Hillary Is Finally Asked About Non-Disclosure Agreement

a reply to: introvert

please tell me you aren't silly enough to believe that her problems are the fault of "right wingers".

Even for a militant Liberal such as yourself, her crimes are evident.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: introvert

please tell me you aren't silly enough to believe that her problems are the fault of "right wingers".

I didn't say that, did I. Her problems are her fault alone.

Even for a militant Liberal such as yourself, her crimes are evident.

Please educate us on the obvious crimes she has committed. I'm sure you are a lawyer and qualified to speak on such things.

If her crimes were so evident, you would be hearing a lot more people in the legal communities speaking-out.

originally posted by: introvert

If her crimes were so evident, you would be hearing a lot more people in the legal communities speaking-out.

They limit their opinions because the (multiple) investigations are ongoing and most of the "illegal" activities have not been made public yet.

At best, we are getting 10% of the information.

And that 10% is damning enough.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: introvert

please tell me you aren't silly enough to believe that her problems are the fault of "right wingers".

I didn't say that, did I. Her problems are her fault alone.

Even for a militant Liberal such as yourself, her crimes are evident.

Please educate us on the obvious crimes she has committed. I'm sure you are a lawyer and qualified to speak on such things.

If her crimes were so evident, you would be hearing a lot more people in the legal communities speaking-out.

She signed the NDA, top secret stuff was on her home server.

Her guilt is indisputable, it is off to Federal Prison, turning big rocks into little rocks for her.

originally posted by: introvert

Even for a militant Liberal such as yourself, her crimes are evident.

Please educate us on the obvious crimes she has committed. I'm sure you are a lawyer and qualified to speak on such things.

If her crimes were so evident, you would be hearing a lot more people in the legal communities speaking-out.

Not that you really care, or are being sincere in any way, but being in the military and having a secret clearance, I do have explicit knowledge of what constitutes a breach of security. Housing classified material on an unsecured device is criminal and punishable under the UCMJ. There is a very strict method of how to handle classified material. Since she was not a member of the military, the UCMJ may not apply to her, but the rules certainly don't disappear for high level government employees. (unless you are a Clinton apparently)

But hey, thanks for being condescending anyway!

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
a reply to: network dude

On the flip side (using our head a bit)...
We all know that as conniving and shrewd as Hillary is, do we really think she is stupid?

I'd have to say negative on that, network.



As an aside, I have no doubts the Justice System is screwed up.
I just don't think she is an idiot.

Idiot you say?
She blamed her last losing effort at POTUS on the Obama people.
She blamed every attack on her husband on some looney Right wing conspiracy.

My bet is she will blame this on them damn dirty communist socialists who are supporting Berney, a conspiracy to get a closet communist party member nominated over her. Start waiting for it.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Does that NDA cover retroactive classification?

a reply to: network dude

Not that you really care, or are being sincere in any way

Nothing in my post gives you any need to question my sincerity. Why the childish rebuttal?

but being in the military and having a secret clearance, I do have explicit knowledge of what constitutes a breach of security.

Let me know when the investigators and prosecutors call on you for advice.

Housing classified material on an unsecured device is criminal and punishable under the UCMJ.

the UCMJ may not apply to her

Correct. I do not believe she is bound by the UCMJ. Why bring it up?

We can speculate all we want, but you have to be able to prove she broke a law.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

She blamed her last losing effort at POTUS on the Obama people.

That is correct. Obama's people were better than her's and Obama won the election. Common sense.

She blamed every attack on her husband on some looney Right wing conspiracy

The Right Wing is known for loony conspiracies.

My bet is she will blame this on them damn dirty communist socialists who are supporting Berney, a conspiracy to get a closet communist party member nominated over her. Start waiting for it.

See. Loony conspiracy.

How convenient of you to provide an example.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: TinfoilTP

She blamed her last losing effort at POTUS on the Obama people.

That is correct. Obama's people were better than her's and Obama won the election. Common sense.

She blamed every attack on her husband on some looney Right wing conspiracy

The Right Wing is known for loony conspiracies.

My bet is she will blame this on them damn dirty communist socialists who are supporting Berney, a conspiracy to get a closet communist party member nominated over her. Start waiting for it.

See. Loony conspiracy.

How convenient of you to provide an example.

She'll have plenty of time in prison to write reams of blame, her lunacy will be on full display.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

She'll have plenty of time in prison to write reams of blame

IF she is guilty of committing a crime. Have to prove that first. Wishful thinking created by brainwashing propaganda does not convict people.

her lunacy will be on full display

I can only hope it's as crystal clear as the lunacy on display here.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: network dude

I understand all of that, yes.

No, it doesn't seem like you do. Tell me, do you think what she did was a demonstration of competency, much less presidential level competency?

Also, did you believe the IRS commissioner when he claimed he couldn't have over Learner's emails because "the hard drive crashed"? If you said it might because because you don't get it.

Again, if no one from the Bush admin was jailed for blatantly lying to the public, through that lying taking us into an endless war, spending an uncountable amount of taxpayer dollars on (civilian) death and no-bid contracts, then you think that Clinton's very minor role (comparably) is going to be brought to account? Psh.

a reply to: introvert

You just love to argue on this topic, so hear is food for thought. The reason why Hilary was supposed to have a e-mail through the state dept was because any e-mail she received could be given a change of classification at any time. So her having a private server is at least a breaking of her non-disclosure she should have signed. In her arrogance she chose to use a private server and lets face it after all her time working in the gov't she knew better. The excuse of not wanting multiple e-mails is a joke, because her e-mail for being SOS was to keep any potential classified documents "in house" where there are safe guards and protocols to keep track of who is able to access the info. Claiming ignorance on her part to what she did wrong does not vindicate her and if anything makes her look inept at best.

a reply to: hangedman13

We can argue that it was not a good idea, but Clinton was not breaking any law or policy by using a private email account or server as long as she handed-over all work-related emails after her time was up. It was only after she left office that the policies were changed.

So, again, what laws has she broken?

a reply to: introvert

The State Department started requesting her emails long after she left the SD (later rather than sooner)

some info

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

You DO know that, as Secty of State, she was REQUIRED to know the classification of documents REGARDLESS of whether or not they were marked Classified?

She gets no pass on this one.

a reply to: introvert

The FBI would not be investigating her if no laws were broken.

a reply to: introvert

THe FBI will determine her fate. You don't mention the ongoing investigation, why?

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: introvert

The FBI would not be investigating her if no laws were broken.

That makes no sense. A legal investigation, by definition, is what takes place to find if any laws have been broken after allegations have been made.

The FBI is investigating the issue because an IG recommended an investigation take place in to the security procedures.

Remember, this is a procedural investigation, not a criminal investigation.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: introvert

THe FBI will determine her fate.

Yes they will. I will hold-off on passing judgement until they release their finding or press charges.

You don't mention the ongoing investigation, why?

What's the point? We will not know anything until it's over. Let them do their thing and just wait to come to any conclusions.