Clinton aides ordered to testify under oath

I’m not sure anything can damage her. We keep finding out more lies, more manipulation, more flip-flopping, yet morons are still voting for her.

For the record this doesn't mean you should vote Trump if it comes to that. Trump has the potential to do a lot more damage. If you vote him in, you deserve him.
 
That's an odd comment given the reality of the situation. It's more accurate to say that someone as high up as Clinton who has run afoul of the GOP hit squad can seemingly have any mundane action presented as a scandal.

It will backfire as usual. Republicans haven't learned. Don't go after a Clinton like this. They'll eat you alive then spin it back at you.
 
She didn't even do anything illegal, though. I don't think they'd throw a low-level civilian contractor in jail for threatening Republicans' right to the presidency.
Last I checked she had her aids remove markings on materials to send them, which is illegal.

She also appeared to have SAP files on her server which is illegal. So unless new contradictory has come out she has broken the law.


On top of that at least 22 of those emails have since been changed to Top Secret. Which means she was sending files that should have been treated with better security. At the very least she is irresponsible with sensitive materials and that's not a good quality for the leader of our armed forces.
 
Depends on how much they know or had access to. If they legitimately have no useful knowledge, they have nothing to worry about. If they do, lie about it. If they get busted for Perjury, they'll get a presidential pardon eventually.

Yea if it's me fuck relying on a presidential pardon. Not going to jail and trusting that someone will pardon me "eventually".
 
Last I checked she had her aids remove markings on materials to send them, which is illegal.

She also appeared to have SAP files on her server which is illegal. So unless new contradictory has come out she has broken the law.

There's really no way for people interested in the truth (or uninterested in political bullshit) to stay on top of how much false info is coming out:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/state-department-releases-more-clinton-emails-several-marked-classified/

It is false that Hillary Clinton asked for classified material to be sent over a nonsecure system," Fallon told CBS News' Nancy Cordes.

And State Department spokesperson John Kirby said Friday that it is not uncommon for non-classified documents to be crafted and shared on the classified system.

Further, according to the Associated Press, the State Department said a review showed that the document in question was sent "apparently by secure fax, after all," and was never was sent to Clinton by email.

On top of that at least 22 of those emails have since been changed to Top Secret. Which means she was sending files that should have been treated with better security. At the very least she is irresponsible with sensitive materials and that's not a good quality for the leader of our armed forces.

That's true if you're assuming that everything that is marked "top secret" is actually sensitive material, which is, to say the least, not a safe assumption. And, more importantly, you've shifted from arguing that she's only not getting imprisoned for stuff because of how high-profile she is to arguing that you think that she's not a good leader. That's a debatable point (particularly as "good quality for the leader ..." is entirely subjective), but not one I'm interested in. The fact that you so quickly made that shift indicates to me that your thought process goes "Clinton = bad" ==> (rationalization), which is fine (you don't even need the rationalization! Don't strain yourself). I was just pointing out that your claim that someone running for major office can get away with stuff that ordinary people can't is the opposite of the truth.
 
Why was it bad?


Well according to this Judge that Bill Clinton appointed, has said there is reasonable suspicion, that this private server prevented freedom of information act requests that Clinton is required to abide by as a government official.
 
That's true if you're assuming that everything that is marked "top secret" is actually sensitive material, which is, to say the least, not a safe assumption. And, more importantly, you've shifted from arguing that she's only not getting imprisoned for stuff because of how high-profile she is to arguing that you think that she's not a good leader. That's a debatable point (particularly as "good quality for the leader ..." is entirely subjective), but not one I'm interested in. The fact that you so quickly made that shift indicates to me that your thought process goes "Clinton = bad" ==> (rationalization), which is fine (you don't even need the rationalization! Don't strain yourself). I was just pointing out that your claim that someone running for major office can get away with stuff that ordinary people can't is the opposite of the truth.

Is everything that is compartmentalized, Special Access Program sensitive material Jack?
 
She didn't even do anything illegal, though. I don't think they'd throw a low-level civilian contractor in jail for threatening Republicans' right to the presidency.

Interesting how you deride poor conservatives for voting against their own interests. But now that the Dems are selling out their constituents for the big banks, it's fair play. If you make less than $1M a year, Hilary is not looking out for your interests. Period.
 
Well according to this Judge that Bill Clinton appointed, has said there is reasonable suspicion, that this private server prevented freedom of information act requests that Clinton is required to abide by as a government official.

Now that is a reasonable concern. You have to keep in mind that at the time there were not rules or laws that said she could not use a private server. Now they would have to prove that information requested was not produced, or deleted.
 
Now that is a reasonable concern. You have to keep in mind that at the time there were not rules or laws that said she could not use a private server. Now they would have to prove that information requested was not produced, or deleted.

Agreed, part of this story is that Clinton herself, and the remainder of her E-mails may end up being subpoena'd, as well.

This becomes a very interesting question, if Clinton can not provide the deleted e-mails.
 
Interesting how you deride poor conservatives for voting against their own interests.

???

But now that the Dems are selling out their constituents for the big banks, it's fair play. If you make less than $1M a year, Hilary is not looking out for your interests. Period.

Wait, what?

Agreed, part of this story is that Clinton herself, and the remainder of her E-mails may end up being subpoena'd, as well.

This becomes a very interesting question, if Clinton can not provide the deleted e-mails.

What we're seeing is a first-world political party trying to take out political opponents with trumped up charges. I would expect decent conservatives to stand up against that kind of thing, but failing that, I'd at least expect alleged left-leaning folks not to cheer it on.
 
First week and I already stumped the biggest troll on here.

First- Imperial Fists, awesome choice of Chapter and forum name.

Second- How does your response connect in any way to the statement you quoted? Are you sure this is the correct thread?
 
She didn't even do anything illegal, though.
While she didn't do anything illegal in using a personal account--stupid on State's part--if she ended up receiving or sending classified material via that account she could still be in trouble as such would count as mishandling of material.
 
What we're seeing is a first-world political party trying to take out political opponents with trumped up charges. I would expect decent conservatives to stand up against that kind of thing, but failing that, I'd at least expect alleged left-leaning folks not to cheer it on.

Jack, I will fully admit the origins of this investigation were political in Benghazi, but once this shifted to the E-mails, it no longer became partisan, but about the rule of law.

Jack, you are openly accusing the FBI of political partisanship, to the point of breaking the law. Going after a Presidential candidate, and former SoS, in the name of a political witch hunt, is something I think you actually need to back up.
 
Jack, you are openly accusing the FBI of political partisanship, to the point of breaking the law. Going after a Presidential candidate, and former SoS, in the name of a political witch hunt, is something I think you actually need to back up.

Not really. The charges that she's done something illegal are not coming from the FBI.

While she didn't do anything illegal in using a personal account--stupid on State's part--if she ended up receiving or sending classified material via that account she could still be in trouble as such would count as mishandling of material.

Do you think this is in any way a relevant issue? I see it along the lines of "Romney's kids were indirectly involved in a Ponzi scheme" or "there was a party for Obama at Bill Ayers' house."
 
Not really. The charges that she's done something illegal are not coming from the FBI.

Who is the leak info coming from, if not the FBI Jack?

Obama?

Why is the FBI leaking info against Clinton, if they aren't investigating her?
 
Back
Top