• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunmaster14 said:
I might still vote for her, but I sure as hell wouldn't be defending her. I'm not defending Trump's idiocy or dishonesty. Saying that I can look past certain kinds of behavior, because there are more important issues which trump the scandals, isn't the same as lying to defend him.
Click to expand...
The difference is that Trump really is a racist conman while this email nonsense is very minor, certainly not criminal.
 
Tony Stark said:
The difference is that Trump really is a racist conman while this email nonsense is very minor, certainly not criminal.
Click to expand...

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Just ask 4 Star General David Patraeus if mishandling classified information is minor and not criminal. Let me know what you find.
 
Reheat said:
You couldn't be more wrong if you tried. Just ask 4 Star General David Patraeus if mishandling classified information is minor and not criminal. Let me know what you find.
Click to expand...
David Patreaus intentionally gave info he knew to be highly classified to his mistress (he was recorded telling her this). And lied to the FBI about it.

But you knew this.

You're not fooling anyone.
 
Reheat said:
I'm not trying to fool anyone, but you are fooling yourself if you think her email issue is minor and not criminal.
Click to expand...
So what will your excuse be when election day comes and there is no indictment? Maybe the DOJ conspired to cover up her criminal behavior on orders from President Obama or some conspiracy theory like that? Yeah. That's surely what you people will say.

LOL.

Pathetic.
 
Reheat said:
I'm not trying to fool anyone, but you are fooling yourself if you think her email issue is minor and not criminal.
Click to expand...
Ah, so you recognize the situations are different so you change the subject. How skeptical of you.

As for criminal, that's what's being investigated. Unlike you, I'm waiting for due process. Why do you hate due process? Or do you just hate due process for demoncrats?
 
TheL8Elvis said:
When Mrs. Clinton has been asked about the possibility of being criminally charged over the email issue, she has repeatedly said “that is not going to happen.’’ [/I]

not going to happen.

not going to happen.

not going to happen.

...
Click to expand...

Is this the sort of argument that convinces you? Quoting the most biased source imaginable, repetition, and bolding?
 
John Nowak said:
Is this the sort of argument that convinces you? Quoting the most biased source imaginable, repetition, and bolding?
Click to expand...


I'd say she has reason to feel confident. Obama just said he wants her to be the next President, for one.

Obama said, regarding her server, there's confidential, then there's confidential. He's mocked it from the start.

Why worry, the President is in her corner. Either he knows something we don't (though he claims he does not know anything about the investigation), or he's even dumber than I thought. Obama has been known to back some real losers (criminals) in the past few years, so it isn't out of the question.
 
Last edited:
Bob001 said:
Looks like a new development:
Click to expand...

An explosive new report reveals just what it is that the FBI is looking to: emails in which then-Secretary of State Clinton approved CIA drone assassinations in Pakistan with her cellphone.
Click to expand...

For those who don't know, current operational matters such as this are ALWAYS Top Secret of above, no exceptions for convenience.
 
Last edited:
shuize said:
Clinton emailing about ongoing operations through her unsecure and unapproved cowboy bathroom server. The spin on why this is really no big deal should be awesome.
Click to expand...
I've seen no evidence whatsoever that she was the one emailing about this. Rather some of her subordinates did and forwarded some of the messages to her. Which they shouldn't have done even if she had a state.gov email.

No matter how badly the Republicans (or Bernie Bros) want it to be, she isn't a criminal just because some of her employees sent her some email containing classified info. If anything, they are the ones who committed the crime, though it is doubtful any of them will be indicted either.
 
Last edited:
Tony Stark said:
I've seen no evidence whatsoever that she was the one emailing about this. Rather some of her subordinates did and forwarded some of the messages to her. Which they shouldn't have done even if she had a state.gov email.

No matter how badly the Republicans (or Bernie Bros) want it to be, she isn't a criminal just because some of her employees sent her some email containing classified info. If anything, they are the ones who committed the crime, though it is doubtful any of them will be indicted either.
Click to expand...

Sorry, doesn't get her off the hook. Even supposing that it was all their fault, not hers, and that we overlook the fact that she evidently surrounds herself with criminals, she had a legal duty to report such gross violations of information security. She failed in that duty.
 
Ziggurat said:
Sorry, doesn't get her off the hook. Even supposing that it was all their fault, not hers, and that we overlook the fact that she evidently surrounds herself with criminals, she had a legal duty to report such gross violations of information security. She failed in that duty.
Click to expand...

As the person in charge of the entire State Department at the time, no doubt she will accept full responsibility for the security breach. And then blame it all on her subordinates.
 
Clinton set up the cowboy server and made her staff use it. It is ludicrous to suggest that she is not responsible and reprehensible to suggest that her subordinates should take the fall for her
 
Ziggurat said:
Sorry, doesn't get her off the hook. Even supposing that it was all their fault, not hers, and that we overlook the fact that she evidently surrounds herself with criminals, she had a legal duty to report such gross violations of information security. She failed in that duty.
Click to expand...
Can you prove that she even read the emails or knew what they were about given that they were according to the liberal rag the WSJ, "vaguely worded messages [that] didn’t mention the “CIA,” “drones” or details about the militant targets."

And of course, it was hardly only State this type of thing happened at, "government workers at several agencies, including the departments of Defense, Justice and State, have occasionally resorted to the low-side system to give each other notice about sensitive but fast-moving events, according to one law-enforcement official."

But of course Hillary is the only one you guys care about. I wonder why. j/k, I know why.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom