If Hillary is a crook, why...

[francoHFW]

All BS GOP propaganda, fools of the greedy idiot rich....

 

[francoHFW]

Because she's not guilty of anything but possible incompetence, dupe. Not hacked, none marked classified. You people are ridiculous and brainwashed...

Incompetent, what I've been saying from the beginning. There was no way she was ever going to be indicted. She's too powerful and knows where too many skeletons are buried. Extremely careless is enough for me to want her kept out of the White House.

So you're promoting a man with no respect, no honor, no dignity & the only loyalty he has shown anyone is to himself and Russia. A man that is currently involved in 3500 class action law suits over Trump University. The most incompetent, unqualified, dangerous candidate in this nations history.
Yes, Trump University Was a Massive Scam, by Ian Tuttle, National Review
Donald Trump is a unique threat to American democracy
A neuroscientist explains: Trump has a mental disorder that makes him a dangerous world leader

And all because of your 20 year spoon fed hate of Hillary Clinton, with enough conspiracy theories to fill the capital building from floor to ceiling, without ONE single thread of evidence to prove any guilt on any one of them.

Bravo--you're a true Patriot of this country.

Hitlery is the most dangerous ever....even worse than the Barrypuppet...hands down.

This ^^^ is one of the most childish idiot-grams to date.

She is a globalist and a crook. She is thicker than thieves with the very .01 percent you leftard morons claim to be so against. Seriously, your type of "stupid" should be declared a mental illness.

There's the 0.1% for raising their own taxes for the good of the country, and there are scumbag GOP 0.1%ers who've brainwashed you, dupe.

 

[francoHFW]

Damn straight, GOP chumps...NADA

Good points. She is obviously clearly a smarter crook than Donald is a businessman. But then if she is THAT smart why is she still talking about those damned emails?

Because she's not guilty of anything but possible incompetence, dupe. Not hacked, none marked classified. You people are ridiculous and brainwashed...

Incompetent, what I've been saying from the beginning. There was no way she was ever going to be indicted. She's too powerful and knows where too many skeletons are buried. Extremely careless is enough for me to want her kept out of the White House.

What evidence do you have besides the partisan comments by the FBI Director that HRC is "incompetent"? Post it, or be forever known as nothing more than one more echo from the chamber of biddable fools.

What more is needed beside the non-partisan comments by the FBI Director? She was extremely careless but he decided not to indict her, but as you know, lesser mortals have been prosecuted for such carelessness. She was the Sec State, trained and responsible to mark classified information classified and handle it properly. This she did not do. The post to which I responded indicate that she could be guilty of incompetence. Have you issue with that as well?

As if she was in charge of computer security, dupe.

 

[OKTexas]

Damn straight, GOP chumps...NADA

Very TRUE:

Hillary Clinton How Dare You:

Let me be as candid and transparent as possible: I was a very strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, and until the past four weeks, held out great hope that he would become our next President. Over the course of the past month, I have had to do a great deal of reflecting and ask myself where does this seemingly irrational antipathy for Hillary Clinton come from? Why have I participated in it? After doing some research and looking hard at systemic misogyny, I have had to confront myself with the truth that I bought into a narrative about Hillary Clinton that has been produced, packaged, and perpetuated by mostly the GOP with the help of many democrats and independents.

This narrative is a 30-year-old vilification of a woman who is bright, independent, wealthy, and powerful — a woman who asks for what she wants and needs. How very dare you, Ms. Clinton? How dare you have a mind of your own? How dare you be bright and powerful? How dare you ask for what you want and need? Don’t you know these rights are still exclusively for white, Christian, cisgender, able-bodied, heterosexual men?

My research indicates that the reality — the facts (I realize facts are immaterial when talking to many Trump supporters) — are that Hillary Clinton is one of the most honest politicians tracked by the Pulitzer Prize winning fact-checking project Politifact. I would also call upon Jill Abramson’s piece in the Guardian. Most of you probably know Abramson from the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times. Abramson writes:

As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

Members of the press, in their misguided attempt to be “balanced”, love to point out that we face a presidential contest between the two least-popular candidates ever. What they fail to do is analyze their own complicity in blindly adhering to the cartoon version of Hillary Clinton. Trump is unpopular — even with many Republicans who weakly support him — because of his stated positions. Secretary Clinton is unpopular largely because of an aggressive campaign of fictions and slander. That campaign has succeeded largely because of systemic misogyny.

Journalist Michael Arnovitz points out in his article Thinking About Hillary–A Plea for Reason (I strongly recommend his piece) that propaganda around Hillary’s “dishonest” nature stems from the pablum written by conservative writer William (I can’t be concerned with facts or evidence) Safire. Safire wrote the 1996 article Blizzard of Lies in which he vilifies and demonizes Hillary as a “congenital liar” without any evidence to support his claims. (How’s that for irony?) What I find profoundly sad is how quickly and how easily I — and so many Americans — bought into this false and misogynistic narrative. This tragically illustrates how systemic sexism/misogyny is: how it is in the water we drink, the air we breathe, in every fiber we wear.

In fact, most of the resistance to Hillary initially was about how “smug” she was in pushing that “Universal Health Care” agenda. How dare she want all people to have health insurance–why that means that health care is a community health problem–there she goes again, with a mind of her own! Furthermore, apparently she was not behaving as a First Lady should. What the hell is that? How should a First Lady behave? The intense misogyny is too overwhelming to ignore here, and sadly, we are all implicated in this system of oppression. Just this past June, Hillary was shredded by the media for the Armani jacket she wore. Really? The day she was announced as the Democratic Nominee for President, it was a picture of her husband that made the front page of the paper. This is some intense sexism at work. Did anyone ask what Bill Clinton was wearing and who designed it?

Sadly, any time there is a claim of sexism at play, people roll their eyes as though such a thing does not exist, because women, women of color, people of color, LGBT folk, all of the intersecting identities of all targeted communities are always under suspicion. We are disbelieved disproportionately for asking to be treated the same way our white, heterosexual, Christian, cisgender counterparts are treated. All of a sudden being treated equally becomes “special rights.” So say those within the dominant narrative and power structure.

While I have never been a fan of David Brooks, he actually was able to offer some reflection and repair work on Friday’s NPR commentary with E.J. Dionne. Brooks made the claim that Hillary is too guarded (why wouldn’t she be?). Kudos to E.J. Dionne for pointing out the double standard to Brooks, that he would not make the same claim about a male candidate for President. Brooks connected and agreed that this was a sexist statement.

What I find profoundly sad is the blatant double standard of how we individually and collectively punish women who seek power, as opposed to how we reward men for the same ambition. As Arnovitz notes in his article:
Dear Hillary: How Very Dare You!

So why is it this honest bitch violated federal records keeping laws and no one seems to care? And that's just one of her lesser offenses.

Bureaucratic bs...no, nobody cares.

Just another example of regressives not caring about the criminality of their own, fucking hypocrites.

After 500 million taxpayer dollars spent on the Clinton's you have come up with NOTHING. The 8th investigation of Benghazi--in comparison to Reagan where he lost 240 U.S. marines in Lebanon resulted in 1 investigation and it was over. Clearly it's been nothing more than a Reich wing dog and pony show for nothing more than political gain--and the 8th investigation cost the taxpayers 7 million dollars.

It couldn't be better stated than this:

"Herein lies a lesson for Republicans who are perpetually trying to appease the far right: It’s a fool’s errand. They went to the tea party – and now they’re taking Donald Trump to the prom. Likewise, then-House Speaker John Boehner named the Benghazi committee because activists were dissatisfied that seven previous congressional investigations had failed to uncover major scandal material. Now an eighth has produced more of the same – and the agitators are as agitated as ever."
With Clinton exonerated, conspiracy theorists turn on Trey Gowdy

Emails the same thing. You can look on this board right now, and you'll see more threads about email conspiracy's more Benghazi statements.

It's not about Hillary Clinton per se, it's much more about the 1st woman President of the United States that you can't stand the thought of.

I wish I had you capacity to ignore reality, are you saying she didn't even violate State Dept email policies and federal records keeping laws?

 

[OKTexas]

The question has been asked over and over and not one of the posters who have called her a crook is able to respond, and tell us when she was arraigned, the nature of the charges, if she pled guilty, or was found guilty by a jury or the judge, the disposition / punishment (probation, prison, county jail, wrist slap, having lunch with Rudy Giuliani)?

I have spent hours investigating liar lair crooked Hillary claims, and there is nothing there but accusations, assumptions, and fantasies from whitewatergate, cardgate, filegate, BengaziGate, to emailgate. It's all nonsense. For what would pass as a minor incident or honest mistake by most politicians is turned into a hanging offence by Republicans.

You're either as incompetent as the hildabitch or just as big liar. Comey laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence in his press conference, that's all that's required under current statute for a conviction. Intent is NOT a required element to convict. Then in his congressional testimony he agreed with Gowdy that she displayed characteristics of intent.

Mens rea: the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.

Comey is a Republican who acknowledged the FBI used due diligence in their finding that no crime had been committed. His editorial comments were the usual, a partisan Republican character assassination, aka calumny, and should not be taken seriously.

Bullshit, she knew what she was doing was wrong, personal convenience is not an excuse to ignore aids that were telling her to use her state.gov email. It was set up for her and never used. State also briefed her on their classification policies about emails generated at the State Dept., she ignored that also. Probably 60% of the email she generated was automatically classified by the State Dept. Any correspondence with a foreign official, classified, any correspondence containing personal identifying information, classified. So don't give me this shit, she didn't know, she just didn't care, she was a Clinton she wrote her own rules. BTW she also ignored the State Dept. policies to CC the State Dept archivist on every work related email sent outside the state.gov system, in order to comply with federal records keeping laws. If all these facts plus many more I could name didn't demonstrate intent, nothing is adequate to do so.

Please post the policies which she signed off on which you claim support your conclusion that she is guilty and must prove her innocence. Oh, and is that the principle for justice in Texas? Most (real) Americans believe in innocent until proven guilty.

BTW, you completely ignored the principle of Mens Rea, I guess Texas Law is pretty simple to administer.

Watch the Gowdy questioning of Comey, C-Span version so you can't claim it's edited.

 

[francoHFW]

Very TRUE:

Hillary Clinton How Dare You:

Let me be as candid and transparent as possible: I was a very strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, and until the past four weeks, held out great hope that he would become our next President. Over the course of the past month, I have had to do a great deal of reflecting and ask myself where does this seemingly irrational antipathy for Hillary Clinton come from? Why have I participated in it? After doing some research and looking hard at systemic misogyny, I have had to confront myself with the truth that I bought into a narrative about Hillary Clinton that has been produced, packaged, and perpetuated by mostly the GOP with the help of many democrats and independents.

