United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account
Source:
CNBC
URL Source: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/23/crim ... ary-clintons-use-of-email.html
Published: Jul 24, 2015
Author: Michael S. Schmidt and Matt Apuzzo
Post Date: 2015-07-24 13:54:29 by redleghunter
Ping List: *2016 The Likely Suspects* Subscribe to *2016 The Likely Suspects*
Keywords: None
Views: 10979
Comments: 111
WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday. The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton's private account contained "hundreds of potentially classified emails." The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management. It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them. But since her use of a private email account for official State Department business was revealed in March, she has repeatedly said that she had no classified information on the account. The initial revelation has been an issue in the early stages of her presidential campaign. Poster Comment: 
Subscribe to *2016 The Likely Suspects*
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: redleghunter (#0)
She might be in trouble, since she is not a member of the Tan Klan Si vis pacem, para bellum
LOL, that photo looks like a booking mug shot, minus the info line at the bottom.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Right. The sender sent information which was not yet officially classified. Hillary Clinton received information which had not yet been officially classified. As head of the State Department, did she have a duty to recognize the intelligence reports as highly classified and classify them, and give them the required protection? As the information was clearly compromised, should it have been so reported? It would not seem to help if Sidney Blumenthal were to be considered to have acted in some official State Department capacity and to have sufficient clearance and access authorization. It would only make him responsible to have protected it in the first place. Hillary's server clearly contained intelligence reports with Top Secret information. The Agency head is responsible for the protection of classified information within her agency.
Apparently, this was a security referral to DoJ, not a criminal referral. So not exactly a smoking gun and may be just a way to whitewash Xlinton so that it's all old news by the time the nomination battle is going on. The Xlintons play that "old news" fiddle like it's a Stradivarius.
by Josh Feldman | 5:41 pm, July 24th, 2015 Two government inspectors general involved in the Hillary Clinton email referral flap released a joint statement this afternoon to try and explain exactly what happened. This whole thing started off with a New York Times report saying that IGs at the State Department and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence requested that the Department of Justice open a criminal probe into Clinton’s use of private emails due to classified information contained within. But then the Times edited the story after the Clinton camp complained, and then, despite the DOJ saying earlier they got a criminal referral, the DOJ later said it was a different kind of referral. So the two aforementioned IGs released a joint statement later explaining that the referral was not criminal in nature, “it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes.” Here’s the full statement from I. Charles McCullough, III and Steve Linick: The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system. IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government’s possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral––it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to the appropriate IC security officials.
That would appear to be correct. Hillary Clinton was clearly, and undeniably, the one and only original classifying authority for the State Department at the time. While Hillary Clinton could have delegated a limited number of subordinates to exercise her original classifying authority, she remained the responsible original classifying authority. She could delegate authority, but she could not delegate away her responsibility. Anyone who knows much of anything about classified material could take one look at the stuff Sidney Blumenthal was sending and know it should have been marked Top Secret by Hillary Clinton. The improper receipt of such information should not have continued for years. She cannot disown her responsibility to have classified the material at the first instance. However, it will be whitewashed. http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/85348.pdf Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information This order prescribes a uniform system for classifying, safeguarding, and declassifying national security information, including information relating to defense against transnational terrorism. Our democratic principles require that the American people be informed of the activities of their Government. Also, our Nation's progress depends on the free flow of information both within the Government and to the American people. Nevertheless, throughout our history, the national defense has required that certain information be maintained in confidence in order to protect our citizens, our democratic institutions, our homeland security, and our interactions with foreign nations. Protecting information critical to our Nation's security and demonstrating our commitment to open Government through accurate and accountable application of classification standards and routine, secure, and effective declassification are equally important priorities. NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, by the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows: PART 1 -- ORIGINAL CLASSIFICATION Section 1.1. Classification Standards. (a) Information may be originally classified under the terms of this order only if all of the following conditions are met: (1) an original classification authority is classifying the information; (2) the information is owned by, produced by or for, or is under the control of the United States Government; (3) the information falls within one or more of the categories of information listed in section 1.4 of this order; and (4) the original classification authority determines that the unauthorized disclosure of the information reasonably could be expected to result in damage to the national security, which includes defense against transnational terrorism, and the original classification authority is able to identify or describe the damage. [...] Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. (a) The authority to classify information originally may be exercised only by: (1) the President and the Vice President; (2) agency heads and officials designated by the President; and (3) United States Government officials delegated this authority pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section. (b) Officials authorized to classify information at a specified level are also authorized to classify information at a lower level. (c) Delegation of original classification authority. (1) Delegations of original classification authority shall be limited to the minimum required to administer this order. Agency heads are responsible for ensuring that designated subordinate officials have a demonstrable and continuing need to exercise this authority. (2) "Top Secret" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President, the Vice President, or an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section. (3) "Secret" or "Confidential" original classification authority may be delegated only by the President, the Vice President, an agency head or official designated pursuant to paragraph (a)(2) of this section, or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4(d) of this order, provided that official has been delegated "Top Secret" original classification authority by the agency head. (4) Each delegation of original classification authority shall be in writing and the authority shall not be redelegated except as provided in this order. Each delegation shall identify the official by name or position. (5) Delegations of original classification authority shall be reported or made available by name or position to the Director of the Information Security Oversight Office. (d) All original classification authorities must receive training in proper classification (including the avoidance of over-classification) and declassification as provided in this order and its implementing directives at least once a calendar year. Such training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the sanctions in section 5.5 of this order that may be brought against an individual who fails to classify information properly or protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure. Original classification authorities who do not receive such mandatory training at least once within a calendar year shall have their classification authority suspended by the agency head or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4(d) of this order until such training has taken place. A waiver may be granted by the agency head, the deputy agency head, or the senior agency official if an individual is unable to receive such training due to unavoidable circumstances. Whenever a waiver is granted, the individual shall receive such training as soon as practicable. (e) Exceptional cases. When an employee, government contractor, licensee, certificate holder, or grantee of an agency who does not have original classification authority originates information believed by that person to require classification, the information shall be protected in a manner consistent with this order and its implementing directives. The information shall be transmitted promptly as provided under this order or its implementing directives to the agency that has appropriate subject matter interest and classification authority with respect to this information. That agency shall decide within 30 days whether to classify this information. [snip]
Probably not Top Secret. That is a VERY controlled medium usually requiring two person control. Secret? Sure I can see that. Most day to day work for her was no doubt at the secret level. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.---John 1:17
Which can lead to a criminal investigation. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.---John 1:17
You are delusional if you think that any real investigation will be conducted, much have any action taken against her. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
That is pretty much true. Unless.......The Donald is President. Then some heads are gonna role.
I think you meant roll.
Yeah, yours for one when you realize that he is a shill for Hillary. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Dumb. Shills don't mock the person they are shilling for.
The intelligence reports naming officials of a foreign government and quoting them at a meeting of the same day, or very recent time, would clearly qualify for a Top Secret classification. TS was coming across online encrypted (JASON) military communications circuits 30 to 40 years ago. The State stuff has been handled on separate circuitry as denoted by its 82B1 formatting, which predates AUTODIN. That format was used by the military in the 60s before AUTODIN. Everybody in the Comm Center was cleared Top Secret. The closer handling occurred after it was delivered by the comms personnel. Everything had to have a clear classification designation before initial transmission on the comms circuits. Hillary bypassed the official comms circuits, but she could not bypass the requirement to properly classify the material. Her lunch schedule would have been SECRET. http://www.rt.com/usa/complete-emails-guccifer-clinton-554/ Check out the Guccifer hacked email from Sidney Blumenthal's account that was going to Hillary. This stuff relates highly sensitive intel that was less than 24 hours old. See the one from February 16, 2013 February 16, 2013 For: Hillary SOURCE: Sources with direct access to Libyan national Government, as well as the highest levels of European Governments, and Western Intelligence and security services. 1. As of February 15, 2013 Algerian President Abdelaziz Bouteflika instructed the commanders of the Algerian external intelligence service (Direction Générale de la Sécurité - DGSE) to provide Libyan intelligence chief, General Salim Hassi, with selected portions of the information obtained in the investigation of the terrorist attack on the facility at In Amenas. The President cautioned the DGSE commanders to manage the information being passed with care, keeping in mind that he is not convinced the new General National Council (GNC) government of Libya will survive through 2013. He also warned them to void passing any information that might be interpreted to indicate that the Algerian government had not been properly prepared for the attack. Bouteflika added that they should move forward with this exchange as quickly as possible, since Libyan Prime Minister Ali Zidan was calling him every day to push for greater cooperation, particularly regarding contacts between the Mokhtar Belmokhtar (MBM) terrorist groups and groups and individuals in Libya. [snip] It goes on for several pages more, with a total of six similar paragraphs. Here we have the President of Algeria sharing intel with the Libyan intel chief, and linking in the Libyan Prime Minister, and the events reported are less than 24 hours old. This sort of compromise could threaten the life of the extremely sensitive source. The extremely sensitive sources, and the timing and subject matter, justify a TS classification.
I am not that delusional. My #6
Basically they were creating TS information without properly classifying. Amazing. For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.---John 1:17
Nice Orwellian sentences. потому что Бог хочет это тот путь
Fox Report, 25 Jul 2015, at 7:57 p.m. EDT, Hillary Clinton speaking: And Bill did not have sex with that woman. They engaged in non-sex. I was not classified, but it should have been, and she is the one who should have classified it. The correct question is why she did not classify it after she received it, and why she retained it on her non-secure server. With Hillary's excruciating parsing, she is legally correct. She neither sent nor received any information that was classified when it was sent or received. Before Hillary saw it, it is not known to have been in the possession of anyone with authority and responsibility to classify it. Technically, it is not classified until a person with authorization assigns it a classification. Nobody is known to have classified the information before Hillary sent it. But before Hillary sent it, she was the original classifying authority who had the authority and the responsibility to have classified it. It only remained technically unclassified because of her utter security failure to properly handle information for which she had a duty to protect. She kept it on a non-secure personal server long after she had sent it onward. Presumably, information she forwarded was classified at the State Department. During almost all the time that she kept said information on her non-secure server, it was officially classified. Of the load of edited junk she has recently turned over, IG tested a random sample of 40 emails and found 4 with information that is still classified.
Nailed it first try! "Old news,let's move on!" it is! And check out the bio of the guy that is supposed to check this out,Patrick F. Kennedy. Not only was his Rabbi for appointed high government off a guy named Bill Clintoin,but check this out The Republican minority on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has alleged that Kennedy, as Undersecretary for Management, failed to approve requests for additional security in Benghazi and Tripoli, and failed to implement recommendations regarding high-risk diplomatic posts that had been issued after the bombings of embassies in 1998.[5] In fact, the facility was classified as a U.S. Special Mission, which was then a novel category,[6] that required a waiver which "legally allowed the CIA annex to be housed in a location about one mile from the U.S. special mission."[7] Belgian Ambassador Investigation On June 10, 2013, CBS News reported that a memo from an official in the State Department inspector general’s office alleged that the then-current ambassador to Belgium, Howard Gutman, was ditching his security detail to engage prostitutes and to allegedly solicit sex with children, and further alleged that Patrick F. Kennedy had killed the original investigation in order to protect Ambassador Gutman and maybe others. [8] On June 11, 2013, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney confirmed that the allegation regarding Kennedy was under active investigation by an independent inspector general.[9][10][11] On June 21, 2013, the White House announced Denise Bauer as the new nominee to be the next U.S. Ambassador to Belgium." Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
True,and BY DEFINITION anything she did not classify was not classified information. Remember when that shithead Jim-mah Carter exposed Top Secret Code Word intelligence about the Stealth fighters and bombers ready to come online in order to try to pump up is re-election chances and absolutely nothing happened to him for doing so despite the FACT that anyone below him doing that would have received life in prison? It wasn't classified if the president says it wasn't classified. Same thing is going to happen here. She didn't classify it so it wasn't classified. Can't we just MOVE ON? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Not unless a deposit is missed,anyway. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Yeah that's the ticket. Trump is spending millions and losing millions so they can give him how much? You're not to bright.
If it came from info classified by other lawful classifiers, her opinion of its classification is irrelevant. A SoS has classification rights over documents they write, but they can't reclassify a classified Pentagon or CIA document on a whim. There is an audit trail of who classifies info and everyone it is transmitted to and each individual has the responsibility to safeguard any classified material. They are not arbitrarily allowed to reclassify documents they have received. Declassification follows other rather strict protocols, as when old government documents from DoE or Pentagon or State get declassified years or decades later. So I think you are overestimating Hitlery's authority to reclassify anything that came into her hands as SoS.
