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.
Yes, that is a different kind of situation. She didn't communicate classified information with people that didn't have clearance. It would be like your son using a cell phone that wasn't secured to talk to a superior officer.Understood, but there is a difference between knowingly mishandling the information and using the wrong technology. I'm not excusing all responsibly from her. She should have known better and her judgment should be questioned. I'm saying the right is way over blowing it with all this criminal jail talkWhat were you listening to? He gave a very detailed and clear breakdown of what they found, how they found it, and what they recommend. Face it, this email thing is not as big of a deal as its been hyped to be.Basically the DEMs are now admitting the First AA negro President was a fucking disaster.
But now Hillary is promising if the voters elect her she'll actually accomplish what Obama promised.
Comney called her "careless in the extreme" and pointed out all her fucking lies.
Bye all means vote for her.
The fucking terrorists are delighted Hillary didn't get charged.
James Comey was under pressure to make a statement, an advisement that sounds more like a cave to political appeasement. He never gave a validated reason to go along with his recommendation, you'd expect to be given a clear detailed account of their findings that led to an FBI decision. Is it any surprise really, coming from a name that has as much political and financial influence since the Kennedy's and Chappaquiddick? You can't expect accountability behind political power. Nixon, a republican, was pushed towards impeachment for a lot less.
yes it is. It is a big ethical issue. The three kinds of people----who are very seriously charged with KEEPING SECRETS---
are-----CLERGYMEN, DOCTORS and LAWYERS. It is part and parcel of their lives, their brains and their souls
misconduct is not necessarily a CRIME. I have a son---he had security clearance for his job in the NAVY------he telephoned me now and then-----and sometimes I MISTAKENLY asked "where are you now'?------he answered
"c'mon ma"-----which means "you know I can't tell you"
Yes, that is a different kind of situation. She didn't communicate classified information with people that didn't have clearance. It would be like your son using a cell phone that wasn't secured to talk to a superior officer.Understood, but there is a difference between knowingly mishandling the information and using the wrong technology. I'm not excusing all responsibly from her. She should have known better and her judgment should be questioned. I'm saying the right is way over blowing it with all this criminal jail talkWhat were you listening to? He gave a very detailed and clear breakdown of what they found, how they found it, and what they recommend. Face it, this email thing is not as big of a deal as its been hyped to be.James Comey was under pressure to make a statement, an advisement that sounds more like a cave to political appeasement. He never gave a validated reason to go along with his recommendation, you'd expect to be given a clear detailed account of their findings that led to an FBI decision. Is it any surprise really, coming from a name that has as much political and financial influence since the Kennedy's and Chappaquiddick? You can't expect accountability behind political power. Nixon, a republican, was pushed towards impeachment for a lot less.
yes it is. It is a big ethical issue. The three kinds of people----who are very seriously charged with KEEPING SECRETS---
are-----CLERGYMEN, DOCTORS and LAWYERS. It is part and parcel of their lives, their brains and their souls
misconduct is not necessarily a CRIME. I have a son---he had security clearance for his job in the NAVY------he telephoned me now and then-----and sometimes I MISTAKENLY asked "where are you now'?------he answered
"c'mon ma"-----which means "you know I can't tell you"
Hillary didn't disclose classified information to anybody that wasn't authorized. You example isn't comparableYes, that is a different kind of situation. She didn't communicate classified information with people that didn't have clearance. It would be like your son using a cell phone that wasn't secured to talk to a superior officer.Understood, but there is a difference between knowingly mishandling the information and using the wrong technology. I'm not excusing all responsibly from her. She should have known better and her judgment should be questioned. I'm saying the right is way over blowing it with all this criminal jail talkWhat were you listening to? He gave a very detailed and clear breakdown of what they found, how they found it, and what they recommend. Face it, this email thing is not as big of a deal as its been hyped to be.
