Hillary Clinton is Done: part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hillary Clinton broke the rules

A new report by State's inspector general makes clear that within two years, Clinton's bad decision had turned into something far worse: a threat to national security, one that she repeatedly ignored despite multiple warnings.

The report, released last week, reveals that in January 2011, hackers were attacking her private server.

Two months later, the assistant secretary for diplomatic security sent a memorandum on cybersecurity threats directly to Clinton, warning of a dramatic increase in efforts "to compromise the private home email accounts of senior department officials" in a likely attempt to "gain access to policy documents and personal information that could enable technical surveillance and possible blackmail.”

That May, Clinton herself suspected that there might have been another hacking incident when she "received an email with a suspicious link."

A month later, the State Department sent a cable to “all diplomatic and consular posts” about the dangers of unsecured personal email accounts. Staffers were ordered to “avoid conducting official Department business from your personal e-mail accounts.” Who signed that cable? Hillary Clinton.

While Clinton is under potential criminal investigation by the FBI for the mishandling of classified material sent through her email, she is going to have to convince voters that she can put the national security of the United States above her own short-term self-interest.

It's already clear that, in using the private email server, Clinton broke the rules. Now it remains to be seen whether she also broke the law.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...nspector-general-editorials-debates/85159948/ (May 30, 2016)


Crooked Hillary has proven beyond doubt that she can't be trusted to properly handle classified material. If it was unintentional, then she is grossly incompetent. If intentional, a threat to national security. In either case, she is unfit to hold public office and should concede the nomination to Bernie Sanders.

Reference:
Office of Inspector General: Evaluation of Email Records Management and Cybersecurity Requirements (May 2016)
 
Last edited:
Was that one discussed? The guy's entire contribution to Salon for the past six months has been articles based on the same contention.

Well, in that case I can't be sure. I know I discussed an article just like it.
 
Here Are Hillary Clinton's Private Email Server Misstatements

Over the months, Hillary Clinton misstated key facts about her use of private email and her own server for her work as secretary of state, the department’s inspector general reported this week.

According to the findings, she claimed approval she didn’t have and declined to be interviewed for the report despite saying: “I’m more than ready to talk to anybody anytime.” Scrutiny of her unusual email practices appeared to be unwelcome, despite her contention those practices were well known and “fully above board.”

A look at some of Clinton’s past claims about her unusual email set-up and how they compare with the inspector general’s findings:

Clinton: “What I did was allowed. It was allowed by the State Department. The State Department has confirmed that.” — AP interview, September.

The Report: “No evidence” that Clinton asked for or received approval to conduct official government business on a personal email account run through a private server in her New York home. According to top State Department officials interviewed for the investigation, the departments that oversee security “did not — and would not — approve” her use of a personal account because of security concerns.​

Read more:
http://fortune.com/2016/05/31/hillary-clinton-email-server-misstatements/ (May 31, 2016)


Predictably, Crooked Hillary has changed her account of the story since the report came out. On Thursday, she told CNN “I thought it was allowed. I knew past secretaries of state used personal email.”

Colin Powell was the only secretary of state who used personal email for work, but not to the extent she did, and he did not use a private server.
 
That's utterly ridiculous. I don't hate Hillary Clinton in the slightest. I actually have a modicum of sympathy for her. I reserve my hatred for those who are successful at deceiving the public, not those who have proven woefully incompetent at it.

I far prefer Hillary Clinton to Bernie Sanders. Or to Elizabeth Warren. Probably not to Joe Biden though. I'm going to vote for her, by the way, although I'm really starting to think she's not going to be the Democratic nominee.

Your posting history in this and other threads makes me seriously doubt this comment.
 
Predictably, Crooked Hillary has changed her account of the story since the report came out. On Thursday, she told CNN “I thought it was allowed. I knew past secretaries of state used personal email.”

Colin Powell was the only secretary of state who used personal email for work, but not to the extent she did, and he did not use a private server.

Desparate clutching at straws. Laughable really.
 
Dismissed? By whom? Clinton's lawyer, David Kendall? That's pretty much it.
That was the last court action involving her claims. I see you haven't addressed, and have snipped, the problems with her claims.

:rolleyes: That was Paula Jones.
Oopsie, my bad. Wrong spurious claim.

Evidence? Link? Anything?
You'll find it covered in most books on the campaign against Clinton, I recommend The Hunting of the President. It's based on the material gathered for Starr.

Not exactly a denial, is it?
No it's not. Thought of course it does directly contradict her later statements and is perjurious if they are true.

In any case, aggressively (read coercively) seeking affidavits from Bill's victims in order to undermine other sexual harassment claims against him was standard operating procedure for the Clinton team.
That affidavit was sought by lawyers for Jones, who subpoenaed her.

Giving a misleading affidavit is far from dispositive. Monica Lewinsky also was induced/coereced into denying under oath that she had had sexual encounters with Bill.
:rolleyes:

You should take your own advice.
Really? What claims have I repeated that are unsupported by evidence?
 
catsmate claimed to look at the evidence and concluded that it was Juanita Broaddrick who was the one who claimed that Bill Clinton's penis had distinguishing characteristics (i.e. curved to one side) rather than Paula Jones. So I think a true skeptic would conclude that catsmate is a rather unreliable source.
Rather pathetic how you latch on one error I made and ignore all the problems with the claims against Clinton. It stinks of desperation.
 
What penis mark? The allegations are that Bill Clinton has (or had) symptoms of Peyronie's disease, which has not been discredited in the least.
Wrong. Jones made claims that there was a "distinguishing mark" on the Presidential Penis. Two sworn statements and a detailed examination by a urologist specifically tasked with examining the genitalia in question said there was no such mark.

I think Paula Jones' accusations are quite believable.
Of course you do. You're so desperate to smear Hillary Clinton with anything that you see things through an ideological filter.
 
I never claimed it was confirmed. I claimed it had not been disproved. Even for a urologist, the diagnosis is hard, if you know what I mean.
Actually two general physicians, one urologist and one dermatologist. All provided sworn testimony that the "distinguishing mark" wasn't there.
 

The Right Direction/Wrong Direction polls have tilted to "wrong" for as long as Real Clear Politics goes back with records.... a decade. Seems they thought we were going in the wrong direction so elected Obama and thought we were going in the wrong direction under Obama and re-elected him but thought we were going in the wrong direction and voted one way for Senate or the other way. Ditto Congress. Apparently no one's ever happy. Who'd a thunk it. There's a core 25% unhappy that that poll never goes below... NEVER.

These same people polled always score congressional approval at about ten per cent. Yet, they keep electing the same yutzes, or clones thereof.

In short, the that figure tells us nothing.
 
You're really going to compare name calling to sexual assault? They call him names, he calls them names. Whoop-de-do.

Find the person you are arguing with and you can have that conversation. But this response has almost nothing to do with my post. Same with the rest of your post, so I'll let it stand on its own. It is a treasure to behold in its undissected state.

Except you misstatement that Hillary said Bill would be "put in charge of the economy", which I assumed was a lie.


Can you see the difference between what you said and what she said? If not, then no, you were not lying. My apologies.
 
For someone who is supposed to be in the pocket of big banks and Wall St, it boggles the mind how much the GOP hates/fears a Clinton POTUS.
 
For someone who is supposed to be in the pocket of big banks and Wall St, it boggles the mind how much the GOP hates/fears a Clinton POTUS.

I know. Just wait until the campaign when the GOP starts calling her "one of the most liberal senators in Congress." Because, you know, that's what they do with the democratic nominee. The did it with John Kerry and Obama, despite the fact that neither were anywhere close to being so.
 
Except you misstatement that Hillary said Bill would be "put in charge of the economy", which I assumed was a lie.

Can you see the difference between what you said and what she said? If not, then no, you were not lying. My apologies.

Somehow I don't think massive deregulation, and the simultaneous inflation of several economic bubbles while giving tax-cuts to the wealthy are going to positively impact the national economic situation or deal with widespread and accelerating income inequity over any significant and sustainable period of time. Not to mention the environmental and social impacts of this course of action.

Perhaps Bill is best left to looking at place settings, state dinners and such.
 
For someone who is supposed to be in the pocket of big banks and Wall St, it boggles the mind how much the GOP hates/fears a Clinton POTUS.

They hate them primarily because the Clintons have always been more successful conservatives than the Republicans, which coincidentally is exactly why most progressives don't much care for them either.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom