PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Bob Noel on February 01, 2016, 07:47:59 AM
-
To those that support hillary I have one question: how can you support someone who broke the law?
-
Yes, I am a Hillary supporter. I support her for the gas chamber, gallows, firing squad, lethal injection..........
She represents all that is wrong with government, and society.
-
Yes, I am a Hillary supporter. I support her for the gas chamber, gallows, firing squad, lethal injection..........
She represents all that is wrong with government, and society AND THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY FOR MAKING HER THEIR STANDARD BEARER.
FTFY.
-
To those that support hillary I have one question: how can you support someone who broke the law?
But - SHE HAS A VAGINA!!! That alone qualifies her. :-[
-
But - SHE HAS A VAGINA!!! That alone qualifies her. :-[
Is that you Aunt Peggy?
-
But - SHE HAS A VAGINA!!!
Are we certain of that???
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5591/14500273278_a88c145704_o.jpg)
-
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CaJgcEdWQAQpNE1.jpg:large)
-
LOL
-
Does anyone here even KNOW anybody that admits to being a Hillary supporter? I don't mean people that just intend to vote for her if she is the Dem nominee. I mean does anyone here know anyone that actually supports her on purpose?
-
Does anyone here even KNOW anybody that admits to being a Hillary supporter? I don't mean people that just intend to vote for her if she is the Dem nominee. I mean does anyone here know anyone that actually supports her on purpose?
Most of my family.
-
Most of my family.
Do you know what their reasons are?
-
Do you know what their reasons are?
And how do they get beyond the likely fraud (Clinton Foundation) and disregard of National intelligence secrets for political convenience?
-
And how do they get beyond the likely fraud (Clinton Foundation) and disregard of National intelligence secrets for political convenience?
Probably like most Democrats:
"I'm not the only one; others do it too".
-
To those that support hillary I have one question: how can you support someone who broke the law?
still waiting for a hillary support to defend their choice...
-
still waiting for a hillary support to defend their choice...
We haven't confirmed there are any supporters reading this thread.
-
To those that support hillary I have one question: how can you support someone who broke the law?
I support Ollie North and Dinesh D'Souza.
-
Do you know what their reasons are?
They're quite hard-core Democrats. They can rattle off a long list of positive attributes for Hillary and another long list of Obama successes.
Most of their case can be found from Occupy Democrats - my exposure was FaceBook posts, but they have a website as well.
But please do NOT expect me to rationalize their positions - they are not ones I hold, nor do I wish to defend or explain them.
-
They're quite hard-core Democrats. They can rattle off a long list of positive attributes for Hillary and another long list of Obama successes.
Most of their case can be found from Occupy Democrats - my exposure was FaceBook posts, but they have a website as well.
But please do NOT expect me to rationalize their positions - they are not ones I hold, nor do I wish to defend or explain them.
So what you're saying is that they are just indoctrinated, brainwashed far leftists that can not think for themselves?
-
So what you're saying is that they are just indoctrinated, brainwashed far leftists that can not think for themselves?
No.
If I had wanted to say that, I would have said they were just indoctrinated, brainwashed far leftists that can not think for themselves.
But I didn't. That was you.
But I would urge caution before just painting roughly 1/2 of the electorate that way. It's kinda what they do as well, making a caricature of the other side's positions for the sole purpose of attacking them.
As an aside, I'm kind of in the air on who to vote for in today's GA Republican primary. I think Kasich would make the best president, but it seems like a wasted vote at this point. Among the remaining four, I find Rubio least distasteful. What to do?
-
Right now I am in the Cruz camp. I will vote for whomever wins the GOP nomination however, as I think another eight years of Obama will certainly destroy this country irreparably.
-
I think whoever has the least delegates between Rubio and Cruz needs to drop out tomorrow, or all is lost for conservatives. It's critical that they drop out before the 3/15 primaries.
Despite Trump's claims, he hasn't really "won" a state. He merely obtained a plurality. Obviously that's semantics when it comes to delegate count, but it will be interesting to see what happens if it's a two man race next week.
-
I think whoever has the least delegates between Rubio and Cruz needs to drop out tomorrow, or all is lost for conservatives. It's critical that they drop out before the 3/15 primaries.
Despite Trump's claims, he hasn't really "won" a state. He merely obtained a plurality. Obviously that's semantics when it comes to delegate count, but it will be interesting to see what happens if it's a two man race next week.
Not likely to happen. Surely Rubio plans on holding out until the Florida primary. I believe Cruz and Rubio do not like each other and neither is likely to take one for the party at this point.
-
Voting my conscience, I went with Kasich.
Knowing my history, likely the kiss of death for the poor fellow.
-
Voting my conscience, I went with Kasich.
Knowing my history, likely the kiss of death for the poor fellow.
The like is for the "kiss of death" line, not for voting Kasich!
-
Voting my conscience, I went with Kasich.
Knowing my history, likely the kiss of death for the poor fellow.
If your history holds true, I'm glad. Because I'm for Rubio.
-
The like is for the "kiss of death" line, not for voting Kasich!
Well, after a strong debate performance, I was getting behind Fiorina.
More recently, Christie seemed promising - what a disappointment now.
In prior primaries, I've had my choice drop out the very next day at least twice.
I guess I'm prescient, just in the wrong direction!
-
I remember one Iowa caucus I voted for Phil Gramm.
I was the only one.
-
I remember one Iowa caucus I voted for Phil Gramm.
I was the only one.
Ha! I was living in Blue Grass, Iowa at the time in 1996, and attended a Graham speech. I really liked him. However, I caucused for Alan Keyes. He handed out a pocket "Citizens Rule Book" which is a pocket copy of the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Handbook for Jurors. I carry that with me today in my briefcase.
-
I have family that are among the blue dog democrats. They would vote for an old, flea bitten, blue dog, as long as it had a D next to its name on the ballot. They are all "Ready for Hilary."
-
I found one:
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/a7/b9/d0/a7b9d044d60b10dca77ea1c857c7c996.jpg)
-
If your history holds true, I'm glad. Because I'm for Rubio.
The history of these primaries will be how Rubio wouldn't drop out and handed the nomination to Trump. I hope he can live with those headlines. Mr. 3rd place should see the writing on the wall.
-
Here's another one.
(http://imageshack.com/a/img921/8258/zVXME5.jpg)
-
I have family that are among the blue dog democrats. They would vote for an old, flea bitten, blue dog, as long as it had a D next to its name on the ballot. They are all "Ready for Hilary."
What does "Ready for Hillary" mean? What are the ready for? What do they expect? Is it because she may be a woman?
-
Here's another one.
(http://imageshack.com/a/img921/8258/zVXME5.jpg)
I can see a use for that!
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5591/14500273278_a88c145704_o.jpg)
-
Are we certain of that???
(https://farm6.staticflickr.com/5591/14500273278_a88c145704_o.jpg)
I think there is going to be a new "birther" movement demanding a birth certificate, but not because we question where Hillary was born...
-
So far I've been called a parasite on this board because of my chosen profession (which in an ironic twist I chose for its altruistic elements). i can only imagine the invective when i say that I very, very grudgingly support her for POTUS.
The supposed "felonies" that Conservatives have been crowing about remind me of the Obama birther nonsense. The situation vis a vis the Clinton Foundation was a legal as it was distasteful. The Email scandal is a reminder of her extreme arrogance. I'll never forget her "coming under fire in Bosnia". I don't like her one bit.
All that said, she was once a force in the White House. I suspect she has a keen sense of what can be done and what can't. She served as Senator in New York to wide praise from her colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Please don't tell me it didn't happen, I recall it at the time with some amazement. She served as Secretary of State. You will all say that she was a huge failure, but I recall her at the time praised by a number of world leaders, again to my own incredulity. At least we didn't go to war on her watch.
The problem is anyone with any record in public service will have bad things in their past. It is utterly unavoidable. That's where Trump gets ahead, he has no record of public service. Obama's was so limited that no one could really point to anything he'd done wrong, he wasn't in it long enough to do anything wrong.
Trump has no idea what can and can't be done in the Oval office. None. He is frighteningly naive. He is also quite bright, and could probably figure it out. But there would be lots of teething pain. Sanders can be described likewise. Most of his plans smack of fantasy, and are not likely to get through a divided Congress. Kaisich is the best of the bunch which is sad, because he'll not get the nomination. That, and I hate him as governor.
And then there's Hillary. Arrogant, nearly reptilian. And enormously capable of doing the job. Married to the best ex-president we have. Maybe we'll get Bill for Secretary of State. Wouldn't that be a hoot.
-
Oh, and as far as Bills women scandals. Were I married to her I could imagine carrying on with Monica Lewisnky. Hell, I could imagine getting it on with Rosie O'Donnell. Gotta feel for the guy.
-
The supposed "felonies" that Conservatives have been crowing about remind me of the Obama birther nonsense. The situation vis a vis the Clinton Foundation was a legal as it was distasteful. The Email scandal is a reminder of her extreme arrogance. I'll never forget her "coming under fire in Bosnia". I don't like her one bit.
"Email scandal" you call that a scandal?
you don't have a clue with respect to proper handling of classified material.
But now I guess I understand how someone can support hillary. It requires gross ignorance.
-
"Email scandal" you call that a scandal?
you don't have a clue with respect to proper handling of classified material.
But now I guess I understand how someone can support hillary. It requires gross ignorance.
The phrase I would use would be "willful blindness" People intentionally avoid information that conflicts with their worldview.
-
There was nothing more successful than the Russian reset, right? ::)
-
So far I've been called a parasite on this board because of my chosen profession (which in an ironic twist I chose for its altruistic elements). i can only imagine the invective when i say that I very, very grudgingly support her for POTUS.
Liberal Profs are a convenient whipping-boy for us conservatives. I think some folks may have been too hard on you.
You have laid out a very cogent list of Hillary's shortcomings, yet you still (very grudgingly) plan to vote for her. I just find this sad.
She's a congenital liar and a power- hungry megalomaniac. She does not have what it takes to be Commander-in-chief.
-
"Email scandal" you call that a scandal?
you don't have a clue with respect to proper handling of classified material.
Indeed I do. What I know (and you obviously don't) is that here are levels of classification. The State Department is quite liberal on this, DOD somewhat less so. I suspect this is simply the government figuring out how to handle electronic communications. I think Hillary did it very poorly, but that just points to her arrogance. I doubt strongly that it rises to the level of criminality. Indeed, after numerous Congressional hearings and a lengthy FBI investigation no charges have been brought against her or anyone else.
But now I guess I understand how someone can support hillary. It requires gross ignorance.
And I understand how someone could think that Obama wasn't an American.
-
Indeed I do. What I know (and you obviously don't) is that here are levels of classification. The State Department is quite liberal on this, DOD somewhat less so. I suspect this is simply the government figuring out how to handle electronic communications. I think Hillary did it very poorly, but that just points to her arrogance. I doubt strongly that it rises to the level of criminality. Indeed, after numerous Congressional hearings and a lengthy FBI investigation no charges have been brought against her or anyone else.
"obviously"? what makes you think you have any clue wrt what I know and don't wrt handling classified material? To the contrary, you are displaying ignorance. I doubt you've ever held a clearance.
btw - the last I looked, the FBI investigation isn't over yet.
-
"obviously"? what makes you think you have any clue wrt what I know and don't wrt handling classified material? To the contrary, you are displaying ignorance. I doubt you've ever held a clearance.
btw - the last I looked, the FBI investigation isn't over yet.
And you've never worked for the State Department. Neither have I, but family members have.
-
So far I've been called a parasite on this board because of my chosen profession (which in an ironic twist I chose for its altruistic elements). i can only imagine the invective when i say that I very, very grudgingly support her for POTUS.
The supposed "felonies" that Conservatives have been crowing about remind me of the Obama birther nonsense. The situation vis a vis the Clinton Foundation was a legal as it was distasteful. The Email scandal is a reminder of her extreme arrogance. I'll never forget her "coming under fire in Bosnia". I don't like her one bit.
She served as Secretary of State. You will all say that she was a huge failure, but I recall her at the time praised by a number of world leaders, again to my own incredulity. At least we didn't go to war on her watch.
The problem is anyone with any record in public service will have bad things in their past. It is utterly unavoidable. That's where Trump gets ahead, he has no record of public service. Obama's was so limited that no one could really point to anything he'd done wrong, he wasn't in it long enough to do anything wrong.
Trump has no idea what can and can't be done in the Oval office. None. He is frighteningly naive. He is also quite bright, and could probably figure it out. But there would be lots of teething pain.
And then there's Hillary. Arrogant, nearly reptilian. And enormously capable of doing the job. Married to the best ex-president we have. Maybe we'll get Bill for Secretary of State. Wouldn't that be a hoot.
I'm not old enough to know much about Hillary from her days as a senator. Or anything about her time as First Lady. I didn't pay much attention to politics until I was in high school, about 10 years ago.
I do know that during her time as Secretary of State she was responsible for the Benghazi debacle and subsequently participated in or originated a scheme to hide the truth about what happened. She was negligent by putting an embassy with almost no security in Libya right after a civil war, an area without stable government, and a known hotbed of terrorist activity.
The Clinton foundation and all of her speaking fees, are a barely legal way to become personally rich as a politician. Maybe not illegal, but yes very distasteful. You know that wall street is not paying her $300,000 per speech to motivate some employees. They're buying something else with that 300k
The e-mail goes deeper than simple arrogance. Not only is it arrogant, but she has been grossly negligent in her handling of classified material. Which happens to be a serious crime. And you have to wonder about the reasons for having a personal server. It's not a reach to say she had this set up to skirt FOIA and to limit her accountability. Its also not a reach to assume her server was hacked. With 30+ top secret messages on there, she could have seriously hurt US intelligence or foreign policy. Remember, the e-mail story came out initially because hackers knew she had a private server.
https://www.rt.com/usa/334846-romanian-hacker-guccifer-extradition/
So you are supporting a lying, scumbag, negligent politician over Trump because he is new to politics and might have "teething pains"?
-
And you've never worked for the State Department.
true and not relevant.
Neither have I, but family members have.
well, then that makes you an expert.
::)
-
I'm not old enough to know much about Hillary from her days as a senator. Or anything about her time as First Lady. I didn't pay much attention to politics until I was in high school, about 10 years ago.
I do know that during her time as Secretary of State she was responsible for the Benghazi debacle and subsequently participated in or originated a scheme to hide the truth about what happened. She was negligent by putting an embassy with almost no security in Libya right after a civil war, an area without stable government, and a known hotbed of terrorist activity.
The Clinton foundation and all of her speaking fees, are a barely legal way to become personally rich as a politician. Maybe not illegal, but yes very distasteful. You know that wall street is not paying her $300,000 per speech to motivate some employees. They're buying something else with that 300k
The e-mail goes deeper than simple arrogance. Not only is it arrogant, but she has been grossly negligent in her handling of classified material. Which happens to be a serious crime. And you have to wonder about the reasons for having a personal server. It's not a reach to say she had this set up to skirt FOIA and to limit her accountability. Its also not a reach to assume her server was hacked. With 30+ top secret messages on there, she could have seriously hurt US intelligence or foreign policy. Remember, the e-mail story came out initially because hackers knew she had a private server.
https://www.rt.com/usa/334846-romanian-hacker-guccifer-extradition/
So you are supporting a lying, scumbag, negligent politician over Trump because he is new to politics and might have "teething pains"?
Except for the fact that her speaking fee for Goldman Sachs was actually $675,000, you're spot on.
-
I doubt strongly that it rises to the level of criminality. Indeed, after numerous Congressional hearings and a lengthy FBI investigation no charges have been brought against her or anyone else.
The investigation is still ongoing. Just this week, the FBI began interviewing one of her IT staffers that maintained the server. They had to strike an immunity deal with him, to keep him from pleading the 5th I assume...
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/03/11/source-clinton-it-specialist-revealing-server-details-to-fbi-devastating-witness.html
-
Except for the fact that her speaking fee for Goldman Sachs was actually $675,000, you're spot on.
Wow. $675K for a speech? It's really called a bribe.
-
Wow. $675K for a speech? It's really called a bribe.
In a sane world, yes.
-
Wow. $675K for a speech? It's really called a bribe.
Hmmmm..... Guess there is lots of bribery going on.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washingtons-highest-lowest-speaking-fees/story?id=24551590
Seems it is pretty non-partisan as well.
So if some group wants a speaker, and said group finds one to their liking and reach a mutually agreeable fee for said speech - that is bribery?
Gary
-
Hmmmm..... Guess there is lots of bribery going on.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washingtons-highest-lowest-speaking-fees/story?id=24551590
Seems it is pretty non-partisan as well.
So if some group wants a speaker, and said group finds one to their liking and reach a mutually agreeable fee for said speech - that is bribery?
Gary
For retired politicians, or non-politicians I don't really see a huge problem with it. But for an active politician, yes I think the huge speaking fees are slimy.
-
For retired politicians, or non-politicians I don't really see a huge problem with it. But for an active politician, yes I think the huge speaking fees are slimy.
While I actually agree, lets keep in mind that a politician is only an ex-politician until they decide to run for something. Jerry Brown is a rather salient example. Indeed, Ronald Regan was another. There was a considerable span between his governorship of California and his presidency.
-
I'm not old enough to know much about Hillary from her days as a senator. Or anything about her time as First Lady. I didn't pay much attention to politics until I was in high school, about 10 years ago.
Since you missed out on the fun of the 1990s, here's a good summary of the Clinton scandals.
-
So if some group wants a speaker, and said group finds one to their liking and reach a mutually agreeable fee for said speech - that is bribery?
I think they buy influence for those speaking fees, so in effect yes, I think it is bribery. I also think that both parties do it, but that doesn't make it right.
-
Hmmmm..... Guess there is lots of bribery going on.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/washingtons-highest-lowest-speaking-fees/story?id=24551590
Seems it is pretty non-partisan as well.
So if some group wants a speaker, and said group finds one to their liking and reach a mutually agreeable fee for said speech - that is bribery?
Gary
20-month old article. Hillary upped the ante quite a bit. Further, with the minuscule time between when she was SecState and a candidate, and combine the "contributions" to the Clinton Foundation when she WAS SecState, from which the Clinton's have certainly profited, and I think it's easier to see the chance of bribery or corruption.
-
20-month old article. Hillary upped the ante quite a bit. Further, with the minuscule time between when she was SecState and a candidate, and combine the "contributions" to the Clinton Foundation when she WAS SecState, from which the Clinton's have certainly profited, and I think it's easier to see the chance of bribery or corruption.
Bill and Hillary Clinton have taken money from China, Saudi, and other foreign interests in lobbying fees.
-
So far I've been called a parasite on this board because of my chosen profession (which in an ironic twist I chose for its altruistic elements). i can only imagine the invective when i say that I very, very grudgingly support her for POTUS.
The supposed "felonies" that Conservatives have been crowing about remind me of the Obama birther nonsense. The situation vis a vis the Clinton Foundation was a legal as it was distasteful. The Email scandal is a reminder of her extreme arrogance. I'll never forget her "coming under fire in Bosnia". I don't like her one bit.
All that said, she was once a force in the White House. I suspect she has a keen sense of what can be done and what can't. She served as Senator in New York to wide praise from her colleagues on both sides of the aisle. Please don't tell me it didn't happen, I recall it at the time with some amazement. She served as Secretary of State. You will all say that she was a huge failure, but I recall her at the time praised by a number of world leaders, again to my own incredulity. At least we didn't go to war on her watch.
The problem is anyone with any record in public service will have bad things in their past. It is utterly unavoidable. That's where Trump gets ahead, he has no record of public service. Obama's was so limited that no one could really point to anything he'd done wrong, he wasn't in it long enough to do anything wrong.
Trump has no idea what can and can't be done in the Oval office. None. He is frighteningly naive. He is also quite bright, and could probably figure it out. But there would be lots of teething pain. Sanders can be described likewise. Most of his plans smack of fantasy, and are not likely to get through a divided Congress. Kaisich is the best of the bunch which is sad, because he'll not get the nomination. That, and I hate him as governor.
And then there's Hillary. Arrogant, nearly reptilian. And enormously capable of doing the job. Married to the best ex-president we have. Maybe we'll get Bill for Secretary of State. Wouldn't that be a hoot.
While we won't necessary agree with each other, I do appreciate you taking time to outline your thoughts.
-
And then there's Hillary. Arrogant, nearly reptilian. And enormously capable of doing the job. Married to the best ex-president we have. Maybe we'll get Bill for Secretary of State. Wouldn't that be a hoot.
What did Hillary accomplish as a Senator, and Secretary of State? Benghazi? Email scandals? The Russian "reset" button? Boy that was a joke. The Russians literally were laughing at her.
-
What did Hillary accomplish as a Senator, and Secretary of State? Benghazi? Email scandals? The Russian "reset" button? Boy that was a joke. The Russians literally were laughing at her.
To be honest I can't even answer your question, though I doubt I could do so for any other Secretary of State. What did Maddy Allbright accomplish? What about Warren Christopher? Does that mean they were no good?
Yeah, things turned out bad with Russia and are getting worse. On the other hand, a diplomats job is diplomacy, and we were getting on with the Russians under her watch.
-
To be honest I can't even answer your question,..."
You can stop right there, because nobody else can, either. Everything she touched turned to garbage. By her own claim, she is properly experienced to be president because she wracked up lots of miles on government funded aircraft.
Big deal.
As for Madeline Albright, she was a pretty big joke as Sec State. Christopher Warren barely could fog a mirror, and certainly failed at every turn over Iran and Russia during his term as Sec State. Of course he was handicapped by serving at the pleasure of Jimmy Carter...
-
And you've never worked for the State Department. Neither have I, but family members have.
btw - do you (and your family members) think that Executive Orders (e.g., 12968, 13467, 13587, 13526, etc) don't apply to the State Department personnel or the Sec of State?
-
The point is that Federal agencies classify things very differently. The CIA tends to be enormously restrictive, State considerably less so. As far as I know Clinton never sent on any information that was classified at the time. The whole tempest centers around her using a private E-mail server vs. a government one. I've seen the comparison to Petraeus (mistakenly, I feel) who purposely passed along classified documents to his mistress. As far as I know Clinton never pass purposely along classified anything to anyone. My guess is if this was anyone else it wouldn't even be newsworthy.
All that said, Petraeus got a slap on the wrist for what he did. Find is implausible at best that Clinton would be handled any worse. The GOP is just desperate to tar her with whatever they can find. They did the same thing with Obama (birth certificate, college transcripts etc...). I can't really blame them, with a class A deuchbag like Trump as their standard bearer they need all the help they can get.
-
The point is that Federal agencies classify things very differently. The CIA tends to be enormously restrictive, State considerably less so. As far as I know Clinton never sent on any information that was classified at the time. The whole tempest centers around her using a private E-mail server vs. a government one. I've seen the comparison to Petraeus (mistakenly, I feel) who purposely passed along classified documents to his mistress. As far as I know Clinton never pass purposely along classified anything to anyone. My guess is if this was anyone else it wouldn't even be newsworthy.
All that said, Petraeus got a slap on the wrist for what he did. Find is implausible at best that Clinton would be handled any worse. The GOP is just desperate to tar her with whatever they can find. They did the same thing with Obama (birth certificate, college transcripts etc...). I can't really blame them, with a class A deuchbag like Trump as their standard bearer they need all the help they can get.
Michael, that's not what she said. Don't you know by now to parse the Clinton's words since they're fucking lawyers. She said, " Ive never sent or received anything marked classified" There is no such thing, so in that statement she would be correct. If a document or email has wording considered Top Secret, it is Top Secret regardless of whether it is marked as such and it would be her job to recognize that.
-
The point is that Federal agencies classify things very differently. The CIA tends to be enormously restrictive, State considerably less so. As far as I know Clinton never sent on any information that was classified at the time. The whole tempest centers around her using a private E-mail server vs. a government one. I've seen the comparison to Petraeus (mistakenly, I feel) who purposely passed along classified documents to his mistress. As far as I know Clinton never pass purposely along classified anything to anyone. My guess is if this was anyone else it wouldn't even be newsworthy.
All that said, Petraeus got a slap on the wrist for what he did. Find is implausible at best that Clinton would be handled any worse. The GOP is just desperate to tar her with whatever they can find. They did the same thing with Obama (birth certificate, college transcripts etc...). I can't really blame them, with a class A deuchbag like Trump as their standard bearer they need all the help they can get.
"The point is that Federal agencies classify things very differently. " you base that on your vast experience with classified information?
"The CIA tends to be enormously restrictive, State considerably less so. " again, why do you make that claim?
"Clinton never sent on any information that was classified at the time. " It doesn't matter if it was marked classified, someone who holds a clearance is required to be able to identify classified information, even if not properly marked.
If it was an ordinary joe like you or me, we'd be in jail. Or at the very least fired and have our clearances revoked.
-
. My guess is if this was anyone else it wouldn't even be newsworthy.
You are right. If it were almost anyone else, they would have had their careers ended and they would probably wind up in jail, and nobody would know because it wouldn't be "newsworthy".
-
There is no such thing, so in that statement she would be correct.
Depends on what the meaning of "is" is.