Hillary won more votes for President

Kat

I don't think she'll start WWIII either and she wasn't the only one scolded in that State Dept. report. She's already said she wished she hadn't done it that way.

PJ_Soul

Kat said:

I don't think she'll start WWIII either and she wasn't the only one scolded in that State Dept. report. She's already said she wished she hadn't done it that way.

Pobody's nerfect I guess.
It is too bad that Hillary seems to have done a few things that gave her opponents so much fuel for the fire. I personally don't think that any of those things are completely egregious, and 100% believe that her opposition is blowing it all so far out of proportion that they are basically lying through their teeth. And Republicans are eating it up like crazy, to the point where they think Trump would be a better option. It's nuts.

mrussel1

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

I don't like trump, I don't think he would make a great president. But I don't fear him being president as much as I fear Clinton and her decisions. I think donations they tried to hide with the Clinton Foundation are even worse and that include uranium ore deals with the Russians. She's willing to sell our national security for her own benefit.

You fear Clinton more than the guy threatening to use nukes during his campaign???
That seems irrational to me.

Yes, I fear the lady with zero regard to national security and selling uranium to Russians for personal gain and allowing the Russians to become the nuclear supergiant more than the guy who rambles off irrational stuff that he wont follow through with because he just likes to talk scary. Seems rational to me.

I'm sorry, where has she sold uranium for personal gain?

BS44325

Kat said:

I don't think she'll start WWIII either and she wasn't the only one scolded in that State Dept. report. She's already said she wished she hadn't done it that way.

She broke the law.

mrussel1

BS44325 said:

Kat said:

I don't think she'll start WWIII either and she wasn't the only one scolded in that State Dept. report. She's already said she wished she hadn't done it that way.

She broke the law.

Here in the States, we have a police force that investigates, a DA that chooses to prosecute, a trial by your peers, and then a decision. Although we fail at it sometimes, we all know that trial in media isn't the way to go. But thanks for your decision.

BS44325

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:

I don't think she'll start WWIII either and she wasn't the only one scolded in that State Dept. report. She's already said she wished she hadn't done it that way.

She broke the law.

Here in the States, we have a police force that investigates, a DA that chooses to prosecute, a trial by your peers, and then a decision. Although we fail at it sometimes, we all know that trial in media isn't the way to go. But thanks for your decision.

The Inspector General stated that she broke the Federal Records Act. The FBI will continue to investigate and decide whether to prosecute. I understand that you're all in for Hillary but am still slightly surprised how willing you are to sweep this transgression under the rug.

BS44325

https://youtu.be/Lvsq-9h0BRU

Put her in charge of National Security!

mrussel1

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:

I don't think she'll start WWIII either and she wasn't the only one scolded in that State Dept. report. She's already said she wished she hadn't done it that way.

She broke the law.

Here in the States, we have a police force that investigates, a DA that chooses to prosecute, a trial by your peers, and then a decision. Although we fail at it sometimes, we all know that trial in media isn't the way to go. But thanks for your decision.

The Inspector General stated that she broke the Federal Records Act. The FBI will continue to investigate and decide whether to prosecute. I understand that you're all in for Hillary but am still slightly surprised how willing you are to sweep this transgression under the rug.

I don't think that's what he said. He said the she did not follow departmental processes that were designed to be in accordance with Federal Records Act. There's a big difference and if you work or have ever worked in a regulated environment, then you understand what I'm saying.

For example, say I designed a process at work that is implemented to ensure I never violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). However, one month the process failed to run properly. The good news is, that I didn't report inaccurate information on anyone's credit report. My failure to execute violated the protocol designed to protect, but since there was no inaccurate information reported, I did not violate the act. That's how I interpret it. The IG is not saying that the any classified information was in open space or breached, only that internal protocol was violated. I don't know the records act, but I would guess there has to be damage as that's how all federal statutes are generally written.

mrussel1

^^ and honestly, compared to the other two available candidates, I hardly think this would be a disqualifying action. I've said before I would have rather seen Biden, but that wasn't in the cards.

