HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Woman with classified inf...

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:58 AM

 

Woman with classified info on her basement server decides

to make national security a campaign issue.

Seriously?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-plans-major-foreign-policy-speech-in-california/2016/05/31/cf88c6c8-2768-11e6-a3c4-0724e8e24f3f_story.html

72 replies, 6362 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 72 replies Author Time Post
Reply Woman with classified info on her basement server decides (Original post)
Press Virginia Jun 2016 OP
Uben Jun 2016 #1
Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #2
bettyellen Jun 2016 #63
Broward Jun 2016 #7
pdsimdars Jun 2016 #25
artyteacher Jun 2016 #27
dchill Jun 2016 #29
Post removed Jun 2016 #32
dchill Jun 2016 #33
frylock Jun 2016 #50
VulgarPoet Jun 2016 #53
ljm2002 Jun 2016 #43
frylock Jun 2016 #49
Lizzie Poppet Jun 2016 #35
JDPriestly Jun 2016 #54
CorporatistNation Jun 2016 #3
MFM008 Jun 2016 #4
CorporatistNation Jun 2016 #5
pdsimdars Jun 2016 #26
840high Jun 2016 #65
azmom Jun 2016 #71
YouDig Jun 2016 #6
Exilednight Jun 2016 #8
YouDig Jun 2016 #9
Exilednight Jun 2016 #10
YouDig Jun 2016 #11
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #18
Exilednight Jun 2016 #37
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #38
Exilednight Jun 2016 #40
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #41
ljm2002 Jun 2016 #46
Exilednight Jun 2016 #42
Downwinder Jun 2016 #12
Peace Patriot Jun 2016 #13
Downwinder Jun 2016 #14
DebDoo Jun 2016 #20
YouDig Jun 2016 #21
DebDoo Jun 2016 #22
YouDig Jun 2016 #23
DebDoo Jun 2016 #24
Bob41213 Jun 2016 #34
dgibby Jun 2016 #59
ljm2002 Jun 2016 #44
YouDig Jun 2016 #45
ljm2002 Jun 2016 #47
Downwinder Jun 2016 #48
ljm2002 Jun 2016 #57
Peace Patriot Jun 2016 #16
notadmblnd Jun 2016 #56
VulgarPoet Jun 2016 #15
DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2016 #19
MyNameGoesHere Jun 2016 #17
yourpaljoey Jun 2016 #28
dchill Jun 2016 #30
B Calm Jun 2016 #31
Waiting For Everyman Jun 2016 #36
frylock Jun 2016 #55
Waiting For Everyman Jun 2016 #61
AzDar Jun 2016 #39
notadmblnd Jun 2016 #51
Press Virginia Jun 2016 #66
riversedge Jun 2016 #52
Press Virginia Jun 2016 #60
elleng Jun 2016 #58
NCTraveler Jun 2016 #62
Press Virginia Jun 2016 #64
NCTraveler Jun 2016 #67
Press Virginia Jun 2016 #68
NCTraveler Jun 2016 #69
Press Virginia Jun 2016 #70
senz Jun 2016 #72

Response to Press Virginia (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 05:40 AM

1. IS that the same woman who .....

...was Secretary of State, first lady, and senator of New York, and the next president of the U.S.A.? Yeah....seriously!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uben (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:37 AM

2. Yup

 

Its also the same woman whu thought invading iraq was a good idea, and spent a few years on walmarts board of directors and was silent as they fought unions and imported more and more crap from China.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Travis_0004 (Reply #2)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:42 PM

63. You think she could have stopped them from buying Chinese imports, lol?

 

Do you have any idea of how shit works?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uben (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:14 AM

7. Yeah, also the same woman that voted for the Iraq War

which led to the creation of ISIS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uben (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:54 AM

25. Wrong! That lady is not going to be the next presiden of the USA.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uben (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:57 AM

27. like my friend says...

Blaming Hillary for Iraq is like blaming a rape victim. Bush lied to all of us and most people bought it. And Colin Powell who was coerced to pass on the lied was also a S o S, who used something worse than a private email server. He used Yahoo and aol mail, and it seems he deleted tons of emails.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to artyteacher (Reply #27)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:08 AM

29. I, and millions of others, never believed Bush.

Why did she? Because she wanted to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dchill (Reply #29)


Response to Post removed (Reply #32)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:22 AM

33. And you probably think...

that I have a twisted mind.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #32)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:37 PM

50. You are fucking disgusting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Post removed (Reply #32)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:41 PM

53. ...This is the second time I've ever been out and out fucking disgusted by a poster here.

And the first time involved anti-Semitism.

/bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to artyteacher (Reply #27)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:55 PM

43. She practically admitted...

...that she gave Bush support for the Iraq invasion in return for his largesse to NYC after 9/11. That statement of hers undermines her claim that she didn't know / was lied to by Bush et al regarding Iraq.

But not only did she vote for the invasion, she gave a fairly long and full-throated speech in support of the invasion. That is why I hold her more responsible than some others who voted for it -- but I do hold all of them, every last single one, partially responsible. Especially the Democrats who voted for it. SHAME on all of them.

There was at least a reasonable argument to be made for invading Afghanistan, although Bush managed to make a cock-up of that anyway. But Iraq, that was a pack of lies, and many in government and out of it knew so at the time.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to artyteacher (Reply #27)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:36 PM

49. This is digusting and an affront to victims of rape.

Hillary wasn't raped when she voted for Bush's IWR out of political expediency.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uben (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:38 AM

35. Yes...this venal incompetent might well be president.

 

That's not exactly cause for celebration, although the putridity of her opponent ameliorates the horror of four more years of coproratocracy just a bit. I guess.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Uben (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:42 PM

54. It's the same woman who blames Edward Snowden for outing the snooping on Americans by the NSA.

How hypocritical can you get?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 06:56 AM

3. THIS Is The SAME Woman Who Has A Veracity/Character Issue! NOT Good!

e.g., MSNBC To the deniers... Watch THIS Video... It is not comforting to think that she may well be the Democratic Nominee...

Hillary really betrayed Andrea Mitchell... The entire context of this report was of a solemn nature... A Funeral so to speak...

Andrea Mitchell "I do not see this report as ...ANYTHING BUT... DEVASTATING!"

Chuck Todd "After this I don't think that she could get confirmed for Attorney General!"

Lots of FIBBING by Hillary here.. for more than a year!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:00 AM

4. This is so painfully

O L D.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:01 AM

5. This Whole Speech Thing Is Nothing More Than Another "Shiny Object" To DISTRACT The Public From The

Growing fact that her poor judgement and inability to conform to basic rules as a government employee disqualify her for the office that she has sought for a... LIFETIME!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:55 AM

26. ^^^^^^^^^^^ Amen! ^^^^^^^^^^^ Period. End of sentence.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:16 PM

65. ...!100++++

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CorporatistNation (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:54 PM

71. +1000000000

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:11 AM

6. Foreign policy is one of her strong points, especially against Trump, and also obviously Bernie.

Only people who truly hate her care about her having non-classified information in a not-illegal server that wasn't hacked. Notice that none of them care that Colin Powell had the same kind of non-classified information on an AOL account.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:17 AM

8. wow. that's just a flat out lie.

Many of her emails have been classified, some of which had their classification removed, and then later restored.

The official Count n statement about hacking states that the server wasn't hacked, THAT SHE KNOWS OF. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of cyber security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:21 AM

9. Retroactively classified, sure. And there is some gray area, sometimes the same document

will be classified by one agency and not by another. Sometimes a document will be classified at the same time that it appears in the press.

But nothing marked classified at the time was on her server. Same as Colin Powell, some emails were later determined to be classified. It's a bureaucratic problem, not a security problem.

As far as the hacking, its looking like the private server kept her info safer than it would have been in a government server. The state department actually did get hacked. Even classified documents got leaked. But nothing from her server.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #9)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:24 AM

10. thanks for admitting you lied.

bye bye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:28 AM

11. You guys are getting really desperate. 6 more days!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #10)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:06 AM

18. He didn't lie.

thanks for admitting you lied.





Calling folks liars on an anonymous medium displays an abundance of pusillanimity and a paucity of courage.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #18)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 10:05 AM

37. either she did or she didn't send classified information. we now know she did.

When it was classified is irrelevant since some of it was classified but stripped of its heading and then found to be classified at a later date.

He claims she didn't, yet facts say otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #37)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 10:16 AM

38. The facts are in dispute

godhumor who has actually worked with classified data explains it better than I ever could.

It begins with Post #34:


http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251984914#post34


The facts certainly aren't clear enough to call someone a liar.

If i said I had the looks of David Beckham and the intelligence of Stephen Hawking I would be lying.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #38)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 11:58 AM

40. it's been established that material had its classification header

Removed and sent via email. That is not in dispute. What's in dispute I'd who made that decision. The SoS can not make that decision unilaterally.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #40)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:03 PM

41. There is no evidence it was sent but I will be courteous and not call you a liar.

There is no evidence it was sent but I will be courteous and not call you a liar. This is fairly arcane stuff and it's easy to get lost in the weeds:


A State Department official said Sunday it has found no indication that the document in question was sent to Mrs. Clinton using nonsecure fax or email, although “there was a secure fax transmission to Secretary Clinton shortly after this email exchange.”


http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/01/10/hillary-clinton-says-nonpaper-email-a-nonissue/



If you read the entire blog there is an innocent explanation.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DemocratSinceBirth (Reply #41)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:08 PM

46. "Mrs. Clinton said Sunday that the request to her staffer"...

..."didn’t amount to an order to violate laws on handling classified material, and said the email was never sent in any case."

If she knows for a fact that the information was not classified, why did she feel compelled to add that it was never sent?

Little things like this are, shall we say, suggestive.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exilednight (Reply #40)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 12:39 PM

42. she had a responsibility, and she failed in it.

When her use of a private system was first revealed, she told reporters, “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email.” At other points, she has said that none of the emails was “marked classified” at the time she sent or received them — a point she reiterated Friday in a CNBC interview.

But government rules require senders of classified information to properly mark it. And the inspector general for the intelligence community has said that some of Clinton’s correspondence contained classified material when it was sent — even if it was not labeled.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-on-her-private-server-wrote-104-emails-the-government-says-are-classified/2016/03/05/11e2ee06-dbd6-11e5-81ae-7491b9b9e7df_story.html

It was her job to make sound decisions, which she failed to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #9)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:30 AM

12. That the woman who edited the President of Brazil out of

her book prior to the coupe?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downwinder (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 07:46 AM

13. She did that? I hadn't heard that one.

Do tell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to YouDig (Reply #9)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:19 AM

20. Of course it wasn't marked classified - it bypassed the government check! Plus she clearly asked on

At least one occasion to strip the classified header so that she could send it non-securely.


And please, stop trying to speak for everyone. Some of us do care. And we care a lot! This is a serious problem and it's scary that your blind devotion can't/won't admit it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DebDoo (Reply #20)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:21 AM

21. She's the Secretary of State, she has the authority to classify and declassify,

and she has the authority to determine that transmitting a message insecurely is more important than waiting for the secure system to come back online.

The cluelessness of people going after her for that is something to behold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:24 AM

22. Since she had the power to classify emails she should also have the judgement to know what is

Classified. And the judgement to know unplugging a server for a couple minutes isn't a security fix

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DebDoo (Reply #22)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:26 AM

23. Now you're just flailing in desperation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:30 AM

24. Nope, you're projecting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:35 AM

34. IF ITS STATE DEPARTMENT CLASSIFIED, that's probably true

If it's not her classified material, she has no authority. And obviously she had no authority over the classified info the OIG reported on because he unequivocally said that was classified, it was classified at the time it was sent, and it's still classified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #21)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:56 PM

59. How do you know she had that authority?n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #9)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:02 PM

44. I wonder if it ever occurred to her minions...

...that her non secure server (especially for the first 2+ months she used it) may have been used as a conduit to hack the government servers?

You do not know that "nothing marked classified at the time was on her server", that is just what she and her team claim.

The fact that she now appears unwilling to talk to the FBI is telling, to say the least.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #44)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:05 PM

45. Do you also think her email server caused the Japanese tsunami? Hey, you never know.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #45)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:15 PM

47. I think it is highly unlikely her server could have caused a tsunami...

...whereas an improperly secured server that communicated on a daily basis with people using government DOS servers might be an avenue of attack for a hacker.

Of course I don't know, but if people with zero apparent knowledge about computer security will insist on claiming that government servers are less secure than Clinton's server, I will counter with my own hypotheticals, TYVM.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ljm2002 (Reply #47)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:29 PM

48. When a subpoena or NSL comes to a public server, you are not notified.

It would not be necessary for a Government server.

If it came to your private server, you would know.

So, yes, a private server could be more secure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Downwinder (Reply #48)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:52 PM

57. So you are saying...

...that her server was more secure from government oversight?

I guess that may be true. But that, of course, says nothing about the kind of security that protects against hackers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:01 AM

16. I don't hate Hillary but I think she is about as dumb as Nixon...

...and his deciding to tape every word he said in the Oval Office.

I'll admit there's an argument for having a snake as President to survive in the vicious snakepit that Washington DC has become, if I thought the snake could do us some little bit of good--say, $12/hr for the peasants--but you've got to be a very, very clever snake, and know how to wipe your server completely. For that incompetence alone, she shouldn't be commander-in-chief of anything dangerous.

And do please notice that I am "one of them" who doesn't give a crap what Colin Powell did. He's not asking for my vote!

I will not vote for a dumb snake. A smart one...???...I could be persuaded.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to YouDig (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:50 PM

56. Yeah, she's really good at being responsible for thousands of deaths

Syria, Libya, Honduras. Thousands dead as a result of her foreign policy works.

You must be so proud.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:00 AM

15. 12 hidden replies.

Y'all keep kicking the hornets nest without smoking it out first.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to VulgarPoet (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:08 AM

19. Am I on your ignore list, bro?

Just checkin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 08:01 AM

17. Sorry about your fear of women

Don't worry you'll be ignored or relegated to the dust bin of history.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:06 AM

28. Please tell Hill to stop... she's killng me here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:10 AM

30. Totally unqualified, totally disqualified.

And she did it all herself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:15 AM

31. It is damning to her claim of being strong on national security. Will it keep her

 

from winning the nomination at the convention, sadly no.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 09:43 AM

36. One doesn't often see such an outright display of arrogance.

I wonder if any reporters will have the guts to call her on it? Probably not.

I would imagine that is seen as a big FU to those in the agencies investigating her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Waiting For Everyman (Reply #36)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:43 PM

55. There will be no Q&A.

Hillary only does interviews over the phone now so we can't see her tells when she lies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to frylock (Reply #55)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:00 PM

61. That's right, I forgot.

That's the new regime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 11:40 AM

39. What a horrible JOKE...

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:40 PM

51. What is she going to propose?

Leaving entire banks of Government servers wide open so any foreign enemy can access them at will?

With leaders like her, who need fucking foreign enemies?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to notadmblnd (Reply #51)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:16 PM

66. Its okay, see

 

because we can always retroactively classify the information later.

They'll never expect it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:41 PM

52. You forget-it was retro-actively classified.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riversedge (Reply #52)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:58 PM

60. keep hope alive

 

and forget about the stuff that wasn't retroactively classified to the date it was sent.....because of a review that didn't happen when it was supposed to.
Just forget about IG's request to the FBI being based on items that were classified at the time and remained classified when he reviewed them.
Forget the 22 e-mails that were too secret to release a single sentence....because that SURELY had nothing sensitive in it until someone other than HRC looked at it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 01:52 PM

58. How Hillary Clinton Became a Hawk

'Throughout her career she has displayed instincts
on foreign policy that are more aggressive than
those of President Obama — and most Democrats.'

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html?_r=0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Original post)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 02:00 PM

62. to make national security a campaign issue "against a man".

 

There. Fixed it for you. Kept it in line with how you started the sentence.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #62)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:07 PM

64. It wouldn't matter who it was against. She's got some issues, right now,

 

when it comes to credibility on National Security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #64)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:18 PM

67. She is the national security giant in the field.

 

You really think people are going to give Trump the edge in national security overall? Wow. That is a statement but it says nothing about Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #67)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:21 PM

68. of course she is...I mean, who else stores classified information on their basement server

 

if not a national security giant.

Look at all the great work she did with Libya....I mean wow. That's some National Security bona fides right there.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Press Virginia (Reply #68)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:23 PM

69. Tis a big world.

 

Yeah, Trump is top of the list. lol.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #69)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 03:31 PM

70. Trump is a clown. But they'll both get us into a shooting conflict

 

she can't help it and he's too stupid to stop talking.

The only difference will be Nukes will be off the table with one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NCTraveler (Reply #62)

Wed Jun 1, 2016, 04:14 PM

72. Only Hill supporters could turn gender into something totally boring

 

just stamp gender-related words all over every Hill-related discussion.

Y'all have set feminism back to its pre-70s levels.

Bleah.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread