FBI Ready to indict HRC:

Before you call somebody gay, go do a review and then come back and talk to us NEWBIE. Iffy, if you could get some once in a while maybe wouldn't be so stressed out all the time. Originally Posted by flghtr65

My ATF would Bobbit you for 300... frighter65

My ATF would Bobbit you for 300... frighter65


Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

whiffies ATF.......

If you are found to be guilty of gross negliance regarding classifications of emails with regards to rules USC1924 and USC793, you lose your job, you don't go to jail.

The FBI really wants to know HOW did classified data get moved from the Server on the secure network to a Server on a non secure network, and then ultimately on Hillary's server. You can call it whatever you want. They have been looking at the emails since Sept 2015.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/08/us...mail.html?_r=0 Originally Posted by flghtr65

Hmmm, if I was the director I would be trying to prove intent. It's the reason she did it that could put her in prison for life (and why everyone should care) and it's the only thing I could bring forward to the public that would not be immediately dismissed by the media or made fool of by Obama.

Regardless, I don't see Comey as the type to fall on the sword for the good of the public.

i'm not off. even if i was, she still circumvented protocol which is a security breach. Originally Posted by The_Waco_Kid

Actually, yes, you are wrong both factually And likely in your speculation as well about how it could/likely was done.

But concerning her circumventing protocol, wilfully disregarding security, and being an all around disgusting lying scum you are absolutely correct about.

Actually, yes, you are wrong both factually And likely in your speculation as well about how it could/likely was done.

But concerning her circumventing protocol, wilfully disregarding security, and being an all around disgusting lying scum you are absolutely correct about. Originally Posted by Old-T

so i'm half right, by your own post? that makes you half wrong yes?

Wanna bet, WWE?

You are off on the details of how it was likely done, but the basic principle and net result is right. Lots of ways to get around the rules if you have ill intent, or are an egomaniac as she is. Originally Posted by Old-T

Tell us more, Old-T... flighty is too much of a willfully ignorant, hyper-partisan, talking point-parroting coward to confront the details of the egomaniac's ill intent - but evidently you aren't!

Please explain to us just how 22 super-sensitive SAP emails migrated innocently to hildebeest's unsecured private server... we're all ears!

Tell us more, Old-T... flighty is too much of a willfully ignorant, hyper-partisan, talking point-parroting coward to confront the details of the egomaniac's ill intent - but evidently you aren't!

Please explain to us just how 22 super-sensitive SAP emails migrated innocently to hildebeest's unsecured private server... we're all ears! Originally Posted by lustylad

What an illiterate fool you are. Where did I ever claim it was innocent? Let's see, how did I describe her:

"Lots of ways to get around the rules if you have ill intent, or are an egomaniac as she is."

And:

"But concerning her circumventing protocol, willfully disregarding security, and being an all around disgusting lying scum you are absolutely correct about."

Tell me how you translate any of that into my calling her "innocent"?

But sadly you have wandered into the same realm as IB: you are so incensed by the sight of my handle on a post that you start tossing insults before you even read what I have to say. Either that or you can't read--and I don't really think THAT is your problem.

But if you really want to believe that someone transcribed e-mails onto a used napkin with a black light crayon, go right ahead. I bet you believe they wore a trench coat, fedora, and sunglasses as well. My point--since you were to blinded by rage to actually comprehend it--was there are other less comic-book ways that it was likely done.

It is always interesting watching a few of the posters here babble about stuff they only know about from B movies and their imagination. You and Wacko did make me laugh reading this thread.

By the way Wacko, I would say you were only 20% wrong--you got the important part correct. And since we agreed on the moral character of Clinton--even though you, like LL, didn't bother to READ my post--I am 0% wrong in this case.

What an illiterate fool you are. Where did I ever claim it was innocent? .... Originally Posted by Old-T

WHOA! Curb your indignation, Old-T! I don't know whether you read too much or too little sarcasm into my post, but you clearly read my tone all wrong. Flighty is the clueless one here who keeps proclaiming hildebeest's innocence - I didn't mean to attribute his astonishing moral obtuseness to you! In fact this is the one issue where I appreciate and respect the fact that you share my outrage and disgust at the way this awful woman put personal political considerations ahead of national security! From your previous posts on this scandal I already know you don't think the bitch is innocent! You seem to have an inside perspective on the rules and how egregiously they were violated here. You would be doing us all - and particularly flighty - a much-needed public service if you elaborated on what you know about how these matters of handling classified government information actually work. Flighty has made the stupendously ignorant claim that all of those 2,000+ classified emails (including 22 items with the highest level of sensitivity, known as SAP) found on hildebeest's illegal private server were actually labeled "UNCLASSIFIED" at the time they were received or sent. I am inviting you to help school flighty by telling him (and the rest of us) exactly where and why he is so dead-wrong to whitewash hildebeest's sins by hiding behind an 8-month-old Washington Post story.

I apologize. My sarcasm detection filter was broken. I have replaced it and should be good to go for another 30,000 miles or so.

No problem Old-T. ... now please - tell us what you got! I assume you've been reading flighty's asinine attempts to minimize, rationalize, obfuscate and excuse all of the hildebeest's crimes in the other thread ("Why Hillary Will Obliterate Drumpf").

What's your point, Junior?

You damned sure don't speak for anyone but you and, presumably your Lardassed Butt Buddy.

Your bitch is going down, oinkboy!

Your bitch is NOT above the rules.... or the wrath of the voters!

But we mustn't lose sight of the big picture here.... and that is the inescapable fact that you are a vile, lazy, slimy, stupid, disgusting, fly-infested, cockstalking, cocksucking PIG!

What's your point, Junior?

You damned sure don't speak for anyone but you and, presumably your Lardassed Butt Buddy. Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

For how many people on here do you speak, AssupIgnorant?

Is that why Bush43 beat Gore in 1999? There were those dangling chads in Florida. Perhaps they were not counted accurately. Originally Posted by flghtr65

No, that election was an epic battle between two utter morons. Gore lost because it was clear he was a bigger moron than Bush. Unfortunately this country hasn't had much since in terms of a president. If Clinton can be eliminated by conviction that would be a victory for this country. We need someone who can lead this country, not jack around and give people false expectations. The sooner she's dumped off to the curb the better off we'll all be.

Jim