BS44325

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:

I don't think she'll start WWIII either and she wasn't the only one scolded in that State Dept. report. She's already said she wished she hadn't done it that way.

She broke the law.

Here in the States, we have a police force that investigates, a DA that chooses to prosecute, a trial by your peers, and then a decision. Although we fail at it sometimes, we all know that trial in media isn't the way to go. But thanks for your decision.

The Inspector General stated that she broke the Federal Records Act. The FBI will continue to investigate and decide whether to prosecute. I understand that you're all in for Hillary but am still slightly surprised how willing you are to sweep this transgression under the rug.

I don't think that's what he said. He said the she did not follow departmental processes that were designed to be in accordance with Federal Records Act. There's a big difference and if you work or have ever worked in a regulated environment, then you understand what I'm saying.

For example, say I designed a process at work that is implemented to ensure I never violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). However, one month the process failed to run properly. The good news is, that I didn't report inaccurate information on anyone's credit report. My failure to execute violated the protocol designed to protect, but since there was no inaccurate information reported, I did not violate the act. That's how I interpret it. The IG is not saying that the any classified information was in open space or breached, only that internal protocol was violated. I don't know the records act, but I would guess there has to be damage as that's how all federal statutes are generally written.

There were attempted hacks on her system. She was obligated to report those hacks. She failed to report those hacks.

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/25/hillary-clinton-failed-report-several-hacking-atte/

Her actions jeopardized national security.

rgambs

Kat said:

I don't think she'll start WWIII either and she wasn't the only one scolded in that State Dept. report. She's already said she wished she hadn't done it that way.

This.

Also, the uranium thing isn't such a big deal, Russia is already a nuclear superpower, in case you didn't know.

rgambs

mace1229 said:

What Clinton has done is real, has actually happened and not just threats. Trump is just talk.

He's talk now, but he's a true egomaniac...if he's elected and the whole world is disrespecting him like they did Bush...

Godfather.

PJ_Soul said:

Kat said:

I don't think she'll start WWIII either and she wasn't the only one scolded in that State Dept. report. She's already said she wished she hadn't done it that way.

Pobody's nerfect I guess.
It is too bad that Hillary seems to have done a few things that gave her opponents so much fuel for the fire. I personally don't think that any of those things are completely egregious, and 100% believe that her opposition is blowing it all so far out of proportion that they are basically lying through their teeth. And Republicans are eating it up like crazy, to the point where they think Trump would be a better option. It's nuts.

mud slinging is huge ! epically this close to election and honestly I don't know how much of it is true or not but in the end it's all designed to sway your vote, all of it, and sad thing about it is we are the one's eating that shit up, I see comments about all the candidates that are "as seen on T.V" or the trusty interweb and we really have no idea other than what the media wants us to know or hear, we are all guilty of it and we all get mad at that damn candidate when the T.V tells us to.......we are all prisoners to the media in that since, I say we should vote with our heat and gut, what's the difference if it's our choice or the media's ? answer: it's our good decision or mistake to make, it get's so out of hand that we attack each other over the views and opinions told to us by the media, how smart are we ??? does anybody else see this ??

Godfather.

Free

Let's just keep making excuses for Clinton and keep ignoring everything that's going on...

It doesn't look good that she's refusing another agreed to debate w/ Sanders in CA, and that Sanders and Trump will debate. What is she afraid of? Hmmm

what dreams

BS44325 said:

Kat said:

I don't think she'll start WWIII either and she wasn't the only one scolded in that State Dept. report. She's already said she wished she hadn't done it that way.

She broke the law.

The IG report doesn't say she broke the law. It said she didn't follow policy . . . Huge difference.

what dreams

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

mrussel1 said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:

I don't think she'll start WWIII either and she wasn't the only one scolded in that State Dept. report. She's already said she wished she hadn't done it that way.

She broke the law.

