When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

@snood,

Quote:

Until then you can take solace in being a useless cipher in a politics forum.

As opposed to a paid shill who willingly ignores evidence, preferring instead to attack the poster's person.

That's a lose-lose situation for you.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

...if there is any way possible for you to see me as someone who is the least among you it would satisfy me.

Geebus, who'd want to be any part of that crew?

Nasty, vindictive, evidence-ignoring shills.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

Quote:
Until then you can take solace in being a useless cipher in a politics forum.

As opposed to a paid shill who willingly ignores evidence, preferring instead to attack the poster's person.

That's a lose-lose situation for you.

Paid shill? What're you smokin'? And he attacked first, your honor.

1 Reply

@Builder,

Quote:

Geebus, who'd want to be any part of that crew?

Geebus, who'd want to be any part of that crew?

Nasty, vindictive, evidence-ignoring shills.

Maybe to some people but what about the people who are Nasty, vindictive, evidence-ignoring shills. Would it be wrong of me to ask them to consider me to be not of their tribe or at the very least to consider me to be one of the least of them?

1 Reply

@snood,

Quote:

And he attacked first, your honor.

Oh, that's different. Carry on then.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Would it be wrong of me to ask them to consider me...(snip)

You can wish for anything you want to, RL.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

Quote:

Yes, It's called destruction of evidence, and to make it worse, evidence that was at the time subject to Congressional subpoena. Without the knowing collusion of our remarkably politicized and corrupt Justice department Hillary would have been prosecuted long ago.

In Australia, it would be a charge called Contempt of Court to destroy admissable evidence during an inquiry. The defendant would get to defend themselves from within the penal system for the original case.

2 Replies

@Builder,

Concerning Clinton's claim that she can't recall anyone suggesting that she couldn't make up her own rules when it came to handling classified material:

Under the heading “Safe Handling of Information” on page 21 the bureau boasted of its efforts to quickly bring new Obama administration appointees up to speed on security issues.

“DS contributed to the smooth transition of U.S. government officials by providing more than 180 members of the new Obama administration–ranging from Secretary Clinton to various ambassadors and other presidential appointees–with security training, and immediate access to highly classified systems and other information products critical to their new roles.

“In 2009, DS delivered information security educational briefings to nearly 6,000 State Department employees, contractors and personnel from other government agencies.”
______________________________________

And then of course we have this:

http://www.hipforums.com/forum/uploads/monthly_10_2016/post-281560-0-80127300-1476463125.png

And this:
http://www.hipforums.com/forum/uploads/monthly_10_2016/post-281560-0-60006000-1476463174.png

And this:
http://www.hipforums.com/forum/uploads/monthly_10_2016/post-281560-0-92426200-1476463214.png

And this:
http://www.hipforums.com/forum/uploads/monthly_10_2016/post-281560-0-54367300-1476464447.png

Here is the complete document:
http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-classified-NDA1.pdf
_________________________________________

This should clear up any misunderstandings concerning the question of her ignorance of proper security protocol.

2 Replies

@Builder,

Quote:

In Australia, it would be a charge called Contempt of Court to destroy admissable evidence during an inquiry.

Here in the best nation on earth we have the new preamble that was introduced after the Watergate scandal and can be found at the US bar association and most state bar websites which give attorneys special privileges.

Hitlary seems to be taken every advantage of these privileges and so far I have not seen many attorneys speak out. Could you imagine a world where attorneys would share there Honestopinions?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote cicerone imposter:

Quote:

You [snood] claimed you had a secret clearance, but didn't know there are laws against sharing information. You just seem ignorant about classified information and the laws about them. You asked, "what laws?"

Hillary didn't share information with anyone unauthorized. General Petraeus shared information with his mistress. Hence the difference between the two.

After all is said and done, Hillary didn't let anyone have classified information who didn't have clearance.

4 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Here in the best nation on earth...(snip)

You lost me right about there.....

1 Reply

@Blickers,

Quote:

Hillary didn't share information with anyone unauthorized.

Knowingly using an unsecured server for classified information sharing is sharing with the whole planet's hacker divisions.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Other than quoting government regulations can you point out where Clinton PURPOSELY shared government secrets. Not a bunch of opinion pieces, facts please. Comey has said he couldent get a prosecutor to prosecute her so he took things into his own hands. I hope we get a democratic congress so they can address the FBI's interference in the democratic process. And to the people who are claiming he is an honest man I say bullshyt.

1 Reply

@Blickers,

That's not the issue; Clinton used an unauthorized email server to communicate classified material.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

This should clear up any misunderstandings concerning the question of her ignorance of proper security protocol.

Thankyou. There is, of course, the question now, that knowing what she knew, and allowing information to be accessible on an unsecured server, was there a profit motive?

0 Replies

@Builder,

Quote:

Here in the best nation on earth

Please do not let me think that I am the only one that that has been taught this as truth.

0 Replies

@Builder,

Quote Builder:

Quote:

I would have thought that destroying evidence (wiping the server clean) might have been an offence, also.

Well, you're just stupid, that why you think that. She was asked to turn over the evidence to the committee that had to do with official business, and she did. Having turned that over, she was free to do whatever she wanted with the nonofficial, personal business, and she deleted it. Because she damned well felt like it. Do something about it.

3 Replies

@Blickers,

Hillary broke federal rules. Look it up.

0 Replies

@Blickers,

Quote:

Hitlary didn't share information with anyone unauthorized

What evidence do you have for this claim?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

That's not the issue; Clinton used an unauthorized email server to communicate classified material.

Let me guess. One week ago Hitlay was your god and savior but today it is Donald Duck?

0 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know