Should Hillary talk to the FBI??

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: RickinVa

Uh--huh...

This was BS...

originally posted by: RickinVa


I think my position is pretty clear. I believe Hillary Clinton and 6-10 others will face recommendations for indictment, in the near future.

Confidence level: high. No doubt at this point really.

I posted my opinion... you think it is BS.


We disagree. What exactly is the nature of your point?

originally posted by: xxspockyxx
This is in response to watching this thread for 3-4 days. I don't agree with all of rickinvas rantings but I do know a very few things about classified info. I know that I have a navy officer in my family that misplaced his laptop in an airport and he was put out of service for 4 weeks while they figured out the details. Sillyolme and Gryphon talk like they have all of the facts on Clinton's situation but if she were to treated like the rest of the military personnel she would at the very least be investigated. You 2 are acting like hillary being even investigated is absurd.

Shouldn't we be talking about how the Clinton's should not be above obvious laws instead of trying to discredit each other's facts?

Just my 2 cents

Spock

How dare you bring a real world scenario and facts to this thread. Don't you know laws don't apply to Hillary, at least to her supporters?

a reply to: xxspockyxx

I'm pretty sure I haven't said that investigating Hillary is absurd. What I have said is complete fact not conjecture. She is not at this time being investigated. That's all I've said.

a reply to: UnBreakable

I see an anecdote. You see facts. That why this thread is going the way it is.

Taking a break from the BS for a while...

I will leave you with this.

Again, Hillary Clinton, signed her SF 312 shortly after being appointed as SoS. FACT

The SF 312 is a legally binding contract. FACT

Specifically on the contract:

"I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of classified information by me could cause damage or irreparable injury to the United States or could be used to advantage by
a foreign nation"

Notice that the operative word is "could".

Look at how many pieces of classified information were found to have been stored on her private unclassified email server.

I see justification to warrant an recommendation for indictment due to the over whelming amount of evidence that easily supports either gross negligence or just plain old negligence in the handling of classified material. Politics has nothing to do with that. Get over it.

It is going to be extremely hard for her to wiggle out of this one.

I do not have to use a single news source to validate my position, just what is so blatantly obvious if you just care to put the political BS aside and see it for what it really is.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: UnBreakable

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: RickinVa

You seem to have dug your heels in on the fringe of this issue and I will be interested to see your response when reality reconciles your claims.

have you prepared for an excuse yet?...You were right all along, but the DOJ, FBI, CIA etc. are all involved in a corrupt conspiracy to exonerate Hillary Clinton?

Will that be the story you offer?

...and do all the Hillary sychophants have your excuses ready if she is indicted? Or will you just use the blanket 'vast right wing conspiracy' excuse that is always used by the left whenever someone exposes a Clinton f-up?

You can shove the "Hillary Sychophants" nonsense where the sun don't shine...I don't even like the woman...I am just objective enough to realize that "Like" has nothing to do with an FBI Inquiry into classified data.

Frankly I have seen you post from a respectful and objective place in the past...so the above is kind of disappointing.

Objectively sorting through the 90% spin and BS of the headlines and drilling into what is actually going on...I am 95% confident that this will end with ZERO indictments...the investigation hasn't even been structured for indictment purposes. It's aim is to determine if any classified material leaked.

Lots of emotion here...but absent the emotional BS...The outcome is going to be VERY disappointing to those wishing for indictment.

I am willing to bet my ATS membership on it...I will delete my account if Hillary is indicted? anyone want to join me in that bet from an opposing view? Thought not....

First off, you can do all the shoving, hon. Secondly, I'm glad to see you're in a position to judge what's respectful and objective. So it all depends on whether things agree with your agenda and narrative. I'm surprised you don't have the moderator designation since you can discern my statement's intention. So, I see you are definitely a Hillary sychophant despite the denial since I hit such a nerve.

a reply to: Sillyolme

I'm pretty sure that campaign funds provide for some Internet trolls to come try to discredit facts. Where else are those millions of dollars going?

If a lost laptop is worth putting a hardworking service member out of commission for a month what's top secret secretary of state information worth. I don't want to bicker back and forth with the uninformed here, I was just throwing in my 2 cents.

Spock

originally posted by: xxspockyxx
a reply to: Sillyolme

I'm pretty sure that campaign funds provide for some Internet trolls to come try to discredit facts. Where else are those millions of dollars going?

