Hillary FINALLY responds to a hard question.

a reply to: shooterbrody

Mcfly it's did she lie about marked emails. Jaysus Crispy stop changing the subject. Marked emails marked emails.
She forgot she got those three.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sublimecraft

"Mrs. Clinton, is the sky blue?"

"The sky is a wonderful thing that holds the clouds and gives us sunshine. My opponent hates the sky and wishes that we would live in caves. As I've stated repeatedly, I don't agree with living in caves. Caves are dark and nasty places that have bears and spiders. I like bears and spiders and hope that everyone listening will join me in attempts to preserve bears and spiders, which my opponent hates."

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Sublimecraft

"Mrs. Clinton, is the sky blue?"

"The sky is a wonderful thing that holds the clouds and gives us sunshine. My opponent hates the sky and wishes that we would live in caves. As I've stated repeatedly, I don't agree with living in caves. Caves are dark and nasty places that have bears and spiders. I like bears and spiders and hope that everyone listening will join me in attempts to preserve bears and spiders, which my opponent hates. And I have nothing to do with those dead bears in those caves. For anyone that's interested, there's a whole right-wing conspiracy out there for people to investigate, if they want to know who is killing the spiders. They've been lying about me for a long time. And I always try to be as honest as I can with my constituents."

Fixed it for ya...

a reply to: kosmicjack

That's exactly what I took away from it. Flippant dismissiveness.

"Let them eat cake!"

The same government that says Hillary is innocent;

Is the same government that says climate change is real and man made.
It's the same government that says it spends our tax dollars wisely.
It's the same government that said, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor".
It's the same government that said there are WMD's in Iraq.
It's the same government that says only 5% of the population is unemployed.
It's the same government that swears every 4 years that it has the solutions to the problems made 4 years earlier.
It's the same government that says it doesn't want to take away your guns.
It's the same government that gives us "free speech zones".


If you trust the government, if you want more government, then please, by all means, vote for Hillary.

Because there is nothing in Heaven or on Earth I could do or say to change your mind.

I'm out

a reply to: Sillyolme

Nothing to add about Comeys quote?

So its just all she forgot?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
The same government that says Hillary is innocent;

Is the same government that says climate change is real and man made.
It's the same government that says it spends our tax dollars wisely.
It's the same government that said, "If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor".
It's the same government that said there are WMD's in Iraq.
It's the same government that says only 5% of the population is unemployed.
It's the same government that swears every 4 years that it has the solutions to the problems made 4 years earlier.
It's the same government that says it doesn't want to take away your guns.
It's the same government that gives us "free speech zones".


If you trust the government, if you want more government, then please, by all means, vote for Hillary.

Because there is nothing in Heaven or on Earth I could do or say to change your mind.

So ... what is Donald Trump trying to be elected to again?

I could have sworn it has to do with "the same government."

a reply to: Sillyolme

I'm out

of lies?
of stupid pills?
of candidates with vajayjayes to defend?

a reply to: introvert

Oh, c'mon...

You or I would have been hauled before a jury before the ink on the warrant was even dry. Or would there even have been a warrant...?

a reply to: introvert

A lot of people seem to disagree with you, and your only defense which the post was directed against was to say that, "If what you describe was proof of intent, she would have been indicted." That's using the system's lack of doing something to prove nothing was there to do anything with. Your defense is, well they didn't indict, therefore that's not true. Which requires the assumption the system is lacking in corruption. A corrupt system will make exceptions or choose to ignore evidence when it will not have a desired result.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
I'm out

Don't let the door hit ya in the...

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: introvert

A lot of people seem to disagree with you, and your only defense which the post was directed against was to say that, "If what you describe was proof of intent, she would have been indicted." That's using the system's lack of doing something to prove nothing was there to do anything with. Your defense is, well they didn't indict, therefore that's not true. Which requires the assumption the system is lacking in corruption. A corrupt system will make exceptions or choose to ignore evidence when it will not have a desired result.

And ^^THAT^^ is EXACTLY what happened, which is obvious to anyone who's not wearing the Billary blinders. Star for that & great post.

a reply to: xuenchen

No she wouldn't.

She'd obfuscate. She'd lie. In other words, business as usual.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: introvert

Oh, c'mon...

You or I would have been hauled before a jury before the ink on the warrant was even dry. Or would there even have been a warrant...?

Between 2011 and 2015, federal prosecutors disposed of 30 referrals from investigators in cases where the main proposed charge was misdemeanor mishandling of classified information, according to data obtained from the Justice Department by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Prosecution was declined in 80 percent of those cases. Of the six where charges were filed, all the defendants apparently pled guilty, the data show.

The cases indicate that a strong dose of prosecutorial discretion is involved, partly because the laws on mishandling classified information are written broadly. Read more: www.politico.com... Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

I respectfully disagree.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: RickinVa

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: RickinVa

If you can possibly fathom how much harder it is for the government to retrieve information from a private server of an unwilling participant as opposed as to how easy it is for the government to retrieve that same information from a commercial email account of an unwillingly participant, then you will start to understand why she went with a private server.

Can you prove it was her intent to make it harder for the government to retrieve those communications?

The FBI couldn't.

Yes the FBI did.... the server was wiped with a program called Bleachbit, making it impossible to recover the data. This was not done on accident, but on purpose to make sure the FBI could not access anything other than what she gave them.

The FBI did not say she had that intent. Can you provide a quote?

Total BS as usual.

The very fact that the server was wiped with a program specifically designed to make deleted date unrecoverable, shows intent.

Period.

Again, the FBI disagrees, otherwise she would have been recommended for indictment.

What you are arguing is for a pay-to-play legal system, had it been a peasant, that peasant would be facing indictment.

It's something blatantly obvious that the political and legal system is rigged, this years election is a testament of that fact.

If the law is not applied equally, there is no law. It's merely a system of whoever has money and influence can do whatever they want.

a reply to: Puppylove

A lot of people seem to disagree with you

Why should I care? I'm here to discuss topics and the facts behind them. I do not come here for confirmation bias.

That's using the system's lack of doing something to prove nothing was there to do anything with. Your defense is, well they didn't indict, therefore that's not true.

They didn't indict because they could not find proof of intent. I will say that it is possible that she did take actions in order to cover her ass, but if we can't prove it, it's only opinion on possibilities.

Which requires the assumption the system is lacking in corruption. A corrupt system will make exceptions or choose to ignore evidence when it will not have a desired result.

That is your excuse. I don't follow that train of thought.

a reply to: GodEmperor

What you are arguing is for a pay-to-play legal system, had it been a peasant, that peasant would be facing indictment.

Look at my post above. Your assertion is incorrect in this case.

It's something blatantly obvious that the political and legal system is rigged, this years election is a testament of that fact. If the law is not applied equally, there is no law. It's merely a system of whoever has money and influence can do whatever they want.

We're talking about the legal system, not politics. Do not conflate the issue.

a reply to: introvert

The proof exists, if it didn't it wouldn't be so widely known by name.

They are ignoring it because they are under severe pressure to let her off.

a reply to: Puppylove

The proof exists, if it didn't it wouldn't be so widely known by name.

Let's see it.

They are ignoring it because they are under severe pressure to let her off.

Ahhh, conspiracy.

It's always a conspiracy.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CynConcepts

True enough.

Those two words were unexpected, but appreciated. You are an interesting poster.

a reply to: kaylaluv

It doesn't matter if it was purposely done, or not.

She screwed up. Accidental or not. A normal doing that would have face sanctions up to, and possibly including, jail time. Certainly any security clearances they had would go by the board. Gone.

But she gets to become (((shudder))) President? What other mistakes, totally accidental of course, is she going to make??

If we don't want Trump on the nuclear key, we sure as shootin' don't want Clinton on it, either.

She's more than proven she's too incompetent to be POTUS.