Did Hillary's Homebrew Server Cause Deaths of Americans in Benghazi?

[ogibillm]

started this thread with some very credible sources, didn't you?

Another apologist. You can't attack the facts, so you have to attack the sources.

how about you find those same 'facts' reported by a reputable source?

Here are a couple of Moonbat news sources that confirm the same email issue. And only a gullible tool would assume that Hillary's server wasn't hacked.

Clinton aides' email on Benghazi sparked intel concerns - CNNPolitics.com

Hillary Clinton aides' emails on Benghazi sparked intelligence concerns

your reputable sources - two links to the same article, fyi, do not claim that the server was hacked. only your original sources make that claim. why can't you find something so earth-shattering in real news outlets?

 

[boedicca]

started this thread with some very credible sources, didn't you?

Another apologist. You can't attack the facts, so you have to attack the sources.

how about you find those same 'facts' reported by a reputable source?

Here are a couple of Moonbat news sources that confirm the same email issue. And only a gullible tool would assume that Hillary's server wasn't hacked.

Clinton aides' email on Benghazi sparked intel concerns - CNNPolitics.com

Hillary Clinton aides' emails on Benghazi sparked intelligence concerns

your reputable sources - two links to the same article, fyi, do not claim that the server was hacked. only your original sources make that claim. why can't you find something so earth-shattering in real news outlets?

I understand that you do not have the cognitive chops to think independently, bub.

If hackers can access the IRS and GAP databases, they certainly can access Hillary's wee little server in a loft bathroom in Colorado. The blackmail risk alone is enough to disqualify her from the Presidency.

 

[ogibillm]

started this thread with some very credible sources, didn't you?

Another apologist. You can't attack the facts, so you have to attack the sources.

how about you find those same 'facts' reported by a reputable source?

Here are a couple of Moonbat news sources that confirm the same email issue. And only a gullible tool would assume that Hillary's server wasn't hacked.

Clinton aides' email on Benghazi sparked intel concerns - CNNPolitics.com

Hillary Clinton aides' emails on Benghazi sparked intelligence concerns

your reputable sources - two links to the same article, fyi, do not claim that the server was hacked. only your original sources make that claim. why can't you find something so earth-shattering in real news outlets?

I understand that you do not have the cognitive chops to think independently, bub.

If hackers can access the IRS and GAP databases, they certainly can access Hillary's wee little server in a loft bathroom in Colorado. The blackmail risk alone is enough to disqualify her from the Presidency.

you made a claim that it happened. did it happen?

 

[boedicca]

started this thread with some very credible sources, didn't you?

Another apologist. You can't attack the facts, so you have to attack the sources.

how about you find those same 'facts' reported by a reputable source?

Here are a couple of Moonbat news sources that confirm the same email issue. And only a gullible tool would assume that Hillary's server wasn't hacked.

Clinton aides' email on Benghazi sparked intel concerns - CNNPolitics.com

Hillary Clinton aides' emails on Benghazi sparked intelligence concerns

your reputable sources - two links to the same article, fyi, do not claim that the server was hacked. only your original sources make that claim. why can't you find something so earth-shattering in real news outlets?

I understand that you do not have the cognitive chops to think independently, bub.

If hackers can access the IRS and GAP databases, they certainly can access Hillary's wee little server in a loft bathroom in Colorado. The blackmail risk alone is enough to disqualify her from the Presidency.

you made a claim that it happened. did it happen?

I'd like to know for certain if it was. The risk was tremendous. Hillary violated the Espionage act with her handling of confidential and sensitive information outside of secure government systems (having a proper air gap).

If we had a President who actually cared about America more than his personal politics, then perhaps we could trust the FBI and DOJ to oversee a proper investigation. But as it stands, our only hope involves independent groups such as Judicial Watch persuing FOIA actions.

 

[ogibillm]

started this thread with some very credible sources, didn't you?

Another apologist. You can't attack the facts, so you have to attack the sources.

how about you find those same 'facts' reported by a reputable source?

Here are a couple of Moonbat news sources that confirm the same email issue. And only a gullible tool would assume that Hillary's server wasn't hacked.

Clinton aides' email on Benghazi sparked intel concerns - CNNPolitics.com

Hillary Clinton aides' emails on Benghazi sparked intelligence concerns

your reputable sources - two links to the same article, fyi, do not claim that the server was hacked. only your original sources make that claim. why can't you find something so earth-shattering in real news outlets?

I understand that you do not have the cognitive chops to think independently, bub.

If hackers can access the IRS and GAP databases, they certainly can access Hillary's wee little server in a loft bathroom in Colorado. The blackmail risk alone is enough to disqualify her from the Presidency.

you made a claim that it happened. did it happen?

I'd like to know for certain if it was.

so you admit that your claim in the op was at best unproven and at worst an outright fabrication - which is why you couldn't find it in reputable sources

The risk was tremendous.

why? why do you think the security on her server was lackluster? why do you think it would even have been a target for attack?

Hillary violated the Espionage act with her handling of confidential and sensitive information outside of secure government systems (having a proper air gap).

proof? are you getting this info from the same source that told you the server was hacked?

If we had a President who actually cared about America more than his personal politics, then perhaps we could trust the FBI and DOJ to oversee a proper investigation. But as it stands, our only hope involves independent groups such as Judicial Watch persuing FOIA actions.

lol. you'll believe anything, won't you?

 

[boedicca]

Another apologist. You can't attack the facts, so you have to attack the sources.

how about you find those same 'facts' reported by a reputable source?

Here are a couple of Moonbat news sources that confirm the same email issue. And only a gullible tool would assume that Hillary's server wasn't hacked.

Clinton aides' email on Benghazi sparked intel concerns - CNNPolitics.com

Hillary Clinton aides' emails on Benghazi sparked intelligence concerns

your reputable sources - two links to the same article, fyi, do not claim that the server was hacked. only your original sources make that claim. why can't you find something so earth-shattering in real news outlets?

I understand that you do not have the cognitive chops to think independently, bub.

If hackers can access the IRS and GAP databases, they certainly can access Hillary's wee little server in a loft bathroom in Colorado. The blackmail risk alone is enough to disqualify her from the Presidency.

you made a claim that it happened. did it happen?

I'd like to know for certain if it was.

so you admit that your claim in the op was at best unproven and at worst an outright fabrication - which is why you couldn't find it in reputable sources

The risk was tremendous.

why? why do you think the security on her server was lackluster? why do you think it would even have been a target for attack?

Hillary violated the Espionage act with her handling of confidential and sensitive information outside of secure government systems (having a proper air gap).

proof? are you getting this info from the same source that told you the server was hacked?

If we had a President who actually cared about America more than his personal politics, then perhaps we could trust the FBI and DOJ to oversee a proper investigation. But as it stands, our only hope involves independent groups such as Judicial Watch persuing FOIA actions.

lol. you'll believe anything, won't you?

Condolences on your lack of reading comprehension.

Here is a wee lesson:

1. The thread title poses A QUESTION.

2. In my OP, I state that "I suspect...".

 

[Mad Scientist]

I suspect this is the real reason why the Islamic Video Maker excuse was developed: Hillary's server was hacked and exposed the location and security arrangements for Ambassador Stevens.

Suspect? You're an American you're not SUPPOSED to think!

Unless a FoxNews Lap Dancer or an MSNBC Homosexual tells you, you are NOT to believe it!

Understood?

 

[ogibillm]

how about you find those same 'facts' reported by a reputable source?
your reputable sources - two links to the same article, fyi, do not claim that the server was hacked. only your original sources make that claim. why can't you find something so earth-shattering in real news outlets?

I understand that you do not have the cognitive chops to think independently, bub.

If hackers can access the IRS and GAP databases, they certainly can access Hillary's wee little server in a loft bathroom in Colorado. The blackmail risk alone is enough to disqualify her from the Presidency.

you made a claim that it happened. did it happen?

I'd like to know for certain if it was.

so you admit that your claim in the op was at best unproven and at worst an outright fabrication - which is why you couldn't find it in reputable sources

The risk was tremendous.

why? why do you think the security on her server was lackluster? why do you think it would even have been a target for attack?

Hillary violated the Espionage act with her handling of confidential and sensitive information outside of secure government systems (having a proper air gap).

proof? are you getting this info from the same source that told you the server was hacked?

If we had a President who actually cared about America more than his personal politics, then perhaps we could trust the FBI and DOJ to oversee a proper investigation. But as it stands, our only hope involves independent groups such as Judicial Watch persuing FOIA actions.

lol. you'll believe anything, won't you?

Condolences on your lack of reading comprehension.

Here is a wee lesson:

1. The thread title poses A QUESTION.

2. In my OP, I state that "I suspect...".

you actually didn't pose a question, you made a statement.

I suspect this is the real reason why the Islamic Video Maker excuse was developed: Hillary's server was hacked and exposed the location and security arrangements for Ambassador Stevens.

your suspicion is based on suspicion?

your sentence reads as if the hack was a fact, not a hypothetical.

 

[boedicca]

I understand that you do not have the cognitive chops to think independently, bub.

If hackers can access the IRS and GAP databases, they certainly can access Hillary's wee little server in a loft bathroom in Colorado. The blackmail risk alone is enough to disqualify her from the Presidency.

you made a claim that it happened. did it happen?

I'd like to know for certain if it was.

so you admit that your claim in the op was at best unproven and at worst an outright fabrication - which is why you couldn't find it in reputable sources

The risk was tremendous.

why? why do you think the security on her server was lackluster? why do you think it would even have been a target for attack?

Hillary violated the Espionage act with her handling of confidential and sensitive information outside of secure government systems (having a proper air gap).

proof? are you getting this info from the same source that told you the server was hacked?

If we had a President who actually cared about America more than his personal politics, then perhaps we could trust the FBI and DOJ to oversee a proper investigation. But as it stands, our only hope involves independent groups such as Judicial Watch persuing FOIA actions.

lol. you'll believe anything, won't you?

Condolences on your lack of reading comprehension.

Here is a wee lesson:

1. The thread title poses A QUESTION.

2. In my OP, I state that "I suspect...".

you actually didn't pose a question, you made a statement.

I suspect this is the real reason why the Islamic Video Maker excuse was developed: Hillary's server was hacked and exposed the location and security arrangements for Ambassador Stevens.

your suspicion is based on suspicion?

your sentence reads as if the hack was a fact, not a hypothetical.

I can't address your inability to read properly.

Sorry.

 

[NLT]

I'm sure that in Conservative conspiracy land that it not only caused Benghazi but Ebola, gay marriage and Obamacare

Ebola, gay marriage and Obamacare are all obozo's doing. He gets all the credit for those **** ups

 

[ogibillm]

you made a claim that it happened. did it happen?

I'd like to know for certain if it was.

so you admit that your claim in the op was at best unproven and at worst an outright fabrication - which is why you couldn't find it in reputable sources

The risk was tremendous.

why? why do you think the security on her server was lackluster? why do you think it would even have been a target for attack?

Hillary violated the Espionage act with her handling of confidential and sensitive information outside of secure government systems (having a proper air gap).

proof? are you getting this info from the same source that told you the server was hacked?

If we had a President who actually cared about America more than his personal politics, then perhaps we could trust the FBI and DOJ to oversee a proper investigation. But as it stands, our only hope involves independent groups such as Judicial Watch persuing FOIA actions.

lol. you'll believe anything, won't you?

Condolences on your lack of reading comprehension.

Here is a wee lesson:

1. The thread title poses A QUESTION.

2. In my OP, I state that "I suspect...".

you actually didn't pose a question, you made a statement.

I suspect this is the real reason why the Islamic Video Maker excuse was developed: Hillary's server was hacked and exposed the location and security arrangements for Ambassador Stevens.

your suspicion is based on suspicion?

your sentence reads as if the hack was a fact, not a hypothetical.

I can't address your inability to read properly.

Sorry.

it was ambiguous at best. it certainly wasn't a question.
that aside, you admit that there is no reason to believe it happened?

 

[boedicca]

I'd like to know for certain if it was.

so you admit that your claim in the op was at best unproven and at worst an outright fabrication - which is why you couldn't find it in reputable sources

The risk was tremendous.

why? why do you think the security on her server was lackluster? why do you think it would even have been a target for attack?

Hillary violated the Espionage act with her handling of confidential and sensitive information outside of secure government systems (having a proper air gap).

proof? are you getting this info from the same source that told you the server was hacked?

If we had a President who actually cared about America more than his personal politics, then perhaps we could trust the FBI and DOJ to oversee a proper investigation. But as it stands, our only hope involves independent groups such as Judicial Watch persuing FOIA actions.

lol. you'll believe anything, won't you?

Condolences on your lack of reading comprehension.

Here is a wee lesson:

1. The thread title poses A QUESTION.

2. In my OP, I state that "I suspect...".

you actually didn't pose a question, you made a statement.

I suspect this is the real reason why the Islamic Video Maker excuse was developed: Hillary's server was hacked and exposed the location and security arrangements for Ambassador Stevens.

your suspicion is based on suspicion?

your sentence reads as if the hack was a fact, not a hypothetical.

I can't address your inability to read properly.

Sorry.

it was ambiguous at best. it certainly wasn't a question.
that aside, you admit that there is no reason to believe it happened?

Clearly, you are punctuation challenged.


This is a colon: ":".

Embrace it.

 

[ogibillm]

so you admit that your claim in the op was at best unproven and at worst an outright fabrication - which is why you couldn't find it in reputable sources
why? why do you think the security on her server was lackluster? why do you think it would even have been a target for attack? proof? are you getting this info from the same source that told you the server was hacked?
lol. you'll believe anything, won't you?

Condolences on your lack of reading comprehension.

Here is a wee lesson:

1. The thread title poses A QUESTION.

2. In my OP, I state that "I suspect...".

you actually didn't pose a question, you made a statement.

I suspect this is the real reason why the Islamic Video Maker excuse was developed: Hillary's server was hacked and exposed the location and security arrangements for Ambassador Stevens.

your suspicion is based on suspicion?

your sentence reads as if the hack was a fact, not a hypothetical.

I can't address your inability to read properly.

Sorry.

it was ambiguous at best. it certainly wasn't a question.
that aside, you admit that there is no reason to believe it happened?

Clearly, you are punctuation challenged.


This is a colon: ":".

Embrace it.

colons aren't question marks.

so do you admit that there is no reason to believe the server was hacked?

 

[boedicca]

Condolences on your lack of reading comprehension.

Here is a wee lesson:

1. The thread title poses A QUESTION.

2. In my OP, I state that "I suspect...".

you actually didn't pose a question, you made a statement.

I suspect this is the real reason why the Islamic Video Maker excuse was developed: Hillary's server was hacked and exposed the location and security arrangements for Ambassador Stevens.

your suspicion is based on suspicion?

your sentence reads as if the hack was a fact, not a hypothetical.

I can't address your inability to read properly.

Sorry.

it was ambiguous at best. it certainly wasn't a question.
that aside, you admit that there is no reason to believe it happened?

Clearly, you are punctuation challenged.


This is a colon: ":".

Embrace it.

colons aren't question marks.

so do you admit that there is no reason to believe the server was hacked?

Keep digging, bub. I said the question is in the thread title.

Hillary's server was far less secure than the IRS and GAO systems. It is HIGHLY LIKELY that her server was hacked. If the Obama Administration actually cared about our national security, this would be a priority investigation.

 

[ogibillm]

you actually didn't pose a question, you made a statement.

your suspicion is based on suspicion?

your sentence reads as if the hack was a fact, not a hypothetical.

I can't address your inability to read properly.

Sorry.

it was ambiguous at best. it certainly wasn't a question.
that aside, you admit that there is no reason to believe it happened?

Clearly, you are punctuation challenged.


This is a colon: ":".

Embrace it.

colons aren't question marks.

so do you admit that there is no reason to believe the server was hacked?

Keep digging, bub. I said the question is in the thread title.

Hillary's server was far less secure than the IRS and GAO systems. It is HIGHLY LIKELY that her server was hacked. If the Obama Administration actually cared about our national security, this would be a priority investigation.

so you did. my mistake.

what makes it likely, and how do you know about the security used?

aren't you simply speculating without any evidence?

 

[Skylar]

I suspect this is the real reason why the Islamic Video Maker excuse was developed: Hillary's server was hacked and exposed the location and security arrangements for Ambassador Stevens.


US intelligence officials so far have determined that at least four — and as many as 305 — of the more than 30,000 e-mails Clinton and her aides have printed out and turned over to investigators were classified at the time they were written.

They include a 2011 message from Clinton’s top aides that contains military intelligence from United States Africa Command gleaned from satellite images of troop movements in Libya, along with the travel and protection plans for Ambassador Christopher Stevens, who was later killed in a terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya. Another staff e-mail sent to Clinton in 2012 contained investigative data about Benghazi terrorist suspects wanted by the FBI.

Blog: Did a hacked Hillary email set up the ambush of Ambassador Christopher Stevens?

Hillary's email defense is 'total BS': former State Dept. officials

The ISIS hack of the email server? Is there the slightest evidence to back this up?

Nope. But given the source is American Thinker, they really don't let things like a complete and total lack of any evidence supporting their arguments interfere with a good rant.

 

[boedicca]

Deflect deflect deflect.

 

[CremeBrulee]

That blog is suspect. It completely ignores the fact Ansar al-Sharia has taken and received credit for the attack. ISIS or ASL may have the capability to hack Twitter or Facebook accounts now, but there is no evidence they could have pulled off that sort of cyber attack on the Secretary of State in late 2012. Why choose the Secretary of State in the first place? Adding emphasis to 'the travel and protection plans for Ambassador Christopher Stevens," is apparently supposed to make the premise of the story believable. There is a reason The Post (hardly a bastion of journalistic integrity) did not highlight it in the original story. To make such an unfounded accusation would be reckless. Where do the Romanian intelligence services fit into the narrative? "....and Russian intelligence and Chinese and Romanian and many other agencies." Was this piece wishful thinking on the part of the author? I see this blog linked and quoted all over USMB. All of the articles are a whole lot of ifs, would've, should've, and could've that are disingenuous at best. While Secretary Clinton's email/server is a genuine issue and concern for debate, implying it (and by extension Sec. Clinton) caused the death of those in Benghazi is pretty low. Even for partisan hacks.

 

[boedicca]

That blog is suspect. It completely ignores the fact Ansar al-Sharia has taken and received credit for the attack. ISIS or ASL may have the capability to hack Twitter or Facebook accounts now, but there is no evidence they could have pulled off that sort of cyber attack on the Secretary of State in late 2012. Why choose the Secretary of State in the first place? Adding emphasis to 'the travel and protection plans for Ambassador Christopher Stevens," is apparently supposed to make the premise of the story believable. There is a reason The Post (hardly a bastion of journalistic integrity) did not highlight it in the original story. To make such an unfounded accusation would be reckless. Where do the Romanian intelligence services fit into the narrative? "....and Russian intelligence and Chinese and Romanian and many other agencies." Was this piece wishful thinking on the part of the author? I see this blog linked and quoted all over USMB. All of the articles are a whole lot of ifs, would've, should've, and could've that are disingenuous at best. While Secretary Clinton's email/server is a genuine issue and concern for debate, implying it (and by extension Sec. Clinton) caused the death of those in Benghazi is pretty low. Even for partisan hacks.

^^^ Speaking of hacks ^^^

Whose sock are you? You moonbats tend to "blend" over time.

 

[CremeBrulee]

That blog is suspect. It completely ignores the fact Ansar al-Sharia has taken and received credit for the attack. ISIS or ASL may have the capability to hack Twitter or Facebook accounts now, but there is no evidence they could have pulled off that sort of cyber attack on the Secretary of State in late 2012. Why choose the Secretary of State in the first place? Adding emphasis to 'the travel and protection plans for Ambassador Christopher Stevens," is apparently supposed to make the premise of the story believable. There is a reason The Post (hardly a bastion of journalistic integrity) did not highlight it in the original story. To make such an unfounded accusation would be reckless. Where do the Romanian intelligence services fit into the narrative? "....and Russian intelligence and Chinese and Romanian and many other agencies." Was this piece wishful thinking on the part of the author? I see this blog linked and quoted all over USMB. All of the articles are a whole lot of ifs, would've, should've, and could've that are disingenuous at best. While Secretary Clinton's email/server is a genuine issue and concern for debate, implying it (and by extension Sec. Clinton) caused the death of those in Benghazi is pretty low. Even for partisan hacks.

^^^ Speaking of hacks ^^^

Whose sock are you? You moonbats tend to "blend" over time.

Is a sock something other than the cotton stretched over my feet?