If a lost laptop is worth putting a hardworking service member out of commission for a month what's top secret secretary of state information worth. I don't want to bicker back and forth with the uninformed here, I was just throwing in my 2 cents.

Spock

Only Hillary supporters have facts. Everyone else only have anecdotes.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Ok what was fact in that story as pertains to Hillary? I'm sure the laptop thing happened as stated but I don't see anything that is fact in the email probe.
The person told a story about a sailor and a laptop. Anecdote means story.
How am I wrong ?

a reply to: UnBreakable

Aren't you the one that said a few days ago that someone telling someone else " I'm going to kill you" wasn't a crime? Then when asked about it you said "well if kids say it it isn't a big deal"?

Come on now. I'm not here to make a 65 year old stay at home mother of kids who moved out 15 years ago see my point of view but the things you reply with are beyond ridiculous.

originally posted by: xxspockyxx
a reply to: UnBreakable

Aren't you the one that said a few days ago that someone telling someone else " I'm going to kill you" wasn't a crime? Then when asked about it you said "well if kids say it it isn't a big deal"?

Come on now. I'm not here to make a 65 year old stay at home mother of kids who moved out 15 years ago see my point of view but the things you reply with are beyond ridiculous.

Uhhh, no. I did not comment on the reply you refer to on the subject of "killing" anyone. Please provide my quote before attributing false statements I made. Your obvious lack of recall indicates a mental deficiency. I suggest you seek a medical professional.

Again, I see you are also another one that judges replies and decides what you consider to be ridiculous. And another thing, Jackwagon. I'm not 65, nor am I a stay at home mom, nor do I have kids that moved out 15 years ago. That's rich coming from someone like you posting in the middle of the day.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Sorry, comment was meant for sillyolme.

I am new to this forum thing so I apologize. I worked the weekend so that is why I'm looking at this forum getting mad in the middle of the day on a tuesday.

Again unbreakable I apologize for pressing the wrong button.

originally posted by: xxspockyxx
a reply to: UnBreakable

Sorry, comment was meant for sillyolme.

I am new to this forum thing so I apologize. I worked the weekend so that is why I'm looking at this forum getting mad in the middle of the day on a tuesday.

Again unbreakable I apologize for pressing the wrong button.

No problem. It's refreshing to see a member on here actually apologizing when they make a mistake, it's not too common. Sorry for the terse response. I like to hone my comeback skills for the few members who take things to a personal level towards me.

originally posted by: xxspockyxx
This is in response to watching this thread for 3-4 days. I don't agree with all of rickinvas rantings but I do know a very few things about classified info. I know that I have a navy officer in my family that misplaced his laptop in an airport and he was put out of service for 4 weeks while they figured out the details.

Sorry to hear your family member was investigated and indicted by the FBI..Where is he serving time?

She has a choice?

originally posted by: korath

She has a choice?

Actually yes

She can plead the 5th

She can just refuse and be held in contempt eventually

a reply to: xxspockyxx

You can have the two cents back.
You don't want to bicker= you have nothing so call me uninformed.
I'm very informed. What have you got?
You've been a member here for six years but only made 24 posts so there is not much to go by. I don't know how informed you are. You obviously only called me uninformed because I'm supporting Hillary and only for that reason.
If you go back and read my posts you will see that I link many different sources to backup my statements. I'm not uniformed..

Maybe in six years you'll stumble back into this forum and read this reply.

a reply to: Sillyolme

"I'm not uniformed.."

But yet you will support and vote for a politician who has been caught with classified material on her unclassified email server and then lying about it.


Yep....real informed it appears

a reply to: RickinVa

You make up crap day in and day out. Everything you post is your own overblown opinion devoid of any facts. Every egotistical response has been "I'm the expert I know how these things work and my opinion is the only one that matters"
But Rick I have linked real information while you just give your own closed opinion.
Sorry buddy but you're not going to be the bully here once again.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Sillyolme

"I'm not uniformed.."

But yet you will support and vote for a politician who has been caught with classified material on her unclassified email server and then lying about it.


Yep....real informed it appears

We'll all be informed when she releases the transcripts to her paid Wall Street speeches, but she refuses. She uses the standard third grade response "Well they're not doing it". You'd think she'd instead want to separate herself from the pack, show she's not like the other politicians. Instead we'll get the same establishment politics as usual for the next eight years. God help us.