This is the flaw in the argument as we apply rational thinking that it's a very important issue to all voters.

When Billy Bob doused Monica under the desk abusing his Employer/Employee rules which should apply to POTUS as well as all Federal employees we should have known how corrupt the D party and it's followers are.

It's just the same when someone of the D party gets caught doing wrong, or in a sexual conundrum, the press doesn't do much about it, and because the basic tennents of Liberalism embrace alternative lifestyles openly the voters simply back hand and wave off any impropriety.

Again, she needs to be in jail, for more reasons than having an email server in a bathroom in New Jersey...

There is no such thing as impropriety as long as you vote Democrat.

Democrats get caught red handed, drunk, high, hand in the till, taking cash from Arab shieks, and they apologize, go into rehab and are good to go.

Democrats have elected Alcee Hastings to Congress for 11 or 12 terms, despite him being one of the fewer than a dozen in American history to be impeached and convicted and removed from the bench as a Federal judge, to taking a bribe, for crying out loud. No problem! He'll be there as long as he votes right, or dies.

quote:

Democrats have elected Alcee Hastings to Congress for 11 or 12 terms, despite him being one of the fewer than a dozen in American history to be impeached and convicted and removed from the bench as a Federal judge, to taking a bribe, for crying out loud. No problem! He'll be there as long as he votes right, or dies.

I agree, except I don't think it matters to his constituents how, or if he votes. I would not be surprised they would voted him in from the cemetery for at least a couple of terms.

I remember that sterling congressman Adam Clayton Powell JR (D-NY) whose career is too complicated to relate here, but is worth research for those interested.
Clayton Powell was succeeded in office by Charles Rangel (D-NY) and interestingly Adam Clayton Powell IV is running for office to fill his Granddad's old seat, now that Rangel is retiring.

quote:

Originally posted by HRK:

When Billy Bob doused Monica under the desk abusing his Employer/Employee rules which should apply to POTUS as well as all Federal employees we should have known how corrupt the D party and it's followers are.

It was funny how the R's were using "Character Counts" in their campaigns in the mid 90's against Bill and for Congressional races. The D's argued no, only a person's actions related to their jobs are important. Character doesn't matter.

But now the left is screaming that The Donald has poor character!

And they are claiming what Hildebeast did in her official capacity as SecState is not relevant either. Because she is such a wonderful person, or to put it another way, because her character is better than Donald, which makes her more qualified to be POTUS.

Up is down, down is up. Animal House, 1984, and Alinsky all rolled into one.

Didn't the then President of NOW say she'd give BJ a BJ herself for his unwavering support of abortion?

You guys are making me re-live the last election and it's depressing

Lying bitch.

Clinton told CNN on Tuesday, when asked about not holding a press conference in months, that “we will” hold one. “I believe that we do and we should answer questions. Of course, I'm going to,” Clinton said.

Lie, lie, lie. You wouldn't recognize the truth if you stumbled over it, you corrupt hag.

Not sure if this has been covered but when she goes to jail do the Secret Service go with her.

Yea Para I heard that today. Her last press conference was Dec 4 where she made the comment about wiping the server with a cloth.

quote:

Originally posted by Kadin:

quote:

Originally posted by justjoe:
It's the Democrat Party. A strong majority would say that she should serve as POTUS, even if it is from a lockup.

No doubt. And this is something I just can't wrap my head around. I can't imagine ever voting for ANYONE that had been even seriously investigated for felonies committed while in office, let alone indicted.

It truly astonishes me that anyone would vote someone into any office, but especially the highest office, with so much evidence that shows they purposely and willfully lied to everyone and knowingly violated federal laws and guidelines to prevent the taxpayer from having the information they're due. Not to mention all the ethical and moral boundaries she's completely erased.

I wouldn't even vote someone onto a city council if they'd done 1/10th of what she has.

How did so many in this country get to a point where honesty and morality and ethics means nothing?

Loosely quoted from the Founders: "The republic will survive as long as there is morality among the people. And without religion, there can be no morality."

quote:

Loosely quoted from the Founders: "The republic will survive as long as there is morality among the people. And without religion, there can be no morality."

That's another thing they were right about.

Intel source: IG report ups pressure on DOJ to seek criminal charges against Clinton



The recently released State Department inspector general report, which found Hillary Clinton broke government rules with her personal email use, increases "the likelihood and pressure" for the Justice Department to pursue criminal charges, an intelligence source familiar with the FBI investigation told Fox News.

"It is very harmful to her and increases the likelihood and pressure on DOJ to indict," said the source, who was not authorized to speak on the record. "[The IG report] is not evidence in itself, but it clears up confusion [about] Department of State rules and makes the IG a witness, and the people they interviewed, to her computer antics being done without permission."

The ongoing FBI criminal probe -- investigating Clinton's emails practices as secretary of state -- is focused on whether the more than 2,100 classified emails discovered on her server constitute a violation of federal code, including the Espionage Act’s 18 USC 793, known as the "gross negligence" statute. FBI Director James Comey plans to make a recommendation based on the evidence, and if the findings merit criminal charges, the decision to prosecute ultimately rests with Attorney General Loretta Lynch.

The 83-page inspector general's report, released last week, concluded that Clinton and her team consistently broke government rules for email and record-keeping. The decision to use a personal, unsecured server exclusively for government business had the effect of moving classified information outside secure government channels.

Fox News first reported in November 2015 that another statute, 18 USC 1001, also known as the "false statements statute," was under FBI consideration. This section pertains to "materially false" statements given either in writing, orally or through a third party to a federal officer. Each felony violation is subject to five years in prison.

"[The] report will be useful as rebuttal, potential evidence in 18 USC 1001 charges and establishing aspects of 18 USC 793," the source said.

Asked about the conflict between the IG report's findings and Clinton's continued insistence that her practices were in line with her predecessors’, the source noted the candidate’s press releases and media interviews on the issue “don’t count,” legally speaking, in determining whether false statements were made: “They can be used to show a pattern of deceit but not the basis of a charge."

Meanwhile, an investigator with the conservative watchdog group Judicial Watch said Wednesday they are considering whether to go back to a federal judge regarding a deposition last week with longtime Clinton aide Cheryl Mills.

The group is considering whether to try to compel Mills to answer questions about Clinton IT special Bryan Paligano, who managed the Clinton server.

Pagliano, a central figure in the FBI probe who was granted immunity in a deal with the Justice Department late last year, has been described to Fox News as a "devastating witness" because he has provided information allowing investigators to knit together the emails with other evidence, including images of Clinton on the road as secretary of state.

The cross-referencing of evidence could help investigators pinpoint potential gaps in the email record.

Yet seven lawyers -- four representing the Justice and State Departments, along with Mills’ personal attorneys -- objected more than 200 times during Friday's five-hour deposition, effectively blocking Mills’ responses to questions about Pagliano’s role.

"The details concerning Mr. Pagliano's employment status -- whether he was an agent of the Clintons, whether he was an employee of the State Department, the details about what that shift was and how it was conducted, whom Mr. Pagliano reported to in the State Department -- those are all unanswered questions by Ms. Mills," Judicial Watch Director of Research and Investigations Chris Farrell said.

"We may have to go back to the court to have the judge compel Ms. Mills to answer those questions."

While Clinton did not cooperate with the State Department inspector general and his investigators, she has maintained that she is willing to talk with the FBI – although she told MSNBC on Tuesday the bureau has not yet scheduled an interview.

In a weekend memo to Clinton donors, campaign chairman John Podesta said Clinton acknowledges the server was a “mistake,” and “what she thought would be a convenient way to communicate with family, friends and colleagues by using one email account…has turned out to be anything but convenient.”

Podesta said the report confirms Clinton’s email account was well-known by many State Department officials and there is no evidence of a “breach of her email server.”

A congressional source briefed on the IG report earlier told Fox that hacking was outside the scope of State Department investigators and they reached no conclusions about a compromise.


http://www.foxnews.com/politic...on.html?intcmp=hpbt1

quote:

Yet seven lawyers -- four representing the Justice and State Departments, along with Mills’ personal attorneys -- objected more than 200 times during Friday's five-hour deposition, effectively blocking Mills’ responses to questions about Pagliano’s role.

I can think of a couple of reasons why the DOJ would be tag teaming with Mill's lawyers in objecting to Judicial Watch' questions, but I sure would like to hear the official explanation.

http://www.politico.com/story/...fth-amendment-223796

Bryan Pagliano plans to exercise his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination at a Judicial Watch deposition next week and wants to prevent any video recording being made of the session.

The group is scheduled to take Pagliano's deposition on Monday.

quote:

Originally posted by Il Cattivo:

quote:

Yet seven lawyers -- four representing the Justice and State Departments, along with Mills’ personal attorneys -- objected more than 200 times during Friday's five-hour deposition, effectively blocking Mills’ responses to questions about Pagliano’s role.

I can think of a couple of reasons why the DOJ would be tag teaming with Mill's lawyers in objecting to Judicial Watch' questions, but I sure would like to hear the official explanation.

As I explained earlier, in this case there is an order for discovery which was produced after a hearing, briefing, arguments, etc. That order specifies a number of limitations, what issues, how long probably, any other areas the court approved.

A great number of the objections were inconsequential, usual and ordinary. The witness answered, that's it. Quite a few were objections that the question went beyond the discovery order.

Most of the rest were based on attorney-client privilege, which the deponent attorney is required to make and refuse to answer, at least preliminarily. If the validity of the claim of privilege is questioned, that will be brought to court for decision.

quote:

lawyers -- four representing the Justice and State Departments

I wonder if those four lawyers considered the possibility of a conflict of interests.

quote:

Originally posted by jehzsa:

quote:

lawyers -- four representing the Justice and State Departments

I wonder if those four lawyers considered the possibility of a conflict of interests.

No doubt they did consider if they had a conflict of interest, but they concluded they were all there to protect Clinton, so they were GTG.

This just goes to show that Queen Hillary had this ongoing attitude that the rules are for little people and not HER.


C'mon this is security clearance 101 stuff! EVERYONE from the top directors down to the janitor that empties the trash at night who possess a security clearance to be inside SCIF's knows that YOU DO NOT BRING YOUR GADGETS IN!

quote:

Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her aides tried to use personal hand-held electronic devices inside areas used to store classified information, according to the just-released State Department inspector general report.

The Bureau of Diplomatic Security, the State Department’s security arm, told the inspector general that in March 2009 Mrs. Clinton rejected an offer from security officials to provide her with a secure government smartphone. “DS was informed that Secretary Clinton’s staff had been asking to use BlackBerry devices inside classified areas,” said the report, released late last month.

Another portion of the inspector general’s report states that Mrs. Clinton sought in late January 2009 to bring her BlackBerry into a secure area. Instead, State Department officials offered to set up a computer near her office desk to check emails, although the report says the stand-alone computer was never installed.

Classified areas are called SCIFs, for “sensitive compartment information facilities,” and are used by officials with security clearances to read secret or top-secret intelligence and other classified information. Security rules prohibit bringing in electronic devices like smartphones that could be used to photograph or copy secret documents or to take notes.

The facilities also are protected against external eavesdropping, and those entering are required to leave all phones and other hand-held electronic devices outside.

Clinton, aides tried to use wireless devices in secure areas

Article on the topic by Judge Andrew Napolitano:

https://www.lewrockwell.com/20...tano/hillarys-ropes/

quote:

Originally posted by JALLEN:
As I explained earlier, in this case there is an order for discovery which was produced after a hearing, briefing, arguments, etc. That order specifies a number of limitations, what issues, how long probably, any other areas the court approved.

Fair enough, but is there an actual DOJ case that the DOJ lawyers are trying to protect?

quote:

Originally posted by Kadin:


How did so many in this country get to a point where honesty and morality and ethics means nothing?

Exhibit 1: "I didn't do it, you didn't see me, you can't prove a thing." Beavis and Butthead

Exhibit 2: "I am not a crook." Richard Nixon

Exhibit 3: "But I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I'm going to say this again: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky. I never told anybody to lie, not a single time; never. These allegations are false. And I need to go back to work for the American people." BJ Youknow