Is Hillary bad? That point about her intending to break classification rules is important, because in order to have broken the law, it isn’t enough for Clinton to have had classified...

Glaucon

That point about her intending to break classification rules is important, because in order to have broken the law, it isn’t enough for Clinton to have had classified information in a place where it was possible for it to be hacked. She would have had to intentionally given classified information to someone without authorization to have it, like David Petraeus did when he showed classified documents to his mistress (and then lied to the FBI about it, by the way). Despite the enormous manpower and time the Justice Department has devoted to this case, there has never been even a suggestion, let alone any evidence, that Clinton did any such thing.

But when it comes to the presidential campaign, that isn’t going to matter. Republicans already know what they think: Hillary Clinton is a criminal whose every thought and action is vile and despicable, so of course she broke the law. If the investigation doesn’t show that, it could only be because the investigation was a sham. So they’ll just keep saying that this is a scandal, over and over and over.

As Bill and Hillary Clinton’s entire careers have proven, when you’re trying to take someone down, the next best thing to a real scandal is a phony one. Let’s not forget that when Bill was president, no alleged wrongdoing was too trivial to investigate, complete with dark insinuations about nefarious conspiracies and potential criminal behavior. You think the endless investigation of Benghazi is ridiculous? In the 1990s, congressional Republicans took 140 hours of sworn testimony on the urgent question of whether the Clintons had misused the White House Christmas card list. Seriously. That’s something that actually happened.

And the media, always operating on the rule that when it comes to the Clintons any smoke should be treated as fire — even if there’s a bunch of Republicans operating a smoke machine in full view — will offer endless breathless stories about the “scandal” and how it just shows that people don’t trust Clinton.

northernlights

Glaucon wrote:

That point about her intending to break classification rules is important, because in order to have broken the law, it isn’t enough for Clinton to have had classified information in a place where it was possible for it to be hacked. She would have had to intentionally given classified information to someone without authorization to have it, like David Petraeus did when he showed classified documents to his mistress (and then lied to the FBI about it, by the way). Despite the enormous manpower and time the Justice Department has devoted to this case, there has never been even a suggestion, let alone any evidence, that Clinton did any such thing.

But when it comes to the presidential campaign, that isn’t going to matter. Republicans already know what they think: Hillary Clinton is a criminal whose every thought and action is vile and despicable, so of course she broke the law. If the investigation doesn’t show that, it could only be because the investigation was a sham. So they’ll just keep saying that this is a scandal, over and over and over.

As Bill and Hillary Clinton’s entire careers have proven, when you’re trying to take someone down, the next best thing to a real scandal is a phony one. Let’s not forget that when Bill was president, no alleged wrongdoing was too trivial to investigate, complete with dark insinuations about nefarious conspiracies and potential criminal behavior. You think the endless investigation of Benghazi is ridiculous? In the 1990s, congressional Republicans took 140 hours of sworn testimony on the urgent question of whether the Clintons had misused the White House Christmas card list. Seriously. That’s something that actually happened.

And the media, always operating on the rule that when it comes to the Clintons any smoke should be treated as fire — even if there’s a bunch of Republicans operating a smoke machine in full view — will offer endless breathless stories about the “scandal” and how it just shows that people don’t trust Clinton.

That point about her intending to break classifica... (show quote)

Ironic how willing they are to spend money to discredit their apposing candidate, but will quickly slam down the gavel to save money by dismantling a program such as meal on wheels. Issues like these make party choice an easy and clear decision. When Benghazi happened that was their interception and they're going to run with it to the last day you can be sure.

mcmlx

Glaucon wrote:

That point about her intending to break classification rules is important, because in order to have broken the law, it isn’t enough for Clinton to have had classified information in a place where it was possible for it to be hacked. She would have had to intentionally given classified information to someone without authorization to have it, like David Petraeus did when he showed classified documents to his mistress (and then lied to the FBI about it, by the way). Despite the enormous manpower and time the Justice Department has devoted to this case, there has never been even a suggestion, let alone any evidence, that Clinton did any such thing.

But when it comes to the presidential campaign, that isn’t going to matter. Republicans already know what they think: Hillary Clinton is a criminal whose every thought and action is vile and despicable, so of course she broke the law. If the investigation doesn’t show that, it could only be because the investigation was a sham. So they’ll just keep saying that this is a scandal, over and over and over.

As Bill and Hillary Clinton’s entire careers have proven, when you’re trying to take someone down, the next best thing to a real scandal is a phony one. Let’s not forget that when Bill was president, no alleged wrongdoing was too trivial to investigate, complete with dark insinuations about nefarious conspiracies and potential criminal behavior. You think the endless investigation of Benghazi is ridiculous? In the 1990s, congressional Republicans took 140 hours of sworn testimony on the urgent question of whether the Clintons had misused the White House Christmas card list. Seriously. That’s something that actually happened.

And the media, always operating on the rule that when it comes to the Clintons any smoke should be treated as fire — even if there’s a bunch of Republicans operating a smoke machine in full view — will offer endless breathless stories about the “scandal” and how it just shows that people don’t trust Clinton.

That point about her intending to break classifica... (show quote)

I don't trust ANY politician.
I've decided to run my life as usual. Big government, Big Pharm can try to get control of me, and I guess I'll end up disappeared eventually.
It is a sick upside down world.

Zombiefarmer23 Loc: Bull Hills

Glaucon wrote:

That point about her intending to break classification rules is important, because in order to have broken the law, it isn’t enough for Clinton to have had classified information in a place where it was possible for it to be hacked. She would have had to intentionally given classified information to someone without authorization to have it, like David Petraeus did when he showed classified documents to his mistress (and then lied to the FBI about it, by the way). Despite the enormous manpower and time the Justice Department has devoted to this case, there has never been even a suggestion, let alone any evidence, that Clinton did any such thing.

But when it comes to the presidential campaign, that isn’t going to matter. Republicans already know what they think: Hillary Clinton is a criminal whose every thought and action is vile and despicable, so of course she broke the law. If the investigation doesn’t show that, it could only be because the investigation was a sham. So they’ll just keep saying that this is a scandal, over and over and over.

As Bill and Hillary Clinton’s entire careers have proven, when you’re trying to take someone down, the next best thing to a real scandal is a phony one. Let’s not forget that when Bill was president, no alleged wrongdoing was too trivial to investigate, complete with dark insinuations about nefarious conspiracies and potential criminal behavior. You think the endless investigation of Benghazi is ridiculous? In the 1990s, congressional Republicans took 140 hours of sworn testimony on the urgent question of whether the Clintons had misused the White House Christmas card list. Seriously. That’s something that actually happened.

And the media, always operating on the rule that when it comes to the Clintons any smoke should be treated as fire — even if there’s a bunch of Republicans operating a smoke machine in full view — will offer endless breathless stories about the “scandal” and how it just shows that people don’t trust Clinton.

That point about her intending to break classifica... (show quote)

Inre your assertion that intent is required for a crime to have been committed, in the case of espionage, that is not true. Simply putting classified material on an unsecured server is a crime. Also, some of that classified material was sent to unauthorised people such as Sid Blumenthal, e.g. she should be in prison!!

Glaucon

Zombiefarmer23 wrote:

Inre your assertion that intent is required for a crime to have been committed, in the case of espionage, that is not true. Simply putting classified material on an unsecured server is a crime. Also, some of that classified material was sent to unauthorised people such as Sid Blumenthal, e.g. she should be in prison!!

You have some misinformation and some gossip and you are confusing the two. You don't use qualifiers such as, I think..., I read somewhere that... I would like to believe... some people say... and instead, you not only state your misinformation and gossip as facts. but you do so with the certainty of someone who knows something rather than as someone who who is attempting to slime Hillary.

Glaucon

mcmlx wrote:

I don't trust ANY politician.
I've decided to run my life as usual. Big government, Big Pharm can try to get control of me, and I guess I'll end up disappeared eventually.
It is a sick upside down world.

You sound like you don't have any confidence in America> It does seem we are already a plutocracy, but I have hope for Americans and our Constitution.

Zombiefarmer23 Loc: Bull Hills

Glaucon wrote:

You have some misinformation and some gossip and you are confusing the two. You don't use qualifiers such as, I think..., I read somewhere that... I would like to believe... some people say... and instead, you not only state your misinformation and gossip as facts. but you do so with the certainty of someone who knows something rather than as someone who who is attempting to slime Hillary.

What??

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Glaucon wrote:

That point about her intending to break classification rules is important, because in order to have broken the law, it isn’t enough for Clinton to have had classified information in a place where it was possible for it to be hacked. She would have had to intentionally given classified information to someone without authorization to have it, like David Petraeus did when he showed classified documents to his mistress (and then lied to the FBI about it, by the way). Despite the enormous manpower and time the Justice Department has devoted to this case, there has never been even a suggestion, let alone any evidence, that Clinton did any such thing.

But when it comes to the presidential campaign, that isn’t going to matter. Republicans already know what they think: Hillary Clinton is a criminal whose every thought and action is vile and despicable, so of course she broke the law. If the investigation doesn’t show that, it could only be because the investigation was a sham. So they’ll just keep saying that this is a scandal, over and over and over.

As Bill and Hillary Clinton’s entire careers have proven, when you’re trying to take someone down, the next best thing to a real scandal is a phony one. Let’s not forget that when Bill was president, no alleged wrongdoing was too trivial to investigate, complete with dark insinuations about nefarious conspiracies and potential criminal behavior. You think the endless investigation of Benghazi is ridiculous? In the 1990s, congressional Republicans took 140 hours of sworn testimony on the urgent question of whether the Clintons had misused the White House Christmas card list. Seriously. That’s something that actually happened.

And the media, always operating on the rule that when it comes to the Clintons any smoke should be treated as fire — even if there’s a bunch of Republicans operating a smoke machine in full view — will offer endless breathless stories about the “scandal” and how it just shows that people don’t trust Clinton.

That point about her intending to break classifica... (show quote)

Is Hillary bad?? Is a frog's ass water tight??

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Zombiefarmer23 wrote:

Inre your assertion that intent is required for a crime to have been committed, in the case of espionage, that is not true. Simply putting classified material on an unsecured server is a crime. Also, some of that classified material was sent to unauthorised people such as Sid Blumenthal, e.g. she should be in prison!!

She's not the first to use a private server to handle classified info but I say use it against her anyway!!

Glaucon

nwtk2007 wrote:

Is Hillary bad?? Is a frog's ass water tight??

Are you a dipshit, moron?

Glaucon

nwtk2007 wrote:

She's not the first to use a private server to handle classified info but I say use it against her anyway!!

Right, . I think we should use her improper use of her salad fork at lunch against her. Fairness and honestly suck.

Glaucon

nwtk2007 wrote:

Is Hillary bad?? Is a frog's ass water tight??

Is your mind closed water tight?

nwtk2007 Loc: Texas

Glaucon wrote:

Are you a dipshit, moron?

It's been so long since I got an insult, it actually feels good! Lol!

And I'm not. I think Clinton will continue to weaken our position on virtually ever issue.

But I must say, he willingness to open the count up to illegals is hurting us greatly. Latinos are the issue, no offense, the illegal ones that is. They trample over our country like they trample over our laws. They suck us dry just like the entitlement crowd. Have our population is still sucking on mama's tit.

It's time to get away from that!

Ricko Loc: Florida

nwtk2007 wrote:

She's not the first to use a private server to handle classified info but I say use it against her anyway!!

zombiefarmer-agree! The source indicates that Hillary did not break the law because she did not "willfully" mishandle classified information. She did it out of pure ignorance so that is supposedly OK . If a person is too stupid to recognize information ,the disclosure of which could be harmful to America, that person sure as heck should not be Sec. of State or hold any other position of authority in government. She was one of about two dozen people in the administration with classification authority. She was relied upon to recognize sensitive material , assign it a classification if none existed, and afford it the needed protection. SAP information is above Top Secret and she did not know ?? Hillary is an overrated pompous azz. Entrusting her with the security of this country is both reckless and utterly stupid. Good Luck America !!!

the waker Loc: 11th freest nation

Zombiefarmer23 wrote:

What??

Allow me...
I THINK she is a total wack job that believes whole handedly every ounce of crap produced by this administration.
I BELIEVE the left including Mrs Glaucon can't grasp the fact they're mob rule mentality is back firing against them.
I HAVE READ her posts condemning any form of common sense, in favor of emotion and ideology.
Simply put, She supports leadership in this country, that can't LEAD.
After 7 years of Obama leadership people dont even know what bathroom they should use!