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

It's called Space Ghosting.

 

Looks like the Liberal Media is calling bull**** too


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ambGOVzWTI0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

Was Clinton hacked or not?

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Lvsq-9h0BRU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

When the presumptive Democratic Nominee for President has lost Andrea Mitchell and MSNBC on this...you know she's in deep trouble.

It would be like Sean Hannity and Fox News abandoning Donald Trump.

 

I would say that in general from what I have seen, liberals are more likely to criticize their man (or woman) than guys like Sean Hannity who will always tow the party line.

 

LOL, I don't doubt that you think that but it's not in tune with reality. In the last 25 years or so the Democratic party has always been the "stand by your man" party no matter what. It's why the narrative about Bill Clinton is that he was impeached for "getting a blowjob" rather than for being guilty of obstruction of justice and perjury which is the real reason. Democrats will spin or ignore pretty much anything one of their own does while attacking anyone who points out what they've done wrong.

Hell if Nixon was a Democrat, he wouldn't have resigned and he'd have beat the case against him due to party unity and spin aided by the media.

The fact that liberals are actually speaking out against a fellow liberal is kind of crazy. It almost never happens in any meaningful way. Hell we're over 7 years into Obama's presidency and liberals still blame anything negative on the previous administration. When is the last time you heard a liberal speak out against Obama other than just to say that they wanted him to be even more liberal? It would likely be the first time.

 

Clinton wasn't found guilty of perjury or obstruction of justice. You do know that right?

Making things up is something the right is very good at.

The whole witch hunt Kenneth Starr conducted was sad. They investigated Clinton for years and years trying to find that "gotcha" item. This kind of scavenger hunt for something is unheard of. It's sad and at a time when our country should have been focused on Bin Laden, it was focused on blowjobs.

Even when Bush took over and Clinton warned him about bin Laden, Bush and company basically laughed.

 

OJ wasn't found guilty of murder either.....I'm not sure what you think you are proving.

The fact that you are trying to blame Bush for OBL, someone Clinton did nothing at all about, just shows the mindset of liberals when it comes to discussing their own. If Clinton really thought OBL was such a threat, why did he choose to do nothing all of those times he had a chance to eliminate him by either capturing or killing him?

If you are trying to claim that Clinton was too busy defending himself on charges of obstruction of justice and perjury to simply green light one of the many operations that would have eliminated OBL as a threat during his administration..... first that's pretty ridiculous and secondly maybe he shouldn't have committed those crimes in the first place.

 

[Educational Post]
In 1996 Sudan offered Osama bin Laden to Bill Clinton and Clinton turned down the offer because he didn't think there were legal grounds to pursue him. Oops.

 

[Educational Post]

George W Bush on Bin Laden five years after he murdered 2,000 people.

Who knows if he’s hiding in some cave or not. We haven’t heard from him in a long time. The idea of focusing on one person really indicates to me people don’t understand the scope of the mission. Terror is bigger than one person. He’s just a person who’s been marginalized. … I don’t know where he is. I really just don’t spend that much time on him, to be honest with you.

 

Yes, but you do realize this was AFTER the strike on 9/11 right? The times Clinton could have taken him out would have been well before those attacks and could have prevented them if he had only pulled the trigger.

Kind of an important distinction there. I mean props to Obama for finally pulling the trigger on the OBL strike, but if Clinton had done it, then it could have saved untold thousands of lives.

 

What had OBL been linked to up until 1996 that is worth mentioning?

 

I wasn't talking about the time in 1996, I was talking about the multiple times in 1998 and 1999 that Clinton passed up opportunities to capture or kill OBL. If he really was such a concern to Clinton, as Lou suggests, why did he pass up all of those opportunities?

 

I realize one is the hindsight of future acts yet to be committed and one is the knowledge of 2,000 murders already committed. A pretty important distinction there. I mean it takes a lot of freaking stupid not to give a damn about a guy who killed 2,000 Americans.

 

Try to think about this in the context of the conversation you joined. Lou was trying to talk about how concerned Clinton was about OBL and was saying that he expressed those concerns to Bush and he "laughed them off"....I point out that if he was really that concerned he could have easily taken him out of the equation....he just chose not to on multiple occasions.

Also, after 9/11, when OBL was on the run, he wasn't able to do very much anymore, so the focus was on stopping those planning future attacks more so than on simple revenge. Getting OBL before 9/11 would have mattered, getting him afterwards was just a whole lot less important. The damage had already been done. Killing OBL was a feel good moment for the US, but wasn't THAT significant in the big picture.

Not get him before 9/11? You save thousands of lives that got caught up in that attack and countless hundreds of thousands more in that the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan likely never happen. The US knew in 1998 that OBL was trying to organize an attack on the US, so it's not really hindsight saying that they should have acted to take him out. They knew he was a threat, they just chose not to act.

 

Also, what has gotten lost is that the original point was that liberals "spin or ignore pretty much anything one of their own does while attacking anyone who points out what they've done wrong." I also pointed out how liberals always seem to find a way to blame Bush for pretty much anything that they'd otherwise have to take responsibility for.

And literally the next post was an effort to spin what Clinton did while attacking the person who pointed out what Clinton did wrong.....and then just for good measure that poster tried to attack George W Bush in order to change the subject to blaming him for OBL....someone Clinton could have done something about and refused on multiple occasions.

I mean, I pretty much have liberals like Lou in a box on this one...pretty much any response they'd have is going to be exactly as I described.

 

Please factually document the times Clinton could have assassinated Bin Laden and how the failure to do so is somehow contrary to the idea that he was concerned about Bin Laden. I know you like to think things are either or but reality doesn't really work that way most of the time. Also, please document the US protocol for international assassinations prior to 9/11. What terrorists were assassinated prior to 9/11?

In this country, when someone commits a crime we don't just choose not to act in bringing him to justice because they're on the run. Nobody says, well the murders are done let's just move on because he probably can't do it again. I mean, Jesus.

You can post all your conjecture and the alleged facts you've built up into your mind all you want but really, who is interested in listening to you just ramble on and on about what you think you know? Nobody.

 

Read the 9/11 commission report if you want to educate yourself on pretty much everything you just asked.

Also, note that I said "capture or kill" so we're not just talking about assassination here.

And if that person were in this country, they'd have been brought to justice almost immediately. Spoiler alert:

Spoiler

OBL wasn't in America, in fact, we had to take a dump on Pakistani sovereignty by invading their country without warning or permission just to get him when we did

Spin, ignore, attack. Glad to see you're following the standard procedure that I explained earlier.

 

I disagree with you completely. I'll just leave it at that.

 

LOL!!!!

Your like a perfect caricature of exactly what Bobby is saying.... too damn funny.

...Sings rousing rendition of stand by your man