This narrative is a 30-year-old vilification of a woman who is bright, independent, wealthy, and powerful — a woman who asks for what she wants and needs. How very dare you, Ms. Clinton? How dare you have a mind of your own? How dare you be bright and powerful? How dare you ask for what you want and need? Don’t you know these rights are still exclusively for white, Christian, cisgender, able-bodied, heterosexual men?

My research indicates that the reality — the facts (I realize facts are immaterial when talking to many Trump supporters) — are that Hillary Clinton is one of the most honest politicians tracked by the Pulitzer Prize winning fact-checking project Politifact. I would also call upon Jill Abramson’s piece in the Guardian. Most of you probably know Abramson from the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times. Abramson writes:

As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

Members of the press, in their misguided attempt to be “balanced”, love to point out that we face a presidential contest between the two least-popular candidates ever. What they fail to do is analyze their own complicity in blindly adhering to the cartoon version of Hillary Clinton. Trump is unpopular — even with many Republicans who weakly support him — because of his stated positions. Secretary Clinton is unpopular largely because of an aggressive campaign of fictions and slander. That campaign has succeeded largely because of systemic misogyny.

Journalist Michael Arnovitz points out in his article Thinking About Hillary–A Plea for Reason (I strongly recommend his piece) that propaganda around Hillary’s “dishonest” nature stems from the pablum written by conservative writer William (I can’t be concerned with facts or evidence) Safire. Safire wrote the 1996 article Blizzard of Lies in which he vilifies and demonizes Hillary as a “congenital liar” without any evidence to support his claims. (How’s that for irony?) What I find profoundly sad is how quickly and how easily I — and so many Americans — bought into this false and misogynistic narrative. This tragically illustrates how systemic sexism/misogyny is: how it is in the water we drink, the air we breathe, in every fiber we wear.

In fact, most of the resistance to Hillary initially was about how “smug” she was in pushing that “Universal Health Care” agenda. How dare she want all people to have health insurance–why that means that health care is a community health problem–there she goes again, with a mind of her own! Furthermore, apparently she was not behaving as a First Lady should. What the hell is that? How should a First Lady behave? The intense misogyny is too overwhelming to ignore here, and sadly, we are all implicated in this system of oppression. Just this past June, Hillary was shredded by the media for the Armani jacket she wore. Really? The day she was announced as the Democratic Nominee for President, it was a picture of her husband that made the front page of the paper. This is some intense sexism at work. Did anyone ask what Bill Clinton was wearing and who designed it?

Sadly, any time there is a claim of sexism at play, people roll their eyes as though such a thing does not exist, because women, women of color, people of color, LGBT folk, all of the intersecting identities of all targeted communities are always under suspicion. We are disbelieved disproportionately for asking to be treated the same way our white, heterosexual, Christian, cisgender counterparts are treated. All of a sudden being treated equally becomes “special rights.” So say those within the dominant narrative and power structure.

While I have never been a fan of David Brooks, he actually was able to offer some reflection and repair work on Friday’s NPR commentary with E.J. Dionne. Brooks made the claim that Hillary is too guarded (why wouldn’t she be?). Kudos to E.J. Dionne for pointing out the double standard to Brooks, that he would not make the same claim about a male candidate for President. Brooks connected and agreed that this was a sexist statement.

What I find profoundly sad is the blatant double standard of how we individually and collectively punish women who seek power, as opposed to how we reward men for the same ambition. As Arnovitz notes in his article:
Dear Hillary: How Very Dare You!

So why is it this honest bitch violated federal records keeping laws and no one seems to care? And that's just one of her lesser offenses.

Bureaucratic bs...no, nobody cares.

Just another example of regressives not caring about the criminality of their own, fucking hypocrites.

After 500 million taxpayer dollars spent on the Clinton's you have come up with NOTHING. The 8th investigation of Benghazi--in comparison to Reagan where he lost 240 U.S. marines in Lebanon resulted in 1 investigation and it was over. Clearly it's been nothing more than a Reich wing dog and pony show for nothing more than political gain--and the 8th investigation cost the taxpayers 7 million dollars.

It couldn't be better stated than this:

"Herein lies a lesson for Republicans who are perpetually trying to appease the far right: It’s a fool’s errand. They went to the tea party – and now they’re taking Donald Trump to the prom. Likewise, then-House Speaker John Boehner named the Benghazi committee because activists were dissatisfied that seven previous congressional investigations had failed to uncover major scandal material. Now an eighth has produced more of the same – and the agitators are as agitated as ever."
With Clinton exonerated, conspiracy theorists turn on Trey Gowdy

Emails the same thing. You can look on this board right now, and you'll see more threads about email conspiracy's more Benghazi statements.

It's not about Hillary Clinton per se, it's much more about the 1st woman President of the United States that you can't stand the thought of.

I wish I had you capacity to ignore reality, are you saying she didn't even violate State Dept email policies and federal records keeping laws?

Like Colin and Condi? ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

 

[OKTexas]

So why is it this honest bitch violated federal records keeping laws and no one seems to care? And that's just one of her lesser offenses.

Bureaucratic bs...no, nobody cares.

Just another example of regressives not caring about the criminality of their own, fucking hypocrites.

After 500 million taxpayer dollars spent on the Clinton's you have come up with NOTHING. The 8th investigation of Benghazi--in comparison to Reagan where he lost 240 U.S. marines in Lebanon resulted in 1 investigation and it was over. Clearly it's been nothing more than a Reich wing dog and pony show for nothing more than political gain--and the 8th investigation cost the taxpayers 7 million dollars.

