The H. Clinton Emails - What's known, What's not

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

+1

Exactly.

What source, other than Hillary herself or her staff, do you have for these statements? Hillary lies. She wiped her server to hide what was on there. It was not hers to wipe. She doesn't get to decide what's relevant and what's not. That for the oversight committee and the Justice Department. At the very least, she has committed Obstruction of Justice. Probably more. Much more. She lies. Quit believing her. She LIES!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

The facts don't matter ...

And you know "the facts" how?

When two sides of an issue state the same "facts" it's usually reliable.

Hillarious has stated her computer hard drive was wiped.

Two FACTS:

1. The FBI technicians will be able to identify the date and time of the wipe.
2. The FBI technicians will be able to obtain data images from her hard drive.

It took Bill a little while to learn about DNA. Hillarious has entered the forensic learning curve ... and like Bill's "learning" it will be enlightening.

I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt: She actually thought it was a "Great Right Wing Conspiracy" and that she can only have one email account on one phone. Did I mention sniper fire on the tarmac and shoe boxes full of "lost checks" in her clothes closet at the White House?

The "brain" health problem she had is not at fault. It's her lack of soul.

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

What source, other than Hillary herself or her staff, do you have for these statements? Hillary lies. She wiped her server to hide what was on there. It was not hers to wipe. She doesn't get to decide what's relevant and what's not. That for the oversight committee and the Justice Department. At the very least, she has committed Obstruction of Justice. Probably more. Much more. She lies. Quit believing her. She LIES!

The source is the Washingtonpost. The 4 classified emails that they found on her server were first sent out on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011 and were marked unclassified by the state department. They were subsequently forwarded to Clinton's email. The classification was changed to classified at a later date. From the link:

A State Department spokesman late Tuesday described the top-secret designation as a recommendation and said they had not been marked classified at the time, but said staffers “circulated these e-mails on unclassified systems in 2009 and 2011 and ultimately some were forwarded to Secretary Clinton.”


http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...b9a_story.html

This was posted in the Dead Candidates thread.

[southtown4488]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

And you know "the facts" how?

When two sides of an issue state the same "facts" it's usually reliable.

Hillarious has stated her computer hard drive was wiped.

Two FACTS:

1. The FBI technicians will be able to identify the date and time of the wipe.
2. The FBI technicians will be able to obtain data images from her hard drive.

It took Bill a little while to learn about DNA. Hillarious has entered the forensic learning curve ... and like Bill's "learning" it will be enlightening.

I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt: She actually thought it was a "Great Right Wing Conspiracy" and that she can only have one email account on one phone. Did I mention sniper fire on the tarmac and shoe boxes full of "lost checks" in her clothes closet at the White House?

The "brain" health problem she had is not at fault. It's her lack of soul.

No one gave a shit that Bill got a blowjob from a chubby jewish intern, that's why he got re-elected. No one gives a shit that Hillary used her personal email the same way Colin Powell did.

[southtown4488]

The Justice Department said Friday it has received a request to examine the handling of classified information related to private emails from Hillary Clinton during her time as secretary of state, but it is not a criminal referral.

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clin...igation-356891

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

No one gave a shit that Bill got a blowjob from a chubby jewish intern, that's why he got re-elected. No one gives a shit that Hillary used her personal email the same way Colin Powell did.

Guess what? We found another anti-semitic son of a bitch. Why is it important to YOU that Monica was Jewish. Does that make it a lesser offense? Or understandable. You know how those hot Jewish girls are right?

I also smell a strong stench of desperation coming from Flighter and Southie. They've staked their reputations on the veracity of Hillary Clinton.

[southtown4488]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Guess what? We found another anti-semitic son of a bitch. Why is it important to YOU that Monica was Jewish. Does that make it a lesser offense? Or understandable. You know how those hot Jewish girls are right?

I also smell a strong stench of desperation coming from Flighter and Southie. They've staked their reputations on the veracity of Hillary Clinton.

oohhhh, u got me. . . im a raging anti-Semite.
I like chubby chicks, and I thought Lewenski was cute. if that makes me anti semitic. . .whatever. looking at the posts of the conservatives on race, its clear who the racists are.

[Ex-CEO]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

No one gave a shit that Bill got a blowjob from a chubby jewish intern, that's why he got re-elected. That's odd, For some reason, I thought Bill was re-elected long BEFORE any news about the blowjob came out. My aging memory must be failing me. Thanks for correcting the record! No one gives a shit that Hillary used her personal email the same way Colin Powell did. So what you're saying is that if someone on the other side may have broken rules and compromised national security, it's perfectly OK if those on your team do the same? Got it! (When you get a moment, please look up the word "hypocrisy.")

And unfortunately for The Hildabeast, there may be more than just a few people who "give a shit."

http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-doze...050425736.html

But that's only the Reuters news service. Don't pay any attention to them; they're just part of that "vast right-wing conspiracy." Right?

[southtown4488]

the only people who care about this BS story are people who hate the Clintons and would never vote for her anyway. When it comes down to it, mentally stable voters will not vote against her because she used her personal email. Most will vote based on policy and the old "who would like to have a beer with at a BBQ" - on policy she clearly beats Trump. . . on the beer test, shes even or slightly ahead of Jeb.

[Ex-CEO]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

the only people who care about this BS story are people who hate the Clintons and would never vote for her anyway. When it comes down to it, mentally stable voters will not vote against her because she used her personal email. Most will vote based on policy and the old "who would like to have a beer with at a BBQ" - on policy she clearly beats Trump. . . on the beer test, shes even or slightly ahead of Jeb.

Oh, so anyone who thinks this fundamentally dishonest, arrogant woman isn't fit to be president isn't "mentally stable?" You're a real paragon of objectivity, aren't you?

By the way, there's no way I'd support or vote for "The Donald" or Jeb, either. I'm not a non-thinking, blind, zealous partisan like so many people around here.

But you're certainly right about one thing: Most people will vote based on policy agendas...in other words, who will promise them the most stuff.

"Ask not..."

OK, never mind. John F. Kennedy must be turning over in his grave.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

And unfortunately for The Hildabeast, there may be more than just a few people who "give a shit."

http://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-doze...050425736.html

But that's only the Reuters news service. Don't pay any attention to them; they're just part of that "vast right-wing conspiracy." Right?

"No one gives a shit that Hillary used her personal email the same way Colin Powell did. So what you're saying is that if someone on the other side may have broken rules and compromised national security, it's perfectly OK if those on your team do the same? Got it! (When you get a moment, please look up the word "hypocrisy.")"

Could you show me where you were upset when Colin did it?

The point he was making is that it is a non issue, yet the right is grasping a straws to win an election.[/QUOTE]

[Ex-CEO]

Originally Posted by slingblade

No one gives a shit that Hillary used her personal email the same way Colin Powell did. So what you're saying is that if someone on the other side may have broken rules and compromised national security, it's perfectly OK if those on your team do the same? Got it! (When you get a moment, please look up the word "hypocrisy.")

Could you show me where you were upset when Colin did it?

The point he was making is that it is a non issue, yet the right is grasping a straws to win an election.

What an utterly ridiculous question. It's been quite a few years since Powell was in office, and as far as I know, he isn't planning to run for president. In the past, I certainly had plenty of problems with Powell's role in the rapid drive toward the disastrous 2003 Iraq War. But that's old news now. The guy's retired.

But go right ahead and join your partisan friends in thinking this is a "non-issue" if that's a happy place for you.

I can assure you that the big-money Democratic Party supporters, the ones who attend and hold high-dollar fund-raisers, are becoming concerned that they need to look for a cleaner candidate.

[southtown4488]

Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

Oh, so anyone who thinks this fundamentally dishonest, arrogant woman isn't fit to be president isn't "mentally stable?" You're a real paragon of objectivity, aren't you?

By the way, there's no way I'd support or vote for "The Donald" or Jeb, either. I'm not a non-thinking, blind, zealous partisan like so many people around here.

But you're certainly right about one thing: Most people will vote based on policy agendas...in other words, who will promise them the most stuff.

"Ask not..."

OK, never mind. John F. Kennedy must be turning over in his grave.

Not what I said, if u don't vote for her based on policy then so be it. . . but if the main reason is because she did the same thing colin powell did then that's not a stable way of thinking (unless you were equally outraged by what colin powell did, which I sincerely doubt). This is a BS story, its fake outrage.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Guess what? We found another anti-semitic son of a bitch. Why is it important to YOU that Monica was Jewish. Does that make it a lesser offense? Or understandable. You know how those hot Jewish girls are right?

I also smell a strong stench of desperation coming from Flighter and Southie. They've staked their reputations on the veracity of Hillary Clinton.

You staked yours on some shrubs and netting... And you lost. Now GTFO.

[slingblade]

Originally Posted by Ex-CEO

What an utterly ridiculous question. It's been quite a few years since Powell was in office, and as far as I know, he isn't planning to run for president. In the past, I certainly had plenty of problems with Powell's role in the rapid drive toward the disastrous 2003 Iraq War. But that's old news now. The guy's retired.

But go right ahead and join your partisan friends in thinking this is a "non-issue" if that's a happy place for you.

I can assure you that the big-money Democratic Party supporters, the ones who attend and hold high-dollar fund-raisers, are becoming concerned that they need to look for a cleaner candidate.

None of your reply has any bearing on the question asked. The fact that Colin has retired or is not running for office does not matter. The point is the Hypocrisy is coming from the right.

I do commend you on stating you thought he was wrong on the Iraq war.

In my opinion the reason the Reps are out to get Hillary is the same as when the they helped Obama beat her. They want to run against someone they feel they have a chance against.