Email Scandal: Hillary Clinton’s Last Defense Just Blew Up

a reply to: Xcathdra

You need to do your own research

That is a sign of a failing argument.

as I truly don't think you would accept my argument

Of course not. Your some random political hack on the internet. Why would I?

you seem to ignore anything and everything illegal that Hillary and her aides have done.

Again, now you have to prove they are guilty.

Get crackin'.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xuenchen

Ahh yes, a link to an article that once again begs the question: Was the information in the email classified at the time, or retroactively?

You guys need to get on the ball. Regurgitating the same # over and over does not make any of it a violation of law.

You need to get on the ball.
If Hillary was given earth shattering information verbally by the head of another state, information that if released, would start WWIII immediately, that info, according to you would not be classified.... because no one had marked it as such yet.
Do you understand that nature of classified material?

a reply to: introvert

Not at all.. Its a sign that the person in question must research it on their own in order to believe the facts of the case. It stems from your inability to accept as fact anything coming from people who dont share your point of view. If you are unwilling to accept the answers and facts people post then its a fair assumptopn you still wont accept the info a second time.

Hence you need to research on your own so you have no one to blame for the info but the sources where it comes from and the actions of clinton and her aides that led to the media accounts in the first place.

Your response to my post is confirmation of what I just said so thank you for proving my point. Now you will either do the research or you will attack my post again while demonstrating you have no desire to learn the truth as you would rather argue a falsehood.

Go ahead, prove me wrong... I dare you.

a reply to: butcherguy

If Hillary was given earth shattering information verbally by the head of another state, information that if released, would start WWIII immediately, that info, according to you would not be classified.... because no one had marked it as such yet.

That is not even close to anything I have said. Completely ridiculous.

Do you understand that nature of classified material?

Yes, I do. I also understand that it is not a crime to have sent an email that contains information that is classified long after the fact.

Do you understand the basic premise behind ex post facto?

a reply to: introvert
Thank you for proving my point.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Not at all.. Its a sign that the person in question must research it on their own in order to believe the facts of the case.

What facts? Has the FBI released any real information? Do you have an inside track with the investigators?

I doubt it, and that is my point. You guys don't know squat about this case, only the little pieces of the puzzle that do not make the entire picture, so it is absurd and illogical to come to any conclusion.

That is why I like these sorts of threads because all I have to do is ask for proof and it sends everyone in to a sissy fit.

It stems from your inability to accept as fact anything coming from people who dont share your point of view.

What facts? You've provided none and since you are not privy to the investigation, it is absurd to say you have any.

Hence you need to research on your own so you have no one to blame for the info but the sources where it comes from and the actions of clinton and her aides that led to the media accounts in the first place.

All the info in the media is incomplete or pure conjecture. Again, what facts?

Your response to my post is confirmation of what I just said.

Your inability to provide clear evidence of guilt is confirmation you have no idea what you are talking about. To have the information needed to come to the conclusion she is guilty would indicate you have an insider giving you information that has not been released to the public.

If you do not have the sort of source and are relying on internet rumor, you have no basis for any conclusion.

Again, provide clear proof of her guilt. Not assumptions, not wishful-thinking or delusions. Clear proof.

If you can do that, I'm sure the FBI would be interested as well.

a reply to: introvert

This will be my last post to you, these circular arguments are transparent and puerile.

information that is classified long after the fact.

You are basing your entire argument upon an empty claim.

The information in question belongs in one of the defined categories of classification simply by it's existence, whether or not a judging body is made aware of it's existence.

If you can not understand this simple fact, you cannot then further be considered to have any value whatsoever in regards to the expense of time or effort put forth for which to respond.

Good day.

a reply to: introvert

Again thank you for proving my point.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

You are basing your entire argument upon an empty claim.

It's not an empty claim. The FBI and others are retroactively classifying emails. That does not mean they can charge her with a crime for sending emails that were classified after the fact.

It is not based on their existence. It's based on language and specific terms. You do know that certain words, regardless of their context, can cause something to be classified, right?

If you can not understand this simple fact, you cannot then further be considered to have any value whatsoever in regards to the expense of time or effort put forth for which to respond.