It couldn't be better stated than this:

"Herein lies a lesson for Republicans who are perpetually trying to appease the far right: It’s a fool’s errand. They went to the tea party – and now they’re taking Donald Trump to the prom. Likewise, then-House Speaker John Boehner named the Benghazi committee because activists were dissatisfied that seven previous congressional investigations had failed to uncover major scandal material. Now an eighth has produced more of the same – and the agitators are as agitated as ever."
With Clinton exonerated, conspiracy theorists turn on Trey Gowdy

Emails the same thing. You can look on this board right now, and you'll see more threads about email conspiracy's more Benghazi statements.

It's not about Hillary Clinton per se, it's much more about the 1st woman President of the United States that you can't stand the thought of.

You're a damn fool, did Reagan deny 600 requests for additional security in Lebanon?

Ha.Ha. again that was explained in a rational manner during the 8th investigation--during the 11 hours of congressional testimony.

And this is verified by the CIA agents that were on the ground fighting this battle.

1. Chris Stevens showed up in Benghazi on the 10th of September and was killed the folllowing day the 11th of September. Hillary Clinton didn't even know he was there, he was supposed to be 400 miles away in a Secure embassy in Tripoli. Stevens took it upon himself, and against the advice of the CIA to rent an un secure villa.

2. The requests for more security in Libya was actually denied by House Republicans do to budget shortfalls and cuts. Republicans as the majority hold the purse strings.

3. During the same time period, 3 other U.S. Embassies were being raided over the VIDEO--so initially they believed Bengazi was over the same issue. That is also verified.

I know you know this crap--because every Reich winger would have stormed the movie theaters to see the movie (13 hours) which was written by those CIA agents that were fighting the battle in Benghazi. You're just blathering Mr. Talent on loan from Gawwwd-d and all the other Reich wing talk show hosts you listen to that frankly, have fed you a lot of bullshit.

MORE FUCKING REGRESSIVE LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Charlene Lamb, the security specialist responsible for Libya, testified to congress that budget had nothing to do with security decisions. She was instructed to reduce security by her bosses to create a more normal appearance. A desire for normalcy got those people killed, nothing else. I suggest you look up her testimony and watch it, then you won't look so fucking stupid.

 

[Flopper]

Damn straight, GOP chumps...NADA

I have been saying it a million times Hillary is a master criminal, Al Capone is laughing in his grave at how crooked and smart she is to pulled it off so far

You can say it another million times but that does not make it so.

 

[OKTexas]

Damn straight, GOP chumps...NADA

Good points. She is obviously clearly a smarter crook than Donald is a businessman. But then if she is THAT smart why is she still talking about those damned emails?

Because she's not guilty of anything but possible incompetence, dupe. Not hacked, none marked classified. You people are ridiculous and brainwashed...

Incompetent, what I've been saying from the beginning. There was no way she was ever going to be indicted. She's too powerful and knows where too many skeletons are buried. Extremely careless is enough for me to want her kept out of the White House.

What evidence do you have besides the partisan comments by the FBI Director that HRC is "incompetent"? Post it, or be forever known as nothing more than one more echo from the chamber of biddable fools.

See post #121.

 

[oreo]

Very TRUE:

Hillary Clinton How Dare You:

Let me be as candid and transparent as possible: I was a very strong supporter of Bernie Sanders, and until the past four weeks, held out great hope that he would become our next President. Over the course of the past month, I have had to do a great deal of reflecting and ask myself where does this seemingly irrational antipathy for Hillary Clinton come from? Why have I participated in it? After doing some research and looking hard at systemic misogyny, I have had to confront myself with the truth that I bought into a narrative about Hillary Clinton that has been produced, packaged, and perpetuated by mostly the GOP with the help of many democrats and independents.

This narrative is a 30-year-old vilification of a woman who is bright, independent, wealthy, and powerful — a woman who asks for what she wants and needs. How very dare you, Ms. Clinton? How dare you have a mind of your own? How dare you be bright and powerful? How dare you ask for what you want and need? Don’t you know these rights are still exclusively for white, Christian, cisgender, able-bodied, heterosexual men?

My research indicates that the reality — the facts (I realize facts are immaterial when talking to many Trump supporters) — are that Hillary Clinton is one of the most honest politicians tracked by the Pulitzer Prize winning fact-checking project Politifact. I would also call upon Jill Abramson’s piece in the Guardian. Most of you probably know Abramson from the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times. Abramson writes:

As an editor I’ve launched investigations into her business dealings, her fundraising, her foundation and her marriage. As a reporter my stories stretch back to Whitewater. I’m not a favorite in Hillaryland. That makes what I want to say next surprising. Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy.

Members of the press, in their misguided attempt to be “balanced”, love to point out that we face a presidential contest between the two least-popular candidates ever. What they fail to do is analyze their own complicity in blindly adhering to the cartoon version of Hillary Clinton. Trump is unpopular — even with many Republicans who weakly support him — because of his stated positions. Secretary Clinton is unpopular largely because of an aggressive campaign of fictions and slander. That campaign has succeeded largely because of systemic misogyny.

