OT: Hillary

[Jack Meoff]

Secret Service agents: Hillary is a nightmare to work with

http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

[trader_4]

On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 11:04:43 PM UTC-4, Jack Meoff wrote:
> Secret Service agents: Hillary is a nightmare to work with
>
> http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

And that's how she was in the good old days. Can you imagine what
she's like now, with the email scandal closing in and her polls tanking?
I can imagine what it's like giving her the latest poll numbers or
having to tell her the latest unfavorable news headline.

[Oren]

Some agent has written about her (and others).

_Secret Service Views Hillary as 'Worst Duty Assignment'_

<http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/hillary-clinton-secret-service/2015/10/03/id/694550/>

Various books: (scroll down)

<http://www.amazon.com/Unlimited-Access-Agent-Inside-Clinton/dp/0895264064?tag=duckduckgo-d-20>

I could not work around her and my personal opinion is she is a
vindictive bitch.

[rbowman]

On 10/07/2015 06:44 AM, trader_4 wrote:
> I can imagine what it's like giving her the latest poll numbers or
> having to tell her the latest unfavorable news headline.

That would be fun! "Ma'am, the latest Quinnipiac poll says 61% of the
swing state voters think you're a lying, manipulative bitch."

[CRNG]

On Wed, 7 Oct 2015 05:44:33 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

<tra...@optonline.net> wrote in
<3276c5f2-b73f-4fb6...@googlegroups.com>

It would be fun to watch. I can't understand why anyone would put up
with her... for any amount of money. As for her "chief" (Huma
Abadin), my guess is that they are "extra special" friends.
--
Web based forums are like subscribing to 10 different newspapers
and having to visit 10 different news stands to pickup each one.
Email list-server groups and USENET are like having all of those
newspapers delivered to your door every morning.

[Ashton Crusher]

On 07 Oct 2015 03:04:38 GMT, Jack Meoff <Jack...@worldly.net> wrote:

>Secret Service agents: Hillary is a nightmare to work with
>
>http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/

Another journalistic hit peace by that liar Kesslar. You can see the
mind set of these guys as shown in this quote from the article...

“Hillary didn't like the military aides wearing their uniforms around
the White House,” one former agent remembers. “She asked if they would
wear business suits instead. The uniform’s a sign of pride, and
they’re proud to wear their uniform. I know that the military was
actually really offended by it.”

These guys think they are the shit and that the people they WORK for
should defer to THEIR desires. If your employer doesn't want you to
wear a uniform, for whatever reason, then put on your suit and shut
your mouth. No one gives a shit if your uniform is a sign of pride,
this is not about YOU, you are just there to do a service, which is to
provide protection. Instead, these clowns whine about being asked to
wear a suit and whine no one stoked their egos.

And whatever happened to them doing their job and keeping their mouth
shut and not talking about the people they worked for... Oh yeah,
making money off tell-all (even if it never happened) books is the in
thing for these "professionals" to do now. That alone gives you an
idea of lack of moral and ethical standards these clowns have.

Maybe that's why the Secret Service is today mostly known for letting
intruders onto the white house grounds and hiring prostitutes and then
arguing over the bill. And that's when they aren't driving drunk and
crashing into the barriers around the White House.

[trader_4]

On Thursday, October 8, 2015 at 12:55:52 PM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
> On 07 Oct 2015 03:04:38 GMT, Jack Meoff <Jack...@worldly.net> wrote:
>
> >Secret Service agents: Hillary is a nightmare to work with
> >
> >http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/
>
>
> Another journalistic hit peace by that liar Kesslar. You can see the
> mind set of these guys as shown in this quote from the article...
>
> "Hillary didn't like the military aides wearing their uniforms around
> the White House," one former agent remembers. "She asked if they would
> wear business suits instead. The uniform's a sign of pride, and
> they're proud to wear their uniform. I know that the military was
> actually really offended by it."
>
> These guys think they are the shit and that the people they WORK for
> should defer to THEIR desires. If your employer doesn't want you to
> wear a uniform, for whatever reason, then put on your suit and shut
> your mouth. No one gives a shit if your uniform is a sign of pride,
> this is not about YOU, you are just there to do a service, which is to
> provide protection. Instead, these clowns whine about being asked to
> wear a suit and whine no one stoked their egos.

The one that's shit here is obviously anyone in the WH who has a
problem with a uniformed US military officer. I want leaders who
are proud of our military, proud of their uniforms, proud of their
service. This isn't about an employee wearing overalls to work.
And nobody said that they thought anyone else should bend to what
they wanted. They were just observing how bizarre and disgusting it
is to get a "F** off" when you great Hillary with a simple "Good morning".
And similarly, how disturbing it is that she has an issue with the
military being in uniform around her. If that's her modus operandi,
why doesn't she let the American people in on it while she's seeking
office? BTW, H was just first lady. Is it really up to her what our
military where in the WH?

>
> And whatever happened to them doing their job and keeping their mouth
> shut and not talking about the people they worked for... Oh yeah,
> making money off tell-all (even if it never happened) books is the in
> thing for these "professionals" to do now. That alone gives you an
> idea of lack of moral and ethical standards these clowns have.

Anything else you want to make up? The book referenced in the article
was written by a journalist. He interviewed former secret service and
others for the book. No indication that those interviewed about what
their experiences were received a dime.

>
> Maybe that's why the Secret Service is today mostly known for letting
> intruders onto the white house grounds and hiring prostitutes and then
> arguing over the bill. And that's when they aren't driving drunk and
> crashing into the barriers around the White House.

You mean the experiences with Hillary drove them all to drink?
I guess that's possible.

[Oren]

On Thu, 8 Oct 2015 10:36:26 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>Is it really up to her what our
>military where in the WH?

Absolutely not. She has no say when the military stands at doors
around the Oval Office entry doors when the President is present. I
bet, my guess, she wants soldiers at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier
to wear a pant suit :)

Ashton goes off on an investigative reporter. Military Uniforms --
spit and polish by military rules and regulations. She has no say.

Note she went off on an electrician for changing a light bulb "while"
she was in the Executive Mansion. She doesn't own the house.

Hillary acts like a cunt, everything above the ankle is a cunt.

Spit!

[Bob F]

trader_4 wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 6, 2015 at 11:04:43 PM UTC-4, Jack Meoff wrote:
>> Secret Service agents: Hillary is a nightmare to work with

They're going to love Trump.

[Robert Green]

"Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> wrote in message
news:jg7d1bplq0k7c13qb...@4ax.com...

> On 07 Oct 2015 03:04:38 GMT, Jack Meoff <Jack...@worldly.net> wrote:
>
> >Secret Service agents: Hillary is a nightmare to work with
> >
>
>http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-t
o-work-with/
>
>
> Another journalistic hit peace by that liar Kesslar. You can see the
> mind set of these guys as shown in this quote from the article...

Agreed. I was unimpressed by the potential veracity of the story.

> "Hillary didn't like the military aides wearing their uniforms around
> the White House," one former agent remembers. "She asked if they would
> wear business suits instead. The uniform's a sign of pride, and
> they're proud to wear their uniform. I know that the military was
> actually really offended by it."

First of, as their boss, it's her call and lots of cabinet members and even
presidents themselves have asked the same of military officers stationed at
the Whitehouse. Ollie North went "plainclothes" (until it was time to
testify!). Note that she "asked" - if she were such a harridan she would
have "demanded."

> These guys think they are the shit and that the people they WORK for
> should defer to THEIR desires. If your employer doesn't want you to
> wear a uniform, for whatever reason, then put on your suit and shut
> your mouth. No one gives a shit if your uniform is a sign of pride,
> this is not about YOU, you are just there to do a service, which is to
> provide protection. Instead, these clowns whine about being asked to
> wear a suit and whine no one stoked their egos.

Lots of them are advisers and military liasons, not "protectors" but again,
it's her call if they're working for her. I expect had they made their
unhappiness known, she would have made sure their next assignment was
something that really made them unhappy.

> And whatever happened to them doing their job and keeping their mouth
> shut and not talking about the people they worked for... Oh yeah,
> making money off tell-all (even if it never happened) books is the in
> thing for these "professionals" to do now. That alone gives you an
> idea of lack of moral and ethical standards these clowns have.

> Maybe that's why the Secret Service is today mostly known for letting
> intruders onto the white house grounds and hiring prostitutes and then
> arguing over the bill. And that's when they aren't driving drunk and
> crashing into the barriers around the White House.

There's definitely a problem with the Secret Service. They just can't keep
out of the headlines. As for their claims about what she said or did, it
reminds me of the legal rule that uncorroborated testimony from accomplices
is not admissible. This was a hearsay article from the get go. I don't
much like Hillary, but I dislike crappy pseudo-journalism even more.

--
Bobby G.

