Benghazi ....a revelation ? [Archive] - Horse Racing Forum - PaceAdvantage.Com

mostpost

05-19-2015, 09:16 PM

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-defense-state-department-documents-reveal-obama-administration-knew-that-al-qaeda-terrorists-had-planned-benghazi-attack-10-days-in-advance/

Judicial watch obtains docs
The Benghazi attack took place on Sept. 11, 2012. For maybe a week after that there was some belief that the attacks were as a result of a protest against a film. Even during that period there was never any question that this was just a small part of the reason for the attack. It is now more than two and one half years and you clowns are still yapping about the same thing. NOBODY CARES!!!
You are talking to yourselves. Not one person who will be voting for Hillary Clinton for President in 2016 will vote against her because of this foolishness. Anyone who thinks this means anything was not going to vote for her anyway.

A review: Conservatives (Hereinafter referred to as the clowns) claim that there was a vast liberal conspiracy to blame the Benghazi attacks on a film that offended Muslims. They said this was done to protect Obama's reelection chances. The problem with that is that aside from Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday news shows and a few other statements, that claim was quickly disavowed. Weeks before the election, the administration was consistently stating that the attacks were preplanned and had nothing to do with the film.

The clowns claim that the CIA was held back from attemping a rescue of the mission. The facts-as determined by a Republican investigative committee-was that the rescue team as on its way to the mission within fifteen minutes.

The clowns claim that a rescue team from Tripoli was prevented from boarding a plane. The facts-as determined by a Republican investigative committee-are that a first rescue team from Tripoli was already in Benghazi and the second team was only stopped after all Americans were at the Benghazi airport.

The clowns claim that no rescue efforts were launched from Europe. The fact is that they were launched but were simply too far away to be effective.

You can keep posting the same nonsense from different sources as long as you want. I will keep calling you out.

Clocker

05-19-2015, 10:11 PM

The problem with that is that aside from Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday news shows and a few other statements, that claim was quickly disavowed.

Hillary was beating the same dead horse, lying to the families of the dead, at the ceremony at Andrews AFB when the bodies were returned.

Hillary refused to address the issue in front of Congress, and dismissed it as not making a difference. What makes a difference was that it was a lie, and that neither Obama nor Hillary ever admitted that it was even an error, let alone a lie.

Not one person who will be voting for Hillary Clinton for President in 2016 will vote against her because of this

You got that part right. Unfortunately for you and your Kool Aid drinking pals, that group grows smaller by the day, even among the true believers. At the rate she is going, she will soon have real and open competition for the nomination. I would not be surprised if she had a "major health problem" before the end of this year, and found herself "forced" to retire from the campaign.

Clocker

05-19-2015, 10:38 PM

Ron Fournier is a major political analyst for the National Journal, and a long time supporter of the Clintons. He leans left, but explains his positions objectively. His latest column is titled "I Don't Believe Hillary Clinton", subtitled "Rare news conference does not address credibility gap".

He goes on at length and in detail why he doesn't believe her, and ends with this:
I believe she wants us to take her at her word, but we can't—not even those people like me who've known the Clintons long enough to respect their service and appreciate their many virtues. It hurts to witness the self-inflicted wounds and hemorrhaging of her credibility. But this is no time for sentimentality.

Blind faith doesn't get you elected president.

When Hillary is losing credible leftist journalists like Ron Fournier, she is losing. Period.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/i-don-t-believe-hillary-clinton-20150519

davew

05-19-2015, 11:00 PM

Ron Fournier is a major political analyst for the National Journal, and a long time supporter of the Clintons. He leans left, but explains his positions objectively. His latest column is titled "I Don't Believe Hillary Clinton", subtitled "Rare news conference does not address credibility gap".

He goes on at length and in detail why he doesn't believe her, and ends with this:

When Hillary is losing credible leftist journalists like Ron Fournier, she is losing. Period.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/i-don-t-believe-hillary-clinton-20150519

just because she is not credible, does not mean that he and many more will not vote for her. is 0baama credible?

Clocker

05-20-2015, 11:11 AM

You can keep posting the same nonsense from different sources as long as you want. I will keep calling you out.

The "same nonsense" issues you claim to call out here have nothing to do with the new facts presented in the OP.

One is that the White House was aware a day after the attack that terrorists were planning an attack on the US consulate in Benghazi 10 days in advance, but never disclosed that information.

The other is that the CIA consulate annex in Benghazi was involved in a gun running operation providing arms to Syria.

Neither of those have anything to do with the administration response to the attack, or to the "video" deflection, except to the extent that they provide more motive for the White House to deflect from and obscure the issue.

Greyfox

05-20-2015, 11:28 AM

The problem with that is that aside from Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday news shows and a few other statements, that claim was quickly disavowed.

Obama shamelessly used Susan Rice knowing that first impressions stick.
How he could send this naive lamb out on to national television several times to cover his incompetency with a lie is beyond any moral man's comprehension but speaks volumes for his true character.
Even Hillary didn't buy that lie from the get go.

That you mostie would even defend this lie and the abuse of Rice's credibility dismissing it as "Oh well that was just for a short while" offers insight into your wilful blindness and moral character as well.

TJDave

05-20-2015, 03:59 PM

When Hillary is losing credible leftist journalists like Ron Fournier, she is losing. Period.

She's not losing nothing. Benghazi doesn't mean a thing to those who will vote democratic.

Clocker

05-20-2015, 04:14 PM

She's not losing nothing. Benghazi doesn't mean a thing to those who will vote democratic.

It doesn't mean a thing to the 30% of voters that identify themselves as Democrats. They would vote for Obama's dog Bo if it was the nominee.

It's the people in the middle that decide the elections, and after 6 years of a Democratic administration, some of them are starting to wake up and suspect all is not well in Washington.

http://ivn.us/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/independents_all_time_high.jpg

TJDave

05-20-2015, 04:34 PM

It's the people in the middle that decide the elections, and after 6 years of a Democratic administration, some of them are starting to wake up and suspect all is not well in Washington.

Correct. However, that's not what I said. For anyone inclined to vote democratic, party member or not, Benghazi will not be an issue. Republicans may think it might sway independents, but it won't. A dead horse.

Clocker

05-20-2015, 04:59 PM

For anyone inclined to vote democratic, party member or not, Benghazi will not be an issue. Republicans may think it might sway independents, but it won't. A dead horse.

I can't speak for Republicans, but I can't see that any would think this single issue would change a Hillary voter into a vote against her. But especially with enough publicity, it has to be a big negative, and help sway the truly undecided against her.

mostpost

05-20-2015, 05:04 PM

Ron Fournier is a major political analyst for the National Journal, and a long time supporter of the Clintons. He leans left, but explains his positions objectively. His latest column is titled "I Don't Believe Hillary Clinton", subtitled "Rare news conference does not address credibility gap".

He goes on at length and in detail why he doesn't believe her, and ends with this:

When Hillary is losing credible leftist journalists like Ron Fournier, she is losing. Period.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/2016-elections/i-don-t-believe-hillary-clinton-20150519
Since March, Fournier has written twenty four columns about Hillary Clinton. Everyone of them is critical of her. Just because he sprinkles in the occasional sentence about how much he supposedly admires her, does not mean he is a fan. It's kind of like you claiming you are not a Republican. I do not believe either one of you.

Clocker

05-20-2015, 05:20 PM

It's kind of like you claiming you are not a Republican. I do not believe either one of you.

I am heart-broken. I probably won't be able to eat or sleep tonight. Unfortunately, when you don't register as a Republican, don't join the party, and have never contributed a cent to them, they do not issue an ID card acknowledging that. :(

As for Fournier and the National Journal, they lean left. It should be obvious to any but the most partisan observer that Hillary is losing credibility with what would otherwise be her natural base.

TJDave

05-20-2015, 05:27 PM

But especially with enough publicity, it has to be a big negative, and help sway the truly undecided against her.

The truly undecided are 100% idiots. With enough publicity you can get them to do anything...and, then, get them to do the exact opposite. These are not the independent voters that sway national elections.

FantasticDan

05-20-2015, 06:30 PM

Unfortunately, when you don't register as a Republican, don't join the party, and have never contributed a cent to them, they do not issue an ID card acknowledging that. :( Fortunately, you still have your "Golden Goober" trophy that you received in appreciation from the Daily Caller after 5000 links.. :jump: :ThmbUp: :p

JustRalph

05-20-2015, 10:52 PM

The truly undecided are 100% idiots. With enough publicity you can get them to do anything...and, then, get them to do the exact opposite. These are not the independent voters that sway national elections.

