any idea at all about what she has really done. The very concept of protecting classified information for the safety and good of our nation is not what she is concerned with. To this day, it is convenience for Mrs. Clinton that is paramount. As long as Mrs Clinton has any responsibility for the security of our Nation's classified information, it will forever be considered less important than her personal business.


----------



## Brill (Apr 11, 2016)

Here’s how Obama answered Wallace’s first question:

“And what I also know, because I handle a lot of classified information, is that there are — there’s classified, and then there’s classified.  There’s stuff that is really top secret top secret, and *there’s stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state*, that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is *basically stuff that you could get in open source.*”

I wonder if he's just talking about SAPs...like some of the shit found on her server...that the LCDR did NOT pass to the CHICOMs?


----------



## AWP (Apr 11, 2016)

lindy said:


> And what I also know, because I handle a lot of classified information, is that there are — there’s classified, and then there’s classified.  There’s stuff that is really top secret top secret, and *there’s stuff that is being presented to the president or the secretary of state*, that you might not want on the transom, or going out over the wire, but is *basically stuff that you could get in open source.*”



I am dumber for having read this bullshit. It will play well with someone who doesn't know any better, but craps all over anyone with experience and an intact frontal lobe. That's a dumb statement by anyone who handles classified material, but by the president? Insulting.

Basically, if it is leaked, let's say to a movie producer or by a guy who has a flash drive of documents pulled from a classified network, then it is automatically downgraded and we should stop harping on the subject?


----------



## Brill (Apr 11, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Basically, if it is leaked, let's say to a movie producer or by a guy who has a flash drive of documents pulled from a classified network, then it is automatically downgraded and we should stop harping on the subject?



Snowden just became the poster boy for phreedumb.


----------



## Brill (Apr 12, 2016)

Gregg Jarrett weighs in and says what most of us know but some still deny despite the facts.

Gregg Jarrett: An attorney's five takeaways from Obama's defense of Clinton's emails | Fox News

"Incompetence is not a defense." But could be her new campaign slogan!


----------



## AWP (Apr 12, 2016)

This entire affair should have ended the day they discovered her telling an aide to strip away the classification headers. I fear we're losing ourselves in the details while we forget one key fact.


----------



## Brill (Apr 12, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I fear we're losing ourselves in the details while we forget one key fact.



Definition of DISTRACTION


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 22, 2016)

Good article in Salon, written by a Dem no less.....

Hillary’s primary success is a sham: Bernie Sanders will remain the true Democratic front-runner until the FBI finishes its Investigation


----------



## Brill (Apr 22, 2016)

Want...so badly...to comment...


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Apr 22, 2016)

There is truth in the idea.


----------



## racing_kitty (Apr 22, 2016)

As I read somewhere else, when you've lost _Salon_...


----------



## AWP (Apr 22, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> As I read somewhere else, when you've lost _Salon_...



Her party will make some noise but once Sanders is gone they will all rally around her. Their morals will only last as long as a second Dem. candidate.


----------



## Brill (Apr 23, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> As I read somewhere else, when you've lost _Salon_...



...you create a PAC to counter-message?

PAC spending $1 million to counter Internet attacks on Clinton


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 26, 2016)

For your reading pleasure....

State Department Hid Key Clinton Benghazi Email from Judicial Watch - Judicial Watch

Hiding emails, withholding information....and the argument remains "just because we _look_ guilty doesn't mean we _are _guilty...."


----------



## AWP (Apr 26, 2016)

If only she, State, and her staff were as open as Port 25...


----------



## LimaOscarSierraTango (Apr 26, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> If only she, State, and her staff were as open as Port 25...



That was terrible.  LOL


----------



## AWP (Apr 26, 2016)

LimaOscarSierraTango said:


> That was terrible.  LOL



Only 4 or 5 people here would understand it anyway, at least without looking it up.


----------



## Brill (Apr 26, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> If only she, State, and her staff were as open as Port 25...



@compforce get it?  He made a SMTP funny.


----------



## compforce (Apr 27, 2016)

lindy said:


> @compforce get it?  He made a SMTP funny.



Yeah, but no mention of anonymous relay...


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 29, 2016)

Another good article, from the HuffPo no less....

Dear FBI, the Democratic Party's Future Rests Upon Your Investigation of Clinton's Emails


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Apr 29, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Another good article, from the HuffPo no less....
> 
> Dear FBI, the Democratic Party's Future Rests Upon Your Investigation of Clinton's Emails



That is some silly shit "oh its only dozens of FBI agents investigating, not hundreds, so it must not be a big deal" or "they're taking so long so there must be nothing there". 

People are freaking stupid.


----------



## Devildoc (Apr 29, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> That is some silly shit "oh its only dozens of FBI agents investigating, not hundreds, so it must not be a big deal" or "they're taking so long so there must be nothing there".
> 
> People are freaking stupid.



Stupid _and_ delusional.  Many of her supporters honestly think the email affair is either a) no big deal and everyone is over-reacting, or b) manufactured to conspire against her.


----------



## Brill (May 4, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> If only she, State, and her staff were as open as Port 25...



Sounds as if it was in fact just THAT easy to penetrate her.

Romanian hacker Guccifer: I breached Clinton server, 'it was easy' | Fox News


----------



## Devildoc (May 5, 2016)

lindy said:


> Sounds as if it was in fact just THAT easy to penetrate her.
> 
> Romanian hacker Guccifer: I breached Clinton server, 'it was easy' | Fox News



I need more caffeine.  I read your comment totally in a different context. <shudder>


----------



## Red Flag 1 (May 5, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I need more caffeine.  I read your comment totally in a different context. <shudder>



I can only think of one meaning, and it is in poor form.

My $.02.


----------



## Frank S. (May 5, 2016)

How ironic, how Shadowspearean, that this thread should be found on the same page as the cigar thread...


----------



## Salt USMC (May 6, 2016)

Take a deep breath.  Find a comfortable, relaxing place to sit down.  Put on some calming music.

Now, read this blurb: FBI interviewed Clinton aide Huma Abedin in email probe: report



> The FBI has interviewed aides to Democratic presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton — including top adviser Huma Abedin — as part of the probe into her private email server, according to CNN.
> 
> The FBI is expected to interview Clinton in the coming weeks, though a date has not been set.
> 
> ...



I mean, this is yet another "breaking news with unsourced quotes" piece, but if it's true then...shit I just don't know.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (May 6, 2016)

I guess I haven't put the right air treatment system in my cave, I can still smell bullshit. Now where is it coming from??


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 6, 2016)

It's my understanding that willingness means nothing to the act of breaking the law, specifically in this matter. However, it would set standards for premeditated intent, as to the severity of the crime. Example: Killing someone is still a homicide, intent only determines the severity of the criminal charge, murder vs manslaughter, etc.

If she intentionally broke the law, the charges would be more severe, if she broke the unintentionally, she still broke the law. Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense.


----------



## Kraut783 (May 6, 2016)

I know people are focusing on the classified emails and server....something also going on is the Public Corruption part of the investigation that came to light in the emails.  That will actually be more damning than the other things.


----------



## AWP (May 7, 2016)

lindy said:


> Sounds as if it was in fact just THAT easy to penetrate her.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (May 7, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> I know people are focusing on the classified emails and server....something also going on is the Public Corruption part of the investigation that came to light in the emails.  That will actually be more damning than the other things.



That's the quite little white noise that Mrs. Clinton hears in the background, and won't quite go away. I'd like it to become a loud roar, but that's just me.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 7, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> It's my understanding that willingness means nothing to the act of breaking the law, specifically in this matter. However, it would set standards for premeditated intent, as to the severity of the crime. Example: Killing someone is still a homicide, intent only determines the severity of the criminal charge, murder vs manslaughter, etc.
> 
> If she intentionally broke the law, the charges would be more severe, if she broke the unintentionally, she still broke the law. Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense.



It depends on how the law is written though. It might be up to the Federal government to prove intent, it might not be. According to the All Knowing All Night Wikipedia you guys don't have too many strict liability offences so likely is.

Which means of course there will be a sacrificial goat slaughtered and then they'll move on. A damn shame.


----------



## Brill (May 8, 2016)

Intent is NOT a factor in mishandling classified material. Espionage, yes, but after being briefed, stupidity isn't considered...unless you're running for office.


----------



## SpitfireV (May 8, 2016)

Can you point me to the relevant legislation please? I'm curious for my own gratification.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (May 8, 2016)

I'm not going research the law, but everyone is briefed on classified materials, sign NDA's and know without a doubt the rules/laws/punishment. There is zero wiggle room, I mean to even attempt to believe HRC didn't intentionally avoid the law of FOIA, by using a private server is in itself insanity. She broke several laws, knowingly and intentionally, but she is using her public image and power to circumvent her inevitable prosecution.

I know without any naivety how corrupt our government has become, but I honestly cannot see how she is not prosecuted for this. I don't really see a way out of it for her.

$.02


----------



## Kraut783 (May 8, 2016)

for one..... 

*18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material*

(a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both.

(b) For purposes of this section, the provision of documents and materials to the Congress shall not constitute an offense under subsection (a).

(c) In this section, the term “classified information of the United States” means information originated, owned, or possessed by the United States Government concerning the national defense or foreign relations of the United States that has been determined pursuant to law or Executive order to require protection against unauthorized disclosure in the interests of national security.

Some others:

Executive Order 13526  / https://foia.state.gov/_docs/MDR/135190.pdf

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information


----------



## Brill (May 10, 2016)

Interesting that the topic of "searched" emails provided to DOS would be off limits. Nothing to hide?

Clinton aide leaves interview when FBI asks off-limits question


----------



## Devildoc (May 10, 2016)

I swear Clintons are Teflon.  I bet my son's allowance that she has a Scooter Libby all lined up, a fall guy/gal, who will fall on the sword for the cause.  She will somehow have plausible deniability, but knowing full well someone has to pay, has someone who _will _pay.  Who, of course, will have a very nice job all lined up for when he/she gets out of the pen.


----------



## Florida173 (May 10, 2016)

> REPORT: Hillary’s Emails Hacked by Russia – Kremlin Deciding Whether to Release 20,000 Stolen Emails





> According to a report from four days ago, beginning in 2011, the Russians began monitoring Romanian computer hacker Marcel Lazăr Lehel (aka Guccifer) after he attempted, unsuccessfully, to break into the computer system of the Russian funded RT television network.
> 
> After monitoring Guccifer, the Russians were reportedly able to record (both physically and electronically) his actions which allowed the Russian intelligence analysts, in 2013, to not only detect his breaking into the private computer of Secretary Clinton, but also break in and copy all of its contents as well.


----------



## racing_kitty (May 18, 2016)

I was torn between putting it here or the campaign thread. 

ETA: the teen in the pic posted it, with caption.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (May 18, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> View attachment 15512
> I was torn between putting it here or the campaign thread.
> 
> ETA: the teen in the pic posted it, with caption.



The back stabber get's some of her own in return.


----------



## Florida173 (May 18, 2016)




----------



## Brill (May 26, 2016)

Story from NYT that compares HRC's campaign rebuttal to DOS's IG report.  Pretty much outlines that the statement is not backed by facts...at all.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email.html?_r=0

Personally, I thought she was going to get away with it but now I think she'll be indicted and will fight the charges with a vengeance.


----------



## DA SWO (May 26, 2016)

lindy said:


> Story from NYT that compares HRC's campaign rebuttal to DOS's IG report.  Pretty much outlines that the statement is not backed by facts...at all.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/hillary-clinton-email.html?_r=0
> 
> Personally, I thought she was going to get away with it but now I think she'll be indicted and will fight the charges with a vengeance.


Ann Coulter (  ) was on the radio saying what I have been saying.
She gets indicted just prior to the convention; Democratic Convention goes banana's, Obama rides in to save the day by nominating Joe Biden.
President Biden and Vice President Warren.
With one of his Racist Cronies going to the Supreme Court:wall::blkeye:


----------



## DocIllinois (May 26, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Ann Coulter (  ) was on the radio saying what I have been saying.
> She gets indicted just prior to the convention; Democratic Convention goes banana's, Obama rides in to save the day by nominating Joe Biden.
> President Biden and Vice President Warren.
> With one of his Racist Cronies going to the Supreme Court:wall::blkeye:



Or the Democratic party Feels the Bern.  :whatever:


----------



## DA SWO (May 26, 2016)

DocIllinois said:


> Or the Democratic party Feels the Bern.  :whatever:


Not going to happen.
Obama hates the Clinton's and I really believe he intends to wipe them off the political map once and for all.
This is the guy who dismantled the machine that put him into politics.


----------



## Dame (May 26, 2016)

I still say she gets away with it.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (May 26, 2016)

Dame said:


> I still say she gets away with it.



I am of the same mind. I hate it; hate it with a passion. It is very much in the hands of the media, and the professional protesters at Trump functions. Make no mistake, the demonstrations that turn ugly, do so in the same manner, and pretty well timed for when the ugly begins. This is how our leaders are put in office, and it stinks.


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 1, 2016)

I spent the Memorial Day weekend in Maryland with some friends.  The husband of my wife's BFF is a higher-ranking officer at the Pentagon.  He works in cyber whatnot; since a computer, to me, is little more than to chat with friends and a place to put my yellow sticky notes, I understand precisely dick about the unclassified stuff that he does.  All I understood was "computer security stuff."

Anywho, he has been "briefed in" with this whole mess and can't say much.  As we have surmised, however, _should_ the AG follow the letter of the law, she should be toast.  He did say that because of this fallout, he has to deal with all of his service highers in understanding that EVERY email will be printed and cataloged.

Apparently the HRC email mess has far-reaching and significant downstream ramifications.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 1, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> I spent the Memorial Day weekend in Maryland with some friends.  The husband of my wife's BFF is a higher-ranking officer at the Pentagon.  He works in cyber whatnot; since a computer, to me, is little more than to chat with friends and a place to put my yellow sticky notes, I understand precisely dick about the unclassified stuff that he does.  All I understood was "computer security stuff."
> 
> Anywho, he has been "briefed in" with this whole mess and can't say much.  As we have surmised, however, _should_ the AG follow the letter of the law, she should be toast.  He did say that because of this fallout, he has to deal with all of his service highers in understanding that EVERY email will be printed and cataloged.
> 
> Apparently the HRC email mess has far-reaching and significant downstream ramifications.



Briefed in? Maybe at a FIS level.


----------



## Dame (Jun 1, 2016)

She's just another Snowden from our security's pov. Can't get squat done.


----------



## Brill (Jun 1, 2016)

I like "war gaming" possibilities and ponder 2nd, 3rd order effects.

Clinton Might Not Be the Nominee


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 1, 2016)

lindy said:


> I like "war gaming" possibilities and ponder 2nd, 3rd order effects.
> 
> Clinton Might Not Be the Nominee


I've said for awhile the Obama was going to take them out of the Political Game.
President Biden and VP Warren.


----------



## AWP (Jun 2, 2016)

It is being reported by Fox and CNN (for some odd reason MSNBC is silent...) that her IT guy will plead the 5th in an upcoming deposition. Makes you wonder what happened to his immunity deal, why, and how this impacts the FBI investigation.

Clinton IT staffer intends to take the Fifth in upcoming deposition - CNNPolitics.com



> _Washington (CNN)_A former State Department IT specialist who was involved in setting up and maintaining Hillary Clinton's private email server plans to invoke the Fifth Amendment at a deposition next week, refusing to answer "any and all questions that may be put to him."


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 2, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> It is being reported by Fox and CNN (for some odd reason MSNBC is silent...) that her IT guy will plead the 5th in an upcoming deposition. Makes you wonder what happened to his immunity deal, why, and how this impacts the FBI investigation.
> 
> Clinton IT staffer intends to take the Fifth in upcoming deposition - CNNPolitics.com


Maybe he figured out immunity did not come with entry into the witness protection program.
He still commits suicide later this year.


----------



## Brill (Jun 2, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> It is being reported by Fox and CNN (for some odd reason MSNBC is silent...) that her IT guy will plead the 5th in an upcoming deposition. Makes you wonder what happened to his immunity deal, why, and how this impacts the FBI investigation.
> 
> Clinton IT staffer intends to take the Fifth in upcoming deposition - CNNPolitics.com



Apples vs Oranges. FBI investigation is focused on public corruption and mishandling of "state secrets" whereas this deposition is part of the FOIA lawsuit, which doesn't carry any penalty...

except demise of public trust

(Contempt of court if the judge orders X to produce all records related to plantiff's suit and X wipes the server...with a cloth or something because X's too fucking stupid to use a computer and only knows how to use a BB but capable/qualified to have access to nuke codes.)


----------



## Brill (Jun 2, 2016)

For fuck's sake Executive Branch, police your ranks!  Head of DHS using private email for official business.

Case Detail | The FOIA Project


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 2, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Maybe he figured out immunity did not come with entry into the witness protection program.
> He still commits suicide later this year.



There is witness protection, but; is there Clinton/obama protection?


----------



## Etype (Jun 5, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> I've said for awhile the Obama was going to take them out of the Political Game.
> President Biden and VP Warren.


I feel like Obama is more of a true believer, whereas Hilary is definitely a political profiteer.

Taken that as a given, Bernie would probably be Obama's pick out of the two.

Does anyone have any idea as to where Crazy Joe stands on anything?


----------



## Gunz (Jun 5, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Maybe he figured out immunity did not come with entry into the witness protection program.
> He still commits suicide later this year.



Yeah, like Vince Foster. :-"


*"The official final Report on the death of Vincent W. Foster consists of two volumes and is 137 pages. The appendix of the report states, 'The publicly available federal government record upon which the Fiske Report is based is replete with evidence that the FBI concealed the true facts surrounding*_* Mr. Foster’s death.'" -- *_Wikipedia, The Death of Vince Foster


----------



## Gunz (Jun 5, 2016)

Etype said:


> ...Does anyone have any idea as to where Crazy Joe stands on anything?...




He's been seen measuring the drapes in the Oval Office.


----------



## AWP (Jun 5, 2016)

Etype said:


> Does anyone have any idea as to where Crazy Joe stands on anything?



He doesn't like anyone touching his ears and looks for his baseball on a daily basis.


----------



## DasBoot (Jun 5, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> He doesn't like anyone touching his ears and looks for his baseball on a daily basis.


"I'll take 90's movie references for 500, Alex"


----------



## Brill (Jun 7, 2016)

I would vote for a 3rd grader before I'd vote for Hillary.  Seriously, how could ANY registered Democrat vote for her in good faith?

THESE EMAILS/CORRESPONDENCE ARE PUBLIC PROPERTY!!!!

State Department claims processing Clinton records request would take 75 years | Fox News



> The State Department has told a federal court that *processing a* Republican National Committee *demand for* *documents relating to Hillary Clinton and her aides would take as long as 75 years – and would stretch “generations.”*
> 
> The department made the argument in a bid to fight the request, just one of several legal battles still unfolding over the former secretary of state’s personal email use.
> 
> The RNC had sued the department back in March for the records. The party is seeking years’ worth of emails for top Clinton aides including former chief of staff Cheryl Mills, adviser Jacob Sullivan and Bryan Pagliano, an IT specialist who helped set up Clinton’s server and struck an immunity deal with the Justice Department in the ongoing FBI probe.


----------



## AWP (Jun 7, 2016)

lindy said:


> THESE EMAILS/CORRESPONDENCE ARE PUBLIC PROPERTY!!!!
> 
> State Department claims processing Clinton records request would take 75 years | Fox News



The Admin. is playing a game. At first the President was staying out of it, then he stepped in, the First Lady stepped in, and today I saw a story on CNN or Fox that the pres. was weighing how he could integrate into the election. State's IG released their report, many emails were released (including one that is a smoking gun), but now it will take "generations" to release more email traffic?

I don't like Trump, but I also don't see how anyone could ignore the many glaring issues with the Clinton campaign. Politics serves the best and sweetest Kool-Aid...


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 7, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The Admin. is playing a game. At first the President was staying out of it, then he stepped in, the First Lady stepped in, and today I saw a story on CNN or Fox that the pres. was weighing how he could integrate into the election. State's IG released their report, many emails were released (including one that is a smoking gun), but now it will take "generations" to release more email traffic?
> 
> I don't like Trump, but I also don't see how anyone could ignore the many glaring issues with the Clinton campaign. Politics serves the best and sweetest Kool-Aid...



The Kool aide, it has been so important these last 8-10 yrs.

 In the last two elections, the GOP candidates began playing nice with their Democratic rivals. Two things that I hope can happen this time:
1. Whoever is the candidate after the Convention, give them 100%, total support.
2. Never back down, or back away from the hot issues of the day; a la Bengazhi. Hilary's lack of security understanding, and open bold faced lies. When a photo of Hilary shows up, Brian Williams should be right next to hers.


----------



## Brill (Jun 8, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I don't like Trump, but I also don't see how anyone could ignore the many glaring issues with the Clinton campaign. Politics serves the best and sweetest Kool-Aid...



Agree x10. I too am no Trump-eter however, he's the least corrupt and I believe he wants best for this country.

We've already seen Hillary's insincerity among flag draped coffins and her gasping during NEPTUNE SPEAR but voters want that in the White House regardless?


----------



## Brill (Jun 8, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> The Kool aide, it has been so important these last 8-10 yrs.
> 
> In the last two elections, the GOP candidates began playing nice with their Democratic rivals. Two things that I hope can happen this time:
> 1. Whoever is the candidate after the Convention, give them 100%, total support.
> 2. Never back down, or back away from the hot issues of the day; a la Bengazhi. Hilary's lack of security understanding, and open bold faced lies. When a photo of Hilary shows up, Brian Williams should be right next to hers.



I think Hillary knew, authorized, and even expanded her email from just unclassified to TS. She doesn't care. Even if indicted, Obama will pardon her on 19 Jan.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 8, 2016)

lindy said:


> I think Hillary knew, authorized, and even expanded her email from just unclassified to TS. She doesn't care. Even if indicted, Obama will pardon her on 19 Jan.


Can he pardon her before she is theoretically convicted?

EDIT: Maybe that is why he is having DOJ drag its feet? That way if an indictment comes too late, he will not be forced to pardon her. All highly unlikely, but as we are theorizing...


----------



## Brill (Jun 8, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Can he pardon her before she is theoretically convicted?



Great question!

The snarky side of me says the Emperor will just sign an EO prohibiting persecution of all party nominees.

Her case will never see a courtroom.


----------



## Brill (Jun 8, 2016)

Note the time. I'm calling it: this country's symbol of justice is no longer blindfolded and her scale is tipping to one side due to the amount of money.

FBI Reveals 'Additional Details' About Clinton Email Probe in Secret Declaration  | VICE News


----------



## compforce (Jun 8, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Can he pardon her before she is theoretically convicted?
> 
> EDIT: Maybe that is why he is having DOJ drag its feet? That way if an indictment comes too late, he will not be forced to pardon her. All highly unlikely, but as we are theorizing...



Pardon...no, there's another word for it (Amnesty - amnesty).  But here's some light reading on pre-trial pardons:

Constitution Allows Pardons Before Conviction


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 8, 2016)

She is going to get a pass on everything. Win in November, and start to remove firearms from every home in the US. She said, just a couple of days ago is the the second amendment, "is open for interpretation" Hold hard boys, we are in for a rough ride.


----------



## Brill (Jun 8, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> She is going to get a pass on everything. Win in November, and start to remove firearms from every home in the US. She said, just a couple of days ago is the the second amendment, "is open for interpretation" Hold hard boys, we are in for a rough ride.



Fully agree.

If "we" vote her in, "we" deserve it.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jun 8, 2016)

The interview...wish I could hate my own post.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 8, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> She is going to get a pass on everything. Win in November, and start to remove firearms from every home in the US. She said, just a couple of days ago is the the second amendment, "is open for interpretation" Hold hard boys, we are in for a rough ride.



She will kick off the second American civil war by doing that. A storm has been brewing...

$.02


----------



## BloodStripe (Jun 9, 2016)




----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 9, 2016)

Remember when in 2008 and 2012 everyone talked about how much of a socialist Obama was, how he was ruining America, he was going to take everyone's guns yaya yada yada. Here we are, somehow still a capitalist country, we still have our guns, and the sky has not fallen. He was supposedly the more liberal of the two, and I think he still is.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 9, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> The interview...wish I could hate my own post.



I "hated" it for you, at her, not you, no personal offense intended.


----------



## Gunz (Jun 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Remember when in 2008 and 2012 everyone talked about how much of a socialist Obama was, how he was ruining America, he was going to take everyone's guns yaya yada yada. Here we are, somehow still a capitalist country, we still have our guns, and the sky has not fallen. He was supposedly the more liberal of the two, and I think he still is.



Obama did turn into a bonanza for the gun and ammo industry. Amazing what a few threats can do. 

I basically agree with what you've written, but to me, there is just something I find very sinister about the Clintons.


----------



## AWP (Jun 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Remember when in 2008 and 2012 everyone talked about how much of a socialist Obama was, how he was ruining America, he was going to take everyone's guns yaya yada yada. Here we are, somehow still a capitalist country, we still have our guns, and the sky has not fallen. He was supposedly the more liberal of the two, and I think he still is.



Yes and no. The ACA has serious flaws. Great idea, poor execution. It also burned through his political capital so his post-Sandy Hook attempts/ feeling out the situation were doomed. His foreign policy is garbage and this great wave of transparency he promised us is more like a blackout curtain.

I agree the sky has not fallen, and certainly no more than it did under Bush (the exact opposite if the moderate to extreme Left were to be believed). I think every President (or their cabinet) does their part to degrade our country and push it another step down. I also reject saying an admin. is a failure until 20-30 years have passed; a preliminary accounting is one thing, but we need to see the lasting contributions. We'll know one day how much he ruined America.

I think Obama is an arrogant idealist and Clinton an angry, arrogant zealot. I think we'll see that reality beat him down, but it will only serve to make her a greater threat over time. I think "No" eventually wore him out, but she'll see that as a challenge and double down her efforts on whatever topic she champions. I also think she'll make guns her domestic platform akin to Obama's ACA and I think she'll have enough popular support or political clout to make "gains" in that area.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 9, 2016)

I agree with every word in this paragraph so much that it is giving me a literal panic attack.


Freefalling said:


> I think Obama is an arrogant idealist and Clinton an angry, arrogant zealot. I think we'll see that reality beat him down, but it will only serve to make her a greater threat over time. I think "No" eventually wore him out, but she'll see that as a challenge and double down her efforts on whatever topic she champions. I also think she'll make guns her domestic platform akin to Obama's ACA and I think she'll have enough popular support or political clout to make "gains" in that area.




History has shown that if you are a Clinton, "no" means dig in further, and deny any scandal or pushback long enough, people will eventually have sympathy for you and mock those who still accuse you "after all this time."



.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jun 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Remember when in 2008 and 2012 everyone talked about how much of a socialist Obama was, how he was ruining America, he was going to take everyone's guns yaya yada yada. Here we are, somehow still a capitalist country, we still have our guns, and the sky has not fallen. He was supposedly the more liberal of the two, and I think he still is.



So do think our society has not degraded under Obama's leadership? I remember a lot of stupid shit under Bush 41 and Clinton, LA riots, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma federal building, etc. I don't remember the racial tensions that we are having today, and they sure weren't there under Bush 43.

I can see a few good things that have happened under both Bush's and slick Willie, but not so much under Obama. And honestly with the current status of our social tolerance in this country, I am actually worried what can happen if certain people get elected. Trump is tap dancing all over liberal bullshit. And middle class, middle aged America is cheering him on, while  BLM and illegal immigrants are protesting. 

This is actually a powder keg we're smoking around here.

$.02


----------



## Devildoc (Jun 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Remember when in 2008 and 2012 everyone talked about how much of a socialist Obama was, how he was ruining America, he was going to take everyone's guns yaya yada yada. Here we are, somehow still a capitalist country, we still have our guns, and the sky has not fallen. He was supposedly the more liberal of the two, and I think he still is.



I am less concerned about her and her administration specifically, but rather about what she will do to the Supreme Court.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 9, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> So do think our society has not degraded under Obama's leadership? I remember a lot of stupid shit under Bush 41 and Clinton, LA riots, Ruby Ridge, Waco, Oklahoma federal building, etc. I don't remember the racial tensions that we are having today, and they sure weren't there under Bush 43.
> 
> I can see a few good things that have happened under both Bush's and slick Willie, but not so much under Obama. And honestly with the current status of our social tolerance in this country, I am actually worried what can happen if certain people get elected. Trump is tap dancing all over liberal bullshit. And middle class, middle aged America is cheering him on, while  BLM and illegal immigrants are protesting.
> 
> ...



I think the racial tensions have almost nothing to do with Obama. Other than that racists think that the "others" are getting too much love. 

Do you remember the recession in 2008, early 2009? What a shitshow it was? People were saying it was going to be a Great Depression. Like it or not Obama saw us out of it...


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think the racial tensions have almost nothing to do with Obama. Other than that racists think that the "others" are getting too much love.
> 
> Do you remember the recession in 2008, early 2009? What a shitshow it was? People were saying it was going to be a Great Depression. Like it or not Obama saw us out of it...



Can't call blacks racists.. I learned that this year


----------



## Brill (Jun 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think the racial tensions have almost nothing to do with Obama. Other than that racists think that the "others" are getting too much love.
> 
> Do you remember the recession in 2008, early 2009? What a shitshow it was? People were saying it was going to be a Great Depression. Like it or not Obama saw us out of it...



BS! It was Hillary! She went to Wall Street and told them to knock it off!

Seriously, how did he do it? One post you say we're a capitalist it's country, where economy is driven by market forces, but now you say Obama led the recovery, implying that we're socialist?

The US economy is still trying to recover from 2008. Our GDP is crap, more people on USG assistance than ever, unemployment is low because underemployment is rampant, and disenfranchised workers have pulled out of the labor force.

Six Years Later, 93% of U.S. Counties Haven’t Recovered From Recession, Study Finds


----------



## Brill (Jun 9, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Can't call blacks racists.. I learned that this year



The 60's want their ethnic identities back.


----------



## AWP (Jun 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> The 60's want their ethnic identities back.



I rarely hyphenate and loathe the practice. "Equality" my ass.....


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 9, 2016)

How did this get side tracked into obama and racism?

 I thought this was about Ms. Clinton's E-mail security


----------



## AWP (Jun 9, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> How did this get side tracked into obama and racism?
> 
> I thought this was about Ms. Clinton's E-mail security



I channeled my inner Hamas.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 9, 2016)

Back on track...just released:

Emails in Clinton Probe Dealt With Planned Drone Strikes

At the center of a criminal probe involving Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified information is a series of emails between American diplomats in Islamabad and their superiors in Washington about whether to challenge specific drone strikes in Pakistan.

The 2011 and 2012 emails were sent via the “low side’’—government slang for a computer system for unclassified matters—as part of a secret arrangement that gave the State Department more of a voice in whether a Central Intelligence Agency drone strike went ahead, according to congressional and law-enforcement officials briefed on the Federal Bureau of Investigation probe.

Some of the emails were then forwarded by Mrs. Clinton’s aides to her personal email account, which routed them to a server she kept at her home in suburban New York when she was secretary of state, the officials said. Investigators have raised concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s personal server was less secure than State Department systems.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 9, 2016)

I've never used low side to mean unclass.. What would jwics be? Higher side? Sipr is low jwics is high


----------



## AWP (Jun 9, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> I've never used low side to mean unclass.. What would jwics be? Higher side? Sipr is low jwics is high



For us peasants NIPR is low and SIPR is high.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 9, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> For us peasants NIPR is low and SIPR is high.


looked it up.. organization dependent apparently. So I can understand. Very little work to be done on a NIPR machine for most IC members


----------



## DA SWO (Jun 9, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> For us peasants NIPR is low and SIPR is high.


My last two assignments we used low side, high side, and JWICS.
A lot of FOUO moves via NIPR.


----------



## AWP (Jun 9, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Very little work to be done on a NIPR machine for most IC members



We know you guys are cool, no need to remind us.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> BS! It was Hillary! She went to Wall Street and told them to knock it off!
> 
> Seriously, how did he do it? One post you say we're a capitalist it's country, where economy is driven by market forces, but now you say Obama led the recovery, implying that we're socialist?
> 
> ...



Oh come on... You can not find a place where I even did anything near implying we are socialist.

If everything that happens in the country is a result of presidential leadership, he led us out. You don't get to sy he is responsible for racism but not for the recovery. It is also pretty hard to not see that we are better off today than in January 2009.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 9, 2016)

I wonder how much physical space this email system took up in the basement of their home. I can't even say I know what the hardware of an email system looks like. Any one know what they look like?


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> You don't get to sy he is responsible for racism but not for the recovery.



I think you can. They are not mutually exclusive.


----------



## Brill (Jun 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Oh come on...


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jun 9, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> I wonder how much physical space this email system took up in the basement of their home. I can't even say I know what the hardware of an email system looks like. Any one know what they look like?



One single laptop can run a pretty large mail server....


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 9, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> One single laptop can run a pretty large mail server....



So it didn't take up very much room. I am guessing that once it was set up and running, it probably didn't require much, if any upkeep or maintanence. I wonder if they took and extra precautions to protect the server. Oh, silly me, they have Secret Service Agents ; no worries about security at the Clinton abode.


----------



## AWP (Jun 10, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> So it didn't take up very much room. I am guessing that once it was set up and running, it probably didn't require much, if any upkeep or maintanence. I wonder if they took and extra precautions to protect the server. Oh, silly me, they have Secret Service Agents ; no worries about security at the Clinton abode.



You could have endless physical configurations from a laptop to some enterprise-level beast. Storage, performance, remote access, etc. You could set it up with redundant capabilities and alert the admin if any of them fail. Assuming nothing goes wrong your maintenance is limited to security patches (if at all which is what I suspect) and the odd reboot here and there. Your only other items to worry about are any routers/ switches and a firewall. Both can be "dumbed down" to a standard home router and use Windows' native firewall (or Linux, whatever they ran) and won't require external devices (again, more security but I question if they even thought about this).


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 10, 2016)

They have the protection of the Secret Service, why would Bill & Hill worry about security.


----------



## Bypass (Jun 10, 2016)

I don't understand how she can run for president while being investigated by the FBI.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jun 10, 2016)

Bypass said:


> I don't understand how she can run for president while being investigated by the FBI.



Look at who the AG is, and try asking that question again with a straight face. 

She thinks she's infallible, and destined for the presidency.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 10, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> Look at who the AG is, and try asking that question again with a straight face.
> 
> She thinks she's infallible, and destined for the presidency.


Which is why the investigation will never go forward. Fortunately, IIRC there is no statute of limitations on those crimes. This is the most racist and obstructionist administration in recent history. It is no surprise that someone who stated that they would not "get involved" has had their finger in the pot the entire time. Likely to wrangle out concessions from the Clinton camp.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 10, 2016)

The most racist? Didn't we have a president who put certain people in camps? Woodrow Wilson made interracial marriage illegal in DC, Ronald Reagan started and  forwarded the War on Personal Freedom... Calling Obama the most racist president is hard for me to fathom.


----------



## AWP (Jun 10, 2016)

The most racist? No. The one with the opportunity to make the greatest strides against racism in our country but instead fanned the flames? No doubt. He had a golden opportunity to address race in America and instead he waffles from one side of the debate or the other. A president has a big job and racial issues in America are a small part. Instead of making the most of that time he's squandered his opportunities. Cambridge, MA, Trayvon, Ferguson, Baltimore, and others I've since forgotten saw him stoke the flames or retreat instead of offering leadership. It is disappointing to me, but minorities in this country should be angry. Their best shot in a generation either did nothing or made it worse.


----------



## Centermass (Jun 10, 2016)

ke4gde said:


> Can he pardon her before she is theoretically convicted?
> 
> EDIT: *Maybe that is why he is having DOJ drag its feet?* That way if an indictment comes too late, he will not be forced to pardon her. All highly unlikely, but as we are theorizing...



Makes sense. After all, look what they did to Bergdahl's trial date.

Funny how the AFCoS claimed it would have cost valuable time and untold resources in order to find drone operator "John" from Iowa.

Well, they finally disclosed (After all this time) that they finally found him.



> “It now appears [the Defense Department] had knowledge well in advance of who and where John was,” the committee said. “They claimed ‘significant resources’ had been spent attempting to find him, but given the facts, it’s hard to imagine just how much incompetence would be required for that to be true.”
> 
> The interview of “John from Iowa” is a significant boost for Republican leaders of the committee, who have struggled to assert its legitimacy since a wave of Republican friendly fire last year.
> 
> “Thorough, fact-centered investigations corroborate information with individuals who actually have specific knowledge and expertise,” Chairman Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said. *“That means talking to enlisted service members with firsthand information is just as important as talking to the generals and admirals who command them.”*



I like Gowdy. He's not only a damn pitbull, but tenacious and smart enough to take on all comers. 

Link



Freefalling said:


> It is being reported by Fox and CNN (for some odd reason MSNBC is silent...) that her IT guy will plead the 5th in an upcoming deposition. Makes you wonder what happened to his immunity deal, why, and how this impacts the FBI investigation.
> 
> Clinton IT staffer intends to take the Fifth in upcoming deposition - CNNPolitics.com



Boom. There it is. (See below)



> The lawyers argued that the immunity agreements “relate to an ongoing law enforcement investigation” and that “the Government would be prejudiced by disclosure.”
> 
> "The FBI cannot publicly disclose the specific focus, scope, or potential targets of any such investigation without adversely affecting the investigation," the filing states.
> 
> Any public disclosure of Pagliano’s* immunity agreement could also exact further damage on Clinton’s presidential campaign* because it carries implications that someone involved may have committed a crime, although no one has been charged.



Link

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is if you take a  deal in exchange for immunity, Hasta La Vista 5th Amendment.


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> The most racist? Didn't we have a president who put certain people in camps? Woodrow Wilson made interracial marriage illegal in DC, Ronald Reagan started and  forwarded the War on Personal Freedom... Calling Obama the most racist president is hard for me to fathom.


National security was the reason for the camps. Each of them were well compensated afterwards


----------



## Centermass (Jun 10, 2016)

I don't expect the DOJ or the AG for that matter, to be fair and impartial during this investigation anymore than I expect my youngest stepson to come out of prison 8 years from now as a model citizen.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 10, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> National security was the reason for the camps. Each of them were well compensated afterwards



That makes it less racist?


----------



## policemedic (Jun 10, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> National security was the reason for the camps. Each of them were well compensated afterwards


 
Does that make it OK in your view?


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 10, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> That makes it less racist?





policemedic said:


> Does that make it OK in your view?


Words matter.
racism is based on prejudices and superiority/inferiority principles.

Was it racism on what we did to Germans also, of course not. It wasn't a separate race, but general population hated them just as much.


----------



## Brill (Jun 10, 2016)

i did not have text with that server, Clinton.com.

Banda email

Note portion marking.


----------



## nobodythank you (Jun 10, 2016)

I don't know why it is hard to fathom. My statement said in "recent history". I am fairly safe in presuming that the majority on this board were not alive, much less of age, during WW2 and the time of the camps you mention. No other President in recent history has been as divisive and as prejudiced as the current administration. The proof is there if you are willing to accept it:
1) July 2009 - black Harvard Professor is arrested by a white cop and Obama, without all of the facts, says the cop acted "stupidly"
2) March 2012 - Obama, yet again, weighs in on a case before it even goes to trial and creates further racial tension with his asinine comment that Martin could have been his son 
3) August 2014 - administration sends three reps to the funeral of a known criminal and incites further race discord when a federal, state, and local investigation proved the white cop that shot Brown was justified in the shoot and was in fear for his life (the same CnC that did not send a rep to James Foley's funeral (white reporter killed by ISIS)

Just three of many examples where the current administration has promoted racial divide, and in turn become the very thing they claim to hate. Look at his choices for AG (Holder & Lynch), both of them distinctly racist in their attempts to go after white officers involved in justified shootings. His SCOTUS pick, Sotamayor is one of the biggest racists to come out of the administration (and I say this as a fellow Hispanic who knows all too well how racist my ethnicity can truly be). So no, I do not think it is much of a logical leap to conclude this is one of the most racist and obstructionist administrations in recent history.


----------



## BloodStripe (Jun 10, 2016)




----------



## TLDR20 (Jun 11, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> View attachment 15660



That is pretty good.


----------



## Etype (Jun 11, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Words matter.
> racism is based on prejudices and superiority/inferiority principles.
> 
> Was it racism on what we did to Germans also, of course not. It wasn't a separate race, but general population hated them just as much.


In modern society, we tend to classify racial profiling as racism- which is not the case, as you outlined.

A similar parallel can be drawn by saying that all Islamic extremists are Muslims, yet not all Muslims are extremists. Recognizing that an Islamic extremist must first be a Muslim is an important distinction to make.

But all of what I just said in the above paragraph could possibly be classified as bigotry by a college student or politician.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jun 12, 2016)




----------



## Brill (Jun 15, 2016)

Looks like the Soviets know more about Clinton's email than the USG does.

What Russia's DNC Hack Tells Us About Hillary Clinton's Private Email Server


----------



## Gunz (Jun 15, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is if you take a  deal in exchange for immunity, Hasta La Vista 5th Amendment.




The usual deal is, you have to confess to all your crimes and any crimes or criminal activity you know of that were committed by your associates. But the deck seems to be stacked in this case, maybe his deal is special.


----------



## compforce (Jun 22, 2016)

Sooo....
Emails: State Dept. scrambled on trouble on Clinton's server



> State Department staffers wrestled for weeks in December 2010 over a serious technical problem that affected emails from then-Secretary Hillary Clinton's home email server, causing them to temporarily *disable security features on the government's own systems*, according to emails released Wednesday.



Whoa!  Wait a minute!  So you're telling me that, in order to facilitate the private server, they deliberately violated the ATO (Authority to Operate) on Government systems?  Everybody involved has now knowingly violated National Security requirements and various IT related directives/laws and they have the emails to prove it.  Why are any of them still walking around without cuffs or an indictment?

If you knew what it takes to get an ATO on a new server, unclass or class, it would blow your mind.  I spent almost 3 months just to get an ATO to stand up a server performing a REQUIRED monitoring function.  Once the ATO is violated, the server is supposed to be decommissioned and a new ATO on a new server (or reimaged server) is required.


----------



## Brill (Jun 22, 2016)

Transparency International - What is Corruption?


----------



## Dame (Jun 22, 2016)

compforce said:


> Sooo....
> Emails: State Dept. scrambled on trouble on Clinton's server
> 
> Whoa!  Wait a minute!  So you're telling me that, in order to facilitate the private server, they deliberately violated the ATO (Authority to Operate) on Government systems?  Everybody involved has now knowingly violated National Security requirements and various IT related directives/laws and they have the emails to prove it.  Why are any of them still walking around without cuffs or an indictment?
> ...



There are no consequences for anything done in the name of that woman. There are plenty of known entities, BIG name companies, with tried and true records of security when dealing with ATO requirements, who wait and wait and wait for that certification for a computer in a new office down the hall from the old one. Because that's the legal way. The legit way. The way you don't lose your job.

But not that bitch.


----------



## moobob (Jun 23, 2016)

What's worse? Putting people in internment camps, or idolizing the guy that did it? Although if you bring it up to most progressives, they'll give you a blank stare or blurt out "but Trump!".


----------



## Florida173 (Jun 23, 2016)

R.Caerbannog said:


> I don't know if it's just me, but Trumps campaign speeches remind me of footage of Benito Mussolini's speeches. It's like they are both talking down to the audience. It just seems really smug, as if both speakers can't hide their contempt.



I often times find myself thinking of how Trump delivers a speech while discussing Hillary Clinton's email controversy


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 23, 2016)

Sorry, I wasn't paying attention. This was supposed to posted in the election thread. Meant to grab quote and switch tabs. I apologize for my lack of situational awareness. Thanks Florida173


----------



## DocIllinois (Jun 23, 2016)

R.Caerbannog said:


> I don't know if it's just me, but Trumps campaign speeches remind me of footage of Benito Mussolini's speeches. It's like they are both talking down to the audience. It just seems really smug, as if both speakers can't hide their contempt.



That's because he _is_ smug and contemptuous, and like the real Mussolini he envisions rule by Caesarism.

_Sua Eccellenza Donnie Trump, Capo del Governo, Duce del acconciatura e Fondatore dell'Impero!  

_
Ok, this is the last time I insult buffoon Donnie here.  He and his Trumpaloompas make this easier every day so its boring at the moment.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jun 24, 2016)

Cartoons always shed light on whats going on:



:wall:


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jun 24, 2016)

There was no need to inject how much business he does with China. He said "X" amount of $$, stop and get on with your  run for office. People hate those who boast and brag, that is what Trump does, and it will cost him the election. The GOP will not back him, nothing new there, but he has to stop his pompous self love blathering.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jun 28, 2016)

The final report from Trey Gowdy's Benghazi committee (and hopefully the last report ever) was released today 
Final Benghazi report details administration failures

Nothing really new.  Unlikely to change anything in the campaign narratives.


----------



## Brill (Jun 28, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The final report from Trey Gowdy's Benghazi committee (and hopefully the last report ever) was released today
> Final Benghazi report details administration failures
> 
> Nothing really new.  Unlikely to change anything in the campaign narratives.



That's because we really don't know what actions the SECSTATE did before, during, and after.

Hillary Clinton’s email story continues to get harder and harder to believe

I had no idea of the timeline. Seems like a potential CINC would strongly advocate sending at least a show of force.


----------



## moobob (Jun 28, 2016)

As they say... the buck stops here. Based on the information available, there were leadership failures at all levels from the SECSTATE  / SECDEF and down. What's even more alarming is that the POTUS wasn't demanding resignations left and right. That kind of apathy is rare.


----------



## Brill (Jun 28, 2016)

moobob said:


> As they say... the buck stops here. Based on the information available, there were leadership failures at all levels from the SECSTATE  / SECDEF and down. What's even more alarming is that the POTUS wasn't demanding resignations left and right. That kind of apathy is rare.



He was too busy fundraising to demand anything...but donor cash. I wonder how much the Clinton Foundation (or its designated cutout) donated?


----------



## poison (Jun 29, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The final report from Trey Gowdy's Benghazi committee (and hopefully the last report ever) was released today
> Final Benghazi report details administration failures
> 
> Nothing really new.  Unlikely to change anything in the campaign narratives.



She deleted what, 30k emails? Do we really have the whole picture?

Here's a nice breakdown: Benghazi Committee Releases Final Report, Slams Clinton


----------



## Brill (Jul 1, 2016)

She as asked by a Congressional oversight committee in 2012 about private email use for official business BUT NEVER RESPONDED!  I'm sorry, if you vote for Clinton, you need your head examined.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/15/us/politics/hillary-clintonwas-asked-about-email-2-years-ago.html

Remember that the ONLY way the public learned of her account was via press reports: she got caught.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 1, 2016)

Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch meet privately - CNNPolitics.com

Very inappropriate for the AG to meet with Bill Clinton in private......AG should have declined the meet.


----------



## Brill (Jul 1, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch meet privately - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> Very inappropriate for the AG to meet with Bill Clinton in private......AG should have declined the meet.



Not if she hoped to stay on with the next admin.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 1, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> Bill Clinton and AG Loretta Lynch meet privately - CNNPolitics.com
> 
> Very inappropriate for the AG to meet with Bill Clinton in private......AG should have declined the meet.



Didn't she also say today that she would honor whatever the prosecutor's recommend?


----------



## nobodythank you (Jul 1, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Didn't she also say today that she would honor whatever the prosecutor's recommend?


Doesn't matter, as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the country, she has a responsibility to maintain propriety and the integrity of the investigation (not to mention setting the example). If any other officer, attorney, or court officer had committed a similar breach of etiquette, and found out by the media, they would be in for a world of disciplinary action. Whether by design, or by accident, she has compromised the integrity of the investigation by the mere suggestion of misconduct. A very good attorney will use that meeting to seed doubt in any trial.


----------



## racing_kitty (Jul 1, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Didn't she also say today that she would honor whatever the prosecutor's recommend?





ke4gde said:


> Doesn't matter, as the Chief Law Enforcement Officer in the country, she has a responsibility to maintain propriety and the integrity of the investigation (not to mention setting the example). If any other officer, attorney, or court officer had committed a similar breach of etiquette, and found out by the media, they would be in for a world of disciplinary action. Whether by design, or by accident, she has compromised the integrity of the investigation by the mere suggestion of misconduct. A very good attorney will use that meeting to seed doubt in any trial.



Exactly.  For another example, if an attorney was seen shooting the breeze with a juror that's serving on a case that said attorney was trying, the juror would get tossed from the jury, and the attorney would find himself under investigation for jury tampering after costing his client the case.  It wouldn't matter if they were discussing the finer points of tapioca pudding.  It's the appearance of impropriety that makes it such a serious violation.  

Due process still matters for the time being, and impartiality is what makes due process function.  Despite efforts to paint this as part of a decades long smear campaign against the Clintons, the evidence indicates that laws were broken.  She's the top law enforcement officer in the land, and he's related to the subject of her investigation that just so happens to have gotten him wrapped into it, as well.  As such, she should have known better than to hold this meeting, and respectfully declined to see him under such opaque circumstances, his status as former POTUS be damned.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 1, 2016)

Wait so are we comparing a current AG meeting with a former president to a lawyer meeting with a juror? I don't feel like that jives at all.

Are we also pretending families don't meet with prosecutors all the time? Like literally all the time.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 1, 2016)

The spouse of a subject of an investigation by law enforcement agency "A" meets privately with THE District Attorney of the office that would have jurisdiction in the prosecution.  That never happens, and shouldn't happen here.


----------



## Centermass (Jul 1, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> The spouse of a subject of an investigation by law enforcement agency "A" meets with THE District Attorney of the office that would have jurisdiction in the prosecution.  That never happens, and shouldn't happen here.



Yup. 

In other words: Conflict Of Interest. Impropriety. Possible undue influence. And several other things I can think of. The AG should have recused herself due to what Kraut stated above. If there wasn't an ongoing investigation, no problem.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 1, 2016)

Plus, Bill is more than a spouse, he is a possible witness to the email thing and a possible suspect to the public corruption case.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 1, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> Plus, Bill is more than a spouse, he is a possible witness to the email thing and a possible suspect to the public corruption case.



Are/can spouses be witnesses against their spouse? Honest question here.


----------



## Dame (Jul 1, 2016)

Even if he cannot be _compelled_ to testify against her, if he does testify about anything at all after meeting with the AG it looks extremely bad.


----------



## AWP (Jul 1, 2016)

I'm cynical enough to wonder if it was done on purpose to hide something else. A little mini-scandal to focus on instead of something worse.

We can say that's a longshot, but the Clinton's are beyond corrupt.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 1, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Wait so are we comparing a current AG meeting with a former president to a lawyer meeting with a juror? I don't feel like that jives at all.
> 
> Are we also pretending families don't meet with prosecutors all the time? Like literally all the time.


Victims families, when do the defendants families meet?


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 1, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Are/can spouses be witnesses against their spouse? Honest question here.


Generally, no.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 2, 2016)

> Spousal testimonial privilege (also called spousal incompetency and spousal immunity) protects the individual holding the privilege from being called to testify by the prosecution against his/her spouse/the defendant. A minority of states apply testimonial privilege in both criminal and civil cases.



Apparently it's a bit more nuanced than just no.


----------



## Brill (Jul 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Didn't she also say today that she would honor whatever the prosecutor's recommend?



No. She said "...I fully expect to accept their recommendations."

Really no different than "I never sent or received emails marked classified."

There's nothing to see here. Americans need to just accept the transfer of power to the Queen and stop being a bunch of whining sore losers.

Andrea Mitchell Rejects ‘Conspiracy Theories’ About Clinton/Lynch Meeting

If the FBI and AG are powerless against the Clintons, who are we to question them and their actions?


----------



## Brill (Jul 2, 2016)

The plot on General Hopital is more believable that this drama.

Justice Department clarifies Lynch remarks about Clinton email probe: ‘The AG is the ultimate decider’


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 2, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Are/can spouses be witnesses against their spouse? Honest question here.



There are some hurdles with that.  But since the email server was placed in the house, he can be asked specific questions about that, did he utilize the server, agree to the install in his residence....etc.


----------



## Brill (Jul 2, 2016)

Well, this video sums it up: indictment sets up the most serious Constitutional issue ever before this country.

A sitting President was aware that his SECSTATE was using a private account for official business, in violation of Federal law.

'It's a Charade': Judge Pirro on Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted for Her Emails


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 2, 2016)

Mmmm.....FBI interviewed Hillary today.

Hillary Clinton meets with FBI on email server - Election 2016


----------



## Centermass (Jul 5, 2016)

The Director of the FBI (Comey) is announcing right now, they are recommending she (Clinton) be prosecuted and turning the case over to the justice department.

Lots of unbelievable crap coming out during this announcement.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 5, 2016)

Holy Shit


----------



## Centermass (Jul 5, 2016)

This announcement alone, even before an indictment, is spanking her hard. Really hard.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 5, 2016)

Centermass said:


> The Director of the FBI (Comey) is announcing right now, they are recommending she (Clinton) be prosecuted and turning the case over to the justice department.
> 
> Lots of unbelievable crap coming out during this announcement.



What channel?


----------



## Centermass (Jul 5, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> What channel?



ABC


----------



## Centermass (Jul 5, 2016)

Ok.

He just contradicted everything he just stated. 

Now he's saying they are recommending "NO CHARGES BE FILED." 

WTF?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 5, 2016)

Centermass said:


> The Director of the FBI (Comey) is announcing right now, they are recommending she (Clinton) be prosecuted and turning the case over to the justice department.
> 
> Lots of unbelievable crap coming out during this announcement.



I just watched it live and he definitely said they do not recommend charges.


----------



## Centermass (Jul 5, 2016)

I don't get it. 

He cited several dozen violations of handling classified information, and now, no charges are recommended?


----------



## BuckysBadger24 (Jul 5, 2016)

That was bizarre.  She either broke the damn law (which, obviously she did.  It's not her responsibility to safeguard classified information?  Hell the F.B.I JUST said it) or she didn't.  The government can't have it both ways.

Especially when they just told us she did it on national television.  Why announce her clear criminal actions, and the fact that they aren't going to do anything, in the same statement?  Just weird.


----------



## AWP (Jul 5, 2016)

Congrats to the 45th President of the United States.


----------



## compforce (Jul 5, 2016)

The transcript of the statement for those who missed it:

Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

The America we knew is dead... Long live America


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 5, 2016)

I am not surprised.  Disgusted, dismayed, sickened, yes.  Surprised, no.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 5, 2016)

And I thought we were fucked with Libtards voting in the commie lover.  But sorry to all of you, your rigged election will give you this corrupt Cunt.  All to have the first woman in office.


----------



## BuckysBadger24 (Jul 5, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Congrats to the 45th President of the United States.



:wall:

Hey @RackMaster, did I mention how much I enjoy Canada.  I hear Toronto is nice this time of year.  



Devildoc said:


> I am not surprised.  Disgusted, dismayed, sickened, yes.  Surprised, no.



Maybe my lack of age is showing, but I just can't believe they aren't even trying to play the game anymore.  Amendments to the constitution?  Maybe it would help get us back on track. 

The people forcing .gov to revert back to the original constitution would probably guarantee it.  Fat chance, I know.  What a shit show.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 5, 2016)

Comey lays out a case, issue after issue, then follows it up by saying...no charges.  I mean, seriously, WTF.  Basically he says she's just guilty of poor judgment.  He has made a mockery of the FBI today.  Now half of America have lost confidence in the FBI and "the process."


----------



## Marine0311 (Jul 5, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Comey lays out a case, issue after issue, then follows it up by saying...no charges.  I mean, seriously, WTF.  Basically he says she's just guilty of poor judgment.  He has made a mockery of the FBI today.  Now half of America have lost confidence in the FBI and "the process."



I hop more lose faith but only to spur change.


----------



## Rapid (Jul 5, 2016)




----------



## RackMaster (Jul 5, 2016)

BuckysBadger24 said:


> :wall:
> 
> Hey @RackMaster, did I mention how much I enjoy Canada. * I hear Toronto is nice this time of year.  *
> 
> ...



Toronto isn't to bad but it's like a cleaner Detroit.  And the epicenter of Asshole Libtards in Canada.  If you are fleeing the Cuntibeast, go to the East Coast or anywhere North.  Closer to the border you get the worse it is. 

I actually just read a story about an Alaskan village close to the border, it could be a final retreat for all of us.

http://nyti.ms/29pqmai


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 5, 2016)

> There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey, Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.
> 
> Read more at: FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook, by Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review





> In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require. The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing. The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant. People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.
> 
> Read more at: FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook, by Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review



So ultimately she is 100% guilty and completely above the law. Good to know.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 5, 2016)

I just lost a whole hell of a lot of respect for the FBI. Damn shame.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 5, 2016)

Serious question.. Does anyone here know anyone who has been criminally prosecuted for mishandling (without malice) classified material, and can provide examples of that? From what I heard, and what the people who are experts in the law are saying, there just are not examples of this in the past. This would mean there isn't precedent, which makes me understand what the FBI is saying. I don't know how I feel about this, as I feel like someone should get in trouble. Again though I have only seen administrative punishments, never criminal ones.


----------



## Centermass (Jul 5, 2016)

This the law:

_(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1)* through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody *or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—_

*Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.*

Notice it even states "Gross negligence" and doesn't even address "Willful intent" in order to avoid disclosure, with regards to the wanton destruction of her e-mails. Legal precedent or not, that has (And should't have) any bearing in this matter. The law didn't just pop up out of no where or was written after the fact. It's been around for sometime now.

The FBI just rewrote it. No sense granting clearances any longer. No need for intelligence agencies to exist any longer, and no need for anything, material or otherwise, to be classified in matters pertaining to our national defense.


