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

So Bush invades Iraq without any evidence that they have WMD's - they justify it based on the whole yellow cake thing (which the CIA had already discredited). Blix, France, Germany, Russia, and the CIA's own eavesdropping on the Iraqi foreign minister all showed they had no WMD's. No evidence at all, and they went to war and later threw the intelligence community under the bus.

And somehow Clinton allowing a few emails that were upgraded to classified on her email server is a bigger crime?

What on earth is wrong with people.

 

If you knew what you were talking about....like if you even had the slightest clue, you'd follow along a lot better.

That said, I get that you want to spin things because the Hilldog is in trouble.

 

Your posts in this thread consist of cheap one-liners and different forms of the phrase "you don't know what you're talking about".

If this is the best you're capable of, I suggest you stick to the GARM. I like your posts a lot more there.

 

The problem is the high level of ignorance in this thread. People that have no clue about what intelligence the US had or didn't have at certain times talking as if they know things is fairly annoying.

Anyone with pretty much any security clearance at all knows that InfoSec is a VERY serious matter....people serve jail time for violations. Transmitting classified information through private servers is a HUGE no-no. This absolutely could become a criminal matter and honestly, you have to question her competence to hold high office given how poorly she handled her last office....that is if you aren't just a partisan hack looking to defend the presumptive presidential nominee of your party.

 

I believe he was speaking in relative terms. Starting a war on false pretense has far more devastating consequences than mismanaging classified information.

Anyways, I hope Hilldog goes down so Bernie wins the nomination.

 

Excuse Mr. it's ok to discriminate against someone for having an African name - you haven't stated anything here. Do you deny that Bush had no credible intelligence in going to war in Iraq?: Or are you saying going to war on false pretenses is a lesser evil than violating security protocols for email communications?

 

I can neither confirm nor deny anything related to that issue, but I can tell you that you shouldn't assume things you know nothing at all about as a general rule.

You haven't the slightest clue what intelligence there was or wasn't and pretending you do is kind of annoying.....either that or are you saying that you have or have had access to classified information and you are sharing what you know?

 

I just find it so ironic that Hillary Clinton...who first made her name decades ago as one of the attorneys going after Nixon for crimes and a coverup...is now facing much the same type of situation.

Karma is a helluva thing.

 

Ummm, yes we all know what intelligence there was - all of it was shared with us by Colin Powell to try to make the case for war. It was flimsy evidence that the CIA had called unreliable. These are the facts. If you want to deny what everyone saw on TV and what was reported by many media sources, that is your prerogative.

 

Yes, the FBI investigation run by Obama's Justice Department is tied into Fox news.

Good Observation. Good effort.

 

That's adorable, you seriously think Colin Powell shared "all there was" live on TV?

What gets declassified is a VERY tiny amount of information in the context of the whole....no matter what subject we are talking about. Thinking that you know about what intelligence the US had at the time is fairly naive and arrogant. If you don't have access to that information, you are just guessing....or parroting something that a politician said trying to win political points.

What's funny is that it has been declassified that WMD's were absolutely found in Iraq (despite their best efforts to ship everything out of the country before the invasion) yet politicians that would have known that for a fact due to being told in security briefings and committee meetings still went out and hammered home the "no WMD's in Iraq" line to score cheap political points.

 

At any rate, bringing up Iraq is pretty clearly nothing more than an attempt to muddy the water and spin the very serious matter that Hillary is facing. The fact that her supporters are freaking out this much and trying to spin things is indicative of how bad this really is.

 

No WMD's were found unless you count pre-1991 empty shells that they found.

Just give it up, you eat up all that right wing propaganda. You have no facts, no sources, nothing to back up your claims. You are just as bad as those 9/11 conspiracy nuts.

 

SMH, you poor ignorant soul.

Anyway, your lack of knowledge about things related to Iraq is completely off topic. Let's get back to talking about your lack of knowledge about the handling of classified documents.

 

The only stuff they had was the stuff we supplied them. That's what makes it even more ridiculous.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...casualties-of-iraq-chemical-weapons.html?_r=1

 

I thought it was no secret that they had chem weapon. Heck, we gave it to them.

The Bush war was on them having nuclear weapon program.

They didn't lie. They just told half truths, were deceptive and ignored everyone that told them what they didn't want to hear. Seems they were set on the war. Foolish folks and we are still paying the price for it.

It's has become typical and normal, thought, that scandals such as this email thing and Benghazi is a bigger deal than Bush's war. Trillion later and thousands of deaths isn't as big of a deal as these scandals because views.

 

Don't be a fool. The scandal won't stick and you know it.

A scandal has to be real for it to take down someone of Hilary's status. Keep digging and you may find something, where there's smoke there's fire.

But this email and Bengahzi BS has all been laughable at best.