I've had the misfortune of having to be in up close contact with the public at large over the last few weeks. You are dead on Dave.

First of all, we gave the country away to Mexico. Then we dumbed the education system so far down we can't count anymore.

This country is ripe for takeover, from forces within, or external. Americans are so damn dumb it's scary. Toss in the illegals and we are ****ed!

There is a definitive line where the idiocy starts. Under 45 is a good place to draw a line.

Of course the oracle of Illinois will save us all......

Tom

05-21-2015, 07:29 AM

She's not losing nothing. Benghazi doesn't mean a thing to those who will vote democratic.

Nothing means anything to those people. :rolleyes:

fast4522

10-21-2015, 10:05 PM

Just remembering some Americans.

woodtoo

10-22-2015, 07:16 AM

R.I.P. Gentlemen

Tom

10-22-2015, 07:35 AM

Nice of them to help Hillary raise money through her shameful use of their deaths to solicit contributions this week.

btw, did they ever catch the guy who put out that video that caused this?

Hoofless_Wonder

10-22-2015, 03:51 PM

....You can keep posting the same nonsense from different sources as long as you want. I will keep calling you out.

:D

Yeah, we know the sources you reference on a regular basis are 100% accurate. :rolleyes: Not to mention your interpretation of those sources.....

PA really ought to charge admission for this kind of entertainment.

NJ Stinks

10-22-2015, 11:08 PM

FOX NEWS brings out white towel.

___________________________________

Even the network that ran almost 1,100 segments on Benghazi in the 20 months after the attack appears to be conceding that today’s marathon congressional hearing on the topic is going nowhere. In the 5 p.m. hour, when competing networks CNN and MSNBC stuck closely to live coverage of the all-day hearing, the Fox News program “TheFive” started to drift.

While the Benghazi committee was churning along, the flamboyant co-hosts of the roundtable program — Eric Bolling, Greg Gutfeld, Juan Williams, Dana Perino and Kimberly Guilfoyle — were trading thoughts not about what former secretary of state Hillary Clinton was doing on that fateful night; not about why on earth her private e-mail account did so much business with an e-mail account of friend Sidney Blumenthal; not about whether this whole special Benghazi committee is a “partisan witch hunt,” as some partisan has said at one point or another. They were talking about Donald Trump!

The Benghazi hearing came back on Fox at some point; it’s currently airing on the channel.

link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics-live/liveblog/live-updates-hillary-clinton-testifies-before-benghazi-committee/#8760ff9e-51b1-4285-82f1-153512b467fa

davew

10-23-2015, 12:00 AM

The Benghazi attack took place on Sept. 11, 2012. For maybe a week after that there was some belief that the attacks were as a result of a protest against a film. Even during that period there was never any question that this was just a small part of the reason for the attack. It is now more than two and one half years and you clowns are still yapping about the same thing. NOBODY CARES!!!

The fraudulent story given to cover-up the current administration's lack of competence helped them win re-election. The gun running to help topple Kadhafi's government was also not addressed. Emails were finally presented that showed Hilary know this was a planned al Qaeda like attack the day after the attack. The obstruction of justice by hiding and then deleting correspondence was an attempt to cover-up this fraud.

Rep Cummings keeps yelling whenever the DEMS get caught doing shady sht. (fast and furious, IRS conservative targeting, this)

But just like Sen Reid always says - it worked didn't it?

Since when are the lying DEMS called NOBODY?

If she does not get indicted for her email crap and risk to national security, this country is done for.

NJ Stinks

10-23-2015, 01:03 AM

If she does not get indicted for her email crap and risk to national security, this country is done for.

Seems like many GOP/conservatives here live to play Dr. Doom. If you guys are not planning to leave the country, you are screaming the end is near. :rolleyes:

Track Collector

10-23-2015, 02:10 AM

Seems like many GOP/conservatives here live to play Dr. Doom. If you guys are not planning to leave the country, you are screaming the end is near. :rolleyes:

Some folks didn't believe Paul Revere's "The British are coming" either. Thank GOD enough did believe him so that we were able to mount enough resistance to fend off the enemy.

NJ Stinks

10-23-2015, 02:28 AM

Some folks didn't believe Paul Revere's "The British are coming" either. Thank GOD enough did believe him so that we were able to mount enough resistance to fend off the enemy.

