SDHornet wrote:She's not resigning and everyone knows it. She is part of the reason a guy like Trump got so much run this cycle. She and JSO are establishment shills, nothing more.Ibanez wrote:So..when is your wife going to resign and send a letter in? We've got 2 weeks left.
Will you share it with us if she does?JohnStOnge wrote:As of last night she still was saying her intent to resign but she might not write the pubic letter. I actually told her she really needs to think about it because she worked really hard to get elected to her position the first time. At the same time I hope she does resign. But i do want her to really think about it.SDHornet wrote: She's not resigning and everyone knows it. She is part of the reason a guy like Trump got so much run this cycle. She and JSO are establishment shills, nothing more.
The thing with her little dog getting killed by a car kind of obliterated everything else for a while. She kind of forgot about politics completely for a while there.
Do you realize that JSO is in your tribe now?houndawg wrote:Will you share it with us if she does?JohnStOnge wrote:
As of last night she still was saying her intent to resign but she might not write the pubic letter. I actually told her she really needs to think about it because she worked really hard to get elected to her position the first time. At the same time I hope she does resign. But i do want her to really think about it.
The thing with her little dog getting killed by a car kind of obliterated everything else for a while. She kind of forgot about politics completely for a while there.
In the meantime maybe you could offer her some comfort by sharing your view of pets that you shared with us?
I don't agree with the FBI. But like 93 and CID, I have been granted a security clearance and had to sign NDAs. She sent classified email through unsecured channels. She signed an NDA where she swore “I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation." The State Department said her email server wasn't authorized to handle SCI. The IG found, among other classifications, TS/SCI emails.JohnStOnge wrote:Well, if you don't agree with the FBI you don't agree with the FBI. What I'm talking about is this thing where people keep saying that Comey's statement showed she lied when she didn't send or receive any classified e mail. And that's not true. He clearly said she did send classified e mail. But he also said they didn't have evidence to show that she knowingly mishandled classified information.Ibanez wrote: Yeah...our government has always been so forthcoming. She mishandled classified evidence by not using secure email. I had to use SIPR and NIPR. What prevented her from doing the same?
Oh yeah. "Convenience."
I went through this with the whole thing where Gowdy asked Comey a series of questions as though the answers to the questions showed that Clinton lied. None of them did. Sure, it's possible that she lied. But this idea that Comey's said things to "confirm" that she lied about anything just isn't an accurate idea.
I don't believe you. Show us what it looks like.Ibanez wrote:I don't agree with the FBI. But like 93 and CID, I have been granted a security clearance and had to sign NDAs. She sent classified email through unsecured channels. She signed an NDA where she swore “I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation." The State Department said her email server wasn't authorized to handle SCI. The IG found, among other classifications, TS/SCI emails.JohnStOnge wrote:
Well, if you don't agree with the FBI you don't agree with the FBI. What I'm talking about is this thing where people keep saying that Comey's statement showed she lied when she didn't send or receive any classified e mail. And that's not true. He clearly said she did send classified e mail. But he also said they didn't have evidence to show that she knowingly mishandled classified information.
I went through this with the whole thing where Gowdy asked Comey a series of questions as though the answers to the questions showed that Clinton lied. None of them did. Sure, it's possible that she lied. But this idea that Comey's said things to "confirm" that she lied about anything just isn't an accurate idea.
Do you honestly believe that as SOS, she never received classified emails?
TS information is obvious. Anyone reading it would automatically know that it was information that must be handled with the utmost care.
I can't because 1) I don't have any TS information and 2) It would be a violation of my NDA to show you, if I had any in my possession.kalm wrote:I don't believe you. Show us what it looks like.Ibanez wrote:
I don't agree with the FBI. But like 93 and CID, I have been granted a security clearance and had to sign NDAs. She sent classified email through unsecured channels. She signed an NDA where she swore “I have been advised that the unauthorized disclosure, unauthorized retention, or negligent handling of SCI by me could cause irreparable injury to the United States or be used to advantage by a foreign nation." The State Department said her email server wasn't authorized to handle SCI. The IG found, among other classifications, TS/SCI emails.
Do you honestly believe that as SOS, she never received classified emails?
TS information is obvious. Anyone reading it would automatically know that it was information that must be handled with the utmost care.
I see you didn't fall for my little ruse!Ibanez wrote:I can't because 1) I don't have any TS information and 2) It would be a violation of my NDA to show you, if I had any in my possession.kalm wrote:
I don't believe you. Show us what it looks like.
But that doesn't matter. Information, that's that highly classified, is usually pretty obvious. It could be a defense strategy, some technology spec, a briefing from a high level intel officer, etc... It's also supposed to be appropriately marked so even if you didn't know the information is TS, there's a classification marker to tell you that this is TS or TS/SCI.
kalm wrote:I see you didn't fall for my little ruse!Ibanez wrote:
I can't because 1) I don't have any TS information and 2) It would be a violation of my NDA to show you, if I had any in my possession.
But that doesn't matter. Information, that's that highly classified, is usually pretty obvious. It could be a defense strategy, some technology spec, a briefing from a high level intel officer, etc... It's also supposed to be appropriately marked so even if you didn't know the information is TS, there's a classification marker to tell you that this is TS or TS/SCI.
I figured that's what it was.YOUR WIFE LIED.JohnStOnge wrote:As of last night she still was saying her intent to resign but she might not write the pubic letter. I actually told her she really needs to think about it because she worked really hard to get elected to her position the first time. At the same time I hope she does resign. But i do want her to really think about it.SDHornet wrote: She's not resigning and everyone knows it. She is part of the reason a guy like Trump got so much run this cycle. She and JSO are establishment shills, nothing more.
The thing with her little dog getting killed by a car kind of obliterated everything else for a while. She kind of forgot about politics completely for a while there.
The FBI Director was asked by Congress if it was reasonable to believe that a Secretary of State of the United States of America would receive classified info in her emails. He answered, "Yes."JohnStOnge wrote:Again: Show me where the FBI said that she knowingly sent or received classified information via her private system. You can't because the FBI didn't say that.SDHornet wrote: JSO has morphed into full retard hillbot status. He doesn't think, he just intakes the **** being shoveled to him from the leftists and spits it out like gospel. The man has lost whatever integrity and credibility he ever had.
JSOJohnStOnge wrote:Well, if you don't agree with the FBI you don't agree with the FBI. What I'm talking about is this thing where people keep saying that Comey's statement showed she lied when she didn't send or receive any classified e mail. And that's not true. He clearly said she did send classified e mail. But he also said they didn't have evidence to show that she knowingly mishandled classified information.Ibanez wrote: Yeah...our government has always been so forthcoming. She mishandled classified evidence by not using secure email. I had to use SIPR and NIPR. What prevented her from doing the same?
Oh yeah. "Convenience."
I went through this with the whole thing where Gowdy asked Comey a series of questions as though the answers to the questions showed that Clinton lied. None of them did. Sure, it's possible that she lied. But this idea that Comey's said things to "confirm" that she lied about anything just isn't an accurate idea.
houndawg wrote:SDHornet wrote: She's not resigning and everyone knows it. She is part of the reason a guy like Trump got so much run this cycle. She and JSO are establishment shills, nothing more.
Yep. If she resigned JSO would divorce her. Then she wouldn't be his sister anymore.
JohnStOnge wrote:The bottom line is that the FBI concluded that it did not have evidence to say that she intentionally mishandled classified information. What we're talking about here is whether or not the FBI said anything to indicate that she lied when she said she did not send or receive any classified information via her private system. And the clear answer is that it did not.Ibanez wrote: Again, when you sign an NDA, you swear to protect information and treat all info as classified. You are charged with protecting the information. That includes electronics safeguards. Furthermore, SHE WAS THE SECRETARY OF STATE! Do you honestly believe that she never received any classified information in her tenure? Don't be so naive.
You're refusing to think objectively. You refuse to accept that fact and I can't comprehend that. I've known people to send classified information to colleagues and to their personal emails. Everyone one of them was reprimanded. I made the mistake once and nearly got fired.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/09/hillarys-chi ... 8is6kmT.99Hillary Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, Cheryl Mills, may have received classified national security information through one of two or three personal, unsecured email accounts she regularly used to communicate with Clinton aide Huma Abedin.
That's a direct breach of an NDA. CID1990 wrote:HEY JSO
You've been MIA since I told you to go look for the word "intent" in the fed statute
literally its been crickets
What's up?
You burying your wife behind the outhouse, or is it the other way around?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
He going to vote Green?CAA Flagship wrote:Do you realize that JSO is in your tribe now?houndawg wrote:
Will you share it with us if she does?
