Hilary and the FBI Announcement
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
|
2016-07-05 9:12 PM |
Extreme Veteran 799 | Subject: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president and was married to a former president that she wouldn't have been charged? I don't think she had any ill intent, but I think she purposely glossed over the rules to fit how she wanted to do things. I think it is very disappointing that someone who acts like they are above the law and a cartoon version of a bad guy from the 80's are the only two options for POTUS. |
|
2016-07-05 9:44 PM in reply to: jmcconne |
Extreme Veteran 3025 Maryland | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by jmcconne Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president and was married to a former president that she wouldn't have been charged? I don't think she had any ill intent, but I think she purposely glossed over the rules to fit how she wanted to do things. I think it is very disappointing that someone who acts like they are above the law and a cartoon version of a bad guy from the 80's are the only two options for POTUS. the fbi director worked under bush and investigated the clinton's before. get over it its over. |
2016-07-06 8:04 AM in reply to: dmiller5 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by jmcconne Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president and was married to a former president that she wouldn't have been charged? I don't think she had any ill intent, but I think she purposely glossed over the rules to fit how she wanted to do things. I think it is very disappointing that someone who acts like they are above the law and a cartoon version of a bad guy from the 80's are the only two options for POTUS. the fbi director worked under bush and investigated the clinton's before. get over it its over.
Don't kid yourself....it's nowhere near over. We learned yesterday Clinton committed perjury before the Benghazi committee. We also still don't know if any of Clinton's staff is going to be indicted....such as the IT guys....and if they will drop dime on HC after indicted. We also don't know anything about the Clinton foundation investigations. And oh yeah, as I've believed all along, someone somewhere has ALL the emails and eventually they will come out. She used her email in countries that have the technology to hack her email. Whenever I traveled internationally I was briefed by security that hotels will likely be bugged and do not use the hotel wi-fi to connect to my emails, etc. I was a lowly engineer but still the target of espionage. I heard one former CIA agent tell a news reported several months ago he would be shocked if Hillary's email was NOT hacked by foreign intelligent agencies. And he was talking about US allies! Cyber security is one of the biggest threats to the US and I'd be the farm the Chinese (and others) successfully hacked Hillary's email. All it will take is one leak from one of these foreign Intel agencies and it's all over for Hillary. |
2016-07-06 8:55 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Veteran 1019 St. Louis | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by dmiller5 Originally posted by jmcconne Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president and was married to a former president that she wouldn't have been charged? I don't think she had any ill intent, but I think she purposely glossed over the rules to fit how she wanted to do things. I think it is very disappointing that someone who acts like they are above the law and a cartoon version of a bad guy from the 80's are the only two options for POTUS. the fbi director worked under bush and investigated the clinton's before. get over it its over.
Don't kid yourself....it's nowhere near over. We learned yesterday Clinton committed perjury before the Benghazi committee. We also still don't know if any of Clinton's staff is going to be indicted....such as the IT guys....and if they will drop dime on HC after indicted. We also don't know anything about the Clinton foundation investigations. And oh yeah, as I've believed all along, someone somewhere has ALL the emails and eventually they will come out. She used her email in countries that have the technology to hack her email. Whenever I traveled internationally I was briefed by security that hotels will likely be bugged and do not use the hotel wi-fi to connect to my emails, etc. I was a lowly engineer but still the target of espionage. I heard one former CIA agent tell a news reported several months ago he would be shocked if Hillary's email was NOT hacked by foreign intelligent agencies. And he was talking about US allies! Cyber security is one of the biggest threats to the US and I'd be the farm the Chinese (and others) successfully hacked Hillary's email. All it will take is one leak from one of these foreign Intel agencies and it's all over for Hillary. At least on the bolded statement, the country is in complete agreement. |
2016-07-06 12:27 PM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by jmcconne Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president and was married to a former president that she wouldn't have been charged? I don't think she had any ill intent, but I think she purposely glossed over the rules to fit how she wanted to do things. I think it is very disappointing that someone who acts like they are above the law and a cartoon version of a bad guy from the 80's are the only two options for POTUS. At least on the bolded statement, the country is in complete agreement. (ETA, no, I don't think she would have been charged. In fact, I would re-state the question as, "Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president the GOP would have given a rat's butt what she did with her email?") Edited by jmk-brooklyn 2016-07-06 12:29 PM |
