When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

@parados,

parados wrote:

Except it wasn't 2 of 110. Perhaps you should check your facts.

Revelette2 said that two of the email exchanges were marked confusingly. If you would like to argue for a different number, I'll listen to your argument.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

And you know this how?

Because the hacking prowess of the Chinese government is common knowledge, and an unsecured server would not present a very serious obstacle to them at all.

Blickers wrote:

Which is another way of saying that there is no evidence that it has.

Saying it that way is incredibly misleading.

The fact that Hillary was so reckless and negligent with classified and top secret emails that there is no way to even tell if the Chinese government hacked them, doesn't justify any presumption that there were no hackers.

Blickers wrote:

She followed the rules as she understood them at the time,

Wrong. Hillary intentionally and deliberately broke the rules, and intentionally and deliberately tried to cover up her violations.

Blickers wrote:

Like maporsche said, the government, for better or worse, is run by people in the 50-70 year old age group who were two decades out of school before they ever put their hands on a computer. Plan to round them up?

Most of them seem to know better than to deliberately break the rules, set up an unsecured server, and put top secret emails on it.

Blickers wrote:

And since we know for a fact that the State Dep't computer system has been hacked, and we have no evidence that Hillary's guarded system was hacked, we might well have come out ahead security-wise doing things the way Hillary did.

The fact that Hillary was so reckless and negligent that there is no way to even tell if the information is hacked is hardly a security feature.

Blickers wrote:

With all your railing against Socialists

For any reason other than their efforts to destroy freedom and democracy?

Granted, I do favor regulated capitalism over socialism when it comes to economic systems.

Blickers wrote:

and your embrace of the Republicans' plan to do away with Social Security and Medicare,

No such plans. In fact, the Republicans tried to save Social Security. It was the Democrats who kept Social Security on its current path to bankruptcy.

Blickers wrote:

I figure about the only way you can be a Democrat is that if you had a wealthy Democratic grandfather who left you an inheritance in the form of a large yearly stipend to you, conditional upon you still being registered as a member of the Democratic Party.

Are the Democrats going to start purging people who don't follow party extremism now?

I know that parties do strange things when they head off into an extended period as minority extremists, but I'd not been expecting that.

At any rate, I'll remain a member until DNC thought police come and purge me for thinking.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

Quote georgeob1:

Quote:
Some questions deserve answers: some don't. Blatham's didn't, because he he has been so evasive in addressing his own hypocrisy.

Hah! And some questions don't get answered because the inquirer hit the nail on the head. Blatham asked you, since you were cheering the FBI's investigation to that point, if Comey ended up not recommending pursuing an indictment if you would stand by that finding. You evaded. And now Comey does not recommend indictment, and boom!-you're hollering "Fix!".

You're predictable.

Not nearly so as are you. I'm not hollering at all - those are your words.

I expressed my belief that there would be no indictment coming from the Obama administration long before the decision was made. I did for a while see some possibility of an FBI recommendation for one, or at leaks to that effect. However, as I started to see strange, not obviously warranted, praise for Comey's supposed independence and integrity in the Liberal media I began to doubt even that. The "spontaneous" Clinton Lynch meeting in herrr aircraft, and the FBI's hasty hour weekend interview with queen Hillary removed all doubt.

Blatham, knowing all that, was merely trying to set himself up for an automatic gotcha. You are doing the same.

I am however surprised at the slavish credulity of people like you.

1 Reply

When citizens finally realize that we should hold ALL politicians accountable for their ****, and run them out of public life when they show their corruption, we'll begin to have decent representatives instead of elite, corrupt mini-dictators.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

....we'll begin to have decent representatives instead of elite, corrupt mini-dictators.

And wouldn't that be nice? The way the system is set up today, it attracts money-grubbing liars.

0 Replies

@snood,

Quote:

Try to work toward solutions for the American people?

Damn Snood. Banish the thought! Politicians working for the good of all the people?

0 Replies

@oralloy,

I'll let Comey make the case.

Quote:

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.

Clearly there were not 110 Top Secret emails.

Comey statement

2 Replies

@parados,

According to the law and other prosecutions over the last few years, it only takes one email. The fact that there were 8 of Top Secret, 36 with Secret and 8 with Confidential information in there is too many. Talk to the Marine who had a single email and was kicked out of the service.

3 Replies

@Baldimo,

Never, in the history of the nation, has it become so obvious that there's one law for the rich, and one law for the rest of us.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

Never, in the history of the nation, has it become so obvious that there's one law for the rich, and one law for the rest of us.

Don't allow them to get away with it.

1 Reply

@Lash,

Quote:

Don't allow them to get away with it.

The only weapon we have is social media, Lash.

It's rather interesting to watch how things are playing out in that avenue.

0 Replies

An overwhelming percentage of voters know she should be indicted. There's a case involving a serviceman I think in Afghanistan who shares facts with Hillary's email case who will now demand #the Hillary pass. She got off; why shouldn't he?

This editorial by Maureen Dowd - a famous liberal - speaks volumes and finally shows a LONG OVERDUE shift to reality by thinking, decent Democrats.

We've got to take our country back from Clintons and their mindless drones.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/10/opinion/sunday/the-clinton-contamination.html?post_id=1155577186_10209742431334940#_=_

THE CLINTON CONTAMINATION

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

I'll let Comey make the case.

Quote:
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.

Clearly there were not 110 Top Secret emails.

Comey statement

OK, I stand corrected. There were not 110 classified email chains. There were 110 classified emails (some of which were part of the same chain).

Going by your quote it looks like most of them were classified secret or better.

1 Reply

@Baldimo,

According to the FBI director your argument is completely false. Find me one prosecution in the last few years as you claim.

You really want to believe things that aren't true it seems.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

There were not 110 Top Secret emails.

It seems you think you can simply ignore your lies and no one else will notice them.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

There were not 110 Top Secret emails.

I don't recall ever saying that there were. Can you cite any instance of me saying that?

parados wrote:

It seems you think you can simply ignore your lies and no one else will notice them.

The only untrue thing that I've said here was my statement that there were 110 classified email chains, when in fact there were 110 classified emails (some of which were part of the same chain).

As this error was entirely unintended, it was not a lie.

0 Replies

@Baldimo,

By the way, has the investigation of the Emails of all Congressmen and Senators commenced yet? Those guys have access to sensitive and classified information, and it's only right that their government and personal Emails get scrutinized, after all nobody put a gun to their head and told them to run for office.

If they can't find anyone to do the job, I'll take it. Bet I come across a few hot phone numbers in the process. Laughing

.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Blickers wrote:

By the way, has the investigation of the Emails of all Congressmen and Senators commenced yet? Those guys have access to sensitive and classified information, and it's only right that their government and personal Emails get scrutinized, after all nobody put a gun to their head and told them to run for office.

To my knowledge there are no indications that any Congressmen knowingly broke the rules and recklessly put top secret emails on an unsecured server.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Wanna bet that there are a number of Congressmen and Senators who shot their big fat mouth off to other people about what they know? That would be a laugh.

0 Replies

@parados,

Fact Check on Clinton's emails:
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

1 Reply

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know