RE: Hillary's E-Mails

RE: Hillary's E-Mails (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/17/2015 5:20:33 AM)
at the same time though ken---every day a journalist at the state dept press conferences asks jen psaki about the official document disclosure form that is supposed to be on record and that Hillary Clinton is supposed to have signed---and every day she says she has no further information as to the status of that search. it would (should) take a clerk about five minutes to produce the document in question...

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/17/2015 5:26:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey And then, is the White House behind the whole "scandal" http://www.ijreview.com/2015/03/270959-obama-adviser-valerie-jarrett-reported-behind-leak-hillary-clinton-email-scandal/ I agree "the plot thickens" but on the surface, given what an incredibly presumptive candidate Hillary is, one wonders why the Obama administration would do anything to harm the chances of another democrat being in the white house.

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/17/2015 9:59:50 AM)
here's from the Kelly file last night...I think "stonewalling" being the operative word. http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/megyn-kelly-hillary-stonewalling

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/17/2015 6:21:06 PM)
just watched the first few minutes of the Kelly file and they led with this story---a clip of jen psaki, the state dept spokesman, saying after an examination of Hillary Clinton's personnel file, that she did not sign the document certifying that all her records had been turned over to the department. I suppose that is not surprising in the least... megyn Kelly had shannen coffin on again and they talked about US Code 2071, which might have been brought up here before, but is worth sharing again: "(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States."

KenDckey -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/17/2015 6:40:50 PM)
yeah I had to certify that I had turned in everything when I retired from the Army in 1986

Aylee -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/18/2015 6:38:58 PM)
And. . . . It looks like Hillary's server was quite open to spoofing and hacking. http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-18/hillary-clinton-s-e-mail-was-vulnerable-to-spoofing- But ya know, rules are for the little people.

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/18/2015 7:25:30 PM)
to me, the story just gets worse and worse. I only caught a few minutes of the news/commentary tonight and one of the things was the embarrassing performance given by jen psaki at the state department press conference trying to gloss over Hillary Clinton's not signing the document certifying that she had turned over all documents to the department.

KenDckey -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/18/2015 7:33:48 PM)
seems to me that the dems are jumping the Hillary ship

DaddySatyr -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/18/2015 7:38:10 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 "(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States." This seems to say that if Hillary kept even a small scrap of paper that belonged to the government or (God forbid!), if she destroyed the smallest scrap, she'd be disqualified from being president? Oh, GOD, please let this have legs! Michael

KenDckey -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/19/2015 2:02:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 "(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States." This seems to say that if Hillary kept even a small scrap of paper that belonged to the government or (God forbid!), if she destroyed the smallest scrap, she'd be disqualified from being president? Oh, GOD, please let this have legs! Michael Amen

KenDckey -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/19/2015 2:15:45 AM)
http://news.yahoo.com/democratic-support-hillary-clinton-softens-reuters-ipsos-poll-050522029.html Sounds like they are dropping like flies.

KenDckey -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/19/2015 3:03:38 AM)
http://news.yahoo.com/whistleblower-state-department-employees-don-t-sign-separation-031606877.html A double standard article

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/19/2015 4:01:37 AM)
that was megyn Kelly and shannen coffin's point yes...

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/19/2015 4:03:44 AM)
I saw that fellow being interviewed ken when he was saying those things... the explanation by psaki was very lame (and got made fun of) and its also puzzling how Clinton's two predecessors didn't sign the document either.

KenDckey -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/19/2015 4:05:28 AM)
Yeah Double standards never work well. Doesn't make any difference to whom it is applied.

KenDckey -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/20/2015 1:45:43 AM)
http://news.yahoo.com/expert-clinton-emails-could-compromised-third-party-spam-024604076.html It only gets worse for the Clintons.

bounty44 -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/22/2015 9:31:45 AM)
I have a poll on democratic thought on the scandal...the image I have is too big, and when I compress it, its too small...more later.

crazyml -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/22/2015 10:42:55 AM)
Yeah. And it turns out that the State department's email servers don't have SPF enabled either. So... 8 tenths of the story is criticising Clinton for not enabling SPF, and right at the end... and u am guessing you didn't get that far, it concedes that the State department has done the same thing! Oh noes... that makes the while story look like bait for mouth breathers. I am surprised you missed that.

DaddySatyr -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/22/2015 10:51:53 AM)
I think I may have to do more than one ... [image]local://upfiles/1271250/EE458B18C8E0457D808B4FC2BF807845.jpg[/image] Michael

DaddySatyr -> RE: Hillary's E-Mails (3/22/2015 10:53:19 AM)
and again: [image]local://upfiles/1271250/33249945CF1A45408A6E55D64E50FA2D.jpg[/image] Michael

Page: << < prev 12 13 [14] 15 16 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.125