Trump's Explanation of Why He Fired Yevgeny (Eugene) Vindman

[iceberg]

i gave you a timeline that showed she did in fact delete them *after* they were requested. you called sharyl a hack. no counter. no other timelines or form of validation for your line of thinking, just called an award winning journalist a hack and moved on to whine about something else.

i gave my stance. i gave a documented timeline available. you gave nothing but your constant drivel. you know, like directing back to me vs. proving a single FUCKING thing you post.

For the record, this is the post you're referencing. So when you claim that I just called Sheryl Atkinson a hack (which I stand by), without a counter, it shows you're lying about me.

Rudy to Begin Revealing Top Level Democrats Making Millions of Dollars Selling Their Public Office

so now i'm supposed to wade through 108 pages of posts to find what you are talking about?

and you wonder why i laugh at you. you're either too stupid to figure out how to link to your specific thread, or are just deliberately misdirecting people so you can say you did something. but this something is along the lines of saying "it's over there" and point to a 500 acre wheat field when someone asks where their shovel is.

It was a reply to your post you asshole. I didn’t post it randomly. I didn’t post it in the middle of a 500 acre wheat field. I replied to your post.

If you want to ignore my posts, so be it. But don’t go around lying saying I never do something when you decide to turn a blind eye. You’re just being an asshole and doubling down when provided proof that you’re lying.

the link is to the FBI report itself.

not page 12, paragraph 4 where it says xyz.

like i said - you and the left loves to point to a large document (500 acre wheat field) to answer specific requests.

now - to address this large document, it does in fact say 2000 pieces of CONFIDENTIAL e-mail were sent/received. she said none were. she lied.

we good there?

now her e-mail retention policy was changed to 60 days and the tech didn't do it. so yes, hillary DID IN FACT say to delete old mail. except that when she mixed personal / business into 1 server, she was to retain according to federal policy, all e-mails for their own set timeframe, which is greater than 60 days. year or more quite often.

tech didn't do it and when it got "hot" he went out and did the bleachbit routine. if nothing to hide, then simply adjust policy (right or wrong) and let them get deleted in normal fashion. destroying the drive itself is VERY UNCOMMON and instantly questionable.

AND FURTHER - if on the "up and up" - you don't dive into REDDIT and ask how to permanently delete information.

Hillary Clinton’s IT guy at Platte River Networks asked Reddit for help altering emails, a Twitter sleuth claims – The Denver Post
In the posts, stonetear asks for technical advice on retaining and deleting email messages that are more than 60 days old, as well as on removing the email address of an unnamed “VERY VIP” client from email archives.

“Hello all,” one of the posts begins. “I may be facing a very interesting situation where I need to strip out a VIP’s (VERY VIP) email address from a bunch of archived email that I have both in a live Exchange mailbox, as well as a PST file. Basically, they don’t want the VIP’s email address exposed to anyone. … Does anyone have experience with something like this, and/or suggestions on how this might be accomplished?”
=====
why are we hiding or trying to hide the name now? you don't go through this much trouble for yoga e-mails.

you'll see from the story this is mid to late 2014.

"“If it is determined that the request to change email addresses was made by someone so closely aligned with the Secretary’s IT operation as Mr. Combetta, then it will certainly prompt additional inquiry,” he said. “The date of the Reddit post in relationship to the establishment of the Select Committee on Benghazi is also troubling.”"

now - this is speculation on my part that it is HER IT guy. but the dates line up perfectly. so the questions then become, why did she decide to change her retention policy? was that *after* she saw things heat up? would appear so even without the above.

you don't do all this for yoga e-mails. given her efforts to send paper mails (which can be edited / altered before sent AND do NOT show e-mail header info they were trying to hide) she brought the questions / doubt upon herself.

so now here are great examples of SPECIFIC data i point to. you? you again point to a large document and say "its in there" OF WHICH i've busted you for several times OF WHICH YOU CRY FOUL and say you provided the info requested OF WHICH is a huge document that says nothing specific in the end.

and you think i'm the troll.

 

[colfax_m]

I gave you a chance but now I’m going to have to swear. God you’re a fucking illiterate moron.

the link is to the FBI report itself.

not page 12, paragraph 4 where it says xyz.

You mean like this?

Clinton did not delete emails under subpoena. She told her lawyer to get the work related emails and delete the rest. This request was done in December 2014 (page 18, paragraph 2). The technician never actually did that. The subpoena was issued in March 2015. At that time, the technician realized he had not deleted the emails and then did so. He did not do so at the request of Clinton. Page 19, paragraph 2.

It takes effort to be this stupid.

Im away from my laptop and at work now so I will dig into the rest of the post when I get a chance.

 

[BlindBoo]

Well Trump said that thousands of Muslims were on the news celebrating in New Jersey.

The reason you can't see his fabulous clothing is because it is made with the finest material in all the land. All his supporters see it, and believe his every word too. If he said he saw them celebrating while the towers were falling then it simply must be. All of the Shakedown Kings subjects must accept it or get kicked out of the club.

 

[iceberg]

I gave you a chance but now I’m going to have to swear. God you’re a fucking illiterate moron.

the link is to the FBI report itself.

not page 12, paragraph 4 where it says xyz.

You mean like this?

Clinton did not delete emails under subpoena. She told her lawyer to get the work related emails and delete the rest. This request was done in December 2014 (page 18, paragraph 2). The technician never actually did that. The subpoena was issued in March 2015. At that time, the technician realized he had not deleted the emails and then did so. He did not do so at the request of Clinton. Page 19, paragraph 2.

It takes effort to be this stupid.

Im away from my laptop and at work now so I will dig into the rest of the post when I get a chance.

and i addressed that in my own timelines. i addressed the "oh shit" moment and expanded upon:

1. 60 day retention policy. for her own mail she can delete it the second she sends it. i don't care. however, given that this is now a "work" server also, it must at a minimum comply with federal retention policies.
2. speculatory evidence of her IT guy asking how to remove a VIP from e-mails. timeframe also inside all this and her "delays" are simply buying time. YES - SPECULATION.

however -
Grassley blasts FBI over Clinton emails
"The FBI has evidently decided to stonewall the court's legitimate inquiry here and the State Department is going along with it," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in an interview. "We're seeking quick court action to find out where these records might be."

Judge blasts attempts to block info release on Hillary's email scandal
“Remember what got us started down this path in the first place,” he said. “In late 2014 and early 2015, at least some State Department officials knew Secretary Clinton’s emails were missing; they knew Judicial Watch didn’t know that; they knew the Court didn’t know that, but the Department pressed forward trying to settle this case. So I authorized discovery into whether these settlement efforts amounted to bad faith.”
---
so they DID start asking for this in 2014. sent hillary into what it would appear to be panic moves to hide as much info as possible.

one method of stalling was to deliver paper copies, already mentioned.

so while you pointed to something (finally) i also addressed it and showed a hell of a lot more you're simply looking past or dismiss with "hack".

 

[colfax_m]

I gave you a chance but now I’m going to have to swear. God you’re a fucking illiterate moron.

the link is to the FBI report itself.

not page 12, paragraph 4 where it says xyz.

You mean like this?

Clinton did not delete emails under subpoena. She told her lawyer to get the work related emails and delete the rest. This request was done in December 2014 (page 18, paragraph 2). The technician never actually did that. The subpoena was issued in March 2015. At that time, the technician realized he had not deleted the emails and then did so. He did not do so at the request of Clinton. Page 19, paragraph 2.

It takes effort to be this stupid.

Im away from my laptop and at work now so I will dig into the rest of the post when I get a chance.

and i addressed that in my own timelines. i addressed the "oh shit" moment and expanded upon:

1. 60 day retention policy. for her own mail she can delete it the second she sends it. i don't care. however, given that this is now a "work" server also, it must at a minimum comply with federal retention policies.
2. speculatory evidence of her IT guy asking how to remove a VIP from e-mails. timeframe also inside all this and her "delays" are simply buying time. YES - SPECULATION.

however -
Grassley blasts FBI over Clinton emails
"The FBI has evidently decided to stonewall the court's legitimate inquiry here and the State Department is going along with it," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in an interview. "We're seeking quick court action to find out where these records might be."

Judge blasts attempts to block info release on Hillary's email scandal
“Remember what got us started down this path in the first place,” he said. “In late 2014 and early 2015, at least some State Department officials knew Secretary Clinton’s emails were missing; they knew Judicial Watch didn’t know that; they knew the Court didn’t know that, but the Department pressed forward trying to settle this case. So I authorized discovery into whether these settlement efforts amounted to bad faith.”
---
so they DID start asking for this in 2014. sent hillary into what it would appear to be panic moves to hide as much info as possible.

one method of stalling was to deliver paper copies, already mentioned.

so while you pointed to something (finally) i also addressed it and showed a hell of a lot more you're simply looking past or dismiss with "hack".

My post above was pointing out that you claimed I didn’t point to page x paragraph y when I very clearly did so. You haven’t addressed that, I can only wonder why you seem to ignore this.

Anyway, the change to the retention policy was made in December 2014 (page 18 paragraph 2) after Samuelson went through and submitted the work related ones (page 16, paragraph 2). Her process is described in that paragraph.

So you see, Clinton only had her inbox deleted after she was told that the work related emails had been submitted to State Dept.

 

[iceberg]

I gave you a chance but now I’m going to have to swear. God you’re a fucking illiterate moron.

the link is to the FBI report itself.

not page 12, paragraph 4 where it says xyz.

You mean like this?

Clinton did not delete emails under subpoena. She told her lawyer to get the work related emails and delete the rest. This request was done in December 2014 (page 18, paragraph 2). The technician never actually did that. The subpoena was issued in March 2015. At that time, the technician realized he had not deleted the emails and then did so. He did not do so at the request of Clinton. Page 19, paragraph 2.

It takes effort to be this stupid.

Im away from my laptop and at work now so I will dig into the rest of the post when I get a chance.

and i addressed that in my own timelines. i addressed the "oh shit" moment and expanded upon:

1. 60 day retention policy. for her own mail she can delete it the second she sends it. i don't care. however, given that this is now a "work" server also, it must at a minimum comply with federal retention policies.
2. speculatory evidence of her IT guy asking how to remove a VIP from e-mails. timeframe also inside all this and her "delays" are simply buying time. YES - SPECULATION.

however -
Grassley blasts FBI over Clinton emails
"The FBI has evidently decided to stonewall the court's legitimate inquiry here and the State Department is going along with it," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in an interview. "We're seeking quick court action to find out where these records might be."

Judge blasts attempts to block info release on Hillary's email scandal
“Remember what got us started down this path in the first place,” he said. “In late 2014 and early 2015, at least some State Department officials knew Secretary Clinton’s emails were missing; they knew Judicial Watch didn’t know that; they knew the Court didn’t know that, but the Department pressed forward trying to settle this case. So I authorized discovery into whether these settlement efforts amounted to bad faith.”
---
so they DID start asking for this in 2014. sent hillary into what it would appear to be panic moves to hide as much info as possible.

one method of stalling was to deliver paper copies, already mentioned.

so while you pointed to something (finally) i also addressed it and showed a hell of a lot more you're simply looking past or dismiss with "hack".

My post above was pointing out that you claimed I didn’t point to page x paragraph y when I very clearly did so. You haven’t addressed that, I can only wonder why you seem to ignore this.

Anyway, the change to the retention policy was made in December 2014 (page 18 paragraph 2) after Samuelson went through and submitted the work related ones (page 16, paragraph 2). Her process is described in that paragraph.

So you see, Clinton only had her inbox deleted after she was told that the work related emails had been submitted to State Dept.

you're right. you did. i missed it. my bad.

now - this was only done after what, i asked 5 or 6 times to be specific and you never were. now you're off saying LOOK I DID IT ONCE YOU'RE A LIAR!!!

ok - fine. and you're an idiot.

bye.

 

[colfax_m]

I gave you a chance but now I’m going to have to swear. God you’re a fucking illiterate moron.

the link is to the FBI report itself.

not page 12, paragraph 4 where it says xyz.

You mean like this?

Clinton did not delete emails under subpoena. She told her lawyer to get the work related emails and delete the rest. This request was done in December 2014 (page 18, paragraph 2). The technician never actually did that. The subpoena was issued in March 2015. At that time, the technician realized he had not deleted the emails and then did so. He did not do so at the request of Clinton. Page 19, paragraph 2.

It takes effort to be this stupid.

Im away from my laptop and at work now so I will dig into the rest of the post when I get a chance.

and i addressed that in my own timelines. i addressed the "oh shit" moment and expanded upon:

1. 60 day retention policy. for her own mail she can delete it the second she sends it. i don't care. however, given that this is now a "work" server also, it must at a minimum comply with federal retention policies.
2. speculatory evidence of her IT guy asking how to remove a VIP from e-mails. timeframe also inside all this and her "delays" are simply buying time. YES - SPECULATION.

however -
Grassley blasts FBI over Clinton emails
"The FBI has evidently decided to stonewall the court's legitimate inquiry here and the State Department is going along with it," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in an interview. "We're seeking quick court action to find out where these records might be."

Judge blasts attempts to block info release on Hillary's email scandal
“Remember what got us started down this path in the first place,” he said. “In late 2014 and early 2015, at least some State Department officials knew Secretary Clinton’s emails were missing; they knew Judicial Watch didn’t know that; they knew the Court didn’t know that, but the Department pressed forward trying to settle this case. So I authorized discovery into whether these settlement efforts amounted to bad faith.”
---
so they DID start asking for this in 2014. sent hillary into what it would appear to be panic moves to hide as much info as possible.

one method of stalling was to deliver paper copies, already mentioned.

so while you pointed to something (finally) i also addressed it and showed a hell of a lot more you're simply looking past or dismiss with "hack".

My post above was pointing out that you claimed I didn’t point to page x paragraph y when I very clearly did so. You haven’t addressed that, I can only wonder why you seem to ignore this.

Anyway, the change to the retention policy was made in December 2014 (page 18 paragraph 2) after Samuelson went through and submitted the work related ones (page 16, paragraph 2). Her process is described in that paragraph.

