BigDave wrote:
Bill Clinton lied under oath in a civil lawsuit and later lied under oath to an investigator investigating whether he lied under oath during a civil lawsuit. He was not impeached for infidelity - he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
The GOP did not "invent" a scandal. And Hillary's non-classified emails should have (I don't know if they "would have", but under the law, should have) become public record anyway even with no scandal.
I'm amused that "I did it because they're going to accuse me of bad behavior" justifies even worse behavior.
Yes... President Slick lied under oath in both of those cases. But those cases were politically motivated nothing-burgers about his penis. Not that I justify lying under oath, it was right to have him disbarred for his lies. My point is... these politically motivated nuisances lead to other things. Once emails are turned over... then anything found is subject to another investigation - whether it has legal merit or not. Or it can just be "leaked" to embarrass a presidential candidate.
The GOP did invent a scandal. Benghazi was a terrorist attack, like 9-11. It is not a scandal... yet multiple politically motivated investigations ensued - complete with GOP bragging about the negative effect it is having on Hillary's poll numbers.
I know you like all this because it's on the side... but what if the Obama DOJ decided to investigate Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio? On what, you say? Who cares... they could invent something semi-credible and confiscate emails and have a lovely fishing expedition. You guys would be howling!
HokieJoe wrote:
I work with confidential data, and I can tell you that a simple release (even unintentional) is cause for dismissal, fines and prison time. There exists good reason for security protocols. Particularly data security. Hosting any State Dept. data on her private server was STUPID. Criminality is yet to be determined.
I agree 100%. Stupid is a given. Criminality is now the discussion.
VoiceOfReason wrote: And did Bill Clinton do anything ILLEGAL with Monica? No. Immoral, embarrassing, breaking marriage vows? Yes, but not illegal. Yet, that was the investigation.
You need to think a little harder on this. Infidelity is a major problem for Clinton for the same reason it is for anyone who holds a security clearance:
1. Dishonesty in your marriage translates to dishonesty elsewhere.
2. The blackmail angle is absolutely in play. If a foreign intelligence service found out he was a cheater before we did - what would Clinton have done in order to keep it secret?
The left always tries to shrug this off as if it was a witch hunt. You'll remember that Petreaus was fired for: 1. An affair; and, 2. Improper handling of classified materials. The left really has no leg to stand on here.
You do bring up good points here. But these are all terms of employment for clearance holders, not criminal activity.
And you should talk to BigDave... Prez Slick was not being tried for his penis, he was tried for lying about his penis.
BigDave wrote:
Bill Clinton lied under oath in a civil lawsuit and later lied under oath to an investigator investigating whether he lied under oath during a civil lawsuit. He was not impeached for infidelity - he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
The GOP did not "invent" a scandal. And Hillary's non-classified emails should have (I don't know if they "would have", but under the law, should have) become public record anyway even with no scandal.
I'm amused that "I did it because they're going to accuse me of bad behavior" justifies even worse behavior.
Yes... President Slick lied under oath in both of those cases. But those cases were politically motivated nothing-burgers about his penis. Not that I justify lying under oath, it was right to have him disbarred for his lies. My point is... these politically motivated nuisances lead to other things. Once emails are turned over... then anything found is subject to another investigation - whether it has legal merit or not. Or it can just be "leaked" to embarrass a presidential candidate.
The GOP did invent a scandal. Benghazi was a terrorist attack, like 9-11. It is not a scandal... yet multiple politically motivated investigations ensued - complete with GOP bragging about the negative effect it is having on Hillary's poll numbers.
I know you like all this because it's on the side... but what if the Obama DOJ decided to investigate Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio? On what, you say? Who cares... they could invent something semi-credible and confiscate emails and have a lovely fishing expedition. You guys would be howling!
About his penis?
The girl was only 22. That moves things into the "creepy" category.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
VoiceOfReason wrote:
The GOP did invent a scandal. Benghazi was a terrorist attack, like 9-11. It is not a scandal..
Oh, wait! I just noticed this gem!
It was a terrorist attack? On 9/11, no less! Who'd a thunk it?
Your heroine is busy telling us (and parents of the slain) it was due to a non-PC video.
No, nothing to see here...move along...
Poor schmuck video guy may even still be in jail, pawn that he is.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
VoiceOfReason wrote: And did Bill Clinton do anything ILLEGAL with Monica? No. Immoral, embarrassing, breaking marriage vows? Yes, but not illegal. Yet, that was the investigation.
You need to think a little harder on this. Infidelity is a major problem for Clinton for the same reason it is for anyone who holds a security clearance:
1. Dishonesty in your marriage translates to dishonesty elsewhere.
2. The blackmail angle is absolutely in play. If a foreign intelligence service found out he was a cheater before we did - what would Clinton have done in order to keep it secret?
The left always tries to shrug this off as if it was a witch hunt. You'll remember that Petreaus was fired for: 1. An affair; and, 2. Improper handling of classified materials. The left really has no leg to stand on here.
You do bring up good points here. But these are all terms of employment for clearance holders, not criminal activity.
And you should talk to BigDave... Prez Slick was not being tried for his penis, he was tried for lying about his penis.
Other crimes committed/uncovered during an impeachment/indictment/hearing are fair game. Happens all the time.
BigDave wrote:
Bill Clinton lied under oath in a civil lawsuit and later lied under oath to an investigator investigating whether he lied under oath during a civil lawsuit. He was not impeached for infidelity - he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice.
The GOP did not "invent" a scandal. And Hillary's non-classified emails should have (I don't know if they "would have", but under the law, should have) become public record anyway even with no scandal.
I'm amused that "I did it because they're going to accuse me of bad behavior" justifies even worse behavior.
Yes... President Slick lied under oath in both of those cases. But those cases were politically motivated nothing-burgers about his penis. Not that I justify lying under oath, it was right to have him disbarred for his lies. My point is... these politically motivated nuisances lead to other things. Once emails are turned over... then anything found is subject to another investigation - whether it has legal merit or not. Or it can just be "leaked" to embarrass a presidential candidate.
The GOP did invent a scandal. Benghazi was a terrorist attack, like 9-11. It is not a scandal... yet multiple politically motivated investigations ensued - complete with GOP bragging about the negative effect it is having on Hillary's poll numbers.
I know you like all this because it's on the side... but what if the Obama DOJ decided to investigate Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio? On what, you say? Who cares... they could invent something semi-credible and confiscate emails and have a lovely fishing expedition. You guys would be howling!
What if the DOJ decided to investigate/prosecute an up and coming repub, like McDonnell, just for political reasons? Oh, that's right, they did.
Your bias is showing when you infer Benghazi was/is an invented scandal.
HokieJoe wrote:
I work with confidential data, and I can tell you that a simple release (even unintentional) is cause for dismissal, fines and prison time. There exists good reason for security protocols. Particularly data security. Hosting any State Dept. data on her private server was STUPID. Criminality is yet to be determined.
I agree 100%. Stupid is a given. Criminality is now the discussion.
knowingly keeping and transmitting classified info thru unclassified channels is a crime. Stop. Period. End of statement.
HokieJoe wrote:
I work with confidential data, and I can tell you that a simple release (even unintentional) is cause for dismissal, fines and prison time. There exists good reason for security protocols. Particularly data security. Hosting any State Dept. data on her private server was STUPID. Criminality is yet to be determined.
I agree 100%. Stupid is a given. Criminality is now the discussion.
knowingly keeping and transmitting classified info thru unclassified channels is a crime. Stop. Period. End of statement.
Yup. Not only that, but removing markings in some cases as well.
HokieJoe wrote:
I work with confidential data, and I can tell you that a simple release (even unintentional) is cause for dismissal, fines and prison time. There exists good reason for security protocols. Particularly data security. Hosting any State Dept. data on her private server was STUPID. Criminality is yet to be determined.
I agree 100%. Stupid is a given. Criminality is now the discussion.
knowingly keeping and transmitting classified info thru unclassified channels is a crime. Stop. Period. End of statement.
I was giving VOR the benefit of the doubt. Do we know she transmitted classified data? Personally, I suspect there is no way she didn't, but that's a hunch.
"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." - Thomas Jefferson
HokieJoe wrote:
I work with confidential data, and I can tell you that a simple release (even unintentional) is cause for dismissal, fines and prison time. There exists good reason for security protocols. Particularly data security. Hosting any State Dept. data on her private server was STUPID. Criminality is yet to be determined.
I agree 100%. Stupid is a given. Criminality is now the discussion.
knowingly keeping and transmitting classified info thru unclassified channels is a crime. Stop. Period. End of statement.