Journalist Michael Arnovitz points out in his article Thinking About Hillary–A Plea for Reason (I strongly recommend his piece) that propaganda around Hillary’s “dishonest” nature stems from the pablum written by conservative writer William (I can’t be concerned with facts or evidence) Safire. Safire wrote the 1996 article Blizzard of Lies in which he vilifies and demonizes Hillary as a “congenital liar” without any evidence to support his claims. (How’s that for irony?) What I find profoundly sad is how quickly and how easily I — and so many Americans — bought into this false and misogynistic narrative. This tragically illustrates how systemic sexism/misogyny is: how it is in the water we drink, the air we breathe, in every fiber we wear.

In fact, most of the resistance to Hillary initially was about how “smug” she was in pushing that “Universal Health Care” agenda. How dare she want all people to have health insurance–why that means that health care is a community health problem–there she goes again, with a mind of her own! Furthermore, apparently she was not behaving as a First Lady should. What the hell is that? How should a First Lady behave? The intense misogyny is too overwhelming to ignore here, and sadly, we are all implicated in this system of oppression. Just this past June, Hillary was shredded by the media for the Armani jacket she wore. Really? The day she was announced as the Democratic Nominee for President, it was a picture of her husband that made the front page of the paper. This is some intense sexism at work. Did anyone ask what Bill Clinton was wearing and who designed it?

Sadly, any time there is a claim of sexism at play, people roll their eyes as though such a thing does not exist, because women, women of color, people of color, LGBT folk, all of the intersecting identities of all targeted communities are always under suspicion. We are disbelieved disproportionately for asking to be treated the same way our white, heterosexual, Christian, cisgender counterparts are treated. All of a sudden being treated equally becomes “special rights.” So say those within the dominant narrative and power structure.

While I have never been a fan of David Brooks, he actually was able to offer some reflection and repair work on Friday’s NPR commentary with E.J. Dionne. Brooks made the claim that Hillary is too guarded (why wouldn’t she be?). Kudos to E.J. Dionne for pointing out the double standard to Brooks, that he would not make the same claim about a male candidate for President. Brooks connected and agreed that this was a sexist statement.

What I find profoundly sad is the blatant double standard of how we individually and collectively punish women who seek power, as opposed to how we reward men for the same ambition. As Arnovitz notes in his article:
Dear Hillary: How Very Dare You!

So why is it this honest bitch violated federal records keeping laws and no one seems to care? And that's just one of her lesser offenses.

Bureaucratic bs...no, nobody cares.

Just another example of regressives not caring about the criminality of their own, fucking hypocrites.

After 500 million taxpayer dollars spent on the Clinton's you have come up with NOTHING. The 8th investigation of Benghazi--in comparison to Reagan where he lost 240 U.S. marines in Lebanon resulted in 1 investigation and it was over. Clearly it's been nothing more than a Reich wing dog and pony show for nothing more than political gain--and the 8th investigation cost the taxpayers 7 million dollars.

It couldn't be better stated than this:

"Herein lies a lesson for Republicans who are perpetually trying to appease the far right: It’s a fool’s errand. They went to the tea party – and now they’re taking Donald Trump to the prom. Likewise, then-House Speaker John Boehner named the Benghazi committee because activists were dissatisfied that seven previous congressional investigations had failed to uncover major scandal material. Now an eighth has produced more of the same – and the agitators are as agitated as ever."
With Clinton exonerated, conspiracy theorists turn on Trey Gowdy

Emails the same thing. You can look on this board right now, and you'll see more threads about email conspiracy's more Benghazi statements.

It's not about Hillary Clinton per se, it's much more about the 1st woman President of the United States that you can't stand the thought of.

I wish I had you capacity to ignore reality, are you saying she didn't even violate State Dept email policies and federal records keeping laws?

She's admitted that setting up the server was wrong, and she was unaware that it was a problem, and has apologized for it time & time again. Furthermore, it was Senior IT staffer working at the State Department that set up and maintained her server. Now one would think that a Senior IT staffer working at the State Department would have known State Department protocol, & that it was wrong to set her up with one. I imagine he has set up several in the past and it never was an issue until now. Of course he was granted immunity to save his own ass.

You are aware that Colin Powell & Condi Rice, both former Secretary's of State on the Republican side of the isle had their own issues with emails, RIGHT? Or is it possible that FOX News and Rush Limbaugh never told you that-LOL
State Department: Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice staffers received classified info via personal email - CNNPolitics.com

The FBI said no criminal intent--so there will be no criminal charges. The FBI also gave a very good description between the cases of Hillary Clinton & 4 star General and director of the CIA, David Petraeus of why he was charged and she wasn't.
James Comey: David Petraeus case worse than Hillary Clinton's emails - CNNPolitics.com

And as far as those so-called secure government servers. Here are the ones that have been hacked so-far--and it may make your straight hair curl.
List of hacked government agencies grows: State Department, White House, NOAA & USPS

You know if you stay away from these Reich wing talk show hosts, and FOX News--and start reading and getting sources of information from links available to you at your fingertips, you will be very surprised how much you can learn in a short span of time.

 

[OKTexas]

Sure he should, it would have made you denial of gross negligence and incompetence a bit more plausible. Still not true, just more plausible.

Carelessness, you mean. So her ex NSA experts screwed up. She was the (60+) Sec of State, not the computer guys. The whole thing is bs...

Oh bullshit, Comey said NO REASONABLE PERSON IN HER POSITION WOULD HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS SHE DID ON AN INSECURE SYSTEM, didn't have a fucking thing to do with the computer guy. Now you're moving from the absurd to just silliness.

