only a few weeks left until hilary implodes - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

Paul Markham · 05-11-2016, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AllAboutCams

Dont you live in Eastern Europe somewhere?

Yes. Moved here 18 years ago.

When I see what British politicians get up to I'm amazed at the outrage by the media. We now have a storm in a teacup for Cameron, Brit PM, calling corrupt countries and politicians, corrupt countries and politicians.

Paul Markham · 05-11-2016, 01:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Where have we heard this before....

Reagan Testimony IranContra | User Clip | C-SPAN.org

I'm sorry, but this is a lot of excitement about nothing. Setting up a private email server for the Secretary Of State was common practice - Powell and Rice both did it, and they are Republicans.

They are talking about charging her with a violation that applies to any government official who ?knowingly and willfully communicates? information ?to an unauthorized person"? Hillary will just argue that the information wasn't classified, or they didn't know it was classified, and that it was sent to someone in the state department who should have been authorized to receive in the first place.

Of course, the Republican side will continue saying "she lied". LOL. Let's be realistic here. Hillary Clinton doesn't remember the contents of each email, who sent them, and if any of them received classified information. How many emails were on that server? Twenty thousand?

The Republican party constantly backs themselves into a corner where they loose no matter what. Even if they win, they loose. They almost defeated Obamacare. Imagine if tens of millions of people suddenly lost their healthcare in the United States, and these tens of millions of people went without healthcare for two or three years until our government unfucks themselves. The Republican party almost pulled it off.

This is the same exact thing - Let's just say Hillary is found guilty and gets a fine. That's a huge win for the Republicans, right? Not so much. We'll have to investigate Powell and Rice, because they did the same thing. And then we'll need to investigate members of Congress, because we have members of Congress who have used private email servers.

But what, let's not stop there. Bush, Rubio, Walker, Christie, and Perry ALL used private email servers while in office. While it's unlikely they had any classified information, it's most likely they violated both federal and state laws about how they handled their information, and what information the should have released by didn't.

Even if the Republican wins and Hillary is charged, it will be minor, and then we'll spend the next four years ripping into and investigating dozens of Republicans. Hillary will go on to be President, and lots of Republicans will loose their careers because of it.

The Republicans would rather fuck the Democrats than fix problems.

Bush went to war on evidence that was so faulty it should have put him in prison. His mistake caused the deaths of millions.

B. Clinton got a BJ.
Obama is black
H. Clinton made mistakes over Benghazi. How many got killed?

Meanwhile, the Republicans are incapable of coming up with a half decent Presidential Candidate.

Horatio Caine · 05-11-2016, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robbie

Because the LAW about this was created in 2009 under Secretary Of State Clinton.

It's the 2009 Federal Records Act. And when it went into effect...Hillary Clinton sent out a memo to all employees of the State Dept. to NOT use private servers because it was now against the law.

She broke the law knowingly and is a hypocrite and total bold-faced liar.

Jesus man...don't you research anything before you start typing out stream of conscious nonsense?

Private emails not private server, retard.

Nobody Can Figure Out Whether Hillary Broke the Law with Personal Email Account | Mediaite

ilnjscb · 05-11-2016, 11:52 AM

The law was strengthened in 2014 after she left office, and would have been unambiguous, but certainly her IT folks and the folks at Dept State might have coordinated more to be 100% secure and 100% clear. I assume that is why the law was strengthened in 2014.

There will be people on both sides, but to make a defensible finding requires that the allegations be clear and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This isn't a civil case where a preponderance of evidence will do. I don't see any clarity because there are no charges yet and no clear evidence. No one on this earth is sure, though many claim to be. If there are charges, you can bet they'll be backed up with flawless evidence, otherwise they will never happen. JD will review and decline to proceed.

JD will need a case that cannot lose; they will not allow a mud-dragging, or insinuation, or trial by youtube. If that flawless case doesn't exist, there won't be a indictment.

bronco67 · 05-11-2016, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rochard

Where have we heard this before....

Reagan Testimony IranContra | User Clip | C-SPAN.org

But what, let's not stop there. Bush, Rubio, Walker, Christie, and Perry ALL used private email servers while in office. While it's unlikely they had any classified information, it's most likely they violated both federal and state laws about how they handled their information, and what information the should have released by didn't.

.

haha yeah...but they're not running for president.

Barry-xlovecam · 05-11-2016, 06:57 PM

wrong thread oops

05-11-2016, 06:57 PM	#56
Barry-xlovecam It's 42 Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Global Posts: 18,083	Jason Galanis - iBill scammer indicted for securities fraud wrong thread oops

05-11-2016, 11:52 AM	#54
ilnjscb Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 8,849	The law was strengthened in 2014 after she left office, and would have been unambiguous, but certainly her IT folks and the folks at Dept State might have coordinated more to be 100% secure and 100% clear. I assume that is why the law was strengthened in 2014. There will be people on both sides, but to make a defensible finding requires that the allegations be clear and proven beyond a reasonable doubt. This isn't a civil case where a preponderance of evidence will do. I don't see any clarity because there are no charges yet and no clear evidence. No one on this earth is sure, though many claim to be. If there are charges, you can bet they'll be backed up with flawless evidence, otherwise they will never happen. JD will review and decline to proceed. JD will need a case that cannot lose; they will not allow a mud-dragging, or insinuation, or trial by youtube. If that flawless case doesn't exist, there won't be a indictment.