So you see, Clinton only had her inbox deleted after she was told that the work related emails had been submitted to State Dept.

you're right. you did. i missed it. my bad.

now - this was only done after what, i asked 5 or 6 times to be specific and you never were. now you're off saying LOOK I DID IT ONCE YOU'RE A LIAR!!!

ok - fine. and you're an idiot.

bye.

Ha! You see. This is the thing with you. It’s never enough. You demand a source. I provide a source. You demand 2. You demand testimony about Trump. Then you demand documentary evidence.

There’s no pleasing you. You’re mind is made up. Totally closed to new information. Like information about how Clinton’s email retention policy was only changed after she was told work related emails were submitted to State

 

[iceberg]

I gave you a chance but now I’m going to have to swear. God you’re a fucking illiterate moron.

the link is to the FBI report itself.

not page 12, paragraph 4 where it says xyz.

You mean like this?

Clinton did not delete emails under subpoena. She told her lawyer to get the work related emails and delete the rest. This request was done in December 2014 (page 18, paragraph 2). The technician never actually did that. The subpoena was issued in March 2015. At that time, the technician realized he had not deleted the emails and then did so. He did not do so at the request of Clinton. Page 19, paragraph 2.

It takes effort to be this stupid.

Im away from my laptop and at work now so I will dig into the rest of the post when I get a chance.

and i addressed that in my own timelines. i addressed the "oh shit" moment and expanded upon:

1. 60 day retention policy. for her own mail she can delete it the second she sends it. i don't care. however, given that this is now a "work" server also, it must at a minimum comply with federal retention policies.
2. speculatory evidence of her IT guy asking how to remove a VIP from e-mails. timeframe also inside all this and her "delays" are simply buying time. YES - SPECULATION.

however -
Grassley blasts FBI over Clinton emails
"The FBI has evidently decided to stonewall the court's legitimate inquiry here and the State Department is going along with it," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in an interview. "We're seeking quick court action to find out where these records might be."

Judge blasts attempts to block info release on Hillary's email scandal
“Remember what got us started down this path in the first place,” he said. “In late 2014 and early 2015, at least some State Department officials knew Secretary Clinton’s emails were missing; they knew Judicial Watch didn’t know that; they knew the Court didn’t know that, but the Department pressed forward trying to settle this case. So I authorized discovery into whether these settlement efforts amounted to bad faith.”
---
so they DID start asking for this in 2014. sent hillary into what it would appear to be panic moves to hide as much info as possible.

one method of stalling was to deliver paper copies, already mentioned.

so while you pointed to something (finally) i also addressed it and showed a hell of a lot more you're simply looking past or dismiss with "hack".

My post above was pointing out that you claimed I didn’t point to page x paragraph y when I very clearly did so. You haven’t addressed that, I can only wonder why you seem to ignore this.

Anyway, the change to the retention policy was made in December 2014 (page 18 paragraph 2) after Samuelson went through and submitted the work related ones (page 16, paragraph 2). Her process is described in that paragraph.

So you see, Clinton only had her inbox deleted after she was told that the work related emails had been submitted to State Dept.

you're right. you did. i missed it. my bad.

now - this was only done after what, i asked 5 or 6 times to be specific and you never were. now you're off saying LOOK I DID IT ONCE YOU'RE A LIAR!!!

ok - fine. and you're an idiot.

bye.

Ha! You see. This is the thing with you. It’s never enough. You demand a source. I provide a source. You demand 2. You demand testimony about Trump. Then you demand documentary evidence.

There’s no pleasing you. You’re mind is made up. Totally closed to new information. Like information about how Clinton’s email retention policy was only changed after she was told work related emails were submitted to State

heh I "demand" it because I know you can't profive it. and when I ask 6 times and get "it's in the wheat field" yes I stop taking you off ignore.

I should stop doing that.

I show you they were asking for her mails before her "retention" policy and you call my source a hack. so what is the point of providing them to you when this is what youll do with them.

 

[bendog]

Oh, he doesn't have one.

I'd rather vote for Satan holding a baby over white coals on his pitchfork that vote for the Orange Don, but Trump did not "fire" Vindman. He ordered him to be reassigned to another posting, at the same rank, and the DoD made clear that political retribution isn't something to fear. In short, he'll probably be promoted to full Col but be told that's probably his terminal rank. And he'll find a new gig and keep his benefits.

If a person volunteers to give information against a president, his days in a WH are numbered. But if that's all the negative fallout anyone gets, it's not really deterring people from following their consciences.

 

[playtime]

he fired someone who wouldn't break the fucking law for him, & got kudos from both his psychophants & basket dwelling base....

that's says SO much about donny & his cult.

 

[colfax_m]

I gave you a chance but now I’m going to have to swear. God you’re a fucking illiterate moron.

