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.
Crikey, ask a constitutional lawyer. Did you just figure out our laws didn't end with the Constitution?Beats me....probably an implied power.McCulloch v. Maryland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaLink.
McCulloch v. Maryland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of ... First, the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional ...
Ok, the government has the power to do things necessary to implement expressed powers, exactly which expressed power includes expansive infrastructure not owned by the feds?
Feel free to get back to me when you figure it out.
What oath was that? I'll go with the SC, even if it's whacky RW lately...Crikey, ask a constitutional lawyer. Did you just figure out our laws didn't end with the Constitution?Beats me....probably an implied power.McCulloch v. Maryland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
McCulloch v. Maryland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia
McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819), was a landmark decision by the Supreme Court of ... First, the Constitution grants to Congress implied powers for implementing the Constitution's express powers, in order to create a functional ...
Ok, the government has the power to do things necessary to implement expressed powers, exactly which expressed power includes expansive infrastructure not owned by the feds?
Feel free to get back to me when you figure it out.
Oh I'm fully aware how the courts have been complicit in expanding the federal government far beyond it's constitutional limits and the sheeple like you just sit idly by and allow it. I on the other hand spend my time trying to educate folks and raising hell with my elected reps trying to reverse the trend. I may well die trying, so be it, at least I can die knowing I did everything in my power to uphold my oath to the Constitution.
What oath was that? I'll go with the SC, even if it's whacky RW lately...Crikey, ask a constitutional lawyer. Did you just figure out our laws didn't end with the Constitution?Beats me....probably an implied power.Ok, the government has the power to do things necessary to implement expressed powers, exactly which expressed power includes expansive infrastructure not owned by the feds?
Feel free to get back to me when you figure it out.
Oh I'm fully aware how the courts have been complicit in expanding the federal government far beyond it's constitutional limits and the sheeple like you just sit idly by and allow it. I on the other hand spend my time trying to educate folks and raising hell with my elected reps trying to reverse the trend. I may well die trying, so be it, at least I can die knowing I did everything in my power to uphold my oath to the Constitution.
TY for your service, ya nut lol...but there have been some developments since. Read the "Good Old Days-They were Terrible". I like progress.What oath was that? I'll go with the SC, even if it's whacky RW lately...Crikey, ask a constitutional lawyer. Did you just figure out our laws didn't end with the Constitution?Beats me....probably an implied power.
Feel free to get back to me when you figure it out.
Oh I'm fully aware how the courts have been complicit in expanding the federal government far beyond it's constitutional limits and the sheeple like you just sit idly by and allow it. I on the other hand spend my time trying to educate folks and raising hell with my elected reps trying to reverse the trend. I may well die trying, so be it, at least I can die knowing I did everything in my power to uphold my oath to the Constitution.
The same oath you took if you were ever in the service. Some people actually take it seriously, unlike many on the court and in government.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying she has not read all of the tens of thousands of emails and attachments that she receives. It's very common for a top executives to read only the first email in a chain from a subordinate which explains a problem and ask for directions. Executives in top positions don't routinely reads all the banter and attached documents in a chain of emails so it's quite likely that there would be classified emails on her servers that she never saw. Typically a staff member will summarize the conversation and ask for directions of the boss. If there were classified information buried in attachments and emails in the chain, she may or may not have seen them.How do you know what you she saw? On an email server you can't determine if a user actually read an email. In fact, you can't tell it was even opened. Email conversation can contain dozens of emails and attachments. To think that the Secretary of State who receives tens of thousands of emails and attachments reads them all is a bit naive.We don't even know if Clinton ever even saw any of the classified material on the server. About the only thing we do know for sure is there was classified information on the server and that she should not have allowed her IT employees to setup an un-certified private email server for her use. That was a mistake. However, reading about her lack knowledge of the technology, I doubt she understood the implications at the time. The purpose of the server was to handle her private email and State Dept email was to be stored on secure government servers, but that never happened.That's why federal law makes it illegal to move classified information out of a secure system to begin with, it increases the possibility of compromise. We know for a fact that people she was communicating with on commercial systems were compromised, how many of those compromised emails contained classified information, at this point no one is saying.It is impossible to tell with absolute certainly that the server has not been compromised. So by GOP logic, it must have been and since Hillary was responsible for everything that occurs within the State Dept, she's as guilty as sin.
Come January, Clinton will have Obama's phone will one email address for all of her email both private and government.
The one I posted that was marked confidential was addressed directly to the hildabitch. Of course she saw them. She also issued and signed a policy letter forbidding dept employees form doing the very thing she was guilty of herself. An ambassador was fired in part for not using the state.gov system. There is NO WAY she can claim ignorance, and you trying to do it for her just makes you look silly.
Yet Comey said no reasonable person in her position would have had the conversations she did on a insecure system. Meaning she participated in those conversations, and according to you, she did so with zero knowledge of the topics. Feel free to push that in the loony bin, I'm sure it will go over really well.
November 8th the jury votes. The only jury that counts and right now 67% of the American voters say she is guilty.
TY for your service, ya nut lol...but there have been some developments since. Read the "Good Old Days-They were Terrible". I like progress.What oath was that? I'll go with the SC, even if it's whacky RW lately...Crikey, ask a constitutional lawyer. Did you just figure out our laws didn't end with the Constitution?Feel free to get back to me when you figure it out.
Oh I'm fully aware how the courts have been complicit in expanding the federal government far beyond it's constitutional limits and the sheeple like you just sit idly by and allow it. I on the other hand spend my time trying to educate folks and raising hell with my elected reps trying to reverse the trend. I may well die trying, so be it, at least I can die knowing I did everything in my power to uphold my oath to the Constitution.
The same oath you took if you were ever in the service. Some people actually take it seriously, unlike many on the court and in government.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying she has not read all of the tens of thousands of emails and attachments that she receives. It's very common for a top executives to read only the first email in a chain from a subordinate which explains a problem and ask for directions. Executives in top positions don't routinely reads all the banter and attached documents in a chain of emails so it's quite likely that there would be classified emails on her servers that she never saw. Typically a staff member will summarize the conversation and ask for directions of the boss. If there were classified information buried in attachments and emails in the chain, she may or may not have seen them.How do you know what you she saw? On an email server you can't determine if a user actually read an email. In fact, you can't tell it was even opened. Email conversation can contain dozens of emails and attachments. To think that the Secretary of State who receives tens of thousands of emails and attachments reads them all is a bit naive.We don't even know if Clinton ever even saw any of the classified material on the server. About the only thing we do know for sure is there was classified information on the server and that she should not have allowed her IT employees to setup an un-certified private email server for her use. That was a mistake. However, reading about her lack knowledge of the technology, I doubt she understood the implications at the time. The purpose of the server was to handle her private email and State Dept email was to be stored on secure government servers, but that never happened.That's why federal law makes it illegal to move classified information out of a secure system to begin with, it increases the possibility of compromise. We know for a fact that people she was communicating with on commercial systems were compromised, how many of those compromised emails contained classified information, at this point no one is saying.
Come January, Clinton will have Obama's phone will one email address for all of her email both private and government.
The one I posted that was marked confidential was addressed directly to the hildabitch. Of course she saw them. She also issued and signed a policy letter forbidding dept employees form doing the very thing she was guilty of herself. An ambassador was fired in part for not using the state.gov system. There is NO WAY she can claim ignorance, and you trying to do it for her just makes you look silly.
Yet Comey said no reasonable person in her position would have had the conversations she did on a insecure system. Meaning she participated in those conversations, and according to you, she did so with zero knowledge of the topics. Feel free to push that in the loony bin, I'm sure it will go over really well.
Of course, this get's back to the basically problem, she never should have allowed her staff to install a private un-certified server which Clinton and most of the world recognizes as a mistake.
No, all taxpayers deserve a break from a ravenous, never satisfied government.To claim ignorance for her is to admit incompetence.We don't even know if Clinton ever even saw any of the classified material on the server. About the only thing we do know for sure is there was classified information on the server and that she should not have allowed her IT employees to setup an un-certified private email server for her use. That was a mistake. However, reading about her lack knowledge of the technology, I doubt she understood the implications at the time. The purpose of the server was to handle her private email and State Dept email was to be stored on secure government servers, but that never happened.It is impossible to tell with absolute certainly that the server has not been compromised. So by GOP logic, it must have been and since Hillary was responsible for everything that occurs within the State Dept, she's as guilty as sin.
That's why federal law makes it illegal to move classified information out of a secure system to begin with, it increases the possibility of compromise. We know for a fact that people she was communicating with on commercial systems were compromised, how many of those compromised emails contained classified information, at this point no one is saying.
Come January, Clinton will have Obama's phone will one email address for all of her email both private and government.
