Originally posted by Surtur
If it is as cut and dry as you are saying then why does it just keep popping up over and over? I know you will say they are just using it to try to destroy her, but I think it goes beyond that.
I'll toss that back- If she's so guilty, why does it keep popping up again and again, when the DoJ and similar keeps on coming up with the same, "Yea, it's no big deal," answer every time it comes back to them?
The people who don't think it's a big deal are those with rulings over it. The people who do think it's a big deal don't seem to be finding the smoking gun they say they're sure exists.
And note, even the accusation doesn't include there being a leak. The accusation is that was, past-tense, sensitive information on an insufficiently secure server, with it being taken down without a leak occurring.
Something being pushed a lot still doesn't equal guilt. You seem to be going, "Where there's smoke, there's fire," but I remember the last several times the Republicans tried pushing a scandal on those grounds only for there to be no fire, so my stance is, "Ok, I'm going to wait until they can actually show me the fire." So far? There's been none, just the exact same thing, over and over.
Note how even her opponents in the Democratic party, like Bernie who would directly and sizeably benefit from it being true more than anyone else, even more than the Republicans, don't buy it and think it's a minor thing that's just a distraction from important issues.
The authorities who make the call think she's in the clear. Her rivals think she's in the clear. The people who have a history of hating her regardless do not. In this situation, always wait for the evidence, is what I say.
"Why can't you just accept these opinions of guilt, rather than waiting for proof of guilt?" is never going to be the most convincing argument, and that's ultimately what we've got here.
Oh yea, for that matter, anyone remember the last time that the Republicans brought Hillary before a hearing?
Where multiple high-ranking Republicans admitted it was a hack-job out to hit her poll numbers, a Republican military officer quit the investigation because it was a partisan hack job, and then Fox News stopped showing it part way because they realized, "Oh crap, they really do have nothing and she's making them look like idiots."
The Republican Party has not just a proven track record of making stuff up and exaggerating information, but openly admitting that is what they are doing.
So again, yea, I'm going to wait for actual evidence of actual wrongdoing rather than, "but the party that cries wolf a lot and brags about crying wolf, is crying wolf really hard on this one." There is a serious lack of credibility when it comes to attacks on Hillary coming from the Republican party, based purely on their own actions and statements the last couple times it's happened.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Look at all this defending her😂She broke the law, its so funny you whine whine whine about Trump supporters and you cling to her like stink on shit.
It's interesting that you believe the same people who last time openly admitted to just making up partisan attacks, and who you dismiss and call idiots when they attack Trump.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
What does that matter, she is under investigation by the Obama Administration FBI.
Yea, issue: This is what one outside person, not actually in the FBI, said he thought the FBI person wanted, and there's no actual investigation to date.
We're at telephone tag several steps from something happening... and if there was an investigation? Hey-oh, we already had an investigation on this subject that came to a conclusion. If going through all the e-mails once got an innocent, what makes you think doing it again results in something different?
You're jumping to a guilty verdict at (1) the rumor that (2) someone wants to (3) start an investigation. Think about that.
And the person who said all this? Republican Representative Darrell Issa,the Republican who said that the Benghazi investigation's goal was to hurt Hillary's poll numbers. I.e. one of those who openly admitted to crying wolf on Hillary before.
I've told you a lot, you jump on every little thing like this, you just fall on your face.
Again, this comes from the party that has openly said they'll pull stunts like this to try and affect her poll numbers. And when is rumor coming out? Right before Iowa no less, exactly when it'd make sense to start a rumor to attack someone.
Wait until the facts come out, or at least when the investigation starts, don't jump when there's a rumor, let alone a rumor from someone who's made stuff up for the exact same reason before.
Originally posted by Q99
Note how even her opponents in the Democratic party, like Bernie who would directly and sizeably benefit from it being true more than anyone else, even more than the Republicans, don't buy it and think it's a minor thing that's just a distraction from important issues.
I'm not a Clinton supporter, but that is a good point. We should just let that dog die.
Obama is now in deep shit as well as Hilary because he said he only learned about her email server when everyone else did, and he had no idea she had this email.
"the department announced that 18 emails exchanged between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama would also be withheld"
Oh and here is the video of him saying it.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Obama is now in deep shit as well as Hilary because he said he only learned about her email server when everyone else did, and he had no idea she had this email.[b]"the department announced that 18 emails exchanged between Mrs. Clinton and President Obama would also be withheld"
[/B]
Q99 casts "Actually read the article!"
The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Mr. Kirby said that none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server.
It's super-effective!
Oh noz, the President and Secretary of State e-mailed each other, with stuff that was unclassified at the time, whatever shall we do? Imagine what secrets they leaked to each other?
Just a reminder, the Department of Justice already went over this stuff and said it was no big deal.
And the FBI thing was a rumor started by someone who's already got a history of lying about this....
And it still looks like the classification of these e-mails came after the fact.
Amount of information leaked = still zero, too, it's not like even these contents of stuff-later-classified got out.
Again, call me when they actually have something rather than another person saying they really want to have something, or another thing being classified after-the-fact.
Q99 casts "Actually read the article!"The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Mr. Kirby said that none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Mrs. Clinton’s computer server.
It's super-effective!
How can anything be sent to her as classified when she already sent an email with these instructions:
She gave specific directions in taking off labels.
Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Oh and here is the video of him saying it.
Oh and watch this video Q. I noticed you tried to ignore it with most damming evidence.
Originally posted by snowdragon
How can anything be sent to her as classified when she already sent an email with these instructions:She gave specific directions in taking off labels.
Again, from the article Time posted-
"The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the nation’s intelligence agencies. "
They specifically said it was later upgraded.
So, who's running from the facts again? I do believe it's you two, and you've been caught out in it.
Time
Exactly, Q runs from these facts. And will say anything to take a bullet for Hildog.
Ah yes, "run from the facts," by pointing out what your own article that you posted said.
Time, caught overreaching again. You're trying to snow us on how your own evidence says you're wrong. It's pretty blatant dishonesty here.
Oh and watch this video Q. I noticed you tried to ignore it with most damming evidence.
The damning evidence that.... he prefers to be transparent? Nothing in that contradicts 'stuff that used to be non-classified was later classified.'
Really, "Post stuff that says one thing, then pretend it says something else and hope we don't notice."
What did you expect would happen? Do you not read your own sources?
It's not like I'm pulling in anything from the outside, this is just what you've posted and it still proves you're actively trying to misrepresent things different from what the sources say.