[Ashton Crusher]

And I forgot to mention the latest bit of 'professional' conduct by
the SS. They illegally accessed the file of the Congressman who is
head of the committee that oversee's the SS. Then they spread the
info in it around to another 50 agents. Then the assistant head of
the SS wrote a memo saying that they needed to get that info "out" to
smear the guy with it. What kind of mind set permeates the SS that in
spite of the several embarrassing things that went before this the
assistant head of the SS is literally stupid enough, or has so much
hubris, that he puts something like that in writing? And what does
the fact that so many of these "professional law officers" illegally
accessed the congressman's file say about their character.

And the gvt expects us to believe they aren't accessing the info the
NSA is collecting to use against their enemies. The corruption in the
US gvt is endemic. And virtually no one is ever punished.

[trader_4]

On Tuesday, October 13, 2015 at 10:26:46 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
> "Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> wrote in message
> news:jg7d1bplq0k7c13qb...@4ax.com...
> > On 07 Oct 2015 03:04:38 GMT, Jack Meoff <Jack...@worldly.net> wrote:
> >
> > >Secret Service agents: Hillary is a nightmare to work with
> > >
> >
> >http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-t
> o-work-with/
> >
> >
> > Another journalistic hit peace by that liar Kesslar. You can see the
> > mind set of these guys as shown in this quote from the article...
>
> Agreed. I was unimpressed by the potential veracity of the story.
>

But you libs are very impressed with the veracity of Queen Hillary.
That would seem to be the real issue of importance at the moment.

> > "Hillary didn't like the military aides wearing their uniforms around
> > the White House," one former agent remembers. "She asked if they would
> > wear business suits instead. The uniform's a sign of pride, and
> > they're proud to wear their uniform. I know that the military was
> > actually really offended by it."
>
> First of, as their boss, it's her call

Her boss? Who put Hillary in charge of uniformed military officers
at the WH? Is that in the constitution?

> and lots of cabinet members and even
> presidents themselves have asked the same of military officers stationed at
> the Whitehouse.

Show us the list.

Ollie North went "plainclothes" (until it was time to
> testify!). Note that she "asked" - if she were such a harridan she would
> have "demanded."
>

Sure, that's like saying John Gotti asked you to stop parking
your car near his house.

> > These guys think they are the shit and that the people they WORK for
> > should defer to THEIR desires. If your employer doesn't want you to
> > wear a uniform, for whatever reason, then put on your suit and shut
> > your mouth. No one gives a shit if your uniform is a sign of pride,
> > this is not about YOU, you are just there to do a service, which is to
> > provide protection. Instead, these clowns whine about being asked to
> > wear a suit and whine no one stoked their egos.
>
> Lots of them are advisers and military liasons, not "protectors" but again,
> it's her call if they're working for her. I expect had they made their
> unhappiness known, she would have made sure their next assignment was
> something that really made them unhappy.
>

Oh, I see. First it was just a routine "asked". But now you say
that if they didn't like it, she would have sent them to the South
Pole. I think the latter is closer to the truth.

> > And whatever happened to them doing their job and keeping their mouth
> > shut and not talking about the people they worked for... Oh yeah,
> > making money off tell-all (even if it never happened) books is the in
> > thing for these "professionals" to do now. That alone gives you an
> > idea of lack of moral and ethical standards these clowns have.
>
> > Maybe that's why the Secret Service is today mostly known for letting
> > intruders onto the white house grounds and hiring prostitutes and then
> > arguing over the bill. And that's when they aren't driving drunk and
> > crashing into the barriers around the White House.
>
> There's definitely a problem with the Secret Service. They just can't keep
> out of the headlines. As for their claims about what she said or did, it
> reminds me of the legal rule that uncorroborated testimony from accomplices
> is not admissible. This was a hearsay article from the get go. I don't
> much like Hillary, but I dislike crappy pseudo-journalism even more.
>
> --
> Bobby G.

They were not "accomplices". They committed no crimes, though it's almost
certain now that Hillary did. Wise up.

[Robert Green]

"trader_4" <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:abd8ea95-]

<stuff snipped>

> >As for their claims about what she said or did, it
> > reminds me of the legal rule that uncorroborated testimony from
accomplices
> > is not admissible. This was a hearsay article from the get go. I don't
> > much like Hillary, but I dislike crappy pseudo-journalism even more.
> >
> > --
> > Bobby G.
>
> They were not "accomplices". They committed no crimes, though it's almost
> certain now that Hillary did. Wise up.

Do you know the difference between "reminds me of" and "is just like?"

It doesn't seem so. It an analogy illustrating why we should be skeptical
of the comments of the few ex-SS men willing to go on record. They may
easily hold some serious grudges against their supervisors. Furthermore,
Kessler's guesses as to people's motivation don't make a valid news story.
Who knows whether these guys were forced to retire early due to one of the
many scandalous episodes SS men were involved in? Who know if it wasn't
Clinton who demanded their retirement.

It's exactly why courts refuse to consider accomplice testimony without
corroboration. In other words, if, perhaps these guys got a bad review or
got fired because of Clinton (and we KNOW the SS guys play very fast and
loose with the rules) they'd have a reason to badmouth Clinton. We don't
know if they had a grudge, Kessler doesn't know and neither do you. But we
know a lot of people dislike Clinton and it's a great way to sell into the
"Hate Hillary" crowd and make a buck off them. Yawn.

It's just like when Christie's underlings went after him after Bridgegate
broke. Did you believe their testimony? Does anyone have her on tape
saying "eff you" like they had Romney's "47%" remark? Corroboration is
important when it's very possible people have a strong motive to lie.

FWIW, it seems I was right when I predicted Bridgegate would break Christie.
If he knew about it, he was evil, if he didn't know, he was stupid and hired
evil people. Neither is a good trait to campaign on. He couldn't win no
matter what he did.

Face facts, Trump's going to be in the race, either as the Republican
nominee or a third party candidate. And I think by this time next year,
even Hillary supporters will start to switch just because people hate "pay
to play politicians" so much.

--
Bobby G.

[trader_4]

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 3:22:44 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
> It's exactly why courts refuse to consider accomplice testimony without
> corroboration.

> It's just like when Christie's underlings went after him after Bridgegate
> broke. Did you believe their testimony?

Another inept analogy. Show us where any of Christie's aides have testified
that he was involved in the bridge closing. They haven't. AFAIK, only one,
the Port Authority guy who himself is up to his neck in it, has made some kind
of vague accusation through his attorney. He has not said anything himself,
hasn't given an interview, he's hiding. A fair comparison would be comments
Christie's state police protection detail made about how he treats them.

Does anyone have her on tape
> saying "eff you" like they had Romney's "47%" remark? Corroboration is
> important when it's very possible people have a strong motive to lie.
>

Show us the strong motive to lie on the part of the career Secret Service
agents. This wasn't a book about Hillary or about the Clintons. It was
a book about the secret service coverage of presidents and candidates at
least back to the days of JFK, both Republican and Democrat. We do have
Hillary sending and receiving classified info on an unsecured email
system that she set up in her house and four other locations. That's
better than a tape recording.

> FWIW, it seems I was right when I predicted Bridgegate would break Christie.
> If he knew about it, he was evil, if he didn't know, he was stupid and hired
> evil people. Neither is a good trait to campaign on. He couldn't win no
> matter what he did.
>

Broke Christie? Christie is no more broke than most of the other candidates,
stuck down in the single digits, because so many in the party want an
outsider and there is no evidence the bridge thing has anything to do with
it. But if you're concerned about honesty, why are you here defending Hillary?
Polls show that 60% of *Democrats* don't trust her.

> Face facts, Trump's going to be in the race, either as the Republican
> nominee or a third party candidate. And I think by this time next year,
> even Hillary supporters will start to switch just because people hate "pay
> to play politicians" so much.
>
> --
> Bobby G.

Here's my prediction. Trump will continue a gradual decline in the polls
as even the Trumpies get tired of the clown act. It started to happen
before the last debate. When someone passes him
in the polls, the maniacal megalomaniac behavior will greatly accelerate,
which will in turn accelerate his decline. He'll either go by slow
attrition or he'll finally say something so offensive, so wrong, that
will be his end. Trump never wanted to be president, he's only in it
for the attention. IT's about Trump, Trump, Trump.

As to Hillary, my prediction is that she will be gone at some point too.
Maybe when a grand jury is convened. It's virtually certain that she
committed felonies by having classified info on her home server and at
least 3 other locations. Unless of course Obama and his DOJ and FBI are
so corrupt that they bury it. BTW, whatever happened to that big
investigation into IRS that OBama was 100% behind when he was outraged
at what had happened there? And with Hillary, unless the fix is in,
how lucky to you libs feel today? Tick, tock, tick, tock.....

