Post removed

[WhiteTara]

1. Link?

[OKNancy]

2. Horse Manure

[Joob]

54. Ok, Nancy.

We're just trying to avoid the first woman president being the most corrupt.


It's all going to come out sooner or later.

[MFM008]

3. confirmed

I still dont care.

[roguevalley]

44. I do. If she is indicted its criminal, not civil. She will have to surrender to arrest, get books an

fingerprinted. Then there is the mug shot. Imagine what Trump could do with a mug shot of our nominee? Saying it won't happen just because you don't want it won't prevent it. If it comes, that will be the outcome. Who is ready for that shit?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

4. Nothing surprises me when it comes to Hillary's disregard for security protocol... obviously unqualified to conduct foreign policy.

Why Bernie is the right candidate at the right time... he's the steady hand, who knows how to handle classified information and will not overreact and get us into unnecessary wars, like Hillary.

Besides, Bernie will destroy the Trumpster fire in the general.

Bernie & Elizabeth 2016!!!

[billymike]

5. really, now:

link?

[Henhouse]

6. Wow...She "broke rules"...n/t

[Tarc]

7. I don't see anything "confirmed" in the OP; just a regurgitation of 2 weeks' worth of talking points

[merrily]

8. Nothing is "confirmed" about all the posts today about Bernie's expenditures, so I trust you will

post accordingly on all those threads.

But, yes, a government report did confirm that Hillary was wrong.

[Tarc]

10. Being wrong is not a crime

At most, we're in "tsk tsk, Hill" territoty, with regards to Emailgate. No "gross negligence", no Espionage Act, no RICO, or whatever absurdities y'all have pulled up with lately.

[bahrbearian]

11. "Vote for me I made a mistake, I made a mistake , I will always make mistakes , so what"

[Chezboo]

12. Don't hold your breath. nt

[merrily]

13. Try addressing what I actually posted, instead of "refuting" something I did not post

[Tarc]

15. You posted som off-toic bellyaching about campaign expenditures, then said

"a government report did confirm that Hillary was wrong".

Don't hurt yourself on the backpedal, mr. merry.

[merrily]

17. Again, try addressing what I posted.

Backpedal from what? Do you even know what you're saying?

[Tarc]

29. I did address it

I have no idea where your obtuseness is coming from.

[merrily]

32. Mischaracterizing what I posted is not addressing it. If you have nothing to say in response to what

I actually posted, you might think about not clicking on reply

[Tarc]

35. Let's see...

Nothing is "confirmed" about all the posts today about Bernie's expenditures, so I trust you will post accordingly on all those threads.

A non sequitur which I chose to ignore, as it had no bearing on the present topic.

But, yes, a government report did confirm that Hillary was wrong.

To which I responded "being wrong is not a crime."

Ever since, you have been crying about how I didn't address the post, when, as anyone can see, I quite did.

By all means though, keep digging; your hole is getting deep.

[merrily]

36. Repeating your mischaracterization and straw man responses is supposed to do what, exactly?

Dude, just stop clicking on reply.

[Tarc]

39. I don't understand why you continue to commit this fraud, but you do what do you, brah

If you wish to stop dodging, gimme a holler.

[leveymg]

21. Yes, but mishandling classified information is a felony

Many, many counts of violation of 18 USC Sec 793 subsections (e) and (f) apply to her negligent and guilty mind acts we've been reading about in the NYT, WaPo, etc. since March 2015.

[Tarc]

30. Material classified after the fact cannot be mishandled

You're falling back on claims debunked many months ago. Desperation sinking in?

[Jester Messiah]

49. Incorrect.

If it is deemed later to have been classified, then it was classified from the get-go.

[annavictorious]

53. That's not how it works.

The Sanders side needs to publish a handbook of contorted logic for those of us in the reality based world.

[pangaia]

27. Voting to invade the wrong country was a crime against humanity.

Of course, on the other hand, it wasn't illegal.

[merrily]

38. Her iraq War vote alone should have disqualified her. Same for her foreign policy.

Combine those with her low honesty, trustworthy and likeability ratings then get down on your knees and thank whatever power you believe in that the Republicans didn't nominate anyone better than Trump. And then there were all the, um, untruths she told to, among other things, cover up over the emails and server.

