When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

@reasoning logic,

reasoning logic wrote:

Does anyone know when Cicerone imposter started disliking Hitlary?

Give him a couple days. His other personality will come back and we'll hear him post about about Hillary's wonderful work with children and women.

1 Reply

@maporsche,

maporsche wrote:

reasoning logic wrote:

Does anyone know when Cicerone imposter started disliking Hitlary?

Give him a couple days. His other personality will come back and we'll hear him post about about Hillary's wonderful work with children and women.

I know, right? He was touting her praises just days ago, now he's marching with the torch and pitchfork crowd.

3 Replies

@snood,

Quote:

I know, right? He was touting her praises just days ago, now he's marching with the torch and pitchfork crowd.

If you think that's bad you should see some of the videos he created on YouTube.

0 Replies

@snood,

This is true for quite a while. I didn't tabulate it.

I'm a democrat that hasn't been happy re Hillary, and not for Sanders; though I started out pro him, I got over it. I get changing, incrementally or even all of a sudden.

My impression as someone who has met Tak over time is that he is impulsive. That is not meant as a knock.

1 Reply

Imagine that a file named Life Insurance had been found on Huma Abedin's private laptop.

Now that would be interesting, wouldn't it?

Anybody seen Huma lately?

0 Replies

@ossobucotemp,

Thanks for sharing

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

It is a crime to store Top Secret intelligence anywhere other than government networks.

There's no evidence that Top Secret material was ever on the Clinton mail server.

The Clinton mail server was clearly set up to handle non-classified material, and if classified material was sent to Clinton or her aides, they are not responsible for mishandling classified material.

This has been hashed and re-hashed to death. There is no evidence that a statute was breached, let alone that there was intent to breach the statute.

This whole thing about Clinton's email server is just a lot of hand waving.

4 Replies

@snood,

FYI, Hillary is not a one dimensional person. Are you?

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

There's no evidence that Top Secret material was ever on the Clinton mail server.

The State Department acknowledged for the first time Friday that “top secret” information has been found in emails that passed through the private email server Hillary Clinton used while leading the agency, elevating the issue in the presidential campaign three days before the hotly contested Iowa caucuses.

The information was contained in 22 emails, across seven email chains, that were sent or received by Clinton, according to a State Department spokesman. The emails will not be disclosed as part of an ongoing release of Clinton’s email correspondence from her years as secretary of state, even in highly redacted form.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/29/the-state-department-concludes-there-is-top-secret-material-in-hillary-clintons-email-correspondence-from-her-time-as-secretary-of-state/

You'll understand if I don't take you seriously . . .

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

This has been hashed and re-hashed to death. There is no evidence that a statute was breached, let alone that there was intent to breach the statute.

This whole thing about Clinton's email server is just a lot of hand waving.

All true. It won't stop the hands from waving though. They will forever be sifting through the dead stories trying to find fresh dung to throw.

1 Reply

@snood,

I know, right? All those hand-wavers at the State Department, huh? They're all a bunch of conspiracy theorists, aren't they? To bad they aren't as well informed as you.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Is there someone in the State Department pressing to indict Hillary? What are you babbling about?

1 Reply

@Glennn,

I have no problem understanding it. The State Department said she didn't follow rules.

Now perhaps you can tell us how you think any of those things violated the law. It certainly doesn't prove she was grossly negligent. It only shows she didn't follow rules. Not following the rules is not a crime unless you can show where the law was broken.

Quote:

It is a crime to store Top Secret intelligence anywhere other than government networks.

Which statute is that? It certainly isn't the one you cited.

Rather than address my question, it seems you have decided to ignore it and simply make vague statements that don't show any law was violated before you make another unsupported statement that she violated the law.

In order to show a violation of the law, you have to show the specific law she violated and the undisputed facts that prove she violated it. It seems you are not doing either of those things. As I stated, a judge would throw you out on your ass if this was your evidence of a crime.

1 Reply

@Glennn,

Quote:

The State Department acknowledged for the first time Friday that “top secret” information has been found in emails that passed through the private email server Hillary Clinton used while leading the agency,

Which is not a crime by Clinton if she received such emails and they were not marked as top secret.

If we accept that it is a crime by Clinton then I could send you top secret information, such as a NYTimes article which was one of the things later designated as top secret, and you could be convicted of the same crime you are claiming Hillary was convicted of. I'm sorry but no judge would accept that argument on your part. It's clear even the FBI didn't accept that argument.

1 Reply

@snood,

I believe your question is: What is the State Department babbling about? But since you've already seen what I posted, I won't post it again.

1 Reply

@parados,

Good and logical conclusion. Those sending Hillary classified documents should have sent it to her government, secured, address.

0 Replies

@Glennn,

Glennn wrote:

I believe your question is: What is the State Department babbling about? But since you've already seen what I posted, I won't post it again.

No, my question was stated correctly. And you haven't posted anything that shows Hillary is guilty of a crime, or that anyone in DOJ or the State Department thinks she has. It's all innuendo, assumptions, smoke and mirrors.
And babbling.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

McGentrix wrote:

Does anyone still read Glitterbag's posts? Why?

I don't think that post is worthy of you. There's far too much vitriol and too many personal attacks on these threads already. Such Personal attacks are the halmarks of the several small and closed minds that sadly populate them. Glitterbag generally expresses an interesting point of view and perspective on many issues here. I read her stuff with interest. I don't always agree, and in such cases make my counter arguments. Unlike many here, she appears to actually consider the opposing views and arguments she gets - even if she doesn't always buy them. What more can one ask on a medium such as this?

Can you show me one of the posts where an interesting point of view on anything Glitterbag has posted? I have yet to see one.

But I see your point. I am better than her.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Glennn wrote:
It is a crime to store Top Secret intelligence anywhere other than government networks.

There's no evidence that Top Secret material was ever on the Clinton mail server.

The Clinton mail server was clearly set up to handle non-classified material, and if classified material was sent to Clinton or her aides, they are not responsible for mishandling classified material.

This has been hashed and re-hashed to death. There is no evidence that a statute was breached, let alone that there was intent to breach the statute.

This whole thing about Clinton's email server is just a lot of hand waving.

How is it that you believe this while at the same time say that Trump hasn't paid income taxes since 1998 or what ever bullshit it is despite having absolutely no knowledge of whether he did or not?

Is it just selective amnesia?

2 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

The State Department said she didn't follow rules.

Didn't follow the rules? What they actually said was: “top secret” information has been found in emails that passed through the private email server Hillary Clinton used while leading the agency . . .
____________________________________

You started this conversation saying: There's no evidence that Top Secret material was ever on the Clinton mail server. You were wrong. Or as some would say, you were talking out your ass. That's why I said that I'm not taking you seriously. When proven wrong, rather than admit it, you just start scratching and digging for another angle.

When if comes to allowing top secret information to pass through your private email server when you're Secretary of State, only a naïve person would refer to it as "not following the rules. The Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement Clinton signed makes clear that she is legally bound to the obligations contained therein. It also make clear that she received proper training in the handling of sensitive material. I suggest you look it over to save yourself future embarrassment.

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-classified-NDA1.pdf

3 Replies

When will Hillary Clinton give up her candidacy ? Part 2

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know