The final shot at Hillary, just like the others, was a blank.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Lee Atwater, Oct 19, 2019.

  1. Heartburn

    Heartburn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2015
    Messages:
    13,500
    Likes Received:
    4,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hillary to doubters, "Hold my beer!"
     
  2. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    45,414
    Likes Received:
    26,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't read the National Enquirer so..........what sex scandal?
     
    Bowerbird likes this.
  3. carlberky

    carlberky Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2019
    Messages:
    461
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Gender:
    Male
    Warren Harding and his cronies were guilty of self-serving corruption. Where's the investigation?
     
  4. Heartburn

    Heartburn Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2015
    Messages:
    13,500
    Likes Received:
    4,973
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sounds like you don't read or watch news of any kind. Jeffry Epstein?
     
  5. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,522
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019-10-17 State Dept. to CEG - Classified Emails.pdf

    Read my sig....

    Absolutely not! Read my sig!
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
  6. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,010
    Likes Received:
    3,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thanks for the long diatribe, but it is off topic. The investigation to which you are referring was NOT an investigation into Hillary. It was an investigation into the actions of the 38 employees actions that had some tangential contact with getting those classified emails onto Hillary's private server. Hillary was never in one iota of jeopardy regarding this investigation because she was not the target. If you wish to comment on that reality, then you will be on topic.

    The primary facts of the Hillary situation are well known and not in dispute. Against State Department rules and the law which governs the standard of care necessary for handling classified data, Hillary illegally set up a home server in order to keep her affairs so that it was not part of the federal records system. When her server was under subpeona, instead of turning it over as required by law, she had it erased using bleach bit. James Comey twisted the definitions of the law in order to rationalize that she should not be charged. Those facts are not in doubt. Those specific facts have not comprehensively been subject to another review other than Comeys FBI. There have been a few tangential investigations that did not revisit the Comey FBI decision. Now you are taking those tangential investigations and bogusly pretending that these tangential investigations into tangential topics somehow goes back and reaffirms Comeys decision. They do no such thing, and they were intended to do no such thing.

    This thread and this topic is a shining example of such. This has nothing to do with Hillary, yet you title it as "The Final Shot at Hillary".
     
    blanco likes this.
  7. opion8d

    opion8d Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2018
    Messages:
    5,864
    Likes Received:
    4,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Hillary and Bill have a remarkable ability to resurrect themselves from the dead. I very much doubt if this will be the last we hear from Hillary or Bill (Bill does seem to be slowing down a bit -- oversexed?).

    Hillary needs to accept, if ever she will, that she lost to the most inept, corrupt person in presidential election history. The sad fact is, Hillary, most of your supporters don't miss you.
     
    Adfundum likes this.
  8. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,010
    Likes Received:
    3,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So basically you have provided a link that references the investigation that is the subject of this thread. This has been discussed at great length already. I will cut and paste a post I already made on this subject. If you care to retort, then please do......



    It is hilarious how the washington Post very carefully phrased that in reference to the 38 employees( not Hillary), so that it looked like there were not any instances of classified documents being found on her server. After all these years, how can you possible believe that? This information has literally been out there for years. Here is an AP link to the exact same story that does not use the same level of slight of hand with the exact same story..........

    https://www.apnews.com/14b14afc5d8647858489a2cf5385c28d

    "The investigation covered 33,000 emails that Clinton turned over for review after her use of the private email account became public. The department said it found a total of 588 violations involving information then or now deemed to be classified but could not assign fault in 497 cases."





    Its funny how the EXACT SAME STORY can spawn such a preposterously misleading conclusion. It was purposefully phrased to be confusing so that people like yourself that simply surf for headlines are able to then go forward and continue your seemingly nonstop crusade of misinformation. You see, this particular investigation in the articles, was NOT AN INVESTIGATION INTO HILLARY at all. It was an investigation into the specific actions of those 38 employees that were found culpable of violating security procedures, and whether they knew what they were doing and should lose their security clearance. The distinction of whether it was at that time marked classified speaks directly to the culpability of those that put those emails onto a private server. It says nothing to the actions of the person that set up that server and whether or not doing so constituted a gross violation of due diligence in handling highly classified and even top secret information. We already know that hundreds of those emails were classified and some of them literally TOP SECRET. Even one is a gross violation of the law. This information has been known for years, and all it took was for a misleading headline for you to entirely forget the entire crux of the well publicized issue. The only conclusion that can logically be drawn is that you aren't in pursuit of answers; you are only in pursuit of pushing your preconceived notions, and you dont care how much you have to twist reality in order to do it.