2016-07-06 1:11 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by jmcconne Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president and was married to a former president that she wouldn't have been charged? I don't think she had any ill intent, but I think she purposely glossed over the rules to fit how she wanted to do things. I think it is very disappointing that someone who acts like they are above the law and a cartoon version of a bad guy from the 80's are the only two options for POTUS. At least on the bolded statement, the country is in complete agreement. (ETA, no, I don't think she would have been charged. In fact, I would re-state the question as, "Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president the GOP would have given a rat's butt what she did with her email?") Yeah, i think they still would have gone after her. It's what they do, fk with the Clintons while the rest of America burns to the ground... |
|
2016-07-06 1:17 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by jmcconne Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president and was married to a former president that she wouldn't have been charged? I don't think she had any ill intent, but I think she purposely glossed over the rules to fit how she wanted to do things. I think it is very disappointing that someone who acts like they are above the law and a cartoon version of a bad guy from the 80's are the only two options for POTUS. At least on the bolded statement, the country is in complete agreement. (ETA, no, I don't think she would have been charged. In fact, I would re-state the question as, "Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president the GOP would have given a rat's butt what she did with her email?") I don't know.....but as far as security goes, the Sec. of State conducting business over her personal email server is a fairly big problem. I'm still trying to figure out what that moron was thinking. Did she think she wouldn't get caught? Did she not care that she could get caught? Because there is NO FORKING WAY she thought it was no problem. I agree that it's likely going nowhere......but that fat ankled, dumbarse, lying, coniving, biatch has no business being President of this country. Edited by Left Brain 2016-07-06 1:21 PM |
2016-07-06 1:36 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by jmcconne Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president and was married to a former president that she wouldn't have been charged? I don't think she had any ill intent, but I think she purposely glossed over the rules to fit how she wanted to do things. I think it is very disappointing that someone who acts like they are above the law and a cartoon version of a bad guy from the 80's are the only two options for POTUS. At least on the bolded statement, the country is in complete agreement. (ETA, no, I don't think she would have been charged. In fact, I would re-state the question as, "Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president the GOP would have given a rat's butt what she did with her email?") I don't know.....but as far as security goes, the Sec. of State conducting business over her personal email server is a fairly big problem. I'm still trying to figure out what that moron was thinking. Did she think she wouldn't get caught? Did she not care that she could get caught? Because there is NO FORKING WAY she thought it was no problem. I agree that it's likely going nowhere......but that fat ankled, dumbarse, lying, coniving, biatch has no business being President of this country. It's not like there wasn't a precedent... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
|
2016-07-06 1:44 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by jmcconne Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president and was married to a former president that she wouldn't have been charged? I don't think she had any ill intent, but I think she purposely glossed over the rules to fit how she wanted to do things. I think it is very disappointing that someone who acts like they are above the law and a cartoon version of a bad guy from the 80's are the only two options for POTUS. At least on the bolded statement, the country is in complete agreement. (ETA, no, I don't think she would have been charged. In fact, I would re-state the question as, "Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president the GOP would have given a rat's butt what she did with her email?") I don't know.....but as far as security goes, the Sec. of State conducting business over her personal email server is a fairly big problem. I'm still trying to figure out what that moron was thinking. Did she think she wouldn't get caught? Did she not care that she could get caught? Because there is NO FORKING WAY she thought it was no problem. I agree that it's likely going nowhere......but that fat ankled, dumbarse, lying, coniving, biatch has no business being President of this country. It's not like there wasn't a precedent... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
That's exactly right......and the Liberals cried a river over Bush and anything he did....but it's different now isn't it? LMAO Look, don't defend that idiot moron Clinton on this deal.......it just sounds ridiculous.....you're smarter then that. Edited by Left Brain 2016-07-06 1:50 PM |