Of course you are correct. I noticed that poster was incorrect too. Didn't want to rub his nose in it at this time though.
Try to spell it right, so that you don't look like a total idiot. It's TOO. Thats a pretty arrogant post on your part; you didn't even notify the poster you were discussing.
To be fair, he is cutting back on Internet costs; he is charged by the keyboard character (ASCII) and he is saving money as a prudent web site owner!
Accidents happen Buckeroo. After all you were born.
I was planned at the beginning of tyme. What is your excuse?
Argument rule # 1: When you've lost an argument or can't defend your position, correct grammar. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
That is true. But your parents still had an accident. I'm happy that you are here Buck. You're a unique individual.
When you've lost an argument or can't defend your position, correct grammar. Your comment above is a perfect example of an idiot POM-POM girl that wasn't even involved but begs to get her nose rubbed in it.
What are you doing Stone? Drivin goff some of our best posters again? What did you do, today? Go to Sunday school and learn "HELL and DAMNATION" once again?
I've said nothing about Grandisland. I was talking about you.
I was referring to your angst about "sneakypete" ... you seem to think he characterizes the word "evil."
I attack all fag lovers that are for Bernie Sanders. Do you agree with your bestest bud Pete, that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate and is a conservative? Do you agree with your good friend Pete that people who support Traditional marriage (marriage) are bigots and discriminate against faggots?
I agree with no politician. After election all of them wipe of their silly grins and put on their clown masks when entering the Washington DC circus. Your question makes no sense. I even looked for an answer in my 8BALL, and it suggests: TRY AGAIN.
That wasn't the question. But reading between the lines I can see you think Pete is full of it on this issue. If you think Pete is correct just say so.
You're not to bright. Yeah,that's true. If there is one thing that can be said about the international bankers that are buying up the world and have enough money to hire him to cut their lawns,it's that they have no money. It is also true that the one thing Trump absolutely hates is money,right? Good thinking! Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Another dodge by you. You're not being honest. You just don't want to hurt your bff's feelings. Pete thinks you're a bigot because you don't support pretend "fag marriage".
Then it will be the fault of some secretary or clerk that retyped it and handed it to her without telling her. NOTHING is EVER going to be her fault. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
In Pete's defense, he has only demonstrated that Sanders is just about as capable of any politician to destroy America. He is correct, too. GWBush was a lamb coming into office and destroyed America while destroying the ME, all for nothing. So, Sanders might just be another good candidate as well.
Not if Hillary or your commie Hero Sanders wins. Trump on the other hand and Hillary is off to jail.
lol. Have a great day Buck.
You have to give him a break. He has spent his whole adult life sucking up to various police chiefs and other authority figures,and now that he is retired he is reduced to sucking up to a web site owner in order to get his "authority fix". If anything we should feel sorry for him. He is rudderless in a sea of confusion without a master to tell him what to think and what to do. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Once again you are lying about me,and I haven't even been back all day. I am NOT a "fag lover". Unlike you,I am a Bill of Rights lover. And I have never once said that Bernie Sanders is the "best candidate" and "a conservative". What I wrote was "Sanders is more conservative than any of the alleged Republicans currently running when it comes to American jobs. If you believe Trump is serious,you HAVE to believe that pro-wrasslin is not fixed. Trump is Randy "Macho Man" savage without the muscles. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Are you going back to Sunday school to pray for us? Don't forget to have some water sprinkled on us and put a good word in for Donald Trump and my dead dawg "scruffy."
What I wrote was "Sanders is more conservative than any of the alleged Republicans currently running when it comes to American jobs. You just added the part about American jobs. You may have thought that but you never said that. You said he was the most consrvative of anyone running. Ted Cruz is pretty much pure conservative. So your statement is incorrect. Despite your new spin (when it comes to American jobs)
Gay marriage isn't in the bill of rights. It was never mentioned by any founder. Ever. Freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof is. Do you like freedom of religion? Since you consider them cults. Let me rephrase in sneakyspeak. Do you support freedom of "cults" and the free exercise of "cults"?
And yet another lie about me on the same thread. Guess what,Bucko? There are plenty of people who support traditional marriages that aren't obsessed with homosexuals as you are,and that have the odd notion that homosexuals have the same rights as every other citizen. And there is no THINK that drones like you discriminate against faggots. You do,and you think doing so makes you holier. I have no problem with that. You,like everyone else in a free country,are free to think anything you want to think. What you are NOT allowed to do is pass laws that discriminate against others that disagree with your superstitious beliefs. After all,nobody died and made YOu God. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
ROFLMAO! Will that be before or after he asks for the money back that he donated to her earlier election campaigns? Will it also mean that he won't invite her to any more parties? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
You said I and others were bigots and anti American because we didn't support you and the faggots trying to redefint marriage. It isn't a lie. You said that. So you're lying.
No,I did NOT. That was the key reason I made the post I made ON THE THREAD about his speech on bringing manufacturing and jobs back to America. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Before. Because he isn't going to ask for the money back. It was chump change.
No. Several times you just said he is the most conservative. I will give you that that is what you were thinking in your head. You didn't put it in words though. Not the several comments I read.
I don't think Trump will invite Hillary to any parties. I also don't think the owner/ceo of Macys will be invited to any more parties. John McCain is definately off the list.
Are you really THAT simple-minded? Where is heterosexual marriage mentioned in the Bill of Rights? Freedom of religion and the free exercise thereof is. Do you like freedom of religion? Since you consider them cults. Yes,even nutcases have a right to live their lives according to their beliefs,as long as they aren't infringing on the rights of others. Let me rephrase in sneakyspeak. Do you support freedom of "cults" and the free exercise of "cults"? Don't blame ME for designating your cult a cult,Bucko! It was the Catholic Church that first called all non-Catholic forms of Christianity cults,and since then all the Protestant cults have called competing Protestant relgigions cults,also. I didn't create that,I just repeated it to highlight you hypocrisy. But to answer your question,"YES,cults DO have as much right to practice their faith as anyone else in this country. If you needed my approval it wouldn't be a right,it would be a privilege. You just don't have the right to force others to share your views and values against their will,and you damn sure don't have the power to demand that government does it for you. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
It isn't. Marriage isn't a role for the federal government. Unless we the people decide we need the feds to fight the faggots. Then we can have an amendment or legislation. Marriage was already defined prior to the adoption of the constitution. So they saw no need to redefine it. Or they would have done such.
It isn't a lie. You said that. So you're lying. I apologize. I keep forgetting how truly ignorant you really are. "Marriage" is a big word that is defined many ways,but the general sense of the word is defined as "joining two as one". Like in manufacturing,when they join plastic and steel. Or in your world,where you unite male and female as one. Or in the homosexual world,where they unite whatever with whatever as one. Nobody is demanding you marry the man of your dreams,so deal with it. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Are you really THAT simple-minded? Where is heterosexual marriage mentioned in the Bill of Rights? Then why do you say that you aren't a "fag lover" and say that you support the bill or rights and I don't? Implying that fag pretend marriage is in the bill of rigths. That is kind of deceptive and dishonest.
Yeah, a couple of grand here,a couple of grand there,it's almost like it never happened,right? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I think, and sincerely hope, that McLunatic is off the list of US Senators after the next election. Unfortunately,Trump may have helped him out by attacking his courage as a Navy pilot. Draft Dodging trust fund children have no standing to question the courage of anyone that actually wore a uniform and risked their life,and that is the kind of thing that could get veterans and their families to rally around that senile old SOB again. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I agree with you on that,but it IS a matter that concerns states. Marriage was already defined prior to the adoption of the constitution Who defined it,the Big Guy in the Sky? The same guy that according to YOUR instruction manual impregnated another man's wife? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I'm not a rich guy. But a couple of grand doesn't seem like that much to me. It must be like a nickel or penny to Trump. I understand as a business man of his magnitude. You have to play the political game or you will not be able to do business. So he gave them some chump change. It doesn't bother me in the least. Now if Jeb, or Graham, or Cruz gave her money. There would be hell to pay. Because there giving would be for different reasons. That is how I see it. I suspect that is how millions of others see it. Am I a bit hypocritical on this? Maybe but I don't think so. I'm telling you this so you can understand my thinking and perhaps lots of others. Trump is going to be able to get away with stuff others in the field wouldn't. And that is ok with me. Because I and others can see that he isn't a typical politican. He is there to solve serious problems with our debt, border etc. I won't agree with everything he does. But I respect him. He isn't going to get tied up in the kinds of debates you and I have about gay marriage or abortion. He may not be as against those as I am. But that is ok because unlike a Hillary or typical politican that isn't his main focus. He will be a good President. And like Reagan I expect you to come around. You're just so cynical from your experinces with being lied to for so may years. So your cynicism is to be expected. Hope that helps you understand where I and I think many others are coming from.
I have never ONCE said that homosexual marriage was in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights GUARANTEES ALL Americans they have the same rights as all other Americans. Including the right to marry who they wish if that person wants to marry them. If homosexuals don't have that right,neither do heterosexuals. Or even asexuals,who marry for companionship or to other personal reasons. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
It's not,and I am sure that just like everyone else he found a way around election laws and donated more. If there is one thing that Trump loves as much as himself,it is money. He is not going to give a dime to anyone unless he thinks he will benefit from it. Good to see you don't care about him contributing to the Clinton,Kennedy,and NYC manorial campaigns,though. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
The Bill of Rights GUARANTEES ALL Americans they have the same rights as all other Americans. Including the right to marry who they wish Ok let me disect your sentence. You first say you "I have never ONCE said that homosexual marriage was in the Bill of Rights." Then you say"The Bill of Rights GUARANTEES ALL Americans they have the same rights as all other Americans. Including the right to marry who they wish" So it includes it but doesn't include it. You're talking out of both sides of your sperm receptor.
So when we are losing money to China in trade. And to Mexico in trade. Trump will see we are losing money and it is no benefit to us. Sounds awesome. Thank for making me like Trump even more. :) You're telling us he will get rid of NAFTA and have better trade deals with China, Japan etc. Awesome.
I see why you like Bernie. He gives out money. Trump isn't a socialist so why do you think he owes anyone any money? You're part of the give me give me Bernie Fagade.
It didn't but it does now. But given the contortions the court had to go through to find this protected right, it opens the door to marriages between ANY two or more people.
No,I am telling you he will never be elected,and even if he is,he won't have the authority to any of that on his own and nobody in either the DNC or the RNC is going to back him if he tries. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
He already got the first sanctuary cityu legislation passed. He isn't even President yet. He will use the bully pulpit better then anyone has. He will call them stupid and dumb then they will cave when he is President. He is going to win Pete. You can thank me in a few years when you realize you were wrong.
Just so you know, Stone drinks the cup of water for his opinions fron some far off planet called "bullshite"; it isn't all his fault; he was brought up by CIA propaganda. Give the poor man a bit of tyme to fall off his roof again. Sonner or later he will "get it."
You and the other kooks keep bitching about how evil both the RNC and DNC is... and now you're bragging about how they won't play nice with Trump. Seems like anything the RNC & DNC hates, you should endorse. You are more confused that Bruce Jenner. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Talk about yourself about being a socialist living off the fat o' the land, such as yourself; it would be more apropos. I know, it is not all your fault ... you didn't plan your path as a free American; you weren't educated; you were trained like a dawg. You allowed the government to grab your balls to restrain your existence.
Ha ha... let the libtards boil in anger. No more socialist Dems, no more weak filthy RINO's. Now they gotta a real problem... A RICH INDEPENDENT THAT CANT BE BOUGHT.
I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Is Rand still your first choice? He seems to have disappeared. He is fighting to defund planned parenthood, which is good in my view.