    Your subsequent claim that "Trump's own investigation proved that she did not commit any crime."...amounts to an out and out lie because that was not an investigation into Hillary because she was never the focus. Although I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you were simply duped....again.

    PS The only validity that you researched into this argument was that you read the bright shiny ( misleading) headline. There is no validity whatsoever in the characterization that this investigation cleared Hillary of anything because she was not being investigated. You found something that sort of (wrongfully) implies what you wanted to hear, and you gleefully ran with it. That's not research, rather it is wishful thinking. You arent reporting the facts of what that investigation revealed, you are reporting what you WISHED that it revealed.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
  9. Darthcervantes

    Darthcervantes Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2018
    Messages:
    16,906
    Likes Received:
    17,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you are saying she's innocent, just like Trump? NICE! glad you finally admitted it.

    GOOD JOB!
     
  10. Nemesis

    Nemesis Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2012
    Messages:
    16,132
    Likes Received:
    8,852
    Trophy Points:
    113
    On what basis?
     
  11. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,683
    Likes Received:
    4,171
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then it would be safe to say that we don't know and can't say for certain? It's highly likely that there are backups of everything.

    I'm taking an objective tack on this, pointing out that none of us knows anything, that we're only assuming. I don't think that being objective is in any way defending her. If there is no proof that those emails were compromised, then there is no proof that she's done anything wrong. It's kind of like that other witch hunt.
     
  12. Pred

    Pred Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    24,358
    Likes Received:
    17,353
    Trophy Points:
    113
    #Me too didn’t exist in the 90s:)
     
  13. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,010
    Likes Received:
    3,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If this were a court of law, you would have a point in regards to saying that we are only assuming. Since it is the Opinion section of a political chat board however, I am having difficulty understanding your point because the entire purpose of this forum is to express one's opinion. When one goes to great lengths to hide 30k emails, the assumption that it is because there is something in those 30k emails that they do not want seen, is not exactly a far fetched opinion.

    As far as your claim that without proof that her emails were compromised, there is no proof that she did anything wrong, that is an incorrect statement that I already addressed and you failed to address my reply, and have instead just restated your original point. Did you forget about my retort with drunk driving? I will restate...

    "That is like excusing away drunk driving because there doesn't exist 100% proof that they hit anyone. Hitting someone is not a requirement for a drunk driving charge, and mishandling classified information does not require it being compromised."

    Do you realize that a drunk driving charge does not require that the driver hit anyone?
    Do you realize that a mishandling of classified information charge does not require that the information was compromised by a foreign government?
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
  14. Sleep Monster

    Sleep Monster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    13,488
    Likes Received:
    9,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And now you're deflecting. If you can't debate the issue, and prove your claims, maybe you should find a topic that you know enough about to contribute to the conversation.

    And if you are truly interested in the accomplushments of your State Department, they have a robust web site.
     
  15. Sleep Monster

    Sleep Monster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    13,488
    Likes Received:
    9,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Your opinion of our civil servants is disheartening and insulting to the tens of thousands of career workers whose only agenda is to make our lives better or keep us safer. You give no examples, simply a vague statement of distrust towards your fellow Americans. You seem to want to believe that everyone is biased and up to no good. If that's what you truly think, perhaps you're projecting? Would you allow personal bias to cloud your work if you had such a job?
     
  16. RodB

    RodB Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2015
    Messages:
    22,361
    Likes Received:
    11,141
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The final shot at Hillary, just like the others, was a blank.

    The shot was not a blank. It was a real bullet but unable to penetrate the protective bullet proof shield built around the Clintons.
     
  17. Sleep Monster

    Sleep Monster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    13,488
    Likes Received:
    9,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Snarky reply. Tich tich.

    You mentioned crimes. See comments 13, 55, and 56.

    Also, you didn't answer my question, so I'll assume you've never held a clearance. I have, and I know the rules far better than you do, so wave the white flag . You're in a hole ... best to stop digging.
     
  18. Adfundum

    Adfundum Moderator Staff Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2018
    Messages:
    7,683
    Likes Received:
    4,171
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    No one is saying you can't express your opinion, but remember that others are free to challenge that opinion or to point out flaws in an argument.
    Those emails aren't missing if they've been reviewed by Grassley's team. A number of those emails were found to have at least some information considered classified with 91 of 33,000 considered valid violations. No criminal violations alleged, no arrests made.

    It was not illegal for Clinton to have her own server. As a Cabinet member, she had the power to ignore the policy.
     
  19. Sleep Monster

    Sleep Monster Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2019
    Messages:
    13,488
    Likes Received:
    9,038
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Here's a short lesson in how emails work, since so many people don't understand.

    When you send an email, it makes a copy of itself on your server, whether that server is private or publuc, and stores it in your "Sent" folder. When it reaches the recipient, it makes a copy in their 'In" box.

    You can delete everything on your server, In box, Sent mail, Trash folder, and all, but unless you can delete the emails from the servers of every correspondent, the email still exists.

    So, how are these emails missing? That was always bull pucky, but so few Americans understand what they could easily see by looking at the contents of their own email accounts.

    Hillary faced no charges because she violated no laws. I held a clearance for a large portion of my career. Such carelessness would, at most, have gotten me fired and my clearance revoked. Since Hillary no longer has a job or a clearance, justice has been served.
     
    Adfundum likes this.
  20. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,010
    Likes Received:
    3,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    -The notion of challenging opinions works both ways does it not?

    -So you are not aware of the 33k plus MISSING emails? They were explicitly not a part of Grassley's investigation. I would have assumed such a thing would be common knowledge at this point, but apparently that assumption does not extend to all. I guess if one throws around enough sand, they can fix it so that many will not be able to see and then conclude therefore it does not exist. Below you will find a Hillary friendly Politifact check that acknowedges the 33k deleted emails that have not been recovered.

    https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...-trump-says-hillary-clinton-deleted-33000-em/

    -Who told you that being a cabinet member automatically exonerates her of all of the myriad of federal laws that govern the handling of classified information. If nothing else, she most certainly violated US Code 1924 for the Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material. In truth, there are a long list of realistic potential violations, and none of them are null and void because one is a cabinet member. Who on earth told you this? You keep stating how objective you are, yet at every turn you inexplicably give Hillary a pass. You forgot about the 33k missing emails. The only thing that being a cabinet member exonerates her is of perhaps breaking a State Department rule. We arent talking about a State Department rule. We are talking about Federal law, which is not governed by State Department rules.




    US 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 five years, or both.
    offense under subsection (a).
    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.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924

    Where does this say anything about a cabinet member not being subject to this law?
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
  21. FAW

    FAW Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2008
    Messages:
    13,010
    Likes Received:
    3,850
    Trophy Points:
    113

    US 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 five years, or both.
    offense under subsection (a).
    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.
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924


    So she did NOT violate U.S. Code § 1924 – ?

    Interesting. Who authorized her removal of those documents?
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
  22. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    45,414
    Likes Received:
    26,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Don't be so obtuse. Unless of course you are too embarrassed to explain what you mean.
     
  23. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,588
    Likes Received:
    16,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Deflecting? You got to be kidding. I'm sure they do have a robust web site all spun at tax payer expense.
     
  24. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,522
    Likes Received:
    18,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What the hell are you talking about? My link is not to the Washington Post. It's to the report!

    Your diversion tactics of attacking the media don't work so well when I am taking my arguments directly from Trump's very own State Department, do they?

    That's hilarious!

    Her name is even in the title

    DS Report on Security Incidents Related to Potentially Classified Emails sent to Former Secretary of State Clinton's Private Email Server


    And, of course, if you didn't read the title you didn't bother to read the rest of the report which mentions her over and over.


    That's very nice of you, because I won't give you the benefit of the doubt at all. I know you were duped again. And you keep coming back for more. Why is that?
     
    carlberky likes this.
  25. Lee Atwater

    Lee Atwater Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2017
    Messages:
    45,414
    Likes Received:
    26,543
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How very naive of you. Everything having to do with Hillary's e-mails and server is political and therefore is about her, tangential connection or not. I leave you with this reminder...........https://warontherocks.com/2016/07/why-intent-not-gross-negligence-is-the-standard-in-clinton-case/

    Now, perhaps you should consider starting your own chat room. There, you and your fellow Clintonologists can endlessly discuss Pizzagate, her murder of Vince Foster, entertaining the possibility Vlad has those missing e-mails, photo shop pictures of her in an orange jump suit, and otherwise fill your days with vitriolic fantasies of her spending time paying for all the crimes she didn't commit.
     
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2019
    carlberky likes this.

Share This Page