Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 25 Apr 2016, 2:35 pm

rickyp wrote:fate

No. We KNOW she lied. The only question is why?

Hillary Clinton is not a paragon of virtue. But there has been ample scrutiny on this issue. And here's what she says in return...

"There have been seven investigations (of Benghazi) led mostly by Republicans in the Congress" that concluded "nobody did anything wrong, but there were changes we could make.
"

Clinton’s number is correct: there were seven previous congressional probes into the Benghazi attack. Saying these committees were led "mostly by Republicans" is also a fair assertion: the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs were the only two committees not led by Republicans. As for her comment that there was no overt wrongdoing, just room for improvement, that’s a rosy assessment. But it is also largely accurate. We rate this claim Mostly True


http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... es-so-far/

Only conspiracy nut bars continue to prattle on about this....
And Dag unfairly points to it as a "crime". A mis-characterization, perhaps even a lie, that her opponents are happy people like Dag make....because it shows how effective their campaign has been in smearing her unfairly.


You skirt issues like she does. Why did she lie to the families of the victims and to the American people?

Why should they trust her when she lied so blatantly?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 26 Apr 2016, 4:49 am

What's amazing to me is that she continues to refer to the FBI investigation as "a review." I guess she has to in order to downplay it. It's not a review. It's a criminal investigation.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Apr 2016, 5:42 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:What's amazing to me is that she continues to refer to the FBI investigation as "a review." I guess she has to in order to downplay it. It's not a review. It's a criminal investigation.


It doesn't amaze me.

She's lying. Liars lie. She's a liar. It's in her DNA.

She knows it's not a "review." But, it would not be near as dismissive if she called it an "investigation." This way she can talk about the FBI like they're her personal detail.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Apr 2016, 6:17 am

dag
What's amazing to me is that she continues to refer to the FBI investigation as "a review." I guess she has to in order to downplay it. It's not a review. It's a criminal investigation
.

I guess its right that she needs to downplay it politically.

However she is also right when she calls the State departments actions a review".
The State Department launched its own review in January after revealing during its review of more than 50,000 pages of email it had discovered 22 documents that had to be upgraded to “top secret” and withheld from the public. The review focuses on whether the information in those messages had been improperly handled at the time the emails were sent


And also right when she says the FBI investigation is not targeted at her specifically.
The FBI is investigating whether national security secrets were compromised by the use of Mrs. Clinton’s server and whether anyone violated criminal law through the use of the server.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/state-depar ... 1459548288

Since we know the Russians penetrated the official email servers of the State Department, its hard to imagine that Clinton using a private server would have been any more vulnerable. (her server held only a small part of the total correspondence that State's servers held..) And, we don't know that her server was hacked.... So maybe it was actually better... Or maybe the Russians figured once they got into State they had it all...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/ ... orst-ever/

So if the FBI is balancing its investigation with an investigation of all cyber security in State and throughout the government ..... it will find that the whole system is vulnerable. And needs upgrades.
And that the law that allowed Clinton to do what she and Powell did ... should be (and has been) changed.
And that's about it.
Not exactly criminal behavior is it Dag?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Apr 2016, 6:51 am

Rickyp, you spin so much, it would surprise me if you can stand.

rickyp wrote:dag
What's amazing to me is that she continues to refer to the FBI investigation as "a review." I guess she has to in order to downplay it. It's not a review. It's a criminal investigation
.

I guess its right that she needs to downplay it politically.

However she is also right when she calls the State departments actions a review".
The State Department launched its own review in January after revealing during its review of more than 50,000 pages of email it had discovered 22 documents that had to be upgraded to “top secret” and withheld from the public. The review focuses on whether the information in those messages had been improperly handled at the time the emails were sent


That has NOTHING to do with the FBI, however. With regard to that "investigation," she has consistently LIED. Thanks for dragging in the "review" of a department she used to head, has many "friends" still working at it, and which is utterly unrelated to the FBI.

And also right when she says the FBI investigation is not targeted at her specifically.
The FBI is investigating whether national security secrets were compromised by the use of Mrs. Clinton’s server and whether anyone violated criminal law through the use of the server.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/state-depar ... 1459548288


Actually, you don't know that. Providing a link doesn't tell us why they are giving immunity to Pagliano, why they are interviewing Clinton's closest associates, or why they are waiting to talk to her until last. All of that suggests she is the focus of their investigation.

Since we know the Russians penetrated the official email servers of the State Department, its hard to imagine that Clinton using a private server would have been any more vulnerable. (her server held only a small part of the total correspondence that State's servers held..) And, we don't know that her server was hacked.... So maybe it was actually better... Or maybe the Russians figured once they got into State they had it all...

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/ ... orst-ever/


Immaterial.

Besides that, her server had zero security for two months. Anyone could have hacked it then--or put spyware on it. She was clearly negligent. If you're suggesting the State Department is negligent, how would that make her negligence okay?

So if the FBI is balancing its investigation with an investigation of all cyber security in State and throughout the government ..... it will find that the whole system is vulnerable. And needs upgrades.


So, the answer is "homebrew servers!"

And that the law that allowed Clinton to do what she and Powell did ... should be (and has been) changed.


Powell sent a handful from a private account. Clinton sent many, many thousands. Powell never had a private server. Clinton insisted on one. Powell used a secured PC when at State Dept offices. Clinton refused. #perspective.

And that's about it.
Not exactly criminal behavior is it Dag?


If it is as simple and harmless as you make it out to be, how is the FBI spending so much time investigating it?

Please, do explain. You seem to "know" more than any source out there. You "know" she is innocent. What exactly is the FBI doing? Why offer immunity?

And, since you know so much, why did Hillary lie to the American people about Benghazi?

The documents finally released to Judicial Watch by the State Department confirm that, even as the attack was still raging, Clinton told Mohammed Magariaf, then-president of Libya’s stand-in government, “[T] here is a gun battle ongoing, which I understand Ansar as-Sharia is claiming responsibility for.” (See here – scroll to transcript of Clinton-Magariaf 9/11/12 call, finally disclosed by State Department to Judicial Watch on March 7, 2016. In the transcript, Ansar al-Sharia is spelled “Ansar as-Sharia,” a common English rendering of the transliterated Arabic.)

Moreover, in the hours after the siege, Clinton told her daughter Chelsea that the attack had been staged by “an al-Qaeda-like group” – a fact we know only because the Judicial Watch lawsuit finally forced the administration to release Clinton’s email to her daughter.


You won't answer that, will you? It's too difficult to even try to explain such blatant deception.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Apr 2016, 11:33 am

Fate
All of that suggests she is the focus of their investigation.

To you. And the web sites you read.

Fate
If you're suggesting the State Department is negligent, how would that make her negligence okay
?
I'm not suggesting anything.
I'm offering you evidence that the State Department servers were hacked.
There is no evidence on offer that Clinton's were...
However it does seem to make the issue of "negligence" moot.

Fate
Powell never had a private server

he used an AOL account...
As we all know, AOL was a leader in secure communications...

Fate
If it is as simple and harmless as you make it out to be, how is the FBI spending so much time investigating it?

I think cyber security is a pretty important issue.
I suspect that the FBI does too.
However, since cyber security issues pervade State and other Washington systems, its pretty hard to see how the very limited contribution to insecurity that Clinton's private server may or may not have made is in any way criminal or in fact in any way a major problem. Hacking the entire State email system is far more important in the context of security....
Hacking of the Pentagons system, which has also been done, is also considerably more important.

http://www.dw.com/en/russia-suspected-o ... a-18633386

Solve the problem of private servers by eliminating their use legally. Oh, that's been done.
Solve the problem at State ... probably more difficult. And until solved, means the current Secretary may be operating less securely than Clinton was...
Again, making the issue of negligence moot...

Fate
If it is as simple and harmless as you make it out to be, how is the FBI spending so much time investigating it?

The Administration, including Clinton, got some details wrong in their public statements in the immediate aftermath of the event. So what? That only matters to ODS and CDS types.
Its not like they invaded a country based on trumped up evidence.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Apr 2016, 1:55 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
All of that suggests she is the focus of their investigation.

