What's Wrong With Being "Angry" ?

[protectionist]

Wow, you guys are going to feel so stupid when she wins in November.

Wins a cell in a federal prison you mean right ?

Judge Andrew Napolitano weighed in this morning on the new exclusive report by Fox News chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge on Hillary Clinton's private emails.
The bombshell report revealed that several dozen emails on Clinton’s personal server were even more sensitive than those with the “top secret” classification, according to a top Inspector General.
Herridge reported that Clinton’s personal server contained intelligence from the U.S. Special Access Programs, also known as SAP.

“These are the crown jewels of the American intelligence community of the United States government. If this information’s compromised, we’re going to suffer very serious national security damage. People are going to die, quite frankly.”” said former CIA operations officer Charles Faddis.
Judge Napolitano said on America's Newsroom that in light of this new information, "it's hard to believe that the FBI will not recommend indictment of Mrs. Clinton."
He said that the alleged crime would be negligence and failure by Mrs. Clinton "to protect national security secrets."

"The evidence of that is overwhelming. What's new ... is that she failed to protect information of the highest possible category," said Napolitano.
He explained that Clinton, like former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, signed a non-disclosure agreement as Secretary of State promising to protect the intelligence of Special Access Programs.
"The fact that she failed to safeguard that [intelligence]. That she put it on a non-secured, non-government server after she swore an oath - the same oath General Petraeus did - to secure it, makes her a prime candidate for prosecution," he explained.

• ​

 

[protectionist]

Wow! Someone really got under your skin, didn't they?

Liberals have a special talent for that.

 

[candycorn]

Wow, you guys are going to feel so stupid when she wins in November.

Wins a cell in a federal prison you mean right ?

Judge Andrew Napolitano weighed in this morning on the new exclusive report by Fox News chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge on Hillary Clinton's private emails.
The bombshell report revealed that several dozen emails on Clinton’s personal server were even more sensitive than those with the “top secret” classification, according to a top Inspector General.
Herridge reported that Clinton’s personal server contained intelligence from the U.S. Special Access Programs, also known as SAP.

“These are the crown jewels of the American intelligence community of the United States government. If this information’s compromised, we’re going to suffer very serious national security damage. People are going to die, quite frankly.”” said former CIA operations officer Charles Faddis.
Judge Napolitano said on America's Newsroom that in light of this new information, "it's hard to believe that the FBI will not recommend indictment of Mrs. Clinton."
He said that the alleged crime would be negligence and failure by Mrs. Clinton "to protect national security secrets."

"The evidence of that is overwhelming. What's new ... is that she failed to protect information of the highest possible category," said Napolitano.
He explained that Clinton, like former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, signed a non-disclosure agreement as Secretary of State promising to protect the intelligence of Special Access Programs.
"The fact that she failed to safeguard that [intelligence]. That she put it on a non-secured, non-government server after she swore an oath - the same oath General Petraeus did - to secure it, makes her a prime candidate for prosecution," he explained.

• 
  
  ​

The same "judge" who questions the 9/11 Commission's Findings....and thinks the buildings were rigged with explosives.

Hillary will never see a prison cell, will get her party's nomination and win the Presidency in a walk.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Our forefathers, with all of their faults, still recognized that a republican government could provide for national security and civil liberties. protectionist's views, though, disagree with that. He needs to be watched as a threat to both.

No, protectionist's views DO NOT disagree with that. YOUR views DO disagree with providing national security. Like all liberals, you are detached from that # 1 mission, entirely. I could give you a quiz on national security, and watch you get every question wrong.

You know nothing about national security. You do not understand the principles of the Constitution. Of course you don't, or you would not sound so silly.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Wow, you guys are going to feel so stupid when she wins in November.

Wins a cell in a federal prison you mean right ?

Judge Andrew Napolitano weighed in this morning on the new exclusive report by Fox News chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge on Hillary Clinton's private emails.
The bombshell report revealed that several dozen emails on Clinton’s personal server were even more sensitive than those with the “top secret” classification, according to a top Inspector General.
Herridge reported that Clinton’s personal server contained intelligence from the U.S. Special Access Programs, also known as SAP.

“These are the crown jewels of the American intelligence community of the United States government. If this information’s compromised, we’re going to suffer very serious national security damage. People are going to die, quite frankly.”” said former CIA operations officer Charles Faddis.
Judge Napolitano said on America's Newsroom that in light of this new information, "it's hard to believe that the FBI will not recommend indictment of Mrs. Clinton."
He said that the alleged crime would be negligence and failure by Mrs. Clinton "to protect national security secrets."

"The evidence of that is overwhelming. What's new ... is that she failed to protect information of the highest possible category," said Napolitano.
He explained that Clinton, like former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus, signed a non-disclosure agreement as Secretary of State promising to protect the intelligence of Special Access Programs.
"The fact that she failed to safeguard that [intelligence]. That she put it on a non-secured, non-government server after she swore an oath - the same oath General Petraeus did - to secure it, makes her a prime candidate for prosecution," he explained.

• 
  
  ​

The same "judge" who questions the 9/11 Commission's Findings....and thinks the buildings were rigged with explosives.

Hillary will never see a prison cell, will get her party's nomination and win the Presidency in a walk.

I hope not, but I don't want Trump either.

 

[protectionist]

You know nothing about national security. You do not understand the principles of the Constitution. Of course you don't, or you would not sound so silly.