----------



## compforce (Jul 5, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Serious question.. Does anyone here know anyone who has been criminally prosecuted for mishandling (without malice) classified material, and can provide examples of that? From what I heard, and what the people who are experts in the law are saying, there just are not examples of this in the past. This would mean there isn't precedent, which makes me understand what the FBI is saying. I don't know how I feel about this, as I feel like someone should get in trouble. Again though I have only seen administrative punishments, never criminal ones.





Ex-officials prosecuted for mishandling gov’t info see ‘double standard’ in Clinton case | Fox News


> Thomas Drake, a former NSA official who after 9/11 went to Congress to sound the alarms about what he called unconstitutional surveillance, also says there is a double standard when it comes to applying classification law.
> 
> "I got hammered good," Drake told FoxNews.com.
> 
> Though *the government's Espionage Act case against him fell apart in 2011*, Drake practically lost everything and faced a mountain of legal bills. He pleaded to a single misdemeanor for "exceeding authorized use of a government computer," a violation he compares to "spitting on the NSA sidewalk."


[/quote]


----------



## Centermass (Jul 5, 2016)

A couple of things I find odd.

You had Bill that supposedly had a "Chance run in" and then, meeting with our Attorney General last week.

You had Hillary interviewed Saturday and now, all of a sudden, after all this time, this announcement comes just before Obama and Clinton are scheduled TODAY to make a joint campaign appearance together?

No. If this had been up in the air, or unresolved, there is no way...none whatsoever, the 2 of them would be together on air flappy one right now. They already knew the outcome before it was ever officially released.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 5, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Serious question.. Does anyone here know anyone who has been criminally prosecuted for mishandling (without malice) classified material, and can provide examples of that? From what I heard, and what the people who are experts in the law are saying, there just are not examples of this in the past. This would mean there isn't precedent, which makes me understand what the FBI is saying. I don't know how I feel about this, as I feel like someone should get in trouble. Again though I have only seen administrative punishments, never criminal ones.



Maybe General Petreus?

At the very least I have known people to have accidently spilled classified material down and have lost their clearances because of it.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 5, 2016)

So the AG gets to keep her job until the statute of limitations runs out.
Awesome.


----------



## Centermass (Jul 5, 2016)




----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 5, 2016)

compforce said:


> Ex-officials prosecuted for mishandling gov’t info see ‘double standard’ in Clinton case | Fox News


[/QUOTE]

So a misdemeanor is the most serious charge that has been successfully prosecuted?


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 5, 2016)

Make no mistake about it, high ranking gov officials may not recieve much more than a fine. But if any one of us did what HRC did, we would be in prison, and never work in anything government again, much less getting elected to the highest office in our gov.


----------



## digrar (Jul 5, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Comey lays out a case, issue after issue, then follows it up by saying...no charges.



Seems like he's laid out the case to the best of his ability, saying this is what I would have done, if I was allowed?


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 5, 2016)

Found this article with previous cases.



> *A look at federal cases on handling classified information
> January 30, 2016 byEric Tucker*
> 
> 
> ...




And this has a good historical list up to Manning.

Charting Obama’s Crackdown on National Security Leaks


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 5, 2016)

digrar said:


> Seems like he's laid out the case to the best of his ability, saying this is what I would have done, if I was allowed?



Maybe, but if that's the case, I would expect him to 'leak' something like that ("hey, I _tried_ to bring charges, but they wouldn't let me").

I mean, fuck, I have seen the US Code, and it seems pretty black and white to me.


----------



## compforce (Jul 5, 2016)

One thing I haven't heard anyone mention yet.  She had 30,000 work emails and 40,000 personal emails over the period.  That's 33% more emails for personal stuff than work stuff over the period.  All in 4 years.  Let's do some basic math...

4 years = 365*4 days = 1,460 days
50 * 5 = number of work days in a year w/ 2 weeks vacation = 250
30,000 + 40,000 = 70,000 emails
edit - failed basic maths  :wall:
70,000/1460 = 47.9 emails per day average
70,000/1000 = 70 emails per work day

30,000/1000 = 30 work emails per day
40,000/1000 = 40 personal emails per day

How much WORK was she actually doing?


----------



## Brill (Jul 5, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> So ultimately she is 100% guilty and completely above the law. Good to know.



I guess this clears us for telework now?


----------



## Brill (Jul 5, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> Basically he says she's just guilty of poor judgment.



Great qualities for a POTUS candidate!


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 5, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> Make no mistake about it, high ranking gov officials may not recieve much more than a fine. But if any one of us did what HRC did, we would be in prison, and never work in anything government again, much less getting elected to the highest office in our gov.



Well me and you don't have the need, nor the capability to do it...


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 5, 2016)

compforce said:


> One thing I haven't heard anyone mention yet.  She had 30,000 work emails and 40,000 personal emails over the period.  That's 33% more emails for personal stuff than work stuff over the period.  All in 4 years.  Let's do some basic math...
> 
> 4 years = 365*4 days = 1,460 days
> 50 * 5 = number of work days in a year w/ 2 weeks vacation = 250
> ...



Again you think all her work emails go to her? Or to the legions of support staff she has working for her.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 5, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Well me and you don't have the need, nor the capability to do it...



What need did she have? Outside of using a private server to avoid future FOIA requests? I cannot see any reason whatsoever for her to have a private server, other than her avoiding government policies.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jul 5, 2016)

Seems like a waste of time, money, and resources in this chase. The only big winner here is the media, and the follow on reporting, shaping and spinning; and it will go on for weeks and months to come. The big looser here the tax paying public, and their numbers are shrinking. The wedge between the political power, and everyone else just got a little bigger. We, the US taxpayer, paid the whole cost of this. The Clintons lost not a penny, and gained by whatever it is they did. Is the GOP the loser here,?  The media spin suggests that, but the loser is not the GOP. It will be a blunted talking point in the Nov election, and mention of it will become flag waving Clinton win. So, the taxpayer losses, and the media and Clinton win. What is next? Just watch the TV, they will let you know what to think and worry about.

My $.02. Back to my wee cave here in The Valley.


----------



## compforce (Jul 5, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Again you think all her work emails go to her? Or to the legions of support staff she has working for her.



So you are saying that her entire office was on her private server, and thus also violating regs, rather than just her? 

Or that she violated pretty much every IT directive related to accountability by giving someone other than herself access to her personal credentials?  If you were to give your login to JWICS to someone else, even if they are at the same clearance level as you are, is that a security incident?  (rhetorical, the answer is yes)  It's the same thing.  Either way she is mishandling classified information by violating need to know and regulations around accountability.


----------



## Brill (Jul 5, 2016)

After reading Director Comey's remarks, I think that man is truly brilliant!

He directly contradicted EVERY Hillary talking point about her email.

He stated she and her staff were "extremely careless", thereby admitting gross negligence, in the handling of classified material, some of which was marked, others were clearly known to be classified by her and her staff.

Yet here clearly said no prosecutor would ever charge her (because they know they would be ruined and probably have the IRS deep in their ass).  I think Congress will exercise their oversight responsibilities and this episode will be tried in the court of public opinion vice a Federal courtroom.

The system is rigged and the Director admitted as much.


----------



## Brill (Jul 5, 2016)

I think she just created a new caveat: TS//SI//REL CLINTON


----------



## Centermass (Jul 5, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Serious question.. Does anyone here know anyone who has been criminally prosecuted for mishandling (without malice) classified material, and can provide examples of that? From what I heard, and what the people who are experts in the law are saying, there just are not examples of this in the past. This would mean there isn't precedent, which makes me understand what the FBI is saying. I don't know how I feel about this, as I feel like someone should get in trouble. Again though I have only seen administrative punishments, never criminal ones.



2015 - Navy engineer sentenced for mishandling classified material. 

A federal attorney announced that Bryan Nishimura of Folsom, California, pleaded guilty to the unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials.

Nishimura, deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008 as a regional engineer, admitted to downloading classified briefings and digital records onto his personal electronic devices. He carried the materials off base and brought them back to the U.S. when his deployment ended.

2 years probation and a 7500.00 fine. 

Link


----------



## Brill (Jul 5, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Serious question.. Does anyone here know anyone who has been criminally prosecuted for mishandling (without malice) classified material, and can provide examples of that? From what I heard, and what the people who are experts in the law are saying, there just are not examples of this in the past. This would mean there isn't precedent, which makes me understand what the FBI is saying. I don't know how I feel about this, as I feel like someone should get in trouble. Again though I have only seen administrative punishments, never criminal ones.



Ken Ford, mishandling classified material, 6 years in prison

Maryland Man Sentenced for Stealing Secret Documents

Former NSA employee to serve six-year term


----------



## Centermass (Jul 5, 2016)

Just because we don't hear about them, doesn't mean it doesn't happen a lot more than anyone realizes, except in hi profile cases.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 5, 2016)

lindy said:


> Ken Ford, mishandling classified material, 6 years in prison
> 
> Maryland Man Sentenced for Stealing Secret Documents
> 
> Former NSA employee to serve six-year term



Not at all comparable.


----------



## Brill (Jul 5, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Not at all comparable.



How so? I'm not being a jerk here but it's really the same only the medium is different: paper vs digital.

Ken intentionally removed classified material from a secure location and stored it an unauthorized facility (his house).

Clinton intentionally sent/received classified material over an unsecure server and retained the information on an unauthorized device.

Neither Ken nor Clinton intended on transferring the material to a third party although Clinton's account was most likely compromised.


----------



## Brill (Jul 5, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Just because we don't hear about them, doesn't mean it doesn't happen a lot more than anyone realizes, except in hi profile cases.



Exactly. What happened to Snowden's supervisor and some coworkers?


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 5, 2016)

I am very disappointed, all of us at the office were watching and had high hopes as Comey spoke....then our jaws dropped....we feel like Comey let us all down.

At the very least I wished Comey would have recommended the appropriate USIC OIG's revoke her clearance......at the very very very very very very least.

edit: will add I see some Security Officers at DOS getting fired or disciplined.


----------



## Brill (Jul 5, 2016)

Interesting analysis of interpretation of the statue.

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook, by Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 5, 2016)

Well....not really.  FBI cannot rewrite any law.  But, I get his point.  

See...this is why I always like state/local enforcement of the law.  Police *make cases and arrest* based on the elements of a crime in the penal code, then it goes to the prosecutors office.  In the Federal world, you have to have the USAO agree to take the case when you open it.....I have heard their many excuses...but the best lately has been "the case isn't jury worthy"  basically they don't want to risk prosecuting a case they can't slam dunk.


----------



## Centermass (Jul 5, 2016)

lindy said:


> After reading Director Comey's remarks, I think that man is truly brilliant!
> 
> He directly contradicted EVERY Hillary talking point about her email.
> 
> ...


----------



## policemedic (Jul 5, 2016)

Hence why I enjoy laying charges at the state level.


----------



## moobob (Jul 5, 2016)

Trump press conference on this is savage as @&^*. He just accused Hilldawg of bribing the Attorney General by way of keeping her on when she gets elected.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 5, 2016)

Friend sent this to me...thought it was pretty funny...and sad.


----------



## AWP (Jul 5, 2016)

compforce said:


> The America we knew is dead... Long live America



2016's snatching up people left and right, just add a country to the list.

What difference does it make?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 5, 2016)

A Guide to Clinton’s Emails


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 5, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> A Guide to Clinton’s Emails





> Did hackers successfully break into her computer and access her emails?
> Attempts were made, but the IG and FBI found no evidence that any attempt was successful. That does not mean, however, that none was successful.



Yet... Wikileaks publishes 1258 of Hillary's emails while she was Secretary of State

Curious how they got their hands on them


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 6, 2016)

Pretty sure Comey said they got in...also, I guess the IG doesn't consider wikileaks an enemy in this sense.


----------



## Brill (Jul 6, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> A Guide to Clinton’s Emails



AP fact check on emails

News from The Associated Press


----------



## Centermass (Jul 6, 2016)

You know what's really sad and pathetic regarding this situation and the entire administration?

A frickin Private in the Military is held to a higher standard for Christ sakes.


----------



## BuckysBadger24 (Jul 6, 2016)

Centermass said:


> You know what's really sad and pathetic regarding this situation and the entire administration?
> 
> A frickin Private in the Military is held to a higher standard for Christ sakes.



I know if I commit a crime, and get caught, I'll be punished for it.  I'd venture to say most Americans in general are held to a higher legal and moral standard than this.


----------



## Rapid (Jul 6, 2016)




----------



## Brill (Jul 6, 2016)

Centermass said:


> You know what's really sad and pathetic regarding this situation and the entire administration?
> 
> A frickin Private in the Military is held to a higher standard for Christ sakes.



Well, it looks like these two have been here before with the SAME outcome.

Inside the FBI Investigation of Hillary Clinton's E-Mail

Chelsea for POTUS in 20-who gives a fuck!


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 6, 2016)




----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 6, 2016)

Has anyone else seen this https://i.sli.mg/WuG4nP.png


----------



## Brill (Jul 6, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Has anyone else seen this https://i.sli.mg/WuG4nP.png



Disclosing SAP would cause declaration of war? That's where I stopped.


----------



## compforce (Jul 6, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Has anyone else seen this https://i.sli.mg/WuG4nP.png



It's either a really good troll or a really bad investigator.  Either way I'd take it with a giant grain of salt.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 6, 2016)




----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 6, 2016)

Check out the FBI Facebook page..."the people" are not amused!

FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation


----------



## nobodythank you (Jul 6, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Check out the FBI Facebook page..."the people" are not amused!
> 
> FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation


lol the reviews are very funny. In a dark and morbid way of course.


----------



## AWP (Jul 6, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Check out the FBI Facebook page..."the people" are not amused!
> 
> FBI – Federal Bureau of Investigation



That is gold.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 6, 2016)

Of course now the FBI is going to have to hire someone to delete those messages...hmmm...who does the FBI know that might be capable of deleting messages?


----------



## nobodythank you (Jul 6, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Of course now the FBI is going to have to hire someone to delete those messages...hmmm...who does the FBI know that might be capable of deleting messages?


I hear there are some former mods/candidates that could be recruited :-":troll:


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jul 6, 2016)

Hillary goes after the family of FBI director......how much more can she do to the Mod's and Admin's of ShadowSpear....

Just sayin, I'd delete thread before Next January....LOL!!!!!

:-":blkeye:


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jul 7, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> Friend sent this to me...thought it was pretty funny...and sad.
> 
> View attachment 15994


That pic is terrifying.


----------



## AWP (Jul 7, 2016)

You know the sad thing? I knew this was the outcome and I'm still angry and dismayed.  They couldn't even say "nothing to see here." the Director went out and said "we found some stuff, but....nah."

They aren't even trying to hide. If nothing else, we should be mad they don't even care what we think.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Jul 7, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> You know the sad thing? I knew this was the outcome and I'm still angry and dismayed.  They couldn't even say "nothing to see here." the Director went out and said "we found some stuff, but....nah."
> 
> They aren't even trying to hide. If nothing else, we should be mad they don't even care what we think.



Bingo, it's so bad that it is now just slung into our faces because we are too dumb to care.


----------



## Brill (Jul 7, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> You know the sad thing? I knew this was the outcome and I'm still angry and dismayed.  They couldn't even say "nothing to see here." the Director went out and said "we found some stuff, but....nah."
> 
> They aren't even trying to hide. If nothing else, we should be mad they don't even care what we think.



"They" truly believe they did nothing wrong and the uproar confirms their initial idea that Clinton needed a private server to protect her activities from the conspiracy theorists.

POTUS said she is the most qualified person ever to run for that office.  Who are You to question him?

I say Lynch will see a SCOTUS position and Comey to AG come Jan.  The game is rigged...and they don't care what we think.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jul 7, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> That is gold.



May it be enough Gold For the GOP to buy a win this year.


----------



## Brill (Jul 7, 2016)

New precedent? Seems like it.

Attorneys Intend to Ask for 'the Clinton Deal'
Attorneys Intend to Ask for 'the Clinton Deal'


----------



## Blizzard (Jul 7, 2016)




----------



## Devildoc (Jul 7, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> That is gold.



Some of those comments are hilarious.  Actually, made my morning.  I laughed.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 7, 2016)

I'm kinda wondering where all of those mass resignations that Ed Klein predicted earlier in the year are.  Surely those will be coming soon, right?
Klein: Comey And ‘A Lot Of Other FBI Agents’ Will Resign If Hillary Is Not Indicted [VIDEO]


----------



## AWP (Jul 7, 2016)

This shit show on TV right now...

Shut UP Rep. Elijah Cummings. You managed to make the Republicans look intelligent. Nicely done.


----------



## Devildoc (Jul 7, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I'm kinda wondering where all of those mass resignations that Ed Klein predicted earlier in the year are.  Surely those will be coming soon, right?
> Klein: Comey And ‘A Lot Of Other FBI Agents’ Will Resign If Hillary Is Not Indicted [VIDEO]



The political equivalent of "pry them from my dead, cold hands": when it's time to nut up or shut up, they will almost always shut up....


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 7, 2016)

Dredging up some old quotes from last year to do a hindsight check.


Deathy McDeath said:


> Personally speaking, I know a lot of (former) Hillary supporters who do not plan on voting for her because of this scandal.  Even if no charges are filed, this will give her future opponents tons of campaign ammunition.  *She's pretty much toast either way*.


Nope!  No charges filed and the boilers on the USS Clinton are all firing.  The RCP average has her 5 points ahead of Trump, though I'm not sure if these most recent polls are reflecting the fallout from the FBI announcement.  I figure that we'll see more accurate reflections in the next round of polling.  But yeah, I got it wrong.



0699 said:


> Good, she should  get it out of the way now.  By the time the next election rolls around, this will be a dead issue (HRC and the DNC will claim "we've already covered all of this") and won't effect her election.  Anyone bringing it up will be castigated by the media for dredging up old news.  In the eyes of her handlers, better to get all the dirty laundry out in the open now, so it has time to become old news before the election ramps up.


@0699 called it.  Hell, Sanders was essentially using this point back in October when he famously said that "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about [Hillary's] damn emails."  I'm sure that Trump is going to unload on this point after the RNC convention (which is less than two weeks from now!), but the FBI's non-decision, at the very least, gives Clinton a defensible point during the debates.



Deathy McDeath said:


> Clinton hit with racketeering lawsuit over emails



The lawsuit was dismissed in August.  Still no confirmation one way or the other on the story that Valerie Jarrett was the source of the initial leak.  Though as I've pointed out, Ed Klein is famous for being full of shit.


----------



## compforce (Jul 7, 2016)

OK, so some food for thought.  Maybe what Comey did is actually a good thing.  If he recommends charges and the AG declines to prosecute, then the case is completely dead.  By not recommending, it allows the AG to avoid going head to head with the FBI.  It ALSO means that he is able to make a public announcement under pressure to wrap up the email controversy and remove the microscope on them.  Further, it means that she can always be charged later.  Now suppose, just suppose, that the FBI is actually onto something much much bigger as a result of their investigation (such as the info that the "FBI Agent" in that 4chan thread suggested).  Do you charge Clinton now or do you wait long enough to be able to prove conspiracy, making it treason and espionage rather than just mishandling and nailing some of the other players like Soros?  IF she's charged with mishandling, she cannot be charged for anything else in connection with that series of events.  If they hold back and allow themselves to lose this battle, maybe they end up winning the war...

I'm not saying this is what happened, just that it _could_ be a scenario where he says what he did.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 7, 2016)

Really, you should take that supposed FBI agent with an entire shaker of salt.  There's no way of verifying that he (or she) is legit, and the fact that they hit every single hard-right talking point leads me to believe that this is just some /pol/ troll.  I mean, the poster manages to tie in a CFR one-world conspiracy, George Soros (funding all levels of government, apparently), and some bizarre point about "Blacks are inherently violent and impulsive...and they can be, for lack of a better term, domesticated."  It doesn't read like anything an actual FBI employee would write.

Edit: Turns out that there's a second, third, and fourth AMA
In the second one, the poster's mask slips just a little bit


> The goal (of Soros, since I assume that is what you are asking) is to create a global government where all people intermingle and breed and become on people *ruled by a racially pure Jewish race*. They sincerely believe under their rule all human conflict will cease because there will be no more cause for division. This desire is born out of a fear of the horrors of WWII. The Holocaust is a lie, but the death toll was still massive nonetheless. And many people were brutalized by it.



There isn't a  big enough


----------



## compforce (Jul 7, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Really, you should take that supposed FBI agent with an entire shaker of salt.  There's no way of verifying that he (or she) is legit, and the fact that they hit every single hard-right talking point leads me to believe that this is just some /pol/ troll.  I mean, the poster manages to tie in a CFR one-world conspiracy, George Soros (funding all levels of government, apparently), and some bizarre point about "Blacks are inherently violent and impulsive...and they can be, for lack of a better term, domesticated."  It doesn't read like anything an actual FBI employee would write.



I understand that, I said the same thing.  I'm just saying that there isn't really a reason for Comey to have made the statement he made unless he wanted to leave the door open for later...  say after a new AG is appointed early next year.


----------



## AWP (Jul 7, 2016)

I don't see the FBI playing a long game in this case. The only consequence of the announcement is her swearing in on Jan. 20. The FBI just flat-out allowed numerous people to break the law. Barring a small miracle, one of them will be the next President of the United States.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 7, 2016)

> If Hillary Clinton applied for the job at the FBI, would the FBI give Hillary Clinton a security clearance?
> -Rep. Jason Chaffetz



Probably my favorite question out side of Rep Gowdy's line.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 7, 2016)

She's hideous.


----------



## Brill (Jul 7, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> The FBI just flat-out allowed numerous people to break the law.



Clinton and their affiliates cannot break laws, which are for commoners.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 7, 2016)




----------



## Brill (Jul 7, 2016)

Interesting that the NDAs she and her staff signed (312 and 4414) clearly say mishandling could result in loss of continued eligibility for access to classified material.

Prove that there is only one set of rules: permanently pull her and her staff's access.  THAT is exactly what would happen to anyone else.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 7, 2016)

lindy said:


> Interesting that the NDAs she and her staff signed (312 and 4414) clearly say mishandling could result in loss of continued eligibility for access to classified material.
> 
> Prove that there is only one set of rules: permanently pull her and her staff's access.  THAT is exactly what would happen to anyone else.



That is true. I'm not sure her or anyone else would be criminally prosecuted, if they did the exact same thing. They would surely lose access...


----------



## Brill (Jul 7, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> That is true. I'm not sure her or anyone else would be criminally prosecuted, if they did the exact same thing. They would surely lose access...



A clearance to a USG employee is like a weapon to a SF guy: can't be a good one without access to it.

I would think the prosecution would focus on HOW the info, especially the emails with the portion markings, went from SI channels to her server. Her IT guy with immunity would probably know or at least the sender of the email but it seems they never dug into that.

Tough to find a criminal act if they never looked for it.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 7, 2016)

lindy said:


> A clearance to a USG employee is like a weapon to a SF guy: can't be a good one without access to it.
> 
> I would think the prosecution would focus on HOW the info, especially the emails with the portion markings, went from SI channels to her server. Her IT guy with immunity would probably know or at least the sender of the email but it seems they never dug into that.
> 
> Tough to find a criminal act if they never looked for it.



Yeah. 

I have just seen here and other places where people are talking about how they would be in Leavenworth or whatever, the issue, in my experience is that isn't how it actually goes. We have had issues with security in group, and guys get in trouble, they sure as hell don't face criminal charges. They may lose a tab, get kicked from group etc, just not jail.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 7, 2016)

Not sure if this is completely analogous to what @TLDR20 says above , but most of us are familiar with this story - the Major's lawyer gets a shiny star for being the the first (that I'm aware of) to compare his client to Hillary.

Marine's attorney: If Hillary Clinton wasn't prosecuted, this officer shouldn't be discharged


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 7, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Not sure if this is completely analogous to what @TLDR20 says above , but most of us are familiar with this story - the Major's lawyer gets a shiny star for being the the first (that I'm aware of) to compare his client to Hillary.
> 
> Marine's attorney: If Hillary Clinton wasn't prosecuted, this officer shouldn't be discharged



I hadn't seen that....


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jul 7, 2016)

Agree, I want at least 1 of my 2 GOMOR's thrown out......:-"


----------



## Brill (Jul 7, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah.
> 
> I have just seen here and other places where people are talking about how they would be in Leavenworth or whatever, the issue, in my experience is that isn't how it actually goes. We have had issues with security in group, and guys get in trouble, they sure as hell don't face criminal charges. They may lose a tab, get kicked from group etc, just not jail.



How many guys got off Scott free?


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 7, 2016)

lindy said:


> How many guys got off Scott free?



She hasn't yet. They all faced administrative punishment. She still could. Yesterday wasn't the end all be all.


----------



## Brill (Jul 7, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> She hasn't yet. They all faced administrative punishment. She still could. Yesterday wasn't the end all be all.



Very good point!


----------



## racing_kitty (Jul 7, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Not sure if this is completely analogous to what @TLDR20 says above , but most of us are familiar with this story - the Major's lawyer gets a shiny star for being the the first (that I'm aware of) to compare his client to Hillary.
> 
> Marine's attorney: If Hillary Clinton wasn't prosecuted, this officer shouldn't be discharged



It's worth a shot.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 7, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah.
> 
> I have just seen here and other places where people are talking about how they would be in Leavenworth or whatever, the issue, in my experience is that isn't how it actually goes. We have had issues with security in group, and guys get in trouble, they sure as hell don't face criminal charges. They may lose a tab, get kicked from group etc, just not jail.



A minor "leak" or compromise wouldn't land you in jail.  BUT doing what her and her staff did, would.   Purposefully moving data from an isolated network to a private server and transmitting over the interwebz is a major infraction.   We're not talking 1 or 2 people.   The # of people involved or that would have had knowledge of is huge.  Everyone in her office and anyone that received emails from her (POTUS included) are negligent in their duties.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 7, 2016)

It's over. If she wins the election, nothing further is going to happen to Cersei with regard to her emails. She's won the great game.


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 7, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> A minor "leak" or compromise wouldn't land you in jail.  BUT doing what her and her staff did, would.   Purposefully moving data from an isolated network to a private server and transmitting over the interwebz is a major infraction.   We're not talking 1 or 2 people.   The # of people involved or that would have had knowledge of is huge.  Everyone in her office and anyone that received emails from her (POTUS included) are negligent in their duties.



I honestly wonder what kind of IA training she had.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 7, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah.
> 
> I have just seen here and other places where people are talking about how they would be in Leavenworth or whatever, the issue, in my experience is that isn't how it actually goes. We have had issues with security in group, and guys get in trouble, they sure as hell don't face criminal charges. They may lose a tab, get kicked from group etc, just not jail.



Negligent and accidental spillage is one thing. I've known people to accidentally push s//si stuff down to sipr thinking it was good with only a typical slap on the hand and the increase of checks and policies from then on out, but that was a controlled situation. Creating an atmosphere for complete disregard for the law to safe guard secrets is another. At least 52 email chains with various levels from TS to confidential with possibly anyone CC'd on them should be criminal. How is it that the intent wasn't there?
The fact that we can read emails from get server from her time as Secretary based on what Gucifer was able to hack tells you that anyone could have had free and open access to her.


----------



## Kraut783 (Jul 7, 2016)

my ears perked up at the beginning....Perjury for her testimony under oath to congress....


----------



## Brill (Jul 7, 2016)

Florida173 said:


> Negligent and accidental spillage is one thing. I've known people to accidentally push s//si stuff down to sipr thinking it was good with only a typical slap on the hand and the increase of checks and policies from then on out, but that was a controlled situation. Creating an atmosphere for complete disregard for the law to safe guard secrets is another. At least 52 email chains with various levels from TS to confidential with possibly anyone CC'd on them should be criminal. How is it that the intent wasn't there?
> The fact that we can read emails from get server from her time as Secretary based on what Gucifer was able to hack tells you that anyone could have had free and open access to her.



Apparently we are not the only ones who can read them.

Reports: State Department admits intrusion into unclassified email

Clearly the capability exists.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 7, 2016)

And it's not over!




> The US State Department is to restart its investigation into Hillary Clinton's handling of classified material when secretary of state.


US State Department restarts Hillary Clinton email probe - BBC News


----------



## Brill (Jul 7, 2016)

:die:



> What was perhaps most striking about Comey’s testimony on Thursday is how he carefully narrowed his investigation in a way that conveniently helps Hillary Clinton.
> 
> Did Hillary Clinton lie to Congress about her email practices? Not part of the investigation. Did she conceal and illegally remove federal records? Not part of the investigation. And no word on the pay-for-play schemes with the Clinton Foundation and its donors. How did the classified material get on Clinton’s system? Comey confessed his FBI didn’t even investigate this basic question.



FBI chief’s testimony about Clinton emails torpedoes the bureau’s reputation  | Fox News


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 7, 2016)

lindy said:


> :die:
> 
> 
> 
> FBI chief’s testimony about Clinton emails torpedoes the bureau’s reputation  | Fox News



Listening to his answers, I wanted to know WTF were they doing for a year.


----------



## Dame (Jul 7, 2016)




----------



## policemedic (Jul 8, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Listening to his answers, I wanted to know WTF were they doing for a year.



Embarrassing J. Edgar in the building named after him.