You mean like this?

It takes effort to be this stupid.

Im away from my laptop and at work now so I will dig into the rest of the post when I get a chance.

and i addressed that in my own timelines. i addressed the "oh shit" moment and expanded upon:

1. 60 day retention policy. for her own mail she can delete it the second she sends it. i don't care. however, given that this is now a "work" server also, it must at a minimum comply with federal retention policies.
2. speculatory evidence of her IT guy asking how to remove a VIP from e-mails. timeframe also inside all this and her "delays" are simply buying time. YES - SPECULATION.

however -
Grassley blasts FBI over Clinton emails
"The FBI has evidently decided to stonewall the court's legitimate inquiry here and the State Department is going along with it," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in an interview. "We're seeking quick court action to find out where these records might be."

Judge blasts attempts to block info release on Hillary's email scandal
“Remember what got us started down this path in the first place,” he said. “In late 2014 and early 2015, at least some State Department officials knew Secretary Clinton’s emails were missing; they knew Judicial Watch didn’t know that; they knew the Court didn’t know that, but the Department pressed forward trying to settle this case. So I authorized discovery into whether these settlement efforts amounted to bad faith.”
---
so they DID start asking for this in 2014. sent hillary into what it would appear to be panic moves to hide as much info as possible.

one method of stalling was to deliver paper copies, already mentioned.

so while you pointed to something (finally) i also addressed it and showed a hell of a lot more you're simply looking past or dismiss with "hack".

My post above was pointing out that you claimed I didn’t point to page x paragraph y when I very clearly did so. You haven’t addressed that, I can only wonder why you seem to ignore this.

Anyway, the change to the retention policy was made in December 2014 (page 18 paragraph 2) after Samuelson went through and submitted the work related ones (page 16, paragraph 2). Her process is described in that paragraph.

So you see, Clinton only had her inbox deleted after she was told that the work related emails had been submitted to State Dept.

you're right. you did. i missed it. my bad.

now - this was only done after what, i asked 5 or 6 times to be specific and you never were. now you're off saying LOOK I DID IT ONCE YOU'RE A LIAR!!!

ok - fine. and you're an idiot.

bye.

Ha! You see. This is the thing with you. It’s never enough. You demand a source. I provide a source. You demand 2. You demand testimony about Trump. Then you demand documentary evidence.

There’s no pleasing you. You’re mind is made up. Totally closed to new information. Like information about how Clinton’s email retention policy was only changed after she was told work related emails were submitted to State

heh I "demand" it because I know you can't profive it. and when I ask 6 times and get "it's in the wheat field" yes I stop taking you off ignore.

I should stop doing that.

I show you they were asking for her mails before her "retention" policy and you call my source a hack. so what is the point of providing them to you when this is what youll do with them.

Atkinson is a hack. She is misleading and a bit of a goofball since she keeps suing the government claiming they’re spying on her. That’s not normal behavior.

Anyway, you’re correct about one thing. The State Dept did ask for her emails before she deleted anything. And she handed them over. After she handed them over, she changed her retention policy since she had no obligation to preserve anything at that point. This is an important detail that you’re are leaving out.

Also of note, no one issued her any subpoena prior to March 2015. She changed her retention policy in December 2014. Hard to claim she defied a subpoena she hadn’t even gotten. Impossible one might say.

This was all documented in the FBI report which I’ve pointed pages and paragraphs for you already.

 

[bripat9643]

he fired someone who wouldn't break the fucking law for him, & got kudos from both his psychophants & basket dwelling base....

that's says SO much about donny & his cult.

You TDS douchebags have a million ways of justifying placing Trump hating moles in his administration.

 

[iceberg]

and i addressed that in my own timelines. i addressed the "oh shit" moment and expanded upon:

1. 60 day retention policy. for her own mail she can delete it the second she sends it. i don't care. however, given that this is now a "work" server also, it must at a minimum comply with federal retention policies.
2. speculatory evidence of her IT guy asking how to remove a VIP from e-mails. timeframe also inside all this and her "delays" are simply buying time. YES - SPECULATION.

however -
Grassley blasts FBI over Clinton emails
"The FBI has evidently decided to stonewall the court's legitimate inquiry here and the State Department is going along with it," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in an interview. "We're seeking quick court action to find out where these records might be."

Judge blasts attempts to block info release on Hillary's email scandal
“Remember what got us started down this path in the first place,” he said. “In late 2014 and early 2015, at least some State Department officials knew Secretary Clinton’s emails were missing; they knew Judicial Watch didn’t know that; they knew the Court didn’t know that, but the Department pressed forward trying to settle this case. So I authorized discovery into whether these settlement efforts amounted to bad faith.”
---
so they DID start asking for this in 2014. sent hillary into what it would appear to be panic moves to hide as much info as possible.

one method of stalling was to deliver paper copies, already mentioned.

so while you pointed to something (finally) i also addressed it and showed a hell of a lot more you're simply looking past or dismiss with "hack".