To you. And the web sites you read.


You're pretty funny. Provide an alternate theory for the person Clinton hired to install her server (and who subsequently was hired by State) to take the Fifth and then be offered immunity. Go ahead.

Oh, and why are they talking to all of Clinton's associates before they talk to her?

Fate
If you're suggesting the State Department is negligent, how would that make her negligence okay
?
I'm not suggesting anything.
I'm offering you evidence that the State Department servers were hacked.
There is no evidence on offer that Clinton's were...
However it does seem to make the issue of "negligence" moot.


Oh, so an absence of evidence is "proof?"

You're a Clintonite to the bone!

Fate
Powell never had a private server

he used an AOL account...
As we all know, AOL was a leader in secure communications...


How many private emails did he send? How many did she send?

Was he told not to do what he did and then did it anyway? Did he refuse to turn over all his emails?

Fate
If it is as simple and harmless as you make it out to be, how is the FBI spending so much time investigating it?

I think cyber security is a pretty important issue.
I suspect that the FBI does too.


Do you have ANY evidence at all that the FBI is not conducting a criminal investigation? Do they offer immunity during security reviews?

However, since cyber security issues pervade State and other Washington systems, its pretty hard to see how the very limited contribution to insecurity that Clinton's private server may or may not have made is in any way criminal or in fact in any way a major problem. Hacking the entire State email system is far more important in the context of security....
Hacking of the Pentagons system, which has also been done, is also considerably more important.


Smoke meet screen.

Solve the problem of private servers by eliminating their use legally. Oh, that's been done.
Solve the problem at State ... probably more difficult. And until solved, means the current Secretary may be operating less securely than Clinton was...
Again, making the issue of negligence moot...


No, not really. She didn't comply with regulations, the law, or even common sense. She thought the Secret Service guarding her home was security enough for the server. She refused to use secure comms even in restricted areas.

Fate
If it is as simple and harmless as you make it out to be, how is the FBI spending so much time investigating it?

The Administration, including Clinton, got some details wrong in their public statements in the immediate aftermath of the event. So what? That only matters to ODS and CDS types.
Its not like they invaded a country based on trumped up evidence.


More smokescreen!

You actually know she destroyed evidence and you believe she's guilty. That's why you keep bringing irrelevant garbage into your comments. You simply hope they won't be able to prove anything.

Good luck.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 26 Apr 2016, 2:33 pm

Fate
Oh, so an absence of evidence is "proof?
"

You are trying to asserting that Clinton's servers were hacked and security compromised.
The absence of evidence that her servers were hacked destroys your assertion.

Fate
Do you have ANY evidence at all that the FBI is not conducting a criminal investigation

According to the Wall Street Journal...

[quote]The FBI is investigating whether national security secrets were compromised by the use of Mrs. Clinton’s server and whether anyone violated criminal law through the use of the server[/quote

That's a lot different then "they are investigating Clinton"...
If they determine that no national security secrets were compromised ...this goes away.
And it will.

I'm not a huge fan of Hillary. Up to me I'd vote for Bernie in the Primary.... But she's still going to be the next president and the FBI isn't going to get involved in the election process on a slim technicality... Which is the best that really exists...(Obama has already said that nothing classified was on her server and he can declassify anything he wants, by the way...)

Since cyber security is an issue everywhere in Washington... It would be perverse and hypocritical to hold her to a standard that State hasn't been able to maintain on its official servers..
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 26 Apr 2016, 7:12 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
Oh, so an absence of evidence is "proof?
"

You are trying to asserting that Clinton's servers were hacked and security compromised.
The absence of evidence that her servers were hacked destroys your assertion.


Um, no. I didn't.

Fate
Do you have ANY evidence at all that the FBI is not conducting a criminal investigation

According to the Wall Street Journal...

The FBI is investigating whether national security secrets were compromised by the use of Mrs. Clinton’s server and whether anyone violated criminal law through the use of the server


No, it's not. It's only "different" if you ignore the fact that it is her server--and that the order in which they are interviewing people tells you who is the focus.

I'll make it easy: anyone else gets indicted or charged and Hillary doesn't get indicted or charged, I'll give you $100. However, if anyone is charged and she is included, you give me $20. Deal?

That's a lot different then "they are investigating Clinton"...
If they determine that no national security secrets were compromised ...this goes away.
And it will.


Maybe. Then again, OJ was found innocent. Was he?

If she's not indicted and the evidence begins leaking, she will be OJ times 10. She's corrupt. She's a liar. Everyone knows this except you. Even she knows it. She's just used to others cleaning up her messes. Hopefully, she won't escape justice this time.

Put your money on a proven liar then.
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 27 Apr 2016, 5:03 pm

I suppose this is yesterday's news to most of you here but I thought I heard Guccifer was recently extradited to the US and is now part of the FBI investigation? I wonder why no one seems to be picking this up, especially the conservative TV and radio channels?

https://pando.com/2015/03/20/exclusive-interview-jailed-hacker-guccifer-boasts-i-used-to-read-hillarys-memos-for-six-seven-hours-and-then-do-the-gardening/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 28 Apr 2016, 12:15 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:I suppose this is yesterday's news to most of you here but I thought I heard Guccifer was recently extradited to the US and is now part of the FBI investigation? I wonder why no one seems to be picking this up, especially the conservative TV and radio channels?

https://pando.com/2015/03/20/exclusive-interview-jailed-hacker-guccifer-boasts-i-used-to-read-hillarys-memos-for-six-seven-hours-and-then-do-the-gardening/

Did you read that in full? He seems a bit crackers
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 28 Apr 2016, 9:13 pm

Danivon,

All these players are cookoo. But that doesn't mean the nut job isn't telling the truth right? The FBI extradited him. Surely they have their reasons for spending the money to do so?

dh
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 29 Apr 2016, 5:14 am

dag hammarsjkold wrote:Danivon,

All these players are cookoo. But that doesn't mean the nut job isn't telling the truth right? The FBI extradited him. Surely they have their reasons for spending the money to do so?

dh

Because he hacked Colin Powell and basically cyber-stalked him as part of his obsession over an Illuminatu-based link to a Romanian woman?
User avatar
Emissary
 
Posts: 1543
Joined: 15 Oct 2002, 9:34 pm

Post 22 Jul 2016, 10:34 pm

There is no way these grade A @#$! from the DNC are going to get away with this.

Wiki leaks (compliments of the Russians), has just now released a treasure trove of information pointing to the fact that the DNC absolutely conspired to stop the Berndog so that Hillary would win the nomination.

https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/

I hope Debbie Wasserman Schultz goes to hell holding hands with Luiz Miranda.

This is some shit. And there better be some fallout over it.

And 30,000 emails gone missing? All supposedly "personal?" No. How about a few of those were directions to Schultz? I'd bet my left testicle on it.

The Hillary Victory Fund is yet another debacle in DNC politics. These were dollars that were supposed to go to all the state parties but only 1% has been released. The remainder of those dollars mysteriously went to the Clinton campaign.

Oh and lest I forget, @#$! George Clooney and Alice Walton while you're at it.

The Berndog never had a fighting chance. How unjust, unfair and flat out wrong. A man who should have won the nomination had to swallow hard and endorse this criminal. What a laugh the DNC Schultz and Miranda must have had watching that take place.

Poor Berndog should withdraw his support immediately. In fact, I think the bdog is now obligated to run as a third party. He owes that much to us.

People had a laugh over the GOP convention? The DNC conventions is an absolute lie. This country is nuts. I can't believe we let these ass clowns get away with this.

@#$! John Stewart too! What a prick.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 23 Jul 2016, 2:13 am

Pardon me if I am wrong about this, but isn't Sanders an Independent who has not been a registered Democrat in over 30 years? Who has run against (and beaten) Democrats? He does caucus with them in Congress, but is not in the Party and often votes against the Democratic leaders line.

Does a party have to be "fair" to an outsider seeking nomination, when there are party members going for the same slot? Perhaps the Republicans will wish they had done more to block Trump's entryism.