Hillary's FBI nightmare

[Peter1469]

Hillary's FBI nightmare (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-fbi-emails-2016-213998)
It looks like congress is going to step back and let the courts handle Hillary's email problem. This story reports that there are currently 30 federal FOIA lawsuits going on: that means 30 federal judges that can get aggressive with the FBI and DOJ.

It is also funny that the DoJ is leaking information about this while the official DoJ response is to refuse to say whether it is investigating Hillary or not.


The next question in the Hillary Clinton email matter is who will force the FBI to release any documents it may have retrieved from the 2016 presidential candidate's homemade server — Congress or the courts?

The answer: A federal judge may decide to get aggressive and order the law enforcement agency to turn over any newly discovered records or at least preserve them pending further court action. But don't expect congressional subpoenas to fly — or FBI director James Comey to get hauled to Capitol Hill anytime soon.

***

"You know it is getting a little absurd when someone at the Justice Department is apparently leaking details to the press about an investigation that the department officially refuses to admit to Congress that it is conducting," Grassley said.


"In light of the details reported in the media, the committee will be seeking more information about the State Department’s attempts to regain possession of the email records that should have remained at the State Department in the first place. The FBI should also provide clarity on how it will handle the emails now that they have been recovered from the server."


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-fbi-emails-2016-213998#ixzz3mgSMVP8B

[Peter1469]

The Washington Post tries a hand at reporting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/23/just-when-you-thought-the-hillary-clinton-e-mail-story-couldnt-get-worse/)

Three news stories have broken since Tuesday that are bad news for Hillary. And Huma.

(Where is Bill? Witness Protection Program?)


1. The State Department has, on the record, disputed Clinton's claim that her handing over of her e-mails was standard operating procedure, according to reporting from The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-departments-account-of-e-mail-request-differs-from-clintons/2015/09/22/54cd66bc-5ed9-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html?tid=pm_pop_b). In fact, State contacted Clinton in the summer of 2014 upon learning that she had exclusively used a private server to conduct business during her time as the nation's top diplomat. Asked about the discrepancy in Iowa on Tuesday night, Clinton told the Des Moines Register (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/elections/presidential/caucus/2015/09/22/clinton-on-conflicting-explanations-about-her-emails-i-cant-answer-that/72651534/): "I don't know that. I can't answer that."

2. The FBI has succeeded in recovering work and personal e-mails (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-22/fbi-said-to-recover-personal-e-mails-from-hillary-clinton-server-ievzwh89) from Clinton's server. That raises at least the possibility that the 50 percent of her e-mails that Clinton deleted as private could be combed through to ensure that the judgments made by her lawyers were the right ones.

3. More State Department e-mails related to the September 2012 attacks (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/clinton-emails-benghazi-213940) in Benghazi, Libya, were turned over to the Republican-led congressional committee investigating Clinton's actions that day.


Any one of those stories is bad news for Clinton. The three together make for a toxic mix in a narrative that has already cost Clinton dearly in her bid for the Democratic nomination and the presidency. A new Bloomberg national poll (http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-23/bloomberg-poll-joe-biden-now-top-presidential-choice-for-1-in-4-democrats) shows her with a single-digit lead over Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, and with fewer than four in 10 voters viewing her favorably.

[Common Sense]

The FOIA lawsuits can be filed by anyone. Mostly they have been filed by right wing action groups. The number is meaningless.

I could file one, so could anyone.

[Peter1469]

The FOIA lawsuits can be filed by anyone. Mostly they have been filed by right wing action groups. The number is meaningless.

I could file one, so could anyone.

They get you into federal court with the discovery rules of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. A judge enforces those rules.

And you have to file a FOIA request and be denied or short changed before you can file a FOIA suit.

It is a tool for open government.

[pragmatic]

Hillary's dilemma.

The story has legs. Even if it doesn't extend into the realm of felonies. She has been evasive, obstinate, and a weasel through the whole email investigation.

And she doesn't have the luxury of blaming it all on FoxNews and the vast right wing conspiracy. This is coming from a Justice Department overseen by her own party.

[hanger4]

It appears that USAToday has also grown weary of Hillary's obfuscation, deceit and deception. .... http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/09/24/fact-check-hillary-clinton-email-narrative/72735716/

[Mac-7]

It looks like der fuhrer wants reichsmarshal joe biden to follow him.

[Subdermal]

TrueBlue needs to tell us why this is nothing to worry about. I need my daily Dememe.

[Lineman]

Her poll numbers went up again. So theres that.


Hillary's FBI nightmare (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/09/hillary-clinton-fbi-emails-2016-213998)
It looks like congress is going to step back and let the courts handle Hillary's email problem. This story reports that there are currently 30 federal FOIA lawsuits going on: that means 30 federal judges that can get aggressive with the FBI and DOJ.

It is also funny that the DoJ is leaking information about this while the official DoJ response is to refuse to say whether it is investigating Hillary or not.

[Peter1469]

She could be video taped holding a Black Mass and sacrificing a baby to Baal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal), and lots of liberals would still vote for her....

[Mac-7]

She could be video taped holding a Black Mass and sacrificing a baby to Baal (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baal), and lots of liberals would still vote for her....

True.

All that MIGHT prevent her from winning the nomination.

But if she is the Party of the Free Ride nominee all the liberals will vote for her in the general election.

[hanger4]

Her poll numbers went up again. So theres that.

Should be another email dump in a day or two or three. Lets check them thar poll #'s after.

[AeonPax]

`
Who needs this email scandal;

Hillary voted for the PATRIOT Act, she voted for the Iraq War resolution, she got the Keystone XL pipeline ball rolling while at State, and she is cozied up tight with the Wall Street brigands who tore the economy apart and then offshored the profits to avoid paying taxes. Personal freedom, unjust war, climate change, economic justice ... and she got it wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. This is not exactly a resume that inspires confidence, or even mild interest.

[Captain Obvious]

`
Who needs this email scandal;

Hillary voted for the PATRIOT Act, she voted for the Iraq War resolution, she got the Keystone XL pipeline ball rolling while at State, and she is cozied up tight with the Wall Street brigands who tore the economy apart and then offshored the profits to avoid paying taxes. Personal freedom, unjust war, climate change, economic justice ... and she got it wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. This is not exactly a resume that inspires confidence, or even mild interest.

She's an establishment elitist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DkS9y5t0tR0

[birddog]

The irony is that among either Clinton, Obama, or Biden, Biden is the only one who could have passed an honest FBI investigation for a Top Secret Clearance on their own as a citizen.

[Ransom]

`
Who needs this email scandal;

Hillary voted for the PATRIOT Act, she voted for the Iraq War resolution, she got the Keystone XL pipeline ball rolling while at State, and she is cozied up tight with the Wall Street brigands who tore the economy apart and then offshored the profits to avoid paying taxes. Personal freedom, unjust war, climate change, economic justice ... and she got it wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong. This is not exactly a resume that inspires confidence, or even mild interest.

And yet she is still miles ahead in the Dem Primary polls. Been hearing much about how Trump's shenanigans say much about who is voting him, many games of association being played. Hillary I trust and all the activity you mention here probably doesn't say much about those who still support her......

Huh, PolWatch?

:biglaugh:

[hanger4]

"WASHINGTON (Associated Press) — The Obama administration has discovered a chain of emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to turn over when she provided what she said was the full record of work-related correspondence as US secretary of state, officials said Friday. * *.... * *their existence challenges Clinton's claim that she has handed over the entirety of her work emails from the account. * *.... * *http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-administration-found-hillary-clinton-emails-she-failed-to-turn-over-2015-9 * *.... * That ol formal certification under penalty of perjury that she had all her work-related email turned over to the State Dept. mat be a comin' round to bite her on the butt.

[whatukno]

"WASHINGTON (Associated Press) — The Obama administration has discovered a chain of emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to turn over when she provided what she said was the full record of work-related correspondence as US secretary of state, officials said Friday. * *.... * *their existence challenges Clinton's claim that she has handed over the entirety of her work emails from the account. * *.... * *http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-administration-found-hillary-clinton-emails-she-failed-to-turn-over-2015-9 * *.... * That ol formal certification under penalty of perjury that she had all her work-related email turned over to the State Dept. mat be a comin' round to bite her on the butt.

Skip something significant?

From your link:

They began before Clinton entered office and continued into her first days at the US State Department. They largely pertained to personnel matters and don't appear to deal with highly classified material,

[Safety]

Skip something significant?

From your link:

They began before Clinton entered office and continued into her first days at the US State Department. They largely pertained to personnel matters and don't appear to deal with highly classified material,

...ever try to stop a lynch party by presenting facts?

[whatukno]

...ever try to stop a lynch party by presenting facts?

I know, these are just birthers re-branded.

[Bob]

I have yet to read any Democrat admit it was they and not republicans that started the birther movement. It might not have happened at all but for the Democrats working hard to elect Hillary who used it against Obama. Obama was sued by Democrats over the issue.

[hanger4]

Skip something significant?

From your link:

They began before Clinton entered office and continued into her first days at the US State Department. They largely pertained to personnel matters and don't appear to deal with highly classified material,

What part of "certification under penalty of perjury that she had all her work-related email turned over to the State Dept" didn't you understand ??

[whatukno]

What part of "certification under penalty of perjury that she had all her work-related email turned over to the State Dept" didn't you understand ??

The part that these were personal emails made before she became SoS. Is it really that hard?

[Common]

I dont think hillary has a thing to worry about criminally. Her problem may be perception with the electorate

[Peter1469]

The part that these were personal emails made before she became SoS. Is it really that hard?

That is what your mother would call a lie.

[whatukno]

That is what your mother would call a lie.

I was not aware personal emails on her personal email server were a part of this witch hunt. I thought they were only looking for emails from her time as SoS. Now it's her entire email history?
hanger4 is eventually going to get those nude selfies after all isn't he? He will be so happy that day.

[hanger4]

The part that these were personal emails made before she became SoS. Is it really that hard?

From the link; .... "They began before Clinton entered office and continued into her first days at the US State Department. They largely pertained to personnel matters and don't appear to deal with highly classified material, officials said, but their existence challenges Clinton's claim that she has handed over the entirety of her work emails from the account." .... I don't know if you have a selective reading problem or a reading comprehension.

[Peter1469]

I was not aware personal emails on her personal email server were a part of this witch hunt. I thought they were only looking for emails from her time as SoS. Now it's her entire email history?
@hanger4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=403) is eventually going to get those nude selfies after all isn't he? He will be so happy that day.

Lies.

It has been established that non-personal email were on the server.

Don't disappoint your mother.

[Peter1469]

The new crop released by DoS today contain up to 1000 on Benghazi.

[whatukno]

From the link; .... "They began before Clinton entered office and continued into her first days at the US State Department. They largely pertained to personnel matters and don't appear to deal with highly classified material, officials said, but their existence challenges Clinton's claim that she has handed over the entirety of her work emails from the account." .... I don't know if you have a selective reading problem or a reading comprehension.


You are accusing me of having a selective reading problem? You are the one that purposefully omitted very important details within the article that YOU linked to in a terrible attempt to further your own agenda. How the living FUCK do you think you have the right to call this kettle black?

Just think about this objectively for one tiny moment, personal emails, on her personal server, sent prior to her taking the job as SoS, are not actually germane to the witch hunt the GOP is embroiled in.

I get that your right wing thought masters want to take down Hillary so that she never gets the party nod, which is fine by me, I would rather have Sanders anyway, but being realistic, it's not like she's forbidden from having a personal email account especially prior to her service as SoS.

[whatukno]

Lies.

It has been established that non-personal email were on the server.

Don't disappoint your mother.

You are muddying the waters here, we are talking about a specific detail here, from a specific article, concerning private emails on her private server that hanger4 is attempting to cover up in order to further an agenda.

[hanger4]

You are accusing me of having a selective reading problem? You are the one that purposefully omitted very important details within the article that YOU linked to in a terrible attempt to further your own agenda. How the living FUCK do you think you have the right to call this kettle black?

Just think about this objectively for one tiny moment, personal emails, on her personal server, sent prior to her taking the job as SoS, are not actually germane to the witch hunt the GOP is embroiled in.

I get that your right wing thought masters want to take down Hillary so that she never gets the party nod, which is fine by me, I would rather have Sanders anyway, but being realistic, it's not like she's forbidden from having a personal email account especially prior to her service as SoS.

"and continued into her first days at the US State Department" .... Like I said, selective reading or reading comprehension problems. .... Clinton signed a declaration which said "While I do not know what information may be 'responsive' fr purposes of this law suit, I have directed that all my e-mails on clintonemail.com in my custody that were or potentially were federal records be provided to the Department of State, and on information and belief, this has been done." .... These Petraeus emails weren't turned over.

[Ransom]

I keep hearing this a GOP "witch hunt."

Where I agree with the adjective describing this 'hunt', I don't believe Obama's FBI nor justice department, nor his State Department is the GOP.

