Is Hillary Incompetent, A Liar, Or Both?

and that is the case


information that retroactively got RECLASSIFIED as secret after the fact.


there is no there there

And in your radically biased leftist opinion, no Democrat Secretary Of State should know what information is sensitive and most likely classified and dangerous for the nation to communicate it on a private e-mail server, but any Republican that did it should go to jail, right, dippy?:dunno::rofl2::cof1:
 
both. having only the exclusive home server means classified info must have been transmitted over it.
It's looking like her aides played fast and loose, sending stuff to her.

B ut she also did some negotiations ( it was a FOX refenece) i'd have to find it. and she sent/received "born classified" info over it.

Her latest defense is : "I didn't send anything marked classified" meaning she surely received such ( again she had no state.gov account);
and as Sec of State she should know all classified info isn't marked right away. Which is why it's being marked retro-actively.
She should be able to discern it.

She's a liar, in competent, and a warmonger ( Libya -not Bengazi)) -not fit to be DC dogcatcher..

I don't think so unless we are shown just what that "classified" mkaterial was/is. The government has this habit of making a grocery list classified after the fact.
 
I don't think so unless we are shown just what that "classified" mkaterial was/is. The government has this habit of making a grocery list classified after the fact.

Hillary says there's nothing to the 22 e-mails in question she's saying it's all "over classification" and wants them released to prove it, the CIA and FBI claim they're above "TOP SECRET" and recommends against releasing them and the Obama justice department refuses to release them. The only person that can release them is Obama. He can declassify them and release them to the public while I type this response.

Shall we hold our breath?
 
Hillary says there's nothing to the 22 e-mails in question she's saying it's all "over classification" and wants them released to prove it, the CIA and FBI claim they're above "TOP SECRET" and recommends against releasing them and the Obama justice department refuses to release them. The only person that can release them is Obama. He can declassify them and release them to the public while I type this response.

Shall we hold our breath?

Only if you want to run out of breath; because they're not going to be released and Hillary will now claim that it's a right wing conspiracy to attempt to discredit her. :palm:
 
Only if you want to run out of breath; because they're not going to be released and Hillary will now claim that it's a right wing conspiracy to attempt to discredit her. :palm:

And we all know that Obama and the Obama Justice Department are totally full of right-wingers, right? Just ask desh.
 
The intelligence community has deemed some of Hillary Clinton’s emails “too damaging" to national security to release under any circumstances, according to a U.S. government official close to the ongoing review. A second source, who was not authorized to speak on the record, backed up the finding.

The determination was first reported by Fox News, hours before the State Department formally announced Friday that seven email chains, found in 22 documents, will be withheld “in full” because they, in fact, contain “Top Secret” information.

The State Department, when first contacted by Fox News about withholding such emails Friday morning, did not dispute the reporting – but did not comment in detail. After a version of this report was first published, the Obama administration confirmed to the Associated Press that the seven email chains would be withheld. The department has since confirmed those details publicly.

The decision to withhold the documents in full, and not provide even a partial release with redactions, further undercuts claims by the State Department and the Clinton campaign that none of the intelligence in the emails was classified when it hit Clinton's personal server.

Fox News is told the emails include intelligence from "special access programs," or SAP, which is considered beyond “Top Secret.” A Jan. 14 letter, first reported by Fox News, from intelligence community Inspector General Charles McCullough III notified senior intelligence and foreign relations committee leaders that
Under the Freedom of Information Act, or FOIA, there is an exemption that allows for highly sensitive, and in this case classified, material to be withheld in full -- which means nothing would be released in these cases, not even heavily redacted versions, which has been standard practice with the 1,340 such emails made public so far by the State Department.

According to the Justice Department FOIA website, exemption “B3” allows a carve-out for both the CIA and NSA to withhold "operational files." Similar provisions also apply to other agencies.
Fox News reported Friday that at least one Clinton email contained information identified as "HCS-O," which is the code for intelligence from human spying.

One source, not authorized to speak on the record, suggested the intelligence agencies are operating on the assumption there are more copies of the Clinton emails out there, and even releasing a partial email would provide enough clues to trace back to the original – which could allow the identification of “special access programs” intelligence.

There was no comment to Fox News from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Office of the Intelligence Community Inspector General, or the agency involved. Fox News has chosen not to identify the agency that provided sworn declarations that intelligence beyond Top Secret was found in the Clinton emails.

The State Department was scheduled to release more Clinton emails Friday, while asking a D.C. federal court for an extension.

FBI investigators looking into the emails are focused on the criminal code pertaining to “gross negligence” in the handling and storage of classified information, and “public corruption.”

“The documents alone in and of themselves set forth a set of compelling, articulable facts that statutes relating to espionage have been violated,” a former senior federal law enforcement officer said. The source said the ongoing investigation along the corruption track “also stems from her tenure of secretary. These charges would be inseparable from the other charges in as much as there is potential for significant overlap and correlation."

Based on federal regulations, once classified information is spilled onto a personal computer or device, as was the case with Clinton and her aides, the hardware is now considered classified at the highest classification level of the materials received.

While criticized by the Clinton campaign, McCullough, an Obama administration appointee, was relaying the conclusion of two intelligence agencies in his letter to Congress that the information was classified when it hit Clinton’s server -- and not his own judgment.

Joseph E. Schmitz, a former inspector general of the Department of Defense, called the attacks on McCullough a “shoot the watchdog” tactic by Clinton’s campaign.

The developments, taken together, show Clinton finding herself once again at the epicenter of a controversy over incomplete records.

Despite Clinton’s recent public statements about not knowing how the technology works, at least one email suggests she directed a subordinate to work around the rules. In a June 2011 email to aide Jake Sullivan, she instructed him to take what appeared to be classified talking points, and "turn into nonpaper w no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

A State Department spokesman could not say whether such a fax was sent.



Catherine Herridge is an award-winning Chief Intelligence correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC) based in Washington, D.C. She covers intelligence, the Justice Department and the Department of Homeland Security. Herridge joined FNC in 1996 as a London-based correspondent.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/30/official-some-clinton-emails-too-damaging-to-release.html

note: I usually don't use Fox, except for Catherine Herridge

Nothing matters to evince or many of the other dems on here, she could have a plate full of babies and, a fork, and they would say but, but, but, she had to eat!
 
I think using a private server was one of the dumber things Hillary's done. Even so...

"The State Department said it had “upgraded” the classification of the emails at the request of the nation’s intelligence agencies. Mr. Kirby said that none of the emails had been marked at any level of classification at the time they were sent through Ms. Clinton’s computer server...

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., who is a member of the Intelligence Committee, said none of the email chains originated with Ms. Clinton...Ms. Clinton’s campaign responded forcefully, saying that the process of reviewing the emails “appears to be over-classification run amok.” A spokesman, Brian Fallon, said that all of the emails should be released.

“We understand that these emails were likely originated on the State Department’s unclassified system before they were ever shared with Secretary Clinton, and they have remained on the department’s unclassified system for years,” Mr. Fallon said.

http://www.post-gazette.com/news/po...emails-deemed-top-secret/stories/201601300103

B.S http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guyben...ers-aide-to-strip-classified-marking-n2101680
 
Sorry P66, I don't accept info from Townhall and Faux News.

How non-partisan of you? What ever happened to the leftist claim that they supported freedom of expression and toleration of differing opinions and ideas and they were cherished principles of progressive-ism? It was all just another leftist biased lie, huh?
 
How non-partisan of you? What ever happened to the leftist claim that they supported freedom of expression and toleration of differing opinions and ideas and they were cherished principles of progressive-ism? It was all just another leftist biased lie, huh?

If I find a pattern of lying from sites I then ignore them.

Townhall is a hotbed for wingnut paranoia. It has a severe persecution complex and sees liberalism everywhere, which is trying to destroy Christianity and democracy as we know it. Like most websites on the radical right blogosphere it has many columns opposing the "gay agenda",[SUP][1][/SUP] abortion,[SUP][2][/SUP] the "liberal media" (which is almost all of the media), universal healthcare,[SUP][3][/SUP] and Barack Obama. It promotes global warming denialism,[SUP][4][/SUP] the Iraq War,[SUP][5][/SUP] torture,[SUP][6][/SUP] and, oddly, Sarah Palin. There is an inherent disdain and paranoia towards Europe, Hollywood, and "liberal elites" such as Al Gore.

As far as Faux Noise, too many lies to count. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fox_news
 
If I find a pattern of lying from sites I then ignore them.

Townhall is a hotbed for wingnut paranoia. It has a severe persecution complex and sees liberalism everywhere, which is trying to destroy Christianity and democracy as we know it. Like most websites on the radical right blogosphere it has many columns opposing the "gay agenda",[SUP][1][/SUP] abortion,[SUP][2][/SUP] the "liberal media" (which is almost all of the media), universal healthcare,[SUP][3][/SUP] and Barack Obama. It promotes global warming denialism,[SUP][4][/SUP] the Iraq War,[SUP][5][/SUP] torture,[SUP][6][/SUP] and, oddly, Sarah Palin. There is an inherent disdain and paranoia towards Europe, Hollywood, and "liberal elites" such as Al Gore.

As far as Faux Noise, too many lies to count. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fox_news


Very funny, thanks for the laugh, do you have a favorite news source?
 
She's both with an emphasis on lying. Basically, I think Hillary thought the rules didn't apply to her because she's a Clinton. And when it turned out she got caught, she tries to lie her way out of it. That's the email scandal in a nutshell.

Exactly the kind of person we need sitting in the White House, right lol.

Her incompetence was more in play while she was Sec State. Benghazi was a total cluster: the 'reset' with the Russians demonstrated a scary naïveté about how the world outside of the Beltway operates. The State Department under Hillary mishandled the unrest in Cairo that led to the Arab 'Spring'...on and on.

She isn't fit to be president and if she becomes one, it will be a total disaster.
 
If I find a pattern of lying from sites I then ignore them.

Townhall is a hotbed for wingnut paranoia. It has a severe persecution complex and sees liberalism everywhere, which is trying to destroy Christianity and democracy as we know it. Like most websites on the radical right blogosphere it has many columns opposing the "gay agenda",[SUP][1][/SUP] abortion,[SUP][2][/SUP] the "liberal media" (which is almost all of the media), universal healthcare,[SUP][3][/SUP] and Barack Obama. It promotes global warming denialism,[SUP][4][/SUP] the Iraq War,[SUP][5][/SUP] torture,[SUP][6][/SUP] and, oddly, Sarah Palin. There is an inherent disdain and paranoia towards Europe, Hollywood, and "liberal elites" such as Al Gore.

As far as Faux Noise, too many lies to count. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fox_news

Rational wiki? Really?

RationalWiki is a wiki written from a skeptical, secular, and progressivist perspective. It was created in 2007 as a counter to Conservapedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RationalWiki

RationalWiki is a wiki full of ratio-nal articles, which are part truth and part copied off Wikipedia[1]. A majority of the userbase on RationalWiki are established liberal thinkers whose liberal interpretation of everything including the wiki's rules allows them to ban any fundamentalists who stick to the rules. On RationalWiki, the users frequently relish in taking IQ and Turing tests to prove themselves worthy of copying and pasting bits of Wikipedia on a blank page before adding a spin about God's intelligence at the end of each paragraph, known on their website as "writing an article." A process which the almighty could neither have influenced nor comprehended[2].

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/RationalWiki

Rational Wiki is a skeptics' wiki. It was created as a negative reaction to Conservapedia, but has since moved more into the direction of debunking, refuting, or poking fun at pseudoscience, religious fundamentalism, authoritarianism and other things that it doesn't like, per its stated mission statement:
Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
Analyzing and refuting crank ideas.
Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.
Functionally, it's more like a group blog than an encyclopedia (which they themselves acknowledge), though it also has quite a lot in common with Robert Todd Carroll's Skeptic's Dictionary. It also has a page about TV Tropes. Overall, it has the general feel of a wiki mocking the types of people seen on Fundies Say the Darndest Things while also refuting all of their arguments.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Wiki/RationalWiki
 
If I find a pattern of lying from sites I then ignore them.

Townhall is a hotbed for wingnut paranoia. It has a severe persecution complex and sees liberalism everywhere, which is trying to destroy Christianity and democracy as we know it. Like most websites on the radical right blogosphere it has many columns opposing the "gay agenda",[SUP][1][/SUP] abortion,[SUP][2][/SUP] the "liberal media" (which is almost all of the media), universal healthcare,[SUP][3][/SUP] and Barack Obama. It promotes global warming denialism,[SUP][4][/SUP] the Iraq War,[SUP][5][/SUP] torture,[SUP][6][/SUP] and, oddly, Sarah Palin. There is an inherent disdain and paranoia towards Europe, Hollywood, and "liberal elites" such as Al Gore.

As far as Faux Noise, too many lies to count. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Fox_news

Rational wiki? Really? Here's more on rational wiki

RationalWiki
RationalWiki (also known as irrational wiki) was raised in response to Conservapedia, a wiki constructed from a conservative and fundamentalist Christian viewpoint. Originally the "rational" wiki was created to refute certain errors on its rival wiki but it soon became a gathering ground for social justice warriors, liberals of all sorts and intolerant atheist bigots to spread their biased and nutty ideologies. The wiki quickly became filled with more inaccuracies than Conservapedia, the biggest errors being their articles on religion and politics (where their prime sources and citations for articles dealing with these subjects solely come from atheist and liberal sources respectively).

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=RationalWiki

ONLINE HARASSMENT, RATIONAL WIKI, REPUTATION DESTRUCTION, REPUTATION DISRUPTION, ROME VIHARO, SKEPTICISM, TIM FARLEY, WIKIPEDIA NOVEMBER 27, 2015
How Rational Wiki Abuses Its Google Page Rank For Personal Attacks, Slander And Harassment.
ContentsRational Wiki fails to disclose conflict of interest publishingNovember 2013December 2013February 2014Enter Deepak ChopraDecember 2014November 2015 Slander“His current effort is aimed, in part, on fixing his…

http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/category/rational-wiki/
 
If I find a pattern of lying from sites I then ignore them.

But ignorance begets ignorance. You should instead, if you were really tolerant and principled to other's ideas and opinions, you'd seek them out to reinforce your own ideas and opinions. If you don't, you're timid and unsure about them and hide from the enemy of them.

I watch Fox, MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC and C-Span. I create my own original ideas from collective knowledge, real life experiences and common sense. I mentally argue with every news channel I watch. I find among the news casters omission, half truths, partisan-ism, laughable biases and lies on all of them except C-Span. I find ridiculous stupidity and clueless rhetoric from C-Span callers.
 
Back
Top