I was giving VOR the benefit of the doubt. Do we know she transmitted classified data? Personally, I suspect there is no way she didn't, but that's a hunch.
HokieJoe wrote:
I work with confidential data, and I can tell you that a simple release (even unintentional) is cause for dismissal, fines and prison time. There exists good reason for security protocols. Particularly data security. Hosting any State Dept. data on her private server was STUPID. Criminality is yet to be determined.
I agree 100%. Stupid is a given. Criminality is now the discussion.
knowingly keeping and transmitting classified info thru unclassified channels is a crime. Stop. Period. End of statement.
I was giving VOR the benefit of the doubt. Do we know she transmitted classified data? Personally, I suspect there is no way she didn't, but that's a hunch.
Yes.
Yep. But it also doesn't matter except as other criminal charges. Running the server in the first place for government business is the first crime.
HokieJoe wrote:
I work with confidential data, and I can tell you that a simple release (even unintentional) is cause for dismissal, fines and prison time. There exists good reason for security protocols. Particularly data security. Hosting any State Dept. data on her private server was STUPID. Criminality is yet to be determined.
I agree 100%. Stupid is a given. Criminality is now the discussion.
knowingly keeping and transmitting classified info thru unclassified channels is a crime. Stop. Period. End of statement.
I was giving VOR the benefit of the doubt. Do we know she transmitted classified data? Personally, I suspect there is no way she didn't, but that's a hunch.
That's my point. Fox News viewers and purveyors of conservative conspiracy theory porn "know" all kinds of things, whether they are true or not. If it comes out that Hillary committed crimes, then she should be prosecuted. I'm simply not jumping 3 steps ahead like some on the board are doing.
133743Hokie wrote:
What if the DOJ decided to investigate/prosecute an up and coming repub, like McDonnell, just for political reasons? Oh, that's right, they did.
Your bias is showing when you infer Benghazi was/is an invented scandal.
(1) The McDonnell case is an example of your bias, not mine. It has been widely reported the amount of "gifts" he accepted as governor. Were he a Dem you guys would be howling over it... but because he is GOP he is unfairly prosecuted? I have said consistently that if Hillary has committed crimes, she should be prosecuted. So where is my bias?
(2) Benghazi was a terrorist attack. The GOP invented scandals of "stand down orders" and the like. And all that was found was four days of a video talking point before the record was corrected. Such high crimes?
VoiceOfReason wrote:
That's my point. Fox News viewers and purveyors of conservative conspiracy theory porn "know" all kinds of things, whether they are true or not. If it comes out that Hillary committed crimes, then she should be prosecuted. I'm simply not jumping 3 steps ahead like some on the board are doing.
Not jumping? No, not at all! Instead of lifting off the floor, you are burying your head.
So I put (the dead dog) on her doorstep!
Salute the Marines
Soon we'll have planes that fly 22000 mph
"#PedoPete" = Hunter's name for his dad.
133743Hokie wrote:
What if the DOJ decided to investigate/prosecute an up and coming repub, like McDonnell, just for political reasons? Oh, that's right, they did.
Your bias is showing when you infer Benghazi was/is an invented scandal.
(1) The McDonnell case is an example of your bias, not mine. It has been widely reported the amount of "gifts" he accepted as governor. Were he a Dem you guys would be howling over it... but because he is GOP he is unfairly prosecuted? I have said consistently that if Hillary has committed crimes, she should be prosecuted. So where is my bias?
(2) Benghazi was a terrorist attack. The GOP invented scandals of "stand down orders" and the like. And all that was found was four days of a video talking point before the record was corrected. Such high crimes?
If you were knowledgeable you would know there is no gift exclusion of limitation for public servants in Virginia, so there is/was no crime for accepting gifts. Seemy maybe, but absolutely legal. However the DOJ and judge decided to redefine quid pro quo and try and convict him. Dozens of state AGs, US attorneys, US AGs, etc., both Repub and Dem, have written friend of the court briefs denouncing the broad reinterpretation of statute done by government in this case. Supremes will be ruling on it this spring.
HokieJoe wrote:
I work with confidential data, and I can tell you that a simple release (even unintentional) is cause for dismissal, fines and prison time. There exists good reason for security protocols. Particularly data security. Hosting any State Dept. data on her private server was STUPID. Criminality is yet to be determined.
I agree 100%. Stupid is a given. Criminality is now the discussion.
knowingly keeping and transmitting classified info thru unclassified channels is a crime. Stop. Period. End of statement.
I was giving VOR the benefit of the doubt. Do we know she transmitted classified data? Personally, I suspect there is no way she didn't, but that's a hunch.
That's my point. Fox News viewers and purveyors of conservative conspiracy theory porn "know" all kinds of things, whether they are true or not. If it comes out that Hillary committed crimes, then she should be prosecuted. I'm simply not jumping 3 steps ahead like some on the board are doing.
The emails clearly show she transmitted classified information. Irrefutable. You, and Hillary, can parse words all you want but the facts remain. The hard paper trail doesn't lie.
HokieJoe wrote:
I work with confidential data, and I can tell you that a simple release (even unintentional) is cause for dismissal, fines and prison time. There exists good reason for security protocols. Particularly data security. Hosting any State Dept. data on her private server was STUPID. Criminality is yet to be determined.
I agree 100%. Stupid is a given. Criminality is now the discussion.
knowingly keeping and transmitting classified info thru unclassified channels is a crime. Stop. Period. End of statement.
I was giving VOR the benefit of the doubt. Do we know she transmitted classified data? Personally, I suspect there is no way she didn't, but that's a hunch.
That's my point. Fox News viewers and purveyors of conservative conspiracy theory porn "know" all kinds of things, whether they are true or not. If it comes out that Hillary committed crimes, then she should be prosecuted. I'm simply not jumping 3 steps ahead like some on the board are doing.
The emails clearly show she transmitted classified information. Irrefutable. You, and Hillary, can parse words all you want but the facts remain. The hard paper trail doesn't lie.
Let him live in his world of fairytales, unicorns and skittles.....
"if you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face-forever."
ip believes you can dial in a 78 year old man who suffers from deminishing mental function
VoiceOfReason wrote:
That's my point. Fox News viewers and purveyors of conservative conspiracy theory porn "know" all kinds of things, whether they are true or not. If it comes out that Hillary committed crimes, then she should be prosecuted. I'm simply not jumping 3 steps ahead like some on the board are doing.
Not jumping? No, not at all! Instead of lifting off the floor, you are burying your head.
Not all all. If all the things you guys say is true (which would surely be a first)... it will all be properly reported. And when that happens, I will hold her to the same standards that anyone else who has committed the same type of crime is held to. But until then, all this speculation is kinda useless... you guys better think about how to beat her at the voting booth, rather than invent some reason she can't run against the awesome slate of candidates you guys have
133743Hokie wrote:
What if the DOJ decided to investigate/prosecute an up and coming repub, like McDonnell, just for political reasons? Oh, that's right, they did.
Your bias is showing when you infer Benghazi was/is an invented scandal.
(1) The McDonnell case is an example of your bias, not mine. It has been widely reported the amount of "gifts" he accepted as governor. Were he a Dem you guys would be howling over it... but because he is GOP he is unfairly prosecuted? I have said consistently that if Hillary has committed crimes, she should be prosecuted. So where is my bias?
(2) Benghazi was a terrorist attack. The GOP invented scandals of "stand down orders" and the like. And all that was found was four days of a video talking point before the record was corrected. Such high crimes?
If you were knowledgeable you would know there is no gift exclusion of limitation for public servants in Virginia, so there is/was no crime for accepting gifts. Seemy maybe, but absolutely legal. However the DOJ and judge decided to redefine quid pro quo and try and convict him. Dozens of state AGs, US attorneys, US AGs, etc., both Repub and Dem, have written friend of the court briefs denouncing the broad reinterpretation of statute done by government in this case. Supremes will be ruling on it this spring.
I am aware of all of this. I am confident the courts will sort it all out. I really don't care a whit about McDonnell as I don't live in Virginia. I didn't think much of him before his scandal (hardly a rising star, IMHO) and I think less of him now. Whether he is a criminal or just a sleazeball... either is fine by me
VoiceOfReason wrote:
I am aware of all of this. I am confident the courts will sort it all out. I really don't care a whit about McDonnell as I don't live in Virginia. I didn't think much of him before his scandal (hardly a rising star, IMHO) and I think less of him now. Whether he is a criminal or just a sleazeball... either is fine by me
So you agree the Clintons are sleazeballs too, correct?
Foreign governments gave millions to foundation while Clinton was at State Dept.