[Robert Green]

"Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> wrote in message

> On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 10:06:41 -0400, "Robert Green"

<stuff snipped>

> >> Maybe that's why the Secret Service is today mostly known for letting
> >> intruders onto the white house grounds and hiring prostitutes and then
> >> arguing over the bill. And that's when they aren't driving drunk and
> >> crashing into the barriers around the White House.

Thinking about it they clearly have a reason to hate Clinton if she was
instrumental in getting the criminally irresponsible agents out of the
organization. Sounds like they may well be co-conspirators.

> And I forgot to mention the latest bit of 'professional' conduct by
> the SS. They illegally accessed the file of the Congressman who is
> head of the committee that oversee's the SS. Then they spread the
> info in it around to another 50 agents. Then the assistant head of
> the SS wrote a memo saying that they needed to get that info "out" to
> smear the guy with it. What kind of mind set permeates the SS that in
> spite of the several embarrassing things that went before this the
> assistant head of the SS is literally stupid enough, or has so much
> hubris, that he puts something like that in writing? And what does
> the fact that so many of these "professional law officers" illegally
> accessed the congressman's file say about their character.

It says Hillary was right not to trust them. They clearly have not earned
that trust. I can easily understand why she didn't want repairmen around
when she was in "the house." How can she tell whether it's someone FROM the
staff or an intruder dressed like one if the SS is apparently so
incompetent? Anyone who witnessed the level of incompetence reported about
the SS in the press has a legitimate right to worry. IMHO they need a new
director from outside the organization who has the power to clean out the
rotten apples from the barrel. There's obviously more than just one.

--
Bobby G.

[CRNG]

> On 07 Oct 2015 03:04:38 GMT, Jack Meoff <Jack...@worldly.net> wrote:
>

http://nypost.com/2015/10/02/secret-service-agents-hillary-is-a-nightmare-to-work-with/
>

Is that the correct link?

[trader_4]

On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 9:08:36 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
> "Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> wrote in message
> > On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 10:06:41 -0400, "Robert Green"
>
> <stuff snipped>
>
> > >> Maybe that's why the Secret Service is today mostly known for letting
> > >> intruders onto the white house grounds and hiring prostitutes and then
> > >> arguing over the bill. And that's when they aren't driving drunk and
> > >> crashing into the barriers around the White House.
>
> Thinking about it they clearly have a reason to hate Clinton if she was
> instrumental in getting the criminally irresponsible agents out of the
> organization. Sounds like they may well be co-conspirators.

So show us that she got "criminal agents" fired. Of course you can't
because it's fabricated.

>
> > And I forgot to mention the latest bit of 'professional' conduct by
> > the SS. They illegally accessed the file of the Congressman who is
> > head of the committee that oversee's the SS. Then they spread the
> > info in it around to another 50 agents. Then the assistant head of
> > the SS wrote a memo saying that they needed to get that info "out" to
> > smear the guy with it. What kind of mind set permeates the SS that in
> > spite of the several embarrassing things that went before this the
> > assistant head of the SS is literally stupid enough, or has so much
> > hubris, that he puts something like that in writing? And what does
> > the fact that so many of these "professional law officers" illegally
> > accessed the congressman's file say about their character.
>
> It says Hillary was right not to trust them. They clearly have not earned
> that trust. I can easily understand why she didn't want repairmen around
> when she was in "the house." How can she tell whether it's someone FROM the
> staff or an intruder dressed like one if the SS is apparently so
> incompetent?

Well, if it's so damn unsafe there, that an electrician changing a
light bulb is a threat, why the hell does she so desperately want to
go back there?

Anyone who witnessed the level of incompetence reported about
> the SS in the press has a legitimate right to worry. IMHO they need a new
> director from outside the organization who has the power to clean out the
> rotten apples from the barrel. There's obviously more than just one.
>
> --
> Bobby G.

I'm far more concerned about the level of incompetence demonstrated by
Hillary and Obama. They are the ones that have done extraordinary damage
to the country and want to keep doing more. Here's an excellent example
of that damage and the huge media bias in this country. Last night
Hillary said that she would go way beyond what Obama has done to help
illegals. She said she was in favor of extending Obamacare to illegal
aliens. She said she
was in favor of extending reduced cost in-state tuition to them. Yet,
virtually no mention of it at all in the media, who are covering for her.
But, OMG, if a GOP candidate said anything that was even marginally
controversial, why then the media would be all over it and you know it.

Compare the hours of coverage to the NJ bridge lane closure story that you
just revived to what just happened above. One was covered with story after
story, for weeks. Yet here is Hillary saying how she;s going to do more
presidential action for illegals, get them Obamacare, etc and not a peep.

[Robert Green]

"trader_4" <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:2cdc2df3-

<stuff snipped>

> But if you're concerned about honesty, why are you here defending Hillary?
> Polls show that 60% of *Democrats* don't trust her.

Hmm. So you're saying I should form my opinion of Hillary based on the
beliefs of a majority of *Dems* (or anyone)? Hmm. I don't think so.

This incident just makes the SS look bad. I think she *was* tough on a
bunch of people who seem to have deserved it and now they're whining about
it. Tough titties.

--
Bobby G.

[trader_4]

On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 2:25:39 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
> "trader_4" <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:2cdc2df3-
>
> <stuff snipped>
>
> > But if you're concerned about honesty, why are you here defending Hillary?
> > Polls show that 60% of *Democrats* don't trust her.
>
> Hmm. So you're saying I should form my opinion of Hillary based on the
> beliefs of a majority of *Dems* (or anyone)? Hmm. I don't think so.
>

No, never said any such thing. I said she has obvious honesty and
ethical problems and it's so obvious that 60% of Democrats see it.
I suppose you see no problem in what went on with Bill collecting $500K
per speech from all kinds of people that were involved with business
before the US govt? Like the people needing approval for the sale of
20% of US uranium capacity to Russians? Bill got paid for a speech, the
Clinton Foundation received $35 mil plus pledges for another $100 mil,
and the state dept had to approve the deal, with Hillary as sec of state.
If a GOP did that, they'd be on their way to jail, like Dennis Hastert.
He's going to jail for taking his own money out of his own bank account.
No, according to Hillary, all that is OK, there is no connection whatever,
those nice Russians just decided to suddenly show up and bestow money on
them because they really wanted to donate to charity. And I guess the
Clinton one was the only one the Russkies could find.....

[Oren]

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 04:45:10 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>> Hmm. So you're saying I should form my opinion of Hillary based on the
>> beliefs of a majority of *Dems* (or anyone)? Hmm. I don't think so.
>>
>
>No, never said any such thing. I said she has obvious honesty and
>ethical problems and it's so obvious that 60% of Democrats see it.
>I suppose you see no problem in what went on with Bill collecting $500K
>per speech from all kinds of people that were involved with business
>before the US govt? Like the people needing approval for the sale of
>20% of US uranium capacity to Russians? Bill got paid for a speech, the
>Clinton Foundation received $35 mil plus pledges for another $100 mil,
>and the state dept had to approve the deal, with Hillary as sec of state.
>If a GOP did that, they'd be on their way to jail, like Dennis Hastert.
>He's going to jail for taking his own money out of his own bank account.
>No, according to Hillary, all that is OK, there is no connection whatever,
>those nice Russians just decided to suddenly show up and bestow money on
>them because they really wanted to donate to charity. And I guess the
>Clinton one was the only one the Russkies could find.....
>

Trader, you'll enjoy this: <https://tinyurl.com/pv48b7j>

"...She is unhappy because only Democratic die-hards believe her. She
is unhappy because voters will not elect an unhappy person as
president -- and she knows that." <BFG>

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 04:45:10 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Thursday, October 15, 2015 at 2:25:39 PM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
>> "trader_4" <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:2cdc2df3-
>>
>> <stuff snipped>
>>
>> > But if you're concerned about honesty, why are you here defending Hillary?
>> > Polls show that 60% of *Democrats* don't trust her.
>>
>> Hmm. So you're saying I should form my opinion of Hillary based on the
>> beliefs of a majority of *Dems* (or anyone)? Hmm. I don't think so.
>>
>
>No, never said any such thing. I said she has obvious honesty and
>ethical problems and it's so obvious that 60% of Democrats see it.
>I suppose you see no problem in what went on with Bill collecting $500K
>per speech from all kinds of people that were involved with business
>before the US govt? Like the people needing approval for the sale of
>20% of US uranium capacity to Russians? Bill got paid for a speech, the
>Clinton Foundation received $35 mil plus pledges for another $100 mil,
>and the state dept had to approve the deal, with Hillary as sec of state.
>If a GOP did that, they'd be on their way to jail, like Dennis Hastert.
>He's going to jail for taking his own money out of his own bank account.
>No, according to Hillary, all that is OK, there is no connection whatever,
>those nice Russians just decided to suddenly show up and bestow money on
>them because they really wanted to donate to charity. And I guess the
>Clinton one was the only one the Russkies could find.....

They should take a page out of the watergate book and "Follow the
Money". This Email deal is a dead end. Like most things the Clintons
do, "there is no EVIDENCE to support that allegation"
Hillary was on the watergate committee and she understands how that
works. You can bet your ass there are no "Clinton tapes" or anything
else that might incriminate them just laying around.
They leave a vacuum behind them wherever they go.

My wife said, when they hit delete on an Email, you could smell smoke
coming out of the machine. ;-)

If you want to get a grip on the sleaze, follow the money. Find out
who was paying them and what the quid pro quo was for it.
They are skimming a nice living off of that CGI, along with the other
honoraria

[trader_4]

I 100% agree that the what went on with Bill getting %500K a speech and
what went on at the Clinton Foundation are ripe and probably more fruitful
for criminal activity. The Clintons push everything to the limit and it's
hard to imagine that there weren't people getting paid at the CF for no
show jobs, ie keeping them on the bench for when Hillary ran. Or, even
worse, actually doing her bidding instead of working for the CF.
All that should be investigated. But I don't think it changes the fact
that with her emails and classified info, it sure appears that crimes
were committed there too.

[Frank]

Obama has given her a pass on server matter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html?_r=0

Hope the FBI has the guts to indict her.

[Oren]

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 11:57:16 -0400, Frank <"frank "@frank.net> wrote:

>> Trader, you'll enjoy this: <https://tinyurl.com/pv48b7j>
>>
>> "...She is unhappy because only Democratic die-hards believe her. She
>> is unhappy because voters will not elect an unhappy person as
>> president -- and she knows that." <BFG>
>>
>
>Obama has given her a pass on server matter:
>
>http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html?_r=0
>
>Hope the FBI has the guts to indict her.

Anybody that believes Obama is a fool. He wants a third/fourth term,
via a proxy like Clinton/Biden to polish off his legacy. He will
always sign off on her crap. Going against her would be an admission
he was wrong.

If she is indicted, convicted, elected, her first task would be to
pardon herself. I bet it could happen in today's America.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 11:57:16 -0400, Frank <"frank "@frank.net> wrote:

>Obama has given her a pass on server matter:

Those Bush kids stick together. Obama is the 5th Bush brother and
Hillary is the long lost sister.

[Oren]

IIRC, (Ancestry.com) Dubya and Obama are 10th cousins, Cheney is 10th
cousin to one or both of them and Condi Rice.

You have Kool-Aid sippers and Kool-Aid gulpers. Now we have the
Trumpsters.

[Uncle Monster]

The FBI doesn't indict anyone, what they do is investigate and turn the results over to The U.S. Attorney who seeks an indictment from a grand jury. It's high school civics, you should have learned it there. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Law Monster

[Oren]

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 12:33:11 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
<uncl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Obama has given her a pass on server matter:
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html?_r=0
>>
>> Hope the FBI has the guts to indict her.
>
>The FBI doesn't indict anyone, what they do is investigate and turn the results over to The U.S. Attorney who seeks an indictment from a grand jury. It's high school civics, you should have learned it there. ^_^

What you say is true. The USDA, in the Washington, D.C. district
would have to indict her. Guess who appointed the liberals.

It would go before a Grand Jury seeking the indictment.

Shit. Hillary knows that. What if she was indicted in the 5th Circuit,
eh?

[trader_4]

It shows you what a big dummy or fraudster Steve Croft at CBS is.
Otherwise, when Obama said there is no evidence national security
was compromised, he would have immediately questioned how Obama
can know that when the investigation has just started and also
ask him if he thinks commenting on what the FBI, who works for him,
will eventually find out is inappropriate.

[trader_4]

I hadn't thought about this:

"Why is Hillary so unhappy? She is unhappy because she realizes that she needs a criminal defense lawyer to deal with the FBI investigation of her while she is running for president. "


It would have been an interesting question for one of the moderators at
the debate to ask. Hillary, can you tell us if you've retained a criminal
defense attorney? Hell, I'd even be happy if Ed Henry could ask her
that if he ever gets to ask her a questions again.

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 15:24:18 -0700 (PDT), trader_4

I played Clue as a kid. . It is the vast right wing conspiracy, in the
house with the veto.

[Uncle Monster]

Me and my brother went to the FBI about a sheriffs deputy who was running people's names through the national crime computer system or WTF it's called then giving the printouts to a non LEO pal of his. The FBI did their job, and determined that the deputy had indeed violated federal law. My brother later got a call from an FBI agent to inform him the The US Attorney said that it wasn't a serious enough crime and he wasn't going to prosecute the deputy. My brother asked if he could get a list of federal crimes that weren't considered serious enough to be prosecuted for and the FBI agent declined his request. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Criminal Monster

[gfre...@aol.com]

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 17:58:41 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
<uncl...@gmail.com> wrote:


>Me and my brother went to the FBI about a sheriffs deputy who was running people's names through the national crime computer system or WTF it's called then giving the printouts to a non LEO pal of his. The FBI did their job, and determined that the deputy had indeed violated federal law. My brother later got a call from an FBI agent to inform him the The US Attorney said that it wasn't a serious enough crime and he wasn't going to prosecute the deputy. My brother asked if he could get a list of federal crimes that weren't considered serious enough to be prosecuted for and the FBI agent declined his request.

They have fired a few cops around here for that but I am not sure any
of them were charged. I think one who was stalking women did get
charged tho.

[Frank]

I assume you are correct.
Then it would be up to the FBI to publicly call for her indictment.
Then the AG and Obama would have a serious problem with the people if
they didn't.

[trader_4]

I don't think the FBI normally calls for anyone's indictment. They
refer it to the prosecutors in the DOJ and it's then their call as
to what to do.

> Then the AG and Obama would have a serious problem with the people if
> they didn't.

Why would that be? This administration has done plenty of other
stuff that you would think would have America pissed off, but they've
gotten away with almost all of it.

[Liar Liar]

On 10/17/2015 08:45 AM, trader_4 wrote:
> Why would that be? This administration has done plenty of other
> stuff that you would think would have America pissed off, but they've
> gotten away with almost all of it.

So true!

America only cares about the large-breasted Kartrashians and the tall veggie
that can no longer play basketball.

[Uncle Monster]

As I recall, the FBI contacted the county sheriff and he was bent out of shape because of getting a call from the FBI about one of his deputies violating federal law so he fired the deputy. I've a feeling the fired deputy never got another job as a LEO with any kind of authority and access to confidential information. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Vengeful Monster

[Uncle Monster]

I'm pretty sure that the FBI doesn't release information from investigations to the general public. That too would be the job of the prosecutors. ^__^

[8~{} Uncle Fed Monster

[Uncle Monster]

It's racist to criticize the Obama Administration. Nobody wants to be called a racist. Most people howling the word "racist" can't define the word. All they know is that "racist" is a bad word because it's been hammered into their heads since they were children by the racist Progressive Liberal Leftist Commiecrat Freaks who've infested the government schools for decades. ^__^

[8~{} Uncle Racist Monster

[Oren]

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 07:22:55 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
<uncl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm pretty sure that the FBI doesn't release information from investigations to the general public. That too would be the job of the prosecutors. ^__^

You can get records under the FOIA law. They will be redacted (names,
addresses and such). In the past, I've gotten my background checks and
investigations from federal agencies.

[Oren]

On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 17:58:41 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
<uncl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>Me and my brother went to the FBI about a sheriffs deputy who was running people's names through the national crime computer system or WTF it's called then giving the printouts to a non LEO pal of his. The FBI did their job, and determined that the deputy had indeed violated federal law. My brother later got a call from an FBI agent to inform him the The US Attorney said that it wasn't a serious enough crime and he wasn't going to prosecute the deputy. My brother asked if he could get a list of federal crimes that weren't considered serious enough to be prosecuted for and the FBI agent declined his request. O_o

I drew a blank, can't think of the name for the terminal used by LEO.
The one at work was in a controlled entry area. "Authorized" employees
accessing the system had to draw a key, document in a government log
book, name, date, time, in and out and purpose for the inquiry. The
log was regularly audited to ensure only "authorized" staff had
access. A "Restricted Key Form" had to be completed and a copy filed
to the Captain's Office for files and review. It was used by HR to do
checks on prospective new employees and inmate visitors seeking entry
to inmate visits.

Just reminded me. I think it was the NICS System -- _National Instant
Criminal Background Check System_

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System>

[rbowman]

On 10/17/2015 08:17 AM, Uncle Monster wrote:
> As I recall, the FBI contacted the county sheriff and he was bent out of shape because of getting a call from the FBI about one of his deputies violating federal law so he fired the deputy. I've a feeling the fired deputy never got another job as a LEO with any kind of authority and access to confidential information. ^_^

Illegal access ultimately comes back on the agency. They are responsible
for vetting their personnel, maintaining the security of the records,
and keeping an audit trail. If they screw up too badly, they lose their
access.

[rbowman]

On 10/17/2015 10:06 AM, Oren wrote:
> Just reminded me. I think it was the NICS System -- _National Instant
> Criminal Background Check System_
>

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/cjis-security-policy-resource-center

If you have insomnia...

This gets interesting when you start talking about clouds and mobile
devices. The mobiles can be handled with two factor authentication but
when you start stuffing information into the cloud, where is it and who
can access it? HIPAA is another sensitive area.

[Oren]

On Sat, 17 Oct 2015 11:55:36 -0600, rbowman <bow...@erewhon.com>
wrote:

I had a conversation with my doctor about online medical records. She
has no choice but to comply with the law. Of course the government
already has vast amounts of information about me. I stopped worrying
about it years ago before the clouds, data flying around the world on
fiber optics, faster than a speeding bullet. The recent OPM hacks,
exposing millions a federal worker's data and the like. My buttocks
have be flappin' in the wind for years. They can kill me but they
don't have the balls to eat me. DO THEY? :-\

[Oren]

Hillary is afraid of Ed Henry. He gets under her skin. CNN will
never challenge her on the truth. If she starts talking about
"honesty" -- you better watch out.

[Uncle Monster]

The feds cut off the wealthy snob city police department because police were running people's names through the fed's computer system and giving out the information to people with money and influence. What got me about the attitude of the US Attorney was the fact that if I had accessed the fed's computer system, I'd be paraded around in chains for the news media and sent to the underground super max prison for 500 years. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Access Monster

[rbowman]

On 10/17/2015 11:04 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
> The feds cut off the wealthy snob city police department because police were running people's names through the fed's computer system and giving out the information to people with money and influence. What got me about the attitude of the US Attorney was the fact that if I had accessed the fed's computer system, I'd be paraded around in chains for the news media and sent to the underground super max prison for 500 years. o_O

I see your point but there is a difference in degree. The PD was
authorized to use the system and had a connection to the state CJIN or
whatever it's called in that state. afaik, the national databases are
accessed though the state, not directly. The PD's connection is in a
secured site, all involved personnel are vetted, and the actual IP
connection is over a VPN. In some jurisdictions the persons making the
request will have logged on using their state issued credentials.

So the PD had a legitimate, secure access path and abused it. If you'd
obtained the information directly, you would have been doing some
serious hacking.

[Ashton Crusher]

On Wed, 14 Oct 2015 08:14:48 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, October 14, 2015 at 9:08:36 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
>> "Ashton Crusher" <de...@moore.net> wrote in message
>> > On Tue, 13 Oct 2015 10:06:41 -0400, "Robert Green"
>>
>> <stuff snipped>
>>
>> > >> Maybe that's why the Secret Service is today mostly known for letting
>> > >> intruders onto the white house grounds and hiring prostitutes and then
>> > >> arguing over the bill. And that's when they aren't driving drunk and
>> > >> crashing into the barriers around the White House.
>>
>> Thinking about it they clearly have a reason to hate Clinton if she was
>> instrumental in getting the criminally irresponsible agents out of the
>> organization. Sounds like they may well be co-conspirators.
>
>So show us that she got "criminal agents" fired. Of course you can't
>because it's fabricated.
>
>
>>
>> > And I forgot to mention the latest bit of 'professional' conduct by
>> > the SS. They illegally accessed the file of the Congressman who is
>> > head of the committee that oversee's the SS. Then they spread the
>> > info in it around to another 50 agents. Then the assistant head of
>> > the SS wrote a memo saying that they needed to get that info "out" to
>> > smear the guy with it. What kind of mind set permeates the SS that in
>> > spite of the several embarrassing things that went before this the
>> > assistant head of the SS is literally stupid enough, or has so much
>> > hubris, that he puts something like that in writing? And what does
>> > the fact that so many of these "professional law officers" illegally
>> > accessed the congressman's file say about their character.
>>
>> It says Hillary was right not to trust them. They clearly have not earned
>> that trust. I can easily understand why she didn't want repairmen around
>> when she was in "the house." How can she tell whether it's someone FROM the
>> staff or an intruder dressed like one if the SS is apparently so
>> incompetent?
>
>Well, if it's so damn unsafe there, that an electrician changing a
>light bulb is a threat, why the hell does she so desperately want to
>go back there?
>
>
> Anyone who witnessed the level of incompetence reported about
>> the SS in the press has a legitimate right to worry. IMHO they need a new
>> director from outside the organization who has the power to clean out the
>> rotten apples from the barrel. There's obviously more than just one.
>>
>> --
>> Bobby G.
>
>I'm far more concerned about the level of incompetence demonstrated by
>Hillary and Obama. They are the ones that have done extraordinary damage
>to the country and want to keep doing more. Here's an excellent example
>of that damage and the huge media bias in this country. Last night
>Hillary said that she would go way beyond what Obama has done to help
>illegals. She said she was in favor of extending Obamacare to illegal
>aliens. She said she
>was in favor of extending reduced cost in-state tuition to them. Yet,
>virtually no mention of it at all in the media, who are covering for her.
>But, OMG, if a GOP candidate said anything that was even marginally
>controversial, why then the media would be all over it and you know it.
>
>Compare the hours of coverage to the NJ bridge lane closure story that you
>just revived to what just happened above. One was covered with story after
>story, for weeks. Yet here is Hillary saying how she;s going to do more
>presidential action for illegals, get them Obamacare, etc and not a peep.


Pointing out OTHER corruption doesn't negate how corrupt the SS is.
That Hillary is a scoundrel doesn't excuse the SS nor does it make
every claim against Hillary true.

[Uncle Monster]

My point is a bit absurd but it's the fact that we subjects of the imperial federal don't get a pass when it comes to the silliest of laws. Of course it doesn't apply to illegal aliens either. They have committed a federal crime by simply invading the country but as Oren has pointed out, there are American peasants sitting in federal prison for scaring a fish belonging to some endangered species protected by the federal government. Fraking animals have more rights that are protected by the feds than the humans who are paying taxes. If I'm ever charged with a crime having to do with aggravating some wild animal, I will demand that the alleged victim testify in court and be cross examined by my attorney. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Absurd Monster

[Oren]

On Sun, 18 Oct 2015 14:00:02 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
<uncl...@gmail.com> wrote:

>My point is a bit absurd but it's the fact that we subjects of the imperial federal don't get a pass when it comes to the silliest of laws. Of course it doesn't apply to illegal aliens either. They have committed a federal crime by simply invading the country but as Oren has pointed out, there are American peasants sitting in federal prison for scaring a fish belonging to some endangered species protected by the federal government. Fraking animals have more rights that are protected by the feds than the humans who are paying taxes. If I'm ever charged with a crime having to do with aggravating some wild animal, I will demand that the alleged victim testify in court and be cross examined by my attorney. o_O

You do have a right for cross examination of a witness, open testimony
in court. A claim he took a photo of a bear, the bear ran up a tree
and the park ranger arrested the man for harassing a bear. Got six
months in the federal pokey. The guy stealing government fish, when
the warrant to search the home turned up nothing until after his
mother said "do you want to check the freezer in the basement?"

There is a reported case in Las Vegas right now about public
testimony. Somebody is trying to keep the name secret -- maybe he
knows somebody?

I demand my rights to cross examination. Even if it is a bear, a fish
or some clown that knows somebody.

[Uncle Monster]

There was a morning talk show some years ago like The Phil Donahue Show where a group of Negro men wanted The Department Of The Interior to declare Negro males to be an endangered species so they could get federal protection for themselves and their habitat. The Negroes were jealous of wild critters that had more rights than they did. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Critter Monster

[rbowman]

On 10/18/2015 03:00 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
> They have committed a federal crime by simply invading the country but as Oren has pointed out, there are American peasants sitting in federal prison for scaring a fish belonging to some endangered species protected by the federal government.

Hey, fish have rights too! Unless you're a snail darter and Al Gore
wants to build a dam in your home to enrich his cronies.

[rbowman]

On 10/18/2015 06:42 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
> The Negroes were jealous of wild critters that had more rights than they did. O_o

They're perfectly correct. Any dog that's walking down the street and
needs to take a piss can walk up to the nearest tree and find relief.
Try it sometime and indecent exposure will be the best charge you can
hope for.

[Uncle Monster]

After the Tasering, pepper spray and beat down? o_O

[8~{} Uncle Taser Monster

[Scott Lurndal]

Oren <Or...@127.0.0.1> writes:

>On Fri, 16 Oct 2015 12:33:11 -0700 (PDT), Uncle Monster
><uncl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Obama has given her a pass on server matter:
>>>
>>> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/us/politics/obamas-comments-on-clinton-emails-collide-with-fbi-inquiry.html?_r=0
>>>
>>> Hope the FBI has the guts to indict her.
>>
>>The FBI doesn't indict anyone, what they do is investigate and turn the results over to The U.S. Attorney who seeks an indictment from a grand jury. It's high school civics, you should have learned it there. ^_^
>

>What you say is true. The USDA, in the Washington, D.C. district
>would have to indict her. Guess who appointed the liberals.

No, actually she would have had to commit a crime, first. One
can't indict someone without evidence that a crime was committed.

If you think a crime has been committed, you should be able to
point to the CFR that was violated.

You can't, because as Kevin McCarthy so clearly stated, this is
a political witchhunt, not a crime.

[rbowman]

On 10/19/2015 07:36 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> You can't, because as Kevin McCarthy so clearly stated, this is
> a political witchhunt, not a crime.

At least there's a witch involved, guilty of anything or not. Clinton,
Power, and Rice all hovered around a cauldron of boiling toads to
destabilize the Mid-East. They got their toil and trouble all right.

The Republicans need to get past what she might have done and down to
what she actually did do.

[Oren]

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 13:36:44 GMT, sc...@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal)
wrote:

You must have seen the recent 57,000 pages of material that nobody
else has, except the committee or have spoken the remaining witnesses
yet to be called. Start with perjury before a federal judge,
obstruction of justice, failed to protect national security secrets
(espionage) by giving her lawyer material, is at a minimum a
misdemeanor.... toss in some felonies.

Kevin McCarthy has seen what the committee has, so he is talking out
of school.

Wish her luck. Oh, we don't know about Amb. Stevens e-mail yet. Did
she not say she never got a request for more security.

[trader_4]

Do you deny that it's a crime to put classified information at a
location that is not secured and approved to house classified
information? Do you deny that was one of the felonies that
David Petraeus plead guilty to? In his case he took classified
information home to his house. In Hillary's case, she requested
and authorized an email system for her house which wound up not
only with all kinds of sensitive state dept email on it, but
also hundreds (so far) of emails with classified information.
That classified info also wound up in at least 3 other locations
that also had no approval for classified information.

And for the record, the Benghazi committee is investigating Benghazi,
not the legal status of Hillary's emails. The FBI is doing the latter.
If there's an email witch hunt, it's the FBI, Lynch and Obama
conducting it.

[trader_4]

On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 10:26:21 AM UTC-4, Oren wrote:

>
> You must have seen the recent 57,000 pages of material that nobody
> else has, except the committee or have spoken the remaining witnesses
> yet to be called. Start with perjury before a federal judge,
> obstruction of justice, failed to protect national security secrets
> (espionage) by giving her lawyer material, is at a minimum a
> misdemeanor.... toss in some felonies.
>
> Kevin McCarthy has seen what the committee has, so he is talking out
> of school.
>
> Wish her luck. Oh, we don't know about Amb. Stevens e-mail yet. Did
> she not say she never got a request for more security.

Even aside from what certainly appear to be criminal violations,
how about this. In the case of say Ben Carson, there is a big discussion
for days over his answer to a hypothetical question about whether a
muslim should be president. We're supposed to believe that is probative
of Carson's fitness to be president. But the fact that Hillary had a
server set up in her house, through which all state dept business was
conducted, including classified emails, and that's just business as
usual? Suppose you were sec of state, and an aide came to you and said
that it would be nice to have your own email system
in your own house, instead of using the state dept one. How much thought
would you have to give before you said, "That's a really, really dumb
idea?" You'd think emails are going to be coming from everyone from
the president and military to foreign govts. State dept business is
going to be conducted on this, it's a number one target for espionage, etc.
You'd say I want it housed and protected by the state dept, not in my
house. You'd think that if something ever did go wrong, eg a hacking,
someone walking away with a copy of a drive, etc, if it's at my house,
OMG it's not only going to be bad for the country, it's going to be a
disaster for me personally.
Even a CEO of any company of major significance would come to
the same conclusion, ie that their company email belongs on a system
at the company, for a long list of good reasons. Yet, in the case of
Hillary, we're supposed to believe that she actually came up with this
terrible, dumb idea herself, but she's qualified to be president?
And on top of that, a part of her try at defense is that she was too
dumb to know that information was extremely sensitive and classified
just because it wasn't marked as such?

And then why would anyone want emails from the president and foreign
govts mixed in with ones about their yoga class and wedding plans?
When I worked for a Fortune 100 company, I used the company email
system for business, not only because it was convenient, but the last
thing I wanted was work emails intermixed with my personal ones. The
reason Hillary wanted that server in her house is so she could do
what she did. Keep it private, have control over it, do what she pleased.
She put that priority over the security of the country. And it worked,
for an incredibly long time, until it didn't. And here we are....

[Oren]

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 08:15:12 -0600, rbowman <bow...@erewhon.com>
wrote:

Why were we in Benghazi? -- Were the weapons lost after Muammar
Gaddafi's demise being shipped to Syrian rebels? (Iran-Contra)

Were was the president the night Amb. Stevens was killed? What did
Hillary discuss with him?

Why did State deny added security for Amb. Stevens, but protect an
airport instead? Weapon shipments to Syria?

[trader_4]

On Monday, October 19, 2015 at 11:28:00 AM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 08:15:12 -0600, rbowman <bow...@erewhon.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On 10/19/2015 07:36 AM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
> >> You can't, because as Kevin McCarthy so clearly stated, this is
> >> a political witchhunt, not a crime.
> >
> >At least there's a witch involved, guilty of anything or not. Clinton,
> >Power, and Rice all hovered around a cauldron of boiling toads to
> >destabilize the Mid-East. They got their toil and trouble all right.
> >
> >The Republicans need to get past what she might have done and down to
> >what she actually did do.
> >
>
> Why were we in Benghazi? -- Were the weapons lost after Muammar
> Gaddafi's demise being shipped to Syrian rebels? (Iran-Contra)
>

Funny, according to Hillary, there have been 7 investigation, yet
we don't know that do we? But maybe it's classified.....

> Were was the president the night Amb. Stevens was killed? What did
> Hillary discuss with him?

Funny, according to Hillary, there have been 7 investigation, yet
we don't know that do we? We know Obama was told about the attack
as it started, around 5PM. After that, we don't know anything. If
we know where Bush was minute by minute on 9/11, why don't we know
WTF Obama was doing from then on? Logical reason is because he didn't
do anything and didn't give a damn. But in all the interviews, the
few press conferences he's had, no one has asked him and pinned him
down on that......

>
> Why did State deny added security for Amb. Stevens, but protect an
> airport instead? Weapon shipments to Syria?

Funny, according to Hillary, there have been 7 investigation, yet
we don't know that do we? And even better the dumb state dept woman
responsible for security actually testified before Congress that
she still believes security at Benghazi was adequate for conditions
at the time..... She still has her job too.

[Oren]

I think she means 7 committees have had hearings and nobody pinned her
down YET. Benghazi hearings are _not_ over yet, by a long shot. Those
other hearings didn't have the material that Trey Gowdy has.

It'll be fun watching her wiggle on Thursday, at the public hearing. I
guess she in down a rabbit hole this week preparing her pat answers.

[sms]

They kind of screwed up by getting Hillary's e-mails while secretary of
state and releasing them.

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3277402/Smoking-gun-emails-reveal-Blair-s-deal-blood-George-Bush-Iraq-war-forged-YEAR-invasion-started.html>

The other problem is that the Republicans have been manufacturing so
many phony scandals that even if there were a real scandal nobody would
take them seriously.

[Oren]

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 10:51:31 -0700, sms <scharf...@geemail.com>
wrote:

>> The Republicans need to get past what she might have done and down to
>> what she actually did do.
>
>They kind of screwed up by getting Hillary's e-mails while secretary of
>state and releasing them.
>
><http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3277402/Smoking-gun-emails-reveal-Blair-s-deal-blood-George-Bush-Iraq-war-forged-YEAR-invasion-started.html>
>
>The other problem is that the Republicans have been manufacturing so
>many phony scandals that even if there were a real scandal nobody would
>take them seriously.

Your own link states:

"The documents, obtained by The Mail on Sunday, are part of a batch of
secret emails held on the private server of Democratic presidential
candidate Hillary Clinton which U.S. courts have forced her to
reveal."

She will not comment. So according to the article, there were
"secrets" on her private server.

You libs still live in the past about Iraq. Next time you could bring
up Union commanders owning slaves while fighting at Gettysburg.

Do you libs sip the Kool-Aid or gulp the Kool-Aid?

[trader_4]

My, oh my. That document is marked "Classified". How can that be?
There was never any classified info on any of Hillary's servers....
Oh, no wait, that was what she said last Spring. Now she says there
was never anything "marked classified". But, Doh! This one sure is
marked classified.....