Actually what he said was, "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

He only stated that there was evidence. He rendered no opinion. You did. You jumped to the conclusion that since he said there was evidence then she was guilty without even knowing what that evidence was. This is understandable because you believed Hillary was liar and crook without every seeing the evidence

He also did not say specify that there was evidence that Clinton should have known that an unclassified system was no place for the conversation. He said Clinton or the government employees with whom she was corresponding should have known... Whether Clinton should have known depends on the construction of the conversation and whether Clinton saw the classified document. If Clinton never saw the classified document, then it is the person that sent it to her who should have know... Again you jump to a conclusion because of what you believe about Clinton.

The bottom line is if she had nothing to hide, she could have used the dot.gov website from anywhere in the world including from the comfort of her own home. If I were to be contacting a customer of the company I work for and instead of using my company e-mail addy, I were to use my Yahoo address because I wanted to make a "side deal" and didn't want a record of my e-mail being on the company server because it's a conflict of interest....would that be moral? You can't whitewash this nor can you justify what she did no matter how hard you all try.

You are starting with a conclusion that the reason for the private server was to hide information. However, from all the investigations, the problem centered around Clinton's insistence on using her Blackberry which was tethered to a private server. She had no problem having it connected to the secure network in the State Dept. Apparently the IT and Security folks did. She said, she just wanted to use a single device, namely the Blackberry or a similar device that Obama used and a single email address for both private and state department use. This she latter admitted was a mistake.

Yet Comey said she used multiple devices, the single device claim was another LIE.

 

[francoHFW]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...PLer2hsb_YwJ9DN_A&sig2=TXEFuEskj9HoRizhAdHYRw

 

[oreo]

Carelessness, you mean. So her ex NSA experts screwed up. She was the (60+) Sec of State, not the computer guys. The whole thing is bs...

Oh bullshit, Comey said NO REASONABLE PERSON IN HER POSITION WOULD HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS SHE DID ON AN INSECURE SYSTEM, didn't have a fucking thing to do with the computer guy. Now you're moving from the absurd to just silliness.

Actually what he said was, "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

He only stated that there was evidence. He rendered no opinion. You did. You jumped to the conclusion that since he said there was evidence then she was guilty without even knowing what that evidence was. This is understandable because you believed Hillary was liar and crook without every seeing the evidence

He also did not say specify that there was evidence that Clinton should have known that an unclassified system was no place for the conversation. He said Clinton or the government employees with whom she was corresponding should have known... Whether Clinton should have known depends on the construction of the conversation and whether Clinton saw the classified document. If Clinton never saw the classified document, then it is the person that sent it to her who should have know... Again you jump to a conclusion because of what you believe about Clinton.

The bottom line is if she had nothing to hide, she could have used the dot.gov website from anywhere in the world including from the comfort of her own home. If I were to be contacting a customer of the company I work for and instead of using my company e-mail addy, I were to use my Yahoo address because I wanted to make a "side deal" and didn't want a record of my e-mail being on the company server because it's a conflict of interest....would that be moral? You can't whitewash this nor can you justify what she did no matter how hard you all try.

You are starting with a conclusion that the reason for the private server was to hide information. However, from all the investigations, the problem centered around Clinton's insistence on using her Blackberry which was tethered to a private server. She had no problem having it connected to the secure network in the State Dept. Apparently the IT and Security folks did. She said, she just wanted to use a single device, namely the Blackberry or a similar device that Obama used and a single email address for both private and state department use. This she latter admitted was a mistake.

Yet Comey said she used multiple devices, the single device claim was another LIE.

You're on a big boy and big girl board here. If that is true you should be able to provide a link to that claim. If not it's considered BULLSHIT. Furthermore just like your server at home, you can access through computers, your cell phone, an I-pad, etc. etc. It's the server that is the issue.

 

[francoHFW]

Carelessness, you mean. So her ex NSA experts screwed up. She was the (60+) Sec of State, not the computer guys. The whole thing is bs...

Oh bullshit, Comey said NO REASONABLE PERSON IN HER POSITION WOULD HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS SHE DID ON AN INSECURE SYSTEM, didn't have a fucking thing to do with the computer guy. Now you're moving from the absurd to just silliness.

Actually what he said was, "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

He only stated that there was evidence. He rendered no opinion. You did. You jumped to the conclusion that since he said there was evidence then she was guilty without even knowing what that evidence was. This is understandable because you believed Hillary was liar and crook without every seeing the evidence

He also did not say specify that there was evidence that Clinton should have known that an unclassified system was no place for the conversation. He said Clinton or the government employees with whom she was corresponding should have known... Whether Clinton should have known depends on the construction of the conversation and whether Clinton saw the classified document. If Clinton never saw the classified document, then it is the person that sent it to her who should have know... Again you jump to a conclusion because of what you believe about Clinton.

The bottom line is if she had nothing to hide, she could have used the dot.gov website from anywhere in the world including from the comfort of her own home. If I were to be contacting a customer of the company I work for and instead of using my company e-mail addy, I were to use my Yahoo address because I wanted to make a "side deal" and didn't want a record of my e-mail being on the company server because it's a conflict of interest....would that be moral? You can't whitewash this nor can you justify what she did no matter how hard you all try.

You are starting with a conclusion that the reason for the private server was to hide information. However, from all the investigations, the problem centered around Clinton's insistence on using her Blackberry which was tethered to a private server. She had no problem having it connected to the secure network in the State Dept. Apparently the IT and Security folks did. She said, she just wanted to use a single device, namely the Blackberry or a similar device that Obama used and a single email address for both private and state department use. This she latter admitted was a mistake.

Yet Comey said she used multiple devices, the single device claim was another LIE.

She meant server zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[OKTexas]

Sure he should, it would have made you denial of gross negligence and incompetence a bit more plausible. Still not true, just more plausible.

Carelessness, you mean. So her ex NSA experts screwed up. She was the (60+) Sec of State, not the computer guys. The whole thing is bs...

Oh bullshit, Comey said NO REASONABLE PERSON IN HER POSITION WOULD HAVE THE CONVERSATIONS SHE DID ON AN INSECURE SYSTEM, didn't have a fucking thing to do with the computer guy. Now you're moving from the absurd to just silliness.

Actually what he said was, "There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

He only stated that there was evidence. He rendered no opinion. You did. You jumped to the conclusion that since he said there was evidence then she was guilty without even knowing what that evidence was. This is understandable because you believed Hillary was liar and crook without every seeing the evidence

He also did not say specify that there was evidence that Clinton should have known that an unclassified system was no place for the conversation. He said Clinton or the government employees with whom she was corresponding should have known... Whether Clinton should have known depends on the construction of the conversation and whether Clinton saw the classified document. If Clinton never saw the classified document, then it is the person that sent it to her who should have know... Again you jump to a conclusion because of what you believe about Clinton.

Pathetic attempt at the regressive semantics game, you're bullshit is more lame than the hildabitches. He drew a very strong conclusion saying "should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."

Semantics, the last bastion of a loser!

He said Clinton or the government employees with whom she was corresponding should have known. If you're having a problem with English, then there's not much I can do about that. Maybe this might be of some help to you:
Definition of OR

Awah, more semantics. He said she and the others acted in a manner that no REASONABLE PERSON IN THEIR POSITION WOULD. That is incompetence.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Damn straight, GOP chumps...NADA

I have been saying it a million times Hillary is a master criminal, Al Capone is laughing in his grave at how crooked and smart she is to pulled it off so far

You can say it another million times but that does not make it so.

You will believe me when she finally gets caught, karma is against her just like al Capone..

I always remember what Lee Iacocca said about flying and why he quit..

I don't have the exact quote in front of me but he said something to the effect I flew millions of miles, I don't want to do it anymore, how many more chances do I get when I am on the plane that finally crashes.

I thought about that quote after my 10 years of flying non stop in the mid 80s to mid 90s I finally quit and never been in a plane since.

 

[OKTexas]

The question has been asked over and over and not one of the posters who have called her a crook is able to respond, and tell us when she was arraigned, the nature of the charges, if she pled guilty, or was found guilty by a jury or the judge, the disposition / punishment (probation, prison, county jail, wrist slap, having lunch with Rudy Giuliani)?

I have spent hours investigating liar lair crooked Hillary claims, and there is nothing there but accusations, assumptions, and fantasies from whitewatergate, cardgate, filegate, BengaziGate, to emailgate. It's all nonsense. For what would pass as a minor incident or honest mistake by most politicians is turned into a hanging offence by Republicans.

You're either as incompetent as the hildabitch or just as big liar. Comey laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence in his press conference, that's all that's required under current statute for a conviction. Intent is NOT a required element to convict. Then in his congressional testimony he agreed with Gowdy that she displayed characteristics of intent.

Mens rea: the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.

Comey is a Republican who acknowledged the FBI used due diligence in their finding that no crime had been committed. His editorial comments were the usual, a partisan Republican character assassination, aka calumny, and should not be taken seriously.

Bullshit, she knew what she was doing was wrong, personal convenience is not an excuse to ignore aids that were telling her to use her state.gov email. It was set up for her and never used. State also briefed her on their classification policies about emails generated at the State Dept., she ignored that also. Probably 60% of the email she generated was automatically classified by the State Dept. Any correspondence with a foreign official, classified, any correspondence containing personal identifying information, classified. So don't give me this shit, she didn't know, she just didn't care, she was a Clinton she wrote her own rules. BTW she also ignored the State Dept. policies to CC the State Dept archivist on every work related email sent outside the state.gov system, in order to comply with federal records keeping laws. If all these facts plus many more I could name didn't demonstrate intent, nothing is adequate to do so.

So you don't understand this crap either lol.....SOMEBODY (neutral journalist) should look into this lol. IE, how many of this, and how many of that. MY fact checkers say ZERO marked classified, no hacks, personal e-mails deleted as one expects...Your fact checkers (LOL) say treason lol...

Thousands of work related emails deleted also, you're still not paying attention.

 

[francoHFW]

I have spent hours investigating liar lair crooked Hillary claims, and there is nothing there but accusations, assumptions, and fantasies from whitewatergate, cardgate, filegate, BengaziGate, to emailgate. It's all nonsense. For what would pass as a minor incident or honest mistake by most politicians is turned into a hanging offence by Republicans.

You're either as incompetent as the hildabitch or just as big liar. Comey laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence in his press conference, that's all that's required under current statute for a conviction. Intent is NOT a required element to convict. Then in his congressional testimony he agreed with Gowdy that she displayed characteristics of intent.

Mens rea: the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.

Comey is a Republican who acknowledged the FBI used due diligence in their finding that no crime had been committed. His editorial comments were the usual, a partisan Republican character assassination, aka calumny, and should not be taken seriously.

