BoatShoes;1799496 wrote:Hillary's best accomplishment IMHO was working to get the state children's health insurance program established with hard fought compromise with Republicans after getting worked on HillaryCare which has been hugely beneficial to scores of children in southeast Ohio.

I'm tearing up .............gosh she should be president.

like_that;1799504 wrote:Do you or ever did work for the government? In a classified environment?

I have mentioned previously that I was in the Navy Reserve with security clearance.

QuakerOats;1799536 wrote:I'm tearing up .............gosh she should be president.

Mitt Romney will secretly vote for her over Donald Trump. Hope that helps.

BoatShoes;1799554 wrote:I have mentioned previously that I was in the Navy Reserve with security clearance.

Then you should know that no matter how ridiculous anything deemed classified is it should be treated as such.

BoatShoes;1799554 wrote:I have mentioned previously that I was in the Navy Reserve with security clearance.

Was this pre email being used as a regular form of communication? If not, then I don't know how you can actually believe the bullshit you are typing. Either that or you are lying. I have a security clearance too and I know plenty of people (including a few friends who work at the State Department) who have security clearances much higher than me. They all know damn well you can't do what Hillary did without being cryptic and going out of your way to get help to set up a private server to receive government emails. Even for non sensitive emails, it would be near impossible to have them forwarded to my private account, not to mention I could be in serious trouble for doing so. I can't even walk in a SCIF with my own phone. It has to be locked up once you are in a SCIF. If you truly worked for the Navy with a security clearance, then you know damn well the deflection Hillary's team is spewing is 100% bullshit. You also know damn well if you did the same thing as she did you would be in serious trouble.

Not sure how credible it is, but apparently Russia is set to release Hillary's intercepted emails. If that actually happens I have no idea how anyone can defend her.

BoatShoes;1799555 wrote:Mitt Romney will secretly vote for her over Donald Trump. Hope that helps.

No it doesn't. Nor do I believe Romney will vote for anyone who is under FEDERAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. And you shouldn't either.

QuakerOats;1799573 wrote:No it doesn't. Nor do I believe Romney will vote for anyone who is under FEDERAL CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION. And you shouldn't either.

Romney has already more or less said he is voting Gary Johnson

majorspark;1799562 wrote:Then you should know that no matter how ridiculous anything deemed classified is it should be treated as such.

I 100% agree...as I have seen written on this matter is that what Hillary did disrespects all the rank and file people who bend over backwards to respect classified designations.

All I said was that the public could see how overbroad the usage is (which I stand by) and Like_That asked if I had any idea what I was talking about.

gut;1799576 wrote:Romney has already more or less said he is voting Gary Johnson

I think you are right but it is fun to troll on the matter.

like_that;1799567 wrote:Was this pre email being used as a regular form of communication? If not, then I don't know how you can actually believe the bullshit you are typing. Either that or you are lying. I have a security clearance too and I know plenty of people (including a few friends who work at the State Department) who have security clearances much higher than me. They all know damn well you can't do what Hillary did without being cryptic and going out of your way to get help to set up a private server to receive government emails. Even for non sensitive emails, it would be near impossible to have them forwarded to my private account, not to mention I could be in serious trouble for doing so. I can't even walk in a SCIF with my own phone. It has to be locked up once you are in a SCIF. If you truly worked for the Navy with a security clearance, then you know damn well the deflection Hillary's team is spewing is 100% bullshit. You also know damn well if you did the same thing as she did you would be in serious trouble.

Whoa there tiger.

As I said in the post quoting Jmog...the server issue is 100% legitimate and I agree 100% with what you say here regarding the double standard etc.

I said that what is deemed classified is often nothing material to national security and I believe the public would agree. I do agree 100% that the rank and file who bend over backwards to protect it all the same and comply with the rules are inherently demeaned when political appointees do what Hillary did.

BoatShoes;1799579 wrote:I 100% agree...as I have seen written on this matter is that what Hillary did disrespects all the rank and file people who bend over backwards to respect classified designations.

She did more than disrespect the rank and file. She broke the law. We all sign government documents under penalty of law just not as important as the one she signed.

BoatShoes;1799579 wrote:All I said was that the public could see how overbroad the usage is

Perhaps the judge could take this into consideration at her sentencing.

majorspark;1799585 wrote:She did more than disrespect the rank and file. She broke the law. We all sign government documents under penalty of law just not as important as the one she signed.



Perhaps the judge could take this into consideration at her sentencing.

Plenty of prosecutors do not think her ignorance arouse to criminality so far e.g. Anne Tompkins who prosecuted Petraeus.

Personally, what is sad is that millions of Americans will be convinced that whatever the decision to prosecute her or not that it is corrupt.

IMHO we need a fourth branch of government with elite public servants schooled at institutions like the military academy to investigate and prosecute government officials because so manybpeople have no faith in fair prosecution of government agents at the federal, state and local levels for prosecutors to overcome institutional biases whether it is Loretta Lynch prosecuting Hillary or Tim McGinty prosecuting the Cleveland police.

BoatShoes;1799616 wrote:Plenty of prosecutors do not think her ignorance arouse to criminality so far e.g. Anne Tompkins who prosecuted Petraeus.

Personally, what is sad is that millions of Americans will be convinced that whatever the decision to prosecute her or not that it is corrupt.

I believe the (first) test in this matter is negligence; not ignorance nor intent. And she is clearly guilty of negligence, at a minimum.

When you look at her qualifications: money-laundering, influence peddling, serial lying, and personal ambition that always trumps American interests, you realize that there are only about three groups that could ever support her: the completely ignorant, the radical feminists, and sleazy lawyers.

BoatShoes;1799616 wrote: IMHO we need a fourth branch of government with elite public servants schooled at institutions like the military academy to investigate and prosecute government officials because so manybpeople have no faith in fair prosecution of government agents at the federal, state and local levels for prosecutors to overcome institutional biases whether it is Loretta Lynch prosecuting Hillary or Tim McGinty prosecuting the Cleveland police.

Interesting concept, fixing something horribly broken though more of it.

queencitybuckeye;1799632 wrote:Interesting concept, fixing something horribly broken though more of it.

Kind of what I was thinking...

Government's answer to most problems is to create some-sort of additional government entity that oversees the problems of a failing entity of government.

Making government bigger is not the option I would choose.

...............especially when most of the problems are caused by government to begin with ----- overreach, meddling, interference, over-regulation etc...etc...

Apple;1799671 wrote:Kind of what I was thinking...

Government's answer to most problems is to create some-sort of additional government entity that oversees the problems of a failing entity of government.

Making government bigger is not the option I would choose.

Well, and the suggestion is really what the courts are supposed to be for. Except now both sides have taken to stacking the courts with political activist judges. That's the real problem and why checks and balances are failing (especially when a POTUS goes around Congress with Exec Orders that are unconstitutional).

Otherwise, I'd say Congress works quite well. You need some level of agreement/compromise among 60% of the Senate to get much done....and if you can't get that, it's probably not a very good idea. The problem is a lack of good ideas, not one party or the other obstructing.

gut;1799674 wrote:Well, and the suggestion is really what the courts are supposed to be for. Except now both sides have taken to stacking the courts with political activist judges. That's the real problem and why checks and balances are failing (especially when a POTUS goes around Congress with Exec Orders that are unconstitutional).

Otherwise, I'd say Congress works quite well. You need some level of agreement/compromise among 60% of the Senate to get much done....and if you can't get that, it's probably not a very good idea. The problem is a lack of good ideas, not one party or the other obstructing.

Well, to me, the obstructing is a problem, but a subtle one where you'll have something that's a good idea, but it gets sabotaged because someone will add extra crap to it which makes the good idea seem not so good. It either causes bills to die or causes the more essential bills to wind up with a lot of unnecessary crap that wouldn't get 60% on its own attached to them. IMO, those riders are the biggest problem with Congress.

Heretic;1799676 wrote:Well, to me, the obstructing is a problem, but a subtle one where you'll have something that's a good idea, but it gets sabotaged because someone will add extra crap

I don't view it as obstruction if it isn't a good bill - I view that as their duty to block bad legislation. You don't do something just for the sake of doing it.

Fair point about the riders, but at least some of that comes about from "buying" votes to pass bills that aren't good.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/16/nations-clinton-bashes-for-terrorism-gave-big-bucks-to-clinton-foundation/



Two-faced lying, money-laundering bitch. Unbelievable that she is this close to sniffing the presidency.

A hacker released all the shadiness of the Clinton Foundation

Will she ever be held accountable for her illegal actions?

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/hacker-releases-clinton-foundation-documents/article/2594452?custom_click=rss

Waiting to see Hillary's regimented salad tossers explain away the release of the House committee's finalized report.

Even with expecting a final release from the current administration, which I'm hoping that they are not holding their collective breaths for that to happen, I'm suspecting that some people might be unpleasantly suprised.

CenterBHSFan;1801681 wrote:Waiting to see Hillary's regimented salad tossers explain away the release of the House committee's finalized report.

Even with expecting a final release from the current administration, which I'm hoping that they are not holding their collective breaths for that to happen, I'm suspecting that some people might be unpleasantly suprised.

They are doing exactly what everyone said would happen. Claiming it is a partisan attack to bring Hillary down.

Too predictable.

I think she's too old. She's one heartbeat away from dying.