The point doesn't show Hillary should be trusted with sensitive information. If she would have been censored and possibly lost her security clearance if she worked at a desk at State why should she gain the highest security clearance in the country? Who were you referring to about the propaganda?As always, you fucking missed the point!
The point doesn't show Hillary should be trusted with sensitive information. If she would have been censored and possibly lost her security clearance if she worked at a desk at State why should she gain the highest security clearance in the country? Who were you referring to about the propaganda?
Right, she just wasn't tech savvy, right. She acted "extremely carelessly" and lied about it for over a year. She either knew she was lying or is simply incompetent. Perfect presidential material.I was talking about Reagan, read a history book for Christ's sake!
And its clear you have zero clue as to what and how a president does their job. Her competence around technology is irrelevant to the job of the president (it's why they have advisors and a whole support around them), it's also why, even though trump doesn't know how to use email, doesn't disqualify him from being president for that reason.
Right, she just wasn't tech savvy, right. She acted "extremely carelessly" and lied about it for over a year. She either knew she was lying or is simply incompetent. Perfect presidential material.
As I have been saying for a while now, Clinton was a technophobe. Her emails prove this, her rhetoric proves this and her actions prove this and all of that is irrelevant to doing the job as president.
But you are right she a criminal mastermind simply lying to protect herself. The three emails that were marked classified (but later determined to be incorrectly marked) out of 33,000 proves she's a liar and had malicious intent, despite what the FBI director said. Because you, some troll on a forum, who lies constantly, said so. /S
She was a fluent Blackberry user and specifically liked that platform. That is not a technophobe. Relative to email, the baby boomer technophobes that I know refuse to check email on mobile devices and some even still print them from outlook and physically distribute instead of forwarding them.As I have been saying for a while now, Clinton was a technophobe. Her emails prove this, her rhetoric proves this and her actions prove this and all of that is irrelevant to doing the job as president.
But you are right she a criminal mastermind simply lying to protect herself. The three emails that were marked classified (but later determined to be incorrectly marked) out of 33,000 proves she's a liar and had malicious intent, despite what the FBI director said. Because you, some troll on a forum, who lies constantly, said so. /S
I find it difficult to credit that what you call being on the fence is anything like what being on the fence would mean to me.
You realize that who Clinton is has been colored by a vast right wing conspiracy, right. What reasonably informed American hasn't been thoroughly steeped in such negative bias. Plus the comservative focuses on negatives.
It's simple really. I assumed the email scandal was a pretty minor affair blown out of proportion by the right. Turns out it was a pretty minor affair blown out of proportion by Hillary.
Your candidate was extremely careless with classified information and she lied about it to the public and possibly to congress. This isn't minor.You were right the first time. It's not like Repubs have done much of anything else for the last 8 years, is it?
Damn, this thread is littered with buckshit.
Your candidate was extremely careless with classified information and she lied about it to the public and possibly to congress. This isn't minor.
So careless that three emails out of tens of thousands contained classified information. And they weren't even marked. The humanity.
The fact that this is all they have on her is pretty sad, after the millions of dollars and years of effort they've put into sliming her.
Your candidate was extremely careless with classified information and she lied about it to the public and possibly to congress. This isn't minor.
Marine wants to use the Hillary Loophole too.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obinsite
Comey never said negligent. You shouldn't try to pretend that he did.
02:07:38
CERTAINLY, SHE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN NOT TO SEND HE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. AS I SAID, THAT'S THE DEFINITION NEGLIGENCE. I THINK SHE WAS EXTREMELY CARELESS. I THINK SHE WAS NEGLIGENT. THAT I COULD ESTABLISH. WHAT WE CAN'T ESTABLISH THAT SHE ACTED WITH THE NECESSARY CRIMINAL INTENT.
Is Hillary a reasonable person? Did she give access to classified information to people not cleared to see it? And it was marked. There was more than 3 emails with sensitive information on it.So careless that three emails out of tens of thousands contained classified information. And they weren't even marked. The humanity.
The fact that this is all they have on her is pretty sad, after the millions of dollars and years of effort they've put into sliming her.
Your candidate was extremely careless with classified information and she lied about it to the public and possibly to congress. This isn't minor. She also gave access to it to people who were not cleared to see it. She's incompetent.It's picayune in the greater scheme of things. That's true of all the Repub scandal mongering over the last 8 years, beginning with the fucking birth certificate. They're all designed to both distract & inflame, to use scurrilous innuendo to establish negative attitudes & "truths" that aren't truths at all. All they've done is spread FUD- Fear, Uncertainty & Distrust.
It's all they've got other than failed trickle down Bushonomics.
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/carelessYes, he did. You shouldn't try to pretend that he didn't. He explained numerous times during the hearing that he used the term "extremely careless" as a layman's term for negligence.
Link
adj., adv. 1) negligent. 2) the opposite of careful. A careless act can result in liability for damages to others. (See: negligent, negligence, care)
She was a fluent Blackberry user and specifically liked that platform. That is not a technophobe. Relative to email, the baby boomer technophobes that I know refuse to check email on mobile devices and some even still print them from outlook and physically distribute instead of forwarding them.
lol! She used a blackberry so that means she's not a technophobe? Brilliant! "Relative to email", here is a clue buddy, the case wasn't just about USING email.
Her emails suggest she very much understood the risk implications of exposing info she didn't want exposed. That suggests paranoia more so than technical ignorance.
She might have been paranoid as well but he emailed definitely indicate she was a technophobe. Comey agrees with me as well.
The real question is what was in the emails she deleted that were unrecoverable. Maybe they were all truly personal. Maybe not. The point of transparency is that she doesn't get to make that determination.
This is where you are wrong and grossly uniformed of the situation. Before Obama's orders that changed this, personnel were directly responsible for determining what was or wasn't personal.
Also the quantity of emails in violation is irrelevant. If you shoplift, a crime is committed if you take one or several things. The severity of the punishment is what scales to the severity of the crime.
Your candidate was extremely careless with classified information and she lied about it to the public and possibly to congress. This isn't minor. She also gave access to it to people who were not cleared to see it. She's incompetent.