Question we might all be thinking about right now is who, overseas in the CIA, is in grave danger, because of the misdeeds of this reckless, lunatic, who incredibly misguided Democrats actually think ought to become president of the United States ? Or have some of those people already been killed or captured, and its been tightly covered up. Have we heard all there is to hear ?

If we haven't, it wouldn't surprise me one bit. Coverups seem to have been developed to a science under the Clintons and Obamans. More the rule, than the exception.

But to be more precise to your laughable post JS, next to me, YOU are just being born, when it comes to national security. YOU, like all the other laughingstock liberals, who couldn't get higher then 5% on my Islamization Quiz. I sincerely doubt that you even know what the words "NATIONAL SECURITY mean. No problem. I will cure you of that right now.

They mean being PROTECTIONIST to the American people. PROTECTING them from harm. The harms of immigration. The harms of ISIS, al Qaeda et al violent jihadists (which you are a facilitator of). The harms of non-violent, subversive jihad > Muslim Brotherhood front groups (terrorists in suits). The harms of reckless loons in our own govt (ex Hillary Clinton and her Muslim Brotherhood aide, Huma Abedin) The harms of being weak to other world leaders (ex Obama). The harms of reducing our military power. The harms of many things that you and your liberal wackos consider to be acceptable.

As for the Constitution, I'm very familiar with it. More than you have any understanding of.

 

[protectionist]

The same "judge" who questions the 9/11 Commission's Findings....and thinks the buildings were rigged with explosives.

Hillary will never see a prison cell, will get her party's nomination and win the Presidency in a walk.

HA HA HA. What an admission of ignorance. So you DON'T question the 9-11 Commission's findings ? Well that shows how much you about that subject.

As for Hillary, after Trump takes office, (if Obama doesn't dump her first), HiLLIARYry will quickly be indicted, tried, convicted, sentenced, imprisoned, and forgotten. Next case!

 

[protectionist]

I hope not, but I don't want Trump either.

Don't want Trump ? Why not ? You don't want ISIS detonating nuclear bombs all over the US, do you ? (although that might start happening this year)

You don't want more US workers being displaced from jobs by illegal aliens and visa workers, do you ?

You don't want gun-free zones all over the US, giving terrorists the green light to shoot up US citizens , do you ?

You don't want China and Mexico to keep up their successful imperialism upon the US economy and state tax treasuries, do you ?

Whose side are you on ?

 

[candycorn]

The same "judge" who questions the 9/11 Commission's Findings....and thinks the buildings were rigged with explosives.

Hillary will never see a prison cell, will get her party's nomination and win the Presidency in a walk.

HA HA HA. What an admission of ignorance. So you DON'T question the 9-11 Commission's findings ? Well that shows how much you about that subject.

As for Hillary, after Trump takes office, (if Obama doesn't dump her first), HiLLIARYry will quickly be indicted, tried, convicted, sentenced, imprisoned, and forgotten. Next case!

With almost every topic, I've forgotten more information than you'll ever know.

 

[protectionist]

With almost every topic, I've forgotten more information than you'll ever know.

Yeah ? Wanna take my Islamization Quiz, so you can find out how LITTLE you know ? (if you know ANYTHING about it at all) Or maybe you're one those airhead, know-nothing liberals who don't even know what the word means.

 

[protectionist]

With almost every topic, I've forgotten more information than you'll ever know.

I'll take your funny rating on post # 110 to mean yes you do want to take the Islamizaton Quiz. Since it;s late now, I'll post it here for you later today. My guess is you can't top the top grade of 5% anyone reached so far. You know nothing, same as all liberals who receive liberal media, which excludes Islamization. Dummies.

 

[JakeStarkey]

With almost every topic, I've forgotten more information than you'll ever know.

Yeah ? Wanna take my Islamization Quiz, so you can find out how LITTLE you know ? (if you know ANYTHING about it at all) Or maybe you're one those airhead, know-nothing liberals who don't even know what the word means.

Protectionist Snow, you know nothing.

Your crazed vision of the world would lead to its nuclear destruction.

 

[protectionist]

Protectionist Snow, you know nothing.

Your crazed vision of the world would lead to its nuclear destruction.

What a coincidence. That's exactly what every sane person sees your crazed, distorted vision as. With your insane allowance of there Syrian refugee immigration Trojan Horse (AKA the ISIS pipeline-with their nuclear attack plans).

Here's a clue for you and all other deranged liberals. Your Syrian refugees may not be the big vote boost you think it is. Remember, these people are running scared from ISIS, and it is Obama who has been going easy on ISIS.

It is Democrats who are soft on US national security, and that national security will be heavy on the minds of Syrian refugees if/whenever they set foot in America. No doubt they would see Republicans as being tougher against ISIS.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Protectionist Snow, who knows nothing, would blow up the world if his nonsense were followed.

 

[protectionist]

Protectionist Snow, who knows nothing, would blow up the world if his nonsense were followed.

Pitiful Jake Starkey has been reduced to a babbling, driveling loon, repeating himself, with no substance to offer this thread. I crushed him with Post # 113, as he has no answer for it. Of course not, he's a babbling, know-nothing liberal, whose medias don't report important information. These airheads are clueless about their own ignorance. Maybe they're starting to get the idea though. I don't see many of them rushing up to take my Islamization Quiz. Apparently they realize they're clueless on that subject, at least. It's a start.