----------



## Brill (Jul 8, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Listening to his answers, I wanted to know WTF were they doing for a year.



Good point! I bet that Sanders would have won more delegates had this been investigated before the primaries. Did the FBI give Clinton back the White House?

Our system is rigged.


----------



## Brill (Jul 8, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Yeah.
> 
> I have just seen here and other places where people are talking about how they would be in Leavenworth or whatever, the issue, in my experience is that isn't how it actually goes. We have had issues with security in group, and guys get in trouble, they sure as hell don't face criminal charges. They may lose a tab, get kicked from group etc, just not jail.



I've had a clearance for 27 years with USMIL and USG and everytime I've been indoc'd into various programs, the SSOs indicate that mishandling classified material could result in jail time.

How many of those guys were actually promoted after the incident?

DoS IG said she violated State policies while telling others (and removing one Foreign Service Officer) to follow the same policy she was violating. FBI said she and her staff acted extremely carelessly with classified materials. POTUS said she's highly qualified to be President and he trusts her.

Normal people would lose their access and their jobs after doing what she did but Democrats are drooling at the chance to promote her to the highest position in the world.

We are now equal to Zimbabwe.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 8, 2016)

There's no such thing as an unbiased investigation of a political candidate in an election year when the candidate is from the same party as the POTUS...unless the candidate's transgressions threaten to embarrass the administration or the party...and clearly most democrats downplay the whole affair as no big deal. I'd hazard a guess that most of the sheeple feel pretty indifferent about it, a mood Cersei and her minions are exploiting.

Sometimes pressure can be exerted on the investigating agency tacitly, from on high, by the subtlest gesture or word, an unspoken almost imperceptible pressure that nonetheless carries influence down the chain. CYA is powerful incentive in any bureaucracy.


----------



## Gunz (Jul 8, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I honestly wonder what kind of IA training she had.



Just a guess based on my impression of her personality that she wouldn't be all that receptive to training or instruction of any kind. :-"


----------



## TLDR20 (Jul 8, 2016)

There are legitimate political arguments to make about Hillary Clinton’s emails. These aren’t them.


----------



## AWP (Jul 8, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I'd hazard a guess that most of the sheeple feel pretty indifferent about it, a mood Cersei and her minions are exploiting.




I've had one die hard Democrat admit to me that she fully agrees with Republicans on this topic, but that she's still voting for Clinton.



policemedic said:


> Embarrassing J. Edgar in the building named after him.



He did a solid job of that by himself.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 8, 2016)

This isn't the first time Comey has cleared the Clintons, he was involved in the Whitewater Investigation  (something I didn't know until yesterday).



Freefalling said:


> I've had one die hard Democrat admit to me that she fully agrees with Republicans on this topic, but that she's still voting for Clinton.



Is the die-hard Democrat Military or Contractor ?


----------



## AWP (Jul 8, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Is the die-hard Democrat Military or Contractor ?



Civilian who used to work/ volunteer for the DNC.


----------



## RackMaster (Jul 8, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Civilian who used to work/ volunteer for the DNC.



Idiots that vote blindly for the party.  We have the same problem here.  I don't know how they can put blinders on and ignore major issues that affect them.


----------



## AWP (Jul 8, 2016)

If this was already posted, I apologize. Enjoy, especially para's 3 and 4.

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/documents/hrc_ndas/1/doc_0c05833708/c05833708.pdf


----------



## AWP (Jul 8, 2016)

Given recent events, I'll bet Hillary Clinton is breathing a sigh of relief.

Sure that's cold, but take a moment to put this into perspective.

Blue Skies, Officers.


----------



## DA SWO (Jul 8, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Civilian who used to work/ volunteer for the DNC.


My ex had an aunt like that (hubby was a GS-15) who always agitated for a smaller military, I agreed and told her the GS cuts were going to be awesome; suddenly the Military downsizing wasn't attractive.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jul 8, 2016)

...and here's your sign...


----------



## CDG (Jul 8, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Given recent events, I'll bet Hillary Clinton is breathing a sigh of relief.
> 
> Sure that's cold, but take a moment to put this into perspective.
> 
> Blue Skies, Officers.



It's not cold, it's an objective evaluation given her thinly hidden disregard and contempt for the unwashed masses.  I don't believe for one second that she gives the remotest of fucks about the officers killed, or their families and friends.  FWIW, I don't believe Trump cares either, or really any politician. They're all concerned with nothing but polls, money, and how to get their name in the paper.


----------



## AWP (Jul 8, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> ...and here's your sign...



At least give us some Looney Tunes dominoes with our flag. Too asymmetric, C+.


----------



## Brill (Jul 9, 2016)

This, because of the unknown factor, is very troubling. Leftists are way more apt to use violence to achieve their goals.

Bernie Sanders supporters melt down over FBI's Hillary Clinton decision - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Jul 9, 2016)

I wonder if this,^^^^^^^, will be a player at the DNC Convention?

I expect to see leftist , anti Trump rallies to be stepped up. The GOP Convention being a sure rally site,  with nasty clashes aimed at Trump and LEOs.

Could the same be true at the DNC Convention? It would be interesting if Clinton ran into strong Sanders support inside the convention. To be real, the Clinton, obama  hookup has plenty of power to quash anything inside the convention, and maybe outside as well.

What would be a shocker, is if the Sanders supporters hate Clinton enough to throw in with Trump. Chances of that happening; 0.000002%

My $0.000002.


----------



## AWP (Jul 9, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> What would be a shocker, is if the Sanders supporters hate Clinton enough to throw in with Trump. Chances of that happening; 0.000002%.



They wouldn't need to do that, they could vote for anyone but her and siphon votes away from Clinton. Will enough do that? Unlikely, but this is already a strange election.


----------



## Brill (Jul 9, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> They wouldn't need to do that, they could vote for anyone but her and siphon votes away from Clinton. Will enough do that? Unlikely, but this is already a strange election.



I'm confident her staff has already submitted ballot counts for various precincts.
The vote will be just close enough to make it appear legitimate. There is no way the election for President would be left to the American people: it never has.

Our system is rigged. We have to elect her to see how she will govern!


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> Leftists are way more apt to use violence to achieve their goals.


[citation needed]


FiveThirtyEight is projecting, based on current polling, that Gary Johnson's presence in the race will take more support away from Clinton than Trump.  This is pretty surprising.  Right now it seems as though he's only taking 1 or 2 points away (except in one poll where his presence ADDED a point to Clinton's lead), but it'll be interesting to see if this effect becomes more pronounced in the runup to the election.
Election Update: Is Gary Johnson Taking More Support From Clinton Or Trump?


----------



## Brill (Jul 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> [citation needed]



Google IMF protests, WTO Seattle protests, and Occupy movement. Not many right-wingers in those groups that were all less than peaceful.

Violence at Tea Party or Open Carry demonstrations/protests???

Anyway, Rubio's comments are fitting.


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> [citation needed]
> 
> 
> FiveThirtyEight is projecting, based on current polling, that Gary Johnson's presence in the race will take more support away from Clinton than Trump.  This is pretty surprising.  Right now it seems as though he's only taking 1 or 2 points away (except in one poll where his presence ADDED a point to Clinton's lead), but it'll be interesting to see if this effect becomes more pronounced in the runup to the election.
> Election Update: Is Gary Johnson Taking More Support From Clinton Or Trump?



The guy's mannerisms are kooky as hell. You see the video of him classifying his remark that Trump is a pussy? 

We'll see if he gets to the debates


----------



## Florida173 (Jul 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> Google IMF protests, WTO Seattle protests, and Occupy movement. Not many right-wingers in those groups that were all less than peaceful.
> 
> Violence at Tea Party or Open Carry demonstrations/protests???
> 
> Anyway, Rubio's comments are fitting.



One thing to note is that the violent ones in those groups really are fringe. While working the last RNC I saw Black Blocs doing all the damage, not typical occupy guy. Of course there have been crazies in the tea party/open carry rallies, but I think we do a better job alienating those types. The occupy and other left leaning groups are too inclusive, maybe to effect numbers.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jul 12, 2016)

I no understand...how in the whoonya is it inappropriate Lynch Spurns Republican Calls to Discuss Clinton E-Mail Decision

And she also wouldn't talk about her conversation with Bill...uh hello.


----------



## Brill (Jul 12, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> I no understand...how in the whoonya is it inappropriate Lynch Spurns Republican Calls to Discuss Clinton E-Mail Decision
> 
> And she also wouldn't talk about her conversation with Bill...uh hello.



Just got and and went to CNN to read up on it...cricket, cricket, cricket.

I know they broadcast it but no links on the site?

Regarding her "testimony", our system is rigged.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 12, 2016)

lindy said:


> Just got and and went to CNN to read up on it...cricket, cricket, cricket.
> 
> I know they broadcast it but no links on the site?
> 
> Regarding her "testimony", our system is rigged.


Like this one? House GOP: 'Loretta Lynch has no intention of answering any of our questions' - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## Brill (Jul 12, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Like this one? House GOP: 'Loretta Lynch has no intention of answering any of our questions' - CNNPolitics.com



Seriously, where is that? I'm looking on the main page! Fucking trip to the eye doc in my future!!!!


----------



## AWP (Jul 12, 2016)

SIGINT...so easy a blind man can do it.


----------



## Brill (Jul 12, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> SIGINT...so easy a blind man can do it.



Get back to your Pokemon Go 

DroidJack Uses Side-Load - Backdoored Pokemon GO Android App Found | Proofpoint


----------



## AWP (Jul 12, 2016)

lindy said:


> Get back to your Pokemon Go
> 
> DroidJack Uses Side-Load - Backdoored Pokemon GO Android App Found | Proofpoint



That crap's for nerds.

You should see my settlements in Fallout 4.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 13, 2016)

Rep. Chaffetz is asking the DC district attorney to investigate Clinton for perjury related to sworn testimony during hearing
Congressmen ask U.S. Attorney’s Office to investigate Clinton for perjury

Here's a copy of the letter
https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/Criminal-Referral-Letter-7-11-201614.pdf

I don't think this has legs.  It seems as though Republicans have run out of torpedos to try and sink the USS Clinton and have resorted to their 5-inch guns.


----------



## Locksteady (Jul 13, 2016)

Meanwhile, the top legal representative of the US Department of Justice is refusing to confirm that lying under oath or sharing classified information with uncleared individuals is illegal.


----------



## Brill (Jul 13, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Rep. Chaffetz is asking the DC district attorney to investigate Clinton for perjury related to sworn testimony during hearing
> Congressmen ask U.S. Attorney’s Office to investigate Clinton for perjury
> 
> Here's a copy of the letter
> ...



Yep, no sense is trying to ensure that our Nation is one of laws.  Zimbabwe would be proud of our transparency.


----------



## Salt USMC (Jul 13, 2016)

lindy said:


> Yep, no sense is trying to ensure that our Nation is one of laws.  Zimbabwe would be proud of our transparency.


I'm not saying that he shouldn't have done it.  I said that it probably won't go anywhere.


----------



## Brill (Jul 13, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I'm not saying that he shouldn't have done it.  I said that it probably won't go anywhere.



I understand.  I just think it's pretty shitty that Russian and Chinese intelligence probably know more about Hillary's emails (including the intent behind the purpose of the server), Bill and Loretta's meeting, and any/all discussions with Comey about this episode than the American people do.

It probably won't go anywhere because nobody gives a shit that our Constitution is now worthless and the Executive Branch is really just another special interest group that really has no interest in enforcing laws...unless you raise the BS flag and then you're a racist.


----------



## Brill (Jul 13, 2016)

There's no way China would target a SECSTATE private server. Better to go after a harder target instead.

This too is "extremely careless"...nah, better to just cover it up and tell employees not to discuss via email to avoid FOIA.

China hacked the FDIC - and US officials covered it up, report says


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Jul 13, 2016)

Depending on who you ask this "600 requests" fact is accurate...

Navy Seal on Benghazi: ‘Hillary killed my friend... 600 security requests denied.'






More Than 600 Benghazi Security Requests Never Reached Clinton’s Desk, But Reports on Libya from Her ‘Friend’ Did


:wall:


----------



## Brill (Jul 13, 2016)

Honorable Gowdy is correct. A prosecutor can pretty much outline the details behind the decision to charge or not.

Furious Gowdy says Lynch hearing was a 'total waste of time'

And then there's this, from MD State's Attorney:


----------



## Beagle (Jul 16, 2016)

Didn't the FBI arrest a Chinese person that landed in the US and drove to meet the Clinton with a briefcase full of case?

The article is wrong about millionaire, he's actually a billionaire.  So is hillary going to pardon him once she's president?

FBI Arrests Chinese Millionaire Once Tied to Clinton $$ Scandal


----------



## compforce (Aug 1, 2016)

> As we have seen repeatedly in Clinton’s explanations of the email controversy, she relies on excessively technical and legalistic answers to explain her actions. While Comey did say there was no evidence she lied to the FBI, that is not the same as saying she told the truth to the American public — which was the point of Wallace’s question. Comey has repeatedly not taken a stand on her public statements.
> 
> And although Comey did say many emails were retroactively classified, he also said that there were some emails that were already classified that should not have been sent on an unclassified, private server. That’s the uncomfortable truth that Clinton has trouble admitting.



Clinton’s claim that the FBI director said her email answers were ‘truthful’

Four pinocchios by the Washington Post against a liberal?  This is a major slam...


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 1, 2016)

compforce said:


> Clinton’s claim that the FBI director said her email answers were ‘truthful’
> 
> Four pinocchios by the Washington Post against a liberal?  This is a major slam...



They do so all the time.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 1, 2016)

Truths are scrambled in with what it takes to shape and spin an issue to get the response you are looking for. For the voter who cares, it's a question of picking the truth out of what is said, but; the spun story lingers so long while truth is swept aside. If you are running for office, and have not learned how to do this, you will fail, sink, and become an unknown.


----------



## Brill (Aug 3, 2016)

Oh, the irony...

Clinton fundraiser being held at cybersecurity conference Black Hat


----------



## Brill (Aug 3, 2016)

Ok, last one but this dude cracks me up.

@Deathy McDeath and @TLDR20 , you'll enjoy this one.


----------



## AWP (Aug 6, 2016)

This is just rich. She's Rick James in a Charlie Murphy sketch. "I would never do that to someone's couch.....yeah I did that to his couch."

Hillary Clinton admits she may have 'short circuited' answers on email controversy - CNNPolitics.com



> Washington (CNN)Hillary Clinton attempted to clarify Friday recent misleading statements about her use of a private email server at the State Department, saying she "may have short-circuited" her answers about it.
> 
> At a gathering of black and Hispanic journalists in Washington, D.C., Clinton -- who has come under fire for not often taking media questions -- was asked about her recent assertion that FBI Director James Comey had said she was "truthful" to the public in discussing the issue, a claim that a number of media outlets, including CNN, have debunked.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 6, 2016)

"And I would go back to where I started, I regret using one account, I have taken responsibility for that," Clinton said.

How, exactly, has she taken responsibility?


----------



## compforce (Aug 6, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> "And I would go back to where I started, I regret using one account, I have taken responsibility for that," Clinton said.
> 
> How, exactly, has she taken responsibility?



At one point she said (paraphrased) 'In hindsight, maybe I shouldn't have had only one device'.  That's her version of taking responsibility.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 7, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> This is just rich. She's Rick James in a Charlie Murphy sketch. "I would never do that to someone's couch.....yeah I did that to his couch."
> 
> Hillary Clinton admits she may have 'short circuited' answers on email controversy - CNNPolitics.com


----------



## compforce (Aug 7, 2016)

There is soooo much fail in this article:
Cotton: Clinton discussed executed Iranian scientist on email



> The scientist shows up in Clinton's (ed: leaked) emails back in 2010, just nine days before he returned to Iran.



This is why we don't put highly sensitive info on personal servers...  In my mind she is culpable for his eventual hanging.  Whether her server was hacked at the time or not, once the emails were leaked there was no way Iran was going to let him live.



> This person who had access to the country's secret and classified information had been linked to our hostile and No. 1 enemy, America, the Great Satan" a spokesman for the Iranian judiciary said.



Tell me again how Iran is going to love us if we give them their money back... (Nuclear Treaty)



> It would appear possible that discussion on an unclassified — and quite possibly hacked — email system about a person who was hanged as a spy will have a chilling effect on others who might want to engage in espionage for the United States.


They should be used to it by now.  I mean we've been hanging our interpreters, spies and everyone else that does business with us in hostile areas out to dry for how many years now?

And this is who half the country wants to give the key to the nukes to?  She'll probably leave the codes laying around on her desk at home "so it's easier to get to them".


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Aug 7, 2016)

Meanwhile, Trump is dismissing Japan as an ally so we cannot even take advantage of these gold coins falling out of the trees.

Donald Trump: If The U.S. Is Attacked, Japan 'Can Sit Home And Watch Sony Television'

ETA:  Link and a, "My fault Deathy"


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 7, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Meanwhile, Trump is dismissing Japan as an ally so we cannot even take advantage of these gold coins falling out of the trees.


Link?


----------



## Single Malt (Aug 8, 2016)

compforce said:


> There is soooo much fail in this article:
> Cotton: Clinton discussed executed Iranian scientist on email
> 
> 
> ...



just to be fare, if she is elected, her desk at home would be in the White House...


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 8, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Meanwhile, Trump is dismissing Japan as an ally so we cannot even take advantage of these gold coins falling out of the trees.
> 
> Donald Trump: If The U.S. Is Attacked, Japan 'Can Sit Home And Watch Sony Television'
> 
> ETA:  Link and a, "My fault Deathy"


When did Japan become an ally?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 8, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> When did Japan become an ally?



Guilt?


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 8, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Guilt?


Not sure I understand the comment.
Japan waited until North Korea started launching missiles before they signed any mutual defense pacts with us.
We routinely "wargamed" a lack of access to Japan/Okie when CPX'ing Korean Scenarios (80-early 90's), so I wouldn't automatically call them an ally.
U.K. and a few others are the only ones I'd actually refer to as an ally.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 8, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Not sure I understand the comment.
> Japan waited until North Korea started launching missiles before they signed any mutual defense pacts with us.
> We routinely "wargamed" a lack of access to Japan/Okie when CPX'ing Korean Scenarios (80-early 90's), so I wouldn't automatically call them an ally.
> U.K. and a few others are the only ones I'd actually refer to as an ally.



I seems like all of out enemies in WW II became allies, Japan included. We went into Japan to help rebuild their country. They were defenseless after we destroyed their military. After the defeat in WW II, Japan took the position of having a defensive military only. With Korea so close, and with its unstable head of state, the formal ally status seems a good idea. Japan's neutral posture has made treaties unneeded.

I agree with your observation regarding who our real allied nations are.

My "Guilt" was meant as tic.


----------



## Brill (Aug 8, 2016)

Absolutely BRILLIANT!

Parents of 2 Benghazi victims sue Hillary Clinton for wrongful death, defamation | Fox News

Remember, in civil cases the burden of proof shifts to the DEFENDENT. Clinton will have to show reasonable suspicion that the allegations are NOT true.

The suit alleges that server was hacked so she (hopefully Pagiano) will have to demonstrate why that was not the case.

She's in a tight spot so I wonder how the machine will defame theses gold star families or how they will ruin them like Bill's former girlfriends?


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 8, 2016)

lindy said:


> Absolutely BRILLIANT!
> 
> Parents of 2 Benghazi victims sue Hillary Clinton for wrongful death, defamation | Fox News
> 
> ...



Gold Star families? Not to be a dick. But were any of those killed in Benghazi actively serving members of our military? These guys were contractors. I think this distinction is important.


----------



## Marine0311 (Aug 8, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Gold Star families? Not to be a dick. But were any of those killed in Benghazi actively serving members of our military? These guys were contractors. I think this distinction is important.



I don't believe so.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 8, 2016)

lindy said:


> Absolutely BRILLIANT!
> 
> Parents of 2 Benghazi victims sue Hillary Clinton for wrongful death, defamation | Fox News
> 
> ...


Parents die unexpectedly.
The person who needs to sue is the rube she blamed for the attack (the guy who made the video).


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Gold Star families? Not to be a dick. But were any of those killed in Benghazi actively serving members of our military? These guys were contractors. I think this distinction is important.


Contractor or not, they sacrificed themselves for the cause.


----------



## Brill (Aug 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Gold Star families? Not to be a dick. But were any of those killed in Benghazi actively serving members of our military? These guys were contractors. I think this distinction is important.



I see your point but only Woods was a contractor. Smith was a State employee.

Regardless of Benghazi opinions and fault, this lawsuit is huge and I seriously doubt it will be dismissed.


----------



## AWP (Aug 9, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Contractor or not, they sacrificed themselves for the cause.



Our guys were shipped back more or less as freight without any recognition of the loss, but bases shut down if some E-3 on his first deployment blows his brains out. His parents get a gold star, but what about the thousands of contractors who died? Quite a few of them went down fighting, but we'll name a street after a guy who was run over by a forklift.

I once asked the 455th at Bagram what they'd do if one of us died. They didn't have the slightest clue. "Your company will handle that." How will they know? What official entity would even tell them we died? 

Crickets. Blank looks.

2016, 15 years of combat later, and this issue lingers? Fuck that. Contractors are the untermensch of the US military. I'm just glad I'm finally around a group that treats us like people...almost like we're their peers. "Almost" is the key word.

Eh, y'all can go back to the thread, but after a decade plus of doing this in the sandbox, it has made me very bitter.

Fuck contractors, right?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 9, 2016)

Somehow the Ambassador's death has been left out of the discussion. That seems to be a big deal, but that's just me I guess. How is it that the Ambassador is never mentioned?


----------



## TLDR20 (Aug 9, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Somehow the Ambassador's death has been left out of the discussion. That seems to be a big deal, but that's just me I guess. How is it that the Ambassador is never mentioned?



I think he is always mentioned. He is one of the four who were murdered.


----------



## Florida173 (Aug 9, 2016)

Plus weren't the guys in Libya GRS? 

Too much ignorance in the way of contractors out there. Not like we are 1099 independent contractors. We get a w2.

@Freefalling in regards to what you said about them not knowing what to do for contractors, likely more in the lane for a COR. they are responsible more often than not.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 9, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Our guys were shipped back more or less as freight without any recognition of the loss, but bases shut down if some E-3 on his first deployment blows his brains out. His parents get a gold star, but what about the thousands of contractors who died? Quite a few of them went down fighting, but we'll name a street after a guy who was run over by a forklift.
> 
> I once asked the 455th at Bagram what they'd do if one of us died. They didn't have the slightest clue. "Your company will handle that." How will they know? What official entity would even tell them we died?
> 
> ...


We use to say that KBR meant kill 'em, bury 'em, replace em.
Lots o truth in that.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 9, 2016)

lindy said:


> Absolutely BRILLIANT!
> 
> Parents of 2 Benghazi victims sue Hillary Clinton for wrongful death, defamation | Fox News
> 
> ...


Oh boy.  More fun from Larry Klayman, a guy who literally built his career on suing the Clintons.  As always, it's necessary to preface this with I AM NOT A LAWYER:
You're right that civil suits that the bar for winning a civil suit is much lower than in a criminal case, but I would argue that Clinton's case is bolstered by the sheer volume of investigation that has already been undertaken on this issue.  Is a court more likely to find evidence of guilt when even adversarial government investigations couldn't find any?  From my layman's vantage point, it seems unlikely.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 9, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I think he is always mentioned. He is one of the four who were murdered.



You are right, his murder has not gone unnoticed. It just seem that the people who are mentioned the most, this law suit for example, are the combatants who died defending the Embassy.


----------



## Brill (Aug 9, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Oh boy.  More fun from Larry Klayman, a guy who literally built his career on suing the Clintons.  As always, it's necessary to preface this with I AM NOT A LAWYER:
> You're right that civil suits that the bar for winning a civil suit is much lower than in a criminal case, but I would argue that Clinton's case is bolstered by the sheer volume of investigation that has already been undertaken on this issue.  Is a court more likely to find evidence of guilt when even adversarial government investigations couldn't find any?  From my layman's vantage point, it seems unlikely.



There has yet to be an investigation where both sides depose witnesses under oath and present evidence to support their stance.

Both plaintiffs suffered libel and slander by Clinton. Now her attorneys will have to show preponderance of proof that her statements about the cause of the fighting at the State complex and the annex were true and the plaintiffs' memory is wrong.

Has there ever been anything documenting HOW the information from JWICS got onto her unsecure sever?


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 9, 2016)

It's a step in the right direction...

"The family of Glen Doherty, a CIA contractor killed in the 2012 Benghazi attack, will receive nearly half a million dollars from the spy agency under a newly-revealed program to provide “enhanced death benefits” to those working with the Agency who were killed in the line of duty since the early 1980s, according to the Doherty family and U.S. officials."

CIA to Pay Benghazi Contractor’s Family $400K


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 9, 2016)

Basically an SGLI benefit.


----------



## Dame (Aug 9, 2016)

@Freefalling , our death benefits are (get this) SECRET. They exist but we can't print them out or talk specifics.
But I do know the folks who have died are memorialized with a scholarship for children of current employees. So that's nice.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 9, 2016)

Maybe I haven't followed this close enough.
How did she libel them?
The Guy with the cheesy video was clearly libeled, and should be the one filing a lawsuit.


----------



## Brill (Aug 10, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Maybe I haven't followed this close enough.
> How did she libel them?
> The Guy with the cheesy video was clearly libeled, and should be the one filing a lawsuit.



Paragraph 33 of the filing claims she made false and defamatory statements intentionally with malice.

http://www.freedomwatchusa.org/pdf/160808-Final Complaint .pdf


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 10, 2016)

Newly released Clinton emails shed light on relationship between State Dept. and Clinton Foundation - CNNPolitics.com

Down further in the rabbit hole we go


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 10, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Our guys were shipped back more or less as freight without any recognition of the loss, but bases shut down if some E-3 on his first deployment blows his brains out. His parents get a gold star, but what about the thousands of contractors who died? Quite a few of them went down fighting, but we'll name a street after a guy who was run over by a forklift.
> 
> I once asked the 455th at Bagram what they'd do if one of us died. They didn't have the slightest clue. "Your company will handle that." How will they know? What official entity would even tell them we died?
> 
> ...



I don't have it in front of me,  but there's a clause in contacts that require contractors in theater to arrange for their own transportation of deceased contractors working on a contract.


----------



## Brill (Aug 12, 2016)

I fully agree with Rand Paul.

Rand Paul calls for indictment of Hillary Clinton


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 15, 2016)

Two House committees have sent a letter to the DC district attorney laying out a perjury case against Hillary Clinton.

House Panels Lay Out Case That Clinton Perjured Herself



> Two House committees sent a letter to the Department of Justice Monday laying out their case for why they believe Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton committed perjury during a hearing in Congress last year.
> 
> The letter to U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Channing Phillips from the Oversight and Government Reform and Judiciary committees provides four specific examples of times they believe Clinton lied under oath about her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of State. The letter said Clinton made several false statements during her testimony to the House Select Committee on Benghazi on October 22, 2015.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brill (Aug 16, 2016)

She wasn't under oath when speaking with the FBI during the routine security review.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 16, 2016)

It looks like they're citing her testimony in front of the House Benghazi commission as the perjured speech.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 16, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It looks like they're citing her testimony in front of the House Benghazi commission as the perjured speech.



Yup and it seems pretty obvious.



> The letter said Clinton made several false statements during her testimony to the House Select Committee on Benghazi on October 22, 2015.


----------



## AWP (Aug 16, 2016)

She broke the law and that's as clear as day. Her "intent" is irrelevant, but we're reduced to splitting hairs because the DOJ won't do its damn job. Sickening.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 16, 2016)

This thread will never really reach a measurable end point. It will go on for years, and will stand for the failure of all three branches of this nation's government.

This thread will also underscore the division between the nation's governmental leaders, and it's people. The laws do not apply across the board. That was a feature of the former USSR too.


----------



## Brill (Aug 17, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> She broke the law and that's as clear as day. Her "intent" is irrelevant, but we're reduced to splitting hairs because the DOJ won't do its damn job. Sickening.



About DOJ | DOJ | Department of Justice

Clearly, Clinton's assumption to the throne IS in the interest of the United States.

Congress has the authority to pull the purse strings so I wonder what dirt the Clinton machine has on them?


----------



## Brill (Aug 17, 2016)

Clinton's interview about her emails is so classified that Chaffetz can only read it redacted but it's safe to be kept on her server and given to her lawyer to vet delete/save choices?

I don't understand.

FBI sends heavily redacted Clinton interview documents to Congress | Fox News

I hope the Navy guy who took classified pics gets off.


----------



## AWP (Aug 17, 2016)

I recently moved into a CSL/ IA position (those fools don't know what they have done!) and I can say this little story is hilariously sad.

"Hey, guys, I need your paperwork to be 8570 compliant."
(Insert "what difference does it make" quote or some email joke)

Everyone submits their forms, but her respect level is zero where I work. Sure, this is an exceptionally small segment of the DoD, but every pitch is a hit.


