[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The NY Post is reporting that the Clinton email story was leaked by Valerie Jarrett, in an act of vengeance following the 2014 midterm election losses.
This just goes to show there is no honor amongst thieves.
Am I wrong for thinking Hilary running is going to be a huge boost for Republicans? Her dirty laundry list is a mile long and her approval ratings are dwindling fast.
If I’m a top Republican I relish the opportunity to take her on as opposed to someone who might rise fast (and a relative unknown) like President Obama did.
I could be off, but that’s how I’m feeling.
I’m not sure it’ll be a huge boost for Republicans, but I think it will drive voter turnout down, which I suppose helps a Republican candidate. I think President Obama ruined the rising star out of no where candidate, at least for now.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m not sure it’ll be a huge boost for Republicans, but I think it will drive voter turnout down, which I suppose helps a Republican candidate. I think President Obama ruined the rising star out of no where candidate, at least for now. [/quote]
I think it will energize Republicans much more than a Jim Webb or Martin O’Malley would. The right has been disgusted by Hilary for a long time. She’s kind of an age old (literally ;)) nemesis. I could see a push for unity to make sure she doesn’t get elected more than I could for someone like Webb or O’Malley who Republicans may not be as entrenched in their disdain for.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m not sure it’ll be a huge boost for Republicans, but I think it will drive voter turnout down, which I suppose helps a Republican candidate. I think President Obama ruined the rising star out of no where candidate, at least for now. [/quote]
I think it will energize Republicans much more than a Jim Webb or Martin O’Malley would. The right has been disgusted by Hilary for a long time. She’s kind of an age old (literally ;)) nemesis. I could see a push for unity to make sure she doesn’t get elected more than I could for someone like Webb or O’Malley who Republicans may not be as entrenched in their disdain for. [/quote]
I could see it energizing the die hards I suppose. I’m not sure it matters for those that only follow politics for about 2 months every 4 years or not at all though. I have no idea though.
Idk, my gut says voter turn out will be terrible this election, which imo helps an underdog like Cruz and hurts the entrenched like Clinton.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m not sure it’ll be a huge boost for Republicans, but I think it will drive voter turnout down, which I suppose helps a Republican candidate. I think President Obama ruined the rising star out of no where candidate, at least for now. [/quote]
I think it will energize Republicans much more than a Jim Webb or Martin O’Malley would. The right has been disgusted by Hilary for a long time. She’s kind of an age old (literally ;)) nemesis. I could see a push for unity to make sure she doesn’t get elected more than I could for someone like Webb or O’Malley who Republicans may not be as entrenched in their disdain for. [/quote]
I could see it energizing the die hards I suppose. I’m not sure it matters for those that only follow politics for about 2 months every 4 years or not at all though. I have no idea though.
Idk, my gut says voter turn out will be terrible this election, which imo helps an underdog like Cruz and hurts the entrenched like Clinton. [/quote]
One would assume based on history that 2016 will be a big year for Republicans based on the following article about parties that have been in power for two elections like President Obama.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Hillary Clinton Conducted All State Business from Private Email Account
Just wow.
(Hope the link works - using my smartphone.)
[/quote]
I don’t know, this just seems so minor to me that I can’t muster a give a damn. I am no fan of Hillary, though I think she would have been a much, much better president than obama, but I can’t see the big deal about email-gate.
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m not sure it’ll be a huge boost for Republicans, but I think it will drive voter turnout down, which I suppose helps a Republican candidate. I think President Obama ruined the rising star out of no where candidate, at least for now. [/quote]
I think it will energize Republicans much more than a Jim Webb or Martin O’Malley would. The right has been disgusted by Hilary for a long time. She’s kind of an age old (literally ;)) nemesis. I could see a push for unity to make sure she doesn’t get elected more than I could for someone like Webb or O’Malley who Republicans may not be as entrenched in their disdain for. [/quote]
I could see it energizing the die hards I suppose. I’m not sure it matters for those that only follow politics for about 2 months every 4 years or not at all though. I have no idea though.
Idk, my gut says voter turn out will be terrible this election, which imo helps an underdog like Cruz and hurts the entrenched like Clinton. [/quote]
One would assume based on history that 2016 will be a big year for Republicans based on the following article about parties that have been in power for two elections like President Obama.
[/quote]
Parties in power tend to eat themselves alive, yeah. We’re talking about power hungry narcissists here. Once they don’t have a minority party to beat on, they start jockeying for position within their own party.
The only thing is, the minority party lately has seen its fair share of infighting and delusion too.
I do agree that Hilary will be a better opponent for the Republicans in a true political sense, however I’m worried about the nanny PC state we live in, and beating a woman will just reinforce the “patriarchy is holding women down” nonsense we are force-fed all over the media.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I’m not sure it’ll be a huge boost for Republicans, but I think it will drive voter turnout down, which I suppose helps a Republican candidate. I think President Obama ruined the rising star out of no where candidate, at least for now. [/quote]
I think it will energize Republicans much more than a Jim Webb or Martin O’Malley would. The right has been disgusted by Hilary for a long time. She’s kind of an age old (literally ;)) nemesis. I could see a push for unity to make sure she doesn’t get elected more than I could for someone like Webb or O’Malley who Republicans may not be as entrenched in their disdain for. [/quote]
I could see it energizing the die hards I suppose. I’m not sure it matters for those that only follow politics for about 2 months every 4 years or not at all though. I have no idea though.
Idk, my gut says voter turn out will be terrible this election, which imo helps an underdog like Cruz and hurts the entrenched like Clinton. [/quote]
One would assume based on history that 2016 will be a big year for Republicans based on the following article about parties that have been in power for two elections like President Obama.
[/quote]
Parties in power tend to eat themselves alive, yeah. We’re talking about power hungry narcissists here. Once they don’t have a minority party to beat on, they start jockeying for position within their own party.
The only thing is, the minority party lately has seen its fair share of infighting and delusion too.
I do agree that Hilary will be a better opponent for the Republicans in a true political sense, however I’m worried about the nanny PC state we live in, and beating a woman will just reinforce the “patriarchy is holding women down” nonsense we are force-fed all over the media.
[/quote]
You really think the patriarchy myth will evaporate simply due to lack of evidence? I think you underestimate their fervor.
Looks like it’s time once more, to update this evolving scandal with the latest revelations. I think this latest revelation has the potential to snowball into something huge. According to to two articles which I am going to post links to below we now know to a certainty that contrary to her denials, Hillary Clinton did in fact handle “classified” “secret” information through her unclassified home brew server. So now a criminal investigation is being launched.
Now I am not an attorney so I could be very wrong about this, which would explain why we haven’t heard anyone suggest this before. But I think this latest revelation/confirmation has opened up a new angle of attack that could potentially be devastating to her defenses.
Hillary Clinton herself has stated that she had her attorneys review all her emails on that server. Now that we know for a fact that they have been given classified material to review I think this beggars the question. Did Hillary Clinton’s attorneys have the proper security clearances necessary to review “classified” or “secret” materials when they performed that review? If they didn’t have security clearances I wonder if Hillary and/or her attorneys could be charged with violating the law.
I’m wondering if they could use this to launch a criminal investigation of her attorneys. If they can stitch up her legal team in it’s own investigations I think it would cripple her defense.
Inspector General: Hillary Clinton Received Classified Info on 'Homebrew' Email Server
An Inspector General review of emails in Hillary Clinton?s inbox found at least four instances where information she received should have been considered secret at the time she received it. The matter has now been referred to the FBI.
The Wall Street Journal reports that the Inspector General only looked at a small sample of Hillary?s inbox, just 40 emails. Of those 40, four were found to have information classified ?secret.? A spokesperson for the IG told the WSJ the emails ?were classified when they were sent and are classified now.?
Though the remainder of Hillary?s email has not been reviewed yet, the suggestion is that there are probably many more ?secret? or even ?top-secret? emails among the tens of thousands still to be examined. Based on this, the Inspector General concluded Clinton should not have been using a ?homebrew? email server and should instead have been using a classified system run by the State Department.
The IG?s findings were referred to the FBI, and a DOJ spokesman acknowledged to the WSJ that the referral ?to open a investigation into the potential mishandling of classified information? had been received.
WASHINGTON ? Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday.
The request follows an assessment in a June 29 memo by the inspectors general for the State Department and the intelligence agencies that Mrs. Clinton?s private account contained ?hundreds of potentially classified emails.? The memo was written to Patrick F. Kennedy, the under secretary of state for management.
It is not clear if any of the information in the emails was marked as classified by the State Department when Mrs. Clinton sent or received them.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Looks like it’s time once more, to update this evolving scandal with the latest revelations. I think this latest revelation has the potential to snowball into something huge. According to to two articles which I am going to post links to below we now know to a certainty that contrary to her denials, Hillary Clinton did in fact handle “classified” “secret” information through her unclassified home brew server. So now a criminal investigation is being launched. [/quote]
Oh my gosh you mean she…she…LIED?
Sure she’s a crappy candidate and would lose on her own. But, she’s a crappy candidate with a bushel load of scandals to carry around.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Looks like it’s time once more, to update this evolving scandal with the latest revelations. I think this latest revelation has the potential to snowball into something huge. According to to two articles which I am going to post links to below we now know to a certainty that contrary to her denials, Hillary Clinton did in fact handle “classified” “secret” information through her unclassified home brew server. So now a criminal investigation is being launched. [/quote]
Oh my gosh you mean she…she…LIED?
Sure she’s a crappy candidate and would lose on her own. But, she’s a crappy candidate with a bushel load of scandals to carry around.
[/quote]
Yes I too am shocked, shocked I say, to see her get caught up in her lies and maybe not be able to weasel out of it.
One of the things I really find troubling is the lack of concern from the Democrat base. Hillary put herself in a position where she is seriously compromised.
What she had on that server is potentially damning evidence and according to former CIA chief Mike Morrell it is pretty much to be expected that foreign intelligence agencies hacked their way into it. Then there are the details of the Uranium deal that she made with the Russians.
Think about this. Those are all things that could be used to black mail her by anyone or everyone who was able to hack her server. If she becomes President, Vladimir would be able to make her his bitch with what he knows. Hillary would be a threat to national security from the very first minute she entered office.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]Sifu wrote:
Looks like it’s time once more, to update this evolving scandal with the latest revelations. I think this latest revelation has the potential to snowball into something huge. According to to two articles which I am going to post links to below we now know to a certainty that contrary to her denials, Hillary Clinton did in fact handle “classified” “secret” information through her unclassified home brew server. So now a criminal investigation is being launched. [/quote]
Oh my gosh you mean she…she…LIED?
Sure she’s a crappy candidate and would lose on her own. But, she’s a crappy candidate with a bushel load of scandals to carry around.
[/quote]
Yes I too am shocked, shocked I say, to see her get caught up in her lies and maybe not be able to weasel out of it.
One of the things I really find troubling is the lack of concern from the Democrat base. Hillary put herself in a position where she is seriously compromised.
What she had on that server is potentially damning evidence and according to former CIA chief Mike Morrell it is pretty much to be expected that foreign intelligence agencies hacked their way into it. Then there are the details of the Uranium deal that she made with the Russians.
Think about this. Those are all things that could be used to black mail her by anyone or everyone who was able to hack her server. If she becomes President, Vladimir would be able to make her his bitch with what he knows. Hillary would be a threat to national security from the very first minute she entered office.
[/quote]
Very interesting points you bring up and I agree with all of them. The problem with Hillary, or the Clintons in general, is that scandal is their best friend and their democratic base is quite used to it. In other words, they are not looking at any one particular scandal as being worse than another. Some don’t even acknowledge this as being “real” at this point. They look at it as their political enemies trying to bring Hillary down. That’s why Hillary will always pull a good many voters, but that’s also why she will never win the Presidency.
She cannot grow her support any larger than it already is because the rest of the country understands what Hillary is and soundly rejects her for it. In a few recent state polls her negatives hovered between 53% and as high as 62%!
In a recent national poll her unfavorable rating was up to 50% which was larger than her favorable rating. History shows us that no one ever gets elected President with numbers like that.
Hillary Clinton’s Poll Numbers Are Slipping
We have Benghazi hearings to go through yet. And as I understand it they are not going to begin until Hillary cooperates and gives them certain information that has been requested. In this situation time is NOT on Hillary’s side. It would behoove her to have the hearings immediately which would be further from the actual Presidential election of November 2016. By not handing in all the information requested by Chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy of South Carolina Hillary is prolonging the eventual committee appearance not a very smart move on her part. But, then again I have not seen a smart move from her since she announced. On top of being a very poor candidate she is a wonderous mix of mistakes, lies and very poor judgment.
Help Hillary out by keeping her away from a job that she surely cannot handle.
To that end when your wife, girlfriend, mother or other female friend tells you they want to see a woman become President you immediately agree like this:
“so would I just not that particular woman.” Then go on to site the Benghazi scandal where she did nothing while an Ambassador and 4 brave Navy Seals were killed. Of course you could talk about the many other scandals as well…
I don’t think winning the Presidency is an option for Hillary. But at this point I would like to see her lose in a landslide (not impossible vs the right republican ticket).
So now that they have found even more classified emails that were on her server we know for a certainty it was not a fluke. It is astounding that she can get away with this level of criminality. What I find astounding is her lawyer is walking around with the entire email collection on a thumb drive. Why have they not seized this? It brings me back to a point I made in an earlier post they should go after her lawyers.
The Republicans in congress are a joke. They let her get away with the lamest of excuses, such as they weren’t classified when I received them. That should not make and difference, because she was not supposed to be maintaining her own private record system that was outside of the official records system. If she had not violated the official records keeping rules she would not have been in possession of those records when they became classified, and she had to know that the classification could be retroactively changed.
If ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking the law, then ignorance of the future security classification of records that she was not entitled to be keeping on a private server should also be no excuse. If she hadn’t done something that she wasn’t supposed to be do she wouldn’t have those in her possession, when they changed the classification.
New Clinton Emails Hastily, and Heavily, Redacted By Administration
The classifications generally appear to have been done on Thursday, a day ahead of the release, which means the information wasn?t necessarily classified at the time Mrs. Clinton was emailing about it ? but has now been deemed too sensitive to put out in public.