If I'm a Hillary supporter, my sphincter tightens on a daily basis. How you sittin, Whatukno?

[Peter1469]

pantsuit@clintonemail.com

Not a government email address

:shocked:

[hanger4]

You are muddying the waters here, we are talking about a specific detail here, from a specific article, concerning private emails on her private server that hanger4 is attempting to cover up in order to further an agenda.

Tell me/us something whatukno what's the "agenda" of these decidedly left of center orgs (AP, WaPo, NYT's, Reuters, CNN, USAToday) investigations into HC's secret email server ??

[birddog]

The Hildebeast is lying, corrupt scum and has been so for over 40 years! Any one with at least a room temperature IQ should see that! Geeez! :rollseyes:

[pragmatic]

I was not aware personal emails on her personal email server were a part of this witch hunt. I thought they were only looking for emails from her time as SoS. Now it's her entire email history?
@hanger4 (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=403) is eventually going to get those nude selfies after all isn't he? He will be so happy that day.


The lady has a problem.

Am guessing that Hillary and her campaign are not nearly as dismissive of the email/server issue as some of her defenders on this forum seem to be.

[Tahuyaman]

Just think about this objectively for one tiny moment, personal emails, on her personal server, sent prior to her taking the job as SoS, are not actually germane to the witch hunt the GOP is embroiled in.


That is an inaccurate representation of the situation. In more ways than one.

[Professor Peabody]

You are accusing me of having a selective reading problem? You are the one that purposefully omitted very important details within the article that YOU linked to in a terrible attempt to further your own agenda. How the living $#@! do you think you have the right to call this kettle black?

Just think about this objectively for one tiny moment, personal emails, on her personal server, sent prior to her taking the job as SoS, are not actually germane to the witch hunt the GOP is embroiled in.

I get that your right wing thought masters want to take down Hillary so that she never gets the party nod, which is fine by me, I would rather have Sanders anyway, but being realistic, it's not like she's forbidden from having a personal email account especially prior to her service as SoS.

She stored classified material on an unsecure server with an IT company that wasn't authorized to have it.


Judge Andrew Napolitano argues that it doesn’t matter according to federal law.

But it doesn’t have to have that magic word classified on it. If the essence of it is a national secret, which if revealed could cause grave, serious or some harm, it is classified whether it is stamped classified or not.

The first is Title 18 of U.S. Code Sec. 1924, which outlaws the unauthorized removal and storage of classified information. Penalties include fines and imprisonment for up to one year.

The second is Title 18 of U.S. Code Sec. 793, a more serious felony, which outlaws people from misusing national defense information, and carries a sentence of up to 10 years in prison.

http://www.westernjournalism.com/ex-counter-intel-agent-nails-hillary-clinton-with-two-laws-she-broke/

Had Ms. Clinton simply used the Secure Government System, it wouldn't matter if the classified eMails were marked classified or not. Once she made the choice to set up her own private system, she assumed the responsibility to make absolutely sure there was NO classified material sent, received or stored on it.

[whatukno]

Tell me/us something @whatukno (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1722) what's the "agenda" of these decidedly left of center orgs (AP, WaPo, NYT's, Reuters, CNN, USAToday) investigations into HC's secret email server ??

The living fuck?!?

Ok, I'm going to go off here a second, there are only two media outlets that I actually really believe. Those are the Associated Press, and Reuters, the reason is, that they aren't biased at all. They report the facts as they are. Truth has a liberal bias naturally, and if you can't understand that, I can't help you.

What I am sick of is circular arguments where I point something out, you ignore it, submit your own bullshit, ignore the facts at hand, and expect me to disprove your bullshit.

Case in point, I have already destroyed your linked article, using itself. personal emails from Hillary to whoever (according to your article that you linked) had no classified data, and were of a personal nature. But, your biased source took the bullshit, and ran with it, even admitting that the emails were of a private nature and were composed prior to and at the start of her time as SoS.

Patraius and Clinton know each other, the run in the same circles, it's natural that they would keep in touch. You have not disclosed the body of those emails, pointing out any national security problems with them, in fact the article you linked even stated that they were personal in nature and did not contain any classified intelligence.

As a private citizen you are allowed personal email aren't you? We have this thing, you might want to look it up called the Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html), interestingly it has an Amendment called Amendment IV (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) (that's 4 for those of you who can't count in Roman Numerals)

Amazingly enough private citizens including Hillary Clinton are protected under this constitutional right.

