Hillary's E-Mail (Breaking News: Smoking Gun Officially Announced)

But red, authorities seize hard drives all the time when they have probable cause. Here she's TELLING them she used it for government business. Given the fact she was well aware that was improper, she surrenders any right to privacy on that server.

Personally I'd be more interested in seeing if her granny panties have skid marks in them but you certainly don't think we should take her -or any politician these day Democrat or Republican- word for it do you?



I just red Jebba the Bushwacka did the same while governor of Florida. He's in the same boat.

 

Twisted as Hillary's knickers at the moment.

 

These kinds of things happen to almost all of us I suspect. The one thing any former employer or boss can't say about me is that I was dishonest. To me, that's a whole different level of accusation.

I didn't read it that way. It wasn't a bad job, it was an intentionally incomplete job and a hiding of the key documents. So in both cases, despite knowing better, she chose the least honest option and then tried to fix it by covering up.

I'm happy to call Palin a dumb bitch if that helps.

Government employee and trust prolly don't belong in the same sentence....unless it's a prison sentence. But really it isn't about trust and permission as much as self-protection and common sense.

Why? Well for one thing, Powell left that job 10 years ago. 10 years ago is like 100 in terms of internet security advancement. Was this even an issue back then? And nobody is saying anything about him now because he's not planning to run for President as far as I know. The moment he does, I will scream about it. I'm not a fan of his anyway so it will be no problem for me to get on his ass.

I'll say it again. She's been at the game long enough and is definitely smart enough to know better. Her excuse about it being "easier" just isn't believable. For God's sake, Bill's little cum stain was enough to get him to capitulate to the truth, you think Hillary really wanted what was "easy"? I have said nothing in the thread about Benghazi misbehavior other than to say that if she has turned everything over, 55,000 emails worth, and there is nothing in there about her 2011 trip to Libya, then I can't buy anything she's selling beyond that.

When heading to Libya to discuss the items previously mentioned, I would hope 100% of her attention would be on the upcoming meeting. If it wasn't, then she isn't fit to be President.

Um, her trip was to Tripoli in Libya, not Benghazi. They are over 400 miles and in a straight line, a decent body of water apart. The purpose of the trip was to discuss the "consolidation of political control, the prevention of violence against Colonel Qaddafi’s supporters and the integration of myriad rebel militias into a new security structure." This was just one year prior to Benghazi. And it clearly was a significant trip as she was representing Obama on the NATO-led intervention. It was the fighting among those militias that is directly related to Benghazi.

Anything is possible. What makes me say bullshit? Common sense, her ability to always cover her tracks, her legal knowledge, her propensity to never shut up, really. The average American executive knows not to co-mingle email. There is no way that HRC didn't document that trip. Let me guess.....you really believed her story about being named after Sir Edmund.

 

Sure but in this case he didn't give her a recommendation. There had to be a very good reason.

He has credibility in that he kept a diary at that time and documented what transpired. He wasn't trying to sell a book on Hillary in 1974. Plus there was another attorney who told Zeifman that he and Hillary had willingly lied.

Work harder on Brett to get that sarcasm smiley.

Who is "we"? Yes I believe her to be dishonest. Predisposition or not, it doesn't make me wrong any more than your willingness to buy her bullshit makes you correct.

But very unlikely.


[/quote]Never heard that one. You do a lot of guessing and you just might be as wrong about all of it.[/QUOTE]
http://www.wnd.com/2006/10/38409/

 

Zeifman quoted John Labovitz as having said that he and Hillary lied. Labovitz was alive then and easily could have sued for libel. 2006 wasn't an election year, nothing special about it politically. Washington folks writing about their experience is the norm. He kept a diary at the time it happened. That lends a lot of credence.

I disagree. You don't speak for me nor the rest of the country.

Is a rebuttal a requirement? I asked you who "we" is but you didn't answer. I'll take that as a non-rebuttal. And my point still stands....my feelings about Hillary are a separate entity from whether I am right or wrong.

Ditto.

 

Damn, somebody get Red some 1st aid

 

I'm not sure, Red may not speak for the rest of country but I bet the majority of this country minus the Fox News sect doesn't give a rats ass about Hillary's email.