Quote:

Could Hillary seriously be blaming Obama for her loss? Sore losers are always going to carp and I never expected Hillary Clinton to be particularly sanguine about the results, but is Team Clinton seriously placing most of the blame for her loss on… Barack Obama? That’s the story being floated by Mike Allen this week (now writing at Axios) and while defying conventional logic, it has the ring of truth to it. Some upset staffers are casting about for targets in the blame game and the 44th President is apparently an appealing choice. The worst-kept secret inside Democratic circles is how bitter Hillary Clinton’s team is at President Obama over her election loss. We have heard from numerous, anguished people in Clinton-land blaming Obama — more than Putin, FBI Director James Comey or, um, Hillary herself — for the defeat. The reason: Clintonites feel that if Obama had come out early and forcefully with evidence of Russian interference in the campaign, and perhaps quicker sanctions, she might be president today. His caution, they argue, allowed the public to have a foggy sense of clear, calculated, consistent Russian meddling in the campaign. We can’t stress enough how upset some Democrats are. It’s testing relationships between Clinton and Obama loyalists. It’s making efforts to form a new Trump opposition coalition harder. Mike apparently spoke to a Clinton campaign official on condition of anonymity and their answer seems (at least to me) a bit more vague. They’re basically saying that Obama was too lackadaisical about it all, assuming that the race was a slam dunk and there was no way Hillary could miss “such an easy layup.” But the same official admits that even if Obama had “done more” for her, it might not have altered the outcome. If that’s the case, what exactly is their complaint? First of all, saying Obama didn’t do enough seems patently insane. From the time the Democratic National Convention was over (which Obama and his wife headlined, as you’ll recall) he was out on the campaign trail constantly. Clinton got rides on Air Force One to lend her candidacy more gravitas and Obama appeared at so many rallies he barely had time left over on his schedule for golf or approving more business crushing regulations in the final months. He beseeched Democratic voters – particularly minorities – to get out there and safeguard his legacy by voting for Hillary. He said that if they didn’t show up, they would doing be a disservice to him, not to her. What else could the guy do? Hillary Clinton was a flawed candidate who was immersed in scandals of her own creation. She hired a team who gave her bad advice, assuming she’d already won the election from the beginning and wasting her time in red states while Trump was hammering away at the blue wall. Trump’s victory obviously came as a surprise to much of the nation, so I don’t blame her for being a bit shocked, but she was playing for the biggest brass ring in the game. If she can’t accept the fact that she was the author of her own defeat and chooses to blame Barack Obama for it, she’s a fairly pathetic creature. Of course, perhaps she’ll be happy with a consolation prize in the form of being Mayor of New York City? It would at least make for some interesting blogging.

http://hotair.com/archives/2017/01/31/could-hillary-seriously-be-blaming-obama-for-her-loss/

http://media.hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/CryingHRCsupport-300x159.jpg

Hot Air blog    ;D

Keep your word and leave slimeball........

Blog    ;D


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/564x/1e/18/77/1e1877da2328ae7f553be5dba9479988.jpg

We have heard from numerous, anguished people, eh?

Good news there, Sprint. That can't be fake at all.

a womans purpose in life should be her man.
a mans purpose in life should be his contribution.

this isnt me being "ra ra men".

Far from it, i would rather make the woman the number one purpose in life but if you do that is always ends badly.

there is a toxic energy and a deep resentment that develops inside a woman who is "forced" into the position of leadership.

it is a resentment of the beta males around her who would not "step up".

women who are around strong masculine energy can relax and be joyful and experience all those 'girly emotions" that they crave to experience.

its why the women who hang out with the "noble right" always look so joyful and the women of the left have a permanent feel of toxicity ( a nastiness, a meaness, a cruelty, a vindictivenss) that is always just below the surface.

the leftard male tends to be a weak sauce cry baby
the leftard female tends to be very bitter and sour on life.

i think this is because her ovaries want to be with the alpha male and the alpha male cant vibe with leftard game. so she is stuck with those supplicating beta males and she just cant get aroused for them.

i would recommend Hilary start fantasising about donald when she is with Bill. Maybe get bill to dye his hair orange.