But apparently if they aren't your political flavor, to YOU, they aren't afforded that protection under the constitution. Can you please explain how a civilian sending private emails on their own private server isn't afforded the protections under the bill of rights?

Even according to the link you provided, these emails were of a private personal nature, and were not political, and did not contain any classified material.

So are you saying that we, the people, as civilians are not protected under the Fourth Amendment? This is what it seems that you are suggesting, that private personal papers and effects are not subject to protection under the Constitution if there is a political witch hunt underway.

You are trying to make this into a circular argument, but it's not. The constitution protects those private personal emails that have been found to have no classified information. She did not commit perjury.

You are wrong.

[hanger4]

The living fuck?!?

Ok, I'm going to go off here a second, there are only two media outlets that I actually really believe. Those are the Associated Press, and Reuters, the reason is, that they aren't biased at all. They report the facts as they are. Truth has a liberal bias naturally, and if you can't understand that, I can't help you.

What I am sick of is circular arguments where I point something out, you ignore it, submit your own bullshit, ignore the facts at hand, and expect me to disprove your bullshit.

Case in point, I have already destroyed your linked article, using itself. personal emails from Hillary to whoever (according to your article that you linked) had no classified data, and were of a personal nature. But, your biased source took the bullshit, and ran with it, even admitting that the emails were of a private nature and were composed prior to and at the start of her time as SoS.

Patraius and Clinton know each other, the run in the same circles, it's natural that they would keep in touch. You have not disclosed the body of those emails, pointing out any national security problems with them, in fact the article you linked even stated that they were personal in nature and did not contain any classified intelligence.

As a private citizen you are allowed personal email aren't you? We have this thing, you might want to look it up called the Bill of Rights (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html), interestingly it has an Amendment called Amendment IV (https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment) (that's 4 for those of you who can't count in Roman Numerals)

Amazingly enough private citizens including Hillary Clinton are protected under this constitutional right.

But apparently if they aren't your political flavor, to YOU, they aren't afforded that protection under the constitution. Can you please explain how a civilian sending private emails on their own private server isn't afforded the protections under the bill of rights?

Even according to the link you provided, these emails were of a private personal nature, and were not political, and did not contain any classified material.

So are you saying that we, the people, as civilians are not protected under the Fourth Amendment? This is what it seems that you are suggesting, that private personal papers and effects are not subject to protection under the Constitution if there is a political witch hunt underway.

You are trying to make this into a circular argument, but it's not. The constitution protects those private personal emails that have been found to have no classified information. She did not commit perjury.

You are wrong.

I'm glad you trust AP cause right from the AP link I posted it said; ..... " The Obama administration has discovered a chain of emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to turn over when she provided what she said was the full record of work-related correspondence as US secretary of state,*". ...... "work-related correspondence" .... the crux of this AP article and whether HC turned them all over as she swore to. Nothing circular about it.

[hanger4]

And BTW whatukno .it's "personnel matters" not "personal matters". Seems we're back to that reading comprehension problem.

[rembrant]

The Washington Post tries a hand at reporting (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/09/23/just-when-you-thought-the-hillary-clinton-e-mail-story-couldnt-get-worse/)

Three news stories have broken since Tuesday that are bad news for Hillary. And Huma.

(Where is Bill? Witness Protection Program?) And.. the allegation implied that Bill Clinton or Huma are in ANY way at fault.. is just bogus crap. It's STILL doubtful ANY THING transmitted in or out was at all ILLEGAL. Note.. rules CHANGED. This witchunt is just an extension of the CRAP the Repubs wasted tax $ on for a few YEARS. The No Integrity party.(aka ..GOP * Trademark of KocH Industries.) has to make up BS to SLANDER and SMEAR.. but ...they are up to their butts in lies,fraud, corruption. Not that you CARE. THIS era..... there's NO code, no honor.. Right wingers make up shit if they can't find any real SLUR.

[rembrant]

I keep hearing this a GOP "witch hunt."

Where I agree with the adjective describing this 'hunt', I don't believe Obama's FBI nor justice department, nor his State Department is the GOP.

If I'm a Hillary supporter, my sphincter tightens on a daily basis. How you sittin, Whatukno? Hey Bubba.... this crap has been one endless NASTY McCarthy like effort to IMPLY.......God knows what. After all this BUNK.. what is actually a PROBLEM? What? Having ahold of the whole Server, ALL content.. Where's the smoking gun..or any gun? Any Smoke Any Anything? Hey ya dumfks.. if ANYONE was harassing you,stalking you so RELENTLESS, was accusing YOU..with zero evidence of some "Evil unsaid crime" you'd be WAY WAY pissed. You'd say, what the hell mad inquisition is this? what SCUM act that way? Well...F that.. you Can't TAKE it.. you want to drop your Corrupt McCarthy crap on folks.. then LIE?

[hanger4]

Hey Bubba.... this crap has been one endless NASTY McCarthy like effort to IMPLY.......God knows what. After all this BUNK.. what is actually a PROBLEM? What? Having ahold of the whole Server, ALL content.. Where's the smoking gun..or any gun? Any Smoke Any Anything? Hey ya dumfks.. if ANYONE was harassing you,stalking you so RELENTLESS, was accusing YOU..with zero evidence of some "Evil unsaid crime" you'd be WAY WAY pissed. You'd say, what the hell mad inquisition is this? what SCUM act that way? Well...F that.. you Can't TAKE it.. you want to drop your Corrupt McCarthy crap on folks.. then LIE?Yeah I know, no evidence of illegalities yet, but a shit pot load of incompetence of Hillary's behalf. Course she did have "Top Secret" emails on her unsecured secret server. And she did tell one of her assistants to sent an email to her of what some foreign diplomat said. But you go ahead and believe it's just a witch hunt. As they say ignorance is bliss.

[Peter1469]

And.. the allegation implied that Bill Clinton or Huma are in ANY way at fault.. is just bogus crap. It's STILL doubtful ANY THING transmitted in or out was at all ILLEGAL. Note.. rules CHANGED. This witchunt is just an extension of the CRAP the Repubs wasted tax $ on for a few YEARS. The No Integrity party.(aka ..GOP * Trademark of KocH Industries.) has to make up BS to SLANDER and SMEAR.. but ...they are up to their butts in lies,fraud, corruption. Not that you CARE. THIS era..... there's NO code, no honor.. Right wingers make up shit if they can't find any real SLUR.

Which is it?

Naive?, or

Bucket carrier?

:wink:

The hard left is going to be shocked when the truth meets the light of day. Many of the allegations implicate the Clinton charity fund and go back to Chinagate where Bill helped the Chinese with advanced weapons while getting campaign contributions from them.

[Peter1469]

We know she committed perjury in numerous federal courts when she certified under penalty of law that she turned over all of the relevant documents. She can go to jail just for that.

Bucket carriers.... :shocked:

[whatukno]

I'm glad you trust AP cause right from the AP link I posted it said; ..... " The Obama administration has discovered a chain of emails that Hillary Rodham Clinton failed to turn over when she provided what she said was the full record of work-related correspondence as US secretary of state,*". ...... "work-related correspondence" .... the crux of this AP article and whether HC turned them all over as she swore to. Nothing circular about it.

Why do you think you can get away with lying?

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-administration-found-hillary-clinton-emails-she-failed-to-turn-over-2015-9

From what I can tell, the Associated Press website is not www.businessinsider.com.

Somebody please, tell me that I'm wrong.

What you posted is what is known as derivative work. Which means they used the AP article to bolster their own article. You did not post an AP article at all. Why would you purposefully lie like that?

Then after posting a lie, omitting key information, being shown that it is a lie, you have the giant balls enough to actually try and argue personal, and personnel? If that is supposed to make a fucking difference?

You posted a lie, omitted key information, and tried to back up your lies with more lies.

[hanger4]

Why do you think you can get away with lying?

http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-administration-found-hillary-clinton-emails-she-failed-to-turn-over-2015-9

From what I can tell, the Associated Press website is not www.businessinsider.com.

Somebody please, tell me that I'm wrong.

What you posted is what is known as derivative work. Which means they used the AP article to bolster their own article. You did not post an AP article at all. Why would you purposefully lie like that?

Then after posting a lie, omitting key information, being shown that it is a lie, you have the giant balls enough to actually try and argue personal, and personnel? If that is supposed to make a fucking difference?

You posted a lie, omitted key information, and tried to back up your lies with more lies.

Right from the link; .... Bradley Klapper, Associated Press .... And the first two words of the story; .... WASHINGTON (Associated Press) ...... No lies and I omitted nothing, it's all in the link. BTW I would think someone who claims I'm a liar would at lest know difference between personal*and personnel.

[Peter1469]

A very many news sources use the AP in their work....