Here in the States, we have a police force that investigates, a DA that chooses to prosecute, a trial by your peers, and then a decision. Although we fail at it sometimes, we all know that trial in media isn't the way to go. But thanks for your decision.

The Inspector General stated that she broke the Federal Records Act. The FBI will continue to investigate and decide whether to prosecute. I understand that you're all in for Hillary but am still slightly surprised how willing you are to sweep this transgression under the rug.

I don't think that's what he said. He said the she did not follow departmental processes that were designed to be in accordance with Federal Records Act. There's a big difference and if you work or have ever worked in a regulated environment, then you understand what I'm saying.

For example, say I designed a process at work that is implemented to ensure I never violate the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). However, one month the process failed to run properly. The good news is, that I didn't report inaccurate information on anyone's credit report. My failure to execute violated the protocol designed to protect, but since there was no inaccurate information reported, I did not violate the act. That's how I interpret it. The IG is not saying that the any classified information was in open space or breached, only that internal protocol was violated. I don't know the records act, but I would guess there has to be damage as that's how all federal statutes are generally written.

I understand what you're saying. I work for a govt institutions with computer use policies. For example, I'm not supposed to do personal stuff on my school computer, and if I use my home computer for school business, I know it's subject to subpoena. Yes, sometimes I violate the policy. I better not ever run for president . . .

As for Clinton's breaches of security . . . I can't imagine the Clintons hired some regular old Joe to install their server. I imagine they hired the best money could buy. Her server is probably more secure than say, the CIA who got hacked by the Chinese or any of the other govt institutions that have recently been compromised.

This latest news cycle is just another big yawn, in my view. I've read the posted articles here thinking I was going to learn something new, something to nail the coffin . . . but I didn't. Just another desperate attempt by the RNC Anti-Hillary Committee and the corporate media to keep a pretty boring story alive.

mace1229

mrussel1 said:

mace1229 said:

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

I don't like trump, I don't think he would make a great president. But I don't fear him being president as much as I fear Clinton and her decisions. I think donations they tried to hide with the Clinton Foundation are even worse and that include uranium ore deals with the Russians. She's willing to sell our national security for her own benefit.

You fear Clinton more than the guy threatening to use nukes during his campaign???
That seems irrational to me.

Yes, I fear the lady with zero regard to national security and selling uranium to Russians for personal gain and allowing the Russians to become the nuclear supergiant more than the guy who rambles off irrational stuff that he wont follow through with because he just likes to talk scary. Seems rational to me.

I'm sorry, where has she sold uranium for personal gain?

Even though she has promised full disclosure with the Clinton Foundation, there have been several cases where donors were not revealed. Donors that have links to foreign organizations, and organizations that needed her approval as SoS who made millions in donations that she tried to keep hidden, even though she had promised all donations would be revealed.

Donations were made to the foundation as well as ridiculous "speaking fees" by companies and individuals who were directly involved with business with Hilary as Secretary. These donations were not make public as required, but were funneled through other sources to try and keep it secret. Unfortunately as soon as they are reported, most of the media just sweeps it under the rug.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/23/us/politics/election-clinton-foundation.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html?action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Dirtie_Frank

what dreams said:

BS44325 said:

Kat said:

I don't think she'll start WWIII either and she wasn't the only one scolded in that State Dept. report. She's already said she wished she hadn't done it that way.

She broke the law.

The IG report doesn't say she broke the law. It said she didn't follow policy . . . Huge difference.

Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code make it unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email.

Dirtie_Frank

I am just waiting for people to say well Colin Powell did it and the IG said that the rules were more fluid during Powells time. If everyone recalls email is still new in the grand scheme of things.

The rules were made clear by the time she became the nation’s top diplomat that using a private server for official business was neither allowed nor encouraged because of “significant security risks.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/26/us/politics/state-department-hillary-clinton-emails.html?_r=0

inmyNC

A lot of New York Times links. NY times has been very bias in favor of a more left point of view. Almost as bad as Fox News is the other way around.