----------



## Brill (Aug 18, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> I recently moved into a CSL/ IA position (those fools don't know what they have done!) and I can say this little story is hilariously sad.
> 
> "Hey, guys, I need your paperwork to be 8570 compliant."
> (Insert "what difference does it make" quote or some email joke)
> ...



CSL.

Chinese as Second Language?


----------



## Brill (Aug 18, 2016)

This seriously cracks me up: article focuses on CONFIDENTIAL markings of three emails but ignores the SAP junk that was sent and God knows how many times forwarded too. This is the FBI???

Information determines classification, not the marking, which are determined by the information. Political theater.

FBI defends Hillary Clinton’s handling of classified material, says markings weren’t conclusive


----------



## AWP (Aug 18, 2016)

lindy said:


> CSL.
> 
> Chinese as Second Language?



English is my second language.

Cybersecurity Liaison, formerly called the Information Assurance Officer.


----------



## Brill (Aug 19, 2016)

So Bissonette ordered to pay USG $6.8 mil because of violating his NDA with a pre-pub restriction.

Hillary had 100 classified emails (that are known) and many were SAP'd. I wonder how many NDAs she signed?

This is rich!



> This enforcement action does not discredit Mr. Bissonnette's military service, but reinforces that it is important for our service members and individuals who have been assigned positions of trust and granted access to classified information to comply with the obligations set forth in their non-disclosure agreements to protect classified information after leaving the U.S. military and government in an effort to protect our nation's national security," Nicole Navas, a spokesperson at the U.S. Department of Justice, said in a statement to ABC News.



US Settles Case With Author of Controversial Bin Laden Book


----------



## AWP (Aug 19, 2016)

lindy said:


> I wonder how many NDAs she signed?



I think I posted this earlier:

HRC's SF312:

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/documents/hrc_ndas/1/doc_0c05833708/c05833708.pdf

For the masses (because lindy knows this) "SF"... "Standard Form" for everyone including State and not a DoD thing.

*
CLASSIFIED INFORMATION NONDISCLOSURE AGREEMENT
*

Paragraph 4:


> In addition, I have been advised that any unauthorized disclosure of classified information by me may constitute a violation, or violations, of United States criminal laws, including the provisions of sections 641, 793, 794, 798, *952 and 1924, title 18, United States Code; *the provisions of section 783(b}, title 50, United States Code; and the provisions of the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982. I recognize that nothing in this Agreement constitutes a waiver by the United States of the right to prosecute me for any statutory violation.


----------



## Brill (Aug 20, 2016)

Plus her NDAs for every SAP she was indoc'd to.

Interesting that the defense strategy has changed from explanation to just plain avoidance of the issue all together.


----------



## Brill (Aug 20, 2016)

Damn!  I guess one is better than 5.

U.S. Navy sailor gets year in prison for taking photos inside nuclear sub


----------



## Centermass (Aug 22, 2016)

14,000+ more found.

Lawyers for the State Department and Judicial Watch, the legal group, are negotiating a plan for the release of the emails in a civil public records lawsuit before U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of Washington.

FBI uncovers nearly 15,000 more documents in Clinton email probe


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 22, 2016)

Centermass said:


> 14,000+ more found.
> 
> Lawyers for the State Department and Judicial Watch, the legal group, are negotiating a plan for the release of the emails in a civil public records lawsuit before U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of Washington.
> 
> FBI uncovers nearly 15,000 more documents in Clinton email probe



Ya know what, I don't think anyone cares enough anymore. This has gone on so long, and the FBI , who works for Obama's DOJ, have given her a pass. That pretty much sums up what the Clintons are able to do to this country. Don't expect too much from this.

That's my $.02.


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 22, 2016)

H is taking some heat on the special access to donors. 

New Abedin Emails Reveal Hillary Clinton State Department Gave Special Access to Top Clinton Foundation Donors - Judicial Watch


----------



## Brill (Aug 22, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Ya know what, I don't think anyone cares enough anymore. This has gone on so long, and the FBI , who works for Obama's DOJ, have given her a pass. That pretty much sums up what the Clintons are able to do to this country. Don't expect too much from this.
> 
> That's my $.02.



Agree 100% but hate (the fact you are correct) so much too.


----------



## Brill (Aug 22, 2016)

Centermass said:


> 14,000+ more found.
> 
> Lawyers for the State Department and Judicial Watch, the legal group, are negotiating a plan for the release of the emails in a civil public records lawsuit before U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg of Washington.
> 
> FBI uncovers nearly 15,000 more documents in Clinton email probe



You think this was Comey's plan all along? Succumb to the political pressure while giving crooked Lynch the good ol' fuck you via recovered emails?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 22, 2016)

lindy said:


> Agree 100% but hate (the fact you are correct) so much too.



I'm hoping to be proven wrong, I really am. There is just so much at stake.


----------



## Centermass (Aug 23, 2016)

lindy said:


> You think this was Comey's plan all along? Succumb to the political pressure while giving crooked Lynch the good ol' fuck you via recovered emails?



I gave that a thought and it's possible. Some loudmouth within the agency would confirm it.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 23, 2016)

lindy said:


> You think this was Comey's plan all along? Succumb to the political pressure while giving crooked Lynch the good ol' fuck you via recovered emails?


No, I think this dude is bought.  Because there are so many sheep in this world it looks like she is the presumptive CinC.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Aug 23, 2016)

I've seen Transporter 2, they have one of his kids.....


----------



## Brill (Aug 24, 2016)

Clinton linked to same pro-Yanukovich party as Trump campaign leader, who resigned. Outraged? Nah.  $25 mil donation gets access!

Emails show Clinton denied, then met with Ukrainian donor


----------



## Brill (Aug 27, 2016)

Typical crap by CNN. Sure Bleachbit is freeware and there ARE other programs that are more effective at wiping data...

but WHY would someone use the program AFTER the data/storage device was supoened by Congress and subjected to several FOIA suits?  Remember, anything dealing with State Department issues are We the People's property and NEVER considered personal property.

BleachBit: Tool at center of Clinton email flap - CNNMoney

What is BleachBit? Little-known tool at center of Clinton email controversy


----------



## Centermass (Aug 27, 2016)

If they can make a solid connection if it was installed after the date of the subpoena, they may actually have something with some teeth finally.

18 US Code 1512 (c) 1519

Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.


----------



## Brill (Aug 27, 2016)

Centermass said:


> If they can make a solid connection if it was installed after the date of the subpoena, they may actually have something with some teeth finally.
> 
> 18 US Code 1512 (c) 1519
> 
> Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.



Nah.

Clinton certifies she has turned over work-related emails - CNNPolitics.com

The Strange Gaps in Hillary Clinton’s Email Traffic



> The media has spent a lot of time parsing through the Clinton emails that already have been released—compiling lists, looking for specific names or discussion of particular issues. But they ought to pay more attention to the holes. Bob Woodward has declared that Hillary Clinton’s email scandal “reminds me of the Nixon tapes.” He’s right. In that case and here, it’s not what’s in the record that’s most troubling. It’s what’s _not_ there.


----------



## Totentanz (Aug 27, 2016)

Centermass said:


> If they can make a solid connection if it was installed after the date of the subpoena, they may actually have something with some teeth finally.
> 
> 18 US Code 1512 (c) 1519
> 
> Whoever knowingly alters, destroys, mutilates, conceals, covers up, falsifies, or makes a false entry in any record, document, or tangible object with the intent to impede, obstruct, or influence the investigation or proper administration of any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States or any case filed, or in relation to or contemplation of any such matter or case, shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.



You say that like the law matters.


----------



## Brill (Aug 30, 2016)

Really?

Army confirms: Training slide lists Hillary Clinton as insider threat | Fox News


----------



## Kraut783 (Aug 30, 2016)

LOL, Hillary in a TARP brief....that is freaking awesome!


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 30, 2016)

Very unprofessional though.


----------



## policemedic (Aug 30, 2016)

I don't think so.  I think it's accurate, and whoever made the slide and whoever approved it did a hell of a job. 

If she wins the election and becomes POTUS, it should be removed as she'll be the commander-in-chief and good order must be maintained.  But right now, she's nothing other than a candidate.  A retired general officer is on the same slide; I wouldn't give her a pass.


----------



## DA SWO (Aug 31, 2016)

SpitfireV said:


> Very unprofessional though.


Disagree, as PM said a Retired GO is on the slide, and she is nothing more than a former SecState.
Two very good examples IMO.


----------



## Brill (Aug 31, 2016)

You cannot make this shit up! A total train wreck.

Clinton emailed classified information after leaving State Dept. | New York Post


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Aug 31, 2016)

Now it all makes sense:

 

:-":wall::blkeye:


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Aug 31, 2016)

^^^^^^Prolly close to the truth.

She must be really easy to buy cloths for, trousers and maternity tops. Even foot wear is pretty nicely hidden.


----------



## Blizzard (Sep 1, 2016)

Seems the only thing they haven't found so far are emails about yoga routines and wedding plans...


----------



## Brill (Sep 1, 2016)

This is going to leave a mark: Foundation donor asked for Dip PP.

Judicial Watch: New Abedin Emails Reveal Top Clinton Foundation Executive Doug Band Sought Diplomatic Passport from Clinton State Department - Judicial Watch


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 1, 2016)

lindy said:


> This is going to leave a mark: Foundation donor asked for Dip PP.
> 
> Judicial Watch: New Abedin Emails Reveal Top Clinton Foundation Executive Doug Band Sought Diplomatic Passport from Clinton State Department - Judicial Watch



Did he get the passport though?


----------



## Brill (Sep 1, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Did he get the passport though?



Don't know but easy enough to check. 

I think the "damage" is done though. I heard a poll that had majority of respondents say Clinton set the server up to hide something.  Regardless, both parties are targeting the independents, who, I would assume, can see through the multiple Clinton lies about the server, topics of deleted emails, and the ethics pledge.  These are self inflicted wounds.

I can't wait for State to release the info regarding the "required" security Clinton and her staff certified they took.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 2, 2016)

FBI report on Clinton

Hillary R. Clinton

I haven't gone through it yet, but it's bound to be interesting.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 2, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> FBI report on Clinton
> 
> Hillary R. Clinton
> 
> I haven't gone through it yet, but it's bound to be interesting.



Read the first few paragraphs and I want to slap cuffs on her.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 2, 2016)

She must think we're all as dumb as her.

Clinton claims she didn’t know ‘C’ stood for ‘classified’ in emails | New York Post


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 2, 2016)

Run little donkey...run!!!!


----------



## 104TN (Sep 2, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Run little donkey...run!!!!
> 
> View attachment 16504


To be accurate, HRC should be riding the FBI agent around the track.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 2, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Run little donkey...run!!!!
> 
> View attachment 16504




That's the first time I've seen a Jackass riding a Donkey.

@rick, has a valid point.


----------



## Kraut783 (Sep 2, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> FBI report on Clinton
> 
> Hillary R. Clinton
> 
> I haven't gone through it yet, but it's bound to be interesting.



Heh, this is not the interview notes, its a Letter Head Memorandum (LHM) briefing report, not the FD-302 or original Agents notes.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 2, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> FBI report on Clinton
> 
> Hillary R. Clinton
> 
> I haven't gone through it yet, but it's bound to be interesting.


I've skimmed it, I'm only on Page 7 and Comey says they didn't have evidence to take people down...yeah right.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 2, 2016)

I still can't believe that she is not in a jail cell awaiting trial. Special place in hell for that bitch.


----------



## Totentanz (Sep 2, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> I still can't believe...



I can.  It's frustrating because as a society, we can and should be better than this. :wall:


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 2, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> I can.  It's frustrating because as a society, we can and should be better than this. :wall:


Who wants to be the next person having an accident, or dying while in West Texas?


----------



## Brill (Sep 3, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> I can.  It's frustrating because as a society, we can and should be better than this. :wall:



Can yes, but should?

Incumbents are winning primaries all over the country, BLM has changed policing, candidates plan to spend one BILLION dollars to get into the White House...

We will get what we deserve: an idiot (or a liar) or a blowhard. Either way, it's going to be an insane next 60-days.

Please keep in mind that Clinton received a BA from Wellesley and THEN her JD from Yale, er go, definitely NOT an idiot.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 3, 2016)

@lindy I think that blow to Hillary’s melon eliminated all of her intelligence.


----------



## Brill (Sep 4, 2016)

This is a total head scratcher: Clinton didn't (doesn't) understand basic skill level one classification marking, handling, etc and basic computer security, yet her email server was wiped and formatted and her many of her multiple devices were destroyed or "lost".

Seems strange that a micromanager, who is short on trust, would allow aides to make critical decisions on her behalf.

Clinton told FBI she relied on others' judgment on classified material

Sounds like a great candidate to ultimately have ability to approve our nation's most sensitive operations that require utmost discretion.


----------



## Brill (Sep 4, 2016)

Please note that State requested Clinton emails (because of a FOIAlawsuit) Oct 2014, her 30k work related emails sent to State in Dec 2014, and archive PSTs deleted in March 2015.

Nixon would be pleased.


----------



## Centermass (Sep 4, 2016)

How do you distinguish a legitimate "Journalist" from a "Cheerleader" in the media?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 4, 2016)

Centermass said:


> How do you distinguish a legitimate "Journalist" from a "Cheerleader" in the media?



Her intention was hammer testing, where's the problem in that?


----------



## Brill (Sep 5, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> Her intention was hammer testing, where's the problem in that?



Testing the DOD-procured hammers that cost $500 each. She was trying to determine if the expenses were really justified. Unlike Trump, who hates the series Justified, because he is a racist who hides behind his taxes.

They had to wipe the server to find out what was on it!


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 6, 2016)

The files are "in the computer??!?!?!"


----------



## Brill (Sep 6, 2016)

I wonder how this will get shut down.

Lawmaker: Probe deleted Clinton emails cited in FBI report


----------



## Brill (Sep 8, 2016)

All of us Intel types are fucking idiots and don't understand security like the Democrat nominee.

It's the markings stupid!






Edit: DOS could not find neither a state.smil.mil nor a state.ic.gov email created for Hillary Clinton. She couldn't have communicated over secure email.


----------



## Rapid (Sep 8, 2016)

"Friendly reminder"


----------



## Kraut783 (Sep 8, 2016)

It was funny to hear her talk about how all classified documents have header markings.....guess she missed the training about the paragraphs having classified caveats. 

Or the overall responsibility of the individual who possess a clearance to report anything she comes across that could be classified on a unclass system....


----------



## Brill (Sep 8, 2016)

Dude who hacked US officials email accounts smoked weed all day but Clinton's accounts were safe?

Men accused of hacking top government officials arrested


----------



## Centermass (Sep 8, 2016)

lindy said:


> All of us Intel types are fucking idiots and don't understand security like the Democrat nominee.
> 
> It's the markings stupid!
> 
> Edit: DOS could not find neither a state.smil.mil nor a state.ic.gov email created for Hillary Clinton. She couldn't have communicated over secure email.



And yet, she's standing there talking, all the while, wearing an earpiece.........

Now I'm left wondering - Was it a "Private Ear Piece" or a "Gov. Ear Piece?"


----------



## Centermass (Sep 8, 2016)




----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 9, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> The files are "in the computer??!?!?!"
> 
> View attachment 16537



I love what the political cartoon artists are doing with Clinton' overall body shape and wardrobe. They just need to add some coughing.


----------



## Brill (Sep 9, 2016)

Unlocked SCIF doors?

Clinton email had 'multiple' classified markings, challenging her claim to FBI | Fox News


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 9, 2016)

Seems like this job would get to you......


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Sep 12, 2016)




----------



## Devildoc (Sep 13, 2016)

"You are hearby served."  Politics or not, Chaffetz puts the smack down on the FBI's representative:

Lawmaker Subpoenas FBI Official For ALL Hillary Case Records During House Hearing [VIDEO]


----------



## 104TN (Sep 13, 2016)

Devildoc said:


> "You are hearby served."  Politics or not, Chaffetz puts the smack down on the FBI's representative:
> 
> Lawmaker Subpoenas FBI Official For ALL Hillary Case Records During House Hearing [VIDEO]


Even if only theater at this point, I wish there was a "love" button for this video.


----------



## Brill (Sep 13, 2016)

Comey's blind obedience to Obama has tarnished the FBI, which has sunk to a level of DHS.


----------



## Devildoc (Sep 13, 2016)

Witnesses refuse to testify in hearing on Clinton's email :: WRAL.com

If what the dems are saying in that there is nothing to hide and this is just a partisan witch hunt, then why is everyone taking the 5th?


----------



## Ranger Psych (Sep 13, 2016)

Because they know they don't have wiggle room for following her directives, as they know they broke the law by complying with such.


----------



## Centermass (Sep 13, 2016)

When the person of interest (And those around them complicit) is able to drag events out long enough, it gives knuckleheads individuals like this enough traction to even seem credible. 



> "I believe this committee is abusing taxpayer dollars and the authority of Congress in an astonishing onslaught of political attacks to damage Secretary Clinton's campaign for president," said Rep. Elijah Cummings of Maryland, the committee's top Democrat.



I'm waiting to see WHO in the DOJ, granted Combetta immunity and then, failed to inform Congress about it.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 13, 2016)

And people wonder why the Clinton statements about her health are looked at as more of the same elite fabrications.


----------



## Kraut783 (Sep 13, 2016)

lindy said:


> Comey's blind obedience to Obama has tarnished the FBI, which has sunk to a level of DHS.



FBI Directors need to be current or former Agents and stop using DOJ Attorneys.


----------



## RackMaster (Sep 13, 2016)

And then there's this...  no clearance and he's the one they used to destroy her phones.

Judge Nap: Clinton Aide Had Access to All Hillary's Emails Without Security Clearance


----------



## Centermass (Sep 14, 2016)

lindy said:


> Comey's blind obedience to Obama has tarnished the FBI, which has sunk to a level of DHS.



Well, Comey's fall guy just got hammered and schooled both, by Rep Chaffetz. Honestly, no matter which side of the fence you sit on politically, you just might learn something by watching this.






You are hereby served.........


----------



## Brill (Sep 14, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Well, Comey's fall guy just got hammered and schooled both, by Rep Chaffetz. Honestly, no matter which side of the fence you sit on politically, you just might learn something by watching this.
> 
> You are hereby served.........



I think Chaffetz's 1040's just moved to the front of the audit list.


----------



## Centermass (Sep 14, 2016)

lindy said:


> I think Chaffetz's 1040's just moved to the front of the audit list.



He's smart enough to have already known that would be a possibility.


----------



## Kraut783 (Sep 14, 2016)

Heh, no way IRS will touch him.


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 14, 2016)

The IRS knows that there's a nascent movement afoot to impeach their director; Chaffetz won't come up on the list just yet.  Once that idea gets shot down, then they'll audit Chaffetz more thoroughly than Trump; which is to say, I could drive an 18-wheeler through the hole in his ass that they are going to tear into him.


----------



## DA SWO (Sep 14, 2016)

racing_kitty said:


> The IRS knows that there's a nascent movement afoot to impeach their director; Chaffetz won't come up on the list just yet.  Once that idea gets shot down, then they'll audit Chaffetz more thoroughly than Trump; which is to say, I could drive an 18-wheeler through the hole in his ass that they are going to tear into him.


They need to be certain of a Hillary win, or their agency gets an 18-wheeler through it's ass.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 14, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> They need to be certain of a Hillary win, or their agency gets an 18-wheeler through it's ass.



So now the IRS is actively helping Hillary?


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Sep 14, 2016)

I can only assume the IRS is with her as much as the FBI.....


----------



## racing_kitty (Sep 15, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> So now the IRS is actively helping Hillary?



Negative. When POTUS can crack jokes about auditing his enemies, and shortly thereafter every conservative organization gets denied tax exempt status and/or audited, one can't be blamed for being suspicious. Hence, the scandal that's gone on for nearly three years. As many times as this administration has made the tin foil hat popular, it wasn't a stretch at all. 

Here's the link to that timeline according to that conservative fever swamp of the tropics, KITV 4 Hawaii.


----------



## AWP (Sep 15, 2016)

There's been so much dishonest shit done over the last 7 years you can't blow off a potential angle or rumor. The odds on something may be low, but they aren't unthinkable.


----------



## Brill (Sep 15, 2016)

@Centermass , have you seen this one?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 15, 2016)

Dude has immunity...failing to answer a subpoena gets you prosecuted.  Enjoy that.


----------



## Centermass (Sep 15, 2016)

Back in June, Pagliano's attorney, Mark MacDougall, indicated his client will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer any questions. This after a judge ruled the details of his immunity agreement could remain sealed. 

You could fill a truckload of 55 gal drums with the amount of sleazy tactics and corruption surrounding this mess.

Chaffetz and Gowdy. 2 of the smartest guys in the room.

ETA - Lynch is an idiot.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Sep 15, 2016)

I firmly believe that having a court of opinions (i.e. congress prosecuting people) is not the way forward. But I tend to wonder, when the DoJ fails to do their job, who holds them into account?  Sure if they do their job wrong, the Supreme Court can overrule the DoJ. But who is supposed to hold them to the fire when they fail to do their job?

Can a AG be impeached for failure to fulfill the duties of that office. If the DOJ, stonewalls the investigation into such, how can you prove that an AG has failed to meet the duties of office?

We have gotten to a point in time, where not only can the federal government not properly police itself,  but is now out right refusing to do so. I mean WTF? I seem to remember some stuff about, it's a citizens duty to vote, sit on jury's and when necessary rein in a out of control government.

How far do we allow this shit to go before we all hold hands and say "no more shit head's, time to back this bitch up a bit". Or do we accept it, sit back and just bitch on the Internet until the regulate that form of free speech away and we are completely in the dark eating their bullshit. I don't really care what your political ideological views are, regardless of them, we should all be able to agree that this ain't how this shit is supposed to work.

Power is in the people? The government works for us? Why are they stripping our wealth, lying to us, covering up their corruption and self enrichment. They will jail your ass for breaking any number of stupid laws they pass on the regular, but are completely not held accountable to the laws they pass?

We've become slaves to a bunch of pussy politicians, when our constitutional birth right demands us to be free...What in the fuck people.


----------



## Brill (Sep 15, 2016)

The oversight committees and then Congress via their control of the purse but they would never do that.  Regarding civic duty, when is the last time politicians served on a jury? But you make a GREAT point to vote out ALL incumbents.

Civic duty, like laws and taxes, are for use serfs.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 15, 2016)

Centermass said:


> Back in June, Pagliano's attorney, Mark MacDougall, indicated his client will invoke the Fifth Amendment and refuse to answer any questions. This after a judge ruled the details of his immunity agreement could remain sealed.
> 
> You could fill a truckload of 55 gal drums with the amount of sleazy tactics and corruption surrounding this mess.
> 
> ...



I want to agree and disagree. I agree that this is sleazy AF... I do not think Chaffetz is smart....At.All.


----------



## Centermass (Sep 15, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I want to agree and disagree. I agree that this is sleazy AF... *I do not think Chaffetz is smart....At.All.*



I beg to differ. 

1. He didn't become chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee for being less than smart.

2. He use to be a democrat. I rest my case.


----------



## TLDR20 (Sep 15, 2016)

Centermass said:


> I beg to differ.
> 
> 1. He didn't become chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee for being less than smart.
> 
> 2. He use to be a democrat. I rest my case.



Smart may not be the right word. I think he is a good politician, I just disagree with his politics.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 16, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> I want to agree and disagree. I agree that this is sleazy AF... I do not think Chaffetz is smart....At.All.



You do have to give Chaffetz credit for having his ducks all in a row. He marched his ducks out with authority, and only when needed.

Goudy demonstrates that he has a fair amount of patience with the political rhetoric that is spewed out in response to his questions. In the end, he does bring the conversation around to the question that was first asked. He does not take political BS for and answers.

I do not know how smart they are. They both seemed well prepared, and professional.


----------



## Brill (Sep 18, 2016)

Regardless of how you feel about the FBI investigation (an the NR), this piece raises some interesting questions that I hope the oversight committee gets into.

Yes, the Fix Was In, by Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review


----------



## Brill (Sep 20, 2016)

I wonder if this is legit?

Clinton Email Wiper Appears To Have Asked Online How To Hide 'vip' Info


----------



## Brill (Sep 24, 2016)

Please note the previous classification of the FBI notes.

How can NOBODY be held accountable?

https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-03-of-03/at_download/file


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 24, 2016)

lindy said:


> Please note the previous classification of the FBI notes.
> 
> How can NOBODY be held accountable?
> 
> https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-03-of-03/at_download/file



Fairy dust, angel dust, a Genie out of the lamp, and Clinton BS.


----------



## Beagle (Sep 25, 2016)

Is this for real?

Guccifer 2.0: New Clinton DNC Leaks Reveals Donor List. Big Donors Awarded Federal Positions After Their Donations.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 25, 2016)

lindy said:


> Please note the previous classification of the FBI notes.
> 
> How can NOBODY be held accountable?
> 
> https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-03-of-03/at_download/file


I would state it's because 70% of the registered voters live in ignorance.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 25, 2016)

Beagle said:


> Is this for real?
> 
> Guccifer 2.0: New Clinton DNC Leaks Reveals Donor List. Big Donors Awarded Federal Positions After Their Donations.


It's probably real, but it's also a very common practice.  Not that it's a good practice, mind you, but appointing big donors to unimportant ambassador positions has been going on for a while.

Compare the ambassador appointments of Clinton, GW Bush, and Obama.  Each President only selected about 70% of their ambassadors from career foreign service professionals.  The rest were appointed from outside DoS, and often include big donors or business professionals.


----------



## Brill (Sep 28, 2016)

I have no idea IF this is connected in any way, but 43 yrs old is way too young to retire from the USG so I wonder why leave NOW?

Head of Justice National Security Division to step down

Meet the Assistant Attorney General | NSD | Department of Justice

https://lawfare.s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/staging/2016/Carlin FINAL.pdf


----------



## Brill (Sep 28, 2016)

What?????






Opinion Journal: Comey’s Clinton Immunity Deals


----------



## Brill (Sep 30, 2016)

This WSJ opinion piece does raise some interesting questions about the immunity deals and who Mills worked for when she was at State: the American people or HRC.

Jim Comey’s Blind Eye


----------



## Brill (Oct 4, 2016)

What a bunch of shit.

Reality Check: Donald Trump on Hillary Clinton emails - CNNPolitics.com

This propaganda says that Trump's remarks are false but it misses the points that Americans are frustrated with.

Server was set up to evade FOIA.

Emails were printed to delay the process and preclude keyword searching.

Emails were Federal records and DOS doesn't have authority to destroy.

Emails were destroyed after Congressional preservation order was given (not needed because they were Federal records but Clinton violated Federal rules related to handling).


----------



## Brill (Oct 14, 2016)

Clinton Defense being used.

To Fight Discharge, Marine’s Lawyer Points to Hillary Clinton’s Security Lapses


----------



## Brill (Oct 14, 2016)

Hillary Clinton's answers under oath to questions about her email setup, use, and destruction.

Judicial Watch Releases New Hillary Clinton Email Answers Given under Oath - Judicial Watch

"Don't recall" used 21 times.

Vice news has made headway on its FOIA lawsuit.

The content of the undisclosed Clinton emails is unknown, but it's unlikely any of the messages will contain a smoking gun. *Even so, it's not the content that's at issue. It's the fact that Clinton deleted emails she said were personal but turned out to be work-related. For some voters it calls into question Clinton's trustworthiness and honesty.* The fact that some portion will be released just before Election Day could be damaging to Clinton's campaign if it ends up becoming a major talking point and she's forced to mount a defense about why the communications were never turned over to the State Department in the first place.

VICE News got the State Department to release more Hillary Clinton emails right before Election Day | VICE News


----------



## Brill (Oct 15, 2016)

So what happens if the "pay to play" allegations evolve into an actual case for corruption AFTER Clinton would be elected?

Then what?

Has Hillary Clinton Won The Email Battle Only To Lose The Corruption War? | Huffington Post


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 15, 2016)

It doesnt matter...


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 17, 2016)

Comey's mental gymnastics thoroughly annoys me.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 17, 2016)

It never gets old....


----------



## Rapid (Oct 18, 2016)




----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 18, 2016)

Rapid said:


>



Don't you have fucked up British politics to post about?


----------



## Brill (Oct 19, 2016)

Speaking of British politics, the night before Brexit vote, polls indicated "stay" was ahead by 5 points but leave carried the next day.


----------



## Brill (Oct 19, 2016)

Rapid said:


>



But State, FBI, and the Admin have said that wasn't the case...despite being in quotes.

Documents used as evidence in a criminal case are often changed...especially when subpoenaed by a legislative body...in Botswana.


----------



## Rapid (Oct 19, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Don't you have fucked up British politics to post about?



Not as fucked up as US politics.



lindy said:


> Speaking of British politics, the night before Brexit vote, polls indicated "stay" was ahead by 5 points but leave carried the next day.



