Hillary Clinton lies about Congressional subpoena.

[bendog]

To be fair, there's also an issue that no matter what she discloses on any matter, the gop attack dogs will say "not enough." So, she has legitimate reasons to stonewall. What she's gambling on is whether that fact gives a majority of center and center left leaning voters in enough states to get her 270 EV enough of a reason to vote solely on the issues.

 

[Claudette]

You can't mix the two and then claim that YOU are the one who gets to decide what was private and what was not! It's obvious that Clinton got rid of emails that were not personal in nature but would have been harmful to her politically. You can tell that simply by looking at the discrepancy between what Clinton released and what Sidney Blumenthal released.

Sure you do. And there has been nothing disclosed that is harmful to her politically. You morons already hated her and you are the only ones who give a shit about Benghazi and the e-mails.

LOL...of course nothing has been disclosed that is harmful to her politically! That's the whole reason behind her deleting all those emails in the first place! She doesn't want the public to get a good look at what was going on behind the scenes leading up to Benghazi, during the attacks and with the coverup that followed.

To conservatives, the absence of any evidence is all the proof they need.

If you weren't a blind follower you'd see what everyone else see's.

Clinton lied and she sure a shit doesn't want those e-mails seen by anyone.

Her State Department got four good men killed and then the administration tried to blame it on a video. Another lie.

They had months of warnings about a pending attack and Hilbats State Department did nothing.

If I were her I'd be hiding those e-mails as well.

Believe me if they were innocent then she'd be showing them to anyone who wanted to see them. She isn't so they aren't.

Catch a clue. She's a liar and a fraud.

 

[OKTexas]

When questioned by CNN's Brianna Keiler about deleting emails Clinton replied that she had done what other Secretaries of State before her had done. Keilar replied, "They used a personal server, and while facing a subpoena, deleted emails from them?” Clinton's retort? “You know, you’re starting with so many assumptions," Clinton responded. "I’ve never had a subpoena, there’s nothing -- again, let’s take a deep breath here."

Gosh the nerve of that Keiler! Asking Hillary a hardball question like that!

Clinton has told so many lies about what led up to Benghazi...how her State Department reacted to the crisis as it unfolded...and how they did their best to try and coverup the debacle and blame it on a You Tube video that her credibility is in tatters at this point.

When you're a liberal and you can't get CNN to play ball with you...then you KNOW that you're in deep shit!

There was no subpoena issued before the personal e-mails were deleted.

BS, there were subpoenas issued to the State Dept, while Clinton was still the secretary, or does all records, not mean ALL anymore.

No, there were not. But, go ahead and make shit up.

House panel subpoenas State Department over Benghazi

Updated 10:39 AM ET, Wed May 29, 2013

House panel subpoenas State Department over Benghazi - CNNPolitics.com

After she left the post; a subpoena was served on THE DEPARTMENT. Not on Clinton.

I was thinking she left at the end of 2013, doesn't really matter, it included material on her server which she destroyed with the full knowledge of the subpoena. The fact that the Dept of State drug their heals and lied about the availability of the requested material was irrelevant.

 

[Oldstyle]

If Clinton wants to claim a right of privacy to her emails...then she should have kept those emails that were work related in a State Department email account like she was supposed to do. Failure to do so means that the only way to determine what is "private" and what is work related is to examine everything because to be quite honest with you...Clinton has an AWFUL history of being forthcoming with documentation.

Maybe she will do better as President.

Maybe?

Yes. But, then again, I really could give a rat's ass about what she wrote in an e-mail. If you morons think that she would have put anything in an e-mail that would have been damaging to her, well, you are dumber than I thought.

I don't think there's any question that there are things in those deleted emails that would damage her image, Paddy. You don't take the political heat that she's been taking for hiding them...and then destroying them...if nothing is there. THAT would be dumb and I don't think Hillary Clinton is dumb when it comes to politics.

There is nothing there because there was nothing to cover up. A bunch of radical attacked the consulate. That is a rather common occurrence in that part of the world. Whether they were worked up by the video, as many others were in that region; or planned the attack because it was close to 9/11 or because they were just bored with life in post-Gadaffi Libya, does not matter.

The attack itself is one thing, Paddy.

What Clinton is most likely hiding from public view are the policy decisions made by her leading up to the attack and the planning of the coverup that followed. It's rather obvious that the Clinton State Department went into full on "damage control" following Benghazi...in order to do that the players involved would have needed to communicate with each other. My guess is that some of that was done on what they believed would be a "private" means of communication...the email server that Clinton controlled from her own house.

 

[OKTexas]

Hillary's Emails Now Available Online




Here are Secretary Clinton's emails. CLICK HERE!

There you have it you ******* neo con, tea bagging Republican shit talkers. Now instead of listening to FOX NOISE and their lies read the emails for yourselves. Then die of cancer. Bigger Fatter Politics Hillary s Emails Now Available Online



There is nothing there to debate. Sorry you lying right wing fucktards.

You really are a ******* idiot, they already found 15 she didn't provide, are there more, we'll never know, she destroyed the evidence that would prove it one way or the other. Why would she do that?

The deletions are the best thing that could have happened for nuts like you. Now you can argue that there is evidence of what you claim but that it all got destroyed.

You ever think if she had a history of being truthful it might not have been an issue, this whole administration, who said they would be the most transparent in history, has attempted to derail every effort at oversight, regardless of their legal responsibilities. What will you say when a republican does the same and sites your dear leader as precedent?

 

[paddymurphy]

There was no subpoena issued before the personal e-mails were deleted.

BS, there were subpoenas issued to the State Dept, while Clinton was still the secretary, or does all records, not mean ALL anymore.

No, there were not. But, go ahead and make shit up.

House panel subpoenas State Department over Benghazi

Updated 10:39 AM ET, Wed May 29, 2013

House panel subpoenas State Department over Benghazi - CNNPolitics.com

After she left the post; a subpoena was served on THE DEPARTMENT. Not on Clinton.

I was thinking she left at the end of 2013, doesn't really matter, it included material on her server which she destroyed with the full knowledge of the subpoena. The fact that the Dept of State drug their heals and lied about the availability of the requested material was irrelevant.

 

[paddymurphy]

There was no subpoena issued before the personal e-mails were deleted.

BS, there were subpoenas issued to the State Dept, while Clinton was still the secretary, or does all records, not mean ALL anymore.

No, there were not. But, go ahead and make shit up.

House panel subpoenas State Department over Benghazi

Updated 10:39 AM ET, Wed May 29, 2013

House panel subpoenas State Department over Benghazi - CNNPolitics.com

After she left the post; a subpoena was served on THE DEPARTMENT. Not on Clinton.

I was thinking she left at the end of 2013, doesn't really matter, it included material on her server which she destroyed with the full knowledge of the subpoena. The fact that the Dept of State drug their heals and lied about the availability of the requested material was irrelevant.

So, now that you have been proven wrong, you change your argument? She was not served with a subpoena until 2015, long after her server was destroyed or cleaned or whatever happened to it. There were no subpoenas issued to her or the State Department while she served that included any request, specific or general, for e-mails. Congress does not just get to rummage through the executive branch.

 

[bendog]

Maybe she will do better as President.

Maybe?

Yes. But, then again, I really could give a rat's ass about what she wrote in an e-mail. If you morons think that she would have put anything in an e-mail that would have been damaging to her, well, you are dumber than I thought.

I don't think there's any question that there are things in those deleted emails that would damage her image, Paddy. You don't take the political heat that she's been taking for hiding them...and then destroying them...if nothing is there. THAT would be dumb and I don't think Hillary Clinton is dumb when it comes to politics.

There is nothing there because there was nothing to cover up. A bunch of radical attacked the consulate. That is a rather common occurrence in that part of the world. Whether they were worked up by the video, as many others were in that region; or planned the attack because it was close to 9/11 or because they were just bored with life in post-Gadaffi Libya, does not matter.

The attack itself is one thing, Paddy.

What Clinton is most likely hiding from public view are the policy decisions made by her leading up to the attack and the planning of the coverup that followed. It's rather obvious that the Clinton State Department went into full on "damage control" following Benghazi...in order to do that the players involved would have needed to communicate with each other. My guess is that some of that was done on what they believed would be a "private" means of communication...the email server that Clinton controlled from her own house.

I agree.

 

[paddymurphy]

You can't mix the two and then claim that YOU are the one who gets to decide what was private and what was not! It's obvious that Clinton got rid of emails that were not personal in nature but would have been harmful to her politically. You can tell that simply by looking at the discrepancy between what Clinton released and what Sidney Blumenthal released.

Sure you do. And there has been nothing disclosed that is harmful to her politically. You morons already hated her and you are the only ones who give a shit about Benghazi and the e-mails.

LOL...of course nothing has been disclosed that is harmful to her politically! That's the whole reason behind her deleting all those emails in the first place! She doesn't want the public to get a good look at what was going on behind the scenes leading up to Benghazi, during the attacks and with the coverup that followed.

To conservatives, the absence of any evidence is all the proof they need.

If you weren't a blind follower you'd see what everyone else see's.

Clinton lied and she sure a shit doesn't want those e-mails seen by anyone.

Her State Department got four good men killed and then the administration tried to blame it on a video. Another lie.

They had months of warnings about a pending attack and Hilbats State Department did nothing.

If I were her I'd be hiding those e-mails as well.

Believe me if they were innocent then she'd be showing them to anyone who wanted to see them. She isn't so they aren't.

Catch a clue. She's a liar and a fraud.

Odd, you use the word lie often in a comment that itself is a pack of lies. How ironic is that?

 

[paddymurphy]

Maybe she will do better as President.

Maybe?

Yes. But, then again, I really could give a rat's ass about what she wrote in an e-mail. If you morons think that she would have put anything in an e-mail that would have been damaging to her, well, you are dumber than I thought.

I don't think there's any question that there are things in those deleted emails that would damage her image, Paddy. You don't take the political heat that she's been taking for hiding them...and then destroying them...if nothing is there. THAT would be dumb and I don't think Hillary Clinton is dumb when it comes to politics.

There is nothing there because there was nothing to cover up. A bunch of radical attacked the consulate. That is a rather common occurrence in that part of the world. Whether they were worked up by the video, as many others were in that region; or planned the attack because it was close to 9/11 or because they were just bored with life in post-Gadaffi Libya, does not matter.

The attack itself is one thing, Paddy.

What Clinton is most likely hiding from public view are the policy decisions made by her leading up to the attack and the planning of the coverup that followed. It's rather obvious that the Clinton State Department went into full on "damage control" following Benghazi...in order to do that the players involved would have needed to communicate with each other. My guess is that some of that was done on what they believed would be a "private" means of communication...the email server that Clinton controlled from her own house.

No cover up. Nothing to cover up. No need to control any damage. No incident has been more investigated that this and they have found nothing.

 

[BlindBoo]

Hillary's Emails Now Available Online




Here are Secretary Clinton's emails. CLICK HERE!

There you have it you ******* neo con, tea bagging Republican shit talkers. Now instead of listening to FOX NOISE and their lies read the emails for yourselves. Then die of cancer. Bigger Fatter Politics Hillary s Emails Now Available Online



There is nothing there to debate. Sorry you lying right wing fucktards.

You really are a ******* idiot, they already found 15 she didn't provide, are there more, we'll never know, she destroyed the evidence that would prove it one way or the other. Why would she do that?

The deletions are the best thing that could have happened for nuts like you. Now you can argue that there is evidence of what you claim but that it all got destroyed.

I'm curious, Paddy...why do you think Clinton destroyed all those emails after hiding their existence from Congressional investigators in the first place? Are you really that naive that you think Hillary Clinton did what she did innocently? My take on what happened is that the emails in question probably showed Clinton doing things that would be harmful to her politically so she hid them and then when it looked like they might be discovered, she erased them. That's not some "nut" conspiracy theory...it's simply looking at thing realistically.

A: She did not hide any e-mails; B: they were her personal e-mails and no one else's ******* business.

Well, Paddy, we don't really know if they were all private, but I think you have to be a bit partisan to think she set up Stevens for murder or told the 82nd AB to stand down while their planes were over target while he was still alive.

Nah, it not a bit partisan at this late date with all the facts that have come out in the many investigations. We all know it was Obama's fault for the stand down order. You see he was hogging the popcorn machine and Mrs. Clinton demanded she have her popcorn before the show started............

 

[paddymurphy]

You really are a ******* idiot, they already found 15 she didn't provide, are there more, we'll never know, she destroyed the evidence that would prove it one way or the other. Why would she do that?

The deletions are the best thing that could have happened for nuts like you. Now you can argue that there is evidence of what you claim but that it all got destroyed.

I'm curious, Paddy...why do you think Clinton destroyed all those emails after hiding their existence from Congressional investigators in the first place? Are you really that naive that you think Hillary Clinton did what she did innocently? My take on what happened is that the emails in question probably showed Clinton doing things that would be harmful to her politically so she hid them and then when it looked like they might be discovered, she erased them. That's not some "nut" conspiracy theory...it's simply looking at thing realistically.

A: She did not hide any e-mails; B: they were her personal e-mails and no one else's ******* business.

Well, Paddy, we don't really know if they were all private, but I think you have to be a bit partisan to think she set up Stevens for murder or told the 82nd AB to stand down while their planes were over target while he was still alive.

Nah, it not a bit partisan at this late date with all the facts that have come out in the many investigations. We all know it was Obama's fault for the stand down order. You see he was hogging the popcorn machine and Mrs. Clinton demanded she have her popcorn before the show started............

There was no stand down order. But, go ahead and keep making things up. The facts are not going to work for you, so make up your own.

 

[bendog]

Maybe?

Yes. But, then again, I really could give a rat's ass about what she wrote in an e-mail. If you morons think that she would have put anything in an e-mail that would have been damaging to her, well, you are dumber than I thought.

I don't think there's any question that there are things in those deleted emails that would damage her image, Paddy. You don't take the political heat that she's been taking for hiding them...and then destroying them...if nothing is there. THAT would be dumb and I don't think Hillary Clinton is dumb when it comes to politics.

There is nothing there because there was nothing to cover up. A bunch of radical attacked the consulate. That is a rather common occurrence in that part of the world. Whether they were worked up by the video, as many others were in that region; or planned the attack because it was close to 9/11 or because they were just bored with life in post-Gadaffi Libya, does not matter.

The attack itself is one thing, Paddy.

What Clinton is most likely hiding from public view are the policy decisions made by her leading up to the attack and the planning of the coverup that followed. It's rather obvious that the Clinton State Department went into full on "damage control" following Benghazi...in order to do that the players involved would have needed to communicate with each other. My guess is that some of that was done on what they believed would be a "private" means of communication...the email server that Clinton controlled from her own house.

No cover up. Nothing to cover up. No need to control any damage. No incident has been more investigated that this and they have found nothing.

Well, when Oldstyle wants to dig up DOS policy decisions made before the attack, I think we're in gop attack dog waters. BUT, the Obama admin did seek to at least keep the waters muddy, or at least to keep from saying this very well may have been a pre-planned attack by extremists that we didn't see coming, as long as they could. Hillary was no longer SOS, but it's strains credibility to think she didn't at least have glimmers about that they were up to. Beyond any doubt, the admin sent Susan Rice out to the Sunday talk shows without being fully briefed.

Of course Mitt was not even coy about trying to use this as an October Surprise. So, both sides were playing politics. In contrast, the gop explicitly refused to play any politics with the Cole attack, and until the Iraq invasion, the dems didn't really question BushII PERSONALLY on how 9-11 wasn't prevented.

 

[BlindBoo]

You can't mix the two and then claim that YOU are the one who gets to decide what was private and what was not! It's obvious that Clinton got rid of emails that were not personal in nature but would have been harmful to her politically. You can tell that simply by looking at the discrepancy between what Clinton released and what Sidney Blumenthal released.

Sure you do. And there has been nothing disclosed that is harmful to her politically. You morons already hated her and you are the only ones who give a shit about Benghazi and the e-mails.

LOL...of course nothing has been disclosed that is harmful to her politically! That's the whole reason behind her deleting all those emails in the first place! She doesn't want the public to get a good look at what was going on behind the scenes leading up to Benghazi, during the attacks and with the coverup that followed.

To conservatives, the absence of any evidence is all the proof they need.

Unless it is the torture videos that the CIA admitted to illegally destroying. In that case "What evidence?"

 

[bendog]

The deletions are the best thing that could have happened for nuts like you. Now you can argue that there is evidence of what you claim but that it all got destroyed.

I'm curious, Paddy...why do you think Clinton destroyed all those emails after hiding their existence from Congressional investigators in the first place? Are you really that naive that you think Hillary Clinton did what she did innocently? My take on what happened is that the emails in question probably showed Clinton doing things that would be harmful to her politically so she hid them and then when it looked like they might be discovered, she erased them. That's not some "nut" conspiracy theory...it's simply looking at thing realistically.

A: She did not hide any e-mails; B: they were her personal e-mails and no one else's ******* business.

Well, Paddy, we don't really know if they were all private, but I think you have to be a bit partisan to think she set up Stevens for murder or told the 82nd AB to stand down while their planes were over target while he was still alive.

Nah, it not a bit partisan at this late date with all the facts that have come out in the many investigations. We all know it was Obama's fault for the stand down order. You see he was hogging the popcorn machine and Mrs. Clinton demanded she have her popcorn before the show started............

There was no stand down order. But, go ahead and keep making things up. The facts are not going to work for you, so make up your own.

Your sarcasm meter is on zero.

 

[OKTexas]

BS, there were subpoenas issued to the State Dept, while Clinton was still the secretary, or does all records, not mean ALL anymore.

No, there were not. But, go ahead and make shit up.

House panel subpoenas State Department over Benghazi

Updated 10:39 AM ET, Wed May 29, 2013

House panel subpoenas State Department over Benghazi - CNNPolitics.com

After she left the post; a subpoena was served on THE DEPARTMENT. Not on Clinton.

I was thinking she left at the end of 2013, doesn't really matter, it included material on her server which she destroyed with the full knowledge of the subpoena. The fact that the Dept of State drug their heals and lied about the availability of the requested material was irrelevant.

So, now that you have been proven wrong, you change your argument? She was not served with a subpoena until 2015, long after her server was destroyed or cleaned or whatever happened to it. There were no subpoenas issued to her or the State Department while she served that included any request, specific or general, for e-mails. Congress does not just get to rummage through the executive branch.

You really are a partisan hack, she had an obligation under law to preserve the emails, all of them. When she used that server for even 1 work related email it became a government server by law, she had no legal authority to destroy it. We now know as a fact that he claim that she turned over all work related material was a lie because of the 15 recently discovered. If you seriously think there aren't more, just because she says so, would make you one pathetic individual. How about you prove she gave them ALL up, oh right you can't because she destroyed the server.

 

[bendog]

You can't mix the two and then claim that YOU are the one who gets to decide what was private and what was not! It's obvious that Clinton got rid of emails that were not personal in nature but would have been harmful to her politically. You can tell that simply by looking at the discrepancy between what Clinton released and what Sidney Blumenthal released.

Sure you do. And there has been nothing disclosed that is harmful to her politically. You morons already hated her and you are the only ones who give a shit about Benghazi and the e-mails.

LOL...of course nothing has been disclosed that is harmful to her politically! That's the whole reason behind her deleting all those emails in the first place! She doesn't want the public to get a good look at what was going on behind the scenes leading up to Benghazi, during the attacks and with the coverup that followed.

To conservatives, the absence of any evidence is all the proof they need.

Unless it is the torture videos that the CIA admitted to illegally destroying. In that case "What evidence?"

Just what's that got to do with Hillary's ..... treason. (-:

 

[BlindBoo]

You can't mix the two and then claim that YOU are the one who gets to decide what was private and what was not! It's obvious that Clinton got rid of emails that were not personal in nature but would have been harmful to her politically. You can tell that simply by looking at the discrepancy between what Clinton released and what Sidney Blumenthal released.

Sure you do. And there has been nothing disclosed that is harmful to her politically. You morons already hated her and you are the only ones who give a shit about Benghazi and the e-mails.

LOL...of course nothing has been disclosed that is harmful to her politically! That's the whole reason behind her deleting all those emails in the first place! She doesn't want the public to get a good look at what was going on behind the scenes leading up to Benghazi, during the attacks and with the coverup that followed.

To conservatives, the absence of any evidence is all the proof they need.

If you weren't a blind follower you'd see what everyone else see's.

Clinton lied and she sure a shit doesn't want those e-mails seen by anyone.

Her State Department got four good men killed and then the administration tried to blame it on a video. Another lie.

They had months of warnings about a pending attack and Hilbats State Department did nothing.

If I were her I'd be hiding those e-mails as well.

Believe me if they were innocent then she'd be showing them to anyone who wanted to see them. She isn't so they aren't.

Catch a clue. She's a liar and a fraud.

The Congressional investigations have proven all those accusations to be lies.

 

[BlindBoo]

You can't mix the two and then claim that YOU are the one who gets to decide what was private and what was not! It's obvious that Clinton got rid of emails that were not personal in nature but would have been harmful to her politically. You can tell that simply by looking at the discrepancy between what Clinton released and what Sidney Blumenthal released.

Sure you do. And there has been nothing disclosed that is harmful to her politically. You morons already hated her and you are the only ones who give a shit about Benghazi and the e-mails.

LOL...of course nothing has been disclosed that is harmful to her politically! That's the whole reason behind her deleting all those emails in the first place! She doesn't want the public to get a good look at what was going on behind the scenes leading up to Benghazi, during the attacks and with the coverup that followed.

To conservatives, the absence of any evidence is all the proof they need.

Unless it is the torture videos that the CIA admitted to illegally destroying. In that case "What evidence?"

Just what's that got to do with Hillary's ..... treason. (-:

No connection to her treason ) The GOP does not accept the fact the CIA tortured suspects and simply ignore the fact that they destroyed the tapes of them torturing captives.

 

[paddymurphy]

Yes. But, then again, I really could give a rat's ass about what she wrote in an e-mail. If you morons think that she would have put anything in an e-mail that would have been damaging to her, well, you are dumber than I thought.

I don't think there's any question that there are things in those deleted emails that would damage her image, Paddy. You don't take the political heat that she's been taking for hiding them...and then destroying them...if nothing is there. THAT would be dumb and I don't think Hillary Clinton is dumb when it comes to politics.

There is nothing there because there was nothing to cover up. A bunch of radical attacked the consulate. That is a rather common occurrence in that part of the world. Whether they were worked up by the video, as many others were in that region; or planned the attack because it was close to 9/11 or because they were just bored with life in post-Gadaffi Libya, does not matter.

The attack itself is one thing, Paddy.

What Clinton is most likely hiding from public view are the policy decisions made by her leading up to the attack and the planning of the coverup that followed. It's rather obvious that the Clinton State Department went into full on "damage control" following Benghazi...in order to do that the players involved would have needed to communicate with each other. My guess is that some of that was done on what they believed would be a "private" means of communication...the email server that Clinton controlled from her own house.

No cover up. Nothing to cover up. No need to control any damage. No incident has been more investigated that this and they have found nothing.

Well, when Oldstyle wants to dig up DOS policy decisions made before the attack, I think we're in gop attack dog waters. BUT, the Obama admin did seek to at least keep the waters muddy, or at least to keep from saying this very well may have been a pre-planned attack by extremists that we didn't see coming, as long as they could. Hillary was no longer SOS, but it's strains credibility to think she didn't at least have glimmers about that they were up to. Beyond any doubt, the admin sent Susan Rice out to the Sunday talk shows without being fully briefed.

Of course Mitt was not even coy about trying to use this as an October Surprise. So, both sides were playing politics. In contrast, the gop explicitly refused to play any politics with the Cole attack, and until the Iraq invasion, the dems didn't really question BushII PERSONALLY on how 9-11 wasn't prevented.

There were attacks throughout the middle east in response to the video. There were street protests about the video. They tried to storm an American consulate in Egypt during a protest over the video. Perhaps the administration should have refused any comment until the investigation was complete and the cause of the attack determined. Had they done that, they would still not have commented because it was not been established what role, if any, the video played in motivating protests or the attack. If you think that there was some culpability on Obama for not stopping this attack, you must have been absolutely livid when Bush was warned about a pending attack and did not stop 9/11.