The Editorial Board of the Washington Post seems Very Concerned over how Donald Trump can win the election, and here’s their response
AS THE 2016 presidential campaign draws to a close, Donald Trump is airing commercials that present him as a change agent who will shake up Washington. Not a mainstream politician, exactly, but nothing to be afraid of, either. This appeal seems to be having some success, as Mr. Trump pulls even with his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton, in some national polls and surpasses her in likely voters’ judgment on who is more trustworthy.
Ultimately, though, this appeal can succeed only if voters succumb to last-minute distractions and ignore or forget Mr. Trump’s record. Allow us to offer a few reminders.
You didn’t think this was going to be a positive editorial, did you?
“If I decide to run for office, I’ll produce my tax returns, absolutely.â€
This lie is emblematic, for two reasons. First, Mr. Trump’s refusal to release his returns is an unprecedented sign of contempt for voters; every major-party nominee of the modern era has respected this basic norm of transparency.
Uh huh
- “I’ve never received nor sent any material that was marked classified”
- “At this point, what difference does it make?”
- “Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. ” (blaming the video for the Benghazi attack in public while telling her daughter in private it was a terrorist attack)
Then
“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. . . . They’re sending people who have lots of problems. . . . They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.â€
They often aren’t sending their best. The crime reports show this. Hillary, on the other hand, wants to bring in 10’s of thousands of people from the Middle East who cannot be vetted, won’t be vetted, and resettle them over the objections of US citizens. We’ve seen how well this has worked out in Europe.
“You’d be in jail.â€
American democracy survives the passions and animus stirred up every four years because its leaders always have accepted this rule: The loser acknowledges the winner, and the winner leaves the loser in peace. Mr. Trump disavows both sides of that time-tested formula.
She would be in jail if her name wasn’t Hillary Clinton. And the WPEB would cheer this if she was a Republican.
“I would bring back a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding.â€
Mr. Trump’s celebration of torture provides one answer to that question. His vow to kill the innocent relatives of suspected terrorists offers another. A commander in chief in the U.S. system has vast powers, often beyond the reach of Congress or the courts to check. Mr. Trump could in fact order the CIA to resume waterboarding suspects — and worse — to the immense discredit of the country.
Why such a concern over terrorists who would be happy to slit the throats of the members of the WPEB?
“I’ve always felt fine about Putin. I think he’s a strong leader, he’s a powerful leader.â€
Remember when Hillary trotted out her “reset button”? And called Bashar Assad a reformer? When she pledged support and said how great Mohamed Morsi was, a leader in the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization?
Some addition whining from the WPEB continues, till we get to the end
“Make America great again.â€
It is mystifying that so many Republicans, after criticizing Mr. Obama for eight years for showing insufficient pride in the United States, would attach themselves to someone who has such contempt for the country, its institutions and its values. U.S. generals have been “reduced to rubble,†the U.S. Army cannot fight, U.S. cities are “hell,†U.S. wealth has been “stripped†away by global interests, the electoral system is “one big, ugly lie.†To each of these disasters, Mr. Trump offers phony solutions (Mexico will pay to build a wall) or none at all. He has neither the interest nor the capacity to suggest actual policies.
Of course, he doesn’t have contempt. I dislike defending Trump, but, poll after poll show that people think the economy is not doing well. Really, though, this has nothing to do with anything the WPEB highlights, it’s the phrase itself: liberals hate America and all it stands for, and would like to tear it down.
We believe, as we have said, that Ms. Clinton is well-prepared to serve as president. But even voters who disagree — who believe that Ms. Clinton is unqualified or ethically distasteful — cannot realistically argue that she represents a danger to the republic.
Mr. Trump is such a danger. Only by forgetting or ignoring what he has told us could Americans decide otherwise.
Uh huh. A woman who put her convenience over national security. A woman who intentionally attempted to destroy women who credibly accused her husband of rape. A woman who used her position as Secretary of State as a means to enrich herself and her family through pay for play to her so-called charitable foundation, and used her charitable foundation to enrich herself while spending a whopping 6% on actual charity. She puts herself over country. That’s a danger.
Crossed at Right Wing News.
Okay. We checked the original interview notes. Let’s briefly consider how one makes a determination. The FBI looked at exactly the same snippets of facts, only did so in context, and determined there was no lie involve. That would tend to suggest that you are in error. So let’s look more closely. You say she is lying, but the two statements are not in contradiction.
“CLINTON could not recall any briefing or training by State”
“I hearby acknowledge that I have received a security indoctrination”
The former refers to training by State. The latter refers to training generally. The context shows that Clinton carried over her security clearance from the Senate where she received her security indoctrination.
So what have we learned? We learned that you have relied on sources that distort information; that if you were to look at your own views skeptically, that if you were to consider why the FBI looked at the same facts and didn’t discover a lie, you would be better able to discern the truth, and reject distortions meant only to confirm your biases.
@ZACH
EXCUSES>>>EXCUSES>>>EXCUSES…….would you expect these types of excuses when your doctor bungles your heart surgery…..Mess up your daughters brain surgery….oh well sorry but this happens from time to time….
How about when you take your car in to be fixed and they forget to bleed the brakes and you pile drive the woman with a car full of kids in front of you….oh well that happens from time to time….Technology you know…..
It wasnt the doctors fault…no….it was the machines…yeah thats it the machines messed up…..Not the mechanics fault….he, ahh, it was the guy that checked you in…he didnt tell us you wanted brake fluid…you should have specified exactly HOW we were to repair your heart valve or breaks…..its YOUR FAULT….not mine…
If she is not guilty why did they grant IMMUNITY FOR FIVE CLINTON TOP PEOPLE?
All you have done is continue to make excuses for someone who is supposedly the most qualified person in the world to be president……….EXCUSES>>>>EXCUSES>>>>EXCUSES>>>>>>>
@ZACH
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE
This is what you Clinton apologists sound like.
Clinton’s worst act was signing off on the Iraq invasion as a Senator. She claims she did it out of conscience, believing Iraq to be a genuine threat.
What do you think was the most criminal of her acts?
You cited something Clinton said in a press conference to argue she lied to Congress. If you want to make a convincing argument, you need to get your facts straight.
ZACH
If she did nothing wrong why were 5 of her top aids granted immunity hardly before the investigation began?
Zach I fully expect to never hear from you again after tomorrow…..You can go back to your cesspool life and guard the swamp………You have made it perfectly clear that you revele in the fact that politics and MONEY are bedfellows that you adore and languish in.
Go back to the swamp dude…..enjoy your job as life guard of the swamp….while the rest of us Americans including the victims of the inner city get the shaft while your small circle jerk lavishes millions on their own and the expense of the poor and middle class…run by George Soros, Warren Buffett, Bill Gates and Mark Cuban et. al.
One day you will be held accountable….it might not be today but Karma is a bitch…..
The usual. To compel their testimony.
Quite the contrary. It’s a problem that can undermine confidence in democracy. While some of the collusion of money and politics is inevitable, legal means can reduce the worst aspects of the problem, legal means largely resisted by Republicans.
We’ve been posting on this blog since 2013. Not sure why we would stop.
The Karma from reasoned and supported argument is another reasoned and supported argument, admitting points when appropriate, and finding areas of common ground.
Oh really?
What are these “worst aspects”???
Pay for play?
Bribery?
Inurement?
How have these legal means been “largely resisted by Republicans” and not by Democrats?
Ya see, I get a kick out of listening to brain dead ideologues half my age tell me how these problems are to be solved.
ZACH
YOU STILL NEVER ANSWERED THE QUESTION….IF SHE DID NOTHING WRONG>>>>WHY ALL THE IMMUNITY DEALS…WHY DID PEOPLE PLEAD THE 5th…WHY DID OTHERS SIMPLY NOT SHOW UP FOR THEIR APPOINTED HEARING BEFORE CONGRESS?
you have danced around the main argument and ignored it from the outset.
Quite the contrary. It’s a problem that can undermine confidence in democracy. While some of the collusion of money and politics is inevitable, legal means can reduce the worst aspects of the problem, legal means largely resisted by Republicans.
And yet here you are….defending HRC and her corrupt circle of friends….
And I might add….blaming it on Republicans…..So what your saying is citizens united would have prevented lobbying……..the Clinton foundation……would have prevented HRC from having a private server….destroying evidence…..deleting emails…..
If you were arguing before a court of law the judge would ask you to be disbarred.
The usual. To compel their testimony.
WHY compel their testimony if they or HRC did nothing wrong….why not simply say this is what happened.
When an ordinary citizen goes to court he is not granted immunity in order to tell the truth……..is he?
“Who authorized granting Cheryl Mills immunity?” Rep. John Sensenbrenner asked.
“It’s a decision made by the Department of Justice, I don’t know at what level inside,” Comey responded. “In our investigations, any kind of immunity comes from the prosecutors, not the investigators.”
Comey added he understood Mills’ immunity as a request pertaining to the production of her laptop during the investigation.
“The FBI doesn’t grant immunity to anybody, the Department of Justice is able to grant very different kinds of immunity,” Comey said. “If new and substantial evidence develops a witness lied [under immunity], of course the Department of Justice can pursue it. Nobody gets lifetime immunity.”
So in order to produce evidence in a criminal investigation the DOJ granted HRC’s top aide immunity to provide said evidence…..
and on and on it goes…..Your explanation is intended to succor stupid voters not address the real issue and that being that the DOJ run by OBAMA and a FRIEND OF CLINTONS offered up massive immunity before they would testify….but of course this is not suspicious to anyone whose purpose is to defend HRC till election day.
Laim,
We get it. You dislike Secretary Clinton and think she’s a criminal. Investigation(s) by Congress and the FBI yield results counter to your arguments. (We know, we know… these are all “fixed” to favor her.) Sigh…
Would you vote for her if there was no email “scandal” nor a Clinton Global Initiative? Or… are your politics such that you support further tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations?; do you oppose efforts to reduce CO2 emissions?; do you feel that Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and SNAP take too much out of the economy?; do you support the total repeal of the PPACA?
For most conservatives, attacking Secretary Clinton’s email server use, the CGI, her “lies” and her husband’s peccadilloes is a political tactic to keep her from winning. Fair enough. Trump’s behavior toward young women, although sometimes criminal, doesn’t mean he’ll be a bad president, it’s his policy prescriptions that suggest he’d be a bad president (that and his famous juvenile temper and temperament).
Immunity is granted to get someone to testify against a “bigger fish”, in this case, Secretary Clinton. Obviously, whatever the “immunized” witnesses told the investigators, or whatever was found on their electronic devices, was not enough to “get” the Secretary.
Because money is so important in politics, it means politicians spend much of their time raising money rather than working on constituent issues. Even without this problem, the rich tend to be well-connected, so politicians try to connect to the rich. The former may be amenable to solutions in law, the latter is probably intrinsic.
In modern times, Republicans have generally been the most active in resisting campaign finance reform.
Your previous questions was why they were “granted immunity”. As to why they asked for immunity, of course they did.
For instance, the technician who deleted many of Clinton’s emails was told to do so well before Congress asked for them, but had forgotten, then tried to clean up the problem by deleting them after they were requested. Whether this was a crime or not depends on a number of legal issues, but he is under no obligation under law to testify against himself. Granting him immunity allows the compulsion of testimony against “bigger fish”, as Jeffery pointed out. But it turns out, there was no there there.
When you post false statements, or statements that are ill-supported, we point them out. There are many questions concerning the Clintons, but your making stuff up is not one of them.
Whatever happened to “all” those FBI agents that were going to resign in protest if Clinton was not indicted ?
If there was a giant conspiracy to subvert justice where are the honorable agents who are willing to testify to spotlight this giant invisible conspiracy?
Whatever happened to “all†those FBI agents that were going to resign in protest if Clinton was not indicted ?
If there was a giant conspiracy to subvert justice where are the honorable agents who are willing to testify to spotlight this giant invisible conspiracy?
Be kinda silly to resign today and have trump win tomorrow now wouldnt it john?
When you post false statements, or statements that are ill-supported, we point them out. There are many questions concerning the Clintons, but your making stuff up is not one of them.
Really?
Im not making anything up…I am simply pointing out what your own people have said in leaked emails.
Such as Chelsea using foundation funds to pay for her wedding
Such as Clintons MAID printing classified material.
Such as over 100 emails on a server in which people with no security clearances had access tool
Such as The Clinton foundation failing to report millions of dollars given to both Bill clinton and the foundation.
Such as a long, long post in which Band laid out a RICO offense in which he made Chelsea’s dad millions of dollars.
I could go on and on and on….
Your job is to try and discredit anything said by double talk….
Good luck with trying to defend corruption in which the perpetrators have sentenced themselves to jail….all we need now is a non corrupt DOJ willing to tackle the project.
HRC is a guilty slime ball and Obama the most Transparent administration in history is watching his own DOJ dragged thru the mud by allowing HRC to have any part of his Administration.
