Dead candidate walking...

[Old-T]

Flghtr65, it is time for you to extricate yourself from this argument. You are so completely wrong in this case it is near impossible to know where to start.

In this instance IB is correct. That is hard for me to say, but HC is wrong legally, morally, ethically, and logically. Even if every comment being made in her defense were true--which I seriously doubt--she should be facing serious jail time in Leavenworth. This is not forgetfulness, nor routine poor judgement. This is nothing short of wanton disregard for rules, laws, or any authority other than herself.

I have stated before that Snowdon is a traitor, and while I rarely support the death penalty I would readily make an exception for him. Clinton's actions do not have the same immediate life and death consequences, but given the positions she held they are even less excusable and more morally reprehensible.

Lib or Con should condemn what she did, not make pathetic excuses because she is a Dem.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

The Hillary situation is totally different than the Petraeus situation. First of all the state department has said that any documents they sent to Hillary were not classified when they were sent. The classification was changed at a later date.

If someone from the State department sent Hillary an email that was really classified but did not have it labeled correctly, the sender is in trouble not the person receiving it.

It is the responsibility of the person who is sending a classified document to have it label correctly, this not only a Federal government practice but most I/T departments of Fortune 500 companies have the same rule.

Have you ever been granted access to confidential data where you work? I have.

my my my, you've really boxed yourself into the cul-de-sac of stupid here.

since you mention company policies for sensitive information, what is the policy in general for most companies?

1) REPORT it immediately
2) DELETE it immediately

which of the above did Clinton do? neither.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Regular person. Which she is not. Does she not still hold status that allows her to view classified material?

The obvious answer is NO! Presidents don't get access to new data and they don't get to take Secret documents home to write their memoirs either. I don't know of any higher authority than that.

[JD Barleycorn]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

The Hillary situation is totally different than the Petraeus situation. First of all the state department has said that any documents they sent to Hillary were not classified when they were sent. The classification was changed at a later date.

If someone from the State department sent Hillary an email that was really classified but did not have it labeled correctly, the sender is in trouble not the person receiving it.

It is the responsibility of the person who is sending a classified document to have it label correctly, this not only a Federal government practice but most I/T departments of Fortune 500 companies have the same rule.

Have you ever been granted access to confidential data where you work? I have.

See if this helps...think of it like kiddie porn. It doesn't matter where you got it or from whom. If it is on your computer, you're toast.

[Ex-CEO]

Originally Posted by flghtr65

The Hillary situation is totally different than the Petraeus situation. First of all the state department has said that any documents they sent to Hillary were not classified when they were sent. The classification was changed at a later date.

If someone from the State department sent Hillary an email that was really classified but did not have it labeled correctly, the sender is in trouble not the person receiving it.

It is the responsibility of the person who is sending a classified document to have it label correctly, this not only a Federal government practice but most I/T departments of Fortune 500 companies have the same rule.

Have you ever been granted access to confidential data where you work? I have.

Assuming that's true, for your sake I certainly hope you handled it less recklessly than the woman who's apparently the #1 subject of your idolatry.

@Old-T: Spot on.

P.S. - Too bad for The Hildabeast that she couldn't have put the whole kit and caboodle on Snapchat!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK1A0od12CY

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

See if this helps...think of it like kiddie porn. It doesn't matter where you got it or from whom. If it is on your computer, you're toast.

And you're discussing that forbidden subject because ...

I don't think of that. Don't post about that. Don't venture into your schoolyard fantasies, JDrunk, or your photo collection, which if I may remind you, you asked ME to contribute to with a photo of my JUNK!

Sick motherfucker.

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

And you're discussing that forbidden subject because ...

I don't think of that. Don't post about that. Don't venture into your schoolyard fantasies, JDrunk, or your photo collection, which if I may remind you, you asked ME to contribute to with a photo of my JUNK!

Sick motherfucker.

Assup, not even your wife wants to see your junk.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Old-T

I have stated before that Snowdon is a traitor, and while I rarely support the death penalty I would readily make an exception for him. Clinton's actions do not have the same immediate life and death consequences, but given the positions she held they are even less excusable and more morally reprehensible.

Oh, the irony! Clinton was the SOS when Julian Assange/wikileaks released all those diplomatically embarrassing State Dept. cables back in 2010. She spent days on the phone with foreign leaders and diplomats apologizing for the disclosures and trying to minimize the diplomatic damage. I wonder how many of those foreign leaders were already fully aware of everything BEFORE it was leaked since they had access to her private server!
.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Assup, not even your wife wants to see your junk.

I think assup is telling us he is under 18.... but we already figured that out from reading his posts!

.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by Old-T

You are quite clueless. She may not be charged, but it won't be because she did nothing wrong.

Hahaha, I haven't heard it put quite that way, and how true it is.



Jim

[The_Waco_Kid]

Originally Posted by Old-T

You are quite clueless. She may not be charged, but it won't be because she did nothing wrong.

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Hahaha, I haven't heard it put quite that way, and how true it is.



Jim

i'm trying to determine how many contradictions of terms Old-T's post has in it but it defies even Spock so i give up!

[WhatHeSaid]

JD wants a creamy finish from Uncle Ben while their wives watch, nothing more

[flghtr65]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Flghtr65, it is time for you to extricate yourself from this argument. You are so completely wrong in this case it is near impossible to know where to start.

In this instance IB is correct. That is hard for me to say, but HC is wrong legally, morally, ethically, and logically. Even if every comment being made in her defense were true--which I seriously doubt--she should be facing serious jail time in Leavenworth. This is not forgetfulness, nor routine poor judgement. This is nothing short of wanton disregard for rules, laws, or any authority other than herself.

I have stated before that Snowdon is a traitor, and while I rarely support the death penalty I would readily make an exception for him. Clinton's actions do not have the same immediate life and death consequences, but given the positions she held they are even less excusable and more morally reprehensible.

Lib or Con should condemn what she did, not make pathetic excuses because she is a Dem.

Don't be so quick to put her in jail. It has not been proven that she sent or received classified information THAT WAS PROPERLY MARKED AS CLASSIFIED.

They have found that there are 4 classified documents on her sever, but were they properly marked as classified by the person who sent them to her?

If someone sent Hillary an email with classified information and did not mark it classified that is not her problem. It is not her problem if someone in the state department sent her an email that was marked unclassified and then later they change the classification to Classified.

By the way, the FBI is not investigating Hillary, they are investigating the emails.

From the link.

The filing came after Clinton said in an Iowa radio interview that during her stint as secretary of state in the Obama administration, she had never sent or received any emails on her private server that had information clearly marked classified.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-305-clinton...-politics.html

[JD Barleycorn]

Flighter, it's 305 suspect emails now with only 20% of the emails having been scrutinized by the State Department. That means (if you do the math correctly) that it could 1500 plus emails with some level of classification in her server. Now we know that you are a true, Kool Aid drinking believer but in March Hillary said that there were NO classified emails on her server. They (like the WMDs in Iraq) were found. So now she says (and like she has her hand up your ass) that she meant that no MARKED classified emails were on her server. If this was nothing but personal crap on her server, why has she been working so hard (after notification of the subpoena, which is a crime in itself) to erase her server?

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

i'm trying to determine how many contradictions of terms Old-T's post has in it but it defies even Spock so i give up!

Poor Wacko Kid. That comment of mine was only 18 words, and almost two thirds were four letters or less. So slug your way through it and I am sure you can find all those "contradictions" you claim are there. Can't you?

No, it seems you are reiterating that you are one of those brain-dead RWWs who spasmodically reacts to who the poster is rather than what they say. And too blind to notice that I am supporting "your" side of the Clinton argument this time.