Jaysus.

[Zambero]

9. Any other cabinet level official has done the same

Ever since the internet was available for communications. In their capacity they exercise personal judgment on what is secure and confidential or otherwise. But wait, Hillary Clinton is running for president. Let's single her out and blow it up out of proportion in order to score political points. Republicans are adept at using distractions tin order to win elections this way after all. What, you mean to say that certain "progressives" are jumping on board the Howdy Dowdy brigade, and engaging in this brand of Swift boating as well?

[Autumn]

14. Wrong. She is the only one to route State emails through her personal, private server

in order to avoid FOIA requests.

[Autumn]

19. I read the report, in my opinion it seems obvious to me that's why she did it.

And that hasn't yet been proved to be right...or wrong.

[Tarc]

31. "...in my opinion..."

Ok, Professor.

[Autumn]

33. It's my opinion. I'm sure you have one too.

[merrily]

40. Seems highly likely. We know the one device excuse was false.

Besides, who gets to do what they want simply because they find doing what they want easier than doing what they are supposed to do?

Hard to think what else motivated wiping the server.

[Autumn]

46. And weren't concerned people told never to speak of her personal email server again?

Yes they were, had to look it up

Two staff in S/ES-IRM reported to OIG that, in late 2010, they each discussed their concerns about Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal email account in separate meetings with the then-Director of S/ES-IRM,” claims one section of the report.

In one meeting, one staff member raised concerns that information sent and received on Secretary Clinton’s account could contain Federal records that needed to be preserved in order to satisfy Federal recordkeeping requirements. According to the staff member, the Director stated that the Secretary’s personal system had been reviewed and approved by Department legal staff and that the matter was not to be discussed any further. As previously noted, OIG found no evidence that staff in the Office of the Legal Adviser reviewed or approved Secretary Clinton’s personal system. According to the other S/ES-IRM staff member who raised concerns about the server, the Director stated that the mission of S/ES-IRM is to support the Secretary and instructed the staff never to speak of the Secretary’s personal email system again.

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/2842429/ESP-16-03-Final.pdf

[merrily]

50. Obviously, they thought it was wrong. Who am I to argue with Secretary Clinton, a trained attorney

with years in federal government, in one capacity or another?

[floppyboo]

24. At least she didn't 'shred the constitution' LOL!!!

[merrily]

41. OMG

[floppyboo]

47. I was considering starting an new OP with this

but the reaction would be too predictable. Must be a RW source! Oh, or is it?

[merrily]

48. I think you should. Start it in the Sanders Group if you wish, but please do start it.

[floppyboo]

51. done

[merrily]

52. Great.

[libdem4life]

55. Yes, all videos are VRWC. Now, what was the question? LOL.

[JesterCS]

20. This excuse is getting old

If you actually paid any attention, what she did is far different than "other" govt officials

[randome]

25. Yet other State Dept. officials also broke the rules.

They have that in common. Clinton broke them differently. BFD.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[merrily]

42. Did they? Which rules about emails were in place for Albright, Powell and Rice?

Which of them had private servers that they wiped after an FOIA request?

Most significantly, which of them is running for POTUS?

[merrily]

43. It's not as if they're going for accuracy here. They less attention they pay, the

fewer distinctions they see, the better for their, um, arguments.

[leveymg]

23. Former CIA Directors Petraeus and Deutch were both charged under Sec. 793

of the Espionage Act. There is precedent for prosecuting Secretary Clinton.

[randome]

26. Deutch was not prosecuted and Petraeus knowingly gave away classified material.

Big difference.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[JoePhilly]

18. LOL ... this silly OP is the best you can do?

[jfern]

22. She can do no wrong according to Hillary supporters

[chillfactor]

28. will you people get off it already....

you are becoming a nuisance...

[Autumn]

34. Yes she did, the report made that clear.

[MineralMan]

37. Link to your source please...

Or is this something you just thought of?

[billymike]

45. the essential question here....

link?