Email Scandal: Hillary Clinton’s Last Defense Just Blew Up

a reply to: butcherguy

Well good thing the hackers have to fool people with way more tech knowledge than me. You think the FBI doesn't know how to see what we can't on this server.

a reply to: xuenchen

Oh really? Like 99% of what's already being said is not speculation? What's good for the goose or Fox ...

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

What makes those statements moot? Your complete dismissal of them? Ok. Love absolutes.
I guess we'll see where that ends.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: IAMTAT




Also just saw the tail end of a crawl on MSNBC saying indictment of Clinton not going to happen....waiting for more info

Really? Post that please...when you have it.
I can't find that on MSNBC.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: xuenchen

Oh really? Like 99% of what's already being said is not speculation? What's good for the goose or Fox ...

The White House, The State Department, the Inspectors General, the FBI and Justice Department etc are all "speculation" ?

a reply to: butcherguy

Sure

democrats-benghazi.house.gov...

a reply to: IAMTAT

I said I just saw a crawl on the tv.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: IAMTAT

I said I just saw a crawl on the tv.

Right. So it it should also be a breaking news story. BIG news.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

Sure

democrats-benghazi.house.gov...

Straight from Elijah Cummings.... he has less credibility than Hillary herself... and that is hard to do.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

This just shows that you really have no clue what you are talking about and must resort to childish posts hoping to get a little back-slapping from the fanboys.

Let's recap:

You made certain claims about classifications, yet have exposed yourself as knowing less than a wikipedia page.

You have know clue, as neither do anyone else except investigators, as to what is in the emails, yet make specific claims you are not qualified to make.

And to top it all off you actually think this is about whom to vote for?

Obviously you have a hard time recognizing that this has nothing to do with whom to vote for. It has to do with potential charges coming against Hillary.

We are back to square one, in which we know very little and no one can make any claims about her guilt or innocence. That has been my point all along. She may be guilty, she may be innocent. But none of us know enough to say either way.

Can you agree with that?

Like to get personal don't ya. Wanna hug?

Dude, like I said, I got 25+ years with a TS/SCI in the intelligence community and the FBI. So for you to tell me I do not know what I am talking about, well you're just delusional.

Let's just agree to disagree... I am right and you are wrong.... but we both know that won't be the case until the FBI announcement, which may or may not come directly from them, might be straight from the AG herself. I am starting to think this thing is further along than I thought.

Try telling the truth for starters.... Quit telling people Hillarys server was legal without noting that it was not cleared for anything above unclassified....both are equally true statements, but you continue to use only the "the server was legal"... true it was legal...but only up to unclassified which is also true.

You claim to be totally neutral, yet you bias your statements with things like....Hillary's server was legal.... because that swings it over Hillarys way....if you were truly neutral...you would say, Hillarys server was legal, but only up to the unclassified level. That also is a true statement but swings neither way... pro or anti and allows the reader an option instead of being force fed whatever version of the truth is that you want them to swallow.

Reply if you want, I don't care. outside life calls

Tick tock goes the clock.

You are far from neutral and most people can plainly see that.



OMG...Chumlee got busted? Screw Hillary we got more important fish to fry!!!

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

Sure

democrats-benghazi.house.gov...

The FBI and Inspector General are not involved with Congress.

And Seriously -- Elijah Cummings?

edit on Mar-10-2016 by xuenchen because:

a reply to: RickinVa

Like to get personal don't ya. Wanna hug?

No thanks. I like to keep clean.

Dude, like I said, I got 25+ years with a TS/SCI in the intelligence community and the FBI. So for you to tell me I do not know what I am talking about, well you're just delusional.

I call BS. You lacked basic knowledge of TK classification. Knowledge available on wikipedia.

Let's just agree to disagree... I am right and you are wrong

My, how arrogant of you. I only wish you could actually prove your assertions, but you cannot. It's impossible for you to do so. So claiming you are right is just wishful thinking on your part.

Or delusional, as it were.

You claim to be totally neutral, yet you bias your statements with things like....Hillary's server was legal.... because that swings it over Hillarys way....if you were truly neutral...you would say, Hillarys server was legal, but only up to the unclassified level. That also is a true statement but swings neither way... pro or anti and allows the reader an option instead of being force fed whatever version of the truth is that you want them to swallow.

Reply if you want, I don't care. outside life calls

Tick tock goes the clock.

You are far from neutral and most people can plainly see that.

I can only be neutral if I speak in a way you find suitable? Again, you show me how absurd and ridiculous you are.

Let's leave it at this: You have no clue what you are talking about. You have no credible information and you lack basic understanding of government classifications.

I make no claim to her guilt or innocence and remain neutral until something is released.

No matter what, I come out of this clean because I have made absolutely n claims.

You, on the other hand, have completely invested in the guilt-camp and have laid your reputation, or lack thereof, on the line in regards to this issue. What if she is not charged? What will you say then?

You have quite a bit to lose now. Me, nothing at all.

Tick tock, indeed.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: IAMTAT

I said I just saw a crawl on the tv.

Still no story on MSNBC...I'm still looking.
Any luck finding it at your end?

a reply to: introvert

your losing credibility with every post. I have nothing to lose.



"Let's leave it at this: You have no clue what you are talking about. You have no credible information and you lack basic understanding of government classifications."

Coming for you sir, I can only take that as an overwhelming compliment. Since I am light years ahead of you in government classifications, where exactly does that put you?


Tick Tock


No more feeding the troll......it only helps him achieve his goals....

Let's leave it at this: My Mother always told me to never argue with an idiot because they will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: IAMTAT

I said I just saw a crawl on the tv.

Still no story on MSNBC...I'm still looking.
Any luck finding it at your end?

Could it have been about the story from the Univision debate last night when Hillary said there will be no indictment??

That would be my guess

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert



No more feeding the troll......it only helps him achieve his goals....

Let's leave it at this: My mother always told me to never argue with an idiot because they will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Your Momma was right.
Ignore fat Trolls.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Their reliance on the mistaken notion of 'retroactive classification' is what makes their statements moot.

The information itself is what is classified, whether or not it is marked as such, and as a result cannot be "classified after the fact."

To whit:

These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system.

Inspectors General Release Joint Statement to Clear Up Hillary Email Referral Flap

Those are statements from The Intelligence Community Inspector General to the intelligence oversight committees in Congress. They are not the subjective opinion of any member of these boards, they are objectively verifiable factual statements; although they do support the opinions of those who agree that wrongdoing has occurred.

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: IAMTAT

I said I just saw a crawl on the tv.

Still no story on MSNBC...I'm still looking.
Any luck finding it at your end?

Could it have been about the story from the Univision debate last night when Hillary said there will be no indictment??

That would be my guess

I'm sure that is exactly what it was.

a reply to: RickinVa

your losing credibility with every post. I have nothing to lose.

Backtracking, are we? Are you unsure of yourself?

You went "all-in". It's all on the line for you.

Better hope you are right.

Coming for you sir, I can only take that as an overwhelming compliment. Since I am light years ahead of you in government classifications, where exactly does that put you?

Wikipedia knew more than you. You've already exhibited your lack of knowledge.

It appears that puts me in a nice position. Thanks for exposing yourself.

Let's leave it at this: My mother always told me to never argue with an idiot because they will just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Does that mean you and your mother are not on speaking terms?

a reply to: Whatsreal

OK...I get the Hillary hate...I get lots of people here feel a certain way about her...and I think there is a valid discussion to be had on if and how she is qualified to President...etc. etc.

So please think before going personal batsh%$ crazy when I look to discuss facts or substance here...

You can hate the woman and still discuss evidence and facts at the same time..

From your article:

The Post’s latest revelations, however, are particularly damning. It found that three-quarters of the classified emails she sent were written by Clinton herself.

Saying she didn’t know the information was classified because it wasn’t marked makes no sense, since she was the one who would have been responsible for marking it in the first place.

"classified emails"...WHEN...cuz as I understand it ...

(A) they have gone through and classified the material for release to the public. Any stack of paper dropped in front of someone tasked with classifying materials is going to come away with a percentage of material "classified". This does not mean the material was classified when it was sent.

(B) The State Department, the CIA, the NSA etc. etc. all have their own classification protocol. So State can indicate something classified...does mean CIA does and vice-versa.

(C) "she was the one who would have been responsible for marking it in the first place"...No...The Secretary of State is not the one responsible for reviewing material and marking it for classification.

Here is the question I think most reasonable people care about...Did she send any material that was marked classified by State at the time it was sent...vs. classified retroactively for general release to the public.


That line of logic is independent of politics...

What we seem to have is a mass of spin and politics and a steady stream of politically motivated. Less than accurate or detailed "leaks" aimed at chipping away at Hillary's prospects as a Presidential candidate.

I say that not being a Hillary fan...but someone that really doesn't like BS either.