RE: Hillary Probed (Full Version)

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



Message


Lucylastic -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/23/2016 9:01:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


"Because I'm not Wilber. But, I get a kick...entertainment...out of you and Lucy thinking so desperately needing to find any way to discredit anyone that disagrees with you.

I fixed it for ye, Nn.



Michael



FR to the ignorati in the thread.

You are more than adept at showing your own ignorance without our help...we just like to point it out....often as it happens.
Ron has his reasons, I have mine...
nasssssty nasssssssssssty ignorati




Nnanji -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/23/2016 11:04:50 AM)

Reasons being that's all ya got.




Lucylastic -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/23/2016 11:11:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Reasons being that's all ya got.

Well, Ive got "reason", logic, facts (and plenty of ignorati posts to fall back on), to base my opinions on.
Have you read EVERY post on this thread?





mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/23/2016 11:31:59 AM)

http://www.infowars.com/exclusive-why-judge-andrew-napolitano-was-fired/

Fired for investigating Hillary? What other possible reason could there be?

Hillary 1 million, nutsuckers still Zero?




Nnanji -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/23/2016 12:02:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

Reasons being that's all ya got.

Well, Ive got "reason", logic, facts (and plenty of ignorati posts to fall back on), to base my opinions on.
Have you read EVERY post on this thread?



Reason, you admit yourself that you're mean and nasty. That's not reason

Logic, I haven't seen you ever apply logic to any post. You usually just denigrate.

Facts, well, usually when you don't have facts and don't want to look at facts, people denigrate and act nasty.




mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/23/2016 12:56:53 PM)

Post 1187 in this thread, and you answered it with denigration. It is common for her to post factually. That is just a recent one.

But it was logical, it was factual, it was reasoned.

Wilbur your post is denigratory, illogical, unfactual and unreasoned.





Nnanji -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/23/2016 1:51:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Post 1187 in this thread, and you answered it with denigration. It is common for her to post factually. That is just a recent one.

But it was logical, it was factual, it was reasoned.

Wilbur your post is denigratory, illogical, unfactual and unreasoned.



Ya, Lucy sounded like your sock. Is she your mom? She came down into the basement to speak for you?

You, and Lucy, are very adept at saying what you don't like. She's adept at being derogatory. You're mostly not really here, sorta just foaming at the mouth. You both post cites that aren't relavent to back up responses that contain no understanding of the discussion. Well...that's been my experience the last few weeks. Perhaps you were each relavent some time before I was around.




mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/23/2016 2:15:50 PM)

you toiletlick and felch, always have thru your many many various and sundry socks.

The only ones here who understand relevance and topic are the non-nutsuckers.

You haven't posted relevant or credible material to any thread ever.

Nobody really gives a fuck what the nutsuckerii think, because it is all factless horseshit.




Nnanji -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/23/2016 2:36:44 PM)

Lol




bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/24/2016 5:59:33 PM)

cant remember if I posted this point a week ago or not (either way, its bound to lead to some vile critter parts frothing):

quote:

Judicial Watch Seeks Hillary Clinton Testimony

The question of whether Hillary Clinton can be questioned under oath by Judicial Watch attorneys now is squarely before a federal court judge.


http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/hillary-clinton-should-testify-under-oath/




mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/25/2016 8:21:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

cant remember if I posted this point a week ago or not (either way, its bound to lead to some vile critter parts frothing):

quote:

Judicial Watch Seeks Hillary Clinton Testimony

The question of whether Hillary Clinton can be questioned under oath by Judicial Watch attorneys now is squarely before a federal court judge.


http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/weekly-updates/hillary-clinton-should-testify-under-oath/


You have posted something akin to this, or this very thing repeatedly Shiteater44. With your continuous felch and toiletlicking, I can see how you can lose track of your three or four useless and factless cites from the nutsucker slobber blogs.

Its no big deal, a deposition? Don't even know why they need a hearing for a court order, to subpoena duces tecum for deposition, its usually administrative, but its still meaningless, she is going to tell them to go back to their felching in the airport bathrooms, or answer their tired shit with her lawyer pretty much turning off the harrassment and begging the question shit, which is all they can do.

nutsucker lawyer: blah, blah blah.
Clinton lawyer: turned over to the state department.
nutsucker lawyer: blah, blah blah.
Clinton lawyer: asked and answered at the 7th congressional investigation in a query by nutsucker Gowdy.
nutsucker lawyer: blah, blah blah.
Clinton lawyer: asked and answered at the 5th congressional investigation in a query by nutsucker Gowdy.
nutsucker lawyer: blah, blah blah.
Clinton lawyer: asked and answered at the 11th congressional investigation in a query by nutsucker Gowdy.


Ad nauseam.




KenDckey -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/25/2016 10:05:53 AM)

quote:

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CLINTON_EMAILS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Hillary Clinton disregarded State Department cybersecurity guidelines by using a private email account and server, an internal audit found Wednesday. Her staff twice brushed aside specific concerns that she wasn't following federal rules.

The inspector general's review also revealed that hacking attempts forced then-Secretary of State Clinton off email at one point in 2011, though she insists the personal server she used was never breached. Clinton and several of her senior staff declined to be interviewed for the State Department investigation.

Earlier this month, Clinton, the likely Democratic presidential nominee, stressed that she was happy to "talk to anybody, anytime" about the matter and would encourage her staff to do the same.

The 78-page analysis, a copy of which was obtained by The Associated Press, says Clinton ignored clear directives. She never sought approval to conduct government business over private email, and never demonstrated the server or the Blackberry she used while in office "met minimum information security requirements."

Twice in 2010, information management staff at the State Department raised concerns that Clinton's email practices failed to meet federal records-keeping requirements. The staff's director responded that Clinton's personal email system had been reviewed and approved by legal staff, "and that the matter was not to be discussed any further."

The audit found no evidence of a legal staff review or approval. It said any such request would have been denied by senior information officers because of security risks.

The inspector general's inquiry was prompted by revelations of Clinton's email use, a subject that has dogged her presidential campaign.

The Clinton campaign did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Wednesday.

The review encompassed the email and information practices of the past five secretaries of state, finding them "slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership."

But the failings of Clinton, who was secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, were singled out as more serious.

"By Secretary Clinton's tenure, the department's guidance was considerably more detailed and more sophisticated," the report concluded. "Secretary Clinton's cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives."

The State Department has released more than 52,000 pages of Clinton's work-related emails, including some that have since been classified. Clinton has withheld thousands of additional emails, saying they were personal.

Critics have questioned whether her server might have made a tempting target for hackers, especially those working with or for foreign intelligence services.

Separately from the State Department audit, the FBI has been investigating whether Clinton's use of the private email server imperiled government secrets. It has recently interviewed Clinton's top aides, including former chief of staff Cheryl Mills and deputy chief of staff Huma Abedin. Clinton is expected to be interviewed.

Clinton has acknowledged in the campaign that the homebrew email setup in her New York home was a mistake. She said she never sent or received anything marked classified at the time, and says hackers never breached the server.

The audit said a Clinton aide had to shut down the server on Jan. 9, 2011, because he believed "someone was trying to hack us." Later that day, he said: "We were attacked again so I shut (the server) down for a few min."

The next day, a senior official told two of Clinton's top aides not to email their boss "anything sensitive," saying she could "explain more in person."

On CBS' "Face the Nation" this month, Clinton said, "I've made it clear that I'm more than ready to talk to anybody, anytime. And I've encouraged all of (my staff) to be very forthcoming."

The audit said three of her closest State Department aides - Mills, Abedin and policy chief Jake Sullivan - declined interview requests.


It has been shown now that Hilary is completely innocent by this report. Nothing to show she ever did anything wroing. Just read it. ROFLMAO NOT




mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/25/2016 10:11:54 AM)

ROFLMAO so what? Nothing criminal or civil there. You act like you have never been in an audit by the IG.

Far from damning, far from guilty, far from illegal.





Lucylastic -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/25/2016 12:34:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Post 1187 in this thread, and you answered it with denigration. It is common for her to post factually. That is just a recent one.

But it was logical, it was factual, it was reasoned.

Wilbur your post is denigratory, illogical, unfactual and unreasoned.



Ya, Lucy sounded like your sock. Is she your mom? She came down into the basement to speak for you?

You, and Lucy, are very adept at saying what you don't like. She's adept at being derogatory. You're mostly not really here, sorta just foaming at the mouth. You both post cites that aren't relavent to back up responses that contain no understanding of the discussion. Well...that's been my experience the last few weeks. Perhaps you were each relavent some time before I was around.

oh good god, LMAO I admit it, you cant be wilbur, he was a fucking idiot, but he was marginally smarter than you.
Look at our post counts...
Ron has 51 thousand posts, I have 31 thousand.
Ive been adept at derogatory since I was 12....you cant point out any flaw that Im not aware of, and you are really making yourself look ridiculous with your attempt to be smart.
Major Fail, Meet Captain Oblivious.
I suggest you make an attempt to hide your ignorance over facts.




KenDckey -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/25/2016 12:48:32 PM)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/state-department-report-on-clintons-email-practices/2039/?tid=a_inl

the actual OIG report




mnottertail -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/25/2016 1:16:34 PM)

Yup, nothing criminal or even civil there.

We shall await the FBI yawning into the microphone.




bounty44 -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/25/2016 3:35:18 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: KenDckey

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/state-department-report-on-clintons-email-practices/2039/?tid=a_inl

the actual OIG report


and some highlights ken (apparently the Obama state department is full of "nutsuckers" or maybe the IG report is a "slobberblog?" )

"Busted: How a Scathing New IG Report Exposes Four Hillary Email Lies"

quote:

[please note this first part comrades] Hillary Clinton and her presidential campaign have habitually derided and dismissed serious developments pertaining to her national security-compromising email scandal, preposterously seeking to cast the entire imbroglio as witch hunt-style machinations of partisan Republicans. Thus far, this "vast right-wing conspiracy" has entailed several left-leaning media outlets, the Obama-appointed intelligence community Inspector General, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

As Katie wrote earlier, Team Hillary must now add another highly unlikely source to its roster of ignominy: The Inspector General serving as a nonpartisan watchdog at...the very government agency she led for four years. The new, damning report directly refutes a number of insistent statements Mrs. Clinton and her allies have issued over the last 15 months. Many of her assertions at an initial press conference in March 2015 have been demonstrably proven to be inaccurate and deceitful. The list of falsehoods has now expanded:

(1) "Everything I did was permitted," Clinton has said on multiple occasions, averring that her email scheme did not violate any rules or laws.

State Dept. inspector general: Clinton didn't seek permission to use private email server, wouldn't have received it https://t.co/KWCyZOgU30

2) "I've been more transparent than anybody I can think of in public life," she told CBS News in March, adding that she's 'fully cooperated' with probes into the email affair.

Wait @HillaryClinton and Huma Abedin "both chose not to cooperate with the IG’s investigation"? https://t.co/eJCBBdyhfw

(3) I used one email [and one mobile device] "for convenience," not to avoid public records requests.

State IG report has Clinton telling Abedin she doesn't want an official email acct b/c she wants to avoid FOIA pic.twitter.com/apAbAS76Aa

(4) Currently live on Hillary's campaign website, in addition to this flaming lie:
Was the server ever hacked?
No, there is no evidence there was ever a breach.
Was there ever an unauthorized intrusion into her email or did anyone else have access to it?
No.
From the IG report:
'We were hacked [attacked] again,' IT person said in 2011 on Clinton's private email server. Clinton says she was never hacked. pic.twitter.com/rxQpbzX0AA

UPDATE - The spin begins:

quote:

GOP will attack HRC because she is running for President, but IG report makes clear her personal email use was not unique at State Dept
— Brian Fallon (@brianefallon) May 25, 2016


Aside from "others did it, too" being legally irrelevant, it is also wrong. We've dealt with a variant of this excuse in the past, but let's make things very simple:
Setting up a private, improper, unsecure server to conduct *all* email business was, in fact, unique to one person. https://t.co/QB3QXhOFUu


http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2016/05/25/busted-scathing-ig-report-exposes-these-four-hillary-email-lies-n2168836





Lucylastic -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/25/2016 3:49:49 PM)

I can hear the furious fapping and impotence from here




Nnanji -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/25/2016 3:52:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic


quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Post 1187 in this thread, and you answered it with denigration. It is common for her to post factually. That is just a recent one.

But it was logical, it was factual, it was reasoned.

Wilbur your post is denigratory, illogical, unfactual and unreasoned.



Ya, Lucy sounded like your sock. Is she your mom? She came down into the basement to speak for you?

You, and Lucy, are very adept at saying what you don't like. She's adept at being derogatory. You're mostly not really here, sorta just foaming at the mouth. You both post cites that aren't relavent to back up responses that contain no understanding of the discussion. Well...that's been my experience the last few weeks. Perhaps you were each relavent some time before I was around.

oh good god, LMAO I admit it, you cant be wilbur, he was a fucking idiot, but he was marginally smarter than you.
Look at our post counts...
Ron has 51 thousand posts, I have 31 thousand.
Ive been adept at derogatory since I was 12....you cant point out any flaw that Im not aware of, and you are really making yourself look ridiculous with your attempt to be smart.
Major Fail, Meet Captain Oblivious.
I suggest you make an attempt to hide your ignorance over facts.


Sure, 82,000 posts does make you sooo smart. I'm pleased to see that you know you harmonize be derogatory. I enjoy others seeing that as well. However, you don't understand, I'm not trying to zing you. You don't mean anything to me.




Lucylastic -> RE: Hillary Probed (5/25/2016 6:15:54 PM)

im gutted,
so gutted
I may never recover from the humiliation and contempt, oh woe is me.



[sm=fingers.gif]




Page: <<   < prev  60 61 [62] 63 64   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625