login
Hilary and the FBI Announcement (Page 2)
-
No new posts
|
 2016-07-07 8:59 AM in reply to: jmk-brooklyn |
Champion  10157    Alabama |  Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI AnnouncementOriginally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio 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. 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.
Again, "weren't any assets close enough to have made a difference" is easy to say in hindsight given that it was over in 13 hrs. But a the time, no one knew if it was gonna be 13 hour fight or a 13 day flight! The issue is, NOTHING was on the way. Why? And more importantly, what have wed done to make sure this doesn't happen again. What if tomorrow the US embassy in South Africa is attacked. How many hours will it take before help is heading that way? Supposedly Sec Def Leon 'ordered' help be sent. Where did that order go? Why was the order not followed? Who got the order? Did it go to the Joint Chief? CENTCOM commander? EUCOM commander? This was in CENTCOM jurisdiction they needed help from EUCOM. Is there cross AOR comm issues? That is, did CENTCOM not talk to EUCOM? The bottom line, is someone dropped the ball and we still don't know who! Troops should have been on the way. Period! |
| 2016-07-07 10:12 AM in reply to: jmcconne |
| Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement From FBI Director Comey's announcement: Its a "...felony to mishandle classified information...in a grossly negligent way." "...there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information." Comey didn't say that charges could not be brought on these facts: "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. 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." The way I see it - Clinton committed a felony, the FBI will not recommend charges, and the Justice Department is not going to bring charges. Not unlike decisions prosecutors make each and every day. |
| 2016-07-07 12:40 PM in reply to: 0 |
Master 5557 , California | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement The way I see it - Clinton committed a felony, the FBI will not recommend charges, and the Justice Department is not going to bring charges. Not unlike decisions prosecutors make each and every day. The problem for the FBI is that "gross negligence" under the Espionage Act requires that classified info be "removed from its proper place". This is an old law that wasn't written with modern electronic communications in mind. The other way they could prosecute is if there was "willful intent" to share classified info with unauthorized people. I'm quite certain if Comey had found a way that would withstand scrutiny, he would've filed charges. He's a no-B.S. kind of guy and he has worked under both Republican and Democrat administrations. Edited by spudone 2016-07-07 12:40 PM |
| 2016-07-07 1:02 PM in reply to: spudone |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Wonder if he set her up for a bigger fall. I just saw this in my email. Remember, they got Bubba for lying under oath so there is a family precedent. FBI Director James Comey, testifying before a House committee looking into his decision not to recommend prosecution of Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server, admits that many of her statements about sending emails -- some made under oath -- were 'not true,' raising the question of whether in doing so she committed a felony.
|
| 2016-07-07 1:09 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by tuwood Wonder if he set her up for a bigger fall. I just saw this in my email. Remember, they got Bubba for lying under oath so there is a family precedent.
FBI Director James Comey, testifying before a House committee looking into his decision not to recommend prosecution of Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server, admits that many of her statements about sending emails -- some made under oath -- were 'not true,' raising the question of whether in doing so she committed a felony.
The chairmen said they will recommend the FBI investigate Hillary for perjury to congress before the Benghazi committee. |
| 2016-07-07 2:23 PM in reply to: spudone |
| Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by spudone The way I see it - Clinton committed a felony, the FBI will not recommend charges, and the Justice Department is not going to bring charges. Not unlike decisions prosecutors make each and every day. The problem for the FBI is that "gross negligence" under the Espionage Act requires that classified info be "removed from its proper place". This is an old law that wasn't written with modern electronic communications in mind. The other way they could prosecute is if there was "willful intent" to share classified info with unauthorized people. I'm quite certain if Comey had found a way that would withstand scrutiny, he would've filed charges. He's a no-B.S. kind of guy and he has worked under both Republican and Democrat administrations. Except the FBI has previously recommended charges and the justice department has previously brought charges without "willful intent." |
| 2016-07-07 2:25 PM in reply to: Hook'em |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by Hook'em Originally posted by spudone The way I see it - Clinton committed a felony, the FBI will not recommend charges, and the Justice Department is not going to bring charges. Not unlike decisions prosecutors make each and every day. The problem for the FBI is that "gross negligence" under the Espionage Act requires that classified info be "removed from its proper place". This is an old law that wasn't written with modern electronic communications in mind. The other way they could prosecute is if there was "willful intent" to share classified info with unauthorized people. I'm quite certain if Comey had found a way that would withstand scrutiny, he would've filed charges. He's a no-B.S. kind of guy and he has worked under both Republican and Democrat administrations. Except the FBI has previously recommended charges and the justice department has previously brought charges without "willful intent." yep, there is no "intent" language in the statute. You either did it or you didn't and the FBI showed that she did. I forget the exact Comey quote, but it was something like "we don't think any prosecutor will prosecute her" as their reasoning for not recommending charges was pretty funny. |