The one I posted that was marked confidential was addressed directly to the hildabitch. Of course she saw them. She also issued and signed a policy letter forbidding dept employees form doing the very thing she was guilty of herself. An ambassador was fired in part for not using the state.gov system. There is NO WAY she can claim ignorance, and you trying to do it for her just makes you look silly.Nope, just for the nonrich. The Dem Plan. Meanwhile, Trumps cuts are almost all for the rich AGAIN.Sounds like it's time for a big tax cut for all taxpayers. Cut spending while we're at it.That's why most of the new wealth end up with them, and the nonrich and the country are going to hell, dupe. EVERYONE is now paying 20-30% in all taxes and fees. NOT FAIR, dupe.They already are.Silly talking point. We need ALL the rich to pay their fair share to make the difference, of course.No need to raise their own taxes, the government takes donations, as much as you want to give.
LOL at the idea that the SC is RW.What oath was that? I'll go with the SC, even if it's whacky RW lately...Crikey, ask a constitutional lawyer. Did you just figure out our laws didn't end with the Constitution?Beats me....probably an implied power.Ok, the government has the power to do things necessary to implement expressed powers, exactly which expressed power includes expansive infrastructure not owned by the feds?
Feel free to get back to me when you figure it out.
Oh I'm fully aware how the courts have been complicit in expanding the federal government far beyond it's constitutional limits and the sheeple like you just sit idly by and allow it. I on the other hand spend my time trying to educate folks and raising hell with my elected reps trying to reverse the trend. I may well die trying, so be it, at least I can die knowing I did everything in my power to uphold my oath to the Constitution.
IT'S A CONSPIRACEEEE!!!!! lol. You're all brainwashed nutjob conspiracists....She has no crimes to cover up, dupe. Nixon was pardoned.HOLY shit...look at the crimes that the Bush crime family got away with...look at what Nixon did...the crimes committed by LBJ, Bill "drop trou"....anyone recall "Chinagate"? The Clintons and Bush crime family are part of the elites and they are globalists. They have a net of protection around them that us little serfs do not have.
what crimes that the Bushs committed?
Nixon went down for his "crime." Not Hillary, too big to jail.
Lots of her crimes are being covered up, moron. You have NO idea what Hitlery Clinton is all about and the kind of globalist filth that she runs with.
You are one of the sheeple with no ability or desire to seek the truth. I doubt that you even have the intellect to handle the truth. You are one of the useful idiots that Lenin spoke up.....not trying to be mean but that is a fact.
IT'S A CONSPIRACEEEE!!!!! lol. You're all brainwashed nutjob conspiracists....She has no crimes to cover up, dupe. Nixon was pardoned.what crimes that the Bushs committed?
Nixon went down for his "crime." Not Hillary, too big to jail.
Lots of her crimes are being covered up, moron. You have NO idea what Hitlery Clinton is all about and the kind of globalist filth that she runs with.
You are one of the sheeple with no ability or desire to seek the truth. I doubt that you even have the intellect to handle the truth. You are one of the useful idiots that Lenin spoke up.....not trying to be mean but that is a fact.
You aren't enlightened, you're a fool.
The Clinton's and Obama must be the most powerful people to have ever walked the planet. They are able to manage untold numbers of global conspiracies without even a single piece of prosecutable evidence coming to light. They must have a shadow army of thousands of agents working globally to make that happen and a second tier of agents to keep the them quiet. Yeah, that sounds totally reasonable.
Bureaucratic bs...no, nobody cares.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.
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?
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.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."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.
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.
Yet Comey said she used multiple devices, the single device claim was another LIE.
Bureaucratic bs...no, nobody cares.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.
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?
8 investigations each with a report. Read them.
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.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."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.
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.
Yet Comey said she used multiple devices, the single device claim was another LIE.
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.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."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.
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.
Yet Comey said she used multiple devices, the single device claim was another LIE.
Multiple servers but only one in use at any given time and always in their home. Comey broke this down in his testimony as well. You keep pointing to testimony but leave out the exculpatory bits. You're dishonest in your assertions.
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.
Yep, 20 million in two years for speaking fees from wall street. They don't pay for shit they don't want to hear.
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?
8 investigations each with a report. Read them.
Why, the dems have already slaughtered their sacrificial Lamb. Pun intended.
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.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."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.
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.
Yet Comey said she used multiple devices, the single device claim was another LIE.
A lie by omission - technology advances create the need for newer and better. Do you still have that 3 pound cell phone first produced in the 1980's?
