The incalculable damage done

a reply to: AnonymousMoose

But.....but....but......

Liberals only want to look as far back as GWB, and no further. They skip right over this administration, and ignore the Clinton administration Because it is inconveient to them to have to admit that THEY ALL DO IT, regardless of party affiliation.

One thing I don't get is why all the heat is on her...she definitely deserves it and even more than she's getting but they're trying to make this look like a woman carrying out this criminal behavior but in reality...I mean, gimme a break...it would have been not much time at all after her taking the SoS position that a number of people in the government noticed a dramatic change in email activity of former SoS-s and Hillary doing the same job with comparable job competence as her predecessors but doing it while using a fraction of the disk space archiving it, a number of messages never coming near what is average, her very sensitive login info, location, firewalls, etc. recording much less activity time, fewer logins, and day after day and night after night going by that those who monitor her work is confidential not seeing the same frequency of pings while logging her at home or at hundreds of hotels.

And if somehow this didn't come to anybody's attention, how about people in the government for thirty years or more and embassies, ambassadors, etc all over the world not noticing the @HillMail.com address in place of the expected .gov one? Or with the thousands of CCs and cycles government carp goes through why not it ever being caught there as an uncertified address? Or was she somehow able to use her own server but still show a .gov address? That would mean many otters were aware as well cuz you're smoking dope if you think Hillary is tech savvy enough to reroute such a procedure packed email suffix address like .gov through her new little home router.

Lastly human error...with numbers being thrown around in the hundreds of thousands, there's no human highly functioning enough to plan for and correctly execute putting acceptable material through the expected server or material meant for person A, B,or C...and route the questionable stuff through the other or emails with person X, Y, Z.

And if I'm wrong about all of this, I think for the first time since this started I'd actually believe the possibility she did what she did in plain stupidity and ignorance of how electronic internet based exchanges work.

But for now I still feel this was no big secret and if we're meant to believe how much danger this put our Intel in, they better come clean and admit she and all those in her staff, support, maintenance IT team, etc. as a group had a dangerous and illegal loop set up that dangled national secrets and confidential information out hanging for anyone to see who knew where to look and wanted less a challenge than hacking government servers to get it.

Or we could go conspiracy extreme mode and say maybe it was planned from the beginning with someone in the White House executive circus who is a double agent along with Obama promising an enemy country with a population speaking with a Russian-like accent (love Russia! just sayin, that's who were drilled for 65 yrs now to associate with the enemy of enemies) that we'd create an open line of pick and choose at will information. Then Hillary is chosen which was surprising after she was snubbed for the VPresidency...she's convinced by a plant to use a private server for whatever reason but in reality it's so after its run its course those responsible can fabricate ties between donated money and her location on date money is wired. It makes too much sense and Hillary is eaten by the wolves...epilogue- this all goes to show the former golden girl of the elite rubbed Pindar the wrong way and is being ousted from the Circle of the 13 and their Owls of Bilde-and-bones.

Hey why not, google said a few months back they did just that...they made it easier to swallow but the big sweeeepy majority wouldn't have blinked an eye even if they explained it saying "Thanks for the billions upon billions suckaaaaaas! And enjoy our next version of this and that as it has been designed at the request of the United States government to allow for maximum national security and a terrorism free America. They have a backdoor to start profiling kooks who don't understand progress and still don't see how freedom to arm oneself or freedom to assemble and say meanie-pants things about the government are the terrorists backdoor to making your children gay, invading the US and forcing Islam and Sharia, and by the way...China..you know...right? Nothing specific, we can leave it at that but boy ain't they so up to something? Definitely planning SOMETHING we should keep an eye out for...In conclusion, consider an android or Apple in your pocket at all times the arm to bear for future protection And let's end the communication in the old world face to face NON-APP COMPATIBLE way, real friends look out for friends in 2016 by always catching up with gmail or Facebook delivered with love and a quick AI scan for content that might harm your friend our gift to you. Thank you! -Your googappleroid executives.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer


The wikileaks dump - remember? When it became transparent to everyone that Hillary was ordering our Ambassadors to spy in the countries they were assigned to - she announced she would not be running for President.

Yes, and I recall reading Wikileaks has more in store for her soon.

I distinctly remember this. I guess she thinks people will forget all about it.

She is calculated, makes her decisions like gambling, betting on people
being gullible, and forgetting with a passing news cycle...
only she is not playing with chips but real peoples lives, and an entire
country put at risk because she wants to play the game like she is special,
and the rules do not apply to her.

She flagrantly disregarded protocol for her own convenience, which
has cost many lives at the Benghazi 9/11 attacks. I doubt those families
will be forgetting her dereliction any time soon. There are thousands,
if not tens of thousands of service men and women who will never forget.

She is not incapable; the deletion of these emails, her wiping her
server to cover up her and her lech "husband's money whoring and
disregard for precious lives and national security; all intentional
and calculated. She tries to play both sides of her persona;
one a bumbling grandma, "what with a cloth or something" and
the flip side "a deserving dignitary".

She is playing her game of thrones.

a reply to: projectvxn

Why the hell are political heads of state not held to the same standard everyone else?

Because it's a Clinton, and someone with a D by their names.

If this had been Rumsfeld, with material concerning 9-11, and Iraq?

They would be screaming bloody murder.

a reply to: WeRpeons

Yeah WE gave them to them but the shells found were still viable weapons.
The caches found were active non binary shells as well.

a reply to: Kratos40

I'm with you on that one Brother! NO ONE in the Bush admin was taken to the gallows for lying about WMDs in Iraq and the pathetic attempt in Afghanistan.

Uh Bush lied about wmds ?



Interesting.

Clinton made one hell of a 'war' speech too

a reply to: neo96



You sir, win the forums today.

2nd post I've complimented you on.

Sadly, this will fall on deaf ears. They'll still blame Bush for these people believing the same things he did.

The thing is none of this will matter, I don't think the general public really care.

She will still run for president.

a reply to Kratos40
a reply to WeRpeons

Here is what Democrats had to say about Iraq:

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
- Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Why cant our government get anything done? Because of republicans, right?

It is a matter of historical record that beginning in 2001, Senate Democrats dramatically changed the confirmation process. Throughout the Bush administration, Democrats actively sought to block numerous judicial nominees, forcing more than 30 cloture votes as Republicans tried to end persistent Democratic filibuster efforts.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), voted against cloture a record-setting 27 times. Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), cast 26 votes to filibuster Bush nominees and, in 2003, defiantly declared: “Yes, we are blocking judges by filibuster. That is part of the hallowed process around here.”

Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who now claims to have been “respectful of President Bush’s appointments,” repeatedly joined with Democratic colleagues in attempting to filibuster judicial confirmations, including seven separate votes against cloture for the nomination of Miguel Estrada—one of the nation’s leading appellate lawyers—to the D.C. Circuit.

Not to be outdone, Reid took virtually every opportunity to block Bush nominees, voting against cloture on 26 separate occasions. In his view there was no amount of time—“not a number in the universe”—that would be adequate for debate on the filibustered nominees.

During his brief time in the Senate, President Obama himself played a key role in the Democratic filibuster campaign, helping lead the effort to block the nomination of Leslie Southwick to the Fifth Circuit. Then-Senator Obama also joined Democrat colleagues in voting to filibuster the judicial nominations of Priscilla Owen, William Pryor, Janice Rogers Brown, and Samuel Alito.

Rather than retaliate by continuing with the obstructionist techniques Senate Democrats invented and implemented, Republicans have taken a more cooperative approach. We have confirmed more than 80 percent of President Obama’s judicial nominees, approving a larger share by unanimous consent than under President Bush.

During President Bush’s first three years, Senate Democrats forced 19 cloture votes on judicial nominees; during President Obama’s first three years the Senate took only 6 such votes. Indeed, contrary what some Democrats now claim, the reality is that 84 percent of all votes to filibuster judicial nominees in American history have been cast by Democrats. For those same Democrats to claim Republican obstruction is the height of hypocrisy.

So, why have Senate Democrats resorted to such blatantly false accusations? The answer is simple. They would prefer to talk about imagined “obstruction” than rising gas prices and their own failed economic policies. They also seek to distract attention away from President Obama’s unconstitutional “recess” appointments.

As a senator, President Obama explicitly rejected the view that “the president, having won the election, should have complete authority to appoint his nominee.” Yet once he ascended to the White House, he did just that. On January 4, President Obama unilaterally made four appointments without the Senate’s advice and consent at a time when -- according to its own rules -- the Senate was not in recess. Such unconstitutional executive aggrandizement was a brazen and unprecedented attack on legislative branch authority.

Baseless and hypocritical claims about the current confirmation process cannot obscure an undeniable reality. The president consciously chose to trample on the Constitution. Considering himself above the law, he took for himself a power that our founding document makes clear belongs to the Senate.
www.lee.senate.gov...

originally posted by: WeRpeons
a reply to: ketsuko

It amazes me how people are getting hell bent on Clinton storing classified information on her server. People are screaming about Bengazi etc... The question I have to ask, is where was all this outrage during the Bush administration? They sent thousand of young men to their graves in a war that should have never taken place. Even after it was proven there was no WMD's they continued to occupy a sovereign country! Then they condoned torture and the list can go on and on!

People were even more outraged with her husband Bill when the guy had an personal extramarital affair, and we spent 4 million dollars to impeach him which had nothing to do with his job! Since Obama took office, it seems like conservatives are always nitpicking at anything he does and again yelling for impeachment!

Conservatives are always trying to find something on liberals when they take office. My beef is the lack of outrage at one of the most criminal administrations in my life time (Bush) which was even pale in comparison to Nixon's administration.

I think that the reason for that is by being a liberal politician, we already know you broke the rules and the law. That is just the nature of the left...lie, lie and lie some more. The reason we conservatives dig for the answer is because even though we know it is there, we don't know what it is. But mark my words...it is there.

no ketsuko, a lot of us don't agree she was "caught" with classified material, but if you republicans keep saying that over and over, a few thousand times, dumbasses will start to think it's true.....and that is the type of voter you want....until the feds bring charges, your claim is false.

originally posted by: jimmyx
no ketsuko, a lot of us don't agree she was "caught" with classified material, but if you republicans keep saying that over and over, a few thousand times, dumbasses will start to think it's true.....and that is the type of voter you want....until the feds bring charges, your claim is false.

Maybe you can enlighten us then Jimmy

1. Did Hillary have a private server offsite and separate from here government offices ?
2. Was State Dept business conducted on that server?
3. Did investigators ask her to turn that said server over?
4. Did she attempt to wipe it of its contents after said request ?
5. Has it been reported by numerous news agencies and Government offices involved that some of the stuff they did find was in fact classified ?
6. Did she deny all of this at the beginning as far as saying it was just email about things like Yoga and emails to her Husband ( Who states he never does email)
7. Has she not now admitted to it , by saying she "made a mistake" and regrets it ?
8. Is it legal to conduct State Dept business and have classified information on a private email server? and Lie about it and attempt to destroy evidence ?

can you answer any of those?

Doing something and lying about it , especially something Illegal... and then people find out about = Getting Caught..

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Kratos40

I'm with you on that one Brother! NO ONE in the Bush admin was taken to the gallows for lying about WMDs in Iraq and the pathetic attempt in Afghanistan.

Because there was no lie about WMD's. The whole world believed that Iraq had WMD's based on the available intel because THEY DID have WMD's. Just because they were moved out before the U.S. got there doesn't mean the weapons never existed.

To those of you saying "well Bush did all this stuff so it's hypocritical to go after Hillary", have you stopped to think that maybe after dealing with a long line of untrustworthy corrupt politicians running the country, people are getting a little more careful about vetting the candidates before it's too late?

Do you have information as to where these WMDs went to? It was all a lie. That is why Colin Powell just fell off the radar because he was so embarrased.

a reply to: Kratos40

The Russians took them..www.washingtontimes.com...

originally posted by: Kratos40

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: Kratos40

I'm with you on that one Brother! NO ONE in the Bush admin was taken to the gallows for lying about WMDs in Iraq and the pathetic attempt in Afghanistan.

Because there was no lie about WMD's. The whole world believed that Iraq had WMD's based on the available intel because THEY DID have WMD's. Just because they were moved out before the U.S. got there doesn't mean the weapons never existed.

To those of you saying "well Bush did all this stuff so it's hypocritical to go after Hillary", have you stopped to think that maybe after dealing with a long line of untrustworthy corrupt politicians running the country, people are getting a little more careful about vetting the candidates before it's too late?

Do you have information as to where these WMDs went to? It was all a lie. That is why Colin Powell just fell off the radar because he was so embarrased.

And there are first hand accounts from soldiers who dealt with the burried stockpiles of them, and they ended up getting sick from handling them.

www.nytimes.com...

I'm still trying to figure out how everyone "forgot" that there were loads of chemical weapons found in Iraq

originally posted by: ADAMandEVIL
a reply to: ketsuko

It would be fantastic to finally see such a corrupt politician get their just desserts.
Far too many powerful criminals getting off the hook.

It would. But this will not happen. She's the Queen of the NWO. Something else will come and explain it all away. Perfect.

She legit gives me the creeps when I see her on TV. Bad vibes too, for sure.

It would be a miracle if her server and private email addresses , etc. didn't comprimize the entire, secure government system. Wasn't the IRS system hacked a few months back? Top level hackers could've been into her setup from the first day it was up. And if that is the case, they've had a few years to become a part of it. Such a part of it that the only way to have any hope of security would be to scrub the present system. And configure a new one from the ground up.

originally posted by: Kratos40

Do you have information as to where these WMDs went to?

Yes.

They mostly went to Syria with Russian assistance.

You have to go back to the early reports during the initial invasion that were quickly dropped by the media.

The only people who still parrot the "Bush lied about WMD's" nonsense weren't paying attention.

a reply to: WeRpeons

Personally, I think that the Lewinsky scandal was a coverup for the real issues

www.eagleforum.org...

a reply to: Kratos40

Colin Powell fell off the radar because he is a member of the CFR(as all sec of Defense have been for decades) and backed current occupier of the WH too....he's not and never was a conservative.