| 2016-07-07 2:42 PM in reply to: tuwood |
| Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by tuwood Comey quote: "... our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."Originally posted by Hook'em Originally posted by spudone The way I see it - Clinton committed a felony, the FBI will not recommend charges, and the Justice Department is not going to bring charges. Not unlike decisions prosecutors make each and every day. The problem for the FBI is that "gross negligence" under the Espionage Act requires that classified info be "removed from its proper place". This is an old law that wasn't written with modern electronic communications in mind. The other way they could prosecute is if there was "willful intent" to share classified info with unauthorized people. I'm quite certain if Comey had found a way that would withstand scrutiny, he would've filed charges. He's a no-B.S. kind of guy and he has worked under both Republican and Democrat administrations. Except the FBI has previously recommended charges and the justice department has previously brought charges without "willful intent." yep, there is no "intent" language in the statute. You either did it or you didn't and the FBI showed that she did. I forget the exact Comey quote, but it was something like "we don't think any prosecutor will prosecute her" as their reasoning for not recommending charges was pretty funny. |
| 2016-07-07 2:52 PM in reply to: Hook'em |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement |
| 2016-07-07 4:31 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 Originally posted by Rogillio 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. 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.
Again, "weren't any assets close enough to have made a difference" is easy to say in hindsight given that it was over in 13 hrs. But a the time, no one knew if it was gonna be 13 hour fight or a 13 day flight! The issue is, NOTHING was on the way. Why? And more importantly, what have wed done to make sure this doesn't happen again. What if tomorrow the US embassy in South Africa is attacked. How many hours will it take before help is heading that way? Supposedly Sec Def Leon 'ordered' help be sent. Where did that order go? Why was the order not followed? Who got the order? Did it go to the Joint Chief? CENTCOM commander? EUCOM commander? This was in CENTCOM jurisdiction they needed help from EUCOM. Is there cross AOR comm issues? That is, did CENTCOM not talk to EUCOM? The bottom line, is someone dropped the ball and we still don't know who! Troops should have been on the way. Period! Coulda shoulda. You started out by saying, "You obviously have not read the Benghazi report...." which was true, I hadn't. You haven't either, apparently. The report, which you cited says pretty unequivocally that, based on the intel that the DOD and CIA had at the time, that there were no assets available. To say, "someone, somewhere, should have been sent" makes no sense. You don't just randomly and reactionarily commit troops and materiel to a firefight. You're saying they should have loaded some Rangers onto a plane somewhere and sent them towards Libya the minute the embassy came under attack on the chance that they might be able to help when they arrived? That's silly. The military doesn't scramble their forces all over the world every time someone comes under attack somewhere. That's not how it works. People who accept commissions in dangerous areas in the world understand there is an inherent risk and that, depending on the threat, help may not be able to reach them in time. That's what's meant by "The Base should be prepared to recover its officers with local resources within its capabilities and limitations.” If the South African embassy, to use your example, is attacked by a force consistent with the potential threats identified by the best available intel, it's a fair assumption that they'll be prepared to repel it. If they're attacked out of the blue by hundreds of heavily armed and well-coordinated insurgents? Well, it might be curtains for them. That's the risk of serving in a potentially hostile area. And where is your evidence that Sec Def ordered help to be sent? "Supposedly"? Says who? Again, it isn't mentioned in the report which you cited. |
| 2016-07-08 8:04 AM in reply to: 0 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio Coulda shoulda. You started out by saying, "You obviously have not read the Benghazi report...." which was true, I hadn't. You haven't either, apparently. The report, which you cited says pretty unequivocally that, based on the intel that the DOD and CIA had at the time, that there were no assets available. To say, "someone, somewhere, should have been sent" makes no sense. You don't just randomly and reactionarily commit troops and materiel to a firefight. You're saying they should have loaded some Rangers onto a plane somewhere and sent them towards Libya the minute the embassy came under attack on the chance that they might be able to help when they arrived? That's silly. The military doesn't scramble their forces all over the world every time someone comes under attack somewhere. That's not how it works. People who accept commissions in dangerous areas in the world understand there is an inherent risk and that, depending on the threat, help may not be able to reach them in time. That's what's meant by "The Base should be prepared to recover its officers with local resources within its capabilities and limitations.” If the South African embassy, to use your example, is attacked by a force consistent with the potential threats identified by the best available intel, it's a fair assumption that they'll be prepared to repel it. If they're attacked out of the blue by hundreds of heavily armed and well-coordinated insurgents? Well, it might be curtains for them. That's the risk of serving in a potentially hostile area. And where is your evidence that Sec Def ordered help to be sent? "Supposedly"? Says who? Again, it isn't mentioned in the report which you cited. Originally posted by jmk-brooklyn Originally posted by Rogillio 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. 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.
Again, "weren't any assets close enough to have made a difference" is easy to say in hindsight given that it was over in 13 hrs. But a the time, no one knew if it was gonna be 13 hour fight or a 13 day flight! The issue is, NOTHING was on the way. Why? And more importantly, what have wed done to make sure this doesn't happen again. What if tomorrow the US embassy in South Africa is attacked. How many hours will it take before help is heading that way? Supposedly Sec Def Leon 'ordered' help be sent. Where did that order go? Why was the order not followed? Who got the order? Did it go to the Joint Chief? CENTCOM commander? EUCOM commander? This was in CENTCOM jurisdiction they needed help from EUCOM. Is there cross AOR comm issues? That is, did CENTCOM not talk to EUCOM? The bottom line, is someone dropped the ball and we still don't know who! Troops should have been on the way. Period!
I don't know what you do for a living but you have no idea what you are talking about. And you are just making s)hit up. It IS in the report. CENTCOM and EUCOM both have troops on active alert 24/7 in-theater and help should have been on the way. Seriously, read the report and stop making a fool of yourself.
Edited by Rogillio 2016-07-08 8:10 AM (Report.png) Attachments ---------------- Report.png (249KB - 4 downloads) |
| 2016-07-08 1:51 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Expert 2180 Boise, Idaho | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Don't we have a thread specifically for "Benghazi"? Too many "Select" Committees to count and plus/minus 10 million dollars have produced...nada....zip. And please don't quote excerpts from the UNCLASSIFIED Benghazi transcripts. We have NO idea what really transpired and we never will. Go waste YOUR time there. I'm not interested. THIS thread is about wasting time on "Hillary and the FBI announcement". AKA "Madam President and the FBI Announcement". Look, a squirrel!!!!! (points far off in the distance) smh
(Paid for by the "Rocky and Bullwinkle/2020" campaign.)
|
| 2016-07-08 2:00 PM in reply to: jmcconne |
Expert 2180 Boise, Idaho | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement |
| 2016-07-08 2:15 PM in reply to: jeffnboise |
| Deep in the Heart of Texas | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by jeffnboise I agree that Hillary Clinton's major mistakes should be treated separately and Benghazi has no relationship to the unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials - unless there is a general thread about why Clinton has proven herself untrustworthy. Don't we have a thread specifically for "Benghazi"? Too many "Select" Committees to count and plus/minus 10 million dollars have produced...nada....zip. And please don't quote excerpts from the UNCLASSIFIED Benghazi transcripts. We have NO idea what really transpired and we never will. Go waste YOUR time there. I'm not interested. THIS thread is about wasting time on "Hillary and the FBI announcement". AKA "Madam President and the FBI Announcement". Look, a squirrel!!!!! (points far off in the distance) smh
(Paid for by the "Rocky and Bullwinkle/2020" campaign.)
