Discussion in 'The War Room' started by Handsomebwonderfull, Feb 29, 2016.
In before media and GOP pushed hot air...
I just don't get it to be honest
How about a little context? Who called her a crook?
Two smoking guns
Clinton’s legal woes are either grave or worse than grave
By Andrew P. Napolitano - - Wednesday, January 13, 2016
The federal criminal investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s failure to secure state secrets was ratcheted up earlier this week, and at the same time, the existence of a parallel criminal investigation of another aspect of her behavior was made known. This is the second publicly revealed expansion of the FBI’s investigations in two months.
I have argued for two months that Mrs. Clinton’s legal woes are either grave or worse than grave. That argument has been based on the hard, now-public evidence of her failure to safeguard national security secrets and the known manner in which the Department of Justice addresses these failures.
The failure to safeguard state secrets is an area of the law in which the federal government has been aggressive to the point of being merciless. State secrets are the product of members of the intelligence community’s risking their lives to obtain information.
Before she was entrusted with any state secrets — indeed, on her first full day as secretary of state — Mrs. Clinton received instruction from FBI agents on how to safeguard them; and she signed an oath swearing to comply with the laws commanding the safekeeping of these secrets. She was warned that the failure to safeguard secrets — known as espionage — would most likely result in aggressive prosecution.
In the cases of others, those threats have been carried out. The Obama Department of Justice prosecuted a young sailor for espionage for sending a selfie to his girlfriend, because in the background of the photo was a view of a sonar screen on a submarine. It prosecuted a heroic Marine for espionage for warning his superiors of the presence of an al Qaeda operative in police garb inside an American encampment in Afghanistan, because he used a Gmail account to send the warning.
It also prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for espionage for keeping secret and top-secret documents in an unlocked drawer in his desk inside his guarded home. It alleged that he shared those secrets with a friend who also had a security clearance, but it dropped those charges.
The obligation of those to whom state secrets have been entrusted to safeguard them is a rare area in which federal criminal prosecutions can be based on the defendant’s negligence. Stated differently, to prosecute Mrs. Clinton for espionage, the government need not prove that she intended to expose the secrets.
The evidence of Mrs. Clinton’s negligence is overwhelming. The FBI now has more than 1,300 protected emails that she received on her insecure server and sent to others — some to their insecure servers. These emails contained confidential, secret or top-secret information, the negligent exposure of which is a criminal act.
here you go, 4 min video on hillary
Not sure if this is a trolling thread because it's so wonderfully blunt it's almost too good to be true... but honestly, all you really have to do is scour a good number of news aggregation websites and the primary outlets for headlines and talking points to see how utterly negative even typically liberal sources are in covering her.
Words like "scandal" "crook" "liar" "immoral" "out for status quo" "supporter of the banks"...etc. are commonly attached to her along with a generally negative tone. Part of why she doesn't poll all that well in terms of likability is because of this self serving circular messaging.
This all basically started with Whitewater (a complete witch hunt), which was basically just a real estate deal gone bad where the Clinton's associate also happened to be running a bank where he made enough bad loans for the bank to go belly up - regulators stepped in, Hillary's law firm was involved in the defense - and all hell broke loose according to their political opponents. The Republicans, and specifically Kenneth Star, spent years upon years upon years deposing people, investigating and muck raking for every last detail, searching desperately for wrongdoing. The Clintons were cleared of any wrongdoing in Whitewater in spite of prolific efforts by Starr, bankrolled by an embittered GOP that saw Clinton as absolute cryptonite for their "take the South" strategy because he was fiscally moderate/conservative, socially liberal and polled really well with Southerners.
The rest is history and now all we're hearing about is this e-mail server issue which is a joke since every Secretary of the State before Clinton has used at various times a personal, encrypted server and it was explicitly not against regulations. Clinton did not break the law since a law forbidding this wasn't made until 2014 after she had left the position... when opposition is pressed with this fact, they cry about "violating the spirit of conduct" and other loose trash. The violation in question is wiping the server, which everyone seems to be missing, except that last I checked, the e-mails have been preserved as they are now being intensely scoured over by GOP hit-squads.
Benghazi ... we don't even need to get into since a GOP led special investigatory panel has already cleared her of any and all wrong doing. Clearly, they'd have nailed her to the wall if at all possible.
Aside from all that, if you go in a website like OnTheIssues.com anyone can actually read about her last decade plus of voting and sentiment. So this perception that she's this status-quo, conservative in Democrat clothing and a shill for the banks is a joke too.
People just need to read the facts and use their brains... she was an excellent Sec. of State and well loved around the world for her work abroad... people lauded her for her work as SoS and the GOP hated every second of it so they launched the Benghazi inquisition and when that didn't turn up anything they turned to the e-mail server issue, insinuating every step of the way that she broke the law when she really didn't. News agencies, even ones leaning left have just been disgustingly lazy in reporting on the facts and frankly, it's appalling how little they've come to her defense considering how she's been relentlessly targeted for over two decades and is pretty darn clean with a good record outside of the Iraq war vote, which she flipped on only two years later after realizing the colossal mistake... so at least she can admit those.
^^ Case in point... all the effort to write all of this and not one mention of the actual law being technically broken... just allusions to how careless she was in exposing classified topics. Notice how this fails to refer even once to the specific law that prohibits State Dept. employees from using personal servers. One also has to assume that the State Dept. was well aware of this the entire time and you know why? This had been done before by many previous Sec. of States, except John Kerry who entered the position after the law was put in place.
Lazy... disgusting, hit-piece journalism
Nothing was against the law...
Usually it's she's a crook or a liar.
None of this email stuff is illegal?
She has too much baggage. A Google search of all her blunders does expose her lying ways. Then the current Clinton foundation probe lol, this lady is riddle with controversie.
To a normal person or anyone not named Clinton it would be illegal. Prob is alot of people that run the agency has worked or has ties with her.
You mean she was laughing about how the lie detector screwed up or how she laughed about how the the guy (forensic guy) was freaking out that the evidence had basically been destroyed.
30 years ago.. Come on
Does anyone have proof of her actually breaking laws?
Maybe soon definitively after the agency tries to recover all the deleted emails which will take some time. That's the problem with her using personal email server, you can't get transparency when she hides it from the American people.
The 12 year old was beat, raped and ended up in a coma. Hillary willingly defended this man and got him off with time served I believe. She has no heart and definitely doesn't care about women or rape.
This video is a little more in-depth. Apparently the 12 year olds life was ruined.
Do you even know who Andrew Napolitano is? Here is a hint...he is not a journalist.
Separate names with a comma.