yes it is. It is a big ethical issue. The three kinds of people----who are very seriously charged with KEEPING SECRETS---
are-----CLERGYMEN, DOCTORS and LAWYERS. It is part and parcel of their lives, their brains and their souls
misconduct is not necessarily a CRIME. I have a son---he had security clearance for his job in the NAVY------he telephoned me now and then-----and sometimes I MISTAKENLY asked "where are you now'?------he answered
"c'mon ma"-----which means "you know I can't tell you"
no-----not at all-------He could not disclose his location----his location was like classified information when he was in specific situations-----so he did not----even to mommy
If you want to be fair in your comparison, consider this scenario. Your son has two phones one a secure satellite phone for communicating classified information with superior officers, and another personal cell phone for personal phone calls. Out of 30,000+ phone calls on his personal cell phone he made three calls to superior officers to communicate Classified information. If you want to be very accurate about it the information would have been incorrectly labeled as classified which could have been why your son used the wrong phone to make that call. You seeing the difference now?Yes, that is a different kind of situation. She didn't communicate classified information with people that didn't have clearance. It would be like your son using a cell phone that wasn't secured to talk to a superior officer.Understood, but there is a difference between knowingly mishandling the information and using the wrong technology. I'm not excusing all responsibly from her. She should have known better and her judgment should be questioned. I'm saying the right is way over blowing it with all this criminal jail talkWhat were you listening to? He gave a very detailed and clear breakdown of what they found, how they found it, and what they recommend. Face it, this email thing is not as big of a deal as its been hyped to be.
yes it is. It is a big ethical issue. The three kinds of people----who are very seriously charged with KEEPING SECRETS---
are-----CLERGYMEN, DOCTORS and LAWYERS. It is part and parcel of their lives, their brains and their souls
misconduct is not necessarily a CRIME. I have a son---he had security clearance for his job in the NAVY------he telephoned me now and then-----and sometimes I MISTAKENLY asked "where are you now'?------he answered
"c'mon ma"-----which means "you know I can't tell you"
no-----not at all-------He could not disclose his location----his location was like classified information when he was in specific situations-----so he did not----even to mommy
Link?Hillary didn't disclose classified information to anybody that wasn't authorized. You example isn't comparableYes, that is a different kind of situation. She didn't communicate classified information with people that didn't have clearance. It would be like your son using a cell phone that wasn't secured to talk to a superior officer.Understood, but there is a difference between knowingly mishandling the information and using the wrong technology. I'm not excusing all responsibly from her. She should have known better and her judgment should be questioned. I'm saying the right is way over blowing it with all this criminal jail talkyes it is. It is a big ethical issue. The three kinds of people----who are very seriously charged with KEEPING SECRETS---
are-----CLERGYMEN, DOCTORS and LAWYERS. It is part and parcel of their lives, their brains and their souls
misconduct is not necessarily a CRIME. I have a son---he had security clearance for his job in the NAVY------he telephoned me now and then-----and sometimes I MISTAKENLY asked "where are you now'?------he answered
"c'mon ma"-----which means "you know I can't tell you"
no-----not at all-------He could not disclose his location----his location was like classified information when he was in specific situations-----so he did not----even to mommy
I don't have a link, i listened to the director of the FBI's statement a few days ago and listened to hours of the congressional hearing today. Perhaps you should listen to it and draw your own conclusions.Link?Hillary didn't disclose classified information to anybody that wasn't authorized. You example isn't comparableYes, that is a different kind of situation. She didn't communicate classified information with people that didn't have clearance. It would be like your son using a cell phone that wasn't secured to talk to a superior officer.Understood, but there is a difference between knowingly mishandling the information and using the wrong technology. I'm not excusing all responsibly from her. She should have known better and her judgment should be questioned. I'm saying the right is way over blowing it with all this criminal jail talk
misconduct is not necessarily a CRIME. I have a son---he had security clearance for his job in the NAVY------he telephoned me now and then-----and sometimes I MISTAKENLY asked "where are you now'?------he answered
"c'mon ma"-----which means "you know I can't tell you"
no-----not at all-------He could not disclose his location----his location was like classified information when he was in specific situations-----so he did not----even to mommy
I did....seems you missed were she did.....her attorneys did not have clearance.....I don't have a link, i listened to the director of the FBI's statement a few days ago and listened to hours of the congressional hearing today. Perhaps you should listen to it and draw your own conclusions.Link?Hillary didn't disclose classified information to anybody that wasn't authorized. You example isn't comparableYes, that is a different kind of situation. She didn't communicate classified information with people that didn't have clearance. It would be like your son using a cell phone that wasn't secured to talk to a superior officer.misconduct is not necessarily a CRIME. I have a son---he had security clearance for his job in the NAVY------he telephoned me now and then-----and sometimes I MISTAKENLY asked "where are you now'?------he answered
"c'mon ma"-----which means "you know I can't tell you"
no-----not at all-------He could not disclose his location----his location was like classified information when he was in specific situations-----so he did not----even to mommy
That's a good pointI did....seems you missed were she did.....her attorneys did not have clearance.....I don't have a link, i listened to the director of the FBI's statement a few days ago and listened to hours of the congressional hearing today. Perhaps you should listen to it and draw your own conclusions.Link?Hillary didn't disclose classified information to anybody that wasn't authorized. You example isn't comparableYes, that is a different kind of situation. She didn't communicate classified information with people that didn't have clearance. It would be like your son using a cell phone that wasn't secured to talk to a superior officer.
no-----not at all-------He could not disclose his location----his location was like classified information when he was in specific situations-----so he did not----even to mommy
Perhaps she really didn't think there was anything classified in the communication on her personal server when she gave the attorneys access. Why else would she open herself up to that charge?I did....seems you missed were she did.....her attorneys did not have clearance.....I don't have a link, i listened to the director of the FBI's statement a few days ago and listened to hours of the congressional hearing today. Perhaps you should listen to it and draw your own conclusions.Link?Hillary didn't disclose classified information to anybody that wasn't authorized. You example isn't comparableYes, that is a different kind of situation. She didn't communicate classified information with people that didn't have clearance. It would be like your son using a cell phone that wasn't secured to talk to a superior officer.
no-----not at all-------He could not disclose his location----his location was like classified information when he was in specific situations-----so he did not----even to mommy
She's not the brightest candel in the box, and she didn't think this through very well. I imagine she thought some type of attorney/client privledged would shield her.Perhaps she really didn't think there was anything classified in the communication on her personal server when she gave the attorneys access. Why else would she open herself up to that charge?I did....seems you missed were she did.....her attorneys did not have clearance.....I don't have a link, i listened to the director of the FBI's statement a few days ago and listened to hours of the congressional hearing today. Perhaps you should listen to it and draw your own conclusions.Link?Hillary didn't disclose classified information to anybody that wasn't authorized. You example isn't comparableno-----not at all-------He could not disclose his location----his location was like classified information when he was in specific situations-----so he did not----even to mommy
If you want to be fair in your comparison, consider this scenario. Your son has two phones one a secure satellite phone for communicating classified information with superior officers, and another personal cell phone for personal phone calls. Out of 30,000+ phone calls on his personal cell phone he made three calls to superior officers to communicate Classified information. If you want to be very accurate about it the information would have been incorrectly labeled as classified which could have been why your son used the wrong phone to make that call. You seeing the difference now?Yes, that is a different kind of situation. She didn't communicate classified information with people that didn't have clearance. It would be like your son using a cell phone that wasn't secured to talk to a superior officer.Understood, but there is a difference between knowingly mishandling the information and using the wrong technology. I'm not excusing all responsibly from her. She should have known better and her judgment should be questioned. I'm saying the right is way over blowing it with all this criminal jail talkyes it is. It is a big ethical issue. The three kinds of people----who are very seriously charged with KEEPING SECRETS---
are-----CLERGYMEN, DOCTORS and LAWYERS. It is part and parcel of their lives, their brains and their souls
misconduct is not necessarily a CRIME. I have a son---he had security clearance for his job in the NAVY------he telephoned me now and then-----and sometimes I MISTAKENLY asked "where are you now'?------he answered
"c'mon ma"-----which means "you know I can't tell you"
no-----not at all-------He could not disclose his location----his location was like classified information when he was in specific situations-----so he did not----even to mommy
You can accuse Hrod of many things but being a dim candle isn't one of them.She's not the brightest candel in the box, and she didn't think this through very well. I imagine she thought some type of attorney/client privledged would shield her.Perhaps she really didn't think there was anything classified in the communication on her personal server when she gave the attorneys access. Why else would she open herself up to that charge?I did....seems you missed were she did.....her attorneys did not have clearance.....I don't have a link, i listened to the director of the FBI's statement a few days ago and listened to hours of the congressional hearing today. Perhaps you should listen to it and draw your own conclusions.Link?Hillary didn't disclose classified information to anybody that wasn't authorized. You example isn't comparable
I know, even dim is a big stretch......You can accuse Hrod of many things but being a dim candle isn't one of them.She's not the brightest candel in the box, and she didn't think this through very well. I imagine she thought some type of attorney/client privledged would shield her.Perhaps she really didn't think there was anything classified in the communication on her personal server when she gave the attorneys access. Why else would she open herself up to that charge?I did....seems you missed were she did.....her attorneys did not have clearance.....I don't have a link, i listened to the director of the FBI's statement a few days ago and listened to hours of the congressional hearing today. Perhaps you should listen to it and draw your own conclusions.Link?
Nice explanationIf you want to be fair in your comparison, consider this scenario. Your son has two phones one a secure satellite phone for communicating classified information with superior officers, and another personal cell phone for personal phone calls. Out of 30,000+ phone calls on his personal cell phone he made three calls to superior officers to communicate Classified information. If you want to be very accurate about it the information would have been incorrectly labeled as classified which could have been why your son used the wrong phone to make that call. You seeing the difference now?Yes, that is a different kind of situation. She didn't communicate classified information with people that didn't have clearance. It would be like your son using a cell phone that wasn't secured to talk to a superior officer.Understood, but there is a difference between knowingly mishandling the information and using the wrong technology. I'm not excusing all responsibly from her. She should have known better and her judgment should be questioned. I'm saying the right is way over blowing it with all this criminal jail talk
misconduct is not necessarily a CRIME. I have a son---he had security clearance for his job in the NAVY------he telephoned me now and then-----and sometimes I MISTAKENLY asked "where are you now'?------he answered
"c'mon ma"-----which means "you know I can't tell you"
no-----not at all-------He could not disclose his location----his location was like classified information when he was in specific situations-----so he did not----even to mommy
no
You're just showing how out of touch you are.I know, even dim is a big stretch......You can accuse Hrod of many things but being a dim candle isn't one of them.She's not the brightest candel in the box, and she didn't think this through very well. I imagine she thought some type of attorney/client privledged would shield her.Perhaps she really didn't think there was anything classified in the communication on her personal server when she gave the attorneys access. Why else would she open herself up to that charge?I did....seems you missed were she did.....her attorneys did not have clearance.....I don't have a link, i listened to the director of the FBI's statement a few days ago and listened to hours of the congressional hearing today. Perhaps you should listen to it and draw your own conclusions.
How so?You're just showing how out of touch you are.I know, even dim is a big stretch......You can accuse Hrod of many things but being a dim candle isn't one of them.She's not the brightest candel in the box, and she didn't think this through very well. I imagine she thought some type of attorney/client privledged would shield her.Perhaps she really didn't think there was anything classified in the communication on her personal server when she gave the attorneys access. Why else would she open herself up to that charge?I did....seems you missed were she did.....her attorneys did not have clearance.....
Disagree with her all you want, critique her judgement and actions in certain situations, that is fine, but big picture with all she has accomplished in her life... She is one of the most brilliant, accomplished and influential women in history.How so?You're just showing how out of touch you are.I know, even dim is a big stretch......You can accuse Hrod of many things but being a dim candle isn't one of them.She's not the brightest candel in the box, and she didn't think this through very well. I imagine she thought some type of attorney/client privledged would shield her.Perhaps she really didn't think there was anything classified in the communication on her personal server when she gave the attorneys access. Why else would she open herself up to that charge?
She's accomplished nothing.....well, getting a child rapist off.....but I don't count that as a net positive.....Disagree with her all you want, critique her judgement and actions in certain situations, that is fine, but big picture with all she has accomplished in her life... She is one of the most brilliant, accomplished and influential women in history.How so?You're just showing how out of touch you are.I know, even dim is a big stretch......You can accuse Hrod of many things but being a dim candle isn't one of them.She's not the brightest candel in the box, and she didn't think this through very well. I imagine she thought some type of attorney/client privledged would shield her.
What was your interaction with her when you two met?She's accomplished nothing.....well, getting a child rapist off.....but I don't count that as a net positive.....Disagree with her all you want, critique her judgement and actions in certain situations, that is fine, but big picture with all she has accomplished in her life... She is one of the most brilliant, accomplished and influential women in history.How so?You're just showing how out of touch you are.I know, even dim is a big stretch......You can accuse Hrod of many things but being a dim candle isn't one of them.
I've met her, she is a worthless component of society....
It was at the Democrat Club in DC. Had lunch with her and Debbie WasAwoman Schultz......What was your interaction with her when you two met?She's accomplished nothing.....well, getting a child rapist off.....but I don't count that as a net positive.....Disagree with her all you want, critique her judgement and actions in certain situations, that is fine, but big picture with all she has accomplished in her life... She is one of the most brilliant, accomplished and influential women in history.How so?You're just showing how out of touch you are.I know, even dim is a big stretch......
I've met her, she is a worthless component of society....