|
| 2016-07-08 7:17 PM in reply to: #5189678 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement The email scandal came out of the Benghazi investigation. It is important that we figure out what went wrong that night so it never happens again. But some people are more interested in protecting Hilllary than they are about figuring out what went wrong. I could tell you what is in the classified report but then I'd have to kill ya. |
| 2016-07-09 1:58 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Expert 2180 Boise, Idaho | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by Rogillio The email scandal came out of the Benghazi investigation. It is important that we figure out what went wrong that night so it never happens again. But some people are more interested in protecting Hilllary than they are about figuring out what went wrong. I could tell you what is in the classified report but then I'd have to kill ya. 13 Embassies were attacked on Bush's watch-60 lives lost. 13 attacks. We obviously didn't study HIS failures enough to 'figure out what went wrong'. People don't like Hillary. I get it. Neither do I. But they should at least own it and stop pretending they're so outraged over Benghazi. They didn't care then. They don't care now and they won't bother to learn anything. It's done. The embassy was understaffed, underfunded and more concerned about Intelligence Gathering than any Diplomatic Mission. We mortals will never know what really happened. |
| 2016-07-09 2:39 PM in reply to: #5190119 |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Yeah I'm not buying the 'he did it too' excuse. I guess the difference is it was 9/11 and I remember watching it unfold on TV. And I remember the BS we were fed about it being about a movie......when everyone knew that was BS meant to maintain the Obama reelection mantra that he had won the war on terror. I remember reading about how the ambassitor was spdomozed and seeing the pictures of him after he was beaten to death and dragged thru the streets. An the USA DID NOTHING! The whole Libya situation was one huge Clinton charlie-fox trot. |
| 2016-07-09 7:19 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Expert 2180 Boise, Idaho | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement I'm sure, as President, she'll try very hard to make amends for all of her perceived shortcomings. It's time some people start wrapping their heads around that. The Repubs won't allow Trump to sink the whole party-they'll take, nay WELCOME, a POTUS loss to save the down ballot candidates. They can continue on their merry, obstructionist ways if they can maintain ONE CHAMBER!! Enjoy the rest of the summer. I'm moving on. The Olympics are coming! |
| 2016-07-11 9:09 AM in reply to: jeffnboise |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement |
| 2016-07-11 9:38 AM in reply to: jeffnboise |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by jeffnboise I'm sure, as President, she'll try very hard to make amends for all of her perceived shortcomings. It's time some people start wrapping their heads around that. The Repubs won't allow Trump to sink the whole party-they'll take, nay WELCOME, a POTUS loss to save the down ballot candidates. They can continue on their merry, obstructionist ways if they can maintain ONE CHAMBER!! Enjoy the rest of the summer. I'm moving on. The Olympics are coming! How will you be able get your head around a President Trump? They're both polling equally now with a huge block of undecideds. Undecideds traditionally break 2:1 (or more) towards the non-incumbent and Hillary is most definitely the incumbent. Also, Trump has been defined by the media and crazies up to this point. Once America actually listens to him in the debates his approvals will increase substantially. Hillary can't do anything to improve her negatives IMHO and will stay flat at best. Obviously anything can happen, but I think you're fooling yourself if you believe Trump can't win. It's his to lose at this point IMHO. |
| 2016-07-11 10:04 AM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement Originally posted by tuwood Originally posted by jeffnboise I'm sure, as President, she'll try very hard to make amends for all of her perceived shortcomings. It's time some people start wrapping their heads around that. The Repubs won't allow Trump to sink the whole party-they'll take, nay WELCOME, a POTUS loss to save the down ballot candidates. They can continue on their merry, obstructionist ways if they can maintain ONE CHAMBER!! Enjoy the rest of the summer. I'm moving on. The Olympics are coming! How will you be able get your head around a President Trump? They're both polling equally now with a huge block of undecideds. Undecideds traditionally break 2:1 (or more) towards the non-incumbent and Hillary is most definitely the incumbent. Also, Trump has been defined by the media and crazies up to this point. Once America actually listens to him in the debates his approvals will increase substantially. Hillary can't do anything to improve her negatives IMHO and will stay flat at best. Obviously anything can happen, but I think you're fooling yourself if you believe Trump can't win. It's his to lose at this point IMHO.
Agree. I'd like to see a video montage from last summer of all the talking heads proclaiming there is no way Trump could win the nomination. Virtually everyone thought he was a joke and there was no way he'd win the nomination. Republican are sick of being lied to by the establishment GOPers and want to try something different. Trump is.....uh...different. :-) |
| 2016-10-28 12:48 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Champion 10157 Alabama | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement FBI reopens CRIMINAL investigation of Clinton emails based on new emails. |
| 2016-10-28 12:49 PM in reply to: Rogillio |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement |
| 2016-10-28 2:16 PM in reply to: 0 |
Elite 3515 Romeoville, Il | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement A Hillary Presidency now will be, best case, a major distraction. Worst case, it's an indictment! A vote for her is seriously worthless at this point... Edited by Meulen 2016-10-28 2:18 PM |
| 2016-10-28 2:30 PM in reply to: Meulen |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Hilary and the FBI Announcement STONE HER!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
|
| School me on Hilary Clinton Pages: 1 2 3 4 | ||
| |||
| Public service announcement... Pages: 1 2 | ||
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK