So Hillary-Deranged Wingers, How'd You Do For Your Twenty Million Dollars?

[bedowin62]

YOU are simply a clown, in the same sentence you try to dismiss what i have posted and say she didnt do anything negligent, or hasnt been convicted yet..............what makes you so laughable is you cant offer one single item saying she WASNT negligent. you simply blindly believe her because you a rabid partisan lemming


idiots and hypocrites

 

[bedowin62]

you have offerered exactly NOTHING that rebuts anything i've posted, offers a different scenario, proves anything they are saying she did isnt an accurate account, is a lie, is out of context....etc
where is your version of what "actually" happened???

all you can manage to say is to mumble and moan that they havent convicted her yet

simply put you are a joke

keep trying though

 

[CrusaderFrank]

you have offerered exactly NOTHING that rebuts anything i've posted, offers a different scenario, proves anything they are saying she did isnt an accurate account, is a lie, is out of context....etc
where is your version of what "actually" happened???

all you can manage to say is to mumble and moan that they havent convicted her yet

simply put you are a joke

keep trying though

Hillary could be sentenced to death for treason and her loyal HRC Zombies would tell us how the judge completely exonerated her

 

[bedowin62]

i love the way the idiotic Left thinks ineptitude at the very highest levels of government should get them a get out of jail free card!!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hillary nuked Obama. He must be lying about Benghazi and the video

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Dah!! You said.....
Which, in the absence of any sort of documentation is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance.....and then you accuse ME of having nothing factual. You can go now bubba

US law requires certain security arrangement and physical structures for a State Dept facility. If a facility doesn't meet the legal requirements, the Sec of State must sign a waiver of those requirements, they cannot delegate that responsibility by law. The hildabeast failed to provide the required waiver, but allowed the consulate to operate anyways. All that was admitted in the hearings.

We also know for a fact the hildabeast had a minimum of 400 sensitive and classified documents on her unsecured server, just having those documents outside of approved containers is a felony for EACH document. The law says it doesn't matter if this was done intentionally or by neglect.

Also having the server stored in an unsecured locations, like her basement, the bathroom closet in CO, the cloud base backup service and her lawyers office, are once again felony violations for EACH document. That gives us a total of 2,000 felony violations at this point.

Then you add another 1,200 violations by the FACT that the people at Platte River Tech, the company that did the cloud base backups and her lawyer had access to those documents without proper clearances. Once again these laws do not differentiate between intent and neglect. If my math is correct that is 3,800 individual felony violations so I was being kind in just saying 2,000.

BTW, I didn't get into the obstruction of justice when she told Platte River not to back up all her emails or the perjury she committed by signing the affidavit to the Federal Judge that she had turned over all work related emails when in fact she hadn't.

So your challenge grasshopper is to prove she had no classified documents on her server, keeping in mind that the law doesn't care if she intended to have them or had them through neglect.

It’s interesting how you provide these narratives and present it as the truth and the whole truth, without any attempt to verify it or document it. I have to wonder if it’s laziness or the fact that you really don’t have a credible source for this dribble. Here is some actual information with source documentation:

Congress blocked Benghazi embassy securityCongress blocked Benghazi embassy security

As the Republicans are attacking Hillary Clinton fearing that she may run for president, they seem to overlook the truth. A major fact that they ignore is that the State Department (under Clinton) had asked for additional funding needed to improve security for U.S. embassies.

Congress denied the request. The House of Representatives controls the purse strings and is controlled by Republicans.

GOP Rep: I ‘Absolutely’ Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security GOP Rep: I ‘Absolutely’ Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security by Ben ArmbrusterView attachment 53476 Oct 10, 2012 12:20pm (Selected excerpts)

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said today that he voted to cut funding for U.S. embassy security…….

Republicans and their allies have been trying to politicize the attack — which killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya — suggesting, without evidence, the Obama administration may have ignored intelligence that the attack was imminent, didn’t properly secure the Benghazi compound and is now trying to cover it up.


But hidden beneath the GOP campaign is the fact that House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget. When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said, “Absolutely“:

As for the emails....that was nailed perfectly in posts 438, 462 and others

if you were a MAN ( LOL) you could show where any ACTUAL FUNDING was ACTUALLY cut at THAT compound AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED OR PRIOR TO IT HAPPENING

but you cant, and you wont; BECAUSE you cant

If I were a man?? Seriously? You have to resort to attacking my manhood. Please stop embarrassing yourself and wipe the spit off your chin.

you and your buddy are the ones embarrassing yourselves

How about this...show us that the embassy in question was somehow exempt from the cuts that have been documented

 

[bedowin62]

US law requires certain security arrangement and physical structures for a State Dept facility. If a facility doesn't meet the legal requirements, the Sec of State must sign a waiver of those requirements, they cannot delegate that responsibility by law. The hildabeast failed to provide the required waiver, but allowed the consulate to operate anyways. All that was admitted in the hearings.

