Whoa! Hillary instructs top aid to violate security protocols surrounding classified email?

Once again, AssupIHateLiars, shows his continued support for the most corrupt, dishonest candidate in history. I guess lying is ok if you're a liberal. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

It's more important for the liberals to have the "first female President," just like it was to have the "first Black President," which is why they were looking forward to being able to vote for Carson or Fiorina, but they've been "Trumped"! The Liberals will have a hard time voting for Cruz since one of his parents was not a U.S. citizen (apparently), and Rubio has an "Hispanic" heritage based on his Cuban ancestry, and besides he's TOO YOUNG!. So voting for the "first Hispanic President" is not a "POSSIBILITY"!

All they got is a pathological liar and national security risk, who facilitates her husband's preying on subordinates and vulnerable ladies while he prostitutes himself on the speaking touring scamming money from foreign countries with promises of "special treatment" from the current and FUTURE administrations.

The, at least, two faces of Hillary:

"Wipe it? You mean like with a cloth?"

"Turn into nonpaper, w no identifying heading, send nonsecure"

What a fraud

The, at least, two faces of Hillary:

"Wipe it? You mean like with a cloth?"

"Turn into nonpaper, w no identifying heading, send nonsecure"

What a fraud Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Actually on several levels it is forgery of a government document, and when she instructs a subordinate to change the published status of a classified document she has conspired to "up the level" of the offense.

The same whiners on here who proclaim through mental contortions that Bush II "lied" about the existence of WMD's (while ignoring Bill's proclamation they existed) won't even hold their noses when the mark down their vote for "a Clinton"!

Once again, AssupIHateLiars, shows his continued support for the most corrupt, dishonest candidate in history. I guess lying is ok if you're a liberal. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

How did you get all that out of a single word?

LMAO @ whinybitch republican shill.

Actually on several levels it is forgery of a government document, and when she instructs a subordinate to change the published status of a classified document she has conspired to "up the level" of the offense.

The same whiners on here who proclaim through mental contortions that Bush II "lied" about the existence of WMD's (while ignoring Bill's proclamation they existed) won't even hold their noses when the mark down their vote for "a Clinton"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Thank you Janet Reno!

It's more important for the liberals to have the "first female President," just like it was to have the "first Black President," which is why they were looking forward to being able to vote for Carson or Fiorina, but they've been "Trumped"! The Liberals will have a hard time voting for Cruz since one of his parents was not a U.S. citizen (apparently), and Rubio has an "Hispanic" heritage based on his Cuban ancestry, and besides he's TOO YOUNG!. So voting for the "first Hispanic President" is not a "POSSIBILITY"!

All they got is a pathological liar and national security risk, who facilitates her husband's preying on subordinates and vulnerable ladies while he prostitutes himself on the speaking touring scamming money from foreign countries with promises of "special treatment" from the current and FUTURE administrations. Originally Posted by LexusLover

The same whiners on here who proclaim through mental contortions that Bush II "lied" about the existence of WMD's (while ignoring Bill's proclamation they existed) won't even hold their noses when the mark down their vote for "a Clinton"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

Just mention "whiners" and here comes the biggest one of all!! YouRong!!!!

Bleu blanc et rouge, you fucking, ignorant imbecile.

Or are those the colors of the Clarksville flag, Mr. Mayor?

Thanks for the meltdown. It's been entertaining watching your annual holiday malaise manifest itself all over this forum.

The same whiners on here who proclaim through mental contortions that Bush II "lied" about the existence of WMD's (while ignoring Bill's proclamation they existed) won't even hold their noses when the mark down their vote for "a Clinton"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

You do realize Clinton did not start a war on that erroneous belief.

There is no doubt Bush lied as there were no WMD's and Bush admitted as much. These same folks who want to hold people responsible for four folks dying in Benghazi .... have made excuse after excuse for responsibility of the administration who was responsible for 4000 plus deaths and countless injuries...

You do realize Clinton did not start a war on that erroneous belief.

There is no doubt Bush lied as there were no WMD's and Bush admitted as much. ...... Originally Posted by WTF

Oh, Please! ("admitted as much" .... "no doubt" .... IN YOUR "MIND"!!!)

Go ahead and vote for Hillarious, but give it a rest.

You actually believe that if you repeat it enough it's true! IBH does the same!

Clinton committed acts of war against Sudan, Iraq, and Afghanistan but like his women they could not fight back.

Once again, AssupIHateLiars, shows his continued support for the most corrupt, dishonest candidate in history. I guess lying is ok if you're a liberal. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Again, these folks aren't liberals, they are progressives.

The, at least, two faces of Hillary:

"Wipe it? You mean like with a cloth?"

"Turn into nonpaper, w no identifying heading, send nonsecure"

What a fraud Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

That would make an excellent political ad.

You do realize Clinton did not start a war on that erroneous belief.

There is no doubt Bush lied as there were no WMD's and Bush admitted as much. These same folks who want to hold people responsible for four folks dying in Benghazi .... have made excuse after excuse for responsibility of the administration who was responsible for 4000 plus deaths and countless injuries... Originally Posted by WTF

Gawd, you stupid bitch, there is no "no doubt Bush lied" and Bush didn't admit no WMDs. In fact Hillary voted for the war and had access to much of the same intelligence as the President in the 90's and early 2000's.

And you want to elect as President the same "folks" who voted for the Iranian War and who are responsible for Benghazi and lying about it? You are a Stupid Bitch and Moronic Buffoon.

=========================

Questions separate from the above:

Why is Clinton relying heavily on Sidney Blumethal for intelligence reports? Did she not believe existing reports were adequate? Did she have certain intelligence avenues frozen out by the Obama administration? Was it because they suspected her email server was compromised?

Actually on several levels it is forgery of a government document, and when she instructs a subordinate to change the published status of a classified document she has conspired to "up the level" of the offense.

The same whiners on here who proclaim through mental contortions that Bush II "lied" about the existence of WMD's (while ignoring Bill's proclamation they existed) won't even hold their noses when the mark down their vote for "a Clinton"! Originally Posted by LexusLover

With all the shit they spew from their lying liberal mouths, the are used to the smell by now !

Clinton committed acts of war against Sudan, Iraq, and Afghanistan but like his women they could not fight back. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Excellent point.

Clinton committed acts of war against Sudan, Iraq, and Afghanistan but like his women they could not fight back. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

....actually his women-victims did "fight back" .... and Bill committed perjury (AND LIED TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE) to resist their efforts and Hillarious (the current favorite of the liberals-progressives-pro-entitlement crowd) blamed a great "right-wing conspiracy" and trashed the female victims trying to label them as lying-opportunists ... in HER WAR ON WOMEN.

That would make an excellent political ad.


Why is Clinton relying heavily on Sidney Blumethal for intelligence reports?
Originally Posted by gnadfly

thanks

as far as Blumenthal

it is strange, for his reports, according to what I have read, were unreliable.

receiving his reports bypassed the normal vetting process in the state department where information was compared to other information, cross checked and received scrutiny before being placed in channel. so maybe she liked that, having some outside source all her own where she could possibly be a hero

but more than anything it reflects the long time Clinton pattern for thinking nothing applies to them and that rules are for other people

Blumenthal was barred by Obama from working for the state dept, but with Hillary's attitude of superior specialness, she never skipped a beat, just put him on the foundation payroll, allowed him to sell his connection to her to the highest bidder and they could all make some money. he was like a front man for further foundation contributions. it was a way of selling her position at arms length