PDA

View Full Version : A few questions for Libs here


Fager Fan
01-05-2018, 11:49 AM
Since it's now known that the investigations into the Hilary server and Clinton Foundations are on-going, I have a few questions for Libs:

1. Hillary had 8 years as First Lady then 4 years as senator. Everyone can agree tat anyone in rose positions would be briefed on communications security and then set up with secured emails, phones, etc., right? So how does one reconcile that Hillary in her next job as Sec of State was clueless about communications security and her own secure channels? Don't you have to admit that she's a smart woman, not mentally challenged, and was indeed well aware of communications security issues? Don't you therefore have to acknowledge tat she lied to the American public as well as investigators when she responded that she was totally clueless and incompetent?

2. It is known that Hillary and her people deleted tens of thousands of emails, bleach-bitted her computers and the server, and took hammers to smash up her phones. How do you justify these actions and not consider this obstruction of justice and the destruction of evidence?

I'd really like your thoughtful replies. Comey was supposed to be this ultra-ethical person, who I'm fairly sure was considered a conservative, but I'm sure he's corrupt and want him to suffer the consequences for being corrupt. I don't care if he's a Dem or Republican or political agnostic. But with Comey, we don't have such clear evidence as we see against Hillary in 1 and 2 above. I truly wonder how you reconcile 1 and 2 and not want to see a corrupt person pay his or her due, regardless of party. You can still be a great Lib without defending even the corrupt in your party. I'd argue that you'd be a greater Lib by exiling the corrupt that tarnish your party.

FantasticDan
01-05-2018, 12:05 PM
https://i.imgur.com/O0UjOJZ.jpg


https://goodmenproject.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Screen-Shot-2017-01-15-at-1.47.12-PM-e1484736877441.png


https://i.imgflip.com/1tuimm.jpg


https://i.imgur.com/bPw3ILW.gif


https://giantmecha.com/uploads/2017/08/18556010_10154966159328551_7968166359888511006_n.j pg

incoming
01-05-2018, 12:37 PM
In reponse too FD's reply, Sarah Sanders might say "all hat..no cattle." ;)

wisconsin
01-05-2018, 12:38 PM
Defender Dan will go down with the ship instead of getting off.

davew
01-05-2018, 12:39 PM
1- she has Alzheimer's
2- she has taken the (bad) advice of her attorney

FantasticDan
01-05-2018, 01:08 PM
Defender Dan will go down with the ship instead of getting off.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DRN-GXrVoAAyPkn.jpg

Inner Dirt
01-05-2018, 01:44 PM
I don't know what is worse, someone who constantly posts pics, gifs, and videos of comedians defending his beliefs and putting down the other side or someone who writes a point by point term paper on everything like he has no life other than to defend Democrats.

boxcar
01-05-2018, 02:18 PM
I don't know what is worse, someone who constantly posts pics, gifs, and videos of comedians defending his beliefs and putting down the other side or someone who writes a point by point term paper on everything like he has no life other than to defend Democrats.

Fan Dan is a programmed Robot. He can't do anything else.

incoming
01-05-2018, 02:30 PM
Fan Dan is a programmed Robot. He can't do anything else.

On occasions, he will beg for 'green rep points.' :D:D

mostpost
01-05-2018, 02:49 PM
Since it's now known that the investigations into the Hilary server and Clinton Foundations are on-going, I have a few questions for Libs:

1. Hillary had 8 years as First Lady then 4 years as senator. Everyone can agree tat anyone in rose positions would be briefed on communications security and then set up with secured emails, phones, etc., right? So how does one reconcile that Hillary in her next job as Sec of State was clueless about communications security and her own secure channels? Don't you have to admit that she's a smart woman, not mentally challenged, and was indeed well aware of communications security issues? Don't you therefore have to acknowledge tat she lied to the American public as well as investigators when she responded that she was totally clueless and incompetent?
I'll begin by pointing out that Hillary had eight years as Senator from 2001 to 2009. She was first elected in 2000, then reelected in 2006. She resigned from the Senate in 2009 when she was appointed Secretary of State.

Next, I don't agree that anyone who is a Senator has necessarily been briefed on communications security. Do you think that anyone who is a Senator has been vetted by the FBI and has a Top Security clearance? One would think that, but the following proves that is not the case.
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2012/05/16/do-members-of-congress-have-security-clearances/

It is not unusual for an executive to be clueless about operations in the department he/she heads. It was not Clinton's job to worry about email security just as it was not her job to worry if there was TP in the stalls.

Have you ever gone to your doctor and asked him how much a certain procedure would cost? I guarantee he will not know without asking one of his staff.

2. It is known that Hillary and her people deleted tens of thousands of emails, bleach-bitted her computers and the server, and took hammers to smash up her phones. How do you justify these actions and not consider this obstruction of justice and the destruction of evidence?
Because every instruction that I have read on disposal of an I phone tells you to delete all data from the phone before you dispose of it. If that is important for you and I, how important is it for a public figure like Hillary Clinton. The phone might contain account numbers, or passwords, or naughty pictures she sent to Bill. None of which is anyone's business but the Clintons'.



I'd really like your thoughtful replies. Comey was supposed to be this ultra-ethical person, who I'm fairly sure was considered a conservative, but I'm sure he's corrupt and want him to suffer the consequences for being corrupt. I don't care if he's a Dem or Republican or political agnostic. But with Comey, we don't have such clear evidence as we see against Hillary in 1 and 2 above. I truly wonder how you reconcile 1 and 2 and not want to see a corrupt person pay his or her due, regardless of party. You can still be a great Lib without defending even the corrupt in your party. I'd argue that you'd be a greater Lib by exiling the corrupt that tarnish your party.

In this country we don't convict people based on your unsubstantiated opinion...yet. Although I am sure Donald Trump and his more radical supporters would like to change that.

An objective observer sees no deliberate violations of the law in Clinton's email use, although one can certainly see instances of bad judgement.

An objective observer can see ever increasing evidence of violations of the law in the Trump campaigns dealings with Russia and their financial machinations.

mostpost
01-05-2018, 02:52 PM
Fan Dan is a programmed Robot. He can't do anything else.
Must be embarrassing to get bested by a Robot every time.

davew
01-05-2018, 03:07 PM
Must be embarrassing to get bested by a Robot every time.

I have to wonder if there is anybody in jail for breaking a law they did not know about.

Fager Fan
01-05-2018, 03:08 PM
Most said: (since I can't quote)

Next, I don't agree that anyone who is a Senator has necessarily been briefed on communications security. Do you think that anyone who is a Senator has been vetted by the FBI and has a Top Security clearance? One would think that, but the following proves that is not the case.
https://news.clearancejobs.com/2012/...ty-clearances/

It is not unusual for an executive to be clueless about operations in the department he/she heads. It was not Clinton's job to worry about email security just as it was not her job to worry if there was TP in the stalls.

Have you ever gone to your doctor and asked him how much a certain procedure would cost? I guarantee he will not know without asking one of his staff.

___________________

You're talking about something else. I didn't question whether Hillary should've been aware of how the security features work on her computer and phone. In fact, I and no one else would reasonably expect her to know how they work. What we DO expect is that she knew that she needed to communicate through only secure lines and to therefore only use those secure lines.

Do you or do you not think she was smart enough to know that she needed to communicate through only secure lines? Yes or no?

Fager Fan
01-05-2018, 03:26 PM
Most also said:

Because every instruction that I have read on disposal of an I phone tells you to delete all data from the phone before you dispose of it. If that is important for you and I, how important is it for a public figure like Hillary Clinton. The phone might contain account numbers, or passwords, or naughty pictures she sent to Bill. None of which is anyone's business but the Clintons'.

___________________________

Sorry, but that's another that doesn't hold muster.

First, she deleted and destroyed after she was issued a subpoena.

If the IRS calls to tell you they'll be at your house to inspect your books tomorrow at 2:00pm, heaven help you if you destroy files before they get there. And you know it.

Tom
01-05-2018, 04:56 PM
I don't know what is worse, someone who constantly posts pics, gifs, and videos of comedians defending his beliefs and putting down the other side or someone who writes a point by point term paper on everything like he has no life other than to defend Democrats.

Now, now....not everyone is capable of forming sentences and paragraphs.
Besides, now that hcap is not posting as much, SOMEONE has to provide the pretty colors!

chadk66
01-05-2018, 04:58 PM
she'll be convicted when hell freezes over. given that I will cheer harder for global warming

davew
01-05-2018, 05:23 PM
when questions are too difficult to answer, then just post pics....
http://rlv.zcache.com/vote_democrat_its_easier_than_working_bumper_stick er-r2d164042421642c19cc13fc7144bc3b0_v9wht_8byvr_512. jpg

http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1209/democrats-helping-people-who-vote-battaile-politics-1348181134.jp

Stevecsd
01-05-2018, 09:41 PM
Mostie,

Please read
18 U.S. Code 793

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

and tell me how Hillary Clinton DID NOT VIOLATE this!

