Some of Hillary's E-Mails are so above top secret, law makers are not allowed access...

a reply to: coop039

I'll take that wager. She is done.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
One can see the direction this is going. Hillary looks done. Finished. At least as far as electability goes.

Doubtless, Obama will sign off a broad number of pardons to all involved in his administration's activities before he leaves office. So one can basically forget any significant prosecutions of higher ups in the next administration, no matter which side 'wins'.

www.foxnews.com...

Add Presidential pardons to the list of things that need to go.....

When Dick Cheney and George W Bush put themselves up for prosecution for their ACTUAL War Crimes, we can discuss going after Obama for his perceived scandals.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

The same PRIVATE NOT GOVERNMENT OWNED OR GOVERNMENT SECURED server! Dude, seriously?

Her server was private and held her publically paid for GOVERNMENTAL work product.

She wasn't a receptionist or clerk...she was the Secretary of State!

a reply to: babybunnies

Well that settles that then.

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: nwtrucker

You see, the problem isn't so much that Hillary is a corrupt lying criminal - everyone already knows this.

The PROBLEM is that her supporters simply don't care.

I don't support her. I am just not taking the email thing or Benghazi at the face value the Conservative press gives us.

I am fairly certain there are too many skeletons in the closet, but those two issues I am not concerned about.


Cartoons will not make me be become concerned.

And that attitude is exactly why she will walk Scott free. Even when the law has clearly been broken, it still comes down to partisan bs.

You know why it should concern you? Imagine playing Battleship, your opponent can't see where your ships are. Hillary's "server" with classified information on it,which was hacked, is tantamount to turning the board around so they can see where you put your ships. And she lied about it and tried to hide it. We (the public) still don't know the full ramifications of this.

Not good traits for a potential CiC. And that's not even touching on everything else Hillary has put her grubby hands on.

But nah don't be concerned, go on back to Scholomance. I'll pay you to farm the lifesteal enchant for me, 5g.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: MystikMushroom

The same PRIVATE NOT GOVERNMENT OWNED OR GOVERNMENT SECURED server! Dude, seriously?

Her server was private and held her publically paid for GOVERNMENTAL work product.

She wasn't a receptionist or clerk...she was the Secretary of State!

Yeah dude, what's the big deal if she pays for her own computers and sets up an email server and forwards a news article that millions of people have read?

a reply to: MystikMushroom

She conducted governmental business on her private, nongovernmental server. It is an aggregious and extremely serious act. She knew better just as you know better.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: MystikMushroom

The same PRIVATE NOT GOVERNMENT OWNED OR GOVERNMENT SECURED server! Dude, seriously?

Her server was private and held her publically paid for GOVERNMENTAL work product.

She wasn't a receptionist or clerk...she was the Secretary of State!

What makes you think a .gov email server would be more secure then a private email server? Also look how quickly she was able to give all that data to the FBI when hey asked. She didnt hide the fact that she had private servers and she did this before Obama changed the rules using a private email server.

Untill the FBI comes out with its findings all this is just a republican circlejerk and "grr cliton h8t cliton" campaign. Remeber, inoccent until proven guilty and not guilty no matter what anyone says before we have actual evidence.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: MystikMushroom

She conducted governmental business on her private, nongovernmental server. It is an aggregious and extremely serious act. She knew better just as you know better.

Not to even mention there's over 60,000 emails.

And, she was allowed to delete many at first.

a reply to: Pyle

I did not speak to level of security.

A .gov makes the burden of security on the government, as it should be. Having a private server brings the burden to HC alone and that woman doesn't know her arse from a hole in the ground.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: Pyle

I did not speak to level of security.

A .gov makes the burden of security on the government, as it should be. Having a private server brings the burden to HC alone and that woman doesn't know her arse from a hole in the ground.

Even if she doesnt she pays people that do.

originally posted by: Pyle

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: MystikMushroom

The same PRIVATE NOT GOVERNMENT OWNED OR GOVERNMENT SECURED server! Dude, seriously?

Her server was private and held her publically paid for GOVERNMENTAL work product.

She wasn't a receptionist or clerk...she was the Secretary of State!

She didnt hide the fact that she had private servers and she did this before Obama changed the rules using a private email server.

