FBI successfully recovers Clinton deleted emails

[Siete]

poor Donnie.

 

[Redfish]

I am not saying that Lynch will prosecute her, I am saying that when the FBI investigation becomes public that the American people (except a few brain dead libs) will turn on her and she will not be the dem nominee and will never be president.

But, you also ignore the fact that the obamas and Clintons hate each other. If obozo sees that Hillary is losing the nomination, he just might turn the AG loose on her.

Saw a headline yesterday that said "Sanders Meets Obama at the WH." What do you make of that?

Obama: Ok Bernie, name me as your VP and I will turn Lynch loose on Hillary

Bernie: you got it, barry.

Nice fantasy, but the 12th amendment prevents Obama from being VP

don't think so, you better check that and report back to us

You didn't even bother to look at the 12th, did you, rube.

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

yes, I did so did the Wash Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/

 

[g5000]

Saw a headline yesterday that said "Sanders Meets Obama at the WH." What do you make of that?

Obama: Ok Bernie, name me as your VP and I will turn Lynch loose on Hillary

Bernie: you got it, barry.

Nice fantasy, but the 12th amendment prevents Obama from being VP

don't think so, you better check that and report back to us

You didn't even bother to look at the 12th, did you, rube.

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

yes, I did so did the Wash Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/

It's TardLogic™.

By that TardLogic™, Honey Boo Boo could be a running mate.

 

[Obiwan]

Wasn't that amazing? I recall seeing that the first time. Somewhat dissimilar though, in that Nixon believed that if the President decided it was in the nation's interest, it was not illegal to ignore criminal, and I suppose civil, laws. That's scary, but there was something principled about it. He didn't try to justify breaking laws for personal gain, or personal convenience. Hillary, by contrast, appears to just figure prohibitions on her use of personal email for official biz was inconvenient, and only applied to "little people."

The people who flew the airplanes into the WTC thought they were doing Allah's will.

Their ego's had caused them to confuse God's will with their own. "Gee, what a great coincidence Allah thinks the same way I do and wants the same things I want!"

That's ego. Not God.

Just so with Nixon. He was not working for the good of the country. His ego made him believe he was.

He had the same error in thinking as the 9/11 assholes, and he was just as harmful.

That kind of deluded thinking is what makes those kind of people so dangerous.

There is no one more dangerous than a maniac who thinks he is doing God's will or what's right for the country.

Enter Trump.

Was Obama bypassing Congress doing "God's work? You know he is always right and when he writes those illegal EO's, he must be channeling God.

Illegal EOs?

And how many has the SCOTUS overturned???

It has been happening...

For example:

Supreme Court Strikes Down Obama's Unconstitutional Executive Overreach 9–0

 

[Redfish]

Obama: Ok Bernie, name me as your VP and I will turn Lynch loose on Hillary

Bernie: you got it, barry.

Nice fantasy, but the 12th amendment prevents Obama from being VP

don't think so, you better check that and report back to us

You didn't even bother to look at the 12th, did you, rube.

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

yes, I did so did the Wash Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/

It's TardLogic™.

By that TardLogic™, Honey Boo Boo could be a running mate.

the liberal far left Washington Post?

If you bothered to read it you would understand that all they are saying is that it is not clear. Would obozo take it to SCOTUS in order to stay in power? damn right.

 

[g5000]

Nice fantasy, but the 12th amendment prevents Obama from being VP

don't think so, you better check that and report back to us

You didn't even bother to look at the 12th, did you, rube.

"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."

yes, I did so did the Wash Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/08/06/could-joe-biden-pick-barack-obama-as-his-running-mate-yes-but/

It's TardLogic™.

By that TardLogic™, Honey Boo Boo could be a running mate.

the liberal far left Washington Post?

If you bothered to read it you would understand that all they are saying is that it is not clear. Would obozo take it to SCOTUS in order to stay in power? damn right.

An Obama third term, and a Bill Clinton third term, have been a favorite masturbation fantasy of right wing idiots.

Just like the Bush third term, and a Reagan third term, were masturbation fantasies of left wing idiots.

 

[bendog]

Wasn't that amazing? I recall seeing that the first time. Somewhat dissimilar though, in that Nixon believed that if the President decided it was in the nation's interest, it was not illegal to ignore criminal, and I suppose civil, laws. That's scary, but there was something principled about it. He didn't try to justify breaking laws for personal gain, or personal convenience. Hillary, by contrast, appears to just figure prohibitions on her use of personal email for official biz was inconvenient, and only applied to "little people."

The people who flew the airplanes into the WTC thought they were doing Allah's will.

