Hillary Clinton's email-SCANDAL!!!

Options
12346

Comments

  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNJLGfKO5uQ

    Little weiner
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    Fbi docs

    https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-01-of-04/view
  • Godfather.
    Godfather. Posts: 12,504
    JC29856 said:

    Fbi docs

    https://vault.fbi.gov/hillary-r.-clinton/hillary-r.-clinton-part-01-of-04/view

    I skimmed thru some of them, thanks' !
    best post on this topic so far.


    Godfather.

  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    edited November 2016
    image

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/JW-v-State-production-11-00684-pg-127-128.pdf
    Post edited by JC29856 on
  • pjalive21
    pjalive21 St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,818
    edited November 2016
    JC29856 said:

    image

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/JW-v-State-production-11-00684-pg-127-128.pdf

    :scream: wow
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,449
    edited November 2016
    funny how they focus on "pls print" when the subject line clearly states "not for circulation, you only". but that's not convenient to the narrative.
    Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall




  • pjalive21
    pjalive21 St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,818
    edited November 2016
    HughFreakingDillon said:

    funny how they focus on "pls print" when the subject line clearly states "not for circulation, you only". but that's not convenient to the narrative.

    My question on that is she even allowed to print this information? and was she even allowed to see this information? I honestly don't know....

    she forward that email to her yahoo addy too....yikes
  • mfc2006
    mfc2006 HTOWN Posts: 37,489
    nice that Movie Phone got a shout out. :lol:
    I LOVE MUSIC.
    www.cluthelee.com
    www.cluthe.com
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,650
    edited November 2016
    pjalive21 said:

    JC29856 said:

    image

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/JW-v-State-production-11-00684-pg-127-128.pdf

    :scream: wow
    Wow what? Is there reason to think that it was classified when it was emailed? To me it looks like the classified designation that's stamped on there was added after the fact. I mean, obviously that wasn't part of the original email. And I said days ago that any classified material was marked classified retroactively. When it was actually an email, it simply said confidential, which isn't a reason not to email it.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • HughFreakingDillon
    HughFreakingDillon Winnipeg Posts: 39,449
    PJ_Soul said:

    pjalive21 said:

    JC29856 said:

    image

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/JW-v-State-production-11-00684-pg-127-128.pdf

    :scream: wow
    Wow what? Is there reason to think that it was classified when it was emailed? To me it looks like the classified designation that's stamped on there was added after the fact. I mean, obviously that wasn't part of the original email. And I said days ago that any classified material was marked classified retroactively. When it was actually an email, it simply said confidential, which isn't a reason not to email it.
    excellent point. didn't notice that. it was deemed classified SIX YEARS after the email was sent.
    Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall




  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,650
    edited November 2016
    HughFreakingDillon said:

    PJ_Soul said:

    pjalive21 said:

    JC29856 said:

    image

    http://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/JW-v-State-production-11-00684-pg-127-128.pdf

    :scream: wow
    Wow what? Is there reason to think that it was classified when it was emailed? To me it looks like the classified designation that's stamped on there was added after the fact. I mean, obviously that wasn't part of the original email. And I said days ago that any classified material was marked classified retroactively. When it was actually an email, it simply said confidential, which isn't a reason not to email it.
    excellent point. didn't notice that. it was deemed classified SIX YEARS after the email was sent.
    Right. And it was classified on Oct 30, 3015. I guess we can assume that's a typo and was really classified on Oct 30, 2015. :lol:

    Anyway, this is why material like this being thrown around the internet is dangerous. It is misread by people and very serious judgments are made based on falsehoods.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • pjalive21
    pjalive21 St. Louis, MO Posts: 2,818
    edited November 2016
    x
    Post edited by pjalive21 on
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    pjalive21 said:

    HughFreakingDillon said:

    funny how they focus on "pls print" when the subject line clearly states "not for circulation, you only". but that's not convenient to the narrative.

    My question on that is she even allowed to print this information? and was she even allowed to see this information? I honestly don't know....

    she forward that email to her yahoo addy too....yikes
    That's part of the problem. This release by the FBI opens up a lot more questions than it answers. Questions they won't be able to answer before the election. Why would they comment on an on-going investigation? That they secured the warrant for 2 days later? Is Comey trying to save his neck, or cut himself off at the knees?
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,650
    pjalive21 said:

    HughFreakingDillon said:

    funny how they focus on "pls print" when the subject line clearly states "not for circulation, you only". but that's not convenient to the narrative.

    My question on that is she even allowed to print this information? and was she even allowed to see this information? I honestly don't know....

    she forward that email to her yahoo addy too....yikes
    Yes, she was allowed to print it because it wasn't classified.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • mace1229
    mace1229 Posts: 9,824
    I don't think the existence of classified material is as big of a deal as it has turned out to be. Others have used private emails before. What I don't get is why Clinton, or anyone else using her server, would think no classified information ever came through that server if it was used on a regular basis for work, whether it was classified at the time or later, you have to assumed it contained some.
    What I think is a serious matter that deserves serious judgments is her destruction of evidence. I've mentioned it before and some seem bothered by it, but most seem to think it is okay for someone under investigation to destroy evidence after receiving a subpoena to hand it over, The fact she did it says she thinks she is above the law, and the fact she has gotten away with it shows she was right to think so.
  • PJ_Soul
    PJ_Soul Vancouver, BC Posts: 50,650
    edited November 2016
    Well if it was classified at a later date, then it wasn't classified when it was emailed, so the issue of classified material is moot, no?
    If you mean confidential material, which is a much different thing, sure, the assumption would be there. She's not an idiot. Where her knowledge fell short, apparently, was in the assumption that a non-secure server was vulnerable. Obviously this was not malicious behaviour (god knows she regrets not using a secure server now!). She and everyone else was doing it because they were ignorant about internet security, along with most of the rest of the world. Yes, you'd think that the government and politicians in general would have been more aware of such things, and it's safe to assume that they are now.... but really, I can't think of anyone in their 60s who know the ins and outs of internet security unless they actually work in IT. I know it seems silly that even the Secretary of State wasn't particularly conscious about this, and it is, but at the same time, I honestly don't find it all that surprising either. And who the fuck was advising her? Whoever it was, they also dropped the ball. Well, lesson learned! I think the US government as a whole, and probably every other government on the face of the planet, have taken notes in response to this whole thing, and secure server companies are likely noticing an increase in revenue, lol.
    As for destruction of evidence... well, maybe she saw that it worked for George W. Bush and Cheney, so assume it would work for her too? That part of the story really just looks like a lot of "oops! I gotta fix this now!" kind of behaviour.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • JC29856
    JC29856 Posts: 9,617
    CM189191 said:

    ....any.....day....now.....

    T minus 4 hours and counting!
  • Boxes&Books
    Boxes&Books USA Posts: 2,672
    JC29856 said:

    CM189191 said:

    ....any.....day....now.....

    T minus 4 hours and counting!
    You beat me to it!
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    JC29856 said:

    CM189191 said:

    ....any.....day....now.....

    T minus 4 hours and counting!
    Yes we're all waiting....
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oci1CuCht7E
  • CM189191
    CM189191 Posts: 6,927
    JC29856 said:

    CM189191 said:

    ....any.....day....now.....

    T minus 4 hours and counting!
    missed yesterday
    image
This discussion has been closed.

Categories