Untill the FBI comes out with its findings all this is just a republican circlejerk and "grr cliton h8t cliton" campaign. Remeber, inoccent until proven guilty and not guilty no matter what anyone says before we have actual evidence.

What she tried to hide/delete were the classified emails that may have been read after her server got hacked.
At the very least she broke the same NDA as Petraeus, and look where he ended up. If anyone's cerclejerking, its all you liberal regressive deniers.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Gully

What's the point if Obama gives her (and others)a presidential pardon?

The only thing all this results in, at best, is she doesn't win the election.

That's all anyone has seriously been after in the first place. No one reasonable thinks she will or even should go to jail. It's just about defeating her politically.

originally posted by: reldra
You somehow 1) KNOW people will be convicted of crimes and 2) KNOW Obama will pardon all of them. That is a pretty far fetched scenario.

If convicted she will be pardoned after the election. Even if not convicted she will get a pardon. No one in power wants to go down the road of jailing members of previous administrations, especially people that are popular because that will end in a civil war.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: MystikMushroom

The same PRIVATE NOT GOVERNMENT OWNED OR GOVERNMENT SECURED server! Dude, seriously?

Her server was private and held her publically paid for GOVERNMENTAL work product.

She wasn't a receptionist or clerk...she was the Secretary of State!

Yeah dude, what's the big deal if she pays for her own computers and sets up an email server and forwards a news article that millions of people have read?

The affected agency stated to the house committees with supporting documentation that these SAP emails were NOT from public sources, but rather one of its sources - see updated
article

This article also explains that there was also HSC-O intel on her server, meaning HUMINT from an ongoing operation. Regardless of how you feel about Hillary, or conservative media, etc. this info is coming from the IG and people with working the investigation. She is toast no matter how she spins this.

a reply to: SonOfThor

I really dont trust anything on FOX NEWS ONLINE when it comes to Clinton. Far to many "anonymous" people making claims about what the FBI has found when the FBI has said jack all. If this many people in the FBI are coming out about what they have found it seems like we have a bigger problem then what the Republicans claim Clinton did.

Bill and Hillary more than likely have fantastic political leverage and know when and how to use it if necessary.

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: xuenchen

Obama has no reason to protect Clinton now that he's done. He can throw Hillary under the bus if he wants by appointing an IG that is on board with pushing a GOP agenda.

*shrug*

I don't see the problem you're seeing.

There have been some rumblings that Obama eventually want to be Secretary Of the United nations. If true, he first has to be appointed ambassador to the U.N. to qualify. That would require Hillary both winning AND appointing Obama to the Position. that would require a quid pro quo...(speculation, on my part).

Also, throwing Hillary under the bus has collateral damage to both the Democrat party and to his 'legacy achievements'. Too much damage and the Republicans could wind up with both houses with huge majorities and the Presidency. An overwhelming mandate could undo much of his 'work' almost overnight.

I believe he has sufficient ego that anything that could reflect on him would be 'frowned upon'.....

a reply to: Aazadan

I'd agree that was the original intent. Let's face it they'd go after Hillary for J-walking, if that's what it took.
That's the beast that is D.C. politics. Also, likely where it will end up.

In between? As the layers started peeling off? I'm not so sure if it didn't grow enough or gain sufficient momentum that it isn't/wasn't seriously looked at as an indictable offense.

The Presidential pardon aspect didn't come to mind until I was composing the thread. In hind-site, I'm a bit surprised that it hadn't come up, that I know of, before this....

originally posted by: nwtrucker
One can see the direction this is going. Hillary looks done. Finished. At least as far as electability goes.

Doubtless, Obama will sign off a broad number of pardons to all involved in his administration's activities before he leaves office. So one can basically forget any significant prosecutions of higher ups in the next administration, no matter which side 'wins'.

www.foxnews.com...

Add Presidential pardons to the list of things that need to go.....

I'm sorry, but she's Democrat and a woman. Those two things make her untouchable, because our supposed 4th branch is in the business of keeping Democrats elected and acting as arbiters of their chosen version of "social change".

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: whyamIhere

Well I read the New York Times, do you?

No. They're a notoriously left wing, partisan propaganda rag.