SMOKING GUN? Hillary e-mail Instructs Aide To Transmit Classified Data Without Markings

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: IAMTAT

If this derails the untouchable Hillary Clinton's campaign, I will tend to believe the fix is in for Bernie. I still don't believe that Hillary would ever be indicted, but I do suspect she is a plant candidate for the DNC.

And I see Bernie is seriously closing the gap: RCP polls

HOLY CRAP!

Latest IBD/TIPP poll....Clinton +4

(I smell a few rats.)

Link

That's within the margin of error.
If she loses Iowa AND N.H., she's in real trouble.

If she's in trouble, it's voluntary, IMO. I really, really think the fix is in for Bernie. The Establishment cannot wait to spend $18 trillion.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: IAMTAT

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: IAMTAT

If this derails the untouchable Hillary Clinton's campaign, I will tend to believe the fix is in for Bernie. I still don't believe that Hillary would ever be indicted, but I do suspect she is a plant candidate for the DNC.

And I see Bernie is seriously closing the gap: RCP polls

HOLY CRAP!

Latest IBD/TIPP poll....Clinton +4

(I smell a few rats.)

Link

That's within the margin of error.
If she loses Iowa AND N.H., she's in real trouble.

If she's in trouble, it's voluntary, IMO. I really, really think the fix is in for Bernie. The Establishment cannot wait to spend $18 trillion.

If Bernie wins, I am going to help him out and go on welfare.

These heroic efforts to protect, shield, hide, dodge, derail for Hillary remind me of the Bubba Clinton "what does is mean, what does alone mean, what does that woman mean" defense.

NTM Gore's "there's no controlling legal authority" that would stop him from getting paid for his patronage as VP.

Whole lotta shuck & jive about the meaning of simple words and concepts that haven't varied for 500 years.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Tempter

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Chickensalad

The problem is, that no matter what evidence is brought forth, it gets dismissed for no other reason than the fact that some don't like it.

Sure. And if no evidence is found some will dismiss it because they don't like it.

I like to deal with facts and evidence. Until that is presented, this sort of garbage is a waste of time.

I'm having a hard time understanding how you think an email record isn't evidence. Your political bias is showing.

It is evidence, but you have to be able to prove a crime was committed. Why can't they prove this as easily as some would like?

Perhaps there is no evidence?

For the last time, it's evidence. They are in the middle of TRYING to prove a crime was committed. When you are HRC that is difficult to do against because hey, "she's to big to bring down".

No they are not. I've had to say this many times today: This is not a criminal investigation!

They are looking for procedural issues within security. Even that has proven very little, if anything.

HAHAHAHAHAHA...... it is now lol

You can cancel that argument. And you no longer have to feel compelled to repeat it "many times".

Please care to note that this is not a new investigation, simply another facet of the ongoing investigation. It is now criminal in nature and specifically pointed at Hillary Clinton.

lol Rick, Hillary could be in jail and you'll still be responding to the same claims and myths and tall tales and word games. Then the same 5 years later.
You'd be better served by drawing cartoons of mohammed at a mosque during prayers.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Who decides whether or not a list of State Department talking points are classified? Seems to me that would be up to the Secretary of State, don't you think? Why would exercising her executive authority make Hillary subject to a criminal investigation?

The problem is the content. Either it was or S or TS content, or not. Even if you'll never admit it, The SecState is one of the people in the govt most trusted with establishing what's secret or not, and should be slapping the label on it herself (or on her behalf by competent leaders). Lack of a label is not even a point to be discussed.

Being too incompetent or corrupt to NOT label S or TS content is arguably worse than being clownish with something properly labeled.

They are looking at some of the stuff that they passed around casually, some of it among Hillary's for-profit business ventures with Blumentahl and the foundation.

Its all about the content, not the labeling back then, later, or today. She was involved in blithely throwing around highly secret photos, details, facts, etc. Generally for her own political benefit or financial profit. She was also the person most responsible for ensuring that something so ridiculous didn't happen.

a reply to: stevieray

She was involved in blithely throwing around highly secret photos, details, facts, etc. Generally for her own political benefit or financial profit.

And your source for this accusation?

a reply to: stevieray

Sorry, not playing your game. It's everywhere, in all of the accounts and reports of what they're investigating. Google is your friend, I'm not your servant.

In other words, all you have are political hit men making claims based on "unnamed sources." A list of rumors about, say Erdogan, based on cables from the ambassador would be potentially embarrassing and therefore classified "Confidential." It would not compromise the security of the United States and therefore not be subject to the same laws. Until you can produce a specific, non-redacted example, all you have to go on is confirmation bias. (Mind you, I know Hillary is capable cutting shady deals, but she is not so stupid as to commit treason.)

Hillary's probably not stupid enough to commit treason, but I think she is liable to do literally anything that she REALLY wants to, with her belief that the law will not apply to her. I think she REALLY wanted to move along S / TS info that helped her to make 8 or 9 figures in financial deals that dovetailed with her SOS authority.

And yes, this content is described in many accounts of the investigation, available to everyone.

Thanks for quoting me. You appear to have a protector angel here deleting anything that could make you uncomfortable. Or maybe somebody's mad at me from earlier in the thread.

But it's good that you live up your sig line.