BREAKING: US Attorney General asked to investigate Clinton for perjury (state, FBI)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
None of it proves she lied rather than she was simply incorrect.
That is why perjury is so hard to PROVE.
In order to do that you have to PROVE she KNEW she told them something that was not true. That's not easy to do. How EXACTLY are they going to PROVE what she KNEW?
If we are to believe Hillary's side of it at the very least she risked exposing classified information for her own convenience even after being warned about it. We all know this excuse is complete BS but even if we are to believe her excuse why would you find that acceptable?
"... they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
"... any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
"... their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail."
"... even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."
"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."
I know EXACTLY what he said. He said what Clinton testified to Congress was not true.
That's NOT the same thing as her KNOWING what she told Congress was not true.
Being incorrect is NOT the same thing as lying.
How many times does that have to be repeated?
If we are to believe Hillary's side of it at the very least she risked exposing classified information for her own convenience. We all know this excuse is complete BS but even if we are to believe her excuse why would you find that acceptable?
"... they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
"... any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
"... their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail."
"... even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."
"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."
No, it was not acceptable. But she's not the only secretary of state to send such info on unclassified systems - and in fact members of congress (including Gowdy) have unclassified e-mail systems that they use as well.
I know EXACTLY what he said. He said what Clinton testified to Congress was not true.
That's NOT the same thing as her KNOWING what she told Congress was not true.
So, you're saying Hillary is fuzzy on cognitively understanding what's real and what's not.
This response doesn't sound like something a rational person would say. And why in the world, if you say it's not lying, would you want to vote for a proven clueless/inept/"Extremely careless" person who can't even figure out what is classified or not as SS to lead a nation?
That sounds most irrational unless you hire people in your life who are clueless/inept/"Extremely careless". Help me understand there Ken why you defend/will vote for such a person?
He probably won't admit it, but it's because she has a D next to her name.
So, you're saying Hillary is fuzzy on cognitively understanding what's real and what's not.
No, YOU are saying that.
I'm saying it's 3 e-mails out of 30,000.
How well do YOU remember 3 posts I might pick at random of the THOUSANDS you've read over the years?
Ken
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.