New Posts
By:
Filters
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

So lefty. Since you are so quiet on the matter

Alinvegas said:
Should Hillary be indicted for using her personal email account to transmit confidential/secret emails?
Click to expand...

So far, as near as I know, she did not transmit one single email that was classified at the time she sent it. Some have been reclassified since....but I would doubt you can indict someone based on that.

If anything she may have violated the legislation related to the archival of government records. If she is indicted should the 80 or so White House appointees who used the RNC email server from 2001 to 2009 also be indicted?
 
middleview said:
So far, as near as I know, she did not transmit one single email that was classified at the time she sent it. Some have been reclassified since....but I would doubt you can indict someone based on that.

If anything she may have violated the legislation related to the archival of government records. If she is indicted should the 80 or so White House appointees who used the RNC email server from 2001 to 2009 also be indicted?
Click to expand...
All of that text and you couldn't be bothered to answer his question?
 
middleview said:
Sure thing, Connie.....attack those you disagree with, call them names and by all means...never ever use a fact in your posts....
Click to expand...


I use lots of facts in my posts. Generally I don't call names though. I didn't even call you a name. I was simply humorously pointing out - how your posts was very pee wee herman, I know you are but what am I - esq.

I didn't reply to you. I replied to someone else. You went of your way to post snark to me, now you want to whine about being butthurt over my making fun of your juvenile remark......dude.. man up already.


connie
 
connieb said:
I use lots of facts in my posts. Generally I don't call names though. I didn't even call you a name. I was simply humorously pointing out - how your posts was very pee wee herman, I know you are but what am I - esq.

I didn't reply to you. I replied to someone else. You went of your way to post snark to me, now you want to whine about being butthurt over my making fun of your juvenile remark......dude.. man up already.


connie
Click to expand...

Sure thing, Connie...calling me Peewee isn't an insult at all, and I'm sure you meant pathetic as a complement.

....So try to get your jockstrap unstuck and man up....why get so defensive?

Oh, and what you call facts are opinions....there is a difference. For instance...it is a fact that emails sent by Clinton were not classified as of the date she sent them. If you have evidence counter to that let me know...

It is also a fact that Karl Rove and about 80 other White House appointees used the RNC email server for government business. That would have been in violation of legislation related to government records archival. In addition those emails were material to the investigation of the Plame scandal as well as the firing of 8 DOJ prosecutors for political purposes in 2005. They were deleted...interfering in the investigation. If Clinton is indicted why would you be against indicting the republicans?
 
middleview said:
Sure thing, Connie...calling me Peewee isn't an insult at all, and I'm sure you meant pathetic as a complement.

....So try to get your jockstrap unstuck and man up....why get so defensive?

Oh, and what you call facts are opinions....there is a difference. For instance...it is a fact that emails sent by Clinton were not classified as of the date she sent them. If you have evidence counter to that let me know...

It is also a fact that Karl Rove and about 80 other White House appointees used the RNC email server for government business. That would have been in violation of legislation related to government records archival. In addition those emails were material to the investigation of the Plame scandal as well as the firing of 8 DOJ prosecutors for political purposes in 2005. They were deleted...interfering in the investigation. If Clinton is indicted why would you be against indicting the republicans?
Click to expand...

No pathetic was not a compliment - it was to relay my opinion of your ridiculous pee wee herman esque = I know you are but what am I post. That was juvenile and well.... pathetic. I didn't "call you" pee wee herman. I pointed out how your response was much like him. Try to keep up dude........ Which was the LOL, etc afterwards. In case you didn't get that - it means laughing out loud.

I have no idea why you persist in thinking that what Karl Rove, or any member of the disgraced Bush administration has to do with what is happening - to day in present time. But, hey if the statute of limitations is still open on their crimes - hey - fry em up!

As far as "facts", the facts are Clinton is supposed to know what is deemed classified - when it was sent or received - which is why she has thrown this little caveat of marked classified in her latest denials. But, whether or not something is "marked' as classified, does not change whether or not it WAS classified. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

Of particular interest is this nugget "The findings of the Reuters review are separate from the recent analysis by the inspector general for U.S. intelligence agencies, who said last month that his office found four emails that contained classified government secrets at the time they were sent in a sample of 40 emails not yet made public."


This is several months old, and more has come out since then but it explains it pretty well, with you know.. facts.
 
4/15 said:
News today says no illegal use of E mail or any other problems with Hillary; from the US Government.
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter.

Eight Benghazi investigations, including the findings of the GOP House members themselves, debunked all the Benghazi lies.

And the GOP cultists just keep right on telling the lies. Truth never enters the right wing echo chamber.
 
YES, months back...........they are ickets when other libs screw u:
middleview said:
So far, as near as I know, she did not transmit one single email that was classified at the time she sent it. Some have been reclassified since....but I would doubt you can indict someone based on that.

If anything she may have violated the legislation related to the archival of government records. If she is indicted should the 80 or so White House appointees who used the RNC email server from 2001 to 2009 also be indicted?
Click to expand...

If she's ignorant of Top Secret/Secret emails, how could you support such ignorance............

You can't post with out going back to 2001...............
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jen
RickWA said:
Once again, Bugs does NOT answer the question posed in the post - and demands a question of his own be answered.

Nutty stuff.
Click to expand...

Translation: That bastid has a lot of nerve asking what statute you claim she may have violated. We wingers just like mindlessly shouting "Criminal!" It's so gratifying, no?

;-)
 
connieb said:
No pathetic was not a compliment - it was to relay my opinion of your ridiculous pee wee herman esque = I know you are but what am I post. That was juvenile and well.... pathetic. I didn't "call you" pee wee herman. I pointed out how your response was much like him. Try to keep up dude........ Which was the LOL, etc afterwards. In case you didn't get that - it means laughing out loud.

I have no idea why you persist in thinking that what Karl Rove, or any member of the disgraced Bush administration has to do with what is happening - to day in present time. But, hey if the statute of limitations is still open on their crimes - hey - fry em up!

As far as "facts", the facts are Clinton is supposed to know what is deemed classified - when it was sent or received - which is why she has thrown this little caveat of marked classified in her latest denials. But, whether or not something is "marked' as classified, does not change whether or not it WAS classified. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-clinton-emails-idUSKCN0QQ0BW20150821

Of particular interest is this nugget "The findings of the Reuters review are separate from the recent analysis by the inspector general for U.S. intelligence agencies, who said last month that his office found four emails that contained classified government secrets at the time they were sent in a sample of 40 emails not yet made public."


This is several months old, and more has come out since then but it explains it pretty well, with you know.. facts.
Click to expand...

You didn't "call me pww wee herman"? Since your attention span doesn't go back as far as one day, let me remind you:

OMG Pee Wee Herman has joined us everyone.... Lol Pathetic MV, even for you.
So it is acceptable for you to imply none of those who disagree with you have received talking points, but for me to say that it is clear you've gotten yours is pathetic. It is a matter of opinion to say you are parroting the RNC party line....I say you are with not a single deviation.

As far as what is classified...you are wrong. I've had a clearance that was Top Secret SIOP ESI.....At the time I could not tell you what my clearance was unless you had a Top Secret clearance. I had to sit and read instructions on handling classified information in a vault for two solid days. No...If a document is not marked classified, secret or top secret....It defaults to unclassified.

My reason for bringing up Karl Rove and the 80 or so White House staff who used the RNC email server....I just thought I'd point out the hypocrisy....republicans weren't upset at all when it was their own who used a private server.....Those emails were deleted and none could be recovered....meanwhile we have tens of thousands of emails Hillary sent or received....
 
Rouge Rover said:
This is not true and it's also not what Hillary and her staff are accused of doing.
Click to expand...

The only time it isn't true is when it contained information related to weapons technology, targeting, strategic planning, tactical operations....etc.

The Reuters article implies that any time you hear something from a foreign source it is classified. That is bullshit. If it were true then every conversation with someone who works for a foreign government would be classified.....by the way...classified is the lowest security rating available and has the fewest rules related to use.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top