2016-07-06 2:02 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by jmcconne Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president and was married to a former president that she wouldn't have been charged? I don't think she had any ill intent, but I think she purposely glossed over the rules to fit how she wanted to do things. I think it is very disappointing that someone who acts like they are above the law and a cartoon version of a bad guy from the 80's are the only two options for POTUS. At least on the bolded statement, the country is in complete agreement. (ETA, no, I don't think she would have been charged. In fact, I would re-state the question as, "Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president the GOP would have given a rat's butt what she did with her email?") I don't know.....but as far as security goes, the Sec. of State conducting business over her personal email server is a fairly big problem. I'm still trying to figure out what that moron was thinking. Did she think she wouldn't get caught? Did she not care that she could get caught? Because there is NO FORKING WAY she thought it was no problem. I agree that it's likely going nowhere......but that fat ankled, dumbarse, lying, coniving, biatch has no business being President of this country. It's not like there wasn't a precedent... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
That's exactly right......and the Liberals cried a river over Bush and anything he did....but it's different now isn't it? LMAO Look, don't defend that idiot moron Clinton on this deal.......it just sounds ridiculous.....you're smarter then that. I'm just saying don't be hypocritical. If you're not going to support prosecuting anyone from one administration, then you shouldn't for the other (which is where Comey landed on this). Personally I am a tech guy and I think YEARS AGO there should've been a requirement about using government servers and domains for official correspondence. Mainly for data retention reasons, because large scale deletions cripple the Freedom of Information Act and generally hurt the public. It's also notable that the FBI and Congress during this investigation, continue to avoid naming anyone else involved. But not surprising. Email isn't just one person. I guarantee the Secretary of State had a lot of communication with members of Congress. |
2016-07-06 2:29 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by jmcconne Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president and was married to a former president that she wouldn't have been charged? I don't think she had any ill intent, but I think she purposely glossed over the rules to fit how she wanted to do things. I think it is very disappointing that someone who acts like they are above the law and a cartoon version of a bad guy from the 80's are the only two options for POTUS. At least on the bolded statement, the country is in complete agreement. (ETA, no, I don't think she would have been charged. In fact, I would re-state the question as, "Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president the GOP would have given a rat's butt what she did with her email?") I don't know.....but as far as security goes, the Sec. of State conducting business over her personal email server is a fairly big problem. I'm still trying to figure out what that moron was thinking. Did she think she wouldn't get caught? Did she not care that she could get caught? Because there is NO FORKING WAY she thought it was no problem. I agree that it's likely going nowhere......but that fat ankled, dumbarse, lying, coniving, biatch has no business being President of this country.
Yes, I believe she believed she would not be caught. When was the last time Hillary made her own bed or vacuumed the house or took out the trash or made dinner for her family or washed the car or mowed the lawn or did a load of laundry or washed dishes? She has lived a privilege life and has never had to do anything for herself the last 20 years or so. She just trusted her handlers to take care of the 'details' and cover her because that is what people do for royalty.
|
|
2016-07-06 2:37 PM in reply to: spudone |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by spudone Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by jmcconne Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president and was married to a former president that she wouldn't have been charged? I don't think she had any ill intent, but I think she purposely glossed over the rules to fit how she wanted to do things. I think it is very disappointing that someone who acts like they are above the law and a cartoon version of a bad guy from the 80's are the only two options for POTUS. At least on the bolded statement, the country is in complete agreement. (ETA, no, I don't think she would have been charged. In fact, I would re-state the question as, "Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president the GOP would have given a rat's butt what she did with her email?") I don't know.....but as far as security goes, the Sec. of State conducting business over her personal email server is a fairly big problem. I'm still trying to figure out what that moron was thinking. Did she think she wouldn't get caught? Did she not care that she could get caught? Because there is NO FORKING WAY she thought it was no problem. I agree that it's likely going nowhere......but that fat ankled, dumbarse, lying, coniving, biatch has no business being President of this country. It's not like there wasn't a precedent... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy
That's exactly right......and the Liberals cried a river over Bush and anything he did....but it's different now isn't it? LMAO Look, don't defend that idiot moron Clinton on this deal.......it just sounds ridiculous.....you're smarter then that. I'm just saying don't be hypocritical. If you're not going to support prosecuting anyone from one administration, then you shouldn't for the other (which is where Comey landed on this). Personally I am a tech guy and I think YEARS AGO there should've been a requirement about using government servers and domains for official correspondence. Mainly for data retention reasons, because large scale deletions cripple the Freedom of Information Act and generally hurt the public. It's also notable that the FBI and Congress during this investigation, continue to avoid naming anyone else involved. But not surprising. Email isn't just one person. I guarantee the Secretary of State had a lot of communication with members of Congress. Dude.....when did you ever hear me defend Bush or anyone else in that regard. Look.......I made a statement about the lying, conniving, pandering, bimbo idiot Clinton and you did the Liberal thing and pointed at Bush as no better. I get it. Here's the problem with that, and it's significant ............BUSH ISN'T RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT. |
2016-07-06 2:52 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Dude pick one. Conniving and bimbo don't go togetherAnd seriously, we get enough nametags from Trump already. |
2016-07-06 3:22 PM in reply to: spudone |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement I don't think it's that she didn't think she would get caught. I don't think she thought that what she was doing was wrong-- or at least, it was something that she'd known other people to have done. She's someone who has been in the political area for decades, and who's probably had designs on the White House for as long. I find it really hard to believe that someone with that lengthy a career in politics, with the ambition she has, would be so cavalier with her emails if she actually believed that what she was doing was criminal or certainly if it constituted a breach of National Security. I think it was dumb and careless, but not for a minute do I think that she believed she was endangering national security. You can argue "well, she should have known", I guess, but the FBI didn't see it that way. And I think the immediate reaction of the GOP (and particularly Trump) to question the integrity of the FBI investigation is sleazy. Frankly, I'd be more convinced of the GOP's actual outrage on the matter if they hadn't just spent millions of dollars on a bunch of Benghazi investigations that they later admitted to be politically motivated dog-and-pony shows. This is no different. They don't care any more about national security than they cared about the four dead people in Libya-- this is just an opportunity to hobble Clinton politically. |
2016-07-06 3:25 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by jmcconne Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president and was married to a former president that she wouldn't have been charged? I don't think she had any ill intent, but I think she purposely glossed over the rules to fit how she wanted to do things. I think it is very disappointing that someone who acts like they are above the law and a cartoon version of a bad guy from the 80's are the only two options for POTUS. At least on the bolded statement, the country is in complete agreement. (ETA, no, I don't think she would have been charged. In fact, I would re-state the question as, "Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president the GOP would have given a rat's butt what she did with her email?") I don't know.....but as far as security goes, the Sec. of State conducting business over her personal email server is a fairly big problem. I'm still trying to figure out what that moron was thinking. Did she think she wouldn't get caught? Did she not care that she could get caught? Because there is NO FORKING WAY she thought it was no problem. I agree that it's likely going nowhere......but that fat ankled, dumbarse, lying, coniving, biatch has no business being President of this country.
Yes, I believe she believed she would not be caught. When was the last time Hillary made her own bed or vacuumed the house or took out the trash or made dinner for her family or washed the car or mowed the lawn or did a load of laundry or washed dishes? She has lived a privilege life and has never had to do anything for herself the last 20 years or so. She just trusted her handlers to take care of the 'details' and cover her because that is what people do for royalty.
Sorry, what kind of irrelevant, sexist nonsense is this? |
2016-07-06 3:28 PM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I don't think it's that she didn't think she would get caught. I don't think she thought that what she was doing was wrong-- or at least, it was something that she'd known other people to have done. She's someone who has been in the political area for decades, and who's probably had designs on the White House for as long. I find it really hard to believe that someone with that lengthy a career in politics, with the ambition she has, would be so cavalier with her emails if she actually believed that what she was doing was criminal or certainly if it constituted a breach of National Security. I think it was dumb and careless, but not for a minute do I think that she believed she was endangering national security. You can argue "well, she should have known", I guess, but the FBI didn't see it that way. And I think the immediate reaction of the GOP (and particularly Trump) to question the integrity of the FBI investigation is sleazy. Frankly, I'd be more convinced of the GOP's actual outrage on the matter if they hadn't just spent millions of dollars on a bunch of Benghazi investigations that they later admitted to be politically motivated dog-and-pony shows. This is no different. They don't care any more about national security than they cared about the four dead people in Libya-- this is just an opportunity to hobble Clinton politically.