Their ego's had caused them to confuse God's will with their own. "Gee, what a great coincidence Allah thinks the same way I do and wants the same things I want!"

That's ego. Not God.

Just so with Nixon. He was not working for the good of the country. His ego made him believe he was.

He had the same error in thinking as the 9/11 assholes, and he was just as harmful.

That kind of deluded thinking is what makes those kind of people so dangerous.

There is no one more dangerous than a maniac who thinks he is doing God's will or what's right for the country.

Enter Trump.

I hadn't considered that Trump was justifying lying on the basis of it being good for the country. Huey Long would happily have trampled all over people's right to own private property for the greater good, and FDR considered him the most dangerous person in America for good reason. I thought Trump was merely an egomaniac/sociopath using politics to enjoy power for fun. Maybe he really is dangerous.

Conversely, Hillary appears to have just been caught up in being Hillary and doing things in the way most convenient for herself.

Hillary is nothing more than a power whore. She will say whatever you want to hear, and then will say the exact opposite to someone else if that is what they want to hear.

Trump is a different breed. He's a megalomaniac.

I'm not gonna use the term whore. Hillary's clearly got an appetite for power. Is it more or less than someone else's? Reagan desired making a difference more than power itself. But unlike anyone we elected since, he wasn't a career pol. Like her or not, Hillary's got about 4 decades of a record of trying to ensure women have reproductive care and choice, and children have support and education.

I'm not happy with how quickly Rubio folded on immigration and middle class tax relief. There's nothing to Christie. Jeb's a technocrat who lost any real passion for an issue. Cruz is an ideologue who is hated and would be a disaster. Kasich is a for real deficit hawk, and is pro-biz growth, but he's not an ideologue and he isn't hung up on social issue agendas.

Trump's megalomaniac, I agree.

 

[g5000]

Wasn't that amazing? I recall seeing that the first time. Somewhat dissimilar though, in that Nixon believed that if the President decided it was in the nation's interest, it was not illegal to ignore criminal, and I suppose civil, laws. That's scary, but there was something principled about it. He didn't try to justify breaking laws for personal gain, or personal convenience. Hillary, by contrast, appears to just figure prohibitions on her use of personal email for official biz was inconvenient, and only applied to "little people."

The people who flew the airplanes into the WTC thought they were doing Allah's will.

Their ego's had caused them to confuse God's will with their own. "Gee, what a great coincidence Allah thinks the same way I do and wants the same things I want!"

That's ego. Not God.

Just so with Nixon. He was not working for the good of the country. His ego made him believe he was.

He had the same error in thinking as the 9/11 assholes, and he was just as harmful.

That kind of deluded thinking is what makes those kind of people so dangerous.

There is no one more dangerous than a maniac who thinks he is doing God's will or what's right for the country.

Enter Trump.

I hadn't considered that Trump was justifying lying on the basis of it being good for the country. Huey Long would happily have trampled all over people's right to own private property for the greater good, and FDR considered him the most dangerous person in America for good reason. I thought Trump was merely an egomaniac/sociopath using politics to enjoy power for fun. Maybe he really is dangerous.

Conversely, Hillary appears to have just been caught up in being Hillary and doing things in the way most convenient for herself.

Hillary is nothing more than a power whore. She will say whatever you want to hear, and then will say the exact opposite to someone else if that is what they want to hear.

Trump is a different breed. He's a megalomaniac.

I'm not gonna use the term whore. Hillary's clearly got an appetite for power. Is it more or less than someone else's? Reagan desired making a difference more than power itself. But unlike anyone we elected since, he wasn't a career pol. Like her or not, Hillary's got about 4 decades of a record of trying to ensure women have reproductive care and choice, and children have support and education.

I know you try to use civil language, and I respect that. But Hillary's a power whore. Her husband was humping everything that cast a shadow, and she let him because her thirst for power was greater than her self-respect. That's the definition of a power whore.

And her friend Huma followed her lead. Only it didn't pan out for Huma.

I'm not happy with how quickly Rubio folded on immigration and middle class tax relief. There's nothing to Christie. Jeb's a technocrat who lost any real passion for an issue. Cruz is an ideologue who is hated and would be a disaster. Kasich is a for real deficit hawk, and is pro-biz growth, but he's not an ideologue and he isn't hung up on social issue agendas.

Trump's megalomaniac, I agree.

Rubio is being true to himself. He was not being true to himself earlier. He was trying to pander to the bigots.

But the man is a child of immigrants. Hello?

As for tax relief, Rubio's tax plan is all about tax relief for small businesses and the middle and lower income classes. Tax relief by way of leveling the playing field that is currently legislatively tilted in the favor of powerful special interests.

 

[bripat9643]

Wasn't that amazing? I recall seeing that the first time. Somewhat dissimilar though, in that Nixon believed that if the President decided it was in the nation's interest, it was not illegal to ignore criminal, and I suppose civil, laws. That's scary, but there was something principled about it. He didn't try to justify breaking laws for personal gain, or personal convenience. Hillary, by contrast, appears to just figure prohibitions on her use of personal email for official biz was inconvenient, and only applied to "little people."

I'm not really convinced she broke any "laws," or that if she did she did so intentionally. Rather, I think she's so isolated by her layers of secrecy it was never really made clear to her what she ws dealing with.

So how does Obama differ from Nixon? Did you know it's a criminal violation for the IRS to persecute people or groups for political reasons? How about our immigration laws? Do you know that work permits can only be given to legal immigrants?

 

[bendog]

Wasn't that amazing? I recall seeing that the first time. Somewhat dissimilar though, in that Nixon believed that if the President decided it was in the nation's interest, it was not illegal to ignore criminal, and I suppose civil, laws. That's scary, but there was something principled about it. He didn't try to justify breaking laws for personal gain, or personal convenience. Hillary, by contrast, appears to just figure prohibitions on her use of personal email for official biz was inconvenient, and only applied to "little people."

The people who flew the airplanes into the WTC thought they were doing Allah's will.

Their ego's had caused them to confuse God's will with their own. "Gee, what a great coincidence Allah thinks the same way I do and wants the same things I want!"

That's ego. Not God.

Just so with Nixon. He was not working for the good of the country. His ego made him believe he was.

He had the same error in thinking as the 9/11 assholes, and he was just as harmful.

That kind of deluded thinking is what makes those kind of people so dangerous.

There is no one more dangerous than a maniac who thinks he is doing God's will or what's right for the country.

Enter Trump.

I hadn't considered that Trump was justifying lying on the basis of it being good for the country. Huey Long would happily have trampled all over people's right to own private property for the greater good, and FDR considered him the most dangerous person in America for good reason. I thought Trump was merely an egomaniac/sociopath using politics to enjoy power for fun. Maybe he really is dangerous.

Conversely, Hillary appears to have just been caught up in being Hillary and doing things in the way most convenient for herself.

Hillary is nothing more than a power whore. She will say whatever you want to hear, and then will say the exact opposite to someone else if that is what they want to hear.

Trump is a different breed. He's a megalomaniac.

I'm not gonna use the term whore. Hillary's clearly got an appetite for power. Is it more or less than someone else's? Reagan desired making a difference more than power itself. But unlike anyone we elected since, he wasn't a career pol. Like her or not, Hillary's got about 4 decades of a record of trying to ensure women have reproductive care and choice, and children have support and education.

I know you try to use civil language, and I respect that. But Hillary's a power whore. Her husband was humping everything that cast a shadow, and she let him because her thirst for power was greater than her self-respect. That's the definition of a power whore.

And her friend Huma followed her lead. Only it didn't pan out for Huma.

I'm not happy with how quickly Rubio folded on immigration and middle class tax relief. There's nothing to Christie. Jeb's a technocrat who lost any real passion for an issue. Cruz is an ideologue who is hated and would be a disaster. Kasich is a for real deficit hawk, and is pro-biz growth, but he's not an ideologue and he isn't hung up on social issue agendas.

Trump's megalomaniac, I agree.

Rubio is being true to himself. He was not being true to himself earlier. He was trying to pander to the bigots.

But the man is a child of immigrants. Hello?

As for tax relief, Rubio's tax plan is all about tax relief for small businesses and the middle and lower income classes. Tax relief by way of leveling the playing field that is currently legislatively tilted in the favor of powerful special interests.

Oh it's not that I try to be civil. I'll call pols whores. But people say nasty personal crap about Hillary, and the fact is that a lot of married people have "different" personal lives.

I really like the Jon Stewart line describing the Clintons " a politically symbiotic partnership based on mutual ambition for global domination.” - See more Jon Stewart Slams Jeb Bush for Agreeing With His Brother's Invasion of Iraq

I don't really mind Hillary on policy. Even the stuff like funding more after school aid is not terribly anti-conservative. It gives more opportunity to enter the labor market, which is something Thatcher/Reagan neolibertarians should like. The problem you brought up earlier is her view of power. My personal view is that Nixon faced a lot crappier hand than any potus post-Truman got dealt, and he was a really really skillful potus ... but he had the fatal flaw of hubris. Hillary has the same thing.

 

[SwimExpert]

Which will be the route they take, because only FOX news will report it.

Which raises the interesting question of how the hell anyone can honestly claim to "know" this information. Seeing as, according to you, no reputable news outlet has yet to report the information, it can be regarded as nothing more than an invention.

 

[Tom Horn]

doesn't matter. when you are in possession of classified data you are responsible for its security, doesn't matter if you sent it or received it, if you have it you are its legal custodian and are responsible for protecting it from disclosure.

Every person who has ever had a security clearance understands that.

I can assure you I've had a higher security clearance than you or anybody on this board has ever had. And what I said stands and has nothing to do with the "custodial" issue. If the information was never shared with other than intended recipients, the most extreme charges can't be filed against her....simple as that, end of subject.

 

[Tom Horn]

It's important for the FBI to prove her server was hacked. If it wasn't and that can be proven, the case against her weakens considerably. She could then claim the whole thing was a brilliant move on her part since the State and Defense depts are hacked regularly. Gates said the Pentagon is attacked thousands of times a day. It can't be assumed she was hacked....a good forensics analysis should be able to decide one way or the other.

no it does not weaken the case

Yes it would weaken the case, considerably.

 

[jon_berzerk]

It's important for the FBI to prove her server was hacked. If it wasn't and that can be proven, the case against her weakens considerably. She could then claim the whole thing was a brilliant move on her part since the State and Defense depts are hacked regularly. Gates said the Pentagon is attacked thousands of times a day. It can't be assumed she was hacked....a good forensics analysis should be able to decide one way or the other.

no it does not weaken the case

Yes it would weaken the case, considerably.

actually the case is not contingent on that what so ever

 

[Redfish]

doesn't matter. when you are in possession of classified data you are responsible for its security, doesn't matter if you sent it or received it, if you have it you are its legal custodian and are responsible for protecting it from disclosure.

Every person who has ever had a security clearance understands that.

I can assure you I've had a higher security clearance than you or anybody on this board has ever had. And what I said stands and has nothing to do with the "custodial" issue. If the information was never shared with other than intended recipients, the most extreme charges can't be filed against her....simple as that, end of subject.

I was top secret crypto and SAP. Don't know or care what clearance you had because you obviously slept through the training. It doesn't matter what she did with the data once she got it, or whether it was marked. The FBI will let us know exactly what they found, the only question is whether obozo will let the AG prosecute her.

If she had classified data on her server and the server was not secure to that level of classification, then she violated the law and should be prosecuted. I do not understand why anyone wants to support this woman who has obviously violated federal security laws and then lied about it.

If they let her get away with this then every person who has a clearance has a legal precedent to ignore the classified data laws.

 

[Tom Horn]

I was top secret crypto and SAP. Don't know or care what clearance you had because you obviously slept through the training. It doesn't matter what she did with the data once she got it, or whether it was marked. The FBI will let us know exactly what they found, the only question is whether obozo will let the AG prosecute her.

If she had classified data on her server and the server was not secure to that level of classification, then she violated the law and should be prosecuted. I do not understand why anyone wants to support this woman who has obviously violated federal security laws and then lied about it.

If they let her get away with this then every person who has a clearance has a legal precedent to ignore the classified data laws.

Listen asshole.....I'm not supporting her or any other prog rat. And I seriously doubt anybody who couldn't understand my replies had any kind of clearance and if you did God help us. My job was collecting forward intel that saved company size incursions from ambushes. Your opinion of what I "slept through" wasn't shared by the Troop who came home alive thanks to my team and others like us.

 

[Tom Horn]

actually the case is not contingent on that what so ever

Good lord.....I'm dismayed that two supposed conservatives can't fucking read.

 

[bripat9643]

actually the case is not contingent on that what so ever

Good lord.....I'm dismayed that two supposed conservatives can't fucking read.

They can read just fine, and they are right, the case isn't contingent on whether the server was hacked. However, that would make it much worse in the eyes of the public.

 

[Tom Horn]

They can read just fine, and they are right, the case isn't contingent on whether the server was hacked. However, that would make it much worse in the eyes of the public.

Oh boy....a third conservative with limited reading ability. I haven't said the lack of a hack (rhyme) affects the "contingency" of the case. If it were hacked she could be charged with espionage and shot.........CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

 

[bripat9643]

They can read just fine, and they are right, the case isn't contingent on whether the server was hacked. However, that would make it much worse in the eyes of the public.

Oh boy....a third conservative with limited reading ability. I haven't said the lack of a hack (rhyme) affects the "contingency" of the case. If it were hacked she could be charged with espionage and shot.........CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW?

Whether it was hacked has no bearing on whether she is guilty of espionage. She's responsible for what she did, not what some third party does.

You really don't know the first thing about the law, do you?