The Official Hillary Campaign Machine

#801
#801
Grand Vol said:
It's simply going to come down to one of two things:

1. She knowingly had classified information on a personal server (completely contrary to each and every security rule in the government for the past fifteen years) and never reported it.

2. She's completely inept and was too stupid to recognize classified information for what it was.

Pick one.
Click to expand...

Blind hate.
 
#802
#802
volinbham said:
Let's just use common sense. Given that ALL her email was conducted on her own private server it is a virtual impossibility that ALL of that information was unclassified.

It simply doesn't pass the smell test to suggest she could have mistakenly had classified information without knowing it given ALL of her email business was done this way.
Click to expand...

I don't see how any sane person could disagree with this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#804
#804
lawgator1 said:
That's the difference. I am intellectually honest. You guys are so blinded by your contempt for her generally that you will not accept that maybe there's not nearly as much to this as you think.
Click to expand...

I believe it to be intellectually dishonest to believe no one emailed her confidential info on her private server. I believe it to be intellectually dishonest to believe she did not know she shouldn't be using her own server for email.
 
#807
#807
lawgator1 said:
You are asking me a question which you know I cannot answer, as I do not know what was in them. Perhaps the FBI review will shed some light on that.

If that uncovers her forwarding obviously confidential material, that will disqualify her, in my mind. The difference is, if it does not support that, you will not give up on this.

That's the difference. I am intellectually honest. You guys are so blinded by your contempt for her generally that you will not accept that maybe there's not nearly as much to this as you think.
Click to expand...

Obviously there are a lot of guys on here that have handled classified information before. Why would you casually dismiss them?

Here's the bottom line. Anyone who has worked with classified information knows the lengths that you have to go through to safeguard that information. It's a gigantic pain in the butt.

It doesn't take a ton of discernment to know when a topic is in the classified realm either.
 
#808
#808
red butler said:
Obviously there are a lot of guys on here that have handled classified information before. Why would you casually dismiss them?

Here's the bottom line. Anyone who has worked with classified information knows the lengths that you have to go through to safeguard that information. It's a gigantic pain in the butt.

It doesn't take a ton of discernment to know when a topic is in the classified realm either.
Click to expand...


You don't know that here, do you?

Bottom line:

I am reaching conclusions merited by the currently known facts. I am not willing to speculate about other conclusions.

The usual suspects here have reached conclusions, some of them pretty extreme, without the facts to support them. In fact, they don't want to know the facts, if they do not support those conclusions.

Whenever we have an incident of a black male teen being shot by an officer and a black community that starts asserting all sorts of conclusions that are not at that point supported by the facts, we have those very same folks blasting that community for reaching those conclusions, without the facts.

Bunch of hypocrites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#809
#809
lawgator1 said:
You don't know that here, do you?

Bottom line:

I am reaching conclusions merited by the currently known facts. I am not willing to speculate about other conclusions.

The usual suspects here have reached conclusions, some of them pretty extreme, without the facts to support them. In fact, they don't want to know the facts, if they do not support those conclusions.

Whenever we have an incident of a black male teen being shot by an officer and a black community that starts asserting all sorts of conclusions that are not at that point supported by the facts, we have those very same folks blasting that community for reaching those conclusions, without the facts.

Bunch of hypocrites.
Click to expand...

Hillary shot a bunch of black people or she is being harassed by the police? Because if not then none of the gibberish above is relevant.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#810
#810
lawgator1 said:
You don't know that here, do you?

Bottom line:

I am reaching conclusions merited by the currently known facts. I am not willing to speculate about other conclusions.
Click to expand...

Known fact: She only had the personal email address. She did not use any address on any secure government server.

Known fact: There are multiple emails on her server that contained information that was classified at the time.

Known fact: She transferred those emails to her attorney who did not have clearance.

Your conclusion: Yeah, but the GOP is really mean.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 people
#811
#811
lawgator1 said:
You don't know that here, do you?

Bottom line:

I am reaching conclusions merited by the currently known facts. I am not willing to speculate about other conclusions.

The usual suspects here have reached conclusions, some of them pretty extreme, without the facts to support them. In fact, they don't want to know the facts, if they do not support those conclusions.

Whenever we have an incident of a black male teen being shot by an officer and a black community that starts asserting all sorts of conclusions that are not at that point supported by the facts, we have those very same folks blasting that community for reaching those conclusions, without the facts.

Bunch of hypocrites.
Click to expand...

You are run over dog crazy

The fact is that she had classified information on a private server......that is either negligence, deliberate, or stupidity......it can only possibly be one of these three. Your comparison here is an enormous reach
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#812
#812
BearCat204 said:
You are run over dog crazy

The fact is that she had classified information on a private server......that is either negligence, deliberate, or stupidity......it can only possibly be one of these three. Your comparison here is an enormous reach
Click to expand...

You and bill are obviously part of the usual suspects who reach extreme conclusions.

LG manages to still surprise me from time to time.

Just when you think who besides family would stand by the woman, LG shows up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#813
#813
BearCat204 said:
You are run over dog crazy

The fact is that she had classified information on a private server......that is either negligence, deliberate, or stupidity......it can only possibly be one of these three. Your comparison here is an enormous reach
Click to expand...

I'll add to this, that her entire staff had to be extremely careless with classified information for something like this to happen. I can't think of a way to transfer classified material from a classified computer to an unclassified computer without breaking every security measure in the book.

Now a person could generate a classified document on an unclassified system because the person has knowledge of classified material. But like I said, it isn't hard to know when you're getting into the classified realm, so that person is being extremely negligent.
 
#814
#814
Welp... it appears we have a new leader in the clubhouse for the most partisan poster on VN. I've given LG credit before as being partisan, but never really thought he could hang with the big boys (insert various member names here), and now he has proven me wrong.

Congrats LG... you're on a roll like Spieth and just might be able to pocket the Grand Slam of partisan posters.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#815
#815
lawgator1 said:
You don't know that here, do you?

Bottom line:

I am reaching conclusions merited by the currently known facts. I am not willing to speculate about other conclusions.


Bunch of hypocrites.
Click to expand...

You reach conclusions without facts daily on this site. Virtually every thread you start is based on some conclusion you've reached about a GOP related person whether facts exist or not.

To claim you won't do that here (and that you don't do it at all) is the very definition of hypocrisy.

If you want to be intellectually honest then apply your own standards to yourself. :hi:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 8 people
#817
#817
LG - I'm asking this in all seriousness:

Is your position that it is as likely as not that the Secretary of State, one of the highest cabinet positions and the office most linked to foreign policy, had no email (reception or sending) in her entire tenure as SoS. (in the over 30,000 pages of email she claimed were work related).

If you think it's likely that there indeed were classified emails on the server is it your position that it is as likely as not that she would not be aware of that and that is understandable (that a reasonable person with her level of experience in the Executive Branch would not be aware that something would be classified)

Finally, do you think that it is reasonable for her to unequivocally state there was no classified email on her server under cover of the argument that she didn't know it was classified.

I'll hang up and listen.
 
Last edited:
#818
#818
volinbham said:
LG - I'm asking this in all seriousness:

Is your position that it is as likely as not that the Secretary of State, one of the highest cabinet positions and the office most linked to foreign policy, had no email (reception or sending) in her entire tenure as SoS. (in the over 30,000 pages of email she claimed were work related).

If you think it's likely that there indeed were classified emails on the server is it your position that it is as likely as not that she would not be aware of that and that is understandable (that a reasonable person with her level of experience in the Executive Branch would not be aware that something would be classified)
Click to expand...

The GOP is mean. And the usual suspects have come to irrational conclusions because of their blind hatred of Hillary. And all women.
 
#823
#823
I'd like to know if this Platte River Colorado firm had clearance through the U.S. GOVT to handle Clintons server.
 
#824
#824
AirVol said:
I'd like to know if this Platte River Colorado firm had clearance through the U.S. GOVT to handle Clintons server.
Click to expand...

I saw someone else mention that, and that's an interesting question. Will they be in deep doo if they didn't?

Also, I read that despite her claims of having her server wiped clean, it's very difficult to actually wipe one clean. Does anyone know if that's true?
 
#825
#825
Reid and a second security expert said that if Platte River used a backup server for extra security, it’s likely that some data Clinton had deleted could be retrieved.
Click to expand...

The answer the question of whether or not they can retrieve the files that Clinton "wiped clean"
 
Last edited:
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top