As far as the AP not being biased? :shocked:

[Ransom]

Hey Bubba.... this crap has been one endless NASTY McCarthy like effort to IMPLY.......God knows what. After all this BUNK.. what is actually a PROBLEM? What? Having ahold of the whole Server, ALL content.. Where's the smoking gun..or any gun? Any Smoke Any Anything? Hey ya dumfks.. if ANYONE was harassing you,stalking you so RELENTLESS, was accusing YOU..with zero evidence of some "Evil unsaid crime" you'd be WAY WAY pissed. You'd say, what the hell mad inquisition is this? what SCUM act that way? Well...F that.. you Can't TAKE it.. you want to drop your Corrupt McCarthy crap on folks.. then LIE?

I cannot understand why those carrying her buckets keep blaming we Bubbas. The FBI, Justice, and Obama's State Dept. seem to be leading this witch hunt that's making Hillary's poll numbers drop faster than her bucket carrier's integrity on this forum.

[Ransom]

I believe it's Obama. I don't believe he wants her to become President.

[whatukno]

Right from the link; .... Bradley Klapper, Associated Press .... And the first two words of the story; .... WASHINGTON (Associated Press) ...... No lies and I omitted nothing, it's all in the link. BTW I would think someone who claims I'm a liar would at lest know difference between personal*and personnel.

A lie by omission is still a lie. You failed to include pertinent information instead skipped over it leaving it out, if people didn't click on the link (which most don't) they would never have found out.

[hanger4]

A lie by omission is still a lie. You failed to include pertinent information instead skipped over it leaving it out, if people didn't click on the link (which most don't) they would never have found out.

Not clicking on the link is yours or others problem. I posted a couple of paragraphs to draw interest and it's on you or whomever to educate yourself as to to topic at hand;
"8. You must provide a link when quoting an article and follow fair use guidelines (you are permitted to copy and paste two to three paragraphs)." ..... http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/31827-The-Political-Forums-Rules-and-Regulations .... You might also want to educate yourself as to forum protocol. I know you're feeling pretty butt-hurt by now, but it's not my fault you've attached your dingy to an apparently sinking ship.

[Peter1469]

Not clicking on the link is yours or others problem. I posted a couple of paragraphs to draw interest and it's on you or whomever to educate yourself as to to topic at hand;
"8. You must provide a link when quoting an article and follow fair use guidelines (you are permitted to copy and paste two to three paragraphs)." ..... http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/31827-The-Political-Forums-Rules-and-Regulations .... You might also want to educate yourself as to forum protocol. I know you're feeling pretty butt-hurt by now, but it's not my fault you've attached your dingy to an apparently sinking ship.

Correct. The Fair Use Policy applies in full force.

[Professor Peabody]

I believe it's Obama. I don't believe he wants her to become President.

Why would he? If she follows him and does a better job (Arnold the Pig could), his legacy would be reduced to "Why the hell did we vote for Obama in 2008?"

[Ransom]

We already know why the majority voted for Obama. We're stupid.

Go to any fast food drive-thru in a big city. Look to our place in the world as far as education is concerned. We still have people here who think Bush bombed the World Trade Centers and........ read a few posts on this forum.

F'n NASA rocket scientists in here........ and I mean......... rocket f'n scientists.

[Subdermal]

A lie by omission is still a lie. You failed to include pertinent information instead skipped over it leaving it out, if people didn't click on the link (which most don't) they would never have found out.

Time for you to get out of this thread. You've been owned hard, and are going to rented out for parties soon.

[texan]

Notice all of the dumping they did on Friday about this? Pope here all weekend etc..... Transparency? LOL! She also travels to MTP with Chuck Todd and he asks her questions without intensity like they are old friends. Brings Fiorina on and tries to nail her to the wall.

She is doing the old......"They robbed the bank?".......... "I didn't rob the bank I was just waiting outside they got in the car and we drove off."

[nic34]

Hillary's dilemma.

The story has legs. Even if it doesn't extend into the realm of felonies. She has been evasive, obstinate, and a weasel through the whole email investigation.

And she doesn't have the luxury of blaming it all on FoxNews and the vast right wing conspiracy. This is coming from a Justice Department overseen by her own party.

Oh, gosh, that seals it! I'm just gonna have to vote for Bernie.

[hanger4]

Oh, gosh, that seals it! I'm just gonna have to vote for Bernie.

Taking this long to have finally figured this out is more a reflection on you than Hillary. :grin: