Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why are you apparently the only one in the world that does not know this stuff?there you go, making stuff up again...she did not cooperate, wiping the server is destroying evidence, thats illegal, the FBI has uncovered close to 1500 documents (the last number I hear, could be more now) that would have been classified, some too damaging to the country to release.sureexactly what did I make up? Please be specific.so you are clearly just willing to make shit up after being shown to be either a liar or badly misinformed.Hillary knowingly sent classified documents 30,000 or so to her unsecured server,
that's absolutely not true. the number of emails considered classified is much, much lower. none were sent by clinton, and most information considered classified was retroactively labeled as such.Hillary knowingly sent classified documents 30,000 or so to her unsecured serve
she has cooperated, and wiping her servers was not illegal nor can you definitively say that it destroyed evidenceshe is not cooperating and actually destroyed evidence when she wiped her servers
and did you not claim that Gen. Petraeus went to prison?
and although Petraeus ended up with probation and a 100,000 dollar fine, the results would keep him from running.
So if 1 document that he claimed he carried out by mistake is enough for that, what would you say the punishment for removing security headers from documents then sending them to a private server should be.
And we can speculate on why those documents were sent in the first place, what were her intentions. Obviously if she wanted them just so only she could read them, she could have done that from her office in DC.
this is what you made upWhy are you apparently the only one in the world that does not know this stuff?there you go, making stuff up again...she did not cooperate, wiping the server is destroying evidence, thats illegal, the FBI has uncovered close to 1500 documents (the last number I hear, could be more now) that would have been classified, some too damaging to the country to release.sureexactly what did I make up? Please be specific.so you are clearly just willing to make shit up after being shown to be either a liar or badly misinformed.
that's absolutely not true. the number of emails considered classified is much, much lower. none were sent by clinton, and most information considered classified was retroactively labeled as such.Hillary knowingly sent classified documents 30,000 or so to her unsecured serve
she has cooperated, and wiping her servers was not illegal nor can you definitively say that it destroyed evidenceshe is not cooperating and actually destroyed evidence when she wiped her servers
and did you not claim that Gen. Petraeus went to prison?
and although Petraeus ended up with probation and a 100,000 dollar fine, the results would keep him from running.
So if 1 document that he claimed he carried out by mistake is enough for that, what would you say the punishment for removing security headers from documents then sending them to a private server should be.
And we can speculate on why those documents were sent in the first place, what were her intentions. Obviously if she wanted them just so only she could read them, she could have done that from her office in DC.
are you blind? do you not see the news? do you have a pair of hillarys used and unwashed panties on your head covering your ears and eyes.
petraeus did not make claims about carrying out one document by mistake, and you are speculating about anyone removing security headersSo if 1 document that he claimed he carried out by mistake is enough for that, what would you say the punishment for removing security headers from documents then sending them to a private server should be.
Senator: Newly released Clinton email "disturbing" - CNNPolitics.comthis is what you made upWhy are you apparently the only one in the world that does not know this stuff?there you go, making stuff up again...she did not cooperate, wiping the server is destroying evidence, thats illegal, the FBI has uncovered close to 1500 documents (the last number I hear, could be more now) that would have been classified, some too damaging to the country to release.sureexactly what did I make up? Please be specific.
that's absolutely not true. the number of emails considered classified is much, much lower. none were sent by clinton, and most information considered classified was retroactively labeled as such.Hillary knowingly sent classified documents 30,000 or so to her unsecured serve
she has cooperated, and wiping her servers was not illegal nor can you definitively say that it destroyed evidenceshe is not cooperating and actually destroyed evidence when she wiped her servers
and did you not claim that Gen. Petraeus went to prison?
and although Petraeus ended up with probation and a 100,000 dollar fine, the results would keep him from running.
So if 1 document that he claimed he carried out by mistake is enough for that, what would you say the punishment for removing security headers from documents then sending them to a private server should be.
And we can speculate on why those documents were sent in the first place, what were her intentions. Obviously if she wanted them just so only she could read them, she could have done that from her office in DC.
are you blind? do you not see the news? do you have a pair of hillarys used and unwashed panties on your head covering your ears and eyes.
petraeus did not make claims about carrying out one document by mistake, and you are speculating about anyone removing security headersSo if 1 document that he claimed he carried out by mistake is enough for that, what would you say the punishment for removing security headers from documents then sending them to a private server should be.
now what would chuck grassley have to gain by making wild accusations against the democratic front runner...Senator: Newly released Clinton email "disturbing" - CNNPolitics.comthis is what you made upWhy are you apparently the only one in the world that does not know this stuff?there you go, making stuff up again...she did not cooperate, wiping the server is destroying evidence, thats illegal, the FBI has uncovered close to 1500 documents (the last number I hear, could be more now) that would have been classified, some too damaging to the country to release.sure
that's absolutely not true. the number of emails considered classified is much, much lower. none were sent by clinton, and most information considered classified was retroactively labeled as such.
she has cooperated, and wiping her servers was not illegal nor can you definitively say that it destroyed evidence
and did you not claim that Gen. Petraeus went to prison?
and although Petraeus ended up with probation and a 100,000 dollar fine, the results would keep him from running.
So if 1 document that he claimed he carried out by mistake is enough for that, what would you say the punishment for removing security headers from documents then sending them to a private server should be.
And we can speculate on why those documents were sent in the first place, what were her intentions. Obviously if she wanted them just so only she could read them, she could have done that from her office in DC.
are you blind? do you not see the news? do you have a pair of hillarys used and unwashed panties on your head covering your ears and eyes.
petraeus did not make claims about carrying out one document by mistake, and you are speculating about anyone removing security headersSo if 1 document that he claimed he carried out by mistake is enough for that, what would you say the punishment for removing security headers from documents then sending them to a private server should be.
Please do educate yourself before showing yourself as an uninformed poster.
Joe, I followed the first link in mud's post. It says that the NYPost says that Tom Delay says that the FBI says it will indict Hillary, according to Tom's buddies in the FBI.The FBI can't hand down indictments.
They can make recommendations, but utlimately, it's the AG who had to make the determination if a case is 1) Worth pursuing or 2) Winnable.
Sorry, any case against Hillary isn't winnable. there are people out there who will vote to acquit her if you had video of her handing a briefcase full of secrets to Putin, much less the horrible crime of not using the right kind of e-mail (OMFG!!!!)
The only purpose of filing such a case would be to damage her chances of winning, but frankly, the GOP is pretty much wrapping it up for her by nominating a Reality TV Rodeo Clown.
Not really, although the information is out there. I see no reason in discussing facts with someone that refuses to admit they are wrong.now what would chuck grassley have to gain by making wild accusations against the democratic front runner...Senator: Newly released Clinton email "disturbing" - CNNPolitics.comthis is what you made upWhy are you apparently the only one in the world that does not know this stuff?there you go, making stuff up again...she did not cooperate, wiping the server is destroying evidence, thats illegal, the FBI has uncovered close to 1500 documents (the last number I hear, could be more now) that would have been classified, some too damaging to the country to release.
and although Petraeus ended up with probation and a 100,000 dollar fine, the results would keep him from running.
So if 1 document that he claimed he carried out by mistake is enough for that, what would you say the punishment for removing security headers from documents then sending them to a private server should be.
And we can speculate on why those documents were sent in the first place, what were her intentions. Obviously if she wanted them just so only she could read them, she could have done that from her office in DC.
are you blind? do you not see the news? do you have a pair of hillarys used and unwashed panties on your head covering your ears and eyes.
petraeus did not make claims about carrying out one document by mistake, and you are speculating about anyone removing security headersSo if 1 document that he claimed he carried out by mistake is enough for that, what would you say the punishment for removing security headers from documents then sending them to a private server should be.
Please do educate yourself before showing yourself as an uninformed poster.
he's speculating just as you were. do you care to address the stuff you made up about petraeus?
lol. i have pointed out specific instances where you have either lied or made stuff up and you have the gall to say that i won't admit when I'm wrong?Not really, although the information is out there. I see no reason in discussing facts with someone that refuses to admit they are wrong.now what would chuck grassley have to gain by making wild accusations against the democratic front runner...Senator: Newly released Clinton email "disturbing" - CNNPolitics.comthis is what you made upWhy are you apparently the only one in the world that does not know this stuff?there you go, making stuff up again...
are you blind? do you not see the news? do you have a pair of hillarys used and unwashed panties on your head covering your ears and eyes.
petraeus did not make claims about carrying out one document by mistake, and you are speculating about anyone removing security headersSo if 1 document that he claimed he carried out by mistake is enough for that, what would you say the punishment for removing security headers from documents then sending them to a private server should be.
Please do educate yourself before showing yourself as an uninformed poster.
he's speculating just as you were. do you care to address the stuff you made up about petraeus?
move on, you don't even believe articles from CNN if they don't align with what you want to think.lol. i have pointed out specific instances where you have either lied or made stuff up and you have the gall to say that i won't admit when I'm wrong?Not really, although the information is out there. I see no reason in discussing facts with someone that refuses to admit they are wrong.now what would chuck grassley have to gain by making wild accusations against the democratic front runner...Senator: Newly released Clinton email "disturbing" - CNNPolitics.comthis is what you made upWhy are you apparently the only one in the world that does not know this stuff?
are you blind? do you not see the news? do you have a pair of hillarys used and unwashed panties on your head covering your ears and eyes.
petraeus did not make claims about carrying out one document by mistake, and you are speculating about anyone removing security headersSo if 1 document that he claimed he carried out by mistake is enough for that, what would you say the punishment for removing security headers from documents then sending them to a private server should be.
Please do educate yourself before showing yourself as an uninformed poster.
he's speculating just as you were. do you care to address the stuff you made up about petraeus?
what do you think I was wrong about?
all of this is lies,Probably means a Grand Jury has already been convened and subpoenas have been issued allowing the FBI to collect phone records, files, and other data on individuals, such as Pagliano - who just agreed to accept immunity in exchange for testimony. I seriously doubt, however, that Obama / Lynch would allow any Indictment of Hillary Clinton to go forward.
Here's an interesting read on the growing difficulty of an Indictment based on Hillary's continued nomination wins:
Hillary's Victories Mean Painful Legal Choices for DOJ, WH | RealClearPolitics
Hillary basically had to win or 'die', meaning if she would have fallen flat and been seriously behind she probably would have faced an indictment. Being the DNC's top candidate, it will be hard for Obama / Lynch to allow her to take a fall. I don't think there are any 'painful legal choice' in regards to making this decision.... I think it will be extremely easy for Obama and Lynch to protect Hillary from an Indictment.
lol. you can't see that the cnn article was about chuck grassley being 'disturbed' by an email but not about any emails actually having their security headers removed.move on, you don't even believe articles from CNN if they don't align with what you want to think.lol. i have pointed out specific instances where you have either lied or made stuff up and you have the gall to say that i won't admit when I'm wrong?Not really, although the information is out there. I see no reason in discussing facts with someone that refuses to admit they are wrong.now what would chuck grassley have to gain by making wild accusations against the democratic front runner...Senator: Newly released Clinton email "disturbing" - CNNPolitics.comthis is what you made up
petraeus did not make claims about carrying out one document by mistake, and you are speculating about anyone removing security headers
Please do educate yourself before showing yourself as an uninformed poster.
he's speculating just as you were. do you care to address the stuff you made up about petraeus?
what do you think I was wrong about?
There is really no sense in trying to discuss anything with you.
no, i know you are lying and speculating. you have done so several times in tbis thread. how many classified emails did you claim hillary sent? 30,000. that's a lie. you claimed david petraeus went to prison. lie. you claimed he said he accidentally removed one document. lie.all of this is lies,Probably means a Grand Jury has already been convened and subpoenas have been issued allowing the FBI to collect phone records, files, and other data on individuals, such as Pagliano - who just agreed to accept immunity in exchange for testimony. I seriously doubt, however, that Obama / Lynch would allow any Indictment of Hillary Clinton to go forward.
Here's an interesting read on the growing difficulty of an Indictment based on Hillary's continued nomination wins:
Hillary's Victories Mean Painful Legal Choices for DOJ, WH | RealClearPolitics
Hillary basically had to win or 'die', meaning if she would have fallen flat and been seriously behind she probably would have faced an indictment. Being the DNC's top candidate, it will be hard for Obama / Lynch to allow her to take a fall. I don't think there are any 'painful legal choice' in regards to making this decision.... I think it will be extremely easy for Obama and Lynch to protect Hillary from an Indictment.
ask olibillm. he knows the truth and he knows that every media outlet is lying and speculating
...ummm, Hillary DID destroy evidence. The FBI recovered hundreds (if not more) e-mails Hillary had wiped from her server, claiming they were only 'personal ' e-mails yet turned out to contain classified / highly classified information...your speculation is rampant, starting with the idea that clinton isn't cooperating and that she destroyed evidence.
evidence of?...ummm, Hillary DID destroy evidence. The FBI recovered hundreds (if not more) e-mails Hillary had wiped from her server, claiming they were only 'personal ' e-mails yet turned out to contain classified / highly classified information...your speculation is rampant, starting with the idea that clinton isn't cooperating and that she destroyed evidence.
why would anyone spend time showing you evidence, you refuse to read it.evidence of?...ummm, Hillary DID destroy evidence. The FBI recovered hundreds (if not more) e-mails Hillary had wiped from her server, claiming they were only 'personal ' e-mails yet turned out to contain classified / highly classified information...your speculation is rampant, starting with the idea that clinton isn't cooperating and that she destroyed evidence.
Recommendation is too long to put in the title. So I simply used handed down to shorten the title.The FBI can't hand down indictments.
They can make recommendations, but utlimately, it's the AG who had to make the determination if a case is 1) Worth pursuing or 2) Winnable.
Sorry, any case against Hillary isn't winnable. there are people out there who will vote to acquit her if you had video of her handing a briefcase full of secrets to Putin, much less the horrible crime of not using the right kind of e-mail (OMFG!!!!)
The only purpose of filing such a case would be to damage her chances of winning, but frankly, the GOP is pretty much wrapping it up for her by nominating a Reality TV Rodeo Clown.
And the only reason the FBI would recommend an indictment in an Obama FBI is if there was grounds for an indictment.
The only reason an indictment recommendation would be refused is because of political pressure from the White House, which is a refusal by the president to enforce the law. A breaking of his oath of office.
can you address the lies you posted?why would anyone spend time showing you evidence, you refuse to read it.evidence of?...ummm, Hillary DID destroy evidence. The FBI recovered hundreds (if not more) e-mails Hillary had wiped from her server, claiming they were only 'personal ' e-mails yet turned out to contain classified / highly classified information...your speculation is rampant, starting with the idea that clinton isn't cooperating and that she destroyed evidence.
How about you just take a break and do some research to catch up on the last few years.
did you just awaken from a coma? if so I almost feel sorry for pointing out your lack of knowledge in these things.
'retroactively being marked classified' - Afraid not. For example, the link has already been posted numerous times showing how 22 e-mails Extremely classified - MARKED (att) - documents were found in her e-mail, so classified that the WH declared them to be too classified to be released in ANY capacity. They also had an aide testify that stripping the marking off documents to fax them via un-classified ways was NOT unusual.The issue is did she deal with email that was marked classified on her private server. To this point, it seems what is happening is some of the emails are retroactively being marked classified. And if that is the case, she will be the first woman President. Especially is Phrump is the GOP nominee.