My post above was pointing out that you claimed I didn’t point to page x paragraph y when I very clearly did so. You haven’t addressed that, I can only wonder why you seem to ignore this.

Anyway, the change to the retention policy was made in December 2014 (page 18 paragraph 2) after Samuelson went through and submitted the work related ones (page 16, paragraph 2). Her process is described in that paragraph.

So you see, Clinton only had her inbox deleted after she was told that the work related emails had been submitted to State Dept.

you're right. you did. i missed it. my bad.

now - this was only done after what, i asked 5 or 6 times to be specific and you never were. now you're off saying LOOK I DID IT ONCE YOU'RE A LIAR!!!

ok - fine. and you're an idiot.

bye.

Ha! You see. This is the thing with you. It’s never enough. You demand a source. I provide a source. You demand 2. You demand testimony about Trump. Then you demand documentary evidence.

There’s no pleasing you. You’re mind is made up. Totally closed to new information. Like information about how Clinton’s email retention policy was only changed after she was told work related emails were submitted to State

heh I "demand" it because I know you can't profive it. and when I ask 6 times and get "it's in the wheat field" yes I stop taking you off ignore.

I should stop doing that.

I show you they were asking for her mails before her "retention" policy and you call my source a hack. so what is the point of providing them to you when this is what youll do with them.

Atkinson is a hack. She is misleading and a bit of a goofball since she keeps suing the government claiming they’re spying on her. That’s not normal behavior.

Anyway, you’re correct about one thing. The State Dept did ask for her emails before she deleted anything. And she handed them over. After she handed them over, she changed her retention policy since she had no obligation to preserve anything at that point. This is an important detail that you’re are leaving out.

Also of note, no one issued her any subpoena prior to March 2015. She changed her retention policy in December 2014. Hard to claim she defied a subpoena she hadn’t even gotten. Impossible one might say.

This was all documented in the FBI report which I’ve pointed pages and paragraphs for you already.

WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive

now she said that they were personal yoga/wedding e-mails.

funny. i query on YOGA and WEDDING and i get 70 hits.

this one cracked me up:
WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive

but for 33k mails about yoga and weddings, that sure doesn't show up in the results. may be a good reason for that, maybe not. but it is in fact a question just the same of "what did she delete again"?

and sharyl isn't giving up her fight against the DOJ. you can mischaracterize it all you like. but it's a well known fact she was spied on. i've seen nothing to say it still continued, but your statement seems to indicate she says they are.

 

[colfax_m]

My post above was pointing out that you claimed I didn’t point to page x paragraph y when I very clearly did so. You haven’t addressed that, I can only wonder why you seem to ignore this.

Anyway, the change to the retention policy was made in December 2014 (page 18 paragraph 2) after Samuelson went through and submitted the work related ones (page 16, paragraph 2). Her process is described in that paragraph.

So you see, Clinton only had her inbox deleted after she was told that the work related emails had been submitted to State Dept.

you're right. you did. i missed it. my bad.

now - this was only done after what, i asked 5 or 6 times to be specific and you never were. now you're off saying LOOK I DID IT ONCE YOU'RE A LIAR!!!

ok - fine. and you're an idiot.

bye.

Ha! You see. This is the thing with you. It’s never enough. You demand a source. I provide a source. You demand 2. You demand testimony about Trump. Then you demand documentary evidence.

There’s no pleasing you. You’re mind is made up. Totally closed to new information. Like information about how Clinton’s email retention policy was only changed after she was told work related emails were submitted to State

heh I "demand" it because I know you can't profive it. and when I ask 6 times and get "it's in the wheat field" yes I stop taking you off ignore.

I should stop doing that.

I show you they were asking for her mails before her "retention" policy and you call my source a hack. so what is the point of providing them to you when this is what youll do with them.

Atkinson is a hack. She is misleading and a bit of a goofball since she keeps suing the government claiming they’re spying on her. That’s not normal behavior.

Anyway, you’re correct about one thing. The State Dept did ask for her emails before she deleted anything. And she handed them over. After she handed them over, she changed her retention policy since she had no obligation to preserve anything at that point. This is an important detail that you’re are leaving out.

Also of note, no one issued her any subpoena prior to March 2015. She changed her retention policy in December 2014. Hard to claim she defied a subpoena she hadn’t even gotten. Impossible one might say.

This was all documented in the FBI report which I’ve pointed pages and paragraphs for you already.

WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive

now she said that they were personal yoga/wedding e-mails.

funny. i query on YOGA and WEDDING and i get 70 hits.

this one cracked me up:
WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive

but for 33k mails about yoga and weddings, that sure doesn't show up in the results. may be a good reason for that, maybe not. but it is in fact a question just the same of "what did she delete again"?

and sharyl isn't giving up her fight against the DOJ. you can mischaracterize it all you like. but it's a well known fact she was spied on. i've seen nothing to say it still continued, but your statement seems to indicate she says they are.

That doesn’t make sense. You’ve linked to the database of government related emails she submitted to the State Dept. Why would you expect to be able to find many emails about yoga and weddings? The “yoga and weddings” you’re referencing was Clinton commenting on her personal emails and are were not submitted. So yeah, it’s pretty obvious that there a good explanation.

It is not a fact that Atkinson was spied on. Her lawsuits have been dismissed. Her appeals have been dismissed. Her claims are meritless. She has no evidence the government was doing anything to her. She’s a goof.

Ive linked the FBI report and commented on the information that details how her lawyer searched for work related emails.

 

[Vel]

Oh, he doesn't have one.

pssst. He doesn't NEED one.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

and i addressed that in my own timelines. i addressed the "oh shit" moment and expanded upon:

1. 60 day retention policy. for her own mail she can delete it the second she sends it. i don't care. however, given that this is now a "work" server also, it must at a minimum comply with federal retention policies.
2. speculatory evidence of her IT guy asking how to remove a VIP from e-mails. timeframe also inside all this and her "delays" are simply buying time. YES - SPECULATION.

however -
Grassley blasts FBI over Clinton emails
"The FBI has evidently decided to stonewall the court's legitimate inquiry here and the State Department is going along with it," Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in an interview. "We're seeking quick court action to find out where these records might be."

Judge blasts attempts to block info release on Hillary's email scandal
“Remember what got us started down this path in the first place,” he said. “In late 2014 and early 2015, at least some State Department officials knew Secretary Clinton’s emails were missing; they knew Judicial Watch didn’t know that; they knew the Court didn’t know that, but the Department pressed forward trying to settle this case. So I authorized discovery into whether these settlement efforts amounted to bad faith.”
---
so they DID start asking for this in 2014. sent hillary into what it would appear to be panic moves to hide as much info as possible.

one method of stalling was to deliver paper copies, already mentioned.

so while you pointed to something (finally) i also addressed it and showed a hell of a lot more you're simply looking past or dismiss with "hack".

My post above was pointing out that you claimed I didn’t point to page x paragraph y when I very clearly did so. You haven’t addressed that, I can only wonder why you seem to ignore this.

Anyway, the change to the retention policy was made in December 2014 (page 18 paragraph 2) after Samuelson went through and submitted the work related ones (page 16, paragraph 2). Her process is described in that paragraph.

So you see, Clinton only had her inbox deleted after she was told that the work related emails had been submitted to State Dept.

you're right. you did. i missed it. my bad.

now - this was only done after what, i asked 5 or 6 times to be specific and you never were. now you're off saying LOOK I DID IT ONCE YOU'RE A LIAR!!!

ok - fine. and you're an idiot.

bye.

Ha! You see. This is the thing with you. It’s never enough. You demand a source. I provide a source. You demand 2. You demand testimony about Trump. Then you demand documentary evidence.

There’s no pleasing you. You’re mind is made up. Totally closed to new information. Like information about how Clinton’s email retention policy was only changed after she was told work related emails were submitted to State

heh I "demand" it because I know you can't profive it. and when I ask 6 times and get "it's in the wheat field" yes I stop taking you off ignore.

I should stop doing that.

I show you they were asking for her mails before her "retention" policy and you call my source a hack. so what is the point of providing them to you when this is what youll do with them.

Atkinson is a hack. She is misleading and a bit of a goofball since she keeps suing the government claiming they’re spying on her. That’s not normal behavior.

Anyway, you’re correct about one thing. The State Dept did ask for her emails before she deleted anything. And she handed them over. After she handed them over, she changed her retention policy since she had no obligation to preserve anything at that point. This is an important detail that you’re are leaving out.

Also of note, no one issued her any subpoena prior to March 2015. She changed her retention policy in December 2014. Hard to claim she defied a subpoena she hadn’t even gotten. Impossible one might say.

This was all documented in the FBI report which I’ve pointed pages and paragraphs for you already.

The retention policy was not hers to change, dumbass!

 

[Ame®icano]

Oh, he doesn't have one.

Does he owe you an explanation?

 

[iceberg]

you're right. you did. i missed it. my bad.

now - this was only done after what, i asked 5 or 6 times to be specific and you never were. now you're off saying LOOK I DID IT ONCE YOU'RE A LIAR!!!

ok - fine. and you're an idiot.

bye.

Ha! You see. This is the thing with you. It’s never enough. You demand a source. I provide a source. You demand 2. You demand testimony about Trump. Then you demand documentary evidence.

There’s no pleasing you. You’re mind is made up. Totally closed to new information. Like information about how Clinton’s email retention policy was only changed after she was told work related emails were submitted to State

heh I "demand" it because I know you can't profive it. and when I ask 6 times and get "it's in the wheat field" yes I stop taking you off ignore.

I should stop doing that.

I show you they were asking for her mails before her "retention" policy and you call my source a hack. so what is the point of providing them to you when this is what youll do with them.

Atkinson is a hack. She is misleading and a bit of a goofball since she keeps suing the government claiming they’re spying on her. That’s not normal behavior.

Anyway, you’re correct about one thing. The State Dept did ask for her emails before she deleted anything. And she handed them over. After she handed them over, she changed her retention policy since she had no obligation to preserve anything at that point. This is an important detail that you’re are leaving out.

Also of note, no one issued her any subpoena prior to March 2015. She changed her retention policy in December 2014. Hard to claim she defied a subpoena she hadn’t even gotten. Impossible one might say.

This was all documented in the FBI report which I’ve pointed pages and paragraphs for you already.

WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive

now she said that they were personal yoga/wedding e-mails.

funny. i query on YOGA and WEDDING and i get 70 hits.

this one cracked me up:
WikiLeaks - Hillary Clinton Email Archive

but for 33k mails about yoga and weddings, that sure doesn't show up in the results. may be a good reason for that, maybe not. but it is in fact a question just the same of "what did she delete again"?

and sharyl isn't giving up her fight against the DOJ. you can mischaracterize it all you like. but it's a well known fact she was spied on. i've seen nothing to say it still continued, but your statement seems to indicate she says they are.

That doesn’t make sense. You’ve linked to the database of government related emails she submitted to the State Dept. Why would you expect to be able to find many emails about yoga and weddings? The “yoga and weddings” you’re referencing was Clinton commenting on her personal emails and are were not submitted. So yeah, it’s pretty obvious that there a good explanation.

It is not a fact that Atkinson was spied on. Her lawsuits have been dismissed. Her appeals have been dismissed. Her claims are meritless. She has no evidence the government was doing anything to her. She’s a goof.

Ive linked the FBI report and commented on the information that details how her lawyer searched for work related emails.

why would wiki leaks supply ONLY turned in mail? that's not leaked then is it? but hey, if wrong you got me there.

now, onto attkisson: this is why we can't have nice conversations. you simply won't allow ANYONE on the "other side" to be right about anything. you defend the left with blinders on in many ways i see people on the right do as well.

it's fucking stupid.

now you can argue with all these people if you want to keep thinking sharyl lied.

Sharyl Attkisson: How Government Illegally Spied On Journalists And Doctored Documents!
It looks like Obama did spy on Trump, just as he apparently did to me
oh look - they admit it:
Sharyl Attkisson: Feds admit to spying on me - WND
The Justice Dept. cover up of its spying on me and others– continues. | Sharyl Attkisson
and it was on CBS:


now as for case dismissed - you're so full of fucking shit it hurts. it is STILL ONGOING and in court. we also have judges who agree the DOJ is hiding information from her relevant to the case and refuse to let her know who the contacts are yet hold her accountable to do just that. but i'm sure you're not following the case, you're just being your usual dick-bent self who denounces anything you already don't approve of or which YOUR SIDE says you must think.

now this is so far off topic if you'd like to continue, feel free to jump into the media forum where i am posting updates and continue being stupid there. you can here too, btw.

 

[iceberg]

he fired someone who wouldn't break the fucking law for him, & got kudos from both his psychophants & basket dwelling base....

that's says SO much about donny & his cult.

yea, he needs people who will do it for him like bannon spying on congress, holder running guns illegally and the like.

god damn you're a fucking moron.

 

[Lesh]

Oh, he doesn't have one.

Minor problem here.

this is the BROTHER of the guy you are slandering

Being a scum-sucking, two-timing, back-stabbing, self-appointed, pompous, disloyal traitor to the President of the USA conspiring behind his back with delusions of godhood that he somehow knew better and was in charge of deciding foreign policy rather than merely carrying it out and with a creepy name like Yevgeny Vindman is good enough for me.

The very fact that had this crumb betrayed and tried to wrest authority and control over policy and testified against Obama, Biden or Hillary for any of their foreign crimes that we know happened in large number, you'd be on here today denouncing him as the lowest of the low!

So, Jack Daniels, I suggest you take Vindman since you love him so much, and go lick his ball sweat and lap up the dingles hanging off his ass. The very fact that you join here to defend him is proof positive that firing him was the absolute right thing to do because once again, Donald has stuck your plans in the dumper.

One more POS inside democrat confidant traitor leaker not to have to worry about. Notice is now served to all.