And the whole Blair thing is some kind of "bombshell"? Are those
Britts daft? The email is from Colin Powell to Bush and in it Powell
says that Blair will be with us if military action becomes necessary.
You'd have to be a moron to think that is in any way inconsistent
with Blair (and Bush) still seeking and hoping for a peaceful solution
for the next year before war became necessary.

[Oren]

Yet, sms states Republicans manufacture "phony scandals". Consider
Hillary stood before families of four dead Americans, draped with our
flags, at Andrews AFB, said she would put the guy in jail that was the
cause of the incident in Benghazi, the one that made a video, Amb.
Stevens was her "friend", yet denied him protection, stated "what
difference does it make" to the select committee and takes no blame.

Ducking bitch. Just how liberals operate. "I never stole the
Lindbergh baby"!

Makes me want to spit or vomit. Her Oath meant nothing to her.

[Oren]

On Mon, 19 Oct 2015 11:59:41 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
<tra...@optonline.net> wrote:

>My, oh my. That document is marked "Classified". How can that be?

Trader, look at the right side: "Review Authority". Limited to those
with a "need to know". I've mentioned it before, here.

Need to know is only given to those that need the information to
conduct government business or perform a task.

I can give examples. From previous work.

[Uncle Monster]

You forget one absolute truth, Hitlery Clinton IS an evil witch. I don't write that just because she's a Commiecrat and a member of the 1% elites. She has earned the title. The sad thing is that those who worship her will allow her to get away with anything no matter what she does. Oh yea, I'm not a Republican, Republicans disgust me but Democrats are special, they horrify me. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Horrible Monster

[Uncle Monster]

I'm surprised that homosexuals aren't howling about Hitlery since she did get a Gay ambassador killed. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Straight Monster

[Uncle Monster]

I seem to recall a General David Petraeus being ruined by the Obama Administration over the mishandling and leak of classified information to a woman with whom he was having an affair. Hitlery severely mishandles a huge amount of classified information some of which wound up in the hands of foreign governments then lies about it and she's given a pass? WTF? It must be that rules and laws don't apply to the Commicrat elite, especially when they control The Executive Branch. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Elite Monster

[Uncle Monster]

Hell, we should blame everything on President Bush. O_o

[8~{} Uncle Blameless Monster

[Uncle Monster]

They actually get their Kool-Aid intravenously along with their illegal drugs. It affects their brains faster and much more severely. ^__^

[8~{} Uncle Quick Monster

[rbowman]

On 10/19/2015 06:27 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
> I seem to recall a General David Petraeus being ruined by the Obama Administration over the mishandling and leak of classified information to a woman with whom he was having an affair. Hitlery severely mishandles a huge amount of classified information some of which wound up in the hands of foreign governments then lies about it and she's given a pass? WTF? It must be that rules and laws don't apply to the Commicrat elite, especially when they control The Executive Branch. O_o

Actually Obama's pet AG let Petraeus off easy compared to the FBI
recommendation. There's some speculation the FBI is still really pissed
about that and will nail Clinton to the wall if they can jsut to get even.

[Uncle Monster]

I've a feeling that if the administration really came down on Petraeus, he would have released a lot of damning information about Obama and his cronies. He probably has information hidden away somewhere that will be released upon his death and I'm sure if it were to be found, he would have a fatal accident, inexplicable heart attack or lethal stroke. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Lethal Monster

[trader_4]

So far the most they have with regard to what Hillary knew about
the repeated requests for increased security is an email from Stevens
in July, before the attack. The biggest disaster for her would be
if some other emails regarding that turn up and they were deleted from
her server. It's obvious where to look. Just look at all the people
that were copied on that or any other security emails. If there were
other emails from Stevens, then just look at who all the recipients
were, who was copied, etc. It's hard for me to believe that with all
his concern about security and the requests being denied, that Stevens
didn't copy Hillary when he wasn't getting what he wanted. Or maybe
she just told him, "Look, enough already, we're not doing anything more,
what difference does it make?. Stop bothering me." Or he could have only
done it in phone calls.

I know if it were me, and they were decreasing my security when I was
asking to increase it and I was in the hell hole, I'd be escalating my
requests and if I didn't get what I needed from Hillary, I'd go to Obama.
It's also probative of the culture of Hillary's state dept that problems
like this apparently don't have an escalation process. Fortune 100 I
worked for had a culture of constructive confrontation. If you saw a
problem, had an issue and were convinced you were right, you were
encouraged to go to wherever it took to get it fixed, escalate, including
contacting the CEO if necessary. Hillary's answer is, I just run the
whole state dept, I'm not responsible for the incompetent people and/or
processes in it that drew down security in Libya. Any reasonable person
has to conclude that Stevens must have been telling Hillary that his
requests were being denied. They talked directly, impossible for me to
believe he did not bring it up.

[Tekkie®]

Uncle Monster posted for all of us...

>
> I've a feeling that if the administration really came down on Petraeus, he would have released a lot of damning information about Obama and his cronies. He probably has information hidden away somewhere that will be released upon his death and I'm sure if it were to be found, he would have a fatal accident, inexplicable heart attack or lethal stroke. o_O
>
> [8~{} Uncle Lethal Monster
>

Tell us what you really feel about Vince Foster? What difference does it
make?

--
Tekkie

[Tekkie®]

Oren posted for all of us...

> Her Oath meant nothing to her.
>

NOTHING means anything to her. Remember, it's the cover-up that will get
her. It's just taking longer because the news readers are in the tank with
her.

I hope something happens before the election. The scrambling will be
amusing. Now with Biden not running who will the queen pick for vice queen?
What happens then?

--
Tekkie

[Tekkie®]

Uncle Monster posted for all of us...

Whoo, peeing while being tasered, OC'd and whacked sounds like a thrill that
can't be missed!

--
Tekkie

[Tekkie®]

Oren posted for all of us...


>
> I had a conversation with my doctor about online medical records. She
> has no choice but to comply with the law. Of course the government
> already has vast amounts of information about me. I stopped worrying
> about it years ago before the clouds, data flying around the world on
> fiber optics, faster than a speeding bullet. The recent OPM hacks,
> exposing millions a federal worker's data and the like. My buttocks
> have be flappin' in the wind for years. They can kill me but they
> don't have the balls to eat me. DO THEY? :-\

Why would we be eating you; you're our favorite turd. I ain't shitt'n you.
<g>

--
Tekkie

[Uncle Monster]

Electricity and urine don't go together. O_o

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21uUZ32Sj5M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ONCaj4HXYLM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwKlFkX65Zs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuT79I_IoJA

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tU1UKn7iXv8

[8~{} Uncle Peeing Monster

[trader_4]

What happens is something I haven't heard anyone discussing. I was
thinking about that too. Assume H has to withdraw. What happens depends
on when that happens along the timeline. If it happened now, you could
put a replacement on all the primary ballots. What if it happens after
the first few primaries? What are the cutoff dates for changing the ballots
in the next primaries? Suppose she bails after she has a substantial number
of delegates? What happens then? Bernie picks up all the rest because
the primaries are past the dates to change the ballots? What happens if
she bails after the convention? I'm sure some people are up at night thinking
about all that, but I haven't seen any discussion in the media about how it
would work.

Of course it may all be a moot point, because H has a remarkable ability
to survive anything. If a GOP had a fraction of her problems, eg email,
Benghazi, the Clinton Foundation, the media would be all over it and they'd
be in jail by now. Also troubling is we already have a precedent of the law
not being followed, eg immigration, sanctuary cities, marijuana.... so would
it surprise you if they gave her a pass?

[Dean Hoffman]

Suppose HRC gets arrested after the Democrat Convention. Obama pardons
her. I bet she'd still get a ton of votes.


--
Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[trader_4]

On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 8:42:09 AM UTC-4, Dean Hoffman wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 07:30:57 -0500, trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
>

I think you're right. She might even win. This is the new America.
When you have almost all the media on your side, it sure helps. Just
look at what just happened with Benghazi. For the first time we learned
that on the night of the attack, she emailed Chelsea and said that an
attack was going on and it looked like it was Al Qaeda. Late the next
day, she has a phone call with the Egyptian PM and tells him that it
was an attack:

"We know the attack had nothing to do with the film," "It was a planned attack, not a protest . . . Based on the information we saw today, we believe that the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al-Qaeda."

Yet publically, including a couple days later with the families of the
4 dead, she claimed it was all over a video.

Now, you would think *that* would be the news headlines that evening,
that H knew it was a terrorist attack and not a "spontaneous demonstration
over a movie", well telling the public a tall tale. but not one mention
of it. It was all about nothing new,
how well H had done testifying, etc. The truth no longer matters.

[Stormin Mormon]

On 10/25/2015 8:42 AM, Dean Hoffman wrote:
> Suppose HRC gets arrested after the Democrat Convention. Obama
> pardons
> her. I bet she'd still get a ton of votes.
>
>

Vaaast right wing conspiracy, I tell you!

--
.
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
. www.lds.org
.
.

[Oren]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 07:42:01 -0500, "Dean Hoffman"
<dh0...@windstream.net> wrote:

> Suppose HRC gets arrested after the Democrat Convention. Obama pardons
>her. I bet she'd still get a ton of votes.

If she does get elected she could pardon herself. Or on the same day
face _Articles of Impeachment_.

[Oren]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 11:05:58 -0400, Stormin Mormon
<cayo...@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Vaaast right wing conspiracy, I tell you!

Bah. It's a vast socialist cover up.

[ChairMan]

trader_4 <tra...@optonline.net> wrote:
> On Friday, October 23, 2015 at 1:58:53 PM UTC-4, TekkieŽ

IF? They have already given her a pass. What you are seeing
is just a dog and pony show. She'll walk away being even
more popular because the nasty GOP harrassed her for no good
reason.

[Oren]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 12:57:31 -0500, "ChairMan" <nos...@thanks.com>
wrote:

>IF? They have already given her a pass. What you are seeing
>is just a dog and pony show. She'll walk away being even
>more popular because the nasty GOP harrassed her for no good
>reason.

The fat lady ain't sung yet. It may not be over. There is hope she
gets a striped pant suit.

Cited are 15-16 federal crimes by Uncle Rudy Giuliani:

<http://video.foxnews.com/v/4573914091001/giuliani-hillary-clinton-is-either-incompetent-or-lying/?playlist_id=2114913880001#sp=show-clips>

<https://tinyurl.com/ord59rw>

He should be the next Attorney General :)

[spam@thnks.com ChairMan]

You're preachin to the choir, I agree she's guilty as hell, but look at the
polls, nobody cares. they all think shes being railroaded and its just a
witch hunt(no pun intended). just look at our DOJ and tell me that you
honestly think ANY charges will be brought against her by them. There should
be, but there won't be. I hate it, but it seems to be the truth

[Oren]

On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 14:39:45 -0500, "ChairMan" <no sp...@thnks.com>
wrote:

>> <https://tinyurl.com/ord59rw>
>>
>> He should be the next Attorney General :)
>
>You're preachin to the choir, I agree she's guilty as hell, but look at the
>polls, nobody cares. they all think shes being railroaded and its just a
>witch hunt(no pun intended). just look at our DOJ and tell me that you
>honestly think ANY charges will be brought against her by them. There should
>be, but there won't be. I hate it, but it seems to be the truth
>

... but, But, BUT we were promised hope and change. We could keep our
doctor and health care would not go up one thin dime.

America is in trouble. Invest in guns and ammo. Worth more than Gold.

There can't be a smidgen of corruption - oh wait, I missed something:)

[Robert Green]

"trader_4" <tra...@optonline.net> wrote in message news:2c6e9211-

<stuff snipped>

What no one on the far right seems to realize is that news stories have
what's called "shelf life" which pertains to how long they stay interesting
to the public. Trey Gowdy (who leaked a CIA covert name in the process) is
trying to get people re-interested in a bowl of very, very rancid,
out-of-date yogurt. People, with the exception of rabid Hillary-haters,
aren't interested. It only proves that the Tea Party isn't interesting in
governing, but witch hunting. What happened in Canada could happen here if
the GOP keeps up on their current course. Lots of Dems come out during
Presidential elections and the face of Congress could easily change in 2016.

Conservative women like my wife watch these "beat a dead horse" witch hunts
and say "I don't like Hillary but I REALLY don't like what they're doing to
her." Most professional women have seen this sort of organized misogyny
more than once during their careers. It's KILLING any chance the R's have
of retaking the Whitehouse in 2016. And yet, having reached rock bottom,
they continue to dig . . .

Maureen Dowd, who often champions conservative causes, wrote:

<< Nobody plays the victim like Hillary. She can wield that label like a
wrecking ball.

If her husband humiliates her with a girlfriend in the Oval Office, Hillary
turns around and uses the sympathy engendered to launch a political career.
If her Republican opponent gets in her space in an overbearing way during a
debate, she turns around and uses the sympathy engendered to win a Senate
seat. If conservatives hold a Salem witch trial under the guise of a House
select committee hearing, she turns around and uses the sympathy engendered
to slip into the H.O.V. lane of a superhighway to the presidency.

Hillary Clinton is never more alluring than when a bunch of pasty-faced,
nasty-tongued white men bully her.

And she was plenty alluring during her marathon session on Thursday with
Republican Lilliputians, who were completely oblivious to the fact that
Hillary is always at her most potent when some Teanderthal is trying to put
her in her place.>>

Failed Speaker candidate Kevin McCarthy already confessed that the Benghazi
hearings were designed to cripple Hillary at the polls. That's when they
should have backed off and found something new. No one except people like
you care about Benghazi anymore. People are tired of having to continually
hear the same old crap regurgitated time after time. It's like being forced
to watch video of someone else's grandkids on their smartphone.

--
Bobby G.

[Tekkie®]

Oren posted for all of us...


>

Hmm, I was thinking Christie, but I like Giuliani better. Wonder whom would
make a good VP. It's for the GOP to lose. They don't have enough cajones
among all of them to make one rocky mounted oyster. Did Harry Greed do a
mass castration and start with boner? Even Dr. Pol would have a problem
clamping that many...

--
Tekkie

[spam@thnks.com ChairMan]

whatcha bitchin about...ya got hope and change....now everyone is hoping it
will change <g>

[Oren]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 14:44:37 -0500, "ChairMan" <no sp...@thnks.com>
wrote:

>> There can't be a smidgen of corruption - oh wait, I missed something:)
>
>whatcha bitchin about...ya got hope and change....now everyone is hoping it
>will change <g>

Be patient Grasshopper... good times are coming.

[spam@thnks.com ChairMan]

I hope yer right, but I think the fix is already in.

[Oren]

On Tue, 27 Oct 2015 17:05:09 -0500, "ChairMan" <no sp...@thnks.com>
wrote:

>> Be patient Grasshopper... good times are coming.
>
>I hope yer right, but I think the fix is already in.
>

Rumor has it that if Hillary is not charged by DOJ and Obama, Agents
will resign from the FBI an leak documents to the public. She can run
on that :)

[spam@thnks.com ChairMan]

Well they best start resignin', cuz this DOJ and bammy ain't goin to charge
billary

[Robert Green]

"sms" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message news:n03af4

> The other problem is that the Republicans have been manufacturing so >
many phony scandals that even if there were a real scandal nobody would
> take them seriously.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/trey-gowdy-just-elected-hillary-clinton-president-20151023

What happened on the Hill Thursday echoed the famous scene from All the
President's Men, when super-source Deep Throat scolds reporter Bob Woodward
for botching a story about hated Nixon henchman H.R. Haldeman.

"You let Haldeman slip away," says Deep Throat.

"Yes," answers a sheepish Woodward.

"You've done worse than let Haldeman slip away. You've got people feeling
sorry for him. I didn't think that was possible."

With Thursday's interminable, pointless, haranguing, disorganized, utterly
amateurish attempt at a smear job, the Republicans and their tenth-rate
congressional attack schnauzer, South Carolina's Trey Gowdy, got people
feeling sorry for Hillary Clinton. Over the course of 11 long hours, they
made the most eloquent argument for a Hillary Clinton presidency yet offered
by anyone, including Clinton herself.

[trader_4]

I see. So, you were impressed that Hillary was proven to be a liar.
She emailed Chelsea the night of the attack, that it looks like a
terrorist attack, probably Al Qaeda linked. Next day she has a phone
conversation with the Egyptian PM, telling him that it was a terrorist
attack that had nothing to do with a movie:

"We know the attack had nothing to do with the film," she says. "It was a planned attack, not a protest . . . Based on the information we saw today, we believe that the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al-Qaeda."

Yet she met with the victim families and told them it was a protest
over a movie. She also told them that she would get back to them with
answers as to what happened. The mother of one says that when she didn't
hear anything more, she tried to contact Hillary and was told that because
she wasn't "immediate family", she won't get any answers at all.

Liars like that impress you and get your sympathy? My sympathy goes
to the families of the victims. Four people dead, an email to Hillary
from the dead ambassador in July, begging for more security, Hillary
says she didn't see it. Sure, I believe that. Even if it's true,
maybe the reason she didn't see it was because she chose to mix emails
of ambassadors begging for more security with her emails about yoga,
Chelsea's wedding, the Clinton Foundation and God knows what else.

And the reason she comes out of hearing like that with little damage
is that the liberal media is totally on her side. What I summarized
above is what should have been reported. Instead, the media reported
about how nice and presidential she looked while she sat there and lied.