You obviously have not read the Benghazi report. The big unanswered question remains, why was no one in route to help them. 13 hrs they fought. The dems answer is "the would not have gotten there in time" but there was no way of knowing a the time if the fight was going to last 2 hrs or 2 days! For 13 hrs no one was sent. Supposed the Sec Def ordered help, Who ignored or overruled that order? |
|
2016-07-06 3:55 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I don't think it's that she didn't think she would get caught. I don't think she thought that what she was doing was wrong-- or at least, it was something that she'd known other people to have done. She's someone who has been in the political area for decades, and who's probably had designs on the White House for as long. I find it really hard to believe that someone with that lengthy a career in politics, with the ambition she has, would be so cavalier with her emails if she actually believed that what she was doing was criminal or certainly if it constituted a breach of National Security. I think it was dumb and careless, but not for a minute do I think that she believed she was endangering national security. You can argue "well, she should have known", I guess, but the FBI didn't see it that way. And I think the immediate reaction of the GOP (and particularly Trump) to question the integrity of the FBI investigation is sleazy. Frankly, I'd be more convinced of the GOP's actual outrage on the matter if they hadn't just spent millions of dollars on a bunch of Benghazi investigations that they later admitted to be politically motivated dog-and-pony shows. This is no different. They don't care any more about national security than they cared about the four dead people in Libya-- this is just an opportunity to hobble Clinton politically.
You obviously have not read the Benghazi report. The big unanswered question remains, why was no one in route to help them. 13 hrs they fought. The dems answer is "the would not have gotten there in time" but there was no way of knowing a the time if the fight was going to last 2 hrs or 2 days! For 13 hrs no one was sent. Supposed the Sec Def ordered help, Who ignored or overruled that order? From the report, Nov, 2014: “Finding #10: The CIA received all military support that was available. Neither the CIA nor the DOD denied requests for air support. One CIA security officer requested a Spectre gunship that he believed was available, but his commanding officer did not relay the request because he correctly knew the gunship was not available.” It goes on to say that the lack of support was due to the DOD’s force posture leading up to the attacks, and to the location and readiness posture of the US forces. “Once the aircraft carrier pulled out at the end of Operation Freedom Falcon, the officers knew air support was not in the area". A cable from the CIA HQ to personnel in Libya that predated the attacks said that “there is no mechanism/authorities in place for the field to leverage Emergency Close Air Support. The Base should be prepared to recover its officers with local resources within its capabilities and limitations.” So, you can make the argument, I guess, that the base was unprepared for the assault and that they should have known better, and, you can pin that on the SoS if you want to, but that's pretty thin. It's a stretch to say that the SoS is individually responsible for knowing the security detail at every location around the world and evaluating its readiness. And that stuff about aid being requested and ignored or overruled is a myth. Its another of those things that the GOP keeps saying over and over again," even though it isn't true, in the hopes that eventually, people will accept it as truth. |
2016-07-06 4:55 PM in reply to: spudone |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by spudone Dude pick one. Conniving and bimbo don't go togetherAnd seriously, we get enough nametags from Trump already. I think she's a horrible person. And yeah, as hard as it is to be a bimbo and a conniver.....she reaches new levels. It's obvious that she's not that smart, because she thinks everyone else is dumb, so she's got bimbo covered......and you can't even try to make an argument against her being devious and conniving. Ambition run wild with no substance. |
2016-07-06 4:56 PM in reply to: 0 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement dp - sorry Edited by Left Brain 2016-07-06 4:56 PM |
2016-07-06 7:23 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Official BT Coach 18500 Indianapolis, Indiana | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by Left Brain I agree that it's likely going nowhere......but that fat ankled, dumbarse, lying, coniving, biatch has no business being President of this country. LB, so tell me what you REALLY think about HC! |
2016-07-07 8:04 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio From the report, Nov, 2014: “Finding #10: The CIA received all military support that was available. Neither the CIA nor the DOD denied requests for air support. One CIA security officer requested a Spectre gunship that he believed was available, but his commanding officer did not relay the request because he correctly knew the gunship was not available.” It goes on to say that the lack of support was due to the DOD’s force posture leading up to the attacks, and to the location and readiness posture of the US forces. “Once the aircraft carrier pulled out at the end of Operation Freedom Falcon, the officers knew air support was not in the area". A cable from the CIA HQ to personnel in Libya that predated the attacks said that “there is no mechanism/authorities in place for the field to leverage Emergency Close Air Support. The Base should be prepared to recover its officers with local resources within its capabilities and limitations.” So, you can make the argument, I guess, that the base was unprepared for the assault and that they should have known better, and, you can pin that on the SoS if you want to, but that's pretty thin. It's a stretch to say that the SoS is individually responsible for knowing the security detail at every location around the world and evaluating its readiness. And that stuff about aid being requested and ignored or overruled is a myth. Its another of those things that the GOP keeps saying over and over again," even though it isn't true, in the hopes that eventually, people will accept it as truth. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I don't think it's that she didn't think she would get caught. I don't think she thought that what she was doing was wrong-- or at least, it was something that she'd known other people to have done. She's someone who has been in the political area for decades, and who's probably had designs on the White House for as long. I find it really hard to believe that someone with that lengthy a career in politics, with the ambition she has, would be so cavalier with her emails if she actually believed that what she was doing was criminal or certainly if it constituted a breach of National Security. I think it was dumb and careless, but not for a minute do I think that she believed she was endangering national security. You can argue "well, she should have known", I guess, but the FBI didn't see it that way. And I think the immediate reaction of the GOP (and particularly Trump) to question the integrity of the FBI investigation is sleazy. Frankly, I'd be more convinced of the GOP's actual outrage on the matter if they hadn't just spent millions of dollars on a bunch of Benghazi investigations that they later admitted to be politically motivated dog-and-pony shows. This is no different. They don't care any more about national security than they cared about the four dead people in Libya-- this is just an opportunity to hobble Clinton politically.
You obviously have not read the Benghazi report. The big unanswered question remains, why was no one in route to help them. 13 hrs they fought. The dems answer is "the would not have gotten there in time" but there was no way of knowing a the time if the fight was going to last 2 hrs or 2 days! For 13 hrs no one was sent. Supposed the Sec Def ordered help, Who ignored or overruled that order?
The point is, 13 hrs after the fight started no forces were on their way to help. That is just unacceptable. We have forces all over the world and should be able to respond quickly when Americans are being attacked. Maybe they wouldn't have gotten there in time but it should not take 13+ hrs to get off the dime and get troops airborne and on the way. |
|
2016-07-07 8:14 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio Sorry, what kind of irrelevant, sexist nonsense is this? Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by jmcconne Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president and was married to a former president that she wouldn't have been charged? I don't think she had any ill intent, but I think she purposely glossed over the rules to fit how she wanted to do things. I think it is very disappointing that someone who acts like they are above the law and a cartoon version of a bad guy from the 80's are the only two options for POTUS. At least on the bolded statement, the country is in complete agreement. (ETA, no, I don't think she would have been charged. In fact, I would re-state the question as, "Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president the GOP would have given a rat's butt what she did with her email?") I don't know.....but as far as security goes, the Sec. of State conducting business over her personal email server is a fairly big problem. I'm still trying to figure out what that moron was thinking. Did she think she wouldn't get caught? Did she not care that she could get caught? Because there is NO FORKING WAY she thought it was no problem. I agree that it's likely going nowhere......but that fat ankled, dumbarse, lying, coniving, biatch has no business being President of this country.
Yes, I believe she believed she would not be caught. When was the last time Hillary made her own bed or vacuumed the house or took out the trash or made dinner for her family or washed the car or mowed the lawn or did a load of laundry or washed dishes? She has lived a privilege life and has never had to do anything for herself the last 20 years or so. She just trusted her handlers to take care of the 'details' and cover her because that is what people do for royalty.
