Why Hillary is STILL relevant.

a reply to: face23785

I'll tell you what. You go to Washington DC and pitch your case. I'm sure you got tons of evidence to prove her guilty since you sound so sure of yourself.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well here is where I disagree.

There was never an investigation into Uranium one.

Even former democratic head of the CIA Pannetta thinks their needs to be an investigation into it.

I think you are wrong about proof hillary was not involved, but we can discuss that on any of the U1 threads.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

I'll tell you what. You go to Washington DC and pitch your case. I'm sure you got tons of evidence to prove her guilty since you sound so sure of yourself.

I'll take that as an admission you can't refute anything I said.

a reply to: Grambler

Well when it comes to hillary clinton and new controversies I side with her being innocent over guilty by default. I've learned to never trust the right wing media's opinion on her.

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

I'll tell you what. You go to Washington DC and pitch your case. I'm sure you got tons of evidence to prove her guilty since you sound so sure of yourself.

I'll take that as an admission you can't refute anything I said.

Take it however you want. I don't see her getting any closer to jail time no matter what you think is true or not true.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: face23785

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

I'll tell you what. You go to Washington DC and pitch your case. I'm sure you got tons of evidence to prove her guilty since you sound so sure of yourself.

I'll take that as an admission you can't refute anything I said.

Take it however you want. I don't see her getting any closer to jail time no matter what you think is true or not true.

That's cool, I mean it's not really your fault. In a lot of political issues, we'll never have firsthand knowledge and we just have to listen to wherever we get our information and try to make an informed decision on what's true and what isn't. In this case I have first hand knowledge because I held a security clearance and was subject to the same laws she was. I know for a fact she broke the law and knew she was breaking the law, I don't have to pick which pundits to believe. Just be aware all the excuses you've been fed wherever you got your info on this case are bs. Misunderstanding of IT? I can't believe you even brought that up. Wherever you heard that really took you for a ride.

a reply to: face23785

Look. Comey said that he didn't pursue an indictment because Hillary made a dumb mistake. I interpret that to mean she didn't understand the technology she was using fully. Seeing as how members of the Bush admin used to do this too, it wasn't really a concerning matter until Republicans made a big deal out of Hillary doing it. This is why I still don't think she is guilty.

Furthermore there was nothing sensitive in any of those emails so the "she screwed up" excuse can still float. The problem comes with the fact that bitter Republicans want the book thrown at Hillary, because she is a liberal and possibly because she is a woman, while ignoring how their own party engaged in similar behavior at times too.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Her team deleted subpoenaed evidence. Thats not a mistake.

Someone should have went to jail.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

Look. Comey said that he didn't pursue an indictment because Hillary made a dumb mistake. I interpret that to mean she didn't understand the technology she was using fully. Seeing as how members of the Bush admin used to do this too, it wasn't really a concerning matter until Republicans made a big deal out of Hillary doing it. This is why I still don't think she is guilty.

Furthermore there was nothing sensitive in any of those emails so the "she screwed up" excuse can still float. The problem comes with the fact that bitter Republicans want the book thrown at Hillary, because she is a liberal and possibly because she is a woman, while ignoring how their own party engaged in similar behavior at times too.

Please link me to which Bush officials set up a private server. I'll wait.

And since when is "the other party did it" an acceptable defense to you? I don't give a # about Bush. If anyone else put our national security at risk being this grossly incompetent they should face charges too. It's also a lie that there was nothing sensitive in those emails. Many of them were classified, according to your buddy Comey. Some couldn't even be released because they were so highly classified.

You've just been wrong all around on this issue. Every post the last 2 pages has contained inaccuracies and flat untruths. I don't know if it's deliberate or if you've just been that badly misled.

a reply to: kurthall


Sure he does. So what?

The only danger Trump represents is to the Establishment. Left and Right. Guess what? Fox has the same sponsors as the rest of the MSM.

Putin has met lots of people, including Trump. So what?

Some of the left may have moved on from Hillary. Rightly so, I might add, here's what I believe you miss: Until the Democrat party distances itself from Hillary Clinton, her husband and their foundation, there will be no separation and moving on, NO matter how much it may be wanted.

Hillary IS and will be tied to the Democrats. If she is indeed guilty, then the Democrat must, MUST equally denounce her and her crimes to be absolved of her. Otherwise, like the proverbial stink on the 'pile', she's YOURS and will remain so.

Correct or not, HRC represents a protected elite class with corrupt tendrils threading through our government. The destruction of evidence alone from the Benghazi hearings would have a normal person being bars for a very long time. The fact that her and the DNC were able to tell the FBI "No you can't look at our hacked server" and the FBI complied. No normal citizen can do that. The fact she can say she didn't know "C" meant classified. No normal classified-cleared citizen can claim that. She personally needs to be held to justice, but the victim card is strong with the left.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I'm confused still. I read that rant but I still don't understand why the right is still so obsessed with Hillary Clinton. The OP seems to be blaming the left on why they (the right) can't let her go.

My impression is the left keep going completely hysterically out of their minds about Trump allegations, where with Hillary (whom still gets shilled for around here day in and out) there's a clear history of all the same stuff.

So couple that HYPOCRISY with the MSM wont quit propping her up, 'everyone' around here acts like shes a saint all while she just wont GO AWAY, I can see why the "right" (or rather everyone whom isnt a Hillary stooge) wont let up on her.

If we cant learn from history, even history from just a year ago, we've got BIG problem. YUUUUGE.

a reply to: nwtrucker

She's not relevant. Like you said, deflection. Doesn't matter though. If it wasn't her it would be another Dem. Say Obama.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: nwtrucker

I hear FAR more about Hillary from right leaning posters and right leaning media sources. So I disagree here. Case in point. This thread. Unless you are secretly a liberal that is.

Nope the thread explains it. The Democrats 'choice' who almost became President.

She's their choice. IF the allegations are false then the left should demand an investigation, clear her name and be clean of this.

Don't hold your breath. Trump gets an investigation under his own administration. Hillary doesn't get one under Trump's..

Rather simple. This goes where angels fear to tread.....and Republicans.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: face23785

Furthermore there was nothing sensitive in any of those emails so the "she screwed up" excuse can still float.

This is flat out false. Directly from Comey's statement, emphasis added:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information AT THE TIME THEY WERE SENT OR RECEIVED. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

Part of the training you get is recognizing what material is classified and what isn't, even if it doesn't contain the header. A first year Army private with a Secret clearance would know this. For someone with Clinton's experience, having held a Top Secret clearance when she was on the Senate Intel Committee, to suggest that the header was the key factor is dishonest. She was just taking advantage of the fact that to most of the public, that would sound legit. Anyone who has had classified training knew she was lying there. And the 2,000 additional emails that were up-classified after the fact, I can tell you from personal experience that someone with her level of involvement with classified material over the years would have an excellent sense of when something is probably going to be classified in the future.

It's also a huge violation of the federal records act for her and her lawyers to be deciding what's work related and what's not, which is part of the entire reason why you're not supposed to do official business through private email. By rights your entire private email account becomes government property, and they decide what's work related and what's not. There are even warnings when you log onto a government computer that any information that passes through this computer becomes government property, whether it's official business or just emailing your yoga routine to someone. That's likely the entire reason why she set up the private server in the first place, so she could circumvent that system. (This and only this is speculation on my part, everything else I've said here is not a matter of opinion.)

The entire defense is based upon the average citizen simply not knowing about any of this stuff, and people like you who apparently refuse to be educated on the subject from people who do know. You have been misled. I've tried to help you out. Only you can force yourself to remain ignorant on this issue. If you want to be informed, the information is there. It's up to you.

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: nwtrucker

She's not relevant. Like you said, deflection. Doesn't matter though. If it wasn't her it would be another Dem. Say Obama.

Heck no! Trudeau....

originally posted by: nwtrucker

originally posted by: intrepid
a reply to: nwtrucker

She's not relevant. Like you said, deflection. Doesn't matter though. If it wasn't her it would be another Dem. Say Obama.

Heck no! Trudeau....

Pfft. He's a lightweight. Head to head I could make him look silly in less than 5 minutes.

You guys pretend like you're forced to watch "the media," lol.

Turn off your TV. Stop reading CNN and the likes.

Revolutionary concepts, here.

originally posted by: theantediluvian

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: nwtrucker

Hillary is relevant because she may have committed crimes that hurt our country.

She is also relevant because people that worked with her or she influenced are accusing trump of committing the same crimes she is accused of.

You forgot that she's also relevant because Trump is in perpetual campaign mode and needs somebody to say "whattabout" in reference to.

That's an interesting point. One could call it a campaign mode. I see it more as staying connected with what will be the third party. His base.

I highly doubt that the information on who funded the dossier, on the facts of McCain's actual military history any number of others, would have seen this degree of exposure without Trump's Presidential pulpit. Personally, I hope it continues. It sure wouldn't it we relied on the MSM.

the crying about the msm bringingup all the times brokedown social media all over the world. AND DID SUCH GREAT BUISNESS FOR CNN ALL ALONG. like certain language that came around. more surface to attack