Jump to content

Hillary's Campaign Kickoff

Nanker

By Nanker
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits

 Share

Recommended Posts

GG Hall of Famer

GG

Posted
Posted

Regarding that ad, its not real. So you have one less thing to be outraged about.

Define "not real."

  • Replies 6.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

row_33
row_33

Her named was Rodham she was a showgirl  But that was many years ago when they used to have a show  

Nanker
Nanker

No doubt, her book will be a tonic for some. For others, there's always...

Keukasmallie
Keukasmallie

Hill'ry, ya' gotta' back off the India Pale Ale before appearances; or keep on foolin' yourself that staggering is Presidential.

Posted Images

B-Man Hall of Famer

B-Man

Posted
Posted

How scared are Hillbots & MSM (but I repeat myself)?

 

This scared.

 

 

FallowsThumbnail_bigger.jpgJames FallowsVerified account ‏@JamesFallows Mar 16

“FBI Investigation” is today’s version of the birther controversy.

 

:lol:

 

 

Video footage showing Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe and Chinese billionaire Wang Wenliang at Hillary's house revealed as FBI probes campaign donations

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3611326/Video-footage-showing-Virginia-Governor-Terry-McAuliffe-Chinese-billionaire-Wang-Wenliang-Hillary-s-house-revealed-FBI-probes-campaign-donations.html#ixzz49rgoTmhj

 

 

 

 

 

RULES ARE FOR THE LITTLE PEOPLE:

 

Sub sailor’s photo case draws comparisons to Clinton emails.

B-Man Hall of Famer

B-Man

Posted
Posted

Washington Post exonerates Hillary by subordinate clause

 

Yesterday, the Washington Post’s editors weighed in on the new report from the State Department’s Inspector General regarding Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server. Their editorial is a classic example of a familiar genre — expressing disapproval of misconduct by politicians one likes, while dismissing without analysis the possibility that the behavior is criminal.

 

The Post has even come up with the perfect phrase with which to pull this off. It finds Hillary guilty of “willful misjudgment.”

 

“Misjudgment” suggests innocent mistake. “Willful” suggests some level of wrongdoing.

 

I’m not sure there can be such a thing as a “willful misjudgment.” The term certainly doesn’t apply to Clinton’s use of the email server after being told (including by a memo she signed) that this is improper.

 

If you “judge” that you can use a private email server but then receive authoritative notice that you shouldn’t do so, this is no longer a “misjudgment,” it is a willful violation. If the notice comes from you, then to call the violation a “misjudgment” is as cynical as it gets.

 

The editorial makes clear that the facts found by the Inspector General’s Report are as I just described them. It also points out that after a staff member “raised concerns” with another official about Clinton’s personal email server, the staff was instructed “never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.”

 

In addition, the Post reminds us that Clinton received notice that some emails are considered federal records under the law and that she should print and file those in her office and, before leaving office, surrender all emails dealing with department business.

 

She did so only about two years after leaving office.

 

The final paragraph is the “money ball.” It begins by serving up the “others did it too defense,” as if Colin Powell’s occasional use of personal email, prior to the issuance of the standards that prevailed during Clinton’s tenure, is comparable to what she did.

 

The Post then informs us that Clinton’s conduct was “not illegal.” It does so not in argument, or even a sentence, but in a subordinate clause: “While not illegal behavior, [Clinton’s conduct] was disturbingly unmindful of the rules.”

 

“Disturbingly unmindful.” “Willful misjudgment.” Whatever the Post is paying this writer (or writers) is not enough.

 

If Clinton’s behavior is self-evidently “not illegal,” why is the Obama Justice Department still investigating? Why do legal experts such as former Attorney General Michael Mukasey perceive illegality.

 

The Post treats the absence of criminal behavior by Clinton as settled.

 

Clearly, it is not.

reddogblitz Hall of Famer

reddogblitz

Posted
Posted

I've seen people perp-walked out of government offices for putting unclassified-but-FOUO information on a thumb drive.

What is FOUO information?

 

I don't work for the government, but I could be fired for using personal email for business, or mishandling trade secrets.

B-Man Hall of Famer

B-Man

Posted
Posted (edited)

.

 

 

All of Hillary Clinton’s Lies Are Premeditated

by Jonah Goldberg

The State Department’s inspector general released a report this week concluding that Hillary Clinton is a breathtakingly brazen and consistent liar. No, that’s not a direct quote. Bureaucrats don’t talk that way under the best of circumstances — and this IG, Steve Linick, is an Obama appointee whose report is about the apparent Democratic nominee for president.