I wonder if they have untied Hills...since the verdict...she really hasnt been seen since has she??>..poor dear...

fit to be tied.. or

unfit to be untied...

she will suffer until her grave I fear...nightmare after nightmare each one trying to blame anyone or anything..... I bet poor Bill is coping his fair share of blame as well...


who would dare mention Monika... >:( >:( >:(

https://www.axios.com/team-hillary-still-blames-obama-2227724004.html

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/31/thanks-obama-hillarys-found-a-new-reason-for-her-loss-to-trump/

http://nypost.com/2017/01/31/trump-had-to-fire-sally-yates-hillary-blames-obama-and-other-notable-comments/

I understand the Trumpoids confusion. The Obama years were ones where statements and policies were based on ACTUAL facts and not 'alternative facts'. Ergo, he waited until he had actual evidence before laying blame for hacking.

longweekend58 wrote on Feb 1^st, 2017 at 6:00pm:

I understand the Trumpoids confusion. The Obama years were ones where statements and policies were based on ACTUAL facts and not 'alternative facts'. Ergo, he waited until he had actual evidence before laying blame for hacking.

You mean "'alternative facts' like Trump closing the EPA? ;)

I'm starting to hear whispers that Hillary is thinking of taking on the 2020 election...  :o

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 1^st, 2017 at 6:45pm:

I'm starting to hear whispers that Hillary is thinking of taking on the 2020 election...  :o

Let me guess: Hot Air Blog?    ;D

https://www.mentalhealth.org.uk/a-to-z/h/hearing-voices

It is nice that this forums most hated lefty greggery and its most hated righty longweekwend have been able to come together in sooking about trump.

Yet another way in which President Trump has umited people and redrawn the boundaries of politics.

An article made up by a third rate unit that is saying they have heard rumors ....



Quote:

That’s the story being floated by Mike Allen this week (now writing at Axios) and while defying conventional logic, it has the ring of truth to it. Some upset staffers

That is right they are attributing it to someone else of course and the source is unnamed upset staffers.

Someone seriously posted this rubbish ????

Dnarever wrote on Feb 1^st, 2017 at 7:07pm:

An article made up by a third rate unit that is saying they have heard rumors .... Quote: That’s the story being floated by Mike Allen this week (now writing at Axios) and while defying conventional logic, it has the ring of truth to it. Some upset staffers That is right they are attributing it to someone else of course and the source is unnamed upset staffers. Someone seriously posted this rubbish ????

that's more than enough to get sprints juices flowing ...

Dnarever wrote on Feb 1^st, 2017 at 7:07pm:

An article made up by a third rate unit that is saying they have heard rumors ....

Hot Air Blog    ;D

Too funny.

word on the street is that the Clintons and the Obama's hated each other...

which became clear when Obama didn't "pardon" Clinton on his way out the door..

of which he could have done...

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 1^st, 2017 at 8:58pm:

word on the street is that the Clintons and the Obama's hated each other... which became clear when Obama didn't "pardon" Clinton on his way out the door.. of which he could have done...

you've really gotta stay away from those dumb fake news sites you go to .... why would he pardon Clinton? She hadn't been charged with anything. :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Feb 1^st, 2017 at 10:44pm:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 1st, 2017 at 8:58pm: word on the street is that the Clintons and the Obama's hated each other... which became clear when Obama didn't "pardon" Clinton on his way out the door.. of which he could have done... you've really gotta stay away from those dumb fake news sites you go to .... why would he pardon Clinton? She hadn't been charged with anything. :D :D :D

gees you're ******* retarded...

you keep spouting off at the gob when you have absolutely NO IDEA>....

no idea whatsoever.. dur...

dear Hills is writing a book... ;D ;D

what else does she have to do....it will even tell us her plans for the future.....what makes her think anyone is interested I dont know...

its funny to watch her and Bill not only do they not look at each other....they dont appear to be able to stand being in the same space together....

he looks like he is so down trodden...dont expect him to get a good wrap in the book.. ;D ;D

hillary now blaming obama


And if HRC had won the presidential race,       HRC would be telling us all, that she won it on her own merits.

