B-Man Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Hillary has fought harder for women's rights than Jeff epstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Time to repeat everyone's favorite. The way she lies, we can run it every week...lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 (edited) Ha! Someone who lies all the time and never shuts up! Edited January 9, 2016 by Azalin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 That is hypnotically terrifying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 9, 2016 Share Posted January 9, 2016 Stephen Miller @redsteeze 9h9 hours ago There are now two examples of Hillary directing aides to strip identifying markers. How many more emails were deleted? pic.twitter.com/iJzo7iYwzW 6:23 AM - 9 Jan 2016 · Details Hillary's belief that identifying header is how spies grab intel reminds me of grandma in commercial "That's not how any of this works" If you white-out TOP SECRET then it's not TOP SECRET anymore....... Hillary and document disappearance is a reoccurring issue. Coincidence? Don't think so. Why should someone that cavalier with national security control the nuclear football? President Hillary Clinton? .....really ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Stephen Miller @redsteeze 9h9 hours ago There are now two examples of Hillary directing aides to strip identifying markers. How many more emails were deleted? pic.twitter.com/iJzo7iYwzW 6:23 AM - 9 Jan 2016 · Details Whatever that email is, it looks like she's referring to a typical "I didn't mean to forward you those people's emails" sort of thing. Which is not a national security violation. But...whatever. The constitutional violations are still the much bigger deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Whatever that email is, it looks like she's referring to a typical "I didn't mean to forward you those people's emails" sort of thing. Which is not a national security violation. But...whatever. The constitutional violations are still the much bigger deal. Constitution Schomonstitution. We're living in the Age of Obama. What matter's are Executive Orders https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information Oh snap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 10, 2016 Share Posted January 10, 2016 Constitution Schomonstitution. We're living in the Age of Obama. What matter's are Executive Orders https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-classified-national-security-information Oh snap Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by: (1) the President and the Vice President; (2) agency heads and officials designated by the President; and The Secretary of State can't "mishandle" classified info, as that position is a classifying authority. If Clinton, as Secretary of State, told a staffer to "remove the classification stamp," it's not much of an argument to say she was within her authority to declassify it. It's most likely a retroactive ass-covering argument, sure...but still a valid one, and not nearly as big a deal as it's being made out to be. Same as the Valerie Plame nonsense, basically. Using a private server to hide government communication from Congressional oversight is still the far bigger problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Joe DiGenova, who led the prosecution of Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard and conducted investigations of the Teamsters Union and former New York governor Eliot Spitzer, says that Hillary’s reckless and cavalier misuse of her e-mail system has infuriated the intelligence community. Last November, he told me that “people who are the least politicized professionals you’ll find in government are appalled at the idea there might be no consequences for leaving classified and secret material vulnerable to foreign hackers.” If the FBI recommends action against Hillary Clinton or her staffers, and Attorney General Loretta Lynch decides to reject the recommendation and bury the case, the intelligence community “will never be able to charge another federal employee with the negligent handling of classified information,” he told Laura Ingraham last week. A former top Justice Department official told me that he has no doubt that the FBI report will eventually leak, especially if the DOJ ignores its recommendations. Many old hands remember the intelligence problems the Bill Clinton administration caused when it misplaced the nuclear-launch codes, and also when Clinton conducted blackmail-bait, phone-sex conversations with Monica Lewinsky over secured phone lines that Russia and the Israelis were in fact monitoring. “There are a lot of serious people inside the government who think both Clintons have a pattern of being sloppy with national security, and there has to be some accountability,” DiGenova told me. Hillary Clinton’s latest e-mail imbroglio didn’t catch a lot of attention in mainstream media outlets. But it’s safe to expect, at a minimum, further embarrassing revelations. And if the FBI report is sharply critical of her actions, it could upend the conventional wisdom about the race for the Democratic nomination. Bernie