Hillary Clinton hits back hard - the GOP is gonna pay

[Grizz]

Just the email scandals that slam into the whacko leftists who bury their head into sand and close their ears. That's all. They make themselves look pitiful.

OMG. Emails! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When in anger, fear, or doubt,
run in circles, scream and shout.

Yes, R-Derp...emails! Emails that by law the people who work for us are required to preserve so we can be sure they aren't doing things that they shouldn't. Emails that Hillary Clinton first hid...and then destroyed. At least 50,000 of her emails...not to mention the emails of her inner circle who's private email exchanges with Clinton have also been destroyed. What these people did is against the law.

If she deleted emails, I suspect they were personal and she didn't want to share them. Who cares her daughter stopped taking birth control because she wanted a baby? Or her son in law had to switch to boxers.
If she had done something illegal, then all those GOP investigation' spending taxpayer money over 8,000 dollars a day for years, something would have turned up. If all they did was write about it and nothing happened, then so what? You could instigate a crime through emails, but what kind of crime could you commit that didn't affect anything?

Come on you guys. Start thinking and quit letting conspiracy theorists ruin you're tiny minds.

You DO realize that she did NOT follow the Law?

She did not have the AUTHORITY to "decide" that she could simply set up her own server and use her own system?

The "tiny minds" are those that excuse every stupid thing that this woman does.

What law was that?

.

Another rant by another member of the crazy right wing - what a surprise! Notice people, once again a series of allegations are made without a shred of evidence. The sad thing is this dolt may actually believes it.

Oh, so now you're going to claim that the Clintons haven't taken in millions in donations to their "foundation"? Let me guess...you actually bought that story from Hillary about how she and Bill were broke when they left the White House? How naive are you, Wry?

Not to mention that only 15 cents goes to the "charity".

Lies parroted like this are the useless grist which sustains the Crazy Right Wing.

In the interest of honesty let's look at the Clinton Global Foundation:

Charity Navigator Profile - Bill Hillary Chelsea Clinton Foundation

Here is a detailed account of the CGF written it seems with neutrality. It is noted that the Crazy Right Winger's source is Rush Limbaugh. Taking the WSJ Editiorial and Rush Limbaugh as his source - which he doesn't disclose - is an example of a series of lies of omission:

Rush Limbaugh says Clinton Foundation spends just 15 percent on charity 85 percent on overhead PunditFact

Charity watchdog Clinton Foundation a slush fund New York Post

The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent On Charity In 2013


The Philanthropic Problem with Hillary Clinton s Huge Speaking Fees Nonprofit Quarterly

See?

I can use these sources to "debunk" your "sources"

You can try. I read through them and if the reader critically examines both of our sources they can come to their own conclusion. In all honesty, if you read both yours and my sources, and you have average reading comprehension, you would recognize propaganda and partisan editorials as opinions.

It is my belief you choose to believe the allegations implied in your sources simply because they fit your preconceived prejudices. Try to read past the headlines and put your biases aside, you might learn something.

Obviously you do not, CN won't grade them but if you read the page it paints a sketchy picture of the foundation, sorry.

I believe the "allegations" because everything bout the Clinton's is sleazy at best, disgusting at worst.


I've ben watching them since the 90's so spare me the thinly veiled intellectual aspersions.

Bill and Hillary both disgusting individuals.

 

[rdean]

OMG. Emails! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
When in anger, fear, or doubt,
run in circles, scream and shout.

Yes, R-Derp...emails! Emails that by law the people who work for us are required to preserve so we can be sure they aren't doing things that they shouldn't. Emails that Hillary Clinton first hid...and then destroyed. At least 50,000 of her emails...not to mention the emails of her inner circle who's private email exchanges with Clinton have also been destroyed. What these people did is against the law.

If she deleted emails, I suspect they were personal and she didn't want to share them. Who cares her daughter stopped taking birth control because she wanted a baby? Or her son in law had to switch to boxers.
If she had done something illegal, then all those GOP investigation' spending taxpayer money over 8,000 dollars a day for years, something would have turned up. If all they did was write about it and nothing happened, then so what? You could instigate a crime through emails, but what kind of crime could you commit that didn't affect anything?

Come on you guys. Start thinking and quit letting conspiracy theorists ruin you're tiny minds.

You DO realize that she did NOT follow the Law?

She did not have the AUTHORITY to "decide" that she could simply set up her own server and use her own system?

The "tiny minds" are those that excuse every stupid thing that this woman does.

What law was that?

Is this the part where you demonstrate that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about?

You really are clueless, R-Derp!

Name the law. Shouldn't be hard since you already know.

 

[Grizz]

Yes, R-Derp...emails! Emails that by law the people who work for us are required to preserve so we can be sure they aren't doing things that they shouldn't. Emails that Hillary Clinton first hid...and then destroyed. At least 50,000 of her emails...not to mention the emails of her inner circle who's private email exchanges with Clinton have also been destroyed. What these people did is against the law.

If she deleted emails, I suspect they were personal and she didn't want to share them. Who cares her daughter stopped taking birth control because she wanted a baby? Or her son in law had to switch to boxers.
If she had done something illegal, then all those GOP investigation' spending taxpayer money over 8,000 dollars a day for years, something would have turned up. If all they did was write about it and nothing happened, then so what? You could instigate a crime through emails, but what kind of crime could you commit that didn't affect anything?

Come on you guys. Start thinking and quit letting conspiracy theorists ruin you're tiny minds.

You DO realize that she did NOT follow the Law?

She did not have the AUTHORITY to "decide" that she could simply set up her own server and use her own system?

The "tiny minds" are those that excuse every stupid thing that this woman does.

What law was that?

Is this the part where you demonstrate that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about?

You really are clueless, R-Derp!

Name the law. Shouldn't be hard since you already know.

You poor child.....

"Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/u...il-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0

"

CHAPTER 31—RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY


FEDERAL AGENCIES



Sec.


3101. Records management by agency heads; general


duties.


3102. Establishment of program of management.


3103. Transfer of records to records centers.


3104. Certifications and determinations on transferred


records.


3105. Safeguards.


3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records.


3107. Authority of Comptroller General.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title44/pdf/USCODE-2008-title44-chap31-sec3101.pdf

We can start right there, now please spare me the "Where are the convictions" shit, the State Dept is still holding back documents.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Right blew its wad all over its gunpowder while Clinton kept hers dry. The right has manufactured so much bullshit for so long that Clinton has several warehouses of it, and she is going to make them eat every bite.

She is going to discredit the Right by first gutting them on the phony scandals. The Right has shattered its integrity, and Clinton is going to exploit that to the max.

When Clinton is done, she can be caught throwing live puppies into rush hour traffic and no one will be listening to the Right's protests any more.

Rope-A-Dope.

However this plays out, one thing we know for sure is you're going to carry the water for the Democrats

Another failure to deal the issue presented, and a mild attack on the integrity of its author. You're not only a member of the crazy right wing, you're also a jerk,and a not very bright jerk.

 

[Wry Catcher]

If she deleted emails, I suspect they were personal and she didn't want to share them. Who cares her daughter stopped taking birth control because she wanted a baby? Or her son in law had to switch to boxers.
If she had done something illegal, then all those GOP investigation' spending taxpayer money over 8,000 dollars a day for years, something would have turned up. If all they did was write about it and nothing happened, then so what? You could instigate a crime through emails, but what kind of crime could you commit that didn't affect anything?

Come on you guys. Start thinking and quit letting conspiracy theorists ruin you're tiny minds.

You DO realize that she did NOT follow the Law?

She did not have the AUTHORITY to "decide" that she could simply set up her own server and use her own system?

The "tiny minds" are those that excuse every stupid thing that this woman does.

What law was that?

Is this the part where you demonstrate that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about?

You really are clueless, R-Derp!

Name the law. Shouldn't be hard since you already know.

You poor child.....

"Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/u...il-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0

"

CHAPTER 31—RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY


FEDERAL AGENCIES



Sec.


3101. Records management by agency heads; general


duties.


3102. Establishment of program of management.


3103. Transfer of records to records centers.


3104. Certifications and determinations on transferred


records.


3105. Safeguards.


3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records.


3107. Authority of Comptroller General.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title44/pdf/USCODE-2008-title44-chap31-sec3101.pdf

We can start right there, now please spare me the "Where are the convictions" shit, the State Dept is still holding back documents.

It appears to me that there is no "law" per se, but a policy exists which appears to have been violated. That violation does not appear to have been an intentional violation or one with criminal intent (Mens res is absent) and no harm has yet been exposed.

This is a witch hunt, designed by the GOP to discredit the work Sect. Clinton has done as Sect. of State, as a lawyer, as First Lady, as a Senator, a Mother and as a human being.

If this was the first hysterical meme to pollute the Internet there might be more people to sit up and take notice. As noted earlier in a post the crazy right wing continues to echo the paritsan bullshit of Rep. Issa and his committee and each has zero credibility.

Continued lies by omission and commission, half-truths, rumors and innuendos flood this forum and 99'9% are posted by the same two dozen or so partisan hacks who echo each other.

 

[amrchaos]

Not to mention that only 15 cents goes to the "charity".

Lies parroted like this are the useless grist which sustains the Crazy Right Wing.

In the interest of honesty let's look at the Clinton Global Foundation:

Charity Navigator Profile - Bill Hillary Chelsea Clinton Foundation

Here is a detailed account of the CGF written it seems with neutrality. It is noted that the Crazy Right Winger's source is Rush Limbaugh. Taking the WSJ Editiorial and Rush Limbaugh as his source - which he doesn't disclose - is an example of a series of lies of omission:

Rush Limbaugh says Clinton Foundation spends just 15 percent on charity 85 percent on overhead PunditFact

Charity watchdog Clinton Foundation a slush fund New York Post

The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent On Charity In 2013


The Philanthropic Problem with Hillary Clinton s Huge Speaking Fees Nonprofit Quarterly

See?

I can use these sources to "debunk" your "sources"

You can try. I read through them and if the reader critically examines both of our sources they can come to their own conclusion. In all honesty, if you read both yours and my sources, and you have average reading comprehension, you would recognize propaganda and partisan editorials as opinions.

It is my belief you choose to believe the allegations implied in your sources simply because they fit your preconceived prejudices. Try to read past the headlines and put your biases aside, you might learn something.

My preconceived prejudice is that they are a powerful political family and can be corrupted. Hence, I am more susceptible to questionable dealings and actions on their part.

What are your preconceived prejudice concerning the Clintons? Or is it possible that you think they are above human failings?

My preconceived notions about the Clinton's is no different than the notions I hold for the Bush Family and all Pols. Individual Pols and individuals in powerful families develop a sense of entitlement. Some do good because it is in their nature, some do not. Some are drunks, some are sober. Some go to church because they are believers, others because they feel it makes them appear to be respectable.

In other words, you have some reservations in the dealings of the foundation but thought it is best to trust them in this matter.

Or something like that?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Lies parroted like this are the useless grist which sustains the Crazy Right Wing.

In the interest of honesty let's look at the Clinton Global Foundation:

Charity Navigator Profile - Bill Hillary Chelsea Clinton Foundation

Here is a detailed account of the CGF written it seems with neutrality. It is noted that the Crazy Right Winger's source is Rush Limbaugh. Taking the WSJ Editiorial and Rush Limbaugh as his source - which he doesn't disclose - is an example of a series of lies of omission:

Rush Limbaugh says Clinton Foundation spends just 15 percent on charity 85 percent on overhead PunditFact

Charity watchdog Clinton Foundation a slush fund New York Post

The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent On Charity In 2013


The Philanthropic Problem with Hillary Clinton s Huge Speaking Fees Nonprofit Quarterly

See?

I can use these sources to "debunk" your "sources"

You can try. I read through them and if the reader critically examines both of our sources they can come to their own conclusion. In all honesty, if you read both yours and my sources, and you have average reading comprehension, you would recognize propaganda and partisan editorials as opinions.

It is my belief you choose to believe the allegations implied in your sources simply because they fit your preconceived prejudices. Try to read past the headlines and put your biases aside, you might learn something.

My preconceived prejudice is that they are a powerful political family and can be corrupted. Hence, I am more susceptible to questionable dealings and actions on their part.

What are your preconceived prejudice concerning the Clintons? Or is it possible that you think they are above human failings?

My preconceived notions about the Clinton's is no different than the notions I hold for the Bush Family and all Pols. Individual Pols and individuals in powerful families develop a sense of entitlement. Some do good because it is in their nature, some do not. Some are drunks, some are sober. Some go to church because they are believers, others because they feel it makes them appear to be respectable.

In other words, you have some reservations in the dealings of the foundation but thought it is best to trust them in this matter.

Or something like that?

I understand your confusion, I have an open mind on this issue and many others. That maybe a concept you cannot comprehend.

 

[amrchaos]

If she deleted emails, I suspect they were personal and she didn't want to share them. Who cares her daughter stopped taking birth control because she wanted a baby? Or her son in law had to switch to boxers.
If she had done something illegal, then all those GOP investigation' spending taxpayer money over 8,000 dollars a day for years, something would have turned up. If all they did was write about it and nothing happened, then so what? You could instigate a crime through emails, but what kind of crime could you commit that didn't affect anything?

Come on you guys. Start thinking and quit letting conspiracy theorists ruin you're tiny minds.

You DO realize that she did NOT follow the Law?

She did not have the AUTHORITY to "decide" that she could simply set up her own server and use her own system?

The "tiny minds" are those that excuse every stupid thing that this woman does.

What law was that?

Is this the part where you demonstrate that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about?

You really are clueless, R-Derp!

Name the law. Shouldn't be hard since you already know.

You poor child.....

"Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/u...il-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0

"

CHAPTER 31—RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY


FEDERAL AGENCIES



Sec.


3101. Records management by agency heads; general


duties.


3102. Establishment of program of management.


3103. Transfer of records to records centers.


3104. Certifications and determinations on transferred


records.


3105. Safeguards.


3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records.


3107. Authority of Comptroller General.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title44/pdf/USCODE-2008-title44-chap31-sec3101.pdf

We can start right there, now please spare me the "Where are the convictions" shit, the State Dept is still holding back documents.

You are talking Benghazi. Understand this, the fact this could be a cover up and it is being handled by Clinton's colleagues(including the Republicans on the committee), you can forget serious and irrefutable charges being.

This dance has happened numerous times before by both parties with few underlings ever catching some heat. The only reason the right drone on about it is to help their chances in elections. But know this, this is politics as usual.

None of your wildest wet dreams of Hillary or Obama sitting in a federal cell will ever happen--even if there were wrong doing!

 

[kaz]

The Right blew its wad all over its gunpowder while Clinton kept hers dry. The right has manufactured so much bullshit for so long that Clinton has several warehouses of it, and she is going to make them eat every bite.

She is going to discredit the Right by first gutting them on the phony scandals. The Right has shattered its integrity, and Clinton is going to exploit that to the max.

When Clinton is done, she can be caught throwing live puppies into rush hour traffic and no one will be listening to the Right's protests any more.

Rope-A-Dope.

However this plays out, one thing we know for sure is you're going to carry the water for the Democrats

Another failure to deal the issue presented, and a mild attack on the integrity of its author. You're not only a member of the crazy right wing, you're also a jerk,and a not very bright jerk.

LOL, you calling someone a jerk is classic.

And name an issue that i am conservative that is not libertarian. Are you as limp dicked as the rest of the liberal government loving bitches who like to call me a conservative but can't back it up?

 

[Wry Catcher]

The Right blew its wad all over its gunpowder while Clinton kept hers dry. The right has manufactured so much bullshit for so long that Clinton has several warehouses of it, and she is going to make them eat every bite.

She is going to discredit the Right by first gutting them on the phony scandals. The Right has shattered its integrity, and Clinton is going to exploit that to the max.

When Clinton is done, she can be caught throwing live puppies into rush hour traffic and no one will be listening to the Right's protests any more.

Rope-A-Dope.

However this plays out, one thing we know for sure is you're going to carry the water for the Democrats

Another failure to deal the issue presented, and a mild attack on the integrity of its author. You're not only a member of the crazy right wing, you're also a jerk,and a not very bright jerk.

LOL, you calling someone a jerk is classic.

And name an issue that i am conservative that is not libertarian. Are you as limp dicked as the rest of the liberal government loving bitches who like to call me a conservative but can't back it up?

A jerk can be a conservative, a liberal, a Libertarian or a piece of chicken. And each of them - but the chicken - can try to avoid confronting an issue by attacking another and not the post.

Q. Have you been dating Rabbi(t) (he too is fascinated with the penis of others).

A.

 

[kaz]

A jerk can be a conservative, a liberal, a Libertarian or a piece of chicken. And each of them - but the chicken - can try to avoid confronting an issue by attacking another and not the post

From your last post in this thread:

I understand your confusion, I have an open mind on this issue and many others. That maybe a concept you cannot comprehend.

Your hypocrisy is so flagrant it has to give even you butt hurt.

You write serious posts to me, you'll get content. You don't, you're a dick. Write serious posts or not, your choice. But stop whining about it if you can't

 

[francoHFW]

Corrupt is GOP BS, dingbat.

I am sorry but I am not a Republican so your little mindless hatefest on them means nothing to me.

The Democrat Party defines corruption for the most part. Obama and Hillary both lied to the American people with everything from the IRS scandal to Obamacare to Hillary denying she was using her government office to get rich and claiming there were no classified documents in her home server. One lie after another since 2008 from both of them.

Your little grade school tactic of claiming that since Johnny also did it somehow makes you less guilty is always amusing.

Another parroted ^^^ allegation echoing the dozens of others. The other commonality is there is no evidence provided to prove intent and not error or happenstance by any of the other members of the echo chamber.

Look up Mens Res; then you MIGHT understand why I find the echo chamber populated by partisan liars and/or simple fools.

The Clintons are the epitome of dishonest politicians who think of themselves first and everyone else second. They've made millions off "charitable donations" while pretending to be there for the little people! Surely there is someone else in the Democratic Party with at least a modicum of decency? Or is Hillary all you folks on the left have at this point?

Another rant by another member of the crazy right wing - what a surprise! Notice people, once again a series of allegations are made without a shred of evidence. The sad thing is this dolt may actually believes it.

Oh, so now you're going to claim that the Clintons haven't taken in millions in donations to their "foundation"? Let me guess...you actually bought that story from Hillary about how she and Bill were broke when they left the White House? How naive are you, Wry?

That's what charities do, dingbat. And nobody's brought any actual charges, just total innuendo bs propaganda for their hater dupes.

They had millions in lawyer fees fighting total Pubcrappe and yes were in the red. They made their money back speaking. Too bad you idiot dupes have no actual evidence for any of your phony scandals. Morons.

 

[Oldstyle]

Another rant by another member of the crazy right wing - what a surprise! Notice people, once again a series of allegations are made without a shred of evidence. The sad thing is this dolt may actually believes it.

Oh, so now you're going to claim that the Clintons haven't taken in millions in donations to their "foundation"? Let me guess...you actually bought that story from Hillary about how she and Bill were broke when they left the White House? How naive are you, Wry?

Not to mention that only 15 cents goes to the "charity".

Lies parroted like this are the useless grist which sustains the Crazy Right Wing.

In the interest of honesty let's look at the Clinton Global Foundation:

Charity Navigator Profile - Bill Hillary Chelsea Clinton Foundation

Here is a detailed account of the CGF written it seems with neutrality. It is noted that the Crazy Right Winger's source is Rush Limbaugh. Taking the WSJ Editiorial and Rush Limbaugh as his source - which he doesn't disclose - is an example of a series of lies of omission:

Rush Limbaugh says Clinton Foundation spends just 15 percent on charity 85 percent on overhead PunditFact

Charity watchdog Clinton Foundation a slush fund New York Post

The Clinton Foundation Only Spent 10 Percent On Charity In 2013


The Philanthropic Problem with Hillary Clinton s Huge Speaking Fees Nonprofit Quarterly

See?

I can use these sources to "debunk" your "sources"

You can try. I read through them and if the reader critically examines both of our sources they can come to their own conclusion. In all honesty, if you read both yours and my sources, and you have average reading comprehension, you would recognize propaganda and partisan editorials as opinions.

It is my belief you choose to believe the allegations implied in your sources simply because they fit your preconceived prejudices. Try to read past the headlines and put your biases aside, you might learn something.

Dude, there is a reason why Hillary Clinton hid all those donations made to the Clinton Foundation. But you're not intelligent enough to figure that out...are you? Why don't you hold Hillary Clinton to the same standard you were so ready to impose on conservative non-profits when Lois Lerner was doing her thing over at the IRS?

 

[Oldstyle]

I am sorry but I am not a Republican so your little mindless hatefest on them means nothing to me.

The Democrat Party defines corruption for the most part. Obama and Hillary both lied to the American people with everything from the IRS scandal to Obamacare to Hillary denying she was using her government office to get rich and claiming there were no classified documents in her home server. One lie after another since 2008 from both of them.

Your little grade school tactic of claiming that since Johnny also did it somehow makes you less guilty is always amusing.

Another parroted ^^^ allegation echoing the dozens of others. The other commonality is there is no evidence provided to prove intent and not error or happenstance by any of the other members of the echo chamber.

Look up Mens Res; then you MIGHT understand why I find the echo chamber populated by partisan liars and/or simple fools.

The Clintons are the epitome of dishonest politicians who think of themselves first and everyone else second. They've made millions off "charitable donations" while pretending to be there for the little people! Surely there is someone else in the Democratic Party with at least a modicum of decency? Or is Hillary all you folks on the left have at this point?

Another rant by another member of the crazy right wing - what a surprise! Notice people, once again a series of allegations are made without a shred of evidence. The sad thing is this dolt may actually believes it.

Oh, so now you're going to claim that the Clintons haven't taken in millions in donations to their "foundation"? Let me guess...you actually bought that story from Hillary about how she and Bill were broke when they left the White House? How naive are you, Wry?

That's what charities do, dingbat. And nobody's brought any actual charges, just total innuendo bs propaganda for their hater dupes.

They had millions in lawyer fees fighting total Pubcrappe and yes were in the red. They made their money back speaking. Too bad you idiot dupes have no actual evidence for any of your phony scandals. Morons.

God but you're an idiot, Franco! The Clinton's were never in the red. That was just the story that Hillary floated trying to make herself look like "one of the little people", so they'd send her money. If you weren't such a "naive dupe" you'd know that! The year that she was referring to in the Diane Sawyer interview when they were supposedly "dead broke" the Clinton's had just purchased a house in NY and another in Washington for which they spent 4.5 million dollars. So let me ask all the other "little people" out there...anyone buying not just one but two million dollar houses?

 

[francoHFW]

Lawyers do that. They had good credit and prospects.It hasn't been proved either way so have at it, hater dupe. Happy Fourth!

 

[francoHFW]

Technically, they were broke.
Fact Check Were the Clintons really broke jacksonville.com

 

[rdean]

If she deleted emails, I suspect they were personal and she didn't want to share them. Who cares her daughter stopped taking birth control because she wanted a baby? Or her son in law had to switch to boxers.
If she had done something illegal, then all those GOP investigation' spending taxpayer money over 8,000 dollars a day for years, something would have turned up. If all they did was write about it and nothing happened, then so what? You could instigate a crime through emails, but what kind of crime could you commit that didn't affect anything?

Come on you guys. Start thinking and quit letting conspiracy theorists ruin you're tiny minds.

You DO realize that she did NOT follow the Law?

She did not have the AUTHORITY to "decide" that she could simply set up her own server and use her own system?

The "tiny minds" are those that excuse every stupid thing that this woman does.

What law was that?

Is this the part where you demonstrate that you don't have the faintest idea what you're talking about?

You really are clueless, R-Derp!

Name the law. Shouldn't be hard since you already know.

You poor child.....

"Under federal law, however, letters and emails written and received by federal officials, such as the secretary of state, are considered government records and are supposed to be retained so that congressional committees, historians and members of the news media can find them. There are exceptions to the law for certain classified and sensitive materials."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/u...il-at-state-department-raises-flags.html?_r=0

"

CHAPTER 31—RECORDS MANAGEMENT BY


FEDERAL AGENCIES



Sec.


3101. Records management by agency heads; general


duties.


3102. Establishment of program of management.


3103. Transfer of records to records centers.


3104. Certifications and determinations on transferred


records.


3105. Safeguards.


3106. Unlawful removal, destruction of records.


3107. Authority of Comptroller General.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title44/pdf/USCODE-2008-title44-chap31-sec3101.pdf

We can start right there, now please spare me the "Where are the convictions" shit, the State Dept is still holding back documents.

From your link:

Mrs. Clinton is not the first government official — or first secretary of state — to use a personal email account on which to conduct official business.

Before the current regulations went into effect, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell, who served from 2001 to 2005, used personal email to communicate with American officials and ambassadors and foreign leaders.

-----------------

So the regulation only went into effect when Obama became president?

The New York Times Deceptive Suggestion That Hillary Clinton May Have Violated Federal Records Law Research Media Matters for America

But The Law Overseeing Retention Of Private Emails Was Not Changed Until After Clinton Left The State Department

President Obama Signed Update To Federal Records Act In 2014. The Presidential and Federal Records Act Amendments of 2014 became law on November 26, 2014. [Congress.gov, accessed 3/3/15]

Law Signed "Two Years After Clinton Stepped Down." Criticizing the Times article's insinuation that Clinton violated the law, Daily Banter contributor Bob Cesca pointed out: "The article doesn't say which federal regulation, though. Why? Perhaps because the federal regulations went into effect in late November, 2014 when President Obama signed H.R. 1233, modernizing the Federal Records Act of 1950 to include electronic communications. It was signed two years after Clinton stepped down."

Oops.

 

[rdean]

Technically, they were broke.
Fact Check Were the Clintons really broke jacksonville.com

Debt is the very definition of broke.

 

[HenryBHough]

Looks like Plugs has figured out the value of the sympathy vote and may take out after Her Thighness. But he be duh wrong color and, though he do clean up nice, he not real articulate when he have to use only hiz own words.

 

[Oldstyle]

Technically, they were broke.
Fact Check Were the Clintons really broke jacksonville.com

So let me get this straight, Franco...they buy 4.5 MILLION dollars worth of houses that year but you're still here declaring that they were "broke"?

To use an analogy...it would be like someone buying two Mercedes Benz automobiles at the same time...then asking you to give them gas money because they're short on cash when you're driving a ten year old clunker! That's the game that Hillary was playing when she tried to pass herself off as just another poor American.