Is Rand still your first choice? He seems to have disappeared. He is fighting to defund planned parenthood, which is good in my view. I like Rand... and if Rand and Trump were equally viable, I'd probably vote Rand because I'm a little more confident in his desire to never shit on the bill of rights, more so than Trump. However, if Trump is the best chance at a non (D) win, I'll gladly vote for him in a New York second. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Sorry, Charlie - Of this, $612,083 are to candidates or parties identifiable either as Republican or Democratic. Of that amount, $320,300 of that have been to the Democratic Party and Democratic candidates; $291,783 to Republican committees and candidates. That’s 52% of his giving to identifiable political giving to Democrats. Perhaps more illuminating: In 2010, he made $102,200 in political donations, $83,400 were to Republicans, including a $50,000 check in October to American Crossroads, a PAC cofounded by Karl Rove. Before 2010, when we could infer he was less serious about running for the Republican nomination, 59% of his political donations were to Democrats (again, setting aside donations not identifiable with either party). Who are his favorites? On the left side of the aisle: $20,350 to Charles Rangel, the Harlem-based Congressman $9,900 to Chuck Schumer $9,400 to Harry Reid $9,000 to various Kennedys, mainly Ted. $5,500 to John Kerry On the right side of the aisle: $13,200 to John McCain (excluding any McCain affiliated PACs) $8,300 Arlen Specter, former Republican Senator who eventually turned Democratic to salvage his career. $9,500 to Mark Foley, the disgraced former Florida politician $8,250 to south Jersey Congressman Frank LoBiondo $6,500 to Sue Kelly, a former congressperson from upstate New York. Of the $131,950 donations to organizations not identified as affiliated with a party by OpenSecrets and non-affiliated candidates: $4,800 went to Charlie Crist, the former Florida governor who ran for Senate as an independent. $1,000 to independent candidate Joe Lieberman (who also received Trump donations when a Democrat) $50,000 went to the Trump NY Delegate Committee in 1999, presumably in connection with the effort to draw a political convention to New York City. See the data yourself at OpenSecrets.org Trump certainly appears to be drawing unusual backers. As I previously reported, a left-leaning PAC that previously backed Obama, John Kerry and Howard Dean is mulling back a candidate Trump. GrandIsland - you have too much tyme on your hands ... why not go out and be that street crossing guard that you once were? You were best at that sort of thing.
That is one thing I like about Rand. I was all in for Rand at one point. Then in my view he went a little squishy on a few things and started sounding more calculating in his answers instead of the unvarnished truth.
Buck. That line of attack is not working. Trump gets a pass on it because he was just doing business. Making everyone like him as he puts it. I'm serious Buck. That line of attack will not work against Trump. It would probably against any other candidate, but not Trump. Maybe it isn' fair but it is accurate.
Ohh, I see ... he was bribing elected officials. Thats pretty cool.
Quit wasting your breath. Your post proves only two things. 1) Trump used both sides to make money. Donate to a campaign and expect that politician to help Trump make millions as he builds them. 2) Trump obviously knows what's wrong with our political choices over the last 100 years... THEY CAN BE BOUGHT because they need money to run for office. So, you should figure out that since Trump isn't asking for shit in donations, he'll be the only candidate that doesn't owe once he wins... AND he will use BOTH sides to get the job done. So, suck it up. If you hate both sides as much as you CLAIM... you should like Trump since both sides hate Trump, especially the DEMS. What's that leave you, Bucky? lol I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Maybe bucky is just afraid Trump will make it hard to defraud the government. If you know what I mean.
The fact that you can't even understand such a simple thing as the different meanings of the words "brag" and "recognize" is why you were a cop. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Agreed. Trump is a *FLIP-FLOPPER* on a scale this nation has never seen before.
Bucky doesn't understand that Trumps ability to use both sides is what's made the man so rich. That's why Bucky isn't a billionaire. I'm the infidel... Allah warned you about. كافر المسلح
Ahhh,I guess you are also going to give the same pass to his good friends,the Clintons? After all,they were just doing business,too. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I'd disagree with that point. But it does bring up the fact that you don't know what the word "nobody" means.
You also don't know what the word "friends" means. They were acquaintences. But to answer your question. No I wouldn't give the Clintons a pass on anything. Just Teflon Don.
You're not just drinking the Kool-Ade,you're shooting it up,ain't ya? Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I like that moniker you just made up for the Donald. Maybe it will stick. Nah.
lol. No I just know as a developer developing multi million dollar buildings. They would be held up if he didn't have some kind of access. Maybe someone who makes minimum wage should have the same access as Trump. But it is just never going to be so. It just isn't Pete. Trump never broke any laws that I'm aware of. And you being a respector of the constitution that you claim to be. I know you believe in innocent until proven guilty. Especially to someone who has never been accused of any wrong doing. You're going all Bernie anti capitalist on us. Like earlier when you were complaining Trump didn't give you anything.
Please quit being such a dick head, mr. web site owner.
I agree that isn't the way things are,but that is the way things are supposed to be,and we should all be working towards that goal. American is supposed to be a Republic,not a Monarchy. Trump never broke any laws that I'm aware of. Of course he has. He has bribed public officials,and who knows what else he has done? We will never know because he hides behind a platoon of lawyers on retainer and public officials on his payroll that can kill any investigation that would cause him harm. Haven't you said yourself that he has had to buy political favor to do business in NYC? I know you believe in innocent until proven guilty. Especially to someone who has never been accused of any wrong doing. Trump has never been accussed of doing any wrongdoing? Have you been living in a freaking cave? You're going all Bernie anti capitalist on us. Do yourself a favor and learn about unfettered capitalism versus the moderated form of capitalism our laws were designed to protect. Unfettered capitalism is nothing more than fascism,which is the evolved,adult form of communism. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
There is no longer any reason,if there ever was,for you and I to discuss this. Frankly,you are too stupid to understand reason because you live off of emotion and superstition. You are a groupie,and Trump is your Boy Band. You are due to take a big emotional hit when he finally drops out and you see what the payoff was. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
I think he has staying power. I don't know for how long - I'll guess a year. Then he'll be buried on the political trail and add another billion to his wallet.
No we shouldn't.
No we shouldn't. Ok,so you are pro-Royalty instead of pro-American. That explains your idolization of the carney geek that is Donald Trump. You love him because he is rich,and couldn't care less about how he got rich or how he stays rich. It's all irrelevant because you worship men you consider to be better than yourself. You are a natural serf. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
True,and BY DEFINITION anything she did not classify was not classified information. Remember when that shithead Jim-mah Carter exposed Top Secret Code Word intelligence about the Stealth fighters and bombers ready to come online in order to try to pump up is re-election chances and absolutely nothing happened to him for doing so despite the FACT that anyone below him doing that would have received life in prison? It wasn't classified if the president says it wasn't classified. Same thing is going to happen here. She didn't classify it so it wasn't classified. Can't we just MOVE ON? Anything not yet officially classified is not officially classified. That does not change the responsibility to classify national security information, or the culpability for failing one's responsibility to properly classify it. For any qualifying national security information which came across her non-secure email system: HILLARY CLINTON was RESPONSIBLE to properly classify the document, and every paragraph of the document, upon her initial review of the document. A document is not unclassified because Hillary Clinton did not classify it. See the IG statement below. If information within falls under derived classification, it is classified whether it is marked or not. HILLARY CLINTON was RESPONSIBLE to NOT keep the national security information on her non-secure server. HILLARY CLINTON was RESPONSIBLE to file a compromise report for each such document. Information does not automatically become unclassified or delcassified because it has been compromised, even if published in newspapers or hacked off a non-secure server. HILLARY CLINTON was RESPONSIBLE to take immediate measures to prevent further transmission of national security information to her non-secure email system. Instead, HILLARY CLINTON maintained an unlawful non-secure back channel intelligence system, compromising all national security information she permitted and enabled to be handled on her non-secure system. The President did not declare any of the national security information held on the non-secure system of HILLARY CLINTON to be unclassified or declassified. Jimmy Carter or other presidents may declassify and release whatever they choose. What the president may do today (but has not done) is not relevant to a determination of what HILLARY CLINTON wrongfully did, or failed to do. National Security Information, wrongfully present on HILLARY CLINTON's email server, was not properly classified, AS REQUIRED. She could not ignore information that qualified for SECRET or TOP SECRET classification and treat it as unclassified until one of her subordinates told her different. www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2010-01-05/pdf/E9-31418.pdf Title 3—The President, Executive Order 13526 of December 29, 2009 Classified National Security Information Federal Register, Vol. 75, No. 2, Tuesday, January 5, 2010, pp. 707-708 Sec. 1.3. Classification Authority. [snip] Statement from the Inspectors General of the Intelligence Community and the Department of State Regarding the Review of Former Secretary Clinton's Emails Yesterday the Office ofthe Inspector General ofthe Intelligence Community (IC IG} sent a congressional notification to intelligence oversight committees updating them of the IC IG support to the State Department IG (attached). The IC IG found four emails containing classified IC-derived information in a limited sample of 40 emails of the 30,000 emails provided by former Secretary Clinton. The four emails, which have not been released through the State FOIA process, did not contain classification markings and/or dissemination controls. These emails were not retroactively classified by the State Department; rather these emails contained classified information when they were generated and, according to IC classification officials, that information remains classified today. This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system. IC IG made a referral detailing the potential compromise of classified information to security officials within the Executive Branch. The main purpose of the referral was to notify security officials that classified information may exist on at least one private server and thumb drive that are not in the government's possession. An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral – it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes. The IC IG is statutorily required to refer potential compromises of national security information to the appropriate IC security officials. /s/ I. Charles McCullough, III Inspector General, Department of State Hillary stored INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY (IC) DERIVED INFORMATION on her non-secure server and she transmitted the same. This material held derived classification, as opposed to requiring original classification. Orignal classification of the information already existed. As the IG said, the information was classified when generated and remains classified today. The IG filed the potential compromise report as required by law. As the IG noted, "This classified information should never have been transmitted via an unclassified personal system."
For any qualifying national security information which came across her non-secure email system: HILLARY CLINTON was RESPONSIBLE Technically you are correct,and that would make a solid case in a court of law. The problem is this is Bubbette! we are speaking of,and she is never going to be charged with anything in a court of law. She is a protected species,and only has to worry about the "court of public opinion" and there is nobody better than the Clinton's when it comes to shading the facts and confusing issues. Does the sentence "That all depends on what the meaning of the word "is",is." bring back any memories. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
She is a protected species,and only has to worry about the "court of public opinion" and there is nobody better than the Clinton's when it comes to shading the facts and confusing issues. Does the sentence "That all depends on what the meaning of the word "is",is." bring back any memories. Hillary is not in a court of law but is in the court of public opinion and in a very bright spotlight. Escaping criminal prosecution is not the same as getting elected president. Hillary trying to sound like Bill gives me an impression of Tricky Dick saying "I am not a crook."
Not really. It only seems that way to those of us on the right because we have spent so long waiting for her to be called to accounts. The truth is the typical Dim voters,and especially the Why-men feminist voters never hear about any of this,and if they do hear about it they never bother to pay attention or do any research because she's "their man!" IF the mainstream media mentions it all all on local teebee where most dolts get their news,it's just a speaking point mentioning how radical right-wingers and anti-women forces are trying to damage her reputation. And for the vast amount of voters that get interested in politics for 30 days ever 4 years,they never heard of it and will never hear of it. Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
Not really. It only seems that way to those of us on the right because we have spent so long waiting for her to be called to accounts. Hillary is in a spotlight and her inability to to get stories such as her security blunders out of the news cycle are having a toll on her polling numbers. I still doubt Hillary can stumble all the way to the convention. Only time will tell. By Michael Gerson WAPO Source: no text provided.
True,but we both know that Bubbette! can absolutely count on the Dim Party People to vote for her because she has a D behind her name,just like the Republican Party People will vote for any sack of shit you put a R on that wins the alleged Republican nomination. In the end it seems like the people that are really responsible for putting a president into the WH are the dummies that get interested in politics for 30 days every 4 years,and base their vote on who looks the best,has the nicest looking children,whose "turn" it is,or any other factor that has absolutely nothing to do with reason. Which is why the Founding Fathers set up a system where only property owners were allowed to vote because they had a vested interest in knowing who was running and what they were for and against. Now we let anybody with a drivers license vote,and they always vote for the candidate that promises to give them the most "free stuff". Why is democracy held in such high esteem when it’s the enemy of the minority and makes all rights relative to the dictates of the majority? (Ron Paul,2012)
That would be Bernie. Who is one of two people you said you would vote for. The other is another democrat who gives out free stuff. You're just hot air.
His name please.
Jim Web. You know the open border moron, who thinks it is ok to replace chopped up American babies with wetbacks.
True enough for the general election but that is not the same folks who turn out for the primaries. The party PTB greatly influence the primaries and the nomination.
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2189751/hillary-clinton-emails-7-31-15.pdf The new batch of emails can be viewed or downloaded as one big PDF at the link. Just paging through it shows that there is one redaction after another. I would guess there are over a thousand redactions in 1,618 pages. It is also about 1,000 emails short of satisfying the court order. Hillary wants to slow walk it so she can testify to Congress while some of it has yet to be released. Congress could delay the hearing until 2016. http://www.foiadvocates.com/exemptions.html 6. Documents which are "personnel and medical and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6).
" Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account "
#2. To: redleghunter (#0)
#3. To: redleghunter (#0)
It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them.
#4. To: redleghunter (#0)
#5. To: TooConservative, redleghunter (#4)
Apparently, this was a security referral to DoJ, not a criminal referral.
Inspectors General Release Joint Statement to Clear Up Hillary Email Referral Flap
Yesterday the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (IC IG) sent a congressional notification to intelligence oversight committees updating them of the IC IG support to the State Department IG [attached].
#6. To: TooConservative, redleghunter (#4)
So not exactly a smoking gun and may be just a way to whitewash Xlinton
The White House
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
December 29, 2009
#7. To: nolu chan (#3)
#8. To: nolu chan (#5)
An important distinction is that the IC IG did not make a criminal referral––it was a security referral made for counterintelligence purposes.
#9. To: nolu chan, redleghunter, All (#3)
Hillary's server clearly contained intelligence reports with Top Secret information. The Agency head is responsible for the protection of classified information within her agency.
#10. To: SOSO (#9)
You are delusional if you think that any real investigation will be conducted, much have any action taken against her.
#11. To: A K A Stone (#10)
#12. To: A K A Stone (#10)
Unless.......The Donald is President. Then some heads are gonna role.
#13. To: SOSO (#12)
Yeah, yours for one when you realize that he is a shill for Hillary.
#14. To: redleghunter (#7)
Probably not Top Secret. That is a VERY controlled medium usually requiring two person control.
CONFIDENTIAL
From: Sid
Re: Algeria/Libya/Terrorism
THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION COMES FROM EXTREMELY SENSITIVE SOURCES AND SHOULD BE HANDLED WITH CARE.
#15. To: SOSO (#9)
You are delusional if you think that any real investigation will be conducted, much have any action taken against her.
She cannot disown her responsibility to have classified the material at the first instance. However, it will be whitewashed.
#16. To: nolu chan (#14)
#17. To: nolu chan (#15)
She cannot disown her responsibility to have classified the material at the first instance. However, it will be whitewashed.
#18. To: redleghunter (#16)
“I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material,” Mrs. Clinton told reporters in March. “I’m certainly aware of the classified requirements and did not send classified material.”
I never sent nor received any information that was classified at the time it was sent and received.
#19. To: TooConservative (#4)
So not exactly a smoking gun and may be just a way to whitewash Xlinton so that it's all old news by the time the nomination battle is going on. The Xlintons play that "old news" fiddle like it's a Stradivarius.
#20. To: nolu chan (#3)
The Agency head is responsible for the protection of classified information within her agency.
#21. To: A K A Stone (#13)
Shills don't mock the person they are shilling for.
#22. To: sneakypete (#21)
#23. To: sneakypete (#20)
Same thing is going to happen here. She didn't classify it so it wasn't classified.
#24. To: TooConservative (#23)
If it came from info classified by other lawful classifiers, her opinion of its classification is irrelevant.
#25. To: A K A Stone, Fred Mertz (#22)
You're not to bright.
"We (government) need to do a lot less, a lot sooner" ~Ron Paul
#26. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#24)
I noticed that poster was incorrect too. Didn't want to rub his nose in it at this time though.
#27. To: hondo68, A K A Stone (#25)
Try to spell it right, so that you don't look like a total idiot. It's TOO.
#28. To: buckeroo (#26)
#29. To: A K A Stone (#28)
#30. To: hondo68 (#25)
Try to spell it right
#31. To: buckeroo (#29)
I was planned at the beginning of tyme.
#32. To: GrandIsland (#30)
#33. To: A K A Stone (#31)
#34. To: buckeroo (#33)
Drivin goff some of our best posters again?
#35. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#34)
#36. To: buckeroo (#35)
#37. To: A K A Stone (#36)
Do you agree with your bestest bud Pete, that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate and is a conservative?
Do you agree with your good friend Pete that people who support Traditional marriage (marriage) are bigots and discriminate against faggots?
#38. To: buckeroo (#37)
Do you agree with your bestest bud Pete, that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate and is a conservative? I agree with no politician.
#39. To: A K A Stone (#22)
Yeah that's the ticket. Trump is spending millions and losing millions so they can give him how much?
#40. To: buckeroo (#37)
Do you agree with your good friend Pete that people who support Traditional marriage (marriage) are bigots and discriminate against faggots? Your question makes no sense.
#41. To: TooConservative (#23)
A SoS has classification rights over documents they write, but they can't reclassify a classified Pentagon or CIA document on a whim.
#42. To: A K A Stone, sneakypete (#38)
#43. To: sneakypete (#41)
NOTHING is EVER going to be her fault.
#44. To: buckeroo (#42)
In Pete's defense,
#45. To: buckeroo, GrandIsland (#32)
(Edited)
Your comment above is a perfect example of an idiot POM-POM girl that wasn't even involved but begs to get her nose rubbed in it.
#46. To: A K A Stone, buckeroo (#36)
Do you agree with your bestest bud Pete, that Bernie Sanders is the best candidate and is a conservative?
#47. To: A K A Stone (#44)
#48. To: sneakypete (#46)
And I have never once said that Bernie Sanders is the "best candidate" and "a conservative".
#49. To: sneakypete (#46)
I am NOT a "fag lover". Unlike you,I am a Bill of Rights lover.
#50. To: A K A Stone (#36)
Do you agree with your good friend Pete that people who support Traditional marriage (marriage) are bigots and discriminate against faggots?
#51. To: A K A Stone (#43)
Trump on the other hand and Hillary is off to jail.
#52. To: sneakypete (#50)
Do you agree with your good friend Pete that people who support Traditional marriage (marriage) are bigots and discriminate against faggots? And yet another lie about me on the same thread.
#53. To: A K A Stone (#48)
You just added the part about American jobs.
#54. To: sneakypete (#51)
Will that be before or after he asks for the money back that he donated to her earlier election campaigns?
#55. To: sneakypete (#53)
You just added the part about American jobs. No,I did NOT. That was the key reason I made the post I made ON THE THREAD about his speech on bringing manufacturing and jobs back to America.
#56. To: sneakypete (#51)
Will it also mean that he won't invite her to any more parties?
#57. To: A K A Stone (#49)
(Edited)
Gay marriage isn't in the bill of rights. It was never mentioned by any founder. Ever.
#58. To: sneakypete (#57)
Where is heterosexual marriage mentioned in the Bill of Rights?
#59. To: A K A Stone (#52)
You said I and others were bigots and anti American because we didn't support you and the faggots trying to redefint marriage.
#60. To: sneakypete (#57)
(Edited)
Gay marriage isn't in the bill of rights. It was never mentioned by any founder. Ever.
#61. To: A K A Stone (#54)
Before. Because he isn't going to ask for the money back. It was chump change.
#62. To: A K A Stone (#56)
John McCain is definately off the list.
#63. To: A K A Stone (#58)
(Edited)
It isn't. Marriage isn't a role for the federal government.
#64. To: sneakypete (#61)
Yeah, a couple of grand here,a couple of grand there,it's almost like it never happened,right?
#65. To: A K A Stone (#60)
Then why do you say that you aren't a "fag lover" and say that you support the bill or rights and I don't? Implying that fag pretend marriage is in the bill of rigths.
#66. To: A K A Stone (#64)
'm not a rich guy. But a couple of grand doesn't seem like that much to me.
#67. To: sneakypete (#65)
I have never ONCE said that homosexual marriage was in the Bill of Rights.
#68. To: sneakypete (#66)
If there is one thing that Trump loves as much as himself,it is money. He is not going to give a dime to anyone unless he thinks he will benefit from it.
#69. To: sneakypete (#66)
He is not going to give a dime to anyone unless he thinks he will benefit from it.
#70. To: A K A Stone (#67)
"So it includes it but doesn't include it."
#71. To: A K A Stone (#68)
You're telling us he will get rid of NAFTA and have better trade deals with China, Japan etc.
#72. To: sneakypete (#71)
No,I am telling you he will never be elected,and even if he is,he won't have the authority
#73. To: sneakypete, A K A Stone (#71)
(Edited)
#74. To: sneakypete (#71)
he will never be elected,and even if he is,he won't have the authority to any of that on his own and nobody in either the DNC or the RNC is going to back him if he tries.
#75. To: GrandIsland (#74)
#76. To: GrandIsland (#74)
#77. To: A K A Stone (#76)
#78. To: GrandIsland (#77)
#79. To: A K A Stone (#78)
#80. To: GrandIsland (#77)
No more socialist Dems, no more weak filthy RINO's. Now they gotta a real problem... A RICH INDEPENDENT THAT CANT BE BOUGHT.
According to electoral cycle donations via OpenSecrets.org which I examined this morning, Trump has donated a net $744,033 to political candidates and committees since 1989 (the extent of the online database).
#81. To: GrandIsland (#79)
more confident in his desire to never shit on the bill of rights
#82. To: buckeroo (#80)
#83. To: A K A Stone (#82)
Trump gets a pass on it because he was just doing business.
#84. To: buckeroo (#80)
#85. To: GrandIsland, buckeroo (#84)
#86. To: GrandIsland (#74)
You and the other kooks keep bitching about how evil both the RNC and DNC is... and now you're bragging about how they won't play nice with Trump.
#87. To: GrandIsland (#84)
... AND he will use BOTH sides to get the job done.
#88. To: A K A Stone (#82)
Trump gets a pass on it because he was just doing business.
#89. To: A K A Stone (#82)
Trump gets a pass on it because he was just doing business.
#90. To: sneakypete (#86)
The fact that you can't even understand such a simple thing as the different meanings of the words "brag" and "recognize" is why you were a cop.
#91. To: sneakypete (#89)
Ahhh,I guess you are also going to give the same pass to his good friends,the Clintons?
#92. To: A K A Stone (#91)
They were acquaintences. But to answer your question. No I wouldn't give the Clintons a pass on anything. Just Teflon Don.
#93. To: A K A Stone (#91)
Just Teflon Don.
#94. To: sneakypete (#92)
You're not just drinking the Kool-Ade,you're shooting it up,ain't ya?
#95. To: A K A Stone (#67)
You're talking out of both sides of your sperm receptor.
#96. To: A K A Stone (#94)
Maybe someone who makes minimum wage should have the same access as Trump. But it is just never going to be so. It just isn't Pete.
#97. To: A K A Stone (#67)
(Edited)
So it includes it but doesn't include it. You're talking out of both sides of your sperm receptor.
#98. To: sneakypete (#97)
You are due to take a big emotional hit when he [Trump] finally drops out and you see what the payoff was.
#99. To: sneakypete (#96)
I agree that isn't the way things are,but that is the way things are supposed to be,and we should all be working towards that goal.
#100. To: A K A Stone (#99)
I agree that isn't the way things are,but that is the way things are supposed to be,and we should all be working towards that goal.
#101. To: sneakypete (#20)
The Agency head is responsible for the protection of classified information within her agency.
(d) All original classification authorities must receive training in proper classification (including the avoidance of over-classification) and declassification as provided in this order and its implementing directives at least once a calendar year. Such training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the sanctions in section 5.5 of this order that may be brought against an individual who fails to classify information properly or protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure.
July 24, 2015
Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
Steve Linick
#102. To: nolu chan (#101)
Anything not yet officially classified is not officially classified. That does not change the responsibility to classify national security information, or the culpability for failing one's responsibility to properly classify it.
#103. To: sneakypete (#102)
The problem is this is Bubbette! we are speaking of,and she is never going to be charged with anything in a court of law.
#104. To: nolu chan (#103)
Hillary is not in a court of law but is in the court of public opinion and in a very bright spotlight.
#105. To: sneakypete (#104)
Hillary is not in a court of law but is in the court of public opinion and in a very bright spotlight.
Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ wounded queen?
Washington Post
Opinion writer
July 27, 2015
#106. To: nolu chan (#105)
I still doubt Hillary can stumble all the way to the convention. Only time will tell.
#107. To: sneakypete (#106)
Now we let anybody with a drivers license vote,and they always vote for the candidate that promises to give them the most "free stuff".
#108. To: A K A Stone (#107)
The other is another democrat who gives out free stuff.
#109. To: Fred Mertz (#108)
His name please.
#110. To: sneakypete (#106)
In the end it seems like the people that are really responsible for putting a president into the WH are the dummies that get interested in politics for 30 days every 4 years,and base their vote on who looks the best,has the nicest looking children,whose "turn" it is,or any other factor that has absolutely nothing to do with reason.
#111. To: redleghunter (#16)
5. Documents which are "inter-agency or intra-agency memorandum or letters" which would be privileged in civil litigation. 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5).
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]