Hillary violated law as SOS

[IDBillzFan]

 

Which makes their ability to destroy Hillary in a debate all the more mind blowing.

 

I'd go so far as to suggest gatorman could beat Hillary in a debate.

 

That's right. You heard me.

[DC Tom]

 

I'd go so far as to suggest gatorman could beat Hillary in a debate.

 

That's right. You heard me.

 

Probably the same way he'd destroy any of us: force us into saying "You're an idiot" and walking off the stage.

[truth on hold]

Her email format is not an issue to defeat Hillary.... Voters won't care. Stuff like this is more problematic as it speaks to her hypocrisy on a core factor in electing her;

 

"Anybody here think it's a good idea for Hillary Clinton to be accepting money from Saudi Arabia?" Paul asked. "Anybody here think that she ought to send it back to Saudi Arabia?"

 

Cheers and cries of "hear, hear" rose out of the crowd as Paul argued that donations from "a regime that punishes women who are raped" effectively terminated Clinton's credibility as an advocate for women.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-21/rand-paul-we-should-be-boycotting-saudi-arabia-

Edited March 23, 2015 by JTSP

[Doc]

Her email format is not an issue to defeat Hillary.... Voters won't care. Stuff like this is more problematic as it speaks to her hypocrisy on a core factor in electing her;

 

"Anybody here think it's a good idea for Hillary Clinton to be accepting money from Saudi Arabia?" Paul asked. "Anybody here think that she ought to send it back to Saudi Arabia?"

 

Cheers and cries of "hear, hear" rose out of the crowd as Paul argued that donations from "a regime that punishes women who are raped" effectively terminated Clinton's credibility as an advocate for women.

 

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-03-21/rand-paul-we-should-be-boycotting-saudi-arabia-

The e-mail thing is definitely an issue, and just another thing to go after her over. The way it will be portrayed is that she had it to hide things.

[IDBillzFan]

The e-mail thing is definitely an issue, and just another thing to go after her over. The way it will be portrayed is that she had it to hide things.

 

The fact remains that she personally accepted 10s of millions of dollars from foreign countries while acting as Sec. of State and deleted all the emails that show what it was about.

 

You can say voters don't care, and right now they don't, but when the debates hit, she better start pulling out emails and giving back the millions and fessing up to what she did, because she will easily...very easily...be portrayed as a leader who is easily bribed by other countries.

[DC Tom]

You can say voters don't care, and right now they don't, but when the debates hit, she better start pulling out emails and giving back the millions and fessing up to what she did, because she will easily...very easily...be portrayed as a leader who is easily bribed by other countries.

 

And voters won't care.

 

This is the same woman who carpet-bagged herself to the NY Senate, and had people believing that she actually did so for the benefit of NY and not just for her own purposes. She is the quintessential opportunist, who has no strong beliefs outside of a sincere, deep, and warped sense of her own manifest destiny. And no one ever calls her on it. They haven't in more than 20 years, and they're not going to start now.

[Doc]

The hardcore Dems won't care. The non-hardcore Dems will be less inclined to get out and vote, while many Independents will be turned off as well.

[truth on hold]

The hardcore Dems won't care. The non-hardcore Dems will be less inclined to get out and vote, while many Independents will be turned off as well.

besides the hardcore righties who'd never vote for her anyway, i dont know anyone who's talking about this. What I do hear in support is how it would be great to have a female president. Thats why Id go hard on the hypocrisy of getting tight with the saudis. It's a convenient comeback and leads in to her political opportunism of any port in the storm when it comes to taking sides on issues to get elected. Like most people, Ive been following her for years and other than herself, I have no idea what she stands for, or what topic she has an in-depth knowledge of. Voters dont like inconsistency in a candidate, and I think perhaps a lot just arent aware how often she changes sides

Edited March 24, 2015 by JTSP

[Doc]

besides the hardcore righties who'd never vote for her anyway, i dont know anyone who's talking about this. What I do hear in support is how it would be great to have a female president. Thats why Id go hard on the hypocrisy of getting tight with the saudis. It's a convenient comeback and leads in to her political opportunism of any port in the storm when it comes to taking sides on issues to get elected. Like most people, Ive been following her for years and other than herself, I have no idea what she stands for, or what topic she has an in-depth knowledge of. Voters dont like inconsistency in a candidate, and I think perhaps a lot just arent aware how often she changes sides

More than just hardcore righties are talking about it. But yes, I'd point out her numerous hypocrisies and failures, and try to paint her as an out-of-touch old white 1%er who is in the pockets of Wall Street.

[OCinBuffalo]

 

And voters won't care.

 

This is the same woman who carpet-bagged herself to the NY Senate, and had people believing that she actually did so for the benefit of NY and not just for her own purposes. She is the quintessential opportunist, who has no strong beliefs outside of a sincere, deep, and warped sense of her own manifest destiny. And no one ever calls her on it. They haven't in more than 20 years, and they're not going to start now.

Opportunist is exactly right: every far-left sacred cow will be on the table, with Hillary more than pleased to hack them up for a price.

 

It remains astounding to me, that the Democratic Party as a whole and as individuals have been so willing to fall on so many swords, all to protet an obvious incompetent. Obama, but more importantly, saving Obama's ass, has done more political damage to the Ds than the Rs ever could. They have no bench now, they will have no bench going forward, because every level of their entire minor league system has been nearly wiped out.

 

It remains hysterical to me, that just a few short years ago, Democrats were claiming ideological hegemony, and asking why those silly Republicans were resisting inevitable acceptance of the "social democracy", Global Warming, blah, blah, to come. Now? The party most like to become "regional" are the Ds, not the Rs, if they aren't already.

 

Here's where we disagree: every presidential candidate needs a strong organization in every state, not just in the close ones. Due to the D party devastation, those organizations are going to be very difficult to build with so few elected Ds. You can have all the D money in the world, but, who gets it? Who leads the effort? Which horse do you bet on? Meanwhile in state X, with at least one R Seantor, a majority of R Reps, all their staff, as well as the state's house, senate and Governor and all their people? They make up one hell of an existing organization, who are already paid, and in place, and are a sure bet, as incumbents, for lots of $.

 

That existing organization will be able to call Hillary out on whatever, whenever and as often as it wants. The Ds are going to have to spend 3-4 times the $ to counter each call out, because they are going to have to build organizations with cash. Those organizations still won't have the elected clout. So even when their expensive message gets delivered, who does the delivery?

 

Perhaps that's why Hillary is hitting up foreign governments for $? In a lot of states, she's going to have to outraise by at least 2-1 to have a chance.

 

The hardcore Dems won't care. The non-hardcore Dems will be less inclined to get out and vote, while many Independents will be turned off as well.

besides the hardcore righties who'd never vote for her anyway, i dont know anyone who's talking about this. What I do hear in support is how it would be great to have a female president. Thats why Id go hard on the hypocrisy of getting tight with the saudis. It's a convenient comeback and leads in to her political opportunism of any port in the storm when it comes to taking sides on issues to get elected. Like most people, Ive been following her for years and other than herself, I have no idea what she stands for, or what topic she has an in-depth knowledge of. Voters dont like inconsistency in a candidate, and I think perhaps a lot just arent aware how often she changes sides

More than just hardcore righties are talking about it. But yes, I'd point out her numerous hypocrisies and failures, and try to paint her as an out-of-touch old white 1%er who is in the pockets of Wall Street.

There are lots of angle of attack, and "don't attack the woman" isn't going to work the same as "don't attack the black person".

 

The Ds have practically desensitized the entire country to race, women, and gays, as viable political tools. They've gone to the well too many times.

[Doc]

Opportunist is exactly right: every far-left sacred cow will be on the table, with Hillary more than pleased to hack them up for a price.

 

It remains astounding to me, that the Democratic Party as a whole and as individuals have been so willing to fall on so many swords, all to protet an obvious incompetent. Obama, but more importantly, saving Obama's ass, has done more political damage to the Ds than the Rs ever could. They have no bench now, they will have no bench going forward, because every level of their entire minor league system has been nearly wiped out.

 

It remains hysterical to me, that just a few short years ago, Democrats were claiming ideological hegemony, and asking why those silly Republicans were resisting inevitable acceptance of the "social democracy", Global Warming, blah, blah, to come. Now? The party most like to become "regional" are the Ds, not the Rs, if they aren't already.

 

Here's where we disagree: every presidential candidate needs a strong organization in every state, not just in the close ones. Due to the D party devastation, those organizations are going to be very difficult to build with so few elected Ds. You can have all the D money in the world, but, who gets it? Who leads the effort? Which horse do you bet on? Meanwhile in state X, with at least one R Seantor, a majority of R Reps, all their staff, as well as the state's house, senate and Governor and all their people? They make up one hell of an existing organization, who are already paid, and in place, and are a sure bet, as incumbents, for lots of $.

 

That existing organization will be able to call Hillary out on whatever, whenever and as often as it wants. The Ds are going to have to spend 3-4 times the $ to counter each call out, because they are going to have to build organizations with cash. Those organizations still won't have the elected clout. So even when their expensive message gets delivered, who does the delivery?

 

Perhaps that's why Hillary is hitting up foreign governments for $? In a lot of states, she's going to have to outraise by at least 2-1 to have a chance.

 

There are lots of angle of attack, and "don't attack the woman" isn't going to work the same as "don't attack the black person".

 

The Ds have practically desensitized the entire country to race, women, and gays, as viable political tools. They've gone to the well too many times.

The "don't attack a woman" can be fought by talking about her accepting donations from countries with poor women's right, how she paid her female staffers a lot less than her male ones as a Senator, and how she slut-shamed all the women that accused Slick of raping /having an affair with them.

[Nanker]

I understand Hillary can't type.

[3rdnlng]

I understand Hillary can't type.

But can she stand by her man and bake cookies?

[B-Man]

Convenient not to have any independent oversight, if you want to set up your own private system

 

Bloomberg’s Arit John reminds readers, the Obama administration finally appointed an independent Inspector General in September 2013, after leaving the position in the hands of an acting IG who was statutorily ineligible for the office, thanks to his connections to State:

 

One of

t

he many unanswered questions of the Hillary Clinton e-mail story has been: Whose job was it to raise and address concerns about her exclusive use of a private account? According to open government advocates, it would have been the agency’s permanent, independent Inspector General—someone nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate—if such a person had existed.

 

For

five years, including all of Clinton’s time as secretary, the State Department’s Office of Inspector General never had a confirmed inspector.

Instead, it was lead by acting inspector Harold W. Geisel, a former ambassador who was

accused of being too cozy

to agency leadership by transparency groups like the Project on Government Oversight. Throughout the first half of President Obama’s first term, the absence of a State Department Inspector General while internal scandals and Benghazi rocked the department drew bipartisan criticism. …

 

In a 2011 report, the Government Accountability Office called on the State Department to address concerns regarding it independence

writing

that “the appointment of management and Foreign Service officials to head the State OIG in an acting capacity for extended periods of time is not consistent with professional standards for independence.”

 

In other words, if you wanted to inspire confidence in whistleblowers and others that the State Department is being held accountable by an independent official, that official shouldn’t be a former State Department official.

 

By September 2013, several months after Clinton left State, the department finally had a permanent inspector, and the department recently released a report documenting how few e-mails the State Department has saved for government records. But the long-time gap, as well as the ones at other agencies, raise questions about what other problems aren’t being investigated.

 

 

link to a June 2013 article in the Wall Street Journal that outlines the issues with having an interim IG from within the ranks at State:

 

 

 

 

.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

a lot of politicians use "private" servers.

 

Not only Hillary but people like Jeb Bush

 

As Florida governor, Jeb Bush used another, previously unreported email address, records show. (do I need to provide a link?)

 

 

 

 

 

and laughable the woman who had her email hacked is crying loudest - yes I refer to SP.

[DC Tom]

a lot of politicians use "private" servers.

 

Not only Hillary but people like Jeb Bush

 

As Florida governor, Jeb Bush used another, previously unreported email address, records show. (do I need to provide a link?)

 

 

 

 

 

and laughable the woman who had her email hacked is crying loudest - yes I refer to SP.

 

Jeb Bush isn't bound by federal records retention regulations.

 

 

and laughable the woman who had her email hacked is crying loudest - yes I refer to SP.

 

The issue's only about security to complete idiots who don't understand the issue.

 

The issue is that she not only violated federal records retention requirements, but may have done so to evade congressional oversight (which is why the rules exist). That's a very big deal.

[keepthefaith]

I understand Hillary can't type.

Can't drive

Can't climb a flight of stairs

Can't get out of the way of an incoming shoe.

Most importantly, can't point to any significant accomplishments as a Senator or SOS.

[IDBillzFan]

a lot of politicians use "private" servers.

 

Not only Hillary but people like Jeb Bush

 

As Florida governor, Jeb Bush used another, previously unreported email address, records show. (do I need to provide a link?)

 

 

First, ask someone to explain the difference between the federal government and a state government before you try to justify the clear corruption of a federal worker with that of a state governor.

 

Next, before you stick to the predictable progressive argument that your idiot can do something because it was done by a Republican idiot, please note that no matter who you reference as using personal email, Hillary is THE ONLY ONE who used her own server exclusively. ALL of her email went through her personal server.

 

But hey...other than being completely wrong, you're almost right!

[3rdnlng]

a lot of politicians use "private" servers.

 

Not only Hillary but people like Jeb Bush

 

As Florida governor, Jeb Bush used another, previously unreported email address, records show. (do I need to provide a link?)

 

 

 

 

 

and laughable the woman who had her email hacked is crying loudest - yes I refer to SP.

Nobody is saying that one can't have an additional one, two or fifty email addresses for private correspondence. Your lack of grasp of the difference is gatorlike. You should stick to the Shoutbox where there is no permanent record of your utterances.

[BillsFan-4-Ever]

Benghazi is all but over so you guys move on to the next breadcrumb I understand very well your need to rag on every democrat / liberal out there