So it’s all the more shocking, then, that the report confirms nearly everything Clinton’s critics have been saying. By setting up a secret e-mail server in her home in Chappaqua, N.Y., without proper authorization from any legal or security official, Clinton displayed a cavalier disregard for national security and an outrageous desire to hide her doings from Freedom of Information Act requests, government archivists, Congress, the press, and, ultimately, the American people.

 

What’s infuriating about all of this is that it is not, in fact, news. Yes, the fresh details are justifiably headline-grabbing. But the underlying conclusion is about as shocking as a Department of Interior report confirming that bears are currently using our national parklands as toilets.

 

Over a year ago, Clinton held a press conference at the United Nations intended to put the whole controversy to rest. Nearly every significant statement she made was a lie. And we’ve known it for a year.

 

For instance, she said, “I did not e-mail any classified material to anyone on my e-mail. There is no classified material.” We know that’s untrue. Of the e-mails she handed over (remember, she unilaterally deleted some 32,000 on her own), 2,079 of them contained classified material, some given a classification even more sensitive than “top secret,” some fairly mundane. Her campaign clings to the fact that they were not “marked” classified.

 

Nonsense. Classified material is “born” classified, and it was Clinton’s job to understand that. Moreover, how could the classified material she sent be marked “classified” if the whole point of her shadow server was to avoid oversight by the people who do the classifying? It’s like selling bootleg gin and then claiming that no one from the government marked it “bootleg.”

Another major lie: that she did this out of “convenience” because she didn’t want to carry two devices. The whole thing sort of just happened on auto-pilot while she was concentrating on much more important things, Clinton insisted.

 

More lies. Not only did she carry several devices, but the IG report makes it clear that this stealth rig took a lot of planning and effort. She told staffers, “I don’t want any risk of the personal being accessible.”

 

When two employees in the IT department raised concerns that Clinton’s stealth server would not properly preserve records, a supervisor replied that the matter had been reviewed and approved by lawyers and that the staffers were “never to speak of the secretary’s personal e-mail system again.”

 

That’s a strange instruction for something lawyers approved, isn’t it? The IG couldn’t find any evidence of this legal review of Clinton’s system. These mystery lawyers are surely unreachable because they are aiding O. J. Simpson in the search for the real killers.

 

If such a review existed, you’d think the Clinton campaign would provide it to investigators (and the press). Then again, if Clinton did nothing wrong, she also would have talked to the inspector general, as every other relevant secretary of state did. And she would have happily told her team to cooperate with the IG to clear the air. They all refused. I wonder why.

 

Just kidding. Of course I don’t wonder why. From the earliest days of this scandal — and it is a scandal — Clinton has lied. Unlike Donald Trump’s lies, which he usually vomits up spontaneously like a vesuvian geyser, Clinton’s were carefully prepared, typed up, and repeated for all the world to hear over and over again.

I would think this is an important distinction. Neither of the candidates is worthy of the office in my eyes, but voters might discount many of Trump’s deceits as symptoms of his glandular personality. Much like Vice President Joe Biden, who always gets a pass for launching errant fake-fact missiles from the offline silo that is his mouth, Trump is often seen as entertainingly spontaneous.

 

Meanwhile, Clinton — who lives many time zones away from the word “entertaining” — is marketing herself as the mature and upstanding grown-up. She does nothing spontaneously. And that means all of her lies are premeditated.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/435942/hillary-clinton-email-scandal-deception-donald-trump

Edited by B-Man
Dorkington All Pro

Dorkington

Posted
Posted

 

I've seen people perp-walked out of government offices for putting unclassified-but-FOUO information on a thumb drive.

Eh, FOUO on portable media doesn't result in anything like that on its own. There's more to that story.

Deranged Rhino Hall of Famer

Deranged Rhino

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 

You know it's bad when MSNBC turns on HRC. The best part are all the off camera sighs and disappointed noises being made by the panel. Also, when they talk about the statement as not being accurate, "I know...". Hilarious.

Edited by Deranged Rhino
Nanker Hall of Famer

Nanker

Posted
  • Author
Posted

http ://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkJE0U8Qby4

 

 

You know it's bad when MSNBC turns on HRC. The best part are all the off camera sighs and disappointed noises being made by the panel. Also, when they talk about the statement as not being accurate, "I know...". Hilarious.

Thanks. I haven't been that entertained in quite awhile. It's great to have the lid lifted of that pit of snakes that is "Morning Joe", and see them squirm after finally accepting the unavoidable truth. They've been feasting on rotted meat for years and are now suffering food poisoning from it.

 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...