In that pic, it appears that he has commandeered the sign from someone in the crowd and is showing it to the camera. That pic illustrates one of the reasons Trump is so popular with the common man right now.

Looks like he autographed it

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
Hillary did not know how to use a computer to get email...in 2009....Let that sink in for a minute...

That's what happens when you have 50 people coddling you and catering to your every whim.

Do you know how to wipe your ass, Hil? Or does Huma do it for you?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by BamaJeepster:
Hillary did not know how to use a computer to get email...in 2009....Let that sink in for a minute...

That's what happens when you have 50 people coddling you and catering to your every whim.

Do you know how to wipe your ass, Hil? Or does Huma do it for you?

There are some questions better off not being asked. The last thing I want is that image in my head.

quote:

The last thing I want is that image in my head.

Too late

quote:

Originally posted by domcintosh:
There are some questions better off not being asked. The last thing I want is that image in my head.

That ain't the half of it. Tomorrow, you're assigned to man the Hitachi wand.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by domcintosh:
There are some questions better off not being asked. The last thing I want is that image in my head.

That ain't the half of it. Tomorrow, you're assigned to man the Hitachi wand.

Damn

Hey, Hillary Clinton may have an explanation for all this.

http://hotair.com/archives/201...three-weeks-earlier/

HC:

The best explanation I heard of this I heard yesterday in Des Moines from a man I was shaking hands with… He said, “This is like you drive through the same intersection for four years and the speed limit is 35 and then you move out of town and they change the speed limit to 25.

And then they start sending tickets to people who drove while the speed limit was 35 over 25.”

*************Damn! pretty clever

ut oh. Three weeks ago she said:

“I don’t, I think it should be resolved by pointing out that there were no classified materials sent or received by me. And that should answer any questions anyone has. If you’re going to be retroactively classifying materials that’s an impossible standard. You know it’d be like somebody in the Department of Transportation setting speed limits that had cameras where cars were going down a road, and pictures of license plates were being taken and let’s say the speed limit was 35.

And then retroactively the police say that speed limit should’ve been 25, so let’s go back and look at anybody who drove down that road and exceeded 25, we need to follow up on that.

********************

Maybe the guy in Des Moines heard her 3 weeks ago, and repeated what she had said back to her.

Too bad. I thought for a minute she had cleared this thing up. I bet what tripped her up is that she hasn't driven a car since 1996.


adding: just in case, it really isn't clever. it is idiotic. hope that clarifies

That isn't how controlling classified material works. If you generate classified material, and fail to label it properly, it is fully expected that it will be correctly classified later.

Additionally, you should pay a penance.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by domcintosh:
There are some questions better off not being asked. The last thing I want is that image in my head.

That ain't the half of it. Tomorrow, you're assigned to man the Hitachi wand.

Oh shit son.

LoL.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by domcintosh:
There are some questions better off not being asked. The last thing I want is that image in my head.

That ain't the half of it. Tomorrow, you're assigned to man the Hitachi wand.

Who's got the eye bleach?

That was an image I don't want to think about.
But maybe her and Huma could become an act.

Rep. Ron DeSantis (R-FL)sent out a press release wondering why the Obama administration hasn't acted yet, either through DoJ or appointing a special counsel.

One of his questions is:

Attorney General Loretta Lynch was appointed United States Attorney in New York by President Bill Clinton in 1999.

Does the Department of Justice consider this a conflict of interest in the context of a federal investigation involving President Clinton’s spouse?

http://hotair.com/archives/201...arys-e-mail-scandal/

Maybe I'm being chicken, but I'd be leery of raising the conflict of interest argument. It'll slow down bringing an indictment if there is one. Plus, any effort to bring in a special prosecutor would inevitably result in any indictment's being mired in charges of political skulduggery. Even if there are convictions, anyone convicted can claim to be a hero to the next generation of Dems. I'm thinking an absolute and unarguable verdict of guilty and a dose of prison time would do an awful lot of good things to the way politics has become commonly practiced by this point.

I realize this won't happen, but. If there ever were a case that cried out for a special prosecutor, this is it. The party in power has a vested interest in not seeing any kind of justice done. The suspected criminal of the same political party is running for office.

And on the other hand...If the opposition wins, one could expect a vigorous prosecution.

Senator Chuck Grassley probes Cheryl Mills' refusal to cooperate with investigators...

http://www.washingtonexaminer....rate/article/2582202

A top aide to Hillary Clinton "refused" to cooperate with investigators looking into whether the Clinton team suppressed a 2012 records request that could have exposed their private email use years before a separate congressional inquiry did so, Sen. Chuck Grassley said Monday.

The Senate Judiciary Committee chairman raised concerns about the role Cheryl Mills, then-chief of staff to Clinton, played in blocking a Freedom of Information Act request for Clinton's email use in a pair of letters to the State Department and the agency's inspector general Monday.

Grassley cited an inspector general report made public in January that detailed, among other things, the extent of officials' knowledge of Clinton's private email use throughout the State Department. Dozens of agency staff were aware Clinton used private addresses to shield her communications.

But Mills intervened when a watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, submitted a FOIA request for records "sufficient to show the number of email accounts of, or associated with, Secretary Hillary Rodham Clinton."

"Ms. Mills and senior department officials knew about Secretary Clinton's use of private email for official correspondence since they were sending emails to her non-government email address," Grassley wrote in his letters Monday. "They would have known instantly of records responsive to that request."

"Yet, it was approximately five months later before the department officially responded to CREW's request for email accounts associated with Secretary Clinton," the Iowa Republican continued. "And its response was misleading, at best: 'no records responsive to your request were located.' "

However, more recent FOIA requests over Clinton's emails have forced the release of thousands of responsive records, including the 55,000 pages of her emails presently published or under review by the State Department.

Grassley said Mills "refused to speak with" officials in the State Department's inspector general office when they approached her about her involvement in smothering CREW's records request in 2012.

According to the inspector general, a State Department spokesman had flagged the potentially damaging FOIA request for Mills, who passed it on to a trusted staffer and White House liaison and instructed her to find out how the agency planned to handle the request. Months later, the watchdog group received a notice that the records they sought did not exist.

Grassley demanded to know why the State Department waited so long to respond to such a simple request, and why the eventual response failed to turn up documents that clearly existed.

The State Department has come under fire over the past year for its handling of FOIA requests, which more than doubled after the discovery of Clinton's private email use in March of last year.

Agency officials have battled dozens of FOIA lawsuits in court, only to have judges shoot down State's arguments against releasing Clinton's records. A handful of such federal cases has forced the agency to hand over documents related to her diplomatic tenure.

^^^Good for Grassley! Turn up the heat on the staffers (accomplices) and see what comes of it.

On page 105 of this thread there is the redacted email from John Kerry that is SECRET in its unredacted form.

Just saw an article that noted Kerry also copied Thomas Donilon on that email.

Donilon was then in the WH as national security advisor. The email had to go to Donilon's unsecure account.

Did anybody in that time frame pay the slightest attention to proper handling of classified info ?

These are the top people in the administration. Top people.

********************

A reminder: Clinton's lawyer is David Kendall.

Kendall also represented Petraeus when Petraeus was charged. The result was a misdemeanor plea deal with 2 year's probation and $100,000 fine.

quote:

Did anybody in that time frame pay the slightest attention to proper handling of classified info ?These are the top people in the administration. Top people.

Thus my severe brain melting. This is a major component of my job, and the utter disregard leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Are you intrigued by the 22 emails which are so dangerous to national security that nothing about them can be divulged in perpetuity?

To date even the TS SAP documents in Hillary's email files have been released although redacted down to the date and address block, but not the famous 22.

Today the WSJ has a subscriber only video interview with Tom Fitton of Judicial Watch in which he gives the reason for this total absence of information (even the number of documents may be designed to deceive) as follows;

The documents even now could expose methods, time of acquisition, or human agencies which would severely compromise national security.
The assumption by the intelligence agencies is that HRC's system was hacked and that all of the contents are in unfriendly hands.
It is assumed that unfriendly hackers most probably have the entire trove of some 60,000 documents. The unfriendlies most probably are having a problem sorting through this colossal treasure trove of information heavily leavened with BS.

Since the 22 documents in question have the headers removed they may have been overlooked by the unfriendly holders of the copies.
To even release the dates, lengths, and address blocks might draw attention to this high level Intel.

I can speculate that in some cases we would know if someone had stumbled on Gold in the HRCs emails by the reaction from the unfriendlies.

Hillary is a worthless bitch!

But she won what...8 coin tosses in Iowa? With luck like that, Im sure nothing ended up in unfriendly hands.

No worries!