Intent is NOT part of this code, only the fact that the actions were committed.

Also read

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

She should be in jail.

Tom
01-05-2018, 10:42 PM
Comey should read that as well.
And he too, should be in jail.

What do you do to an old, useless woman like Hillary if convicted?
Hangman?
Firing squad?

Naw....push her arse off a curb! :pound::pound::pound:

Lemon Drop Husker
01-05-2018, 10:51 PM
she'll be convicted when hell freezes over. given that I will cheer harder for global warming

I'm all in for Global Warming. If so, I have mad property that will be worth about $25 Million come 2045 supposedly. Of course that is just estimates when we are the beach. :pound:

Tom
01-05-2018, 10:58 PM
Originally Posted by chadk66
she'll be convicted when hell freezes over.

That was today, 6:03 am.

davew
01-05-2018, 11:07 PM
I'm all in for Global Warming. If so, I have mad property that will be worth about $25 Million come 2045 supposedly. Of course that is just estimates when we are the beach. :pound:

The sea level is rising, but they have been measuring it wrong. That is why the level at the ocean shore is not going up. You see, the bottom of the ocean must be sinking. (this keeps the climate disruption fact alive...)

https://www.livescience.com/61328-ocean-bottom-is-sinking.html

JustRalph
01-05-2018, 11:51 PM
Mostie,

Please read
18 U.S. Code 793

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

and tell me how Hillary Clinton DID NOT VIOLATE this!

Intent is NOT part of this code, only the fact that the actions were committed.

Also read

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

She should be in jail.

Exactly right. Comey has admitted giving classified info to his friends. He should be toast.


Huma too

Lemon Drop Husker
01-06-2018, 12:08 AM
The sea level is rising, but they have been measuring it wrong. That is why the level at the ocean shore is not going up. You see, the bottom of the ocean must be sinking. (this keeps the climate disruption fact alive...)

https://www.livescience.com/61328-ocean-bottom-is-sinking.html

Dave, you need to fight the real fight in China.

They emit more than 2xs the CO2 we do. Get your ass over there and start complaining and protesting. FO' REAL.

Being here is worthless. Even if we change across our country to electric or wind or other sources for power, we'll be at the hands of China, Europe and the other developing countries. As our coasts collapse and your efforts become more than useless.

davew
01-06-2018, 12:59 AM
Dave, you need to fight the real fight in China.

They emit more than 2xs the CO2 we do. Get your ass over there and start complaining and protesting. FO' REAL.

Being here is worthless. Even if we change across our country to electric or wind or other sources for power, we'll be at the hands of China, Europe and the other developing countries. As our coasts collapse and your efforts become more than useless.

In China they execute the climate alarmists to do their part to lower carbon dioxide emissions - Gore and DiCaprio should go there.

Burls
01-06-2018, 01:38 AM
Michael Wolff is a total loser who made up stories in order to sell this really boring and untruthful book. He used Sloppy Steve Bannon, who cried when he got fired and begged for his job. Now Sloppy Steve has been dumped like a dog by almost everyone. Too bad!

chadk66
01-06-2018, 10:01 AM
I'm all in for Global Warming. If so, I have mad property that will be worth about $25 Million come 2045 supposedly. Of course that is just estimates when we are the beach. :pound:lucky bastard. maybe I need to start looking for possible ocean front property myself :rant:

chadk66
01-06-2018, 10:02 AM
That was today, 6:03 am.it was last week for me. -30 at 6 a.m.

Tom
01-06-2018, 11:22 AM
Michael Wolff is a total loser who made up stories in order to sell this really boring and untruthful book. He used Sloppy Steve Bannon, who cried when he got fired and begged for his job. Now Sloppy Steve has been dumped like a dog by almost everyone. Too bad!

I really like how you worked Steve, dump, and dog into the same sentence~! You could sell that to Trump for a tweet! :lol:

mostpost
01-06-2018, 03:24 PM
Mostie,

Please read
18 U.S. Code 793

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/793

and tell me how Hillary Clinton DID NOT VIOLATE this!

Intent is NOT part of this code, only the fact that the actions were committed.
Actually intent is right in the first section: Section (a)
Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation,

Section (b) says:
Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, and with like intent or reason to believe,
"Purpose aforesaid" clearly refers back to (a) which to refresh your memory states: Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation,

Section (c) begins with:Whoever, for the purpose aforesaid, again referring back to section (a) about intent.
Sections (d) and (e0 contain the words "Willfully communicates etc."
Willfully is defined as "Deliberate, voluntary, or intentional."
In order for those things to be true, there must be intent.

Let's say that Hillary Clinton was charged under this statute What would the prosecution have to prove?

They would have to prove that she had the intent to harm the United States. Section (a)

They would have to prove that she willfully sent information to a person or persons not authorized to receive it (Section (d) and (e)with the intent to harm the United States (Section (a)

They would have to prove that she refused to turn over such information On Demand to the person authorized to receive it. But since Clinton was the Secretary of State, she is always the one authorized.

Much was made of the fact that Huma Abedin sent classified material to her husband Anthony Weiner to print out for Clinton, since he did not have clearance. But, as I pointed out here, https://news.clearancejobs.com/2012/05/16/do-members-of-congress-have-security-clearances/
members of Congress are not required to have security clearances to access classified.

Looming over all of this is section (a) which clearly and unequivocally states that there must be INTENT.

Clocker
01-06-2018, 03:30 PM
They would have to prove that she had the intent to harm the United States.

Her irrational lust for the presidency and her equally irrational proposed policies are clear proof of intent to harm the United States and its citizens.

Guilty as charged. :cool:

PaceAdvantage
01-06-2018, 07:10 PM
An objective observer can see ever increasing evidence of violations of the law in the Trump campaigns dealings with Russia and their financial machinations.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3RT5YwvcbNo

Another highly entertaining video...thank me very much.

OntheRail
01-06-2018, 08:45 PM
Let's say that Hillary Clinton was charged under this statute What would the prosecution have to prove?

They would have to prove that she willfully sent information to a person or persons not authorized to receive it (Section (d) and (e)with the intent to harm the United States (Section (a)

You mean like the Honduran Maid... As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton routinely asked her maid to print out sensitive government emails and documents including ones containing classified information.

I'm sure she had proper clearance. :rolleyes:

Tom
01-06-2018, 09:21 PM
Another highly entertaining video...thank me very much.

That was deplorable! :pound:

mostpost
01-06-2018, 10:02 PM
You mean like the Honduran Maid... As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton routinely asked her maid to print out sensitive government emails and documents including ones containing classified information.

I'm sure she had proper clearance. :rolleyes:
Clinton was in Washington DC with a staff of dozens of people. Yet she asked her maid in New York City to print out sensitive government emails and documents. That makes no sense. I can hear the conversation now.
Huma: Hey Hillary, we have some sensitive emails that need to be printed. Who can possibly do a job like that.
Hillary: Gee, I don't know. It certainly can't be anyone who works for the State Department.
Huma: I know, let's give them to your maid who is all the way in New York City and has no security clearance.
Hillary: what a great idea, I wish I had thought of that.

In the New York Post article, which is the only basis I could find for this accusation, Paul Sperry says; "In fact, Marina Santos was called on so frequently to receive emails that she may hold the secrets to emailgate if only the FBI and Congress would subpoena her and the equipment she used."

The first thing wrong with that sentence is that we have no reason to believe that the Marina referred to is Marina Santos. The second is, why wouldn't the Republican Congress subpoena Marina Santos if they had the slightest suspicion that she had access to classified documents illegally. You can be sure they would have. But they did not.

Lemon Drop Husker
01-06-2018, 11:09 PM
Clinton

Most, what is your "go to" pant suit when you go out in public?

Burls
01-06-2018, 11:38 PM
Now that Russian collusion, after one year of intense study, has proven to be a total hoax on the American public, the Democrats and their lapdogs, the Fake News Mainstream Media, are taking out the old Ronald Reagan playbook and screaming mental stability and intelligence.
Actually, throughout his life, Donald Trump's two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart. Crooked Hillary Clinton also played these cards very hard and, as everyone knows, went down in flames.
Donald Trump went from VERY successful businessman, to top T.V. Star to President of the United States (on his first try). I think that would qualify as not smart, but genius...and a very stable genius at that!