We also know for a fact the hildabeast had a minimum of 400 sensitive and classified documents on her unsecured server, just having those documents outside of approved containers is a felony for EACH document. The law says it doesn't matter if this was done intentionally or by neglect.

Also having the server stored in an unsecured locations, like her basement, the bathroom closet in CO, the cloud base backup service and her lawyers office, are once again felony violations for EACH document. That gives us a total of 2,000 felony violations at this point.

Then you add another 1,200 violations by the FACT that the people at Platte River Tech, the company that did the cloud base backups and her lawyer had access to those documents without proper clearances. Once again these laws do not differentiate between intent and neglect. If my math is correct that is 3,800 individual felony violations so I was being kind in just saying 2,000.

BTW, I didn't get into the obstruction of justice when she told Platte River not to back up all her emails or the perjury she committed by signing the affidavit to the Federal Judge that she had turned over all work related emails when in fact she hadn't.

So your challenge grasshopper is to prove she had no classified documents on her server, keeping in mind that the law doesn't care if she intended to have them or had them through neglect.

It’s interesting how you provide these narratives and present it as the truth and the whole truth, without any attempt to verify it or document it. I have to wonder if it’s laziness or the fact that you really don’t have a credible source for this dribble. Here is some actual information with source documentation:

Congress blocked Benghazi embassy securityCongress blocked Benghazi embassy security

As the Republicans are attacking Hillary Clinton fearing that she may run for president, they seem to overlook the truth. A major fact that they ignore is that the State Department (under Clinton) had asked for additional funding needed to improve security for U.S. embassies.

Congress denied the request. The House of Representatives controls the purse strings and is controlled by Republicans.

GOP Rep: I ‘Absolutely’ Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security GOP Rep: I ‘Absolutely’ Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security by Ben ArmbrusterView attachment 53476 Oct 10, 2012 12:20pm (Selected excerpts)

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said today that he voted to cut funding for U.S. embassy security…….

Republicans and their allies have been trying to politicize the attack — which killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya — suggesting, without evidence, the Obama administration may have ignored intelligence that the attack was imminent, didn’t properly secure the Benghazi compound and is now trying to cover it up.


But hidden beneath the GOP campaign is the fact that House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget. When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said, “Absolutely“:

As for the emails....that was nailed perfectly in posts 438, 462 and others

if you were a MAN ( LOL) you could show where any ACTUAL FUNDING was ACTUALLY cut at THAT compound AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED OR PRIOR TO IT HAPPENING

but you cant, and you wont; BECAUSE you cant

If I were a man?? Seriously? You have to resort to attacking my manhood. Please stop embarrassing yourself and wipe the spit off your chin.

you and your buddy are the ones embarrassing yourselves

How about this...show us that the embassy in question was somehow exempt from the cuts that have been documented

you poor coward. YOU are saying actual funds were cut AT THE TIME OF THE ATTACK, and can i assume you are saying it made a difference?

but you cant back up YOUR allegation, AND WANT ME TO DO YOUR WORK FOR YOU?

OK

 

[bedowin62]

The Facts
Politicians often play games with budget numbers, and so one must be careful at accepting numbers at face value. Note how Boxer asserted that House Republicans “sought to cut more than $450 million from President Obama’s budget request.” That means she is talking about the president’s proposed budget — which in any administration is often a pie-in-the-sky document.
In fact, the Congressional Research Service has documented that Congress, whether led by Democrats and Republicans, year after year did not fully fund the various pots of money for embassy security. (See page 25.) The State Department, for instance, was shortchanged by $142 million in fiscal year 2010, when Democrats controlled both houses of Congress.

 

[bedowin62]

Moreover, while Boxer claims that Republicans “cut” the budget, she is only comparing it to what the Obama administration proposed. The reality is that funding for embassy security has increased significantly in recent years.
“The Department of State’s base requests for security funding have increased by 38 percent since Fiscal Year (FY) 2007, and base budget appropriations have increased by 27 percent in the same time period,” said the bipartisan Senate Homeland Security Committee report on the Benghazi attack.
The report added that baseline funding requests have not been fully funded since fiscal year 2010, but noted that Congress had been responsive in providing “Overseas Contingency Operations” funds to the State Department in response to emergent security-driven requests, mainly for Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.

 

[bedowin62]

PunditFact looked into security funding over recent years. Fact-checkers found he's defining a cut a bit differently.
"He's defining cuts as the difference between what the Obama Administration asks for and what Congress gave, but that's just the natural push and pull of our separation of powers," says Katie Sanders with PunditFact.
They found spending is actually way up compared to what it was before September 11th.
The bigger problem fact-checkers found with his argument is that countless reviews did not fault budget cuts in the Benghazi attacks, rather they faulted management failures.
"One of the big issues was that Benghazi is not a traditional embassy. It's not even like a traditional consulate or other kind of facility. It was a temporary facility and that was a decision by management to keep it temporary," says Sanders.
While it's true Congress didn't fully fund embassy security requests, reviews have shown it wasn't because of the budget.
So PunditFact rates Farrow's claim, MOSTLY FALSE.

 

[bedowin62]

NOW i gave me what i have; are you going to be a pussy like someone else and just whine about what i provided?

or are you going to provide something to back up what you're claiming/?????

 

[bedowin62]

“However, there was no supplemental or OCO request made by the President for additional diplomatic security enhancements in FY 2010 or FY 2011,” the report pointedly noted. “Neither the Department of State nor Congress made a point of providing additional funds in a supplemental request for Libya, or more specifically, Benghazi.”

 

[bedowin62]

Meanwhile, while the Accountability Review Board investigation into the attack lamented the failure of Congress to provide necessary resources — and called for “a more serious and sustained commitment from Congress to support State Department needs” — it fixed the blame for the lack of security squarely on State Department officials.

 

[bedowin62]

anyway nutjob how is it that you say Republicans were able to cut funding for what even you left-wing losers acknowledge was a CIA compound, not an embassy?
that makes moot your whole point of embassy funds EVEN THOUGH you still havent proved anything republicans voted on caused the lack of security at THAT compount AT THE TIME IT HAPPENED

 

[OKTexas]

her poll #'s have remained the same or gone up after the show trial

I wonder if they hold after the FBI recommends charges under the espionage act.

its apparent that you have read the fbi statement at this time ... hildabeast hasn't violated any laws yet ... where are you going to hold this imaginary recommends charges under the espionage act. at ??? in your head??? will the left side of your brain represent hildabeast and the right side of your brain dream up what ever they can ????

Stop replying to my posts and I'll do likewise, only really ignorant people think the can make a point better by putting everything in bold, not using capitalization and can't put a decent sentence together. Bye freak.

I putting them in bold because the rules of the board state that you have to distinguish your post from the original poster ...that's why I put them in bold... you see when you are in violation here these little republicans whiners will report you to the board and you get yanked off for a couple days ... deal with it

Umm, you do that by using the quote boxes.

 

[OKTexas]

1. The hildabeasts state dept violated federal law concerning the consulate security.

2. More than 2,000 felonious national security violations by the hildabeast.

I'd say money well spent.

Seriously bubba? Are you off your meds again?

Ad hom, no factual rebuttal, how regressivecrat of ya.

Dah!! You said.....

1. The hildabeasts state dept violated federal law concerning the consulate security.

2. More than 2,000 felonious national security violations by the hildabeast.

Which, in the absence of any sort of documentation is nothing more than an appeal to ignorance.....and then you accuse ME of having nothing factual. You can go now bubba

US law requires certain security arrangement and physical structures for a State Dept facility. If a facility doesn't meet the legal requirements, the Sec of State must sign a waiver of those requirements, they cannot delegate that responsibility by law. The hildabeast failed to provide the required waiver, but allowed the consulate to operate anyways. All that was admitted in the hearings.

We also know for a fact the hildabeast had a minimum of 400 sensitive and classified documents on her unsecured server, just having those documents outside of approved containers is a felony for EACH document. The law says it doesn't matter if this was done intentionally or by neglect.

Also having the server stored in an unsecured locations, like her basement, the bathroom closet in CO, the cloud base backup service and her lawyers office, are once again felony violations for EACH document. That gives us a total of 2,000 felony violations at this point.

Then you add another 1,200 violations by the FACT that the people at Platte River Tech, the company that did the cloud base backups and her lawyer had access to those documents without proper clearances. Once again these laws do not differentiate between intent and neglect. If my math is correct that is 3,800 individual felony violations so I was being kind in just saying 2,000.

BTW, I didn't get into the obstruction of justice when she told Platte River not to back up all her emails or the perjury she committed by signing the affidavit to the Federal Judge that she had turned over all work related emails when in fact she hadn't.

So your challenge grasshopper is to prove she had no classified documents on her server, keeping in mind that the law doesn't care if she intended to have them or had them through neglect.

It’s interesting how you provide these narratives and present it as the truth and the whole truth, without any attempt to verify it or document it. I have to wonder if it’s laziness or the fact that you really don’t have a credible source for this dribble. Here is some actual information with source documentation:

Congress blocked Benghazi embassy securityCongress blocked Benghazi embassy security

As the Republicans are attacking Hillary Clinton fearing that she may run for president, they seem to overlook the truth. A major fact that they ignore is that the State Department (under Clinton) had asked for additional funding needed to improve security for U.S. embassies.

Congress denied the request. The House of Representatives controls the purse strings and is controlled by Republicans.

GOP Rep: I ‘Absolutely’ Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security GOP Rep: I ‘Absolutely’ Voted To Cut Funding For Embassy Security by Ben ArmbrusterView attachment 53476 Oct 10, 2012 12:20pm (Selected excerpts)

Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) said today that he voted to cut funding for U.S. embassy security…….

Republicans and their allies have been trying to politicize the attack — which killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador to Libya — suggesting, without evidence, the Obama administration may have ignored intelligence that the attack was imminent, didn’t properly secure the Benghazi compound and is now trying to cover it up.


But hidden beneath the GOP campaign is the fact that House Republicans voted to cut nearly $300 million from the U.S. embassy security budget. When asked if he voted to cut the funds this morning on CNN, Chaffetz said, “Absolutely“:

As for the emails....that was nailed perfectly in posts 438, 462 and others

You forget one thing grasshopper, Charlene Lamb testified before congress that their budget was of no concern in the considerations of security arrangements for the Benghazi consulate. She, after all, was the security specialist responsible for the security at Benghazi, did she perjure herself?

 

[OKTexas]

Fri Aug 28, 2015 at 08:53 AM PDT
Hillary Clinton's Felony. The federal laws violated by the private server
by leveymgFollow

• Tweet
• 128 Comments

Hillary Rodham Clinton has committed a felony. That is apparent from the facts and in the plain-language of the federal statute that prohibits "Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information", 18 U.S. Code § 793(e) and (f). This offense carries a potential penalty of ten years imprisonment.
It's called a prima facie case: clear on the basis of known facts.
It's up to prosecutorial discretion by the US Attorney as to what charges may be filed and when. Nonetheless, Mrs. Clinton is clearly chargeable for violation of federal law. As of right now, the matter is under FBI investigation. This isn't just about violation of Departmental policy.
The facts:

I couldn't get the link to work, here's a link to the law.

18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

 

[OKTexas]

(1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or
(2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

now show us without biased where she has violated these laws that you want us to buy... heres a clue... the FBi hasn't been able to show us any where, where she has violated this law ... what you have is some right wing source, that we are still waiting for you to show us, saying she allegedly did violated this law ... that's all ya got...I believe the FBI has a better source on law violations then you do, but please show us your source...

Why are you lying, the FBI hasn't made any announcement of what they have found to this point. The FACT that she had classified information on an unsecured server and had that server or its contents stored in locations not approved for storage of classified information, IS A VIOLATION OF THE LAW.

 

[easyt65]

You spent twenty million dollars in our tax dollars to get what?

A great showcase for Hillary Clinton to kick your butts and solidify her presidential chances.

hahahahahahahahahahahahaha!

Now tell us how we can't afford to feed the hungry and subsidize medical care.

but.... BENGHAAAAAAAAZZZZZZZZZZIIIIIIIIII!

Like someone posted earlier, leave it to a Liberal to declare Hillary to be the 'winner' when it was exposed that she lied her ass off to the American people and the grieving family members of those she allowed to be murdered by telling them it was all a protest over a video and that she would bring the FILM MAKER to justice while simultaneously telling her daughter and the Turkish Prime Minister that 'WE KNOW' it was a terrorist attack and 'had nothing to do with a FILM'.


Then you make a huge deal about $20 Million having to be spent BECAUSE Hillary has LIED (proven) to Americans and the earlier committees.

And you make a huge deal about $20 million, but 'funny' how I have never seen you as upset about the FAILED nearly $1 TRILLION Obama Stimulus Bill that contained over 7,000 pieces of SELF / PARTY-serving DNC-ONLY PORK....
- that funded such projects and studies as how to teach Chinese alcoholic prostitutes how to drink more responsibly on duty and a study to determine if the sex life of a homosexual Argentinian male was better than a heterosexual American male's sex life
- that swore to keep unemployment down below 8%, only to see it swell to 10.1%
- that promised to fund 'non-existent 'shovel-ready' jobs that Obama was forced to admit did NOT exist
- that was hailed as a 'job creation' bill but cost tax payers OVER $742,000 PER JOB Obama CLAIMED to have 'created / saved' (although business claimed Obama falsely claimed to have 'saved' more jobs than they had people working for their company)

Just curious...where was your venomous outrage over that PO$?!


Benghazi?

Just curious, how much money did Hillary SAVE by refusing to give Stevens the additional security he begged for, instead REDUCING the number of security members on his security detail and letting him die?

How much money did Hillary SAVE Americans by NOT getting him out of there instead of leaving him there as the LAST foreign nation's Rep to remain, as all other countries had pulled their people out?! Was the plane ticket more expensive than the plane ride he and 3 other Americans who were abandoned and died there received in their flag-draped coffins AND the cost of their death benefits?

 

[Dot Com]