The biggest mistake Obama ever made was agreeing behind closed doors to make HRC his sec. of state in order for her to pad her resume and the results are that she has befouled the first black presidents legacy no matter how much he tries to distance himself from this mess.
Black voters should be furious at HRC for what she has tried to do to Obama…..
Remember several emails were leaked including one in which Powell said he couldnt believe how much the Clintons hated Obama……
The slime runs deep when you start unpacking a clinton bag headed for the White House.
“‘By using a private email system, Secretary Clinton violated the Federal Records Act and the State Department’s Foreign Affairs Manual regarding records management, and worse, could have left classified and top secret documents vulnerable to cyber attack,’ Cause of Action Executive Director Dan Epstein said in an email to reporters.
‘This is an egregious violation of the law, and if it were anyone else, they could be facing fines and criminal prosecution.’â€
“Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.â€
“Federal regulations, since 2009, have required that all emails be preserved as part of an agency’s record-keeping system. In Mrs. Clinton’s case, her emails were kept on her personal account and her staff took no steps to have them preserved as part of State Department record.
In response to a State Department request, Mrs. Clinton’s advisers, late last year, reviewed her account and decided which emails to turn over to the State Department.”
“’At this point in time, I think we’re the only ones that specifically asked for both her personal and government email and phone logs,’ Arends said of his group’s Benghazi-related request.â€
And finally even MSNBC agrees…..
MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell believes that the use of a personal emails server appears to be a preemptive move, specifically designed to circumvent FOIA:
“’Hillary Clinton’s system was designed to defy Freedom of Information Act requests, which is designed to defy the law.’â€
ZACH you cant make this shit up…..trying to defend it though has been amusing watching you jump thru hoops trying to disparsge my grammar as your last resort.
No. You’re reaching conclusions and making claims on weak or distorted evidence.
Sure. And it should be investigated.
The FBI already investigated Clinton’s handling of emails.
A team of career FBI investigators found otherwise, that it would be unequal treatment to charge Clinton.
Not funds, but “resources”. It could be her Rolodex, or using the office copier, for all we know. But it should be looked at. Indeed, it is being looked at.
No. You’re reaching conclusions and making claims on weak or distorted evidence.
Hillary Clinton let her maid print out classified information. Chelsea Clinton used Clinton foundation funds to pay for her wedding….on and on it goes….You are the one distorting the truth for your candidate.
Sure. And it should be investigated.
So you really think HRC is going to let her own daughter be investigated….now whose being deceptive?
The FBI already investigated Clinton’s handling of emails.
THE FBI DOES NOT BRING CHARGES>>>>THEY ONLY PRODUCE EVIDENCE THAT AN OBAMA LED< HRC FRIENDLY DOJ MUST ACT ON…they chose not to act….
A team of career FBI investigators found otherwise, that it would be unequal treatment to charge Clinton.
Again the FBI DOES NOT INDICT….DOJ DOES>>>>>THE FBI SIMPLY PRESENTS EVIDENCE…..and when the FBI lays out for 12 minutes an indictable case and then says oh but HRC DIDNT MEAN TO BREAK THE LAW…….
CORRUPT DOJ LED BY OBAMA AND DESIGNED TO SUPPORT HRC’s CORRUPTION……..
AMERICA……..HRC IS A CRIME BOSS!!
Additionally even MSNBC STATED that HRC’s server was designed to violate the law……and we all know MSNBC is a huge supporter of Obama and we know that Obama is being tarnished by this dirty corrupt Clinton machine.
The left is angry with HRC….she is a crime boss….the problem is she got caught.
The maid printed out emails, but none of them were marked classified at the time. In any case, this was investigated by the FBI, and they determined no charges were warranted.
Not funds, but “resourcesâ€. This should be looked at, but at this point, we have the word of a single disgruntled person.
From a Bernie Sanders progressive website.
CRIME STATS
– Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
– Number of these convictions during Clinton’s presidency: 33
– Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
– Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122
CLINTON MACHINE CRIMES FOR WHICH CONVICTIONS WERE OBTAINED
Drug trafficking (3), racketeering, extortion, bribery (4), tax evasion, kickbacks, embezzlement (2), fraud (12), conspiracy (5), fraudulent loans, illegal gifts (1), illegal campaign contributions (5), money laundering (6), perjury, obstruction of justice.
ARKANSAS SUDDEN DEATH SYNDROME
– Number of persons in the Clinton machine orbit who are alleged to have committed suicide: 9
– Number known to have been murdered: 12
– Number who died in plane crashes: 6
– Number who died in single car automobile accidents: 3
– Number of one-person sking fatalities: 1
– Number of key witnesses who have died of heart attacks while in federal custody under questionable circumstances: 1
– Number of unexplained deaths: 4
– Number of northern Mafia killings during peak years of 1968-78: 30
– Number of Dixie Mafia killings during same period: 156
Your point being what?
Some emails were marked confidential which requires a security clearance which the maid did not have.
Secondly, materials are not classified by a designation but by their content.
There are a lot of people that break the law and are never charged. A lack of charges doesn’t mean that the laws weren’t broken. You just don’t see that Clinton’s disregard for the law as an issue.
Ha! Ha! Ha!
Psst. Hillary Clinton’s mom is dead too. She knew the secrets of Hillary’s past.
#17 – Vince Foster’s Death
#16 – Ties to Cocaine Smuggler
#15 – Paula Jones Accusations
#14 – FBI Background Reports
#13 – The Monica Years
#12 – Fugitive Fundraiser
#11 – Dodging Sniper Fire Overseas
#10 – Travel Troubles
#9 – Stealing from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
#8 – Cash for Cattle
#7 – Mo’ Money, Mo’ Speeches
#6 – Whitewater, the First Domino
#5 – Following the Money at the Clinton Foundation
#4 – Benghazi Attack
#3 – Problems with Pardons
#2 – Homebrew Email Server
#1 – Accounting for Her Email Accounts
At sometime you just need to reach the conclusion that these people are criminals….not politicians.
Psst. Hillary Clinton’s mom is dead too. She knew the secrets of Hillary’s past.
I did’nt hear Zach….what was her cause of death? Surely the Clintons own mother wasnt murdered.
HUFFINGTON POST 2008 article….we all know Huffpo is full guns Democrat.
Frankly, I’m tired of listening to Senator Clinton portray herself as being in the solutions business — as boasting a nice, fat resume of accomplishments — while mocking Barack Obama for being a rhetorical empty suit.
Is she truly a beacon of experience? Because I couldn’t think of a single piece of legislation that has her name stuck proudly on the front of it, no equivalent of McCain-Feingold, for example, I headed straight for her campaign website to see what glorious aspects of her vaunted experience I was missing.
Actually, I was missing nothing. There is not one single example of any legislation with her name appended to it. In fact, the page devoted to her Senate biography is a mush-mash, a laundry list of good intentions. When she talks about “sponsoring†and “introducing†and “fighting for†legislation that obviously hasn’t passed, that’s a smokescreen for failure. By introducing all that legislation that never makes it out of committee, she’s guilty of what she accuses Senator Obama of: confusing “hoping†with doing.
CLASSIC:
A Democratic megadonor told Colin Powell that Hillary Clinton “HATES†President Obama for beating her for the 2008 nomination, and she dismissively referred to him as “that man,†according to emails hacked from the general’s account.
Corporate financier Jeffrey Leeds depicted Clinton as a sore loser set on revenge in the Âemails, which were obtained by The Intercept, and claimed Clinton is terrified she might lose again.
“I think Hillary can’t believe she might not make it,†Leeds wrote to Powell in March 2015. “It’s the one prize she wants. She has everything else.â€
Leeds went on to say that the 2008 Democratic primary left Clinton and Obama bitter rivals.
“And she HATES that the President (‘that man,’ as the Clintons call him) kicked her ass in 2008,†he wrote. “She can’t believe it or accept it.â€
Leeds also wrote that Hillary’s State Department email scandal might wreck her campaign — and that Obama wouldn’t mind watching her burn for it.
“No one likes her and the criminal thing ain’t over,†Leeds wrote in another email.
I still have about 50 more pages of this to respond to every attempt by you to defend the Mafia Crime syndicate known as the Clintons. Poor Chelsea….she should have run for prez. Not HRC.
Uh, wrong!
http://nypost.com/2016/11/06/clinton-directed-her-maid-to-print-out-classified-materials/
Ha! Ha! Ha!
The lame-stream media says it was complications of heart disease at the age of 92, but that’s just what they want you to believe. Let’s face it, people who know Clinton seem to have a habit of dropping dead.
Here’s the real scuttlebutt on the Clinton emails.
The lame-stream media says it was complications of heart disease at the age of 92, but that’s just what they want you to believe. Let’s face it, people who know Clinton seem to have a habit of dropping dead.
Let’s face it, people who know Clinton seem to have a habit of dropping dead.
its what happens when you cross crime bosses….thank you for acknowledging the truth.
None of the emails were properly marked classified. Three had portion markings, two of which were in error. The third is still in an interagency dispute. Some emails were retroactively classified.
The point is that emails are not meant for classified materials. Whether it was a dotgov address is irrelevant. Colin Powell also had emails on his AOL account that were retroactively classified. That doesn’t indicate a crime.
Legislation Sponsored or Cosponsored by Hillary Rodham Clinton
So, she made a comment in a private email. No one cares.
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-clintons-obamas-rally-20161107-story.html
Zach Im so disappointed….your responses have resorted to trash talking the MSM and laughing out loud…..Cat got your silver lawyerly tongue? A lot of corruption by one family….a lot of people who surrounded the Clintons in Jail…..
I dont know about you but I do not have a single friend or even a single someone I sorta kinda know that is in jail, under indictment or in danger of going to jail….
Your friends define you……if your surrounded by criminals….well we know where that takes ya.
Vince Foster’s Sister Condemns Trump for Raising Death Conspiracy
True. However, the vast majority of retroactively classified materials were of questionable sensitivity. There were a few though that the FBI determined should never have been sent via email. Most originated with career State employees who would have been best positioned to address the problem. Nevertheless, she and everyone who handled those emails were responsible.
So zach out of a 100 criminal activities you are pointing out Vince foster…..
Pretty slim pickens there for HRC…..she surrounds her self with people that tend to end up in jail, on the run or dead………
Sounds like a crime family to me.
Zachriel,
I am not sure whether you are being deliberately obtuse or simply cannot read.
There were some emails marked “confidential.” So while you are railing about “classified,” that is not the issue.
The “confidential” designation still requires a security clearance to be handled.
Furthermore, some of the emails contained the President’s Daily Briefing (PDF) which is classified without exception.
Once again, an emails is given a security designation based on its content. It is “classified” whether or not it is marked as such based on its content. That’s why you have training in the handling of information so that people can recognize what needs security protection absent of a stamp or designation.
Bull. Emails on a secure server can be used for the transmission of classified materials.
I agree the address doesn’t matter. The server and the people handling the information matter.
Clinton’s disregard for the laws was so bad that without security clearance, a person cannot even touch or be in the same room as a printer or fax machine that may print secret materials.
Clinton broke the law.
Colin Powell also had emails on his AOL account that were retroactively classified. That doesn’t indicate a crime.
You’re right. It doesn’t indicate a crime because there were no laws in place that would have made it a crime at the time. When Clinton took office, there were such laws in place.
Come one ZACH……The legislation she sponsored never even made it out of committee or was passed…
Additionally…..someone says hey I got a bill….wanna sponsor it………sure….someone adds her name….
She never authored anything….she was too busy running for PREZ……
So, she made a comment in a private email. No one cares.
Im pretty sure Michelle cares, His two children cares…Many thousands if not millions of blacks who passionately supported Obama CARES……this shows the Clintons disdain for anyones opinion other then their own…..you simply voice the “WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE” MENTALITY of the Clintons.
Its only Clinton defenders who seem not to care about how much HRC hates those Uppity Blacks who took her nomination away from her…….
Im pretty sure a lot of people care…..
SECONDLY last I checked….The SHE your referring to was Colin Powell and one of the Megadonors to the Democratic party…..certainly no jane does in the political arena.
Zboys, in which one of your collective orifices did you find this?
It’s a measure of the quality of the information you are providing.
None of the emails were properly marked classified. Three had portion markings for confidential, two by mistake, the third in an agency dispute.
Please provide a citation to support that claim.
Sure, but some emails that were retroactively classified were of questionable sensitivity. Sometimes, they even classify information you can read in the newspapers. Also, most of the information originated with career State employees, who are most able to make that determination.
Internet emails are not designed for classified information. There is a separate, secure intranet for classified information.
As emails are for non-secure communications, that is usually irrelevant. It turns out, though, that there are often a few emails that contain information that might be deemed classified, such as discussing a drone attack that you can also read about in the New York Times.
The Espionage Act was passed in 1917.
You apparently don’t know much about the political process.
No one cares except a few concern trolls.
Information security was one of her responsibilities at State.
Zboys, y’all be flailing but y’all are entertaining.