Lefties.

Spiteful, corrupt, extremely vain, and ungrateful people.




Go with merit people.     !!!

We ought to promote merit, we ought to reward merit alone!


"Glory follows virtue as if it were its shadow."
- Marcus Tullius Cicero, Roman Statesman

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 1^st, 2017 at 8:58pm:

word on the street is that the Clintons and the Obama's hated each other... which became clear when Obama didn't "pardon" Clinton on his way out the door.. of which he could have done...

Pardon her?

She hasn't been charged with any offence.

Are you drinking again, ranga?

cods wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2017 at 7:18am:

dear Hills is writing a book... ;D ;D what else does she have to do....it will even tell us her plans for the future.....what makes her think anyone is interested I dont know... its funny to watch her and Bill not only do they not look at each other....they dont appear to be able to stand being in the same space together.... he looks like he is so down trodden...dont expect him to get a good wrap in the book.. ;D ;D

X 2

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2017 at 6:40am:

John Smith wrote on Feb 1st, 2017 at 10:44pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 1st, 2017 at 8:58pm: word on the street is that the Clintons and the Obama's hated each other... which became clear when Obama didn't "pardon" Clinton on his way out the door.. of which he could have done... you've really gotta stay away from those dumb fake news sites you go to .... why would he pardon Clinton? She hadn't been charged with anything. :D :D :D gees you're ******* retarded... you keep spouting off at the gob when you have absolutely NO IDEA>.... no idea whatsoever.. dur...

Ok, what has she been charged with?




I don't know why you insist of making an absolute fool of yourself each and every day. Any normal person would think that, just occasionally, you not try so hard to make an idiot of yourself.

John Smith wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2017 at 1:09pm:

Ok, what has she been charged with?

"With six months to go before President Bush leaves office, the White House is receiving a flurry of pardon applications. The New York Times reported that "several members of the conservative legal community" are pushing for the White House to grant pre-emptive pardons for officials involved in counterterrorism programs. Wait—can a president really pardon someone who hasn't even been charged with a crime?

Yep. In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Garland that the pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment." "

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/07/preemptive_presidential_pardons.html

No need to be charged first. ;)

lee wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2017 at 4:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 2nd, 2017 at 1:09pm: Ok, what has she been charged with? "With six months to go before President Bush leaves office, the White House is receiving a flurry of pardon applications. The New York Times reported that "several members of the conservative legal community" are pushing for the White House to grant pre-emptive pardons for officials involved in counterterrorism programs. Wait—can a president really pardon someone who hasn't even been charged with a crime? Yep. In 1866, the Supreme Court ruled in Ex parte Garland that the pardon power "extends to every offence known to the law, and may be exercised at any time after its commission, either before legal proceedings are taken, or during their pendency, or after conviction and judgment." " http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2008/07/preemptive_presidential_pardons.html No need to be charged first. ;)

just as there is no need to pardon someone who hasn't been charged ... especially after investigators have already said there is no case. :D :D

John Smith wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2017 at 6:52pm:

just as there is no need to pardon someone who hasn't been charged ... especially after investigators have already said there is no case.

Yes. The same one that said if anybody else did it, they would likely be charged. Strange that. ;)

lee wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2017 at 7:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 2nd, 2017 at 6:52pm: just as there is no need to pardon someone who hasn't been charged ... especially after investigators have already said there is no case. Yes. The same one that said if anybody else did it, they would likely be charged. Strange that. ;)

yeah, I'm sure that if that were true they'd publicly announce it  :D :D :D

use your brain just once in your life

John Smith wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2017 at 1:09pm:

President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 2nd, 2017 at 6:40am: John Smith wrote on Feb 1st, 2017 at 10:44pm: President Elect, The Mechanic wrote on Feb 1st, 2017 at 8:58pm: word on the street is that the Clintons and the Obama's hated each other... which became clear when Obama didn't "pardon" Clinton on his way out the door.. of which he could have done... you've really gotta stay away from those dumb fake news sites you go to .... why would he pardon Clinton? She hadn't been charged with anything. :D :D :D gees you're ******* retarded... you keep spouting off at the gob when you have absolutely NO IDEA>.... no idea whatsoever.. dur... Ok, what has she been charged with?

Absolutely nothing.

Maybe if Hillary didn't smell like old cabbage shed me Pres now.

John Smith wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2017 at 7:19pm:

yeah, I'm sure that if that were true they'd publicly announce it

You mean like this? -

"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Different rules for different fools. ;)

he's not talking about criminal charges you twit'



lee wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2017 at 8:19pm:

To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions

John Smith wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2017 at 8:23pm:

he's not talking about criminal charges you twit' lee wrote on Feb 2nd, 2017 at 8:19pm: To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions

You don't think security charges are criminal charges? What a fool.
have a look at wiki -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_security_breaches

or you can do some other research. You do know what research is? :-?

lee wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2017 at 8:27pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 2nd, 2017 at 8:23pm: he's not talking about criminal charges you twit' lee wrote on Feb 2nd, 2017 at 8:19pm: To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions You don't think security charges are criminal charges? What a fool. have a look at wiki - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_government_security_breaches or you can do some other research. You do know what research is? :-?

you should research your brain, it seems to have failed you


security changes are not criminal charges you fool. They're referring to scrapping or changing their security clearance, suspension, removal from office and a range of other sorts of disciplinary action that the govt. may take when an employee is  careless with secure information, all of which were not an option in Hillary's case. What were they going to do ? sack her? She had already resigned her role and was running for election.

you've really got to take those damn blinkers off.

John Smith wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2017 at 10:01pm:

security changes are not criminal charges you fool.

Try looking at security CHARGES, not changes. Things like having classified material on your personal server.

Did you look at some of the people incarcerated and the reason why?


John Smith wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2017 at 10:01pm:

an employee is  careless with secure information,

You mean like data from her server winding up on Wiener's personal computer?

You really have no idea of the penalties for being somewhat more than lax; do you?

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. 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. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent."

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

That's what is called "Classified".

Talk about blinkers. Nah. In your case more like, in your case, pig ignorance.

lee wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2017 at 10:19pm:

You really have no idea of the penalties for being somewhat more than lax; do you?

for criminal charges to be laid she must have DELIBERATELY intended to violate security, carelessness does not rate criminal charges, it only rates administrative sanctions. ie, suspension, sacking, demotion etc.


from the document you quoted


Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.


do you have any friggen idea the difference between is ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS and CRIMINAL CHARGES? look them up one day, you might find it enlightening.



You can keep denying the truth all you like, in the end she will never be prosecuted because they cannot prosecute her. There is not enough evidence of intent.

John Smith wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2017 at 10:42pm:

for criminal charges to be laid she must have DELIBERATELY intended to violate security, carelessness does not rate criminal charges

So having classified material on a personal server, in breach of protocols, of which she is aware, is mere carelessness. :D :D :D :D :D

They give detailed instructions on what you can and can't do. Removing/moving/copying to you private servers is forbidden.


John Smith wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2017 at 10:42pm:

do you have any friggen idea the difference between is ADMINISTRATIVE SANCTIONS and CRIMINAL CHARGES? look them up one day, you might find it enlightening.

Yes John. Obviously much more than you.


John Smith wrote on Feb 2^nd, 2017 at 10:42pm:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws

Not clear evidence? You know that is not "no evidence" don't you?

So what you are saying is that the State Department is at fault, because they didn't explain to her in words of one syllable or less, that she shouldn't put this material on her personal server. Good luck wit that as a defence.

What should have happened she be charged and then acquitted if found not guilty.

The winners can smile and the losers can suit themselves

Can't stand the non-white guy, but Hillary Clinton can take all the credit for her loss herself. One Clinton buttwipe as President was enough for the American people, having his lying corrupt wife in office was just too much to ask.

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 10:33am:

So having classified material on a personal server, in breach of protocols, of which she is aware, is mere carelessness. Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

yes ... here, because I realised that you are to stupid to do it yourself, I'll help you out. Although in future you will be charged a fee for my time to teach you


Some legal experts say carelessness doesn’t constitute sufficient intent for a prosecutor to bring a case against Clinton.

“There are lots of statutes that deal with the mishandling of classified information, but what they all have in common is that it’s intentionally or knowingly reckless, not careless,” Nancy Gertner, a Harvard Law School lecturer who specialises in criminal law, told Business Insider. “If carelessness were sufficient, we would have indicted half the government.”

Benjamin Wittes, a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution, noted on the Lawfare blog that “it’s not uncommon for high-ranking officials to treat classification rules with a lack of deference.”

Gertner made a similar point.

“It would really expose huge numbers of officials to criminal prosecution if we said that carelessness was enough,” she said.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/why-didnt-the-fbi-charge-hillary-clinton-2016-7?r=US&IR=T


or perhaps

Relevant law is found in several statutes. To begin with, 18 USC, Section 798 provides in salient part: “Whoever knowingly and willfully … [discloses] or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety and interest of the United States [certain categories of classified information] … shall be fined … or imprisoned.”

The most important words in this statute are the ones I have italicized. To violate this statute, Secretary Clinton would have had to know that she was dealing with classified information, and either that she was disclosing it to people who could not be trusted to protect the interests of the United States or that she was handling it in a way (e.g. by not keeping it adequately secure) that was at least arguably prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.

The statute also provides a definition of what constitutes classified information within the meaning of the subsection described above: “[C]lassified information, means information which, at the time of a violation of this section, is specifically designated by a United States Government Agency for … restricted dissemination.”

Again, the most important words are the ones I have italicized. First, they indicate that the material must have been classified at the time of disclosure. Post hoc classification, which seems to characterize most of the classified material found on Clinton’s server, cannot support an indictment under this section. Second, information no matter how obviously sensitive does not classify itself; it must be officially and specifically designated as such.

Lesser penalties are provided under 18 USC 1924 which provides that an officer of the United States commits a criminal violation if that person possesses classified “documents or materials” and “knowingly removes such … materials without authority and with the intent to retain such … materials at an unauthorized location.”

Prosecutors would also encounter stumbling blocks if they charged Clinton under this law. First, it is unclear whether classified information conveyed in an email message would be considered a document or materials subject to removal. Moreover, with respect to information in messages sent to Clinton, it would be hard to see her as having “knowingly” removed anything, and the same is arguably true of information in messages that she originated. If, however, she were sent attachments that were classified and kept them on her server, this law might apply.

But even if this section did apply, a prosecutor would face difficulties. Heads of agencies have considerable authority with respect to classified information, including authority to approve some exceptions to rules regarding how classified information should be handled and authority to declassify material their agency has classified. It would also be hard to show that Clinton intended to retain any information sent to her if her usual response was to forward the information to another, and if she then deleted the material from her inbox, whether or not it was deleted from her computer.

Where Clinton’s legal position becomes shakier, and where her use of a personal server may enter into the analysis, is with respect to the provisions of Section 32 of the Code of Federal Regulations which provides in Section 2001.42 that persons who have access to classified information are responsible for:

a) Protecting it from persons without authorized access … to include securing it in approved equipment … whenever it is not under the direct control of an authorized person.

b) Meeting safeguarding provisions prescribed by the agency head; and

c) Ensuring that classified information is not communicated over unsecured voice or data circuits

(cont)

It seems clear that any classified information on Clinton’s server was not on approved equipment, though it is less clear whether the information was not under the direct control of an authorized person. Clinton could argue that she was in control of this information while it was on her server and/or that whoever managed her email was authorized by her to control it. The best reading of the regulation is likely to be that the person who ran the server is the person with direct control over messages stored on it. Moreover, no person would be prima facie authorized to have such control unless that person had an appropriate-level security clearance. However, Clinton apparently relied on someone who worked for her at the State Department to set up the system, and he might well have had a top-level security clearance. In addition, as secretary of state, Clinton may have had the authority to approve access to and control of classified information even if the approved person had not been vetted by ordinary clearance processes.

Moreover, these provisions are not criminal statutes. They are part of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) and cannot create crimes beyond those Congress has by statute created. My search revealed no evidence that Congress has made failures to comply with the provisions of 32 CFR 2001 crimes.

Also relevant are several provisions of Executive Order (EO) 15326 that establish standards and basic procedures for classifying and declassifying information, and for marking and protecting it. EO 15326 provides:

Officers and employees of the United States Government … shall be subject to appropriate sanctions if they knowingly, willfully, or negligently

1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders

It is possible that some of those to whom Clinton sent classified information lacked the clearance needed to access it, but unless it could be shown that Clinton knew she was transmitting classified information or was unreasonably careless in doing so, she would not have run afoul of this subsection. Moreover, while the section lists administrative sanctions that may be meted out to violators, it does not provide for criminal penalties and cannot unless a statute does. In this connection it is interesting to note that 18 USC 798 penalizes disclosures that are knowing or willing but not those that are merely negligent. Finally, it is not clear whether the encompassing word “officers” is meant to include department heads. Ambiguity exists because in language that follows, agency heads are given the final authority to decide on sanctions. They can hardly be expected to sanction themselves.

..............

..............

Should Clinton be indicted?

Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information. While it is always possible that information not revealed will change this picture, at the moment Clinton’s optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified. The same is not necessarily true of those who sent her classified information. If it could be shown that they knowingly acquired information from classified sources and sent it unmarked to an unapproved server, their fate may be less kind than Clinton’s is likely to be.


http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis



now you can flap your gums all you like, but unless you think you know better than the FBI, the attorney general and a magnitude of other  lawyers who actually understand the laws in the USA, you are blowing smoke out of your arse.

John Smith wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 12:49pm:

1) disclose to unauthorized persons information properly classified under this order or predecessor orders

So the stuff on Anthony Wiener's computer, someone not working for Clinton, was not extremely careless of her?

"The American Prospect

www.prospect.org Proxy  Highlight

Monthly magazine covering politics, culture, and policy from a liberal perspective. Includes well maintained archives."

Well I can see that's politically neutral. ;)


"In addition, as secretary of state, Clinton may have had the authority to approve access to and control of classified information even if the approved person had not been vetted by ordinary clearance processes."

Too funny. We don't need  security agencies to check background. Clinton knows all.


John Smith wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 12:49pm:

but unless it could be shown that Clinton knew she was transmitting classified information or was unreasonably careless in doing so

So she can't read the classification handle at the top and bottom of every page?  And they let her loose on classified documents? :D :D :D :D :D

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 1:22pm:

Well I can see that's politically neutral. Wink

;D ;D ;D

fine, find me a conservanut lawyer who agrees with you ... and don't just give me opinions, they need to support it with relevant legisalation


lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 1:22pm:

Too funny. We don't need  security agencies to check background. Clinton knows all.

As the secretary of state is is authorised to approve access whether you like it or not. Nothing illegal


lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 1:22pm:

So she can't read the classification handle at the top and bottom of every page?  And they let her loose on classified documents? Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

you didn't read anything i put up did you?


https://i.imgflip.com/15xf51.jpg

John Smith wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 1:33pm:

As the secretary of state is is authorised to approve access whether you like it or not. Nothing illegal

Comprehension issues?


John Smith wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 12:49pm:

In addition, as secretary of state, Clinton may have had the authority

Not a definitive statement. Putting your own slant on what is written.


John Smith wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 1:33pm:

you didn't read anything i put up did you?

Yep. You just can't see the holes I punched into it.

Fuzzball wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 11:08am:

Can't stand the non-white guy, but Hillary Clinton can take all the credit for her loss herself. One Clinton buttwipe as President was enough for the American people, having his lying corrupt wife in office was just too much to ask.