Oh, it's ok buttercup. Stick around and play. I'm sure you have plenty of "proof" to share with all of us.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: introvert

Again thank you for proving my point.

Can't do any better?

Why do you guys always do this in these threads?

You make specific claims and when confronted with the fact you have no real clue in to whats going on, you make absurd statements and question my intelligence.

Again, provide some proof. Give us the scoop.

What source do you have within the investigative teams in which you can logically say you have the evidence of what you claim?

You're not relying on internet rumor to form your opinion, are you?

a reply to: introvert

Again, provide some proof. Give us the scoop.

When presented with evidence (Hillary's own email) that Hillary ordered Jake Sullivan to remove classification headers and send classified information over non-secure lines, you denied that it existed.
Why waste time giving you evidence when you deny that it exists after it is laid in front of your face.
For your next trick, I expect that you will deny that the evidence was presented, then deny that you denied it.

a reply to: introvert

You do know that certain words, regardless of their context, can cause something to be classified, right?

Which is another way of saying:

The information in question belongs in one of the defined categories of classification simply by it's existence, whether or not a judging body is made aware of it's existence.

You don't even understand your own argument.

a reply to: butcherguy

When presented with evidence (Hillary's own email) that Hillary ordered Jake Sullivan to remove classification headers and send classified information over non-secure lines, you denied that it existed.

No I did not. That is completely false. She did make that request.

What I said was that Sullivan never did what she requested. That is a fact.

If you have to lie to make a point then you have no point.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Those two statements are not similar.

You are talking two entirely different areas.

a reply to: introvert

If you have to lie to make a point then you have no point.

I didn't think that I had to predict that you might call me a liar, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Silly me.

So you do admit that Hillary Clinton ordered Jake Sullivan to strip classification headers from a document and send it over non-secure lines? (please don't rehash your tired old argument that Jake Sullivan never did the illegal thing that she told him to do)

a reply to: butcherguy

I didn't think that I had to predict that you might call me a liar, I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. Silly me.

Then why lie to begin with? Not very becoming, is it?

So you do admit that Hillary Clinton ordered Jake Sullivan to strip classification headers from a document and send it over non-secure lines?

Yes, that is clear. She did ask him to do that.

Next question is, is her request, in and of itself, a punishable crime?

Bark Bark Bark,,,, watch the doggie chase it's tail!! Fun for all to see!!!!!


Lets boiler down simple for the idiots:

1. Unauthorized possession of classified material is a federal crime.

2. Hillary Clinton has been found dozens and dozens of times to be in unauthorized possession of classified material.


Sounds pretty simple to me.

You will never hear anyone who has or has had a security clearance defend Hillary Clinton.

a reply to: introvert

I didn't lie. I was mistaken.
Now Hillary, on the other hand is a liar.
Under fire in Bosnia?

a reply to: Sillyolme

So you dodge all questions of substance? if you feel your support of HC is both slanderous and off topic, well, that's all on you.

originally posted by: pteridine
a reply to: Whatsreal

As we all love conspiracies, how does this go over?

Hillary got caught in the wringer and knows she is going to be a non-player, simply because she can't run or win with servergate over her head. Sanders is coming on strong but the Dems/Illuminati/Etc don't want him because he is too far from center. DOJ agrees to delay any indictments until after the convention. If Hillary quits early, Bernie wins and runs. If she holds off, the convention will be brokered and the Dems can get a more moderate ticket. The GOP will play the same game, working to keep Cruz and Trump from getting winning numbers. They broker and dump Trump and maybe Cruz, too, if his polls don't show strength. They also want centrists that people can vote for; the philosophical mismatches of McCain-Palin and Romney-Ryan are examples of astonishing political stupidity that the GOP may have now figured out.

Biden-Warren will run against Romney-Kasich, or similar, after the GOP brokers their convention and gets Donald out of the race.

I think the Dems are going to run Joe Biden. After the death of his son, he did not have the emotional energy to run a tough campaign. Hillary has done that for him and she has been emphasizing that she wants to be the continuation of Obama's policies....Joe would do this, too.

Whether she gets indicted or not, she has already disqualified herself from ever having the authority to hold a high security clearance. She will be removed, and Joe will step right on in without missing a beat.