Bad Hillary

[logicallefty]

Fox News disabled comments on this so I’ll post my comment here:

“Hahahahahahahaha busted!”

State Department identifies 23 violations, 'multiple security incidents' concerning Clinton emails

The State Department revealed Monday that it has identified "multiple security incidents" involving current or former employees' handling of Hillary Clinton's emails, and that 23 "violations" and seven "infractions" have been issued as part of the department's ongoing investigation.

www.foxnews.com

 

[logicallefty]

It's funny that card suddenly gets played when the facts turn against leftists.....

Yep Too funny. It’s even funnier coming from the guy who got fired from being a moderator for his temper and bad attitude.

 

[Who Dares Win]

It's funny that card suddenly gets played when the facts turn against leftists.....

15-10 years ago all major european news site had an open comment section free for anyone to comment, then it became mandatory to register and now many have disabled comments globally for certain topics especially those who may let eurosceptics to talk.

For some reason the more anti-globalism and anti-immigration emerged within the public, the less the tolerance for comments appeared.

 

[logicallefty]

It's the same play everywhere for those who claim to be "tolerant".

When they cannot counter the facts, they try to censor you.

How does that help anyone other than purely those with a political agenda?

Yep I see the exact same thing here. He had no problems participating in other threads and even personally attacking me which I ignored cuz as a moderator we sometimes have to do that. but this one is big against his party so now it’s time to play by the rules. I might even show this example to my daughter who is 16. I’ve been trying to prepare her for her to deal with people as she transitions into adult life. Classic example right here.

 

[sazc]

I'm not sure the date of that Fox news article, but iit seems like that story is being put out to deflect from the fact that the president of the United States just confirmed that he would absolutely put his own personal best interests above the interests of the United States of America.

Seems like, "all of a sudden", there's an uptick in Hilary articles making sure to point out that she/her staff were equally as egregious.

 

[logicallefty]

I'm not sure the date of that Fox news article, but iit seems like that story is being put out to deflect from the fact that the president of the United States just confirmed that he would absolutely put his own personal best interests above the interests of the United States of America.

Seems like, "all of a sudden", there's an uptick in Hilary articles making sure to point out that she/her staff were equally as egregious.

How about this? Let’s go back in time to where the whole Russian collusion thing started. And rather than open an ILLEGAL investigation against the president we left him alone and let him do his job as we the people of the United States elected him to do. Fast forward. Times are good. People are leaving Trump alone and letting him do his job. Do you think that question about talking to foreign governments ever would have been asked?

I am not a lawyer but I do know more about law than most people who are not lawyers. It’s not illegal to sit down and listen to any information that is voluntarily offered to you so long as it’s truly a one-way conversation. It would become illegal in this context when you start asking questions, digging for information, and then applying said information to your benefit.

 

[speed dawg]

Seeing how you just posted this:

You're always going to believe what Trump says, no matter what. You will remain obstinate and ignorant and alligient to your brand of politics, all the while bemoaning liberals. In your mind, liberals are evil because they oppose Trump, and fvuck all who oppose Trump.

In LL's mind, all should side with Trump (i.e. Americans should all think the same and be like Nazi Germany or North Korea).

So I don't trust anybody who's fiercely alligient to ANY one politician. I served my country because I WANT people to oppose and question. I WANT people to be able to burn the American flag. I WANT to live in a country that allows its citizens to refuse to honor the national anthem.

Here's a lesson for you: the TRUE "crisis" has everything to do with American corporations outsourcing jobs to Mexico and China (and countless other poor, corrupt nations). It has absolutely nothing to do with abject-impoverished men and women entering the USA looking for a job that might enable them to survive.

These "American" companies abandoned the USA in droves after NAFTA was signed into law by 34 "Republicans" and 27 "Democrats" (I strongly doubt you are able to truly define either term).

The owners and CEOs of said corporations are at the root of the crisis, in my opinion. They are the true terrorists.

I'd like to see men like Phil Knight tried and executed for crimes against humanity. Men like him are the ones who abandoned American factories for Chinese sweat shops. I have ZERO issues with poor Mexicans illegally entering the country looking for work (in my opinion most Mexicans work a helluva lot harder than Americans, by the way).

These corporations HATE the idea of a wall because they HATE American jobs because they HATE paying good wages to American workers.

Bullying Mexico with tariffs is no accomplishment. Mexico is a pathetic poor corrupt country that the USA already owns on a political and corporate level. The "agreement" on Mexico's part to help with the "immigration crisis" is a victory only for the rich and empowered few (i.e. the owners and CEOs of American corporations), who will continue to pay starvation wages and reap obscene profits.

Then you called somebody a "conservative fvckface" 2 pages later.

Hypocrite.

 

[Epic Days]

LOL
Why are you guys arguing with a leftist? He doesn't even know that Clinton introduced and pushed for NAFTA?
He has no clue that jobs going over seas is a leftist agenda? A globalization of economics to be guided by Centralized Banks? Condemns ungoverned corporations yet doesn't know that Hillary got all her campaign money from banks? Doesn't know that Banks govern and run corporations for consolidated control over world production? Flooding successful countries with foreign people who are unable to contribute because they are unskilled and thus making workers an unnatural surplus of labor thus driving down wages and setting in inflation?

Stop arguing with a robot. He supports leftist on one hand and condemns feminism on the other hand. Those two things are irreconcilable. Every time he votes, he empowers feminism. He is your enemy. There's nothing to discuss.

 

[speed dawg]

LOL
Why are you guys arguing with a leftist? He doesn't even know that Clinton introduced and pushed for NAFTA?
He has no clue that jobs going over seas is a leftist agenda? A globalization of economics to be guided by Centralized Banks? Condemns ungoverned corporations yet doesn't know that Hillary got all her campaign money from banks? Doesn't know that Banks govern and run corporations for consolidated control over world production?

Stop arguing with a robot. He supports leftist on one hand and condemns feminism on the other hand. Those two things are irreconcilable. Every time he votes, he empowers feminism. He is your enemy. There's nothing to discuss.

I never argued with him in the other thread. My intent here was to highlight his hypocrisy, which is fact and based on his posting, not his politics. So no argument will be needed here either.

 

[Epic Days]

I never argued with him in the other thread. My intent here was to highlight his hypocrisy, which is fact and based on his posting, not his politics. So no argument will be needed here either.

Was speaking rhetorically. Not with anyone specific.

 

[logicallefty]

Was speaking rhetorically. Not with anyone specific.

He was attacking me in the other thread because I’m a Trump supporter. He also used to be a moderator a year or two ago but he got booted off the team and still has some underlying hostility with myself and at least one other active mod that I know of.

 

[Epic Days]

I do agree with Speed Dawg.

These people need to have their statements challenged, otherwise we end up where we are today, and heading for even worse.

I understand. And I understand that speeddawg was pointing out his duplicity. He is a lost cause. (the leftist) In his mind, he has to reconcile the fact that he has been duped by the feminist agenda with communism yet still wants men's rights as well as other duplicitous fundamentals.

Until he chooses a side he is too sick to be in the game.

I would never tell you what to do. I just know that I would NEVER argue with a woman. The best tactic I know is to not participate. In order for them to spew out garbage, they need an ear.
What if protesters were standing on the street protesting in pvssy hats and everyone who walked by, pointed and started laughing at them? Their power is "being heard" and drawing attention to themselves...just like a woman. Me, me, me.

They want an argument. Just like a woman. They are women and no matter what they say, how much they claim to support men, do not listen to their words, listen to their actions. Treat them like expired women. Fat, ugly, degenerate, bitter women. They are socially programmed to use women tactics and propensities. They are WOMEN!!!

 

[sazc]

How about this? Let’s go back in time to where the whole Russian collusion thing started. And rather than open an ILLEGAL investigation against the president we left him alone and let him do his job as we the people of the United States elected him to do. Fast forward. Times are good. People are leaving Trump alone and letting him do his job. Do you think that question about talking to foreign governments ever would have been asked?

I am not a lawyer but I do know more about law than most people who are not lawyers. It’s not illegal to sit down and listen to any information that is voluntarily offered to you so long as it’s truly a one-way conversation. It would become illegal in this context when you start asking questions, digging for information, and then applying said information to your benefit.

Hmm. Without discussing too much about myself, based on the fact that he was hoping to become president, he absolutely would be doing the wrong thing by entertaining information from foreign sources without immediately reporting the contact.

As of today he possesses probably the highest security clearance one can hold. To put it in simple terms, his clearance can be revoked if he doesn't self report FIRST. Then where would the nation be? A president that is not allowed to be briefed on secret and top secret info... Just unclassified info.

I'm not going to

As far as Hilarys staff and their 7 violations and 3 infractions, I have yet to read EXACTLY what these are. I do wonder if the media is playing that situation up to lay people.

It all sounds VERY inflammatory but, when you work in an environment where you are exposed to this type of stuff, when you are not a lay person and understand the other side of defense, clearances, etc, you are more discerning when the media writes these stories. You understand that none of the are as simple as the media portrays and some of them are absolutely designed to get the uninformed lay person riled up.

 

[sazc]

Can you expand on this for me? I don't belive he has ever said such a thing.

If you watch the interview he essentially says he would absolutely listen to the information from a foreign source in order to gain a personal advantage. That is plannting his own personal interests above the interests of the United States of America.

The fundamental problem with this approach is that it puts him in a blackmailable position. The foreign source could then use the secrecy of the contact, agreement of contact, or the actual meeting, to extort the individual. In this case the individual is the president of the United States.

Not to mention, as the possessor of a security clearance he is REQUIRED to self report - i.e. report the contact ASAP

 

[sazc]

1. If listening to information from specific sources is a crime or "bad", then doesn't that cast a bad light on the entire Steele "dossier"?
2. And no, his clearance can NOT be revoked. He DETERMINES what is and is not classified. Your line of thought would place intelligence agencies over the President, which is utterly ridiculous and absolutely the opposite of freedom. You would literally create a KGB on the spot.

Yes, the dossier situation is definitely questionable. The difference in that situation, if I understand it correctly, is that the campaign reached out to collect the info using known sources. With 45 and the Trump tower meeting it was the other way around.

All dirty, no excuses

 

[Epic Days]

HAHAHAHA

 

[sazc]

Listening to a foreign source of information would make one blackmailable??

And listening to that info somehow damages the interests of the United States? I totally disagree.

And per my previous post, he is THE DECIDER on what is secret and what is not.

Yes, covertly entertaining foreign information places the individual in a blackmailable situation . There are proper procedures and channels you go thru in order to be able to entertain the meeting. You self report and then, if determined necessary, the proper agencies get involved and help you arrange the meeting, listen in, etc. Briefings and debriefings occur, memos and records are created. The information is captured, analyzed and decisions are made a to how to proceed.

And yes, overtly flaunting proper procedures, being reckless and careless with these privilidges, will cause repercussions, even to the president. The judicial and political system isn't going to tolerate anyone, especially at his level, placing the United States in jeopardy

You can have your own opinion, and agree or disagree. I assure you, I am not pulling this info out of thin air. This isn't my "opinion"

 

[sazc]

Ah, now you insert the word "covertly" to move the goalposts. Why be covert? What does "covert" mean to you in this context? And I still don't see why it would be blackmailable. Just say, yeah foreign entities have told me things. Maybe they're true, maybe not. So what?

It is your opinion, and that is all it is. Not trying to be a d1ck here but it is the Executive Branches decision on what is and is not secret.

Your opinion on "placing the US in jeopardy" means very different things to different people. That would make your position an opinion.

Lol, I'm not moving the goal posts. it is possible you just don't understand how things work at that level. This is what I was saying about the media and lay people's understanding (I'm not trying to be rude)

Any time an individual at a certain level agrees to entertain a meeting with a foreign government, without engaging the FBI, that is considered a covert meeting.

If you think about it, if russia contacted you abd they wanted to talk, you could consider that covert. You don't have a clearance and (presumably) don't deal with/have access to US sensitive information, so you aren't required to self report.

Covert, undisclosed, contact is how spies are born, and how espionage occurs.

Really all this comes down to is - the ppl in these positions (Hilary included) swear to a duty to put the interests of the USA first. There are specific guidelines for doing this, and specific ramifications if they don't. If the 45th (whomever that was) continued to be reckless, Congress would deal with it.

As I opened with, I'm quite surprised that the president of the United States is openly saying "I wouldn't self report foreign contact immediately, I would hear them out first" That goes against what he agreed to when obtaining his clearance, sets a bad precedent, and is really an invitation to our adversaries (the ones that want to change our great country to suit their interests) to go ahead and contact our president on the under because, maybe, they can get their agenda run, as long as 45 gets something too. Because, as we all understand, it's ALWAYS a transaction. No foreign contact comes free of strings.

 

[sazc]

So suppose the president didn't self report, has the meeting, initially agrees to the strings. He hears the information and decides it isn't valuable/he doesn't want to engage. He reniegs on the deal completely.

If he doesn't self report, the other party has leverage (blackmail) but if he does report he has to admit he went against what he swore to when he got his clearance/position.

I'm just outlining a high level scenario, without specifics, that could lead to blackmail. This stuff can get pretty deep. Once you're in, you're screwed, and possibly in danger of facing jail time, or death, depending on what information has been exchanged. And ppl succumb, for money, power, position, or because they are in fear of losing their day to day lives/families, etc.

Honestly, 45 should have stuck with the typical rhetoric, regardless of how he really felt

 

[Epic Days]

All of that falls under the purview of the state department. LOL

You are arguing over nothing. "Dangerous Diplomacy" by Joel Mowbray. Non-partisan. Full documentation.

Everyone forgives a president that lies under oath but will still crucify Nixon, who with an executive order did more for civil rights than ALL the communists combined. The right, as it's being led today, is just barely more tolerable than the despicable left.