Yet 3,000,000 more people voted for her than Trump.

What does that tell you?

Tells me that there are a lot of dumb LW crazies in California & New York, as well as illegal aliens voting.

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 1:40pm:

Comprehension issues?

is that your excuse ... OK, I can see that.


lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 1:40pm:

Not a definitive statement. Putting your own slant on what is written.

so you don't know whether she did or didn't but didn't hesitate to quote that as a reason to charge her ... will we call that you putting your slant on it?  :D :D :D

what's definitive is the fact that they decided they haven't a case   ....... speaks volumes, no matter how much the numbnuts cry about it.


lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 1:40pm:

Yep. You just can't see the holes I punched into it.

you didn't punch holes in anything, all you did was clutch at straws ... I noticed you haven't put up a single conservanut lawyer who agrees with your sentiments  :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 1:56pm:

so you don't know whether she did or didn't but didn't hesitate to quote that as a reason to charge her ..

And neither do you. That is the point.


John Smith wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 1:56pm:

what's definitive is the fact that they decided they haven't a case

"The US Justice Department said it would probe an FBI decision to announce it was reopening an inquiry into Hillary Clinton's emails shortly before the November presidential election, a move she has blamed as a factor in her defeat.
Key points:

    Part of the probe will focus on public statements by FBI Director James Comey
    Hillary Clinton said Mr Comey was partially at fault for her loss
    Donald Trump will not have power to dismiss the probe when he takes office

The Justice Department's Office of Inspector General said its probe would focus in part on decisions leading up to public statements by FBI Director James Comey regarding the Clinton investigation and whether underlying investigative decisions may have been based on "improper considerations"."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-13/fbi-comey-under-investigation-actions-clinton-email-probe/8179896

13 Jan 2017

perhaps not that definitive. ;)

you really don't understand what you are reading do you?  ::) ::)

they're probing the actions of the FBI .... many consider it illegal for the FBI to speak out the way it did during a campaign .. they're not looking into Hillary again

John Smith wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 2:15pm:

you really don't understand what you are reading do you?  ::) ::) they're probing the actions of the FBI .... many consider it illegal for the FBI to speak out the way it did during a campaign .. they're not looking into Hillary again

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 2:10pm:

whether underlying investigative decisions may have been based on "improper considerations".

You understand improper considerations? It is a double edged sword. Did they go light on Clinton because she was running for President, or did they go heavy on her?

Perhaps you can intuit which way it will go. I certainly can't.

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 2:33pm:

You understand improper considerations? It is a double edged sword. Did they go light on Clinton because she was running for President, or did they go heavy on her? Perhaps you can intuit which way it will go. I certainly can't.

it's still an investigation into the FBI  :D :D

John Smith wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 2:51pm:

it's still an investigation into the FBI

Which proves what exactly?

Losers blame others for their own results.

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 3:12pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 2:51pm: it's still an investigation into the FBI Which proves what exactly?

I don't know what it was supposed to prove, you bought it up not me.

John Smith wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 6:15pm:

I don't know what it was supposed to prove, you bought it up not me.

I was showing that it may not be that settled. But as usual straight over your pointy little head.

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 6:28pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 6:15pm: I don't know what it was supposed to prove, you bought it up not me. I was showing that it may not be that settled. But as usual straight over your pointy little head.

it showed nothing. It isn't relevant to Hillarys case, it's relevant to the FBI. Anything else is just grasping at straws

John Smith wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 8:49pm:

lee wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 6:28pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 3rd, 2017 at 6:15pm: I don't know what it was supposed to prove, you bought it up not me. I was showing that it may not be that settled. But as usual straight over your pointy little head. it showed nothing. It isn't relevant to Hillarys case, it's relevant to the FBI. Anything else is just grasping at straws

lee wrote on Feb 3^rd, 2017 at 2:33pm:

lee wrote Today at 12:10pm: whether underlying investigative decisions may have been based on "improper considerations". You understand improper considerations?

That is a direct connection to Hilary's case.