As long as we are reminiscing, I'm willing to bet it was America's Republicans/conservatives building all those home atomic bomb fallout shelters back in the 50's and 60's. ;)

dartman51

10-23-2015, 02:19 PM

Seems like many GOP/conservatives here live to play Dr. Doom. If you guys are not planning to leave the country, you are screaming the end is near. :rolleyes:

So, I take it you are OK with her lies, and using her personal email server, to send and receive classified material. :eek:

_______

10-23-2015, 03:58 PM

Some folks didn't believe Paul Revere's "The British are coming" either. Thank GOD enough did believe him so that we were able to mount enough resistance to fend off the enemy.

I've always wondered about this. Since we were all British subjects at the time, why would "The British are coming" be any kind of warning? There really wasn't any kind of seperate national identity established. We were British colonials with objections to the way we were governed from afar.

"The army is coming" or "The loyalists are coming" would make some sense. "The British are coming" would only raise the question "What British is he talking about?"

It's a story whose main feature falls apart with any sort of examination.

Saratoga_Mike

10-23-2015, 04:12 PM

He said, "the Army is coming," not the "British are coming," I believe.

NJ Stinks

10-23-2015, 04:15 PM

So, I take it you are OK with her lies, and using her personal email server, to send and receive classified material. :eek:

Lies? What horribly unforgivable lies are you referring to?

As for the personal e-mail server, unless somebody proves there were leaks that hurt us, I could care less.

But full disclosure, I don't like much at all about her and I would prefer she not be our next president.

Saratoga_Mike

10-23-2015, 04:44 PM

Lies? What horribly unforgivable lies are you referring to?

As for the personal e-mail server, unless somebody proves there were leaks that hurt us, I could care less.

But full disclosure, I don't like much at all about her and I would prefer she not be our next president.

Servers are hacked all the time. It showed horrible judgment. Get it?

And it's could NOT care less.

NJ Stinks

10-23-2015, 04:56 PM

Servers are hacked all the time. It showed horrible judgment. Get it?

And it's could NOT care less.

No, I don't get it. Show it caused major security breaches. Then I'll get it.

Clocker

10-23-2015, 05:49 PM

Show it caused major security breaches.

That's part of the problem. Our security people wanted the original server to see if it showed indications of hacking. But the data had been backed up to a data storage provider and the server wiped.

NJ Stinks

10-23-2015, 08:26 PM

That's part of the problem. Our security people wanted the original server to see if it showed indications of hacking. But the data had been backed up to a data storage provider and the server wiped.

Colin Powell used a personal computer. Powell and Rice never presented any e-mails. Read and learn or don't learn.
__________________________

Her GOP predecessors at State never turned over their private electronic correspondences despite calls for greater transparency, Lynch added.

“I haven’t heard a word about Colin Powell,” he said on Boston Herald Radio. “I haven’t heard a word about Condoleezza Rice.”

“Colin Powell did not have a goddamn email available for us,” Lynch said. “Zero, zero.”

“It was the same thing with Condoleezza Rice,” he added. “There was not a goddamn email that was useful to the committee.”

link: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/251592-democrat-gop-showing-double-standard-in-demand-for-clinton
__________________________________

Former Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday he used two computers while leading the department, one for transmitting sensitive material and another for emailing “housekeeping stuff.”

“I had a secure State Department machine for secure material and I had a laptop that I could use for email. I would email relatives, friends, but I would also email in the department,” Powell explained on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”
“But it was mostly housekeeping stuff -- what’s the status of this paper, what’s going on here.”

Powell, a Republican who served in the George W. Bush administration, has spoken before about his two computers, and said he wrote an entire chapter about it in his book.

Link: http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/252863-colin-powell-i-used-two-computers-at-state

ebcorde

10-23-2015, 08:58 PM

Clocker

10-23-2015, 10:36 PM

Colin Powell used a personal computer. Powell and Rice never presented any e-mails. Read and learn or don't learn.

But Mom, all the other kids do it!

Hillary did wrong and got caught. That is not mitigated by the fact that others may or may not have done something similar without consequence. And it says a lot about Hillary's lack of competence. And lack of people skills.

Trying to deflect from the facts by finger pointing elsewhere is grasping at straws.

NJ Stinks

10-23-2015, 10:42 PM

But Mom, all the other kids do it!

