It's like a Pat fan saying "anyone in the stadium could have filmed Benghazi" and "those emails were totally legal at game time". _
In this thread we are pretending that being negligent with information that is relevant to our national security is a non issue. Jesus Christ just say you are going to support her no matter what and be done with it
I take solace in the fact that it's mainly Butt Nugget and Raletard as the ones being the vocal defenders. Not sure who JetsNetsNumberGuy is, though.
Compared to what the Republicans are throwing out there...Hillary is miles ahead from a rallying and ...that doesn't mean she is who I want to support no matter what. There just is no one other then her and Bernie that are worth pushing forward
So say she is a slimy dishonest scumbag politician that you are willing to live with. Fine with me. But don't tell yourself that she's a victim of right wing persecution. She's as dirty as it gets and if you tell yourself otherwise then I truly feel bad for you
I think big blocker is just mad his hot dead/old women thread got shut down because he wanted to put Hillary in there
Intent is not at all the important thing here. Clinton chose to use a private email server rather than a state.gov email and in doing so, most probably, broke the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed as Sec. of State. Whether they were marked classified, top secret or not, it was up to her to make sure they were all treated as sensitive material. Her use of a private email server to, many think, try and thwart freedom of information requests put the material she was charged with protecting in jeopardy. Clinton's disregard for the safety of these emails makes me question her other decisions. That is what this is about for many.
It's Mets because the Nets are a joke. But I take solace in the fact that you have provided 40,000 posts of drivel in the last 10+ years that is just a complete waste of human potential. It's way beyond your pay grade/intelligence to understand this, but it is tragic nonetheless. Carry on with your "abyzmul" postings, because, you.
It comes as no surprise, but once again youdon'tknowwhatthefuckyou'retalkingabout. I defended no one. What I did do is show someone they were badly misinformed about how the law operates in the United States. Keep up with the infantile name calling - it really bolsters your argument.
That assumes she had reason to believe that she was putting security below convenience as a concern. IT requires a knowledge of technical issues she almost certainly did not have. There are rules that are significant and then there are rules that are technicalities not everyone is aware of. In the law this difference is related to the difference between laws that are malum in se and malum prohibitum. Look it up. My concern here is that while she has admitted it was a mistake, and her supporters are no doubt dismayed by the resulting controversy, it is obvious that her opponents are trying to derail her candidacy because they fear her on what is really a technicality. It has no bearing on whether she would or would not be a good president. As a citizen I find the whole thing distressing because it is distracting from what the issues should be, which is about national policy. While her haters all focus on this server bs, the GOP candidates all are proposing tax and economic policies that would ruin the country if followed. And the media focuses on the horserace in both parties. It's a real shame.
I'm was not answering a question--if there even was a question. Just commenting on how similar the rationalization is. Pats fans and Hillary fans. Perfect together. _