Sanders is either just behind or just ahead of Hillary in the latest polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, and he could capitalize on any further damage to Hillary’s credibility. Hillary already has a big problem with credibility: Only 23 percent of independents view her as “honest and trustworthy” in the latest Quinnipiac poll Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429526/hillarys-e-mail-scandal-grows-latest-batch-shows-she-broke-rules-again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 ...and also when Clinton conducted blackmail-bait, phone-sex conversations with Monica Lewinsky over secured phone lines that Russia and the Israelis were in fact monitoring... There is so much "wrong" in that statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 There is so much "wrong" in that statement. If you say so sir, I am more concerned with the Intelligence Community's thinking about today's Hillary problems Hillary’s new star turn: heroine of children’s books. It’s good to see the literary/news/entertainment establishment prove themselves as meretricious for Hillary as they were for Obama. I remember those comic books. Of course, no Republican candidate ever deserves this type of thing. And of course the establishment is Republican. Or at least that’s what the narrative says, right? I wonder they can’t tell it stinks like week old fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 Bloomberg BusinessVerified account @business 35m35 minutes ago Hillary Clinton calls for a 4% "fair share surcharge" on incomes over $5 million http://bloom.bg/1IZ5d5d Retweets 37 Likes You know what.......... I'm calling for a $5.00 a month " "fair share" surcharge for the 100 million people who pay no income taxes at all That should pull in a quick $600,000,000. Trouble is DC will spend that in no time........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 11, 2016 Share Posted January 11, 2016 (edited) Bloomberg BusinessVerified account @business 35m35 minutes ago Hillary Clinton calls for a 4% "fair share surcharge" on incomes over $5 million http://bloom.bg/1IZ5d5d Hey Hill...if you want the Sanders voters, you're gonna need to jack that up to at least 10%. EDIT: Who didn't see this coming? Hillary in a freefall against Sanders. Edited January 12, 2016 by LABillzFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 (edited) Meanwhile...at RCP: VS Rs: Clinton is losing to Rubio, in the margin of error against Cruz, Trump and Carson, and in no recent poll is above 47%. With her name recognition alone she should be polling around 50-55% right now, and beating all of these guys by at least 5-6%. That in and of itself shows her weakness, and the damage the email server scandal has done. I'd say at this point that damange is permanent, as the 23% trustworthiness with independents shows. How far can she realistically increase that %? 10 pts? 20(dreaming)? That is still an election-losing minority, since only 29% of people currently identify as Democrats, the lowest in decades. Laffer says whichever R is chosen will win 45 states? At first that seems ridiculous. But, if this downward trend continues for Hillary(and she loses both Iowa and NH) Laffer's prediction will start to gain credibility. Of course the outlier is Sanders win the nomination. In that case? An R winning 40-45 states becomes the baseline. Edited January 12, 2016 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Hillary comes out against New York City’s extreme gun ownership regulations. Hillary: "Any right that requires you to take extraordinary measures to access it is no right at all." http://www.tinyurl.com/zyva54x Oh.....................that isn't what she meant ? Clinton on fighting Wall Street: "I’ve got the scars to show for it and I am proud of every single one of them." Who knew accepting all those donations could be so rough on her. Ex-ambassador pitched Clinton secret plan to spark Palestinian protests http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/11/ex-ambassador-pitched-clinton-secret-plan-to-spark-palestinian-protests.html … Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keepthefaith Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Clinton on fighting Wall Street: "I’ve got the scars to show for it and I am proud of every single one of them." Who knew accepting all those donations could be so rough on her. She could not be more full of ****. Only our clueless electorate allows pols to get away with so much bullcrap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nanker Posted January 12, 2016 Author Share Posted January 12, 2016 She could not be more full of ****. Only our clueless electorate allows pols to get away with so much bullcrap. The only scar she has is the rug burn on her upper lip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 12, 2016 Share Posted January 12, 2016 Cue the Hillary attacks: Quinnipiac poll: Sanders surges to retake lead in Iowa. The Hill Poll: Sanders surges to first place in Iowa http://hill.cm/vQc3ZjM and Sanders isn't even trying all that hard, Hillary just sucks that much Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts