New York Times: Hillary Clinton illegally used private email for all State Dept. business

Unbelievable the state department has been conned into believing this vast right wing conspiracy and contributed to this fake scandal.

 

This story should be dominating today's shows and I see it is now sharing time or being eclipsed by the Trump protests and feud with Susanna Martinez. The Democrats have a politically weak candidate coming out of a historically weak field and Republicans nominated an absolute disaster. Trump may be the worst major party candidate in American history.

 

Trump

 

If you think Clinton has trouble following rules, wait until you see President Trump in action.

Of course, we all know what will happen, you guys will defend all the rules breaks by Trump to the end.

 

Clinton’s team continues to churn out anti-Trump hit pieces that ask you to imagine President Trump in office. By November, voters will think Trump has been running the country for a year and it looked a lot like the Obama administration. That’s called “graduated exposure” and it’s a well-understood psychological phenomenon. The Democrats are working overtime to make Trump feel less scary while believing they are doing the opposite.

 

I haven't seen a single Clinton ad - I live in NY. But seems like you are buying into the right wing propaganda. Where did you get this from? Glenn Beck?

 

[Premium Post]
Hillary is done. The WaPo editorial board has now turned on her over her complete disregard of State Department policy and the endangering of US interests all for her personal gain. The floodgates will soon open and people will see that the empress has no clothes. And what a hideous sight that will be -- Hillary with no clothes.

I mean seriously, how did Democratic voters let the situation get this far? She is a horrible candidate with a laundry list of devastating scandals and is under criminal investigation by the FBI. This is your candidate for President? It's outrageous. This nightmare should have been stopped years ago, and now the penalty will be President Trump. As the great philosopher Mark Jackson would say, "There's a price to pay."


MORE TO COME

 

Weak... you need to step it up son. You need to give us quotable nonsense. Like this...

 

First, you might wanna slow your roll on lumping me in with Trump. Check my posting history...I'm certainly no fan of his.

Second, IF Trump gets into office and did even 1/10th of the apparent crimes Clinton has committed, I would certainly hold him just as accountable.

Third, it absolutely says much about YOUR biases that instead of wanting to hold Clinton accountable for her crimes you immediately start bashing Trump....In a thread that has absolutely nothing to do with Trump.

 

Where were you when Bush & Co were lying to the nation about WMD. And let's talk abou Cheney and many others outright refusing to testify or share doc.

Yet Republicans such as yourself came to their defense. Seems to me that you only care to have scrutiny when there a (D) next to the name.

 

Crimes, eh?

Name them. This should be good.

 

Better yet, where were the Democrats in congress or President Obama since then? If the claim you make was accurate, why didn't these representatives prosecute Bush and Co after assuming power?

When did you hold THEM accountable? Seems to me that you only care to have scrutiny when there a (R) next to the name.

 

Might want to keep up with today's news.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/25/polit...port-faults-clinton-over-email-use/index.html

 

Because you had a GOP congress running interference. Also the Dems don't go after people like that nearly as much. They let it go because you know what, maybe it's better to think of the country first then scoring cheap political points.

The GOP went after the president about a blowjob because it couldn't find anything else. That's a testament to the fact that the GOP is more interested in defeating dems than Al Qaeda. When Clinton went after Bin Laden, the GOP accused him of "wagging the dog".

Pathetic.

 

I'm well aware. Well aware enough to know State Department policy is not law; 'law' in the sense that a crime was committed. This was a State Department audit. The FBI's investigation into potential criminal wrongdoing is something different.

And still waiting on this list to back up your "1/10th of the crimes" claim.

 

Trader_Jorge is always very climatic.

Apparently those were not "premium post(s)" though.

 

Actually, they went after him for perjury because he lied under oath.

Nevertheless, I'm gonna shock you here and agree that it was a tremendous waste of time and money. In short, the whole impeachment thing was a stupid mistake by the Republicans which is one of the reasons I sat out the 2000 election.

As far as Bin Laden goes, we all know he had the chance to pull the trigger on him and didn't. Perhaps if he had, we would have never had a 9/11, Iraq invasion, or any of the things you lament about Bush.

 

First, let me correct your misquote of me. I said "apparent crimes"...not "crimes". Now that we've cleared that up...

We know already that she did not comply with policies that were implemented in accordance with the Federal Records Act.
That sure sounds like a law she had no intention of following. Unless you think the Federal Records Act is not a law. Please though...if you disagree with that assessment, by all means...define what the Federal Records Act is.

(As you said earlier...this should be good).

Meanwhile:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/06/any-one-of-these-four-laws-could-put-hillary-aides-in-jail/

Are you sure this isn't you?

 

Well, when she's convicted of a crime I'll be glad to hold her accountable. I suspect if Trump is elected his crimes will be more along the lines of murder, torture, obstruction of justice, and embezzlement rather than breaking Justice Department email policy so perhaps you're not really thinking that one through.