Sexist? You calling it sexist is actually sexists! I do all of these things - sex has nothing to do with it. But you immediately played the sexist card....which is very telling of your opinion. If your wife worked you too would vacuum, do the dishes and laundry, etc and your wouldn't assume it was 'woman thing'. My point is, she is out of touch. She has servants and handlers to everything for her. She doesn't understand how email works. "Wipe the server? You mean like with a rag?"
|
2016-07-07 8:21 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio Sorry, what kind of irrelevant, sexist nonsense is this? Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by jmcconne Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president and was married to a former president that she wouldn't have been charged? I don't think she had any ill intent, but I think she purposely glossed over the rules to fit how she wanted to do things. I think it is very disappointing that someone who acts like they are above the law and a cartoon version of a bad guy from the 80's are the only two options for POTUS. At least on the bolded statement, the country is in complete agreement. (ETA, no, I don't think she would have been charged. In fact, I would re-state the question as, "Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president the GOP would have given a rat's butt what she did with her email?") I don't know.....but as far as security goes, the Sec. of State conducting business over her personal email server is a fairly big problem. I'm still trying to figure out what that moron was thinking. Did she think she wouldn't get caught? Did she not care that she could get caught? Because there is NO FORKING WAY she thought it was no problem. I agree that it's likely going nowhere......but that fat ankled, dumbarse, lying, coniving, biatch has no business being President of this country.
Yes, I believe she believed she would not be caught. When was the last time Hillary made her own bed or vacuumed the house or took out the trash or made dinner for her family or washed the car or mowed the lawn or did a load of laundry or washed dishes? She has lived a privilege life and has never had to do anything for herself the last 20 years or so. She just trusted her handlers to take care of the 'details' and cover her because that is what people do for royalty.
Sexist? You calling it sexist is actually sexists! I do all of these things - sex has nothing to do with it. But you immediately played the sexist card....which is very telling of your opinion. If your wife worked you too would vacuum, do the dishes and laundry, etc and your wouldn't assume it was 'woman thing'. My point is, she is out of touch. She has servants and handlers to everything for her. She doesn't understand how email works. "Wipe the server? You mean like with a rag?"
Wait......that's NOT what it means? |
2016-07-07 8:39 AM in reply to: Rogillio |
Champion 7821 Brooklyn, NY | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio From the report, Nov, 2014: “Finding #10: The CIA received all military support that was available. Neither the CIA nor the DOD denied requests for air support. One CIA security officer requested a Spectre gunship that he believed was available, but his commanding officer did not relay the request because he correctly knew the gunship was not available.” It goes on to say that the lack of support was due to the DOD’s force posture leading up to the attacks, and to the location and readiness posture of the US forces. “Once the aircraft carrier pulled out at the end of Operation Freedom Falcon, the officers knew air support was not in the area". A cable from the CIA HQ to personnel in Libya that predated the attacks said that “there is no mechanism/authorities in place for the field to leverage Emergency Close Air Support. The Base should be prepared to recover its officers with local resources within its capabilities and limitations.” So, you can make the argument, I guess, that the base was unprepared for the assault and that they should have known better, and, you can pin that on the SoS if you want to, but that's pretty thin. It's a stretch to say that the SoS is individually responsible for knowing the security detail at every location around the world and evaluating its readiness. And that stuff about aid being requested and ignored or overruled is a myth. Its another of those things that the GOP keeps saying over and over again," even though it isn't true, in the hopes that eventually, people will accept it as truth. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn I don't think it's that she didn't think she would get caught. I don't think she thought that what she was doing was wrong-- or at least, it was something that she'd known other people to have done. She's someone who has been in the political area for decades, and who's probably had designs on the White House for as long. I find it really hard to believe that someone with that lengthy a career in politics, with the ambition she has, would be so cavalier with her emails if she actually believed that what she was doing was criminal or certainly if it constituted a breach of National Security. I think it was dumb and careless, but not for a minute do I think that she believed she was endangering national security. You can argue "well, she should have known", I guess, but the FBI didn't see it that way. And I think the immediate reaction of the GOP (and particularly Trump) to question the integrity of the FBI investigation is sleazy. Frankly, I'd be more convinced of the GOP's actual outrage on the matter if they hadn't just spent millions of dollars on a bunch of Benghazi investigations that they later admitted to be politically motivated dog-and-pony shows. This is no different. They don't care any more about national security than they cared about the four dead people in Libya-- this is just an opportunity to hobble Clinton politically.
You obviously have not read the Benghazi report. The big unanswered question remains, why was no one in route to help them. 13 hrs they fought. The dems answer is "the would not have gotten there in time" but there was no way of knowing a the time if the fight was going to last 2 hrs or 2 days! For 13 hrs no one was sent. Supposed the Sec Def ordered help, Who ignored or overruled that order?
The point is, 13 hrs after the fight started no forces were on their way to help. That is just unacceptable. We have forces all over the world and should be able to respond quickly when Americans are being attacked. Maybe they wouldn't have gotten there in time but it should not take 13+ hrs to get off the dime and get troops airborne and on the way. Who, specifically, would you have had on their way to help? What assets, from which location? If you're going to say, "someone should have been on their way to help", you ought to at least have an idea of what you're talking about. This isn't a video game where you can just click on a plane an magically it's on its way somewhere. The Benghazi report says explicitly that there were no air assets nearby. I would also assume that there are no American close air support assets in any neighboring country. That means, I guess, you'd need them to come from...where? Italy? Greece? I'm not really sure who is closest. And remember that this is a close air support mission, so long-range, high-altitude bombers are of no help. You'd need attack helicopters, ideally, or gunships or A-10's, right? Those can't just take off and fly across the Mediterranean and then expect to be able to loiter over the battlefield and then fly back. They would ideally need an aircraft carrier to bring them to the Libyan coast. I guess you can refuel the planes in midair, but, again, that requires additional assets that may or may not have been available. I don't pretend to have any first- (or even second- or third-) hand knowledge of how air support gets from point a to point b, but the Benghazi report (which you yourself cited, by the way) makes it pretty clear that there weren't any assets close enough to have made a difference. To say, in hindsight that they "should have sent somebody" is just Monday morning quarterbacking. |
2016-07-07 8:46 AM in reply to: Left Brain |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Rogillio Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio Sorry, what kind of irrelevant, sexist nonsense is this? Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by jmcconne Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president and was married to a former president that she wouldn't have been charged? I don't think she had any ill intent, but I think she purposely glossed over the rules to fit how she wanted to do things. I think it is very disappointing that someone who acts like they are above the law and a cartoon version of a bad guy from the 80's are the only two options for POTUS. At least on the bolded statement, the country is in complete agreement. (ETA, no, I don't think she would have been charged. In fact, I would re-state the question as, "Does anyone believe that if Hilary Clinton didn't have a very solid chance of being president the GOP would have given a rat's butt what she did with her email?") I don't know.....but as far as security goes, the Sec. of State conducting business over her personal email server is a fairly big problem. I'm still trying to figure out what that moron was thinking. Did she think she wouldn't get caught? Did she not care that she could get caught? Because there is NO FORKING WAY she thought it was no problem. I agree that it's likely going nowhere......but that fat ankled, dumbarse, lying, coniving, biatch has no business being President of this country.
Yes, I believe she believed she would not be caught. When was the last time Hillary made her own bed or vacuumed the house or took out the trash or made dinner for her family or washed the car or mowed the lawn or did a load of laundry or washed dishes? She has lived a privilege life and has never had to do anything for herself the last 20 years or so. She just trusted her handlers to take care of the 'details' and cover her because that is what people do for royalty.
Sexist? You calling it sexist is actually sexists! I do all of these things - sex has nothing to do with it. But you immediately played the sexist card....which is very telling of your opinion. If your wife worked you too would vacuum, do the dishes and laundry, etc and your wouldn't assume it was 'woman thing'. My point is, she is out of touch. She has servants and handlers to everything for her. She doesn't understand how email works. "Wipe the server? You mean like with a rag?"
Wait......that's NOT what it means?
Certainly by the time she said that she knew exactly what a server was. But her actions prior to that indicated she was clueless. She deleted thousands of work emails as assumed they were actually deleted. The FBI recovered them....and are now turning them back over to the State Department.....which means they will eventually be released....which should give some insight into why they were deleted. I find it interesting that the FBI never mentioned the Clinton Foundation investigation and what emails they found that were related. As I was watching the news last night they said the FBI concluded that many of the accounts that Hillary had regular corresponded with via email had been hacked. So I'm thinking.....if I was a Chinese hacker and hacked into Blumental's email and saw numerous emails from [email protected]. I can imagine what is going on in his head, "Hillary Clinton? The United States Secretary of State? Are you kidding me?! Hey boss, get a load of this....."
|
|
School me on Hilary Clinton Pages: 1 2 3 4 | |||
Public service announcement... Pages: 1 2 | |||