Dead candidate walking...

Good. Make me happy and go away.

Good. Make me happy and go away. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Naw, think I'll stick around a bit longer.

You lied!

You lied! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

You asked if you quitting posting would make me happy. I replied that whatever makes you happy, makes me happy, meaning yes, I would be happy if you quit.

You lied! Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

And you're surprised about it ? That's what woomby DOES !! He and ALL liberals can't stand the truth to be in their mouth ! woomby can take loads of cum from his work at the 'holes and lots of shit from his ATM sessions, but NEVER the truth !!!

Why does making them private somehow equal making them transparent to the chinese and russians? I think that's another one of your famous false dichotomies. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Get back on point, sewer rat. You still haven't explained why Hildabeast required a private server. Afraid to take a stab at that one? Everything else is deflection.
.

The Department of Hillary

How it is that the nation’s diplomatic corps has become an arm of the Clinton presidential campaign?

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Sept. 3, 2015 6:59 p.m. ET

Whatever the Clinton campaign is paying Mark Toner, it ain’t enough. Oh, wait; it isn’t anything. Which is interesting.

Mark Toner, you see, is a federal employee. Technically, he’s a spokesman for the State Department. This isn’t always clear, though, especially when the nimble Mr. Toner takes to the podium to ferociously defend the putative Democratic nominee six ways from Election Day. Hillary Clinton’s communications gurus Jennifer Palmieri and Nick Merrill—they do a fine job. But Mr. Toner? He’s the bomb.

And he’s not alone. Since the dawn of the Clinton email scandal, the entire State Department has been vigorously protecting Hillary Clinton. Whatever the motivation (and more on that later), what we are witnessing is an extraordinary all-hands government assist for a presidential candidate.

This assist was evident from the first moment, when Congress discovered the server and demanded the former secretary of state’s emails. The State Department scrambled to ask former holders of her office for private documents—giving Mrs. Clinton the excuse that everybody did it. State has ever since slow-walked the surrender of her correspondence to the House committee investigating the Benghazi fiasco. Chairman Trey Gowdy on Thursday had to conduct a hearing with former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills while still not in possession of her work emails.

State has also gone to bat for Mrs. Clinton in court. A federal judge had to order the department to release her emails starting this summer (rather than next year, as State had vaguely promised). A federal judge also had to order it to find out if Mrs. Clinton and her aides had in fact turned over all their email. The same judge had to order State to tell him what it had done to find her deleted email. On hearing the answer—absolutely nothing—he ordered the department to work with the FBI.

The State Department has also assisted with Mrs. Clinton’s “not marked as classified” diversion. And an utterly ridiculous diversion it is. If Mrs. Clinton left a top-secret briefing, then emailed what she’d heard, that information is classified. Markings don’t matter. And yet State has deliberately sent the media down Mrs. Clinton’s “markings” rabbit hole.

Ask yourself this: Why does the State Department care so much about what was classified in Mrs. Clinton’s emails—unless its goal is to help her story line? Or ask yourself about a Fox News report this week that State Department lawyers changed the categorization of several Clinton emails, making them “deliberative” rather than classified, a designation that shields them from congressional investigators.

And then there’s State’s lockdown on basic information. Mr. Toner in several wild news conferences this week refused to answer reporters’ questions about whether Mrs. Clinton sent classified material on her server; or whether her server was breached; or if she was bound by the foreign-affairs manual; or who exactly knew about and signed off on her arrangement; or how high up that knowledge went. At one point, when asked whether anyone at State had disagreed with her having a private server, Mr. Toner graciously acknowledged that this was an “appropriate” question, but that it was more “appropriate” for “other” entities to answer. The reporter’s stunned response: But “she was the secretary of state.”

We can’t know exactly what’s going on here, but some basic facts offer plausible explanations. This could be straight politics. State is still run by Obama officials, and President Obama wants another Democrat in the Oval Office to preserve his legacy. Mrs. Clinton, despite her travails, remains his best shot. The White House has every incentive (if no right) to provide Mrs. Clinton with cover for the email mess.

This also could be institutional damage control. If Mrs. Clinton does end up in legal hot water over misusing classified information, you can bet she’ll use the State Department as her defense. She’ll point out that State knew about the private server, cleared her use of it and provided technical help—and she will name names. Both career and political State employees might also face charges. How high up did that knowledge and signoff go; who aided in this misadventure? The State Department doesn’t want to go there.

This could also be personal damage control. Most of Mrs. Clinton’s cronies have left the department, but Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary of management before she arrived, remains in his job. His name and his judgment have been questioned in both the Benghazi debacle and the Clinton server setup, since his group runs both diplomatic security and information management. Mr. Kennedy is still running State’s response to both the Benghazi and the Clinton email investigations—a flagrant conflict of interest.

State’s inspector general, Steve Linick, has plenty going on right now, but he might still ask how it is that the nation’s diplomatic corps has come to be an arm of the Clinton campaign. And now that Secretary of State John Kerry is done pandering to ayatollahs, he might also be asked to show some accountability on a scandal that is undercutting his department’s basic credibility. The State Department exists to serve the American people’s interests abroad. It isn’t the Department of Hillary.

.

Get back on point, sewer rat. You still haven't explained why Hildabeast required a private server. Afraid to take a stab at that one? Everything else is deflection.
. Originally Posted by lustylad

This post of yours is a perfect example of deflection. I asked you a direct question and you dodged it. I don't know why she required a private server. Now, why does a private server automatically mean it's open season for the chinese and russians? Afraid to take a stab at it?

The Department of Hillary

How it is that the nation’s diplomatic corps has become an arm of the Clinton presidential campaign?

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Sept. 3, 2015 6:59 p.m. ET

Whatever the Clinton campaign is paying Mark Toner, it ain’t enough. Oh, wait; it isn’t anything. Which is interesting.

Mark Toner, you see, is a federal employee. Technically, he’s a spokesman for the State Department. This isn’t always clear, though, especially when the nimble Mr. Toner takes to the podium to ferociously defend the putative Democratic nominee six ways from Election Day. Hillary Clinton’s communications gurus Jennifer Palmieri and Nick Merrill—they do a fine job. But Mr. Toner? He’s the bomb.

And he’s not alone. Since the dawn of the Clinton email scandal, the entire State Department has been vigorously protecting Hillary Clinton. Whatever the motivation (and more on that later), what we are witnessing is an extraordinary all-hands government assist for a presidential candidate.

This assist was evident from the first moment, when Congress discovered the server and demanded the former secretary of state’s emails. The State Department scrambled to ask former holders of her office for private documents—giving Mrs. Clinton the excuse that everybody did it. State has ever since slow-walked the surrender of her correspondence to the House committee investigating the Benghazi fiasco. Chairman Trey Gowdy on Thursday had to conduct a hearing with former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills while still not in possession of her work emails.

State has also gone to bat for Mrs. Clinton in court. A federal judge had to order the department to release her emails starting this summer (rather than next year, as State had vaguely promised). A federal judge also had to order it to find out if Mrs. Clinton and her aides had in fact turned over all their email. The same judge had to order State to tell him what it had done to find her deleted email. On hearing the answer—absolutely nothing—he ordered the department to work with the FBI.

The State Department has also assisted with Mrs. Clinton’s “not marked as classified” diversion. And an utterly ridiculous diversion it is. If Mrs. Clinton left a top-secret briefing, then emailed what she’d heard, that information is classified. Markings don’t matter. And yet State has deliberately sent the media down Mrs. Clinton’s “markings” rabbit hole.

Ask yourself this: Why does the State Department care so much about what was classified in Mrs. Clinton’s emails—unless its goal is to help her story line? Or ask yourself about a Fox News report this week that State Department lawyers changed the categorization of several Clinton emails, making them “deliberative” rather than classified, a designation that shields them from congressional investigators.

And then there’s State’s lockdown on basic information. Mr. Toner in several wild news conferences this week refused to answer reporters’ questions about whether Mrs. Clinton sent classified material on her server; or whether her server was breached; or if she was bound by the foreign-affairs manual; or who exactly knew about and signed off on her arrangement; or how high up that knowledge went. At one point, when asked whether anyone at State had disagreed with her having a private server, Mr. Toner graciously acknowledged that this was an “appropriate” question, but that it was more “appropriate” for “other” entities to answer. The reporter’s stunned response: But “she was the secretary of state.”

We can’t know exactly what’s going on here, but some basic facts offer plausible explanations. This could be straight politics. State is still run by Obama officials, and President Obama wants another Democrat in the Oval Office to preserve his legacy. Mrs. Clinton, despite her travails, remains his best shot. The White House has every incentive (if no right) to provide Mrs. Clinton with cover for the email mess.

This also could be institutional damage control. If Mrs. Clinton does end up in legal hot water over misusing classified information, you can bet she’ll use the State Department as her defense. She’ll point out that State knew about the private server, cleared her use of it and provided technical help—and she will name names. Both career and political State employees might also face charges. How high up did that knowledge and signoff go; who aided in this misadventure? The State Department doesn’t want to go there.

This could also be personal damage control. Most of Mrs. Clinton’s cronies have left the department, but Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary of management before she arrived, remains in his job. His name and his judgment have been questioned in both the Benghazi debacle and the Clinton server setup, since his group runs both diplomatic security and information management. Mr. Kennedy is still running State’s response to both the Benghazi and the Clinton email investigations—a flagrant conflict of interest.

State’s inspector general, Steve Linick, has plenty going on right now, but he might still ask how it is that the nation’s diplomatic corps has come to be an arm of the Clinton campaign. And now that Secretary of State John Kerry is done pandering to ayatollahs, he might also be asked to show some accountability on a scandal that is undercutting his department’s basic credibility. The State Department exists to serve the American people’s interests abroad. It isn’t the Department of Hillary.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

You're contradicting yourself, shitstain. If Obama has it in for Hillary, as you've said many times, why does he allow State to defend her? Seems a bit of a contradiction.

You're contradicting yourself, shitstain. If Obama has it in for Hillary, as you've said many times, why does he allow State to defend her? Seems a bit of a contradiction. Originally Posted by WombRaider

You are a senile buttlicker. I never said Odumbo has it in for Hildabeast. Not even once, let alone "many times". Find a quote where I said it or admit you are making things up again, you ignorant dipshit.
.

You are a senile buttlicker. I never said Odumbo has it in for Hildabeast. Not even once, let alone "many times". Find a quote where I said it or admit you are making things up again, you ignorant dipshit.
. Originally Posted by lustylad

I don't have a quote folder on my desktop, like you and IB. Buttlicker? That the best you got, sewer rat?

The Department of Hillary

How it is that the nation’s diplomatic corps has become an arm of the Clinton presidential campaign?

By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
Sept. 3, 2015 6:59 p.m. ET

Whatever the Clinton campaign is paying Mark Toner, it ain’t enough. Oh, wait; it isn’t anything. Which is interesting.

Mark Toner, you see, is a federal employee. Technically, he’s a spokesman for the State Department. This isn’t always clear, though, especially when the nimble Mr. Toner takes to the podium to ferociously defend the putative Democratic nominee six ways from Election Day. Hillary Clinton’s communications gurus Jennifer Palmieri and Nick Merrill—they do a fine job. But Mr. Toner? He’s the bomb.

And he’s not alone. Since the dawn of the Clinton email scandal, the entire State Department has been vigorously protecting Hillary Clinton. Whatever the motivation (and more on that later), what we are witnessing is an extraordinary all-hands government assist for a presidential candidate.

This assist was evident from the first moment, when Congress discovered the server and demanded the former secretary of state’s emails. The State Department scrambled to ask former holders of her office for private documents—giving Mrs. Clinton the excuse that everybody did it. State has ever since slow-walked the surrender of her correspondence to the House committee investigating the Benghazi fiasco. Chairman Trey Gowdy on Thursday had to conduct a hearing with former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills while still not in possession of her work emails.

State has also gone to bat for Mrs. Clinton in court. A federal judge had to order the department to release her emails starting this summer (rather than next year, as State had vaguely promised). A federal judge also had to order it to find out if Mrs. Clinton and her aides had in fact turned over all their email. The same judge had to order State to tell him what it had done to find her deleted email. On hearing the answer—absolutely nothing—he ordered the department to work with the FBI.

The State Department has also assisted with Mrs. Clinton’s “not marked as classified” diversion. And an utterly ridiculous diversion it is. If Mrs. Clinton left a top-secret briefing, then emailed what she’d heard, that information is classified. Markings don’t matter. And yet State has deliberately sent the media down Mrs. Clinton’s “markings” rabbit hole.

Ask yourself this: Why does the State Department care so much about what was classified in Mrs. Clinton’s emails—unless its goal is to help her story line? Or ask yourself about a Fox News report this week that State Department lawyers changed the categorization of several Clinton emails, making them “deliberative” rather than classified, a designation that shields them from congressional investigators.

And then there’s State’s lockdown on basic information. Mr. Toner in several wild news conferences this week refused to answer reporters’ questions about whether Mrs. Clinton sent classified material on her server; or whether her server was breached; or if she was bound by the foreign-affairs manual; or who exactly knew about and signed off on her arrangement; or how high up that knowledge went. At one point, when asked whether anyone at State had disagreed with her having a private server, Mr. Toner graciously acknowledged that this was an “appropriate” question, but that it was more “appropriate” for “other” entities to answer. The reporter’s stunned response: But “she was the secretary of state.”

We can’t know exactly what’s going on here, but some basic facts offer plausible explanations. This could be straight politics. State is still run by Obama officials, and President Obama wants another Democrat in the Oval Office to preserve his legacy. Mrs. Clinton, despite her travails, remains his best shot. The White House has every incentive (if no right) to provide Mrs. Clinton with cover for the email mess.

This also could be institutional damage control. If Mrs. Clinton does end up in legal hot water over misusing classified information, you can bet she’ll use the State Department as her defense. She’ll point out that State knew about the private server, cleared her use of it and provided technical help—and she will name names. Both career and political State employees might also face charges. How high up did that knowledge and signoff go; who aided in this misadventure? The State Department doesn’t want to go there.

This could also be personal damage control. Most of Mrs. Clinton’s cronies have left the department, but Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary of management before she arrived, remains in his job. His name and his judgment have been questioned in both the Benghazi debacle and the Clinton server setup, since his group runs both diplomatic security and information management. Mr. Kennedy is still running State’s response to both the Benghazi and the Clinton email investigations—a flagrant conflict of interest.

State’s inspector general, Steve Linick, has plenty going on right now, but he might still ask how it is that the nation’s diplomatic corps has come to be an arm of the Clinton campaign. And now that Secretary of State John Kerry is done pandering to ayatollahs, he might also be asked to show some accountability on a scandal that is undercutting his department’s basic credibility. The State Department exists to serve the American people’s interests abroad. It isn’t the Department of Hillary.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

"It isn’t the Department of Hillary."...

fucken 0zombies and their Hitllary comrades...

This post of yours is a perfect example of deflection. I asked you a direct question and you dodged it.

No, YOU deflected by asking a different question because you are too chickenshit to answer my original question which is central to this thread.

I don't know why she required a private server.

You know damn well why. Again, you're too chickenshit to say it because you don't want the discussion to go there. Hmmm, let's think... If your emails are stored in a server owned by the government (or by google or yahoo, for that matter), do you lose control over which emails can be withheld (or deleted) from the prying eyes of FOIA requesters and Congressional investigators?



Now, why does a private server automatically mean it's open season for the chinese and russians? Afraid to take a stab at it?

Not at all. You do know that your playing stupid all the time tells everyone you are either a disingenuous liar or a genuine dunce, right?

Who broke the scandal in the first place, dickbrain? It was a Romanian hacker named "Guccifer". And he didn't have anything remotely approaching the resources available to the hacker armies fielded by Russia and China.

Perhaps the links below will help school you, sewer rat. Read them and weep. I wept because of the damage to our national security. We know you don't give a damn about our nation's security, but you can still weep at Hillary's sinking political prospects.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/hillary-...ers-1441149683
Originally Posted by WombRaider

Former intelligence officials say it’s a certainty that her server was compromised by [foreign] intelligence services.

Unless they were encrypted to U.S. government standards, “In my opinion there is a 100% chance that all emails sent and received by her, including all the electronic correspondence stored on her server in her Chappaqua residence, were targeted and collected by the Russian equivalent of NSA,” said former CIA case officer Jason Matthews, an expert in Russian intelligence.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner...atrick-brennan

.

I don't have a quote folder on my desk... Originally Posted by WombRaider

No, you don't have a quote because there aren't any. You owe me an apology, cockucker. Just because you are in a rush to meet your eccie spam quota doesn't mean you are free to make things up.
.

No, you don't have a quote because there aren't any. You owe me an apology, cockucker. Just because you are in a rush to meet your eccie spam quota doesn't mean you are free to make things up.
. Originally Posted by lustylad

But that's woomby's way. Just like all lying liberals, they'll make things up to support their lies and get 'frothing at the mouth" angry when they're caught out with their lies ! Then the name calling - " racist" is en vogue now with the lying libs for anyone who dares question their Dear Leaders actions or words - and the denial that they said it in the first place. That's straight out of the DNC play book. The gruberite followers of the dumbascraps can't think for themselves, so they take their marching orders from the BS that the media spoon feeds their feeble, sheeple minds. woomby would have a seizure if he were ever even near the truth, much less said it !