Yeah, but we use paper ballots.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 19, 2016)

Rapid said:


>


It looks damning, but an interesting detail just came out today courtesy of NYT.  The FBI agent referenced in the email, Brian McCauley, has come out an acknowledged that was indeed a quid pro quo offer, but that it originated with him instead of DoS.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/19/us/politics/ex-fbi-official-hillary-clinton-email.html?_r=0



> WASHINGTON — A former F.B.I. official at the center of the latest controversy over Hillary Clinton’s private emails acknowledged on Tuesday that an offer to swap favors with a State Department counterpart on an email classification issue had originated with him — until he realized the deal involved Mrs. Clinton and the 2012 attack in Benghazi, Libya.
> 
> “When I found that out, all bets were off; it wasn’t even negotiable,” the former F.B.I. official, Brian McCauley, said in a telephone interview.
> 
> ...



Read the whole article, it's pretty fascinating.  On the surface it seems to undercut the claim that State was running interference on the Clinton scandal (at least in this narrow case).  It should also be noted that the email in question was in fact undergoing a _post facto_ classification review.  When sent, it had not been marked as classified, though the FBI subsequently determined that it was S//NF.


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 19, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Don't you have fucked up British politics to post about?



I guess this needs context. I am fucking with @Rapid for some shit back in the brexit thread in like July. This was a joke, nothing more


----------



## Brill (Oct 19, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It looks damning, but an interesting detail just came out today courtesy of NYT.  The FBI agent referenced in the email, Brian McCauley, has come out an acknowledged that was indeed a quid pro quo offer, but that it originated with him instead of DoS.
> 
> Ex-F.B.I. Official Acknowledges Role in New Clinton Email Controversy
> 
> ...



Absolutely NOT the case at all. The email contained classified material as deemed by originating agency and was part of a criminal investigation. The FBI does not conduct neither security nor classification reviews.

Also, Kennedy tried to get the S//NF removed from other documents.

Classification is derived from the INFORMATION and not from the marking.  Case in point: people are taught to draft emails and THEN go back and add header and portion marking as appropriate.  There were many emails on her server that were apparently highly classified reports...REPORTS...not emails fromDick to Jane...with header, footer, and all portion markings removed.

How would that info get from the two secure networks onto an unclassified environment?

Who removed the markings?

Why was this not investigated and nobody prosecuted?

If someone is too stupid to know that defense information is sensitive and requires protection, they should not have the nuclear codes.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 19, 2016)

lindy said:


> Absolutely NOT the case at all. The email contained classified material as deemed by originating agency and was part of a criminal investigation. The FBI does not conduct neither security nor classification reviews.


I know that you know a ton about the IC, but the page preceeding the page that @Rapid linked seems to disagree with you


----------



## Brill (Oct 19, 2016)

@Deathy McDeath, I agree there was contention (I think to protect Clinton) but the FGI stuff is total BS and State was trying to cling to a technicality.


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 20, 2016)

*Clinton server email at heart of 'quid pro quo' controversy contained Benghazi intel*

"It demands deep investigation. It's going to take months to try to untangle this. But when you have the FBI themselves say that there was a quid pro quo negotiation that was going on to manipulate the classification of documents, that goes to the highest degree," House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, said this week. "And that's why I feel so strongly that Patrick Kennedy should immediately be relieved of his position."

Interesting....

Clinton Server Email At Heart Of 'Quid Pro Quo' Controversy Contained Benghazi Intel


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 20, 2016)

It's just a small leak.....anyone got any bubble gum?!?!?!   



Lets patch this thing up people...nothing to see here...


----------



## Dame (Oct 20, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I know that you know a ton about the IC, but the page preceeding the page that @Rapid linked seems to disagree with you



Even _that's_ been changed retroactively though. It was declassified based on the information taken out. That's not how it was originally sent.
Getting classified reports off the server would have been difficult to accomplish digitally. However, if someone printed them and walked out of a SAP and then scanned it into another, unsecured, network, there could still be proof of that on copier/scanner hard drives. Did the FBI seize those in the investigation I wonder?


----------



## compforce (Oct 20, 2016)

Who needs email when you have live TV?

Clinton's Debate Reference To Nuclear Response Rekindles Judgement Questions

Last time I checked, it was verboten to speak of security matters even if they were speculated about in the press because it could be seen as a confirmation.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 20, 2016)

Whoopsiedaisy....:wall:


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 20, 2016)

Whoops indeed.


----------



## Brill (Oct 21, 2016)

compforce said:


> Who needs email when you have live TV?
> 
> Clinton's Debate Reference To Nuclear Response Rekindles Judgement Questions
> 
> Last time I checked, it was verboten to speak of security matters even if they were speculated about in the press because it could be seen as a confirmation.



Trump should have responded "How long did it take it "acid wash" your server?"


----------



## Marine0311 (Oct 21, 2016)

I don't see anything happening to Clinton.

Ever.


----------



## Brill (Oct 21, 2016)

Marine0311 said:


> I don't see anything happening to Clinton.
> 
> Ever.



No, I don't either but I think there will be pressure to go after the smaller fish to give the appearance of "justice" served.

Ex-State Dept. Insider: Patrick Kennedy's Long History With Scandal


----------



## Brill (Oct 22, 2016)

Gen P & Hillary exchanged yoga routines...1,000 times?

1,000 Clinton-Petraeus Emails Missing From Records Sent To State, Fbi Files Show


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 22, 2016)

More quid pro quo....


I mean [redacted] traded [redacted] for special [redacted].....:-"


----------



## Brill (Oct 23, 2016)

More yoga routines...that dealt with problems with her non-state.gov email and her schedule: you know private non-USG related stuff.

Huma Abedin told Clinton her secret email account caused problems


----------



## Centermass (Oct 23, 2016)

Once again, gotta love Sheila Jackson for blaming Wikipedia for the e-mail leaks.....:-"


----------



## CQB (Oct 23, 2016)

Marauder06 said:


> What's to tell?  She is the anointed one of the Democrat Party, she is a seasoned political infighter with name recognition, the ability to raise HUGE amounts of cash, and oh yeah she has some pretty decent creds.  Additionally, no one on the Republican side can beat her.  If she gets the nom, she wins.  The Democrats would love to follow up the first black president with the first woman president, so it will either be her or Elizabeth Warren.



Not there yet, but wise words from over a year ago.


----------



## Brill (Oct 24, 2016)

To Congress "blah, blah, blah".

To Judicial Watch during a court ordered deposition...based on advice from DOJ and private counsel..."5th Amendment bro".



> Mr. Bentel, on advice of Obama Justice Department and personal counsel, refused to answer any questions about whether Hillary Clinton was paying his legal fees, offered him employment, or other financial incentives.  There were three government attorneys and two personal attorneys present for the deposition.



Clinton State Department IT Official John Bentel Takes Fifth Amendment During Judicial Watch Deposition - Judicial Watch

It looks like he lied to Congress and that is agin the law.


----------



## Brill (Oct 25, 2016)

I believe this is accurate.



> I do not purport to speak for the entire national security community.  Nonetheless, numerous private conversations with clients and security officials have made it evident that *there is considerable anger simmering beneath the surface regarding the Clinton email debacle.  That anger will only increase in the event that Mrs. Clinton wins the election and grants security clearances for key Administration posts to those who were complicit in the email scheme*, as she no doubt would.  In such a scenario, it would be incredible to believe that the lens through which security clearance appeal panels view other cases would not be colored by the Clinton precedent.  After all, there is nothing that infuriates a jury more than the appearance of injustice.



Why the Jury is Still Out on The Hillary Defense - ClearanceJobs


----------



## Brill (Oct 26, 2016)

They are not even trying to hide the stupid shit.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 26, 2016)

.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 26, 2016)

lindy said:


> They are not even trying to hide the stupid shit.


Terry McAuliffe Aided Wife of FBI Official Later Tasked With Clinton Email Probe

The donation was made in March on 2015, and Andrew McCabe wasn't even assigned to the case until February of 2016.  Unless Gov. McAuliffe is somehow able to see the future, there really isn't much to this scandal.


----------



## Brill (Oct 26, 2016)

Uh, wasn't he the SAIC of the WFO?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 26, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Terry McAuliffe Aided Wife of FBI Official Later Tasked With Clinton Email Probe
> 
> The donation was made in March on 2015, and Andrew McCabe wasn't even assigned to the case until February of 2016.  Unless Gov. McAuliffe is somehow able to see the future, there really isn't much to this scandal.


Buying off officials...plenty to it, expecially a donation that substantial.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 26, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Buying off officials...plenty to it, expecially a donation that substantial.


McAuliffe's PAC contributed broadly to Democratic races throughout Virginia.  Jill McCabe's campaign was only #4 in terms of contributions. The Virginia Public Access Project

Hell, even Breitbart doesn't think there's anything to this scandal.  If Breitbart doesn't want to touch a Clinton-related scandal, then it's probably safe to say that it probably doesn't have legs.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 26, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> McAuliffe's PAC contributed broadly to Democratic races throughout Virginia.  Jill McCabe's campaign was only #4 in terms of contributions. The Virginia Public Access Project
> 
> Hell, even Breitbart doesn't think there's anything to this scandal.  If Breitbart doesn't want to touch a Clinton-related scandal, then it's probably safe to say that it probably doesn't have legs.


Where there is smoke...there's a fire either starting or dying.  I highly question that 'ol Terry didn't know exactly who Mr. McCabe was when he made that hefty donation.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 26, 2016)

Let me put it this way: Jill McCabe was approached to run for state senate in February,  and she received her first donation from the McAuliffe PAC a month after.  The FBI didn't start investigating Clinton's email server until July, and Andrew McCabe wasn't a part of the case until February of the following year.  If he was trying to use PAC money on a gamble that not only would the FBI investigate, but that the husband of this up-and-coming Virginia democrat would somehow be involved, then that's a pretty shitty gamble.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 26, 2016)

.


----------



## Brill (Oct 26, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Let me put it this way: Jill McCabe was approached to run for state senate in February,  and she received her first donation from the McAuliffe PAC a month after.  The FBI didn't start investigating Clinton's email server until July, and Andrew McCabe wasn't a part of the case until February of the following year.  If he was trying to use PAC money on a gamble that not only would the FBI investigate, but that the husband of this up-and-coming Virginia democrat would somehow be involved, then that's a pretty shitty gamble.



You don't think it was proper for him to recuse himself to ensure the Integrity of the FBI?  That is the scandal: the eyebrow raise of it all. Apparently even within the FBI, it smelled (my understanding is that is the origin of the story).

The SAIC's wife received money from a close Clinton friend. He had no business leading anything connected to a criminal investigation of that family.

What am I saying...the AG had a covert meeting with the spouse of the subject...fuck it. Law and order my ass.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 26, 2016)

lindy said:


> You don't think it was proper for him to recuse himself to ensure the Integrity of the FBI?  That is the scandal: the eyebrow raise of it all. Apparently even within the FBI, it smelled (my understanding is that is the origin of the story).
> 
> The SAIC's wife received money from a close Clinton friend. He had no business leading anything connected to a criminal investigation of that family.


I suppose it would have been proper for him to recuse himself, but that's on him.  Clearly, the scandal that Fox News is pushing is the McAuliffe-Clinton connection, not "FBI did a bad thing."


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 26, 2016)

lindy said:


> What am I saying...the AG had a covert meeting with the spouse of the subject...fuck it. Law and order my ass.



Private...but not covert.  If it was covert we wouldn't have been told about it...but I like how it basically showed his wife was untouchable and there are people cool with that.


----------



## Brill (Oct 26, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I suppose it would have been proper for him to recuse himself, but that's on him.  Clearly, the scandal that Fox News is pushing is the McAuliffe-Clinton connection, not "FBI did a bad thing."



There is a very strong connection between them: he personally loaned them money for their NY mansion.

I agree that Agent McCabe probably lost his objectivity when investigating a close ally of the person who donated money to his wife's campaign BUT then again, these rockstars never read Mrs Clinton her Miranda rights so they clearly were going through the motions of a criminal investigation.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 26, 2016)

lindy said:


> You don't think it was proper for him to recuse himself to ensure the Integrity of the FBI?  That is the scandal: the eyebrow raise of it all. Apparently even within the FBI, it smelled (my understanding is that is the origin of the story).
> 
> The SAIC's wife received money from a close Clinton friend. He had no business leading anything connected to a criminal investigation of that family.
> 
> What am I saying...the AG had a covert meeting with the spouse of the subject...fuck it. Law and order my ass.



What Integrity.....?:-"


----------



## Brill (Oct 26, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Private...but not covert.  If it was covert we wouldn't have been told about it...but I like how it basically showed his wife was untouchable and there are people cool with that.



You're thinking clandestine, where the act is completely hidden or actors appearing they are someone else. Covert is acknowledging the act happened but not identifying the real reason for the action.


----------



## Brill (Oct 26, 2016)

Nice job @SpongeBob*24 ! I was wondering if anyone would pick up on the play on their motto!


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 26, 2016)

lindy said:


> There is a very strong connection between them: he personally loaned them money for their NY mansion.


I should've made myself  clearer - there is a definite connection between McAuliffe and Clinton.  That much is not in dispute.  But Fox News et. al. is trying to use this to throw mud on Clinton by some weird transitive property of guilt.


----------



## Brill (Oct 26, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> But Fox News et. al. is trying to use this to throw mud on Clinton by some weird transitive property of guilt.



You KNOW I'm ok with that!


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 26, 2016)

lindy said:


> You KNOW I'm ok with that!


Was there ever any doubt?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 26, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I should've made myself  clearer - there is a definite connection between McAuliffe and Clinton.  That much is not in dispute.  But Fox News et. al. is trying to use this to throw mud on Clinton by some weird transitive property of guilt.


When you buy influence, you do indirectly and before you need it.  McCabe shouldn't have recused himself as much as he should have refused the assignment.


----------



## Centermass (Oct 28, 2016)

FBI is reopening the investigation into HRC's email.

They found more e-mails. Whether or not this gets any traction, and what they contain, remains to be seen.

FBI reopens Clinton email investigation as new emails found ‒ Comey


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 28, 2016)

The Shot Clock is down to 12 days.....


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 28, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> The Shot Clock is down to 12 days.....
> 
> View attachment 16976


This is pretty clever


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 28, 2016)

[Q


----------



## Gunz (Oct 28, 2016)

Am I late to the party with this? This happened today.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A U.S. official says newly discovered emails that have prompted a fresh FBI review in the Hillary Clinton email case did not come from her private email server.

FBI Director James Comey told members of Congress on Friday that it is investigating whether there is classified information in new emails that have emerged in its probe of Clinton's server. Comey says _*the emails surfaced during an unrelated FBI case.*_

A U.S. official with knowledge of the case said the emails were uncovered very recently and did not arise during the federal investigation into Russian hacking of the presidential election. The official was not authorized to discuss details publicly and spoke on condition of anonymity.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 28, 2016)

.


----------



## Totentanz (Oct 28, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> OK guys, here's your only chance for removing the tarnish from your badges.



I have very little faith that they will uncover anything of substance.


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 28, 2016)

Oh the sweet justice if it's a Weiner that takes her down.  LOL


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 28, 2016)

[Q


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 28, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Oh the sweet justice if it's a Weiner that takes her down.  LOL


"Clinton's presidency fucked by Weiner"

I'm calling it now: we're not going see an election season as strange as this for at least 50 years.  It just absolutely cannot be topped.


----------



## Totentanz (Oct 28, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> "Clinton's presidency fucked by Weiner"
> 
> I'm calling it now: we're not going see an election season as strange as this for at least 50 years.  It just absolutely cannot be topped.



Oh ye of little faith.  I think you underestimate the creatures that inhabit the District of Columbia... 

50 years is a long time, and they're very creative (and very rarely creative in a good way).


----------



## Brill (Oct 28, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> "Clinton's presidency fucked by Weiner"
> 
> I'm calling it now: we're not going see an election season as strange as this for at least 50 years.  It just absolutely cannot be topped.



First THIS and now a World Series game being held at Wrigley Field???


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 28, 2016)

Totentanz said:


> I have very little faith that they will uncover anything of substance.



IMHO....there is no way Comey would do this 11 days from election day...unless it was very damning.

...and I do not think he would do this willingly unless forced by his executive management to do so. Basically, "you don't do this the right way....it will come out fully by other means"


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 28, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> "Clinton's presidency fucked by Weiner"
> 
> I'm calling it now: we're not going see an election season as strange as this for at least 50 years.  It just absolutely cannot be topped.



This has turned into a societal affliction. The media has a lot to do with it. If candidate A farts you will see a good three days of arguments, opinions, opinion polls, predictions and national impact studies; all media stirred up. It is sick, and it needs to end. 

The Clinton fucked by Weiner is worth 10 likes! I thought we were all done with him. This will be interesting; however, this will prolly  turn like all the other crap. There is still a guy in the White House who can hide an awful lot with the stroke of a pen.


----------



## Devildoc (Oct 28, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> How do you explain all this to a ten year old. I'm glad I don't have to do that.



I have six kids ages from almost 6 to 14 1/2.  Welcome to my world.  But they know more about the political process than most anyone else their ages.


----------



## Brill (Oct 28, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> IMHO....there is no way Comey would do this 11 days from election day...unless it was very damning.
> 
> ...and I do not think he would do this willingly unless forced by his executive management to do so. Basically, "you don't do this the right way....it will come out fully by other means"



I agree. I bet she will withdraw from the race because the evidence is so blatantly obvious that she knowingly and willfully violated Federal statutes.

I just hope she wasn't the one sexting with Weiner.


----------



## Centermass (Oct 28, 2016)

lindy said:


> I just hope she wasn't the one sexting with Weiner.



You're right. More than likely, it was Bill. :-"


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 28, 2016)

lindy said:


> I agree. I bet she will withdraw from the race because the evidence is so blatantly obvious that she knowingly and willfully violated Federal statutes.



Ha, I wish


----------



## Gunz (Oct 28, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> IMHO....there is no way Comey would do this 11 days from election day...unless it was very damning.
> 
> ...and I do not think he would do this willingly unless forced by his executive management to do so. Basically, "you don't do this the right way....it will come out fully by other means"




Yeah, there's something up here. 

I can't see an FBI director in the Obama Administration coming out with this just before an election unless the hair on his ass is starting to singe. Whether it amounts to anything remains to be seen but obviously it's hot enough for him to make this extraordinary move at this critical time.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 28, 2016)

People at his level don't do things without being given "marching orders" and told to do so. His strings would have to be pulled and he would respond according, just like the politician that he is.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 28, 2016)

e.


----------



## Brill (Oct 28, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> The FBI is really in a bad spot now. Previous decisions included. This is probably the worse time to get dragged back into the possibility of charging a candidate for POTUS. If they wait, and she is found guilty, The FBI will never, ever regain credibility.  Going back into it again now will surely have people saying that it is all a staged political event; again. The FBI is in a loose, loose situation; unless they are on rock solid ground this time. I don't care if it is Weiner and his genitalia posted again, or another more obvious violation of National Security; it has to be solid now. If this is yet another side show we, as a society, are sicker than I have estimated we are. This one has to be a hand cuffs and perp walk event. It is so late in the game, and I hope everyone is awake on this one. Another FBI Director repeat performance, is going to be a black day for our system of rules, laws and investigation. I  would like someone to stand up, take an oath and speak the truth, Mrs. Clinton. While we are at it, how about her husband do the same thing regarding his tarmac visit with the DOJ head on the last go round. I would like to hear the truth for once.



Fiat justitia ruat cælum


----------



## Brill (Oct 28, 2016)

I enjoyed Hillary's latest call that the FBI tell all they have.


----------



## Grunt (Oct 28, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> The FBI is really in a bad spot now. Previous decisions included. This is probably the worse time to get dragged back into the possibility of charging a candidate for POTUS. If they wait, and she is found guilty, The FBI will never, ever regain credibility.  Going back into it again now will surely have people saying that it is all a staged political event; again. The FBI is in a loose, loose situation; unless they are on rock solid ground this time. I don't care if it is Weiner and his genitalia posted again, or another more obvious violation of National Security; it has to be solid now. If this is yet another side show we, as a society, are sicker than I have estimated we are. This one has to be a hand cuffs and perp walk event. It is so late in the game, and I hope everyone is awake on this one. Another FBI Director repeat performance, is going to be a black day for our system of rules, laws and investigation. I  would like someone to stand up, take an oath and speak the truth, Mrs. Clinton. While we are at it, how about her husband do the same thing regarding his tarmac visit with the DOJ head on the last go round. I would like to hear the truth for once.



I certainly agree with you, Brother! But, I don't have any care or concern for their future or reputation because they made their bed and they will have to lie in it. When LE decides it wants to be a political entity, those types of situations can be expected.


----------



## AWP (Oct 28, 2016)

Less than two weeks before the election and people believe this will end her candidacy?

I can't stand the woman, but y'all really think this will end her?


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 28, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Less than two weeks before the election and people believe this will end her candidacy?
> 
> I can't stand the woman, but y'all really think this will end her?



Nope, just more names to add to her "LIST"...


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 28, 2016)

[Q


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 29, 2016)

Jesus, the New York Post is ON FIRE


----------



## Dame (Oct 29, 2016)

lindy said:


> I agree. I bet she will withdraw from the race because the evidence is so blatantly obvious that she knowingly and willfully violated Federal statutes.
> 
> I just hope she wasn't the one sexting with Weiner.


I'll take that bet. She'll never withdraw.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 29, 2016)

This new email stuff might turn out to be a big load of nothing
5 Facts That Killed New Hillary Email Scandal In Less Than An Afternoon

TL;DR version:
-The emails were recovered from Huma Abedin's laptop, not the server.
-There are reportedly 3 emails being checked
-They may be duplicates of what was already turned over
-Most bizarrely, none of the emails were to or from Clinton

This could be something, but based on the initial reporting there doesn't seem to be a lot to it.


----------



## Brill (Oct 29, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> This new email stuff might turn out to be a big load of nothing
> 5 Facts That Killed New Hillary Email Scandal In Less Than An Afternoon
> 
> TL;DR version:
> ...



If they were dupes, why reopen the criminal case? I wonder if the emails are evidence of "Congress is on to us, activate emergency destruction measures".


----------



## Brill (Oct 29, 2016)

Dame said:


> I'll take that bet. She'll never withdraw.



I wonder if she'll get relived late in the 8th inning?

Democrats should ask Hillary Clinton to step aside


----------



## Brill (Oct 29, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> Less than two weeks before the election and people believe this will end her candidacy?
> 
> I can't stand the woman, but y'all really think this will end her?



Too late to suck up to her now! You're already going to the kamp!


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 29, 2016)

A buddy of mine is a captain in Army JAG. Had breakfast with him this morning and of course this is all he and his lawyer buddies are talking about. None of them could agree on the "upside" for Comey to do this now - 

What they did agree on though, was that Hillary is right to demand "everything" be immediately released, that Comey should resign or be fired, and that assuming Hillary still wins, "duck and cover" come January if I'm "anybody" in that particular organization.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 29, 2016)

Piers Morgan - "Dikileaks" 

LOL

PIERS MORGAN on what Hillary Clinton's email server leak means for Trump | Daily Mail Online


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 29, 2016)

lindy said:


> If they were dupes, why reopen the criminal case? I wonder if the emails are evidence of "Congress is on to us, activate emergency destruction measures".


The case wasn't actually reopened.  The letter that Comey sent to Congress was really vaguely-worded, and that caused a bunch of journalists to assume that the case was reopened.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 29, 2016)

While originally designed for something different, I have made great use out of the "Delicious Button" this election season. At this point, I share with all of you!

The voice is The Joker from the old Batman shows.

The Delicious Button


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 29, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The case wasn't actually reopened.  The letter that Comey sent to Congress was really vaguely-worded, and that caused a bunch of journalists to assume that the case was reopened.


It wasn't that it was never opened...it was that it was never closed.  

Hillary having been a defense attorney on payroll at the Rose Law Firm for 15 years knows that she has no right to demand shit.  Her attorney can file a motion of discovery once they slap her in irons following her indictment.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 29, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> It wasn't that it was never opened...it was that it was never closed.


That's a better explanation.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 29, 2016)

Something--whatever it is-- has to be damning enough to compel Comey to make a public acknowledgement, vague as it is. It must be serious enough for him to realize the implications for himself and the Bureau _if he withholds it_ _until after the election_. 

And if it turns out to be serious--and I think it must be--and he does nothing and Hillary gets elected, then we have the turmoil of a possible criminal prosecution of a President-elect even before she's inaugurated. A fucking hideous mess, in other words and a debacle before the eyes of the world.

(Just a wild stab, but it wouldn't surprise me if it involves her possible interference in the investigation of Wiener at the bequest of his wife, her friend.)


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 29, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> That's a better explanation.



True....it's takes a long time to actually close a case...there is a lot of admin steps in the bureau before the thing is totally closed...disposition of evidence..etc.  It's not what people think.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Oct 29, 2016)

Together at last.......:-":wall:



Momma's home....


----------



## Brill (Oct 29, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The case wasn't actually reopened.  The letter that Comey sent to Congress was really vaguely-worded, and that caused a bunch of journalists to assume that the case was reopened.



Just before his testimony, the FBI wasn't spending any more time/effort looking at Clinton's handling of classified material.   Director Comey said, under oath, to a Congressional oversight committee that the investigation was complete.  Potential new evidence pertinent to that case  was found that required further review, hence his note to Congress which was an addendum to his sworn testimony.  Subsequently the FBI is again looking at a new aspect of the case and Comey felt he was required to update Congress that his testimony had changed.  How is this not the epitome of closed and reopened?

The fact that FBI agents, highly trained in the rules, policies, and procedures pertaining to classified material, CLEARLY had reason to believe that the recent emails in question more than likely contained classified material, which required further inspection by the original classification authority, is indicative of Clinton's staff mishandling classified materials.  This is EXACTLY why the criminal investigation was started to being with.

Whether the content has been previously reviewed (thereby a "copy"), is immaterial IF the emails contain classified material.  Unless their house is a SCIF, which it cannot be because neither currently work for the USG, if the emails contain classified material, they are both in violation of federal law.  A private citizen cannot legally possess classified information.

Personally, I think they found classified info on Wiener's device that showed traces of intrusion from FIS.  I have no idea if this is the case and is 100% speculation but something of this magnitude would REQUIRE the FBI to act...IMMEDIATELY.

This investigation has never been about Hillary Clinton but the protection our Nation's secrets, some of which had the potential to inflict exceptionally grave damage upon These United States if mishandled.  In her case...22 times...*that we know of*.


----------



## Brill (Oct 29, 2016)

Jumping into MORE hypotheticals:



> …Clinton [was] using e-mails seemingly like most people use IMs or text messaging. Her holding onto Blackberries (and seven switching back to older models when the software was upgraded) [demonstrates this]. It might even explain at least SOME of the motivation for the e-mail server itself. I’ve seen plenty of cases where a powerful person says basically, “I want my e-mails on this thing” and, regardless of whether it’s a good solution, people respond, “ready-aye-ready.”
> 
> So, what could they have found on Weiner’s computers that would have caused such alarm?
> 
> ...



Blog: Carlos Danger may have opened Pandora’s Box for Huma and Hillary


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 29, 2016)

I believe this is not so much about investigating Clinton as it is investigating Abedin.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 29, 2016)

RackMaster said:


> Oh the sweet justice if it's a Weiner that takes her down.  LOL


Maybe they were sexting?

Hillary can not pull out of the race as voting has already begun.
That would guarantee a Pres Trump.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 29, 2016)




----------



## Brill (Oct 29, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> What they did agree on though, was that Hillary is right to demand "everything" be immediately released, that Comey should resign or be fired, and that assuming Hillary still wins, "duck and cover" come January if I'm "anybody" in that particular organization.



Uh, what?

An investigator has zero obligation to share neither jack nor shit with the subject of a criminal investigation until the grand jury indicts and a prosecutor says there is a case.

The defense's case isn't even created until after charges are filed.

This is why it was unheard of to have a witness (Mills) sit in with the subject (Clinton) during her...whatever it was called when talked with the FBI.

Let's be clear: there is a BAH contractor currently in pre-trial detention for EXACTLY what Clinton and her staff did: mishandling of classified material.


----------



## Brill (Oct 29, 2016)

It's 2016, so anything is possible: what if Obama orders Lynch to fire Comey (whose tenure is until 2023 unless he's relieved for loss of confidence) in order to save the Union?



> "Director Comey understood our position. He heard it from Justice leadership," the official said. "It was conveyed to the FBI, and Comey made an independent decision to alert ... (Capitol) Hill. He is operating independently of the Justice Department. And he knows it."



Justice officials warned FBI about Comey's decision to update Congress

Edit: if he gets fired, guess who takes over the Bureau until a new Director is confirmed?


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 29, 2016)

D


----------



## TLDR20 (Oct 29, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> or declare the election postponed by executive oder, until a later date. Date YTD



You honestly believe he would do something like this?


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 29, 2016)

lindy said:


> It's 2016, so anything is possible: what if Obama orders Lynch to fire Comey (whose tenure is until 2023 unless he's relieved for loss of confidence) in order to save the Union?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



While the FBI falls under the DOJ umbrella, DOJ is not the boss of the FBI. 

The FBI director is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 29, 2016)

lindy said:


> It's 2016, so anything is possible: what if Obama orders Lynch to fire Comey (whose tenure is until 2023 unless he's relieved for loss of confidence) in order to save the Union?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The President has to fire him, Loretta can pound sand.  It sounds to be like Justice is being political based on that anonymous officials quote.


----------



## Brill (Oct 30, 2016)

Maybe this IS bigger than we realize and, while connected to Clinton, not really about her but justice?

Sure smells of politics though.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 30, 2016)

I think Comey's days at the FBI are numbered. The Dems are starting to scream for his blood. Hillary is probably shopping for hitmen.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 30, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Hillary is probably shopping for hitmen.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 30, 2016)

So true, Hans Gruber. So true!


----------



## Dame (Oct 30, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> So true, Hans Gruber. So true!
> 
> View attachment 17002


 OMG, 20 likes for that one.


----------



## Brill (Oct 31, 2016)

I wonder where they got the "650,000 emails" from? I wonder if frustrated agents are leaking info akin to Deep Throat?  If they're not to/from Clinton, I doubt they're dupes and would contain the real inner workings and execution orders from HRC.

Whew...this article seems to paint a clear picture of a mutiny at the Bureau and DOJ favoring Clinton despite leads.

FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 31, 2016)

lindy said:


> I wonder where they got the "650,000 emails" from? I wonder if frustrated agents are leaking info akin to Deep Throat?  If they're not to/from Clinton, I doubt they're dupes and would contain the real inner workings and execution orders from HRC.
> 
> Whew...this article seems to paint a clear picture of a mutiny at the Bureau and DOJ favoring Clinton despite leads.
> 
> FBI in Internal Feud Over Hillary Clinton Probe


I think that the "650,000" emails thing is probably the total number of emails contained on Weiner's device.  This article does a thorough job of explaining the totality of the Clinton email scandal.  Skip to number 10 to see information on the most recent developments.

The reporting on this story has been incredibly inconsistent, which is making it really hard to get a handle on exactly what's happening.  Part of the fault lies with Comey's letter to Congress - it was really vague and left a lot to interpretation.  Part of it lies with congress itself, and more specifically Jason Chaffetz, for shouting to the high heavens that the Clinton email case was "REOPENED!!" when it was never closed in the first place (as @ThunderHorse pointed out).  Yet another part lies with the media's breathless coverage of the event, who took Chaffetz's "Reopened" claim at face value and ran with it.  Since then, a number of outlets have had to retract or significantly walk back their headlines.

Here's the thing: reportedly, these emails were located in a .pst file (or some other form of backup file) on Weiner's computer.  FBI officials don't know what are in those emails, as they needed a warrant to examine them (which was obtained today).  They learned of the existence of emails related to Clinton by examining the metadata.

Three likely (and one unlikely) scenarios:
1. The emails are part of the group already turned over to the FBI.  The scandal is a big wet fart.
2. The emails are not part of the group turned over to the FBI, but were deemed of a "personal nature" and were deleted.  Cooking recipes, Chelsea's wedding, etc.  Scandal is still a wet fart.
3. The emails are work-related, were not turned over to the FBI, and may or may not contain classified information.  Scandal takes on a new life depending on the severity of the information.  It's unclear whether or not the FBI will be able to make a thorough review before election day, so if Clinton wins, there could be impeachment proceedings.
4. The emails contain information exposing the entire network of illuminati, space lizards, and satanic cults that drive world affairs.  Somewhere out in Texas, Alex Jones takes a sip of his coffee and smiles.


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 31, 2016)

Also according to Reddit, Anonymous is supposed to publish every Clinton email tomorrow, unredacted.  Yeah, I know it's Reddit, but we'll see if it actually happens.


----------



## DA SWO (Oct 31, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I think that the "650,000" emails thing is probably the total number of emails contained on Weiner's device.  This article does a thorough job of explaining the totality of the Clinton email scandal.  Skip to number 10 to see information on the most recent developments.
> 
> The reporting on this story has been incredibly inconsistent, which is making it really hard to get a handle on exactly what's happening.  Part of the fault lies with Comey's letter to Congress - it was really vague and left a lot to interpretation.  Part of it lies with congress itself, and more specifically Jason Chaffetz, for shouting to the high heavens that the Clinton email case was "REOPENED!!" when it was never closed in the first place (as @ThunderHorse pointed out).  Yet another part lies with the media's breathless coverage of the event, who took Chaffetz's "Reopened" claim at face value and ran with it.  Since then, a number of outlets have had to retract or significantly walk back their headlines.
> 
> ...


5. Huma goes to jail for lying to the FBI/obstruction of justice.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Oct 31, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> 5. Huma goes to jail for lying to the FBI/obstruction of justice.



That bus is out there, no doubt about that. 

I'm not sure Weiner could be hurt anymore than he already is. His idea of damage control seems to have been," just  a few more times".


----------



## Salt USMC (Oct 31, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> 5. Huma goes to jail for lying to the FBI/obstruction of justice.


Good point.


----------



## RackMaster (Oct 31, 2016)

I've set up email for enough senior staff to know that there's always a duplicate and it's usually their secretary or chief of staff.  It would not surprise me that Huma Abedin had a complete copy of Hillary's email connected to her account.  It was also probably setup using POP3, so when she logged on, everything would be copied to the laptop into a .pst file for access when not connected to the server. She could have just did it once and have no clue happened.  And 650,000 is nothing for a position of Sec State, I'm sure they are inundated with email from thousands of sources daily; hence another individual with access to sort out the chaffe.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Oct 31, 2016)

For the first time ever, Shelia Jackson Lee does not make me want to throw a K-Bar at the TV while she speaks, she makes me laugh out loud - I've watched this woman do nothing but parrot talking points for years, ask her for an origional thought?  Okay you get this:

Dem Rep Jackson Lee Denounces Wikipedia on MSNBC - Breitbart

_Jackson Lee said, “You know, I’m going to first of all denounce the utilization of this intrusion by Wikipedia through the Russian intrusion. This is what it’s about. Espionage just like what was said over these last couple of days. We need to be concerned about the intrusion of Russia and Putin in these elections.”_
_





As an added bonus as long as I am on my anti-Jackson Lee kick, here is my all time favorite.  




_


----------



## ThunderHorse (Oct 31, 2016)

Wikipedia...


----------



## Brill (Oct 31, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> I think that the "650,000" emails thing is probably the total number of emails contained on Weiner's device.  This article does a thorough job of explaining the totality of the Clinton email scandal.  Skip to number 10 to see information on the most recent developments.
> 
> The reporting on this story has been incredibly inconsistent, which is making it really hard to get a handle on exactly what's happening.  Part of the fault lies with Comey's letter to Congress - it was really vague and left a lot to interpretation.  Part of it lies with congress itself, and more specifically Jason Chaffetz, for shouting to the high heavens that the Clinton email case was "REOPENED!!" when it was never closed in the first place (as @ThunderHorse pointed out).  Yet another part lies with the media's breathless coverage of the event, who took Chaffetz's "Reopened" claim at face value and ran with it.  Since then, a number of outlets have had to retract or significantly walk back their headlines.
> 
> ...



This has the makings of a Constitutional crisis.  All the Obama admin has to do is delay until 20 Jan then poof...she's immune from prosecution for four long years.


----------



## Gunz (Oct 31, 2016)

One has to assume that Comey--whom even Eric Holder describes as "a man of integrity"-- must've considered the timing and the impact his letter would have. It's created a firestorm of criticism directed at him and his agency along with unbridled and rampant speculation by _everybody_.

My take from all this is whatever compelled him to create this enormous political and media clusterfuck had better be good. Right now, the media's spinning Hillary as a victim and Comey as some secret GOP sympathizer with ties to Putin.:wall:


----------



## Totentanz (Oct 31, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> Right now, the media's spinning Hillary as a victim and Comey as some secret GOP sympathizer with ties to Putin.:wall:


Did ya seriously expect anything different?  Their mental gymnastics could win an Olympic medal...


----------



## BloodStripe (Oct 31, 2016)

What's worse, the cover up by the FBI or the actual crime by Hillary itself?


----------



## Brill (Oct 31, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> What's worse, the cover up by the FBI or the actual crime by Hillary itself?



Is there a difference? Both indicate moral corruption that our Founding Fathers warned of.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 1, 2016)

It all makes sense now....


----------



## CQB (Nov 1, 2016)

wot.a.dogpile.


----------



## BloodStripe (Nov 1, 2016)

CNN cuts ties with Donna Brazile after hacked emails show she gave Clinton campaign debate questions And the hits keep coming.  Somewhere, Nickleback is jealous.


----------



## Blizzard (Nov 1, 2016)

It's not called the Clinton News Network for nothing.


----------



## Brill (Nov 1, 2016)

NavyBuyer said:


> CNN cuts ties with Donna Brazile after hacked emails show she gave Clinton campaign debate questions And the hits keep coming.  Somewhere, Nickleback is jealous.



Where are the Democrat defenders now?  Seriously, she had to be coached to be ready for a question about water standards...from a resident of Flint?

:-/


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 1, 2016)

lindy said:


> Where are the Democrat defenders now?  Seriously, she had to be coached to be ready for a question about water standards...from a resident of Flint?
> 
> :-/


Not really much you can do to defend this.  The DNC is going to have to do some serious introspection when choosing their next director.  The last two have demonstrated pretty poor judgement.


----------



## Brill (Nov 1, 2016)

@Deathy McDeath , it's just getting started.



> At any point in the Clinton email investigation, did the FBI request use of a grand jury from the Justice Department? If not, why not? If the Department declined, please describe the circumstances in detail. Who at the Justice Department made that decision and what grounds were given for the denial?
> 
> 
> At any point in the Clinton investigation, did the FBI request an application for a search warrant from the Justice Department? If not, why not? If so, what was the Department’s response? If the Department declined, please describe the circumstances in detail. Who at the Justice Department made that decision and what grounds were given for the denial?



https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2016-10-31 CEG to FBI (Clinton Investigation Update).pdf


----------



## Brill (Nov 1, 2016)

It's worth noting that a search warrant requires compelling evidence or very strong suspicion based on other facts that a crime has been committed. SCOTUS has denied an investigators ability to apply for a general search based on a hunch.

I have no idea but I do suspect that investigators saw classified information on the laptop during a search for kiddie porn.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 1, 2016)

The FBI's narrative has been published: Hillary R. Clinton


----------



## Rapid (Nov 1, 2016)

WikiLeaks emails reveal John Podesta urging Hillary Clinton camp to ‘dump’ emails

*WikiLeaks emails reveal Podesta urging Clinton camp to ‘dump’ emails *

The ride never ends!


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 1, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> I think Comey's days at the FBI are numbered. The Dems are starting to scream for his blood. Hillary is probably shopping for hitmen.



Comey who....you mean Peter Parker born and raised in Idaho.......:blkeye:


----------



## Brill (Nov 1, 2016)

Why is Wiener's sexting to a potentially underage female being investigated more stringently (e.g. By the book via grand jury, search warrants, etc) than Clinton's mishandling of classified material?

Does this country value sex more than defense information? My life's work has been a complete sham!:wall:


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 1, 2016)

lindy said:


> Why is Wiener's sexting to a potentially underage female being investigated more stringently (e.g. By the book via grand jury, search warrants, etc) than Clinton's mishandling of classified material?
> 
> Does this country value sex more than defense information? My life's work has been a complete sham!:wall:


1. He's expendable 
2. Would have allowed Huma to play the victim card (had those pesky e-mails not been on the laptop)


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 2, 2016)

Smoking Gun on Benghazi?
Judicial Watch: New Benghazi Email Shows DOD Offered State Department “Forces that Could Move to Benghazi” Immediately – Specifics Blacked Out in New Document


----------



## Dame (Nov 2, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Smoking Gun on Benghazi?
> Judicial Watch: New Benghazi Email Shows DOD Offered State Department “Forces that Could Move to Benghazi” Immediately – Specifics Blacked Out in New Document


This isn't new. December 2015.


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 2, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Not really much you can do to defend this.  The DNC is going to have to do some serious introspection when choosing their next director.  The last two have demonstrated pretty poor judgement.



Once, many, many years ago, when I was in southern Cali, some buddies and I went to Tijuana.  While there we were in a bar and we got pretty drunk.  One of my buddies started a fight with a local.  The fight was like something in a movie...very surreal.  We escaped-with-our-lives-kind of fight.  Afterward, he said "...well, that was suboptimal."

You and he, very much given to understatement.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 2, 2016)

I almost had my ears ripped off in San Juan.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 2, 2016)

So they don't cite any sources, but if this information is accurate...
BREAKING BOMBSHELL: NYPD Blows Whistle on New Hillary Emails: Money Laundering, Sex Crimes with Children, Child Exploitation, Pay to Play, Perjury


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 2, 2016)

Anonymously sourced report, written by "Admin" (who writes all of the articles on TruePundit, naturally), with no contact info.  Totally legit, just like all of those other clickbait news sites.


----------



## Centermass (Nov 2, 2016)

Rapid said:


> WikiLeaks emails reveal John Podesta urging Hillary Clinton camp to ‘dump’ emails
> 
> *WikiLeaks emails reveal Podesta urging Clinton camp to ‘dump’ emails *
> 
> The ride never ends!



The funniest one I've read (And pretty damning to Podesta of all people) is where he says in one of them (Regarding her health) "She smells like cabbage, farts and urine. Does the woman ever take a bath?" re HRC.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 2, 2016)

[Q


----------



## DC (Nov 2, 2016)

Cabbage farts and urine...hell that describes every Irishman I ever knew:dead:


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 2, 2016)

Red Flag 1 said:


> OH dear God. That is funny as hell. There is just so much crap out there now.



The problem is that unlike the good ol' days of Watergate when we were incumbent upon the printer running off copies of the paper or waiting for the national news at 6:30, now we are getting information from a fire hose, and it's coming out so fast and furious (see what I did there?) that it's hard to verify sources and ensure accuracy.  Every swinging dick with a blog or website is spinning it, whatever 'it' is, as irrefutable.  It's so hard to separate the shit from the shinola.


----------



## DC (Nov 2, 2016)

Shit can be used as Shinola. Politicians do it all the time.


----------



## Gunz (Nov 2, 2016)

Centermass said:


> The funniest one I've read (And pretty damning to Podesta of all people) is where he says in one of them (Regarding her health) "She smells like cabbage, farts and urine. Does the woman ever take a bath?" re HRC.




_GET OUT!!! NO FUCKING WAY!! DOES HE REALLY FUCKING SAY THAT????!!! I LOVE IT!!!_


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 2, 2016)

[Q


----------



## Grunt (Nov 2, 2016)

There is nothing like anonymous sources to build confidence in! I understand the use of anonymous sources, but in this case, the proof is in the "proof." 

Show it or it doesn't exist...at least to me.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 2, 2016)

[Q


----------



## Rapid (Nov 2, 2016)

US election 2016: Obama decries Clinton email 'innuendo' - BBC News
*
US President Barack Obama has implicitly criticised FBI director James Comey over the new inquiry into Hillary Clinton's email use.*

Obama getting involved now. Signs of desperate times.


----------



## Dame (Nov 2, 2016)

Ocoka One said:


> _GET OUT!!! NO FUCKING WAY!! DOES HE REALLY FUCKING SAY THAT????!!! I LOVE IT!!!_


That was my reaction too but I'm gonna bet that one was made up and floated on Twitter or something as truth.


----------



## Brill (Nov 2, 2016)

You cannot make this up!

Cloth or Something | BleachBit


----------



## Brill (Nov 2, 2016)

@compforce , I'm officially calling Pagliano an idiot who clearly was WAY out of his league.

Pagliano Emails Detail Attempts to Hack Clinton Unsecure Email Server 10 Times in Two Days in November 2010 – U.S. Secret Service Informed of Hacking Attempts - Judicial Watch


----------



## Totentanz (Nov 2, 2016)

lindy said:


> You cannot make this up!
> 
> Cloth or Something | BleachBit



BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!  I got tinnitus due to the overwhelming sound of how awesome that is...


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 2, 2016)

lindy said:


> You cannot make this up!
> 
> Cloth or Something | BleachBit


Okay, that's pretty funny


----------



## DC (Nov 2, 2016)

Wuddayadew


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 2, 2016)

Geeze Louise: Secret Recordings Fueled FBI Feud in Clinton Probe


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 2, 2016)

DC said:


> Wuddayadew


Ban this sick filth!


----------



## Kraut783 (Nov 2, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> Geeze Louise: Secret Recordings Fueled FBI Feud in Clinton Probe



Wouldn't be the first time DOJ didn't want to pursue charges....I had one  AUSA actually say a case wasn't "jury worthy" on a Terrorism case, because he was afraid it wasn't a slam dunk.....give me county DA prosecutor any day


----------



## AWP (Nov 2, 2016)

If you go to the Wikileaks link below and search through the Podesta emails, there's nothing about cabbage, farts, and urine.

WikiLeaks - The Podesta Emails


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 2, 2016)

lindy said:


> You cannot make this up!
> 
> Cloth or Something | BleachBit



So confusing these big words.....


----------



## compforce (Nov 2, 2016)

lindy said:


> @compforce , I'm officially calling Pagliano an idiot who clearly was WAY out of his league.
> 
> Pagliano Emails Detail Attempts to Hack Clinton Unsecure Email Server 10 Times in Two Days in November 2010 – U.S. Secret Service Informed of Hacking Attempts - Judicial Watch



I'll second that.  he throws an IP from a blind proxy and an OpenDNS server and calls that a possible attack.  Perhaps he's never heard of IP spoofing


----------



## Centermass (Nov 2, 2016)

Here's what was referenced.


----------



## DC (Nov 2, 2016)

It's true...even Valhalla smells it


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 2, 2016)

Freefalling said:


> If you go to the Wikileaks link below and search through the Podesta emails, there's nothing about cabbage, farts, and urine.
> 
> WikiLeaks - The Podesta Emails


It's fake: FALSE: Podesta Said Clinton Has Cabbage Odor, Used Pejorative Term for Developmentally Disabled


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Nov 3, 2016)




----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 3, 2016)

[Q


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 3, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> It's fake: FALSE: Podesta Said Clinton Has Cabbage Odor, Used Pejorative Term for Developmentally Disabled


snopes isn't reliable.
Not saying the claim is true, but snopes isn't a good source.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 3, 2016)

Gets more interesting by the minute: Fox Business - Timeline | Facebook


----------



## DC (Nov 3, 2016)

Details

Gregg Jarrett: An "avalanche of evidence" may now bury Hillary


----------



## DC (Nov 3, 2016)




----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 3, 2016)

Cool man...DOJ corrupt asf: WikiLeaks: DOJ official gave Clinton camp 'heads up' about email filing


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 3, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> snopes isn't reliable.
> Not saying the claim is true, but snopes isn't a good source.



Can you give examples of them being unreliable?


----------



## Dame (Nov 3, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> Can you give examples of them being unreliable?


Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised 
Got 'em.


----------



## Brill (Nov 4, 2016)

Dame said:


> Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised
> Got 'em.



That just happened.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 4, 2016)

SECRET files are heavier then UNCLASS ones....


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 4, 2016)

Dame said:


> Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised
> Got 'em.



I wonder how many examples the sites linked have had "integrity problems".


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 4, 2016)

Dame said:


> Snopes Caught Lying For Hillary Again, Questions Raised


This statement requires a lot more nuance than "Snopes caught lying".  The right wing talking point talking point that, "Hillary Clinton succesfully defended a child rapist and later laughed about it" is _technically_ correct, but there's a strong implication in that phrase that doesn't adequately capture what actually happened.  That's what Snopes was pushing back against.

Implied in the statement "Hillary defended a child rapist and laughed about it" is this notion that Hillary is some sort of Snidely Whiplash villain who twirls her mustache at the thought of doing absolutely awful things.
The context of the situation that Snopes was (rightly) trying to present was that Hillary was a public defender reticent to take this case who, believing that everyone deserve faithful representation no matter who they are, defended this dude as best she could.  And yes, in an interview she laughed about him later passing a polygraph, but as stated by Roy Reid, a magazine editor actually responsible for recording the interview, "She was laughing at the vagaries of the legal system that play out every day across America in one way or another."

Let me put a plausible hypothetical situation to you.  One day you turn on your computer, navigate over to Facebook, and you see that the young dude from work with gauged ears and blue hair has just written a five hundred word rant IN ALL CAPS about a horrible injustice that has occurred earlier in the day.  You haven't quite finished your first cup of coffee yet, so you wonder what the fuck is going on. He's included a Huffpost link that's emblazoned with the fiery headline, "FLORIDA COP CAUGHT ON TAPE SHOOTING BLACK MAN, LAUGHS ABOUT IT."  Oh shit, that's bad.  But when you actually click the link and navigate down to the audio itself, it becomes clear that the cop is laughing the kind of nervous laughter that happens to people who are in shock.  Clearly the inflammatory headline is taking the facts of the case and twisting them so hard that they're nearly breaking.  And they can get away with it because people don't read past the headline.  They see the operative words, "Cop," "Shoot," "Black man," "laughs," and their mental picture is already formed.  The statement of facts are _true_ but they don't describe what happened *at all*.  Now just replace those words with "Clinton," "Defend," "Child rapist," "laughs," and you can see exactly why Snopes was pushing back on this stupid idea.

I know that people don't like Clinton.  I get it.  But there are enough legitimate reasons to dislike her that you don't need to start believing that she laughed about child rape.


----------



## DC (Nov 4, 2016)

"Does it really matter" comes to mind. So does Benghazi. I hate her for that. All else is media drivel. Hillary cares about money. That's it. Anything else doesn't really matter...to her.


----------



## Dame (Nov 4, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> This statement requires a lot more nuance than "Snopes caught lying".  The right wing talking point talking point that, "Hillary Clinton succesfully defended a child rapist and later laughed about it" is _technically_ correct, but there's a strong implication in that phrase that doesn't adequately capture what actually happened.  That's what Snopes was pushing back against.
> 
> Implied in the statement "Hillary defended a child rapist and laughed about it" is this notion that Hillary is some sort of Snidely Whiplash villain who twirls her mustache at the thought of doing absolutely awful things.
> The context of the situation that Snopes was (rightly) trying to present was that Hillary was a public defender reticent to take this case who, believing that everyone deserve faithful representation no matter who they are, defended this dude as best she could.  And yes, in an interview she laughed about him later passing a polygraph, but as stated by Roy Reid, a magazine editor actually responsible for recording the interview, "She was laughing at the vagaries of the legal system that play out every day across America in one way or another."
> ...


Funny, that's what the article said. Did you read it? In the end the point they make is that Snopes went too far.


----------



## DC (Nov 4, 2016)

Benghazi Hero Kris "Tanto" Paronto Weighs In On Clinton Campaign Staffers Call Benghazi Hearing A "Game"


----------



## Gunz (Nov 4, 2016)

_


lindy said:



			You cannot make this up!

Cloth or Something | BleachBit

Click to expand...




Don't wait for a subpoena: Order Now!
_
Bwaaaahaaaaaaaaahaaaaaaaaa


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 5, 2016)

Fox News apologizes for falsely reporting that Clinton faces indictment

Fox has issued a retraction and apology for the reports it issued last week that Clinton's server had been hacked, and that an FBI indictment in the Clinton Foundation investigation was "likely."  

Nice to see Fox owning up to this mistake.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 5, 2016)

FBI Agent Suspected in Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead in Apparent Murder-Suicide


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 5, 2016)

Rather fucking convenient.


----------



## Rapid (Nov 5, 2016)

Diamondback 2/2 said:


> FBI Agent Suspected in Hillary Email Leaks Found Dead in Apparent Murder-Suicide


----------



## Queeg (Nov 5, 2016)

RIP Director Comey.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 5, 2016)

Guys...I hate to break it to you, but that's another fake story.
There is no such thing as the Denver Guardian, despite that Facebook post you saw


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 5, 2016)

Gahhhh!


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 5, 2016)

10 Ways to Spot a Fake News Story


----------



## Queeg (Nov 5, 2016)

I'm still praying to baby Jesus that there's enough dirt to nail the Clinton Foundation for _something._


----------



## DC (Nov 5, 2016)

Cheehoo boys...here she cummmmmsssss....


----------



## RackMaster (Nov 5, 2016)

Well Anonymous did put this out...

Clinton Underground Child Sex Scandal (Part1) – Anonymous


----------



## DC (Nov 5, 2016)

More importantly 

A Ranking Of Hillary Clinton's Most Intergalactic Pantsuits


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 5, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Guys...I hate to break it to you, but that's another fake story.
> There is no such thing as the Denver Guardian, despite that Facebook post you saw


Just coming to post that.


----------



## Diamondback 2/2 (Nov 5, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Guys...I hate to break it to you, but that's another fake story.
> There is no such thing as the Denver Guardian, despite that Facebook post you saw



Too much bullshit out there I guess, saw that on my buddies feed, and he is a former cop too. Thanks for setting it straight.


----------



## Queeg (Nov 5, 2016)

Too much clickbait out there.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 5, 2016)

Ooh-Rah said:


> Dem Rep Jackson Lee Denounces Wikipedia on MSNBC - Breitbart
> 
> _Jackson Lee said, “You know, I’m going to first of all denounce the utilization of this intrusion by Wikipedia through the Russian intrusion. This is what it’s about. Espionage just like what was said over these last couple of days. We need to be concerned about the intrusion of Russia and Putin in these elections.”_



Yepp...Marge forget it happend....


----------



## Brill (Nov 6, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Guys...I hate to break it to you, but that's another fake story.
> There is no such thing as the Denver Guardian, despite that Facebook post you saw



There isn't a town in MD named Walkerville.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 6, 2016)

[Q-


----------



## Brill (Nov 6, 2016)

The red phone rings at 0300...Russian forces have crossed into Poland...ah hell, just let the Clinton maid launch the nukes!!!



> *Santos also had access to a highly secure room called an SCIF *(sensitive compartmented information facility) that diplomatic security agents set up at Whitehaven, according to FBI notes from an interview with Abedin.
> 
> From within the SCIF, *Santos — who had no clearance* — “*collected documents from the secure facsimile machine* for Clinton,” the FBI notes revealed.
> 
> ...



Clinton directed her maid to print out classified materials | New York Post


----------



## compforce (Nov 6, 2016)

lindy said:


> The red phone rings at 0300...Russian forces have crossed into Poland...ah hell, just let the Clinton maid launch the nukes!!!
> 
> 
> 
> Clinton directed her maid to print out classified materials | New York Post



Headline on Fox...nowhere to be found on CNN, MSNBC, USA Today, etc. etc. (including Drudge)


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 6, 2016)

Sorry folks, it looks like Comey isn't going to take any new action based on the emails from the Weiner device.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/07/u...p-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 6, 2016)

Congratulations...corruption wins again!!!:blkeye:


----------



## Brill (Nov 6, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> Sorry folks, it looks like Comey isn't going to take any new action based on the emails from the Weiner device.



Still doesn't mean any crimes were or were not committed.  Director Comey simply confirmed his July statement that no prosecutor would take up the case.

“Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusion that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton,” Mr. Comey wrote in a letter to the leaders of several congressional committees.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 6, 2016)

lindy said:


> Still doesn't mean any crimes were or were not committed.  Director Comey simply confirmed his July statement that no prosecutor would take up the case.
> 
> “Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusion that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton,” Mr. Comey wrote in a letter to the leaders of several congressional committees.


You are right.  It does not mean that crimes were not committed, and it also does not mean that Clinton is not guilty of said crimes.  What it does mean, however, is that said crimes are not prosecutable, which is as almost like saying "Not guilty."  The point is that a lot of people were expecting this Weiner thing to be the kill shot for the Clinton campaign, or something like that.  I made the mistake of reading r/the_donald before and after this news broke, and you could practically hear them jerking off over this news.

As a practical matter with regards to the election, it took a lot of wind out of the email sails.  I imagine that it would also make pursuing impeachment because of the email stuff more difficult.  Not impossible, just more difficult.


----------



## Kraut783 (Nov 6, 2016)

lindy said:


> Still doesn't mean any crimes were or were not committed.  Director Comey simply confirmed his July statement that no prosecutor would take up the case.
> 
> “Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusion that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton,” Mr. Comey wrote in a letter to the leaders of several congressional committees.



Disagree.....I believe Dir Comey never brought a case to DOJ, he made the decision. He should have sent the case forward and made DOJ make the decision to take the case, or provide a prosecutor declination.


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 6, 2016)

lindy said:


> Still doesn't mean any crimes were or were not committed.  Director Comey simply confirmed his July statement that no prosecutor would take up the case.
> 
> “Based on our review, we have not changed our conclusion that we expressed in July with respect to Secretary Clinton,” Mr. Comey wrote in a letter to the leaders of several congressional committees.


Well, of course. 

It's entirely too late to say something like "Yeah we made a very hard to prove claim and the federal law enforcement agency entrusted with the investigation recommended outright that no charges be sought twice and now we have to re-examine that claim." 

So yeah, the only option is to say "Well, just cause they said no charges should be pursued doesn't mean no laws were violated."

What else are you left with? Actually admit you might not be an international expert on OPSEC prosecution, an international law expert, political insider, and privy to information the rest of the world isn't, and you're really just parroting information you get from open news sources that fit your preconceived notions about who should be president that conveniently align with your party's interests?


----------



## amlove21 (Nov 6, 2016)

lindy said:


> The red phone rings at 0300...Russian forces have crossed into Poland...ah hell, just let the Clinton maid launch the nukes!!!


Or, I suppose we could allow Trump to collude w Russia prior to the phone ringing and the event happens anyway.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 6, 2016)

Kraut783 said:


> Disagree.....I believe Dir Comey never brought a case to DOJ, he made the decision. He should have sent the case forward and made DOJ make the decision to take the case, or provide a prosecutor declination.


Justice concurred with the FBI decision.  Had the FBI recommended indictment, it's possible that DoJ would not have gone forward with it.  FBI not recommending charges just made their job easier.


----------



## Brill (Nov 7, 2016)

amlove21 said:


> Or, I suppose we could allow Trump to collude w Russia prior to the phone ringing and the event happens anyway.



Of course not! Putin would just tweet him.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 7, 2016)

So hard to find the right maid....


----------



## Gunz (Nov 7, 2016)

At this point, you adjust your _Senninbari _(your thousand-stitch belt), throttle up, push your stick into a dive, shout _Banzai! _and aim for the bridge of the nearest aircraft carrier. :wall::wall::wall:


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 7, 2016)

This is the best one in awhile...


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 7, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> This is the best one in awhile...
> 
> View attachment 17074



I think that will be my all time favorite Bill Clinton pic.


----------



## Brill (Nov 7, 2016)

:-"



> Whitnah said *everyone understood the secretary of state is the primary target of foreign intelligence services.*
> 
> But more than 2,100 emails with classified information, and at least 22 at the “top secret” level, passed through Clinton's unsecured private server. Asked how it happened, Smith said, "Personally, there had to have been somebody moving classified information from C-LAN, C-LAN again is Secret, Confidential only, and JWICS. JWICS is where all top secret information is."
> 
> ...



State Department contractors detail how Clinton and her team ignored security rules


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 8, 2016)

Last day of fun, Come tomorrow, a simple funny pic of HRC will cause the normal morning 2 mile run to end in a car wreck in Missouri with 2000 7.62 rounds fired into your car.  The angle of the rds and the brass dispearsment suggest a possible mini-gun as the shooter from a 100 meter hover and witnesses say "they saw a Black Huey near the scene of the accident but thought it was News Chopper!"....it's ruled as a bad alternator...case closed....:-":dead:


----------



## Brill (Nov 8, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> Last day of fun, Come tomorrow, a simple funny pic of HRC will cause the normal morning 2 mile run to end in a car wreck in Missouri with 2000 7.62 rounds fired into your car.  The angle of the rds and the brass dispearsment suggest a possible mini-gun as the shooter from a 100 meter hover and witnesses say "they saw a Black Huey near the scene of the accident but thought it was News Chopper!"....it's ruled as a bad alternator...case closed....:-":dead:



What difference does it make if it a bunch of hoodlums who were anti was a 2-mile or just pro 7.62?


----------



## CDG (Nov 9, 2016)

SpongeBob*24 said:


> This is the best one in awhile...
> 
> View attachment 17074



Bill is probably the happiest one, although secretly, about the election results.  Now he doesn't have to spend the next 4 years with everyone trying to figure out what interns he's fucking!


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 9, 2016)

There is just one more question.....where's the money?!?!?


----------



## Brill (Nov 10, 2016)

To prosecute or not prosecute. THAT is the question.

Gregg Jarrett: Will Trump fulfill his vow to pursue a criminal case against Hillary?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 11, 2016)

lindy said:


> To prosecute or not prosecute. THAT is the question.
> 
> Gregg Jarrett: Will Trump fulfill his vow to pursue a criminal case against Hillary?


I smell a pardon.


----------



## TLDR20 (Nov 11, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> I smell a pardon.



From President-Elect Trump or do you not understand how pardons work?


----------



## AWP (Nov 11, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> From Donald, or do you not understand how pardons work?



I try to use "pardon me" instead of "excuse me" because it sounds a little more formal and respectful. Good manners are free.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 11, 2016)

TLDR20 said:


> From Donald, or do you not understand how pardons work?



Assuming he means President Obama pardoning her (it was in the Article).  I wonder which crimes she gets pardoned from.....:-"


----------



## Brill (Nov 11, 2016)

ThunderHorse said:


> I smell a pardon.



Interesting! Whom would he pardon and for what?

Hillary (and her DOS senior staffers) for mishandling classified, potentially perjury before Congress, obstruction of justice,..

What about CGI? That list could be incredibly long.

IF Obama grants pardons, to me, that would indicate an admission of guilt AND criminal wrongdoing on the behalf of the pardoned...one of which potentially had the majority of votes in a Presidential election. 

What a fucking nightmare: this notion of pardoning Clinton.

Instead of making history of spousal presidents, they'd go down as an impeached President and pardoned candidate.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 11, 2016)

[Q]


----------



## ThunderHorse (Nov 12, 2016)

It's been discussed a little bit on this board that it is not out of the realm of possibility that Trump would pardon her.  

Now I'd prefer for Clinton to basically have her ability to make a dollar diminished.  Because she has made plenty via the pay for influence schemes and the $250k per speech fees.  I don't think she'll ever see the inside of a cell, even though it would be nice if she would sit next to another white collar criminal named Bernie Madoff.


----------



## compforce (Nov 12, 2016)

lindy said:


> Interesting! Whom would he pardon and for what?
> 
> IF Obama grants pardons, to me, that would indicate an admission of guilt AND criminal wrongdoing on the behalf of the pardoned...one of which potentially had the majority of votes in a Presidential election.



He could just grant her and her staff amnesty and publically call it a defensive amnesty because he doesn't want Trump to continue dedicating resources for something "she was found innocent of".  (she wasn't found anything...they declined to attempt prosecution).  There would be no debate and the whole matter would end up closed.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 12, 2016)

Into the sunset......:dead:


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 13, 2016)

It could be worse......:die:


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 13, 2016)

[Q


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 13, 2016)

compforce said:


> He could just grant her and her staff amnesty and publically call it a defensive amnesty because he doesn't want Trump to continue dedicating resources for something "she was found innocent of".  (she wasn't found anything...they declined to attempt prosecution).  There would be no debate and the whole matter would end up closed.


Disagree because Trump would be able to use it as an example of corrupt DC.
I hope he really doesn't pursue her for anything she did as SecState and sends DoJ/IRS after the foundation.  Hit their wallet is the best punishment for either of them.


----------



## compforce (Nov 13, 2016)

DA SWO said:


> Disagree because Trump would be able to use it as an example of corrupt DC.
> I hope he really doesn't pursue her for anything she did as SecState and sends DoJ/IRS after the foundation.  Hit their wallet is the best punishment for either of them.



I don't disagree with you on any of your points. It would still put her off-limits to Trump's team.  Then, if he still went after her it would be called vindictive by the friendly (to her) media.  I'm not saying O should do it, just that he could.


----------



## Salt USMC (Nov 22, 2016)

The Trump administration is not going to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton
Trump won’t pursue charges against Clinton | New York Post

SHOCKING


----------



## Devildoc (Nov 22, 2016)

Deathy McDeath said:


> The Trump administration is not going to pursue charges against Hillary Clinton
> Trump won’t pursue charges against Clinton | New York Post
> 
> SHOCKING



So, why not?  Could be he has been made privy to information he had before which clearly shows it's not worth the political or legal hassle; could be he is taking the high road and acting presidential, rising above pettiness; could be he is leaving a door open just enough that should new evidence come to light the DoJ and/or Congress reopen the investigation; could be he really wants to just move on.  But regardless, his move should be infuriating his detractors who swore he was going to railroad HRC.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Nov 22, 2016)

[Q


----------



## DA SWO (Nov 22, 2016)

Clinton foundation goes down, or he cut a deal with Senate Dems on a SCOTUS Nominee.


----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Nov 26, 2016)

Half off specials....whaaata?!?!?!:-"


----------



## SpitfireV (Nov 27, 2016)

He hasn't got anything cooking. He said it for votes and only for votes. Look at all the other stuff he's already pulled back that he said he would do. 

He never, ever, intended to do it.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Dec 5, 2016)




----------



## SpongeBob*24 (Dec 5, 2016)

You win the internet today....powering down now.....


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Jan 4, 2017)

If true this may be the funniest < saddest > thing I read all day....

Julian Assange says a 14-year-old could have hacked Democratic emails | Daily Mail Online

_Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has said a 14-year-old could have hacked into the emails of Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman. 

John Podesta's emails were made public by the whistleblowing website and proved to be a hammer blow to the Democrat's election campaign as she lost out to Trump.

In an interview, Assange revealed the campaign chairman's password was 'password' and that he had responded to phishing emails_


----------



## CQB (Jan 5, 2017)

The Russian info was given to Assange, and released by him, so the above is disinformation, in the Gospel According to CQB. But let's see where this goes as a counter INT strategy, for shits and giggles. Perhaps thinking more than 5 minutes in the past can pay off.


----------



## DA SWO (Jan 5, 2017)

CQB said:


> The Russian info was given to Assange, and released by him, so the above is disinformation, in the Gospel According to CQB. But let's see where this goes as a counter INT strategy, for shits and giggles. Perhaps thinking more than 5 minutes in the past can pay off.


Has that been verified?


----------



## Queeg (Jan 5, 2017)

Ooh-Rah said:


> If true this may be the funniest < saddest > thing I read all day....
> 
> Julian Assange says a 14-year-old could have hacked Democratic emails | Daily Mail Online
> 
> ...


 
I'm surprised it wasn't this:


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 5, 2017)

Has this UK diplomats participation in this been discounted or verified yet?

The CIA's Absence of Conviction - Craig Murray


----------



## Dame (Jan 5, 2017)

I'm not sure you can call this iron clad verification but he is mentioned in this broadcast. This pretty much sums up my opinion on where this came from.


----------



## Etype (Jan 7, 2017)

Is anyone else amazed by the fact that Podesta was using Gmail?

He turned every communication he made into the property of Google.

You'd assume a former presidential chief of staff, presidential counselor, and current national campaign chairman would know better.

Using Gmail would be bad practice for the owner of a local trash collecting business, I wouldn't think it would ever be a consideration for Podesta- but apparently, he's a idiot.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jan 7, 2017)

When your password is password...I really couldn't care for anything you say, because you're begging to be hacked, that's gotta be one of the first tried by hacking programs every time for an intrusion.


----------



## Etype (Jan 7, 2017)

ThunderHorse said:


> When your password is password...I really couldn't care for anything you say, because you're begging to be hacked, that's gotta be one of the first tried by hacking programs every time for an intrusion.


I don't particularly believe the password story. You can't hack Gmail using a brute force hacking attempt because it locks you out after a certain number of attempts.

I do, however, believe the phishing attack story.

Either way, Podesta should have known better.


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 8, 2017)

Etype said:


> I don't particularly believe the password story. You can't hack Gmail using a brute force hacking attempt because it locks you out after a certain number of attempts.
> 
> I do, however, believe the phishing attack story.
> 
> Either way, Podesta should have known better.



His IT idiots should have known better.


----------



## AWP (Jan 8, 2017)

6 months ago I was your average stupid SysAdmin who paid attention to security but had kind of a "meh" mentality to the process. Now that I'm in Information Assurance I can say the whole case with HRC and her email plus the DNC's email hack makes me say "what the fuck."

We can blame Russia or Mars or  James Bond but the fact remains this is all SysAdmin/ Security 101 level stuff and if a handful of people had done even the most basic of SysAdmin or User tasks, this wouldn't be a story.

IT security doesn't fail because your gazillion dollar firewall/DMZ  crapped the bed or some dude in eastern Europe discovered a flaw in an Operating System's kernel, it failed because one or two people were morons. Period. Dot. End of story. Time to discuss if Eli Manning has a touch of Down's Syndrome (answer: he does).


----------



## compforce (Jan 9, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> His IT idiots should have known better.



IT *Idiots* often get overruled by those that have power in both the private and public sector.  There's a balance between security and usability.  Usually it's the IT people arguing security and the users arguing the usability case.  Guess who almost always wins...


----------



## RackMaster (Jan 9, 2017)

compforce said:


> IT *Idiots* often get overruled by those that have power in both the private and public sector.  There's a balance between security and usability.  Usually it's the IT people arguing security and the users arguing the usability case.  Guess who almost always wins...



I did IT for over a decade in the Army, including at a management level; I know what you mean but this was not the case.  Podesta questioned it and sent it to the Chief of Staff; whom sent it to the IT "Idiot".  Said IT "Idiot" forwarded it back stating it was legitimate.  This is a perfect example of hiring idiots, which I'm sure you are well aware that there's to many of in the IT world.

How John Podesta’s email got hacked, and how to not let it happen to you


----------



## AWP (Jan 9, 2017)

compforce said:


> IT *Idiots* often get overruled by those that have power in both the private and public sector.  There's a balance between security and usability.  Usually it's the IT people arguing security and the users arguing the usability case.  Guess who almost always wins...



Preach!


----------



## Etype (Jan 9, 2017)

> no-reply@accounts.googlemail.com



Hahahahaha! John Podesta clicked a link from that email address???????

That's fucking rich!!!!!

My, "you deserved it," narrative lives on!!!


----------



## AWP (Jan 9, 2017)

Etype said:


> Hahahahaha! John Podesta clicked a link from that email address???????
> 
> That's fucking rich!!!!!
> 
> My, "you deserved it," narrative lives on!!!



And the IT staff told him the original email was valid! That's a level of stupid I can't fathom. The guy who signed off on that should never work in IT again...but will probably do so and make twice my salary forever because of his connections. People are the cause of the non-hack hack" using one of the most basic and preventable methods possible.

I have no sympathy for anyone who lost their data because of those clowns.


----------



## CDG (Jan 9, 2017)

Wait, I'm confused. It said "google mail".  google mail equals Gmail, which is real.  That means it was valid, right?  I mean, hackers can't spoof legitimate email addresses, or use realistic looking ones.  Can they?  I thought there was a law against that.  Should I not have sent that 5k to the Nigerian Royal Family?  I am so confused.  Dasvidaniya.


----------



## Etype (Jan 9, 2017)

CDG said:


> ...spoof legitimate email addresses...


Somewhat unrelated, but this is a fun app.


----------



## ThunderHorse (May 16, 2017)

Welcome to bizarro world:Seth Rich, slain DNC staffer, had contact with WikiLeaks, say multiple sources


----------



## Topkick (May 16, 2017)

Add another one to the list!


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 10, 2017)

Saw this on the facebooky...looks like it ain't over: Judicial Watch Victory: Federal Court Orders State Department to Conduct a Search of Benghazi Emails of Hillary Clinton’s Closest Advisors - Judicial Watch


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 10, 2017)

Former attorney for Loretta Lynch now working for congressional probe of former AG I still don't know how this isn't a conflict of interest.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Aug 31, 2017)

Uh, this is bad: Comey began drafting 'exoneration statement' before interviewing Clinton, senators say

If you're pro lock her up this is interesting.  If you're pro Hillary, this is bad.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 31, 2017)

Could that have been in conjunction with a statement announcing charges though?


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 31, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> Could that have been in conjunction with a statement announcing charges though?



It was months before the investigation was even completed.

Townhall has more on it.

CONFIRMED: Comey Decided He Wasn't Going to Refer Hillary For Prosecution Long Before FBI Investigation Was Over


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 31, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> It was months before the investigation was even completed.
> 
> Townhall has more on it.
> 
> CONFIRMED: Comey Decided He Wasn't Going to Refer Hillary For Prosecution Long Before FBI Investigation Was Over




My point was it could have been a case of preparing both statements in advance.


----------



## RackMaster (Aug 31, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> My point was it could have been a case of preparing both statements in advance.



Both would be negligent when he is supposed to react to the recommendations of the investigators, not make assumptions.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 31, 2017)

RackMaster said:


> Both would be negligent when he is supposed to react to the recommendations of the investigators, not make assumptions.



It's common to have drafts of lots of conclusions.


----------



## Salt USMC (Aug 31, 2017)

SpitfireV said:


> My point was it could have been a case of preparing both statements in advance.


I really hope that this is the case.  Otherwise, ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

EDIT: Reading the transcript excerpts, it seems as though Comey was reading the tea leaves and believed that a case could not be made against Secretary Clinton when he drafted the memo.  

The interviewee is quoted as saying, "...the Director emails a couple folks - I can't remember exactly; I know I was on there, probably the Deputy Director, not the full, what I'll call the briefing group - to say say, you know, again knowing sort of where - knowing the direction the investigation is headed, right, what would be the most forward-leaning thing we could do...and he sent a draft around of, you what - what it might look like..."

That seems to suggest that Comey - an experienced lawyer - saw that nothing was likely going to come of the case after more than a year of investigation, and was being proactive about crafting a statement.  I mean, it's not like he drafted it in secret.  It seems that most of the FBI leadership was aware of the memo, and if they observed any impropriety they would have likely brought it up.  It's a weird thing to do, sure, but it doesn't seem to suggest anything illegal or unethical.


----------



## SpitfireV (Aug 31, 2017)

Yes exactly. I'm not trying to make excuses for anything, just that sometimes there are common explanations for things that happen. 

And sometimes there isn't.


----------



## Gunz (Aug 31, 2017)

Like she's gonna get locked up. That'd be cruel and unusual punishment for the rest of the inmates.


----------



## AWP (Sep 1, 2017)

Do I think she broke the law? Yes
Do I think Comey and a bunch of other people mishandled the case? Yes.
Do I think we should drop this? Yes.

She isn't going to jail and most likely any evidence that pops up will probably come from a hacker. Try admitting that in court. Put that witness on the stand. That trial would make Casey Anthony's look textbook in comparison. We've wasted too much money and time on this for relatively nothing. Unless someone can produce credible information, something that would stand up in a court of law, this needs to go away. The GOP needs to move on, harping about this case going into the 2018 elections makes them look petty and vindictive. If they had anything she'd get served like she was in a Ruth's Chris.


----------



## ThunderHorse (Sep 1, 2017)

At this point she's not going to jail.  I'm just updating the thread.  All we're going to get is a lot of "neener neener neener" going forward.  But it would be nice if it got handled in a public Congressional Hearing like it is so that it is at least on the record.


----------



## Salt USMC (Sep 1, 2017)

There's probably about half a million FOIA requests pending for this investigation, so I'm sure the details are going to come out at some point.  Perhaps this year, or perhaps next year.  I can't wait to read the book.


----------



## Red Flag 1 (Sep 1, 2017)

[QU


----------



## Gunz (Sep 1, 2017)

It's tedious and boring, the whole shitshow.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 7, 2018)

More leaking Weiner? <rim shot>
Somebody Just Leaked Every Phone Number and Address on Anthony Weiner’s Laptop: 639 Politicians and Media Personalities Doxxed


"A list recently released to the public contains information on all of Anthony Weiner’s contacts; names, addresses, work, and so forth. The kicker? All of this information was released straight from Weiner’s laptop, which is currently being held under evidence by the FBI".


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 7, 2018)

If he's a cloud user- there's a good chance he is, I'd say- that would be more likely the source rather than the FBI.


----------



## DC (Feb 7, 2018)

The world is eating popcorn and watching us like a B rated comedy. Quite frankly it’s embarrassing. Play the circus music now


----------



## Devildoc (Feb 7, 2018)

DC said:


> The world is eating popcorn and watching us like a B rated comedy. Quite frankly it’s embarrassing. Play the circus music now



Oh, I don't know.  It's not like other countries have not had elected officials buffoonery (or monarchy buffoonery) as well.  Maybe they are delighted because we've acted so pious for so many years and now we have...this.


----------



## Ooh-Rah (Feb 7, 2018)

Devildoc said:


> Maybe they are delighted because we've acted so pious for so many years and now we have...this.


Agree.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 7, 2018)

SpitfireV said:


> If he's a cloud user- there's a good chance he is, I'd say- that would be more likely the source rather than the FBI.


I was wondering...why now?  I am just guessing but that stuff has been floating around somewhere and suddenly someone decides to put it out.  SMH.
I just wish they would leave Weiner alone...er..you know what I mean. ;)


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 7, 2018)

Chopstick said:


> I was wondering...why now?  I am just guessing but that stuff has been floating around somewhere and suddenly someone decides to put it out.  SMH.
> I just wish they would leave Weiner alone...er..you know what I mean. ;)



Ha! I would imagine it might be related to divorce settlements? I assume that's still ongoing but I haven't been following this Weiner.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 7, 2018)

I just spilled my tea all over myself.  Thank you.


SpitfireV said:


> Ha! I would imagine it might be related to divorce settlements? I assume that's still ongoing but I haven't been following this Weiner.



ETA I think they called off the divorce..for now.  Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner call off divorce | Daily Mail Online


----------



## SpitfireV (Feb 7, 2018)

Chopstick said:


> I just spilled my tea all over myself.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> ETA I think they called off the divorce..for now.  Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner call off divorce | Daily Mail Online



Then who would know! He'd be a juicy target for a hacker though, probably 100000s of dick pics on there, saucy messages.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 7, 2018)

SpitfireV said:


> Then who would know! He'd be a juicy target for a hacker though, probably 100000s of dick pics on there, saucy messages.


Now I am just nauseated.  Are you SURE you are not following this Weiner?


----------



## RackMaster (Feb 7, 2018)

Chopstick said:


> Now I am just nauseated.  Are you SURE you are not following this Weiner?



He follows all the famous wieners.


----------



## CQB (Feb 7, 2018)

SpitfireV said:


> If he's a cloud user- there's a good chance he is, I'd say- that would be more likely the source rather than the FBI.


Bazingah!


----------



## DA SWO (Feb 7, 2018)

Chopstick said:


> I just spilled my tea all over myself.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> ETA I think they called off the divorce..for now.  Huma Abedin and Anthony Weiner call off divorce | Daily Mail Online



They can't be forced to testify against each other, this keeps her ass out of jail (until Hillary has her suicided)

Mod Edit: I edited your post. Let's not devolve into name calling. - AWP


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 8, 2018)

DA SWO said:


> They can't be forced to testify against each other, this keeps her ass out of jail (until Hillary has her suicided)
> 
> Mod Edit: I edited your post. Let's not devolve into name calling. - AWP


Absolutely, no doubt about that.  And I am surprised that either one of them has not suffered an unexpected tragic accidental suicide thus far.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 9, 2018)

There is some speculation in the press and on the interwebs that Laufman is the subject of investigation himself.  I guess that remains to be seen.  
He would apparently have been involved in approval of FISA applications involving Page.  Interesting timing.
"David Laufman, who had a key role in the Justice Department’s investigations of Hillary Clinton and Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, stepped down Wednesday citing personal reasons"
Justice Dept. official who helped oversee Clinton, Russia probes steps down


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 9, 2018)

What the what??  Rats from a sinking ship? 

DOJ's #3 Official Quitting After Just Nine Months



> The number 3 official at the Department of Justice plans to leave the agency after just nine months on the job, the NYT reported citing two people briefed on her decision.
> Rachel L. Brand was appointed as Associate Attorney General on May 22, 2017, making her next in the line of succession after Deputy Attorney General Rod J. Rosenstein, who is currently overseeing Robert Mueller's special counsel probe into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from the investigation due to his involvement with the Trump campaign.
> Prior to her appointment to the DOJ last year, Brand held several politically appointed positions for the last few administrations. From 2012-2017, she served as one of five Senate-confirmed Members of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board, appointed by President Obama.


----------



## AWP (Feb 9, 2018)

AT some point I have to wonder if it is becoming or will become fashionable to resign from the Trump administration.


----------



## Chopstick (Feb 10, 2018)

AWP said:


> AT some point I have to wonder if it is becoming or will become fashionable to resign from the Trump administration.


Hey, if you get a sweet gig at Walmart, why not?


----------



## BloodStripe (Jun 4, 2018)

Ex-Navy sailor pardoned by Trump says he's suing Comey and Obama

And here comes the lawsuits citing the Clinton treatment.


----------



## medicchick (Jun 5, 2018)

NavyBuyer said:


> Ex-Navy sailor pardoned by Trump says he's suing Comey and Obama
> 
> And here comes the lawsuits citing the Clinton treatment.


Beat to it by almost an hour.

Disgraced sailor who went to federal prison for taking photos of classified areas inside a nuclear submarine is being considered for pardon by Justice


----------



## SpitfireV (Jun 5, 2018)

What a cunt.


----------



## R.Caerbannog (Jun 5, 2018)

SpitfireV said:


> What a cunt.


Which Clinton are we taking about?


----------



## ThunderHorse (Jun 5, 2018)

medicchick said:


> Beat to it by almost an hour.
> 
> Disgraced sailor who went to federal prison for taking photos of classified areas inside a nuclear submarine is being considered for pardon by Justice


The legal precedent that the whole email situation has set...


----------



## Brill (Aug 15, 2019)

It’s ALIVE!!!

BLUF: looks like the IC’s IG alerted the FBI during the Clinton email “exoneration” that Chinese hacked her server and got ALL the traffic. FBI seemed aloof

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019-08-14 Staff memo to CEG RHJ - ICIG Interview Summary RE Clinton Server.pdf



> Whistleblower career employees within the *State Department* also reportedly notified the Intelligence Community that others at State involved in the review process *deliberately changed classification determinations to protect Secretary Clinton.*





> First, according to one ICIG official, *some members of the FBI investigative team seemed indifferent to evidence of a possible intrusion by a foreign adversary into Secretary Clinton’s non-government server.* The interview summary makes clear exactly what information Mr. Rucker and Ms. McMillian knew regarding the alleged hack of the Clinton server, as well as the information they shared with the FBI team, including Peter Strzok, the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division in charge of the Clinton investigation.



Article with multiple hyperlinks

FBI 'indifferent' to possible China hack of Hillary Clinton's server, as State Department fought to protect her, interviews suggest


----------



## Gunz (Aug 15, 2019)

Lock her up.


----------



## Box (Aug 15, 2019)

Nothing to see here 
Move along


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 15, 2019)

Careful brother. This is how you suicide yourself.


----------



## Brill (Aug 15, 2019)

Box said:


> Nothing to see here
> Move along



I’m shocked she hasn’t dropped a lawsuit against Trump and the American people for conspiracy to commit grand larceny because they stole the election from her.


----------



## AWP (Aug 15, 2019)

Who wants to start the rumor that her server contained calendar entries/ appointments with Jeff Epstein?


----------



## BloodStripe (Aug 15, 2019)




----------



## Marauder06 (Aug 15, 2019)

AWP said:


> Who wants to start the rumor that her server contained calendar entries/ appointments with Jeff Epstein?



Well, that would explain why it had to die.


----------



## AWP (Aug 16, 2019)

Marauder06 said:


> Well, that would explain why it had to die.



The server was found with two shots to the back of the motherboard.


----------



## Brill (Aug 16, 2019)

AWP said:


> The server was found with two shots to the back of the motherboard.



Don’t try to RAM your theories down out throats!


----------



## Brill (Aug 16, 2019)

Well this is interesting. Carterheavyindustries was created by Platte River IT tech...but allegedly the server traffic was routed to Ch-eye-NUH.

Worth noting that the the lied to the FBI but wasn’t prosecuted, unlike Flynn, Papadopoulos, and Stone, who were all charged for lying while Republican.

Clinton IT Aide Who Defied Subpoena Says He Created A Cryptic Gmail Account And Sent It Nearly All Of Hillary’s Emails

SOURCES: China Hacked Hillary Clinton’s Private Email Server


----------



## Box (Aug 16, 2019)

"*Testifying while Republican*" is a serious crime - some of you should stop making jokes about it.


----------



## Brill (Aug 16, 2019)

Box said:


> "*Testifying while Republican*" is a serious crime - some of you should stop making jokes about it.



Only the dead have heard the last of the Republican jokes.


----------



## Kraut783 (Oct 18, 2019)

*38 people cited for violations in Clinton email probe*

The investigation, launched more than three years ago, determined that those 38 people were "culpable" in 91 cases of sending classified information that ended up in Clinton's personal email, according to a letter sent to Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley this week. The 38 are current and former State Department officials but were not identified. 

Clinton email probe results in 38 people being cited


----------



## Brill (Oct 18, 2019)

Kraut783 said:


> *38 people cited for violations in Clinton email probe*
> 
> The investigation, launched more than three years ago, determined that those 38 people were "culpable" in 91 cases of sending classified information that ended up in Clinton's personal email, according to a letter sent to Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley this week. The 38 are current and former State Department officials but were not identified.
> 
> Clinton email probe results in 38 people being cited



Pretty harsh findings since none of her email was marked classified. Guess State folks were held to the USG-standard that INFORMATION determines classification vice the markings.


----------



## Box (Oct 18, 2019)

Bigfoot has also been 'cited'
The Loch-Ness monster has been 'cited'
Aliens have been cited - hell Jimmy Carter even cited a UFO once

50+ years of being 'cited' yet there is still no proof that any of them exist - and none of them have done any time in captivity

...and so shall it be with the Clinton syndicate


----------



## Brill (Oct 19, 2019)

Box said:


> Bigfoot has also been 'cited'



Bill saw it. “It’s right there.”, he said.


----------