In the meantime maybe you could offer her some comfort by sharing your view of pets that you shared with us?
Good luck.
I am still a libertarian conservative. It's just a unique situation in which the Republicans have nominated a totally unacceptable candidate. You guys don't appear to see him being very emotionally immature and unstable as an issue but it's a big issue to me. I don't want a nut job like that in that position. I think the "Clinton Corruption" thing is exaggerated. But even if I did not, being forced to choose, I would prefer to have a competent, emotionally mature and emotionally stable person who is corrupt in the sense that people are alleging Clinton to be corrupt in that position than have a completely incompetent, clueless person who is dangerously unstable as well as immature in that position. And that's the choice before me.houndawg wrote:He going to vote Green?CAA Flagship wrote: Do you realize that JSO is in your tribe now?
Good luck.
Bullshit.
Why?JohnStOnge wrote:I am still a libertarian conservative. It's just a unique situation in which the Republicans have nominated a totally unacceptable candidate. You guys don't appear to see him being very emotionally immature and unstable as an issue but it's a big issue to me. I don't want a nut job like that in that position. I think the "Clinton Corruption" thing is exaggerated. But even if I did not, being forced to choose, I would prefer to have a competent, emotionally mature and emotionally stable person who is corrupt in the sense that people are alleging Clinton to be corrupt in that position than have a completely incompetent, clueless person who is dangerously unstable as well as immature in that position. And that's the choice before me.houndawg wrote:
He going to vote Green?
Bullshit.
Frankly I don't care who the President IS in this case nearly as much as I care about making sure that nut job Trump doesn't end up in that position. I want my grand children to have a viable, life sustaining planet to live on in the future and I don't want to risk putting that future in jeapordy by putting an insane person who reacts irrationally in position to use nuclear weapons without any kind of real check on that power. I can see you guys don't see that as a realistic risk but I do. The guy is sick.
Rhetorical question.CAA Flagship wrote:Why?JohnStOnge wrote:
I am still a libertarian conservative. It's just a unique situation in which the Republicans have nominated a totally unacceptable candidate. You guys don't appear to see him being very emotionally immature and unstable as an issue but it's a big issue to me. I don't want a nut job like that in that position. I think the "Clinton Corruption" thing is exaggerated. But even if I did not, being forced to choose, I would prefer to have a competent, emotionally mature and emotionally stable person who is corrupt in the sense that people are alleging Clinton to be corrupt in that position than have a completely incompetent, clueless person who is dangerously unstable as well as immature in that position. And that's the choice before me.
Frankly I don't care who the President IS in this case nearly as much as I care about making sure that nut job Trump doesn't end up in that position. I want my grand children to have a viable, life sustaining planet to live on in the future and I don't want to risk putting that future in jeapordy by putting an insane person who reacts irrationally in position to use nuclear weapons without any kind of real check on that power. I can see you guys don't see that as a realistic risk but I do. The guy is sick.
Because this has been going on with Republicans trying to nail Hillary Clinton for something like 24 years and so far they have never actually shown any corruption. Lots of noise but no real "smoking gun." And it's pretty darned clear that they've been trying as hard as they can to nail her. No "pay for play" has been substantiated. No "vicious attacks on women" have been substantiated." On and on.CAA Flagship wrote:Why?JohnStOnge wrote:
I think the "Clinton Corruption" thing is exaggerated.
JSO trumpeting the Fair Labor Standards Act, and crying about Trump being a racist???JohnStOnge wrote:To elaborate on something I wrote in the previous post:
Donald Trump has bragged about buying favor among politicians. He has had hundreds of people say he agreed to pay them for work then did not. His companies have been cited for numerous violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. He did that Trump University scam including making a video telling people he personally selected the instructors when he didn't do that. He was documented as overseeing a practice of marking housing applications with "C" for colored in order to avoid renting to Black people. He has shown himself to be a throughly dishonest, corrupt person in his private business dealings. Frankly, his record of "corruption" is a lot more directly substantiated than Hillary's is.
It's another one of those things I have to shake my head about. People saying they're not going to vote for Clinton because she's "corrupt." And they're voting for Donald Trump? Really? It's ridiculous. You want to vote for honesty in government and you're voting for a poster child for the corrupt businessman stereotype?