Hillary did wrong and got caught. That is not mitigated by the fact that others may or may not have done something similar without consequence. And it says a lot about Hillary's lack of competence. And lack of people skills.

Trying to deflect from the facts by finger pointing elsewhere is grasping at straws.

Wrong again. It says the Democrats didn't waste so much time and money on something that changes nothing.

_______

10-24-2015, 12:48 AM

I would never put up with a 11 hour interrogation. Hillary sitting there with a frown I'd be sitting there with my middle finger resting on my cheekbone.

And Congress works 120 days a year. Give me a break.

Why would she give a finger to the people who just did her campaign it's biggest favor since impeaching her husband. The Clintons seem to be blessed by their enemies.

There is more than just one problem faced by my party but somewhere fairly high on the list is tone deafness.

Clocker

10-24-2015, 01:19 AM

I would never put up with a 11 hour interrogation.
If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. :p

Tom

10-24-2015, 10:37 AM

So Stinky, show us the harm caused by what Petraeus did?

davew

10-24-2015, 11:15 AM

I am still waiting for

there was no video

there was no demonstration

just a community organizers imagination gone bad

Tom

10-24-2015, 11:33 AM

The lie told by Obama, Hillary, and Rice......all three put their own personal agenda ahead of national security and ahead of the families of the murdered people. Not to mention, one of them is directly responsible for the murders and here is a clue as to who it is....the pig in pants. No, not Obama.

There are few people alive today more reprehensible than these three.
Pray for karma.

NJ Stinks

10-24-2015, 02:51 PM

So Stinky, show us the harm caused by what Petraeus did?

Petraeus allowed his girlfriend access to highly classified information. Not exactly a shrewd move by the CIA Director.

Anyway, he was sentenced to two years probation and a $100,000 fine. Why? Because he knowingly leaked information. Nobody knows if any of Clinton's e-mails were leaked. And Clinton was not accused of giving a civilian access to highly classified info either.

Saratoga_Mike

10-24-2015, 02:58 PM

Saratoga_Mike

10-24-2015, 03:00 PM

Petraeus allowed his girlfriend access to highly classified information. Not exactly a shrewd move by the CIA Director.

Anyway, he was sentenced to two years probation and a $100,000 fine. Why? Because he knowingly leaked information. Nobody knows if any of Clinton's e-mails were leaked. And Clinton was not accused of giving a civilian access to highly classified info either.

Republicans agree with you 100% on the general's actions.

No, she forwarded THEN classified information. This case is NOT different than the general's case. You know that.

NJ Stinks

10-24-2015, 03:17 PM

Republicans agree with you 100% on the general's actions.

No, she forwarded THEN classified information. This case is NOT different than the general's case. You know that.

Did Clinton allow somebody else access to her classified e-mail account?

TJDave

10-24-2015, 03:19 PM

Does Petraeus, despite his conviction, meet the constitutional requirements to become President?

Saratoga_Mike

10-24-2015, 03:19 PM

Did Clinton allow somebody else access to her classified e-mail account?

She forwarded classified information, so yes. Obama's own IG agrees with me, but it's all the Republicans. You tell yourself that. Dems are all pure as the driven snow, no doubt.

Saratoga_Mike

10-24-2015, 03:21 PM

Does Petraeus, despite his conviction, meet the constitutional requirements to become President?

Yes, he does.

Clocker

10-24-2015, 03:44 PM

Did Clinton allow somebody else access to her classified e-mail account?

No one knows. Nothing she says can be believed, and she has destroyed all the evidence.

TJDave

10-24-2015, 03:45 PM

Yes, he does.

Then I don't think Hillary has anything to worry about. If indicted she would use it as a campaign ad. If convicted she could later pardon herself.

Saratoga_Mike

10-24-2015, 03:55 PM

Then I don't think Hillary has anything to worry about. If indicted she would use it as a campaign ad. If convicted she could later pardon herself.

Sounds good.

TJDave

10-24-2015, 03:57 PM

Sounds good.

Compared to Trump I'd consider it even. :rolleyes:

NJ Stinks

10-24-2015, 03:58 PM

She forwarded classified information, so yes. Obama's own IG agrees with me, but it's all the Republicans. You tell yourself that. Dems are all pure as the driven snow, no doubt.

And you tell us Mostpost lacks objectivity. :rolleyes:

I never said Dems are pure as driven anything. I did say what Petraeus did was much worse than anything revealed about Clinton's use of e-mails. If you don't agree, you don't agree.

Saratoga_Mike

10-24-2015, 04:11 PM

And you tell us Mostpost lacks objectivity. :rolleyes:

I never said Dems are pure as driven anything. I did say what Petraeus did was much worse than anything revealed about Clinton's use of e-mails. If you don't agree, you don't agree.

I slam Reps all the time, from GWB's foreign policy failures to Gingrich's hypocrisy. I've seen Most disagree with Obama once...once (Syria). He's a bitter partisan. Your eye roll looks foolish.

Under the law, it was not worse. Both showed horrible, horrible judgment and broke the law.

ebcorde

10-24-2015, 05:22 PM

Why would she give a finger to the people who just did her campaign it's biggest favor since impeaching her husband. The Clintons seem to be blessed by their enemies.

There is more than just one problem faced by my party but somewhere fairly high on the list is tone deafness.

I said that's what I'd do. Hillary knew a angry mob was coming. She knew they would interrogate her for 24 hours. if they could. She did something that took me 2 days to figure out. You know what that was?

she took her makeup off!!!! She's smarter than me I'd get angry.. Old lady looking tired repeating the same answers for 11 hours.

so much for the "experienced" prosecutors like I said harder to fry her than incarcerating poor uneducated minorities with all white Juries.

Saratoga_Mike

10-24-2015, 05:25 PM

I said that's what I'd do. Hillary knew a angry mob was coming. She knew they would interrogate her for 24 hours. if they could. She did something that took me 2 days to figure out. You know what that was?

she took her makeup off!!!! She's smarter than me I'd get angry.. Old lady looking tired repeating the same answers for 11 hours.

so much for the "experienced" prosecutors like I said harder to fry her than incarcerating poor uneducated minorities with all white Juries.

Going back to the patronizing, borderline racist "uneducated minorities" talk again? If you really believe that, support vouchers for inner-cities!

And you're easily impressed.

ebcorde

10-24-2015, 05:36 PM

Bases loaded 4-0 And Hillary hits hit out of the Park. we're going to the world series.

She set them up pretty good. as she said "I would be happy to testify" , eh? eh? did she or not?

duh! she used them. I think Westmoreland figured it out, the others. ha ha ha ha!

I have not seen a screw over like that since "The Usual Suspects" movie,

Saratoga_Mike

10-24-2015, 05:43 PM

ebcorde

10-24-2015, 05:47 PM

Going back to the patronizing, borderline racist "uneducated minorities" talk again? If you really believe that, support vouchers for inner-cities!

And you're easily impressed.

the people who hire the expensive lawyers win. poor people with these court appointed lawyers lose lose lose lose lose lose lose lose lose LOSE LOSE LOSE LOSE LOSE LOSE LOSE LOSE LOSE LOSE LOSE LOSE LOSE

PROVE I'M WRONG
I'm not in "awe" of a prosecutor's CONVICTION record like you are.

vouchers? is that like 6 trillion for Iraq, for winning hearts and mind and training the Iraqis to fight. HOW DID THAT VOUCHER WORK OUT FOR YA BUDDY?

Vouchers?
That's federal reserve money. Am I getting that money at 0% like those rich fat cat bankers?

If I go bankrupt can I get loans like Donald Trump?

get out of here, the system is so rigged it's laughable. bottomline is save your money, don't give it to the Trumps ever. if they give you a tax cut, save it for they will raise prices on consumer goods and take the tax cut back.

Tom

10-24-2015, 07:51 PM

I have not seen a screw over like that since "The Usual Suspects" movie,

You forget the one she gave the ambassador.

If I go bankrupt can I get loans like Donald Trump?
Why should you?
I know the Donald. You're no Donald.

(duck, maybe...)

horses4courses

10-25-2015, 08:16 PM

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSKbuymXIAAzEU2.jpg

delayjf

10-26-2015, 10:11 AM

Bases loaded 4-0 And Hillary hits hit out of the Park. we're going to the world series.

More like the Potomac 2 step. She basically admitted to lying and you call that a home - run? I guess the ends justify the means.

And by the way that 6 trillion figure for the gulf war, is BS.

woodtoo

10-26-2015, 10:39 AM

I don't get the "love" for Hillary, I mean where does it really come from?
Has she slayed a dragon or united a country and I just missed it.

dartman51

10-26-2015, 10:40 AM

More like the Potomac 2 step. She basically admitted to lying and you call that a home - run? I guess the ends justify the means.

And by the way that 6 trillion figure for the gulf war, is BS.

According to the D.O.D., the actual cost in Iraq, was $784 Billion, and in Afghanistan, $321 Billion. But, you know they can't let facts interfere with their bullshit. :rolleyes:

PaceAdvantage

10-26-2015, 10:49 AM

Seems like many GOP/conservatives here live to play Dr. Doom. If you guys are not planning to leave the country, you are screaming the end is near. :rolleyes:That's all you guys did during the Bush years...we're just copying your playbook...but we don't have the numbers you do, unfortunately...

PaceAdvantage

10-26-2015, 10:50 AM

So, I take it you are OK with her lies, and using her personal email server, to send and receive classified material. :eek:of course he is...however, a Republican at her level would certainly not have been offered such quarter by NJ... ;)

PaceAdvantage

10-26-2015, 10:51 AM

No, I don't get it. Show it caused major security breaches. Then I'll get it.So you're saying as long as the person gets lucky and there are no major breaches, it should be OK to do this?

:lol:

:faint:

Clocker

10-26-2015, 11:00 AM

So you're saying as long as the person gets lucky and there are no major breaches, it should be OK to do this?
No known breaches. If the Clinton server was hacked, the hackers are keeping quiet and the evidence has been wiped.

Tom

10-26-2015, 11:52 AM

No known breaches. If the Clinton server was hacked, the hackers are keeping quiet and the evidence has been wiped.

You mean like with a cloth?

PaceAdvantage

10-26-2015, 12:01 PM

No known breaches. If the Clinton server was hacked, the hackers are keeping quiet and the evidence has been wiped.Just because the person gets lucky doesn't mean what they did wasn't a crime and shouldn't be investigated as such...considering we've already had one recent high-ranking official (Petraeus) get slammed down for similar.

Clocker

10-26-2015, 12:25 PM

Just because the person gets lucky doesn't mean what they did wasn't a crime and shouldn't be investigated as such...considering we've already had one recent high-ranking official (Petraeus) get slammed down for similar.
What she did should certainly be investigated as a crime. But there is a principle of law that high public officials, because of public service and public trust, must be held to a higher standard. Violations of that trust and that higher standards are called high crimes and misdemeanors.

I am not a lawyer, but that has never stopped anyone on the web from expressing legal opinions. I think that at the very least Hillary is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and of violating the public trust and violating the oath of office she took as a Senator and as Secy of State.

woodtoo

10-26-2015, 02:39 PM

What she did should certainly be investigated as a crime. But there is a principle of law that high public officials, because of public service and public trust, must be held to a higher standard. Violations of that trust and that higher standards are called high crimes and misdemeanors.

I am not a lawyer, but that has never stopped anyone on the web from expressing legal opinions. I think that at the very least Hillary is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and of violating the public trust and violating the oath of office she took as a Senator and as Secy of State.
But what difference does it make now! :faint:

NJ Stinks

10-26-2015, 03:38 PM

So you're saying as long as the person gets lucky and there are no major breaches, it should be OK to do this?

:lol:

:faint:

I'm saying more than that. I'm saying what she did was not illegal.
_________________________________

In Clinton’s defense, we should note that it was only after Clinton left the State Department, that the National Archives issued a recommendation that government employees should avoid conducting official business on personal emails (though they noted there might be extenuating circumstances such as an emergency that require it). Additionally, in 2014, President Barack Obama signed changes to the Federal Records Act that explicitly said federal officials can only use personal email addresses if they also copy or send the emails to their official account.

Because these rules weren’t in effect when Clinton was in office, "she was in compliance with the laws and regulations at the time," said Gary Bass, founder and former director of OMB Watch, a government accountability organization.

"Unless she violated a rule dealing with the handling of classified or sensitive but unclassified information, I don’t see how she violated any law or regulation," said Bass, who is now executive director of the Bauman Foundation. "There may be a stronger argument about violating the spirit of the law, but that is a very vague area."

link: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/mar/12/hillary-clintons-email-did-she-follow-all-rules/