Judicial Watch: Hillary Clinton and Huma Abedin avoided using secure lines of communication on purpo

a reply to: deadlysyn

When Comey made the intent argument I thought he was either covering up for the Clintons or he was howl at the moon bat crap incompetent.

A Liars Concerto ...

The documents included 91 Clinton email exchanges not previously turned over to the State Department, bringing the known total to date to at least 530 emails that were not part of the 55,000 pages of emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department, and further contradicting a statement by Clinton that, “as far as she knew,” all of her government emails had been turned over to the State Department.

Several emails contained classified information.

a reply to: Xcathdra

I thought he was just trying to keep himself from committing suicide by 3 bullets to the back of the head. But, since we know he's good friends with Mueller, who also happened to only bring in DNC/Hillary donors for his special counsel, covering for her is a very good possibility.

originally posted by: Perfectenemy
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Make your own thread than because this is about Hillary Clinton. Highjacking threads is not cool btw.

That never stops any of you from hijacking other threads into being about Hilary or Obama, so why should anyone else care it now??

It never stops other from doing it.

originally posted by: Perfectenemy

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
This should come as a surprise to no one.

The fact that nobody was alerted by this worries me greatly. How is that not considered a security risk/breach?

A permanent Inspector General for the State Department should have been in place to find these breaches of proper protocol and the misuse and abuse.

It is unconscionable that Barack Obama failed to appoint this required IG for the ENTIRE tenure of Hillary Clinton. You have to ask, "why"! Was he complicit in something and didn't want it uncovered? I tend to think so. Some dirty stuff was going on (and $6Billion dollars went unaccounted for during this time.)

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

so hillary should not face her crimes because she lost???

we should focus on any elected officials that use their office to commit crimes, shouldnt we?

First their has to be a crime. That's the part you're having trouble with.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

I appreciate that perfect.Hang tough.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar

so hillary should not face her crimes because she lost???

we should focus on any elected officials that use their office to commit crimes, shouldnt we?

First their has to be a crime. That's the part you're having trouble with.

No Crimes?

How about transmitting classified intelligence over non secure mediums to people without clearance, multiple times, deliberately?

How about destroying evidence that had been subpoenaed by Congress?

How about lying to congress?

How about accepting bribes for favorable laws/legislation while at the State Department?

Do you not consider those crimes?

Incase you haven't figured it out yet, Attorney General Loretta Lynch pressured the FBI into mishandling the investigation after she met with the spouse of the person under investigation. The FBI then (wrongfully) added an intent requirement to the charges that couldn't be discovered - thus gave her a pass.

If you are so confident of no illegal activities taking place, why dont you go and take hundreds of pages of highly classified information and send it to your entire hotmail/gmail address book. Then when the FBI/SS or congress subpheonas your IT gear you destroy it and say, oh well!

a reply to: Agit8dChop

I was talking about Trump. Trump hasn't committed any crimes. Hasn't taken money for favors.Hasn't give terrorists top secret clearance. etc

I guess I misread his statement.

originally posted by: Doctor Smith
a reply to: Agit8dChop

I was talking about Trump. Trump hasn't committed any crimes. Hasn't taken money for favors.Hasn't give terrorists top secret clearance. etc

I guess I misread his statement.

Ahh I apologise!

LOL ... as I've said, some will be desperately trying to resurrect the email thing in 50 years.

Trump Administration senior staff all have private RNC emails.

Oh, the irony and hypocrisy.

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

yeah last summer was sooooo long ago......

are you upset someone gave out their email address? really?

Someone? SOMEONE? The cat from Homeland Security in charge of Trump's WH cyber-security got punked and just blindly handed out his private email address. If this thread is about incompetence in high places, then this one surely deserves being added to the mix.

his private email address
which has nothing to do with the govt
as it is PRIVATE
can he not give that to who he wishes?
there is nothing compromising about [email protected]
there is no comparison to what the former administration has done
trying to compare the two only highlights your ignorance on the subject

originally posted by: Gryphon66
LOL ... as I've said, some will be desperately trying to resurrect the email thing in 50 years.

Trump Administration senior staff all have private RNC emails.

Oh, the irony and hypocrisy.

So? A private citizen does this and they are rotting in jail. That's why everyone is up in arms over it. If Trump does this, he should be prosecuted as well.

a reply to: Perfectenemy

And our current President refuses to give up his non-secured phone so he can keep Twittering at 3 am.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
LOL ... as I've said, some will be desperately trying to resurrect the email thing in 50 years.

Trump Administration senior staff all have private RNC emails.

Oh, the irony and hypocrisy.

The double standards in this thread are HILARIOUS!
Donald Trump used a phone flashlight to read his briefing on a North Korean missile test

a reply to: Krazysh0t

so it would be ok if he tweeted "in code"?

a reply to: shooterbrody

Clearly it is "ok" now since no one seems to care about it, but Hillary. Now she has to adhere to security protocol to a T and no deviations for any reasons whatsoever. She can't even sneeze inappropriately without you guys demanding Congressional investigations.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

He shouldn't have to give up his private phone.

Or his private server if he has one.

Especially if he agrees to "talk in code" and has no intent to do harm.

Precedent has been set.

How can anyone argue some should be allowed a pass to commit actions (collusion, corruption, cronyism, espionage) while in the same conversation hold others accountable, based solely on political leanings? The very idea is breathtaking in it's moral decreptitude.

Hold all accountable or hold none accountable. Both destroy the fabric on which the nation was created. Holding some accountable is simply weak partisan hackery.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

so you are back to the "everyone else did it" defense that worked so well last summer......

twitter being a fair comparison to all the shenanigans that were uncovered...

what was that word you used a few minutes ago....something about some kind of standards.....oh right double standards...

no problem with misuse, mishandling,unauthorized access, or illegal destruction of classified information
big problems with twitter

well done sir!

a reply to: 200Plus

How can anyone argue some should be allowed a pass to commit actions (collusion, corruption, cronyism, espionage) while in the same conversation hold others accountable, based solely on political leanings? The very idea is breathtaking in it's moral decreptitude. Hold all accountable or hold none accountable. Both destroy the fabric on which the nation was created. Holding some accountable is simply weak partisan hackery.

well posted
all should be held accountable!