The Official Hillary Campaign Machine

#1,577
#1,577
Obama not knowing about HRC's email not having the same domain? He's lying too.

White House IT people knew damn well she had a non secure server. When emails went through the WH server, don't think no one knew that?

LG, what's your defense?
 
#1,578
#1,578
AirVol said:
Obama not knowing about HRC's email not having the same domain? He's lying too.

White House IT people knew damn well she had a non secure server. When emails went through the WH server, don't think no one knew that?

LG, what's your defense?
Click to expand...

Unless they have emails going from the WH server to her's, I dont know how they could actually hit them for it. It's a little different than what they have on HRC
 
#1,579
#1,579
vols4sure said:
I have not followed this too closely, but has anyone actually asked her how she handled known/marked classified information if it was not through her private email. As SOS she obviously had to communicate with others regarding classified information. Did she have an assistant that would send/receive classified emails for her? Did she use something other than email?
Click to expand...

I did and she asked what difference it made now?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,581
#1,581
Martin O'Malley and Bernie Sanders are clamoring for more debates to be added by the Democratic Party, accusing Hillary Clinton of dodging the competition.

But in 2008, it was Clinton who was voicing those concerns, accusing then-Sen. Barack Obama of ducking debates and avoiding tough questions.

Calling out Obama for refusing to agree to a debate in Wisconsin, a 2008 Clinton ad stated that "maybe he prefers to give speeches than to have to answer questions."

Ed Henry noted on "The Real Story" today that O'Malley attacked DNC Chair Debbie Wasserman-Schultz for limiting the debate schedule to just four before the Iowa caucuses and only six overall.

O'Malley accuses the DNC of protecting Clinton, even calling the process "rigged" in favor of the frontrunning former First Lady. He's calling on supporters to protest outside the Democratic National Committee’s D.C. headquarters.

Henry pointed out that AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka appeared to say nicer things about Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, who is not in the race, than about Clinton in terms of their support for workers. Trumka also agreed yesterday that there should be more debates on the Democratic side.

The party held more than two dozen debates in 2008.
Click to expand...

She skeeeerd?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,587
#1,587
Gramps said:
Ex-Clinton aide to plead the Fifth on emails - CNNPolitics.com
Click to expand...

giphy.gif
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 people
#1,589
#1,589
Grand Vol said:
She broke the damn law! Cut it any way you want, ignore selected parts of you want, but when it comes down to the brass tacks, she violated each and every portion of that law we pointed out.

Play your cheap lawyer tricks all you want. But your defense of the indefensible just shows how partisan you are instead of wanting to know the truth.
Click to expand...

The message is clear. If you are a Democrat you are allowed to break the law. Laws only apply to Republicans and the serfs aka citizens.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#1,591
#1,591
hog88 said:
Simple, make him a public offer of immunity. Or Justice Department actually do their dam jobs and enforce contempt of congress decrees.
Click to expand...

Because your second sentence is never going to happen, your first sentence is a totally useless offer.
 
#1,593
#1,593
Mark Levin made some good points.

The U.S. Attorney hasn’t said a damn thing, there ought to be a grand jury empaneled,” Levin said. “I’m glad the criminal side of the FBI is investigating, it’s not enough. Where’s the U.S. Attorney General? Silent. Not a word. We’ve had special prosecutors appointed on a hell of a lot less than this. Where’s the special prosecutor? Where’s Obama in appointing it? Nowhere. The United State Justice Department under this president is in full cover-up mode. Probably some patriotic civil servant is trying to do something, but this requires a full comprehensive investigation.”
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,594
#1,594
The committee is partisan and trying to keep this in the news. They are not looking for information-- they are looking to make soundbites to keep the story going.

There is no value to him in testifying and the committee would not hesitate to bury him in order to make HRC look bad. Any lawyer in his right mind would tell him not to testify.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,595
#1,595
lawgator1 said:
The committee is partisan and trying to keep this in the news. They are not looking for information-- they are looking to make soundbites to keep the story going.

There is no value to him in testifying and the committee would not hesitate to bury him in order to make HRC look bad. Any lawyer in his right mind would tell him not to testify.
Click to expand...

Correct.... but they would tell him this because it would be in his (and his affiliates) best interest because agreeing to testify would clearly provide more evidence of a cover up. Using the reasons you've listed above is ridiculous. "Don't testify to prove innocence because all the GOP will do is use your proof of no wrong doing for more soundbites to keep a story going that you could prove is not really a story by testifying". Yep... that makes since.
 
#1,596
#1,596
lawgator1 said:
The committee is partisan and trying to keep this in the news. They are not looking for information-- they are looking to make soundbites to keep the story going.

There is no value to him in testifying and the committee would not hesitate to bury him in order to make HRC look bad. Any lawyer in his right mind would tell him not to testify.
Click to expand...

Really LG? Are you f'kn serious? He set up the damn server.

Former Clinton aide who helped set up server to plead Fifth Amendment to avoid subpoena | Fox News
 
#1,597
#1,597
lawgator1 said:
The committee is partisan and trying to keep this in the news. They are not looking for information-- they are looking to make soundbites to keep the story going.

There is no value to him in testifying and the committee would not hesitate to bury him in order to make HRC look bad. Any lawyer in his right mind would tell him not to testify.
Click to expand...

:eek:lol: keep this in the news.
 
#1,598
#1,598
lawgator1 said:
The committee is partisan and trying to keep this in the news. They are not looking for information-- they are looking to make soundbites to keep the story going.

There is no value to him in testifying and the committee would not hesitate to bury him in order to make HRC look bad. Any lawyer in his right mind would tell him not to testify.
Click to expand...

Jesus your denial is much worse than I originally thought. I suggest you get help.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,599
#1,599
IBlvNTmWrk said:
Correct.... but they would tell him this because it would be in his (and his affiliates) best interest because agreeing to testify would clearly provide more evidence of a cover up. Using the reasons you've listed above is ridiculous. "Don't testify to prove innocence because all the GOP will do is use your proof of no wrong doing for more soundbites to keep a story going that you could prove is not really a story by testifying". Yep... that makes since.
Click to expand...


Yes, that is exactly right. He has nothing to prove. He does not need to come in and "prove his innocence."

Testifying would only have the GOPers hoisting him up time and again, threatening him, etc., just to keep their grills on camera and the story on the first page.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top