Bullshit, she knew what she was doing was wrong, personal convenience is not an excuse to ignore aids that were telling her to use her state.gov email. It was set up for her and never used. State also briefed her on their classification policies about emails generated at the State Dept., she ignored that also. Probably 60% of the email she generated was automatically classified by the State Dept. Any correspondence with a foreign official, classified, any correspondence containing personal identifying information, classified. So don't give me this shit, she didn't know, she just didn't care, she was a Clinton she wrote her own rules. BTW she also ignored the State Dept. policies to CC the State Dept archivist on every work related email sent outside the state.gov system, in order to comply with federal records keeping laws. If all these facts plus many more I could name didn't demonstrate intent, nothing is adequate to do so.

So you don't understand this crap either lol.....SOMEBODY (neutral journalist) should look into this lol. IE, how many of this, and how many of that. MY fact checkers say ZERO marked classified, no hacks, personal e-mails deleted as one expects...Your fact checkers (LOL) say treason lol...

Thousands of work related emails deleted also, you're still not paying attention.

People were sick to death of this months ago...

 

[OKTexas]

The question has been asked over and over and not one of the posters who have called her a crook is able to respond, and tell us when she was arraigned, the nature of the charges, if she pled guilty, or was found guilty by a jury or the judge, the disposition / punishment (probation, prison, county jail, wrist slap, having lunch with Rudy Giuliani)?

I have spent hours investigating liar lair crooked Hillary claims, and there is nothing there but accusations, assumptions, and fantasies from whitewatergate, cardgate, filegate, BengaziGate, to emailgate. It's all nonsense. For what would pass as a minor incident or honest mistake by most politicians is turned into a hanging offence by Republicans.

You're either as incompetent as the hildabitch or just as big liar. Comey laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence in his press conference, that's all that's required under current statute for a conviction. Intent is NOT a required element to convict. Then in his congressional testimony he agreed with Gowdy that she displayed characteristics of intent.

Mens rea: the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.

Comey is a Republican who acknowledged the FBI used due diligence in their finding that no crime had been committed. His editorial comments were the usual, a partisan Republican character assassination, aka calumny, and should not be taken seriously.

Bullshit, she knew what she was doing was wrong, personal convenience is not an excuse to ignore aids that were telling her to use her state.gov email. It was set up for her and never used. State also briefed her on their classification policies about emails generated at the State Dept., she ignored that also. Probably 60% of the email she generated was automatically classified by the State Dept. Any correspondence with a foreign official, classified, any correspondence containing personal identifying information, classified. So don't give me this shit, she didn't know, she just didn't care, she was a Clinton she wrote her own rules. BTW she also ignored the State Dept. policies to CC the State Dept archivist on every work related email sent outside the state.gov system, in order to comply with federal records keeping laws. If all these facts plus many more I could name didn't demonstrate intent, nothing is adequate to do so.

So you don't understand this crap either lol.....SOMEBODY (neutral journalist) should look into this lol. IE, how many of this, and how many of that. MY fact checkers say ZERO marked classified, no hacks, personal e-mails deleted as one expects...Your fact checkers (LOL) say treason lol...

Hummmmmmm, I wonder where the one with a confidential header on it came from? Hummmmmmmmm

OOPS! There goes your ZERO marked classified claim.

Breaking: Hillary Clinton Sent Information Marked Classified

 

[francoHFW]

I have spent hours investigating liar lair crooked Hillary claims, and there is nothing there but accusations, assumptions, and fantasies from whitewatergate, cardgate, filegate, BengaziGate, to emailgate. It's all nonsense. For what would pass as a minor incident or honest mistake by most politicians is turned into a hanging offence by Republicans.

You're either as incompetent as the hildabitch or just as big liar. Comey laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence in his press conference, that's all that's required under current statute for a conviction. Intent is NOT a required element to convict. Then in his congressional testimony he agreed with Gowdy that she displayed characteristics of intent.

Mens rea: the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action or conduct of the accused.

Comey is a Republican who acknowledged the FBI used due diligence in their finding that no crime had been committed. His editorial comments were the usual, a partisan Republican character assassination, aka calumny, and should not be taken seriously.

Bullshit, she knew what she was doing was wrong, personal convenience is not an excuse to ignore aids that were telling her to use her state.gov email. It was set up for her and never used. State also briefed her on their classification policies about emails generated at the State Dept., she ignored that also. Probably 60% of the email she generated was automatically classified by the State Dept. Any correspondence with a foreign official, classified, any correspondence containing personal identifying information, classified. So don't give me this shit, she didn't know, she just didn't care, she was a Clinton she wrote her own rules. BTW she also ignored the State Dept. policies to CC the State Dept archivist on every work related email sent outside the state.gov system, in order to comply with federal records keeping laws. If all these facts plus many more I could name didn't demonstrate intent, nothing is adequate to do so.

So you don't understand this crap either lol.....SOMEBODY (neutral journalist) should look into this lol. IE, how many of this, and how many of that. MY fact checkers say ZERO marked classified, no hacks, personal e-mails deleted as one expects...Your fact checkers (LOL) say treason lol...

Hummmmmmm, I wonder where the one with a confidential header on it came from? Hummmmmmmmm

OOPS! There goes your ZERO marked classified claim.

View attachment 84952

Breaking: Hillary Clinton Sent Information Marked Classified

One. About nothing. And probably mislabeled....zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz