Commander in Chief Forum

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She keeps saying classified material has a header in order for it to be classified. That's incorrect. Classified material is such by virtue of its content,whether marked or unmarked. Hillary signed a document saying she recognized that.

The issue is classified info being on a low-side server at all, though... Classified information shouldn't be in a state.gov email either, it's not a secure classified environment. So, issues with classification aren't the same as issues with her private server, which most people find objectionable because it seems like a way to conceal information from FOIA, which is kind of the exact opposite problem.

Also, I'm pretty sure the classified info was sent TO her, which I don't think you can really fault her for. And it was inconsistently marked and some of the stuff that was marked wasn't actually classified etc etc. I think the classification stuff is mostly a false flag. Talk about FOIA concerns if you want to hit her on email.

Well, we know that she had instructed one of her aides to remove classified headers on a fax and send it unsecured. Bet she had the same instructions to her staff - and so she's sticking with the "no header" excuse. None of this would be an issue if she hadn't set up the secret unsecured server in the first place.

Stop trying to rewrite history. Do you even understand the meaning of "nonpaper."

Geez. By "non paper," she meant electronic. So she told her aide to take a secured "paper" document (the fax), remove any security markings (!), and email it instead. So that's how she figured she'd get away with it. Just make sure nothing that is sent to her is marked classified, and she'd be in the clear. Only thing is, that's not how it works. She signed a document to protect classified material, whether marked or unmarked. The header is NOT what makes it classified. But people like you continue to fall for her ever expanding web of lies.

1. There was no classified material.
2. I never sent/received anything that was classified at the time.
3. I never sent/received anything that was marked classified at the time.
4. There were no markers in the header, and therefore it wasn't classified.

Face it, she was determined to hide her wrongdoings from FOIA requests (or a Congressional subpoena as it turned out), and hence bleached her server contents after the subpoena came in. Obstruction of justice right there. And intent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:She keeps saying classified material has a header in order for it to be classified. That's incorrect. Classified material is such by virtue of its content,whether marked or unmarked. Hillary signed a document saying she recognized that.

The issue is classified info being on a low-side server at all, though... Classified information shouldn't be in a state.gov email either, it's not a secure classified environment. So, issues with classification aren't the same as issues with her private server, which most people find objectionable because it seems like a way to conceal information from FOIA, which is kind of the exact opposite problem.

Also, I'm pretty sure the classified info was sent TO her, which I don't think you can really fault her for. And it was inconsistently marked and some of the stuff that was marked wasn't actually classified etc etc. I think the classification stuff is mostly a false flag. Talk about FOIA concerns if you want to hit her on email.

Well, we know that she had instructed one of her aides to remove classified headers on a fax and send it unsecured. Bet she had the same instructions to her staff - and so she's sticking with the "no header" excuse. None of this would be an issue if she hadn't set up the secret unsecured server in the first place.

Stop trying to rewrite history. Do you even understand the meaning of "nonpaper."

Geez. By "non paper," she meant electronic. So she told her aide to take a secured "paper" document (the fax), remove any security markings (!), and email it instead. So that's how she figured she'd get away with it. Just make sure nothing that is sent to her is marked classified, and she'd be in the clear. Only thing is, that's not how it works. She signed a document to protect classified material, whether marked or unmarked. The header is NOT what makes it classified. But people like you continue to fall for her ever expanding web of lies.

1. There was no classified material.
2. I never sent/received anything that was classified at the time.
3. I never sent/received anything that was marked classified at the time.
4. There were no markers in the header, and therefore it wasn't classified.

Face it, she was determined to hide her wrongdoings from FOIA requests (or a Congressional subpoena as it turned out), and hence bleached her server contents after the subpoena came in. Obstruction of justice right there. And intent.

Exactly.

[Anonymous]

Trump/Putin bromance continues apace!

[Anonymous]

What was Hillary wearing in her ear?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:President Trump.

Say it again.

President Trump.

Build the wall (and make them pay for it). And make America great again! God bless.

He has taken his naive useful idiots for a ride. He is not deporting anyone other than criminals ,same as what Obama is doing. Congress will not allow budget for the stupid wall even if trump actually wants one. Do Trumpkins know President doesnt control the purse nor can pass bills?

Wait a minute, you mean Barrack was wrong to do the above during the past eight years? And where the hell did he get that 1.7 billion he gave to Iran from his stash?

That money wasn't ours, it was the Iranian's cash in banks that we froze in 1979 during the hostage crisis. It's been tied up in international court for the last 30 years. Obama, if anything, was smart to tie the payment to the most recent hostage release. They were going to get that money regardless, because we lost in court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
What was Hillary wearing in her ear?

She had something in her ear?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I crazy or did Trump say that Putin was a better leader than Obama?

...he is. Without question.

I will say that Putin is a leader of a country I would never want to live in, but he has a way of getting what he wants. He has an agenda, and he succeeds in fulfilling his agenda. His agenda is not our agenda.

Sometimes I feel like the USA has become the 90-lb. weakling that has sand kicked in his face at the beach by Russia, Iran, and other bullies.

Sure, when you jail, murder anyone opposing you, it's easy to get what you want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I crazy or did Trump say that Putin was a better leader than Obama?

...he is. Without question.

I will say that Putin is a leader of a country I would never want to live in, but he has a way of getting what he wants. He has an agenda, and he succeeds in fulfilling his agenda. His agenda is not our agenda.

Sometimes I feel like the USA has become the 90-lb. weakling that has sand kicked in his face at the beach by Russia, Iran, and other bullies.

Putin gets what he wants by being a dictator and using political police to silence his opponents. You know, by murdering them. Is that what you are striving for?

No. But, I also don’t expect our leader to apologize to our enemies and make concessions. Obama is viewed as weak by leaders of other countries. That is why Iran is toying with our ships and Russia is buzzing our planes. I don’t think HRC will be any better.

HRC is definitely more of a hawk than Obama. Trump on the other hand will be easily goaded into blunder after blunder. Putin already knows how to yank his chain. Wouldn't be long before they all know how.

+1 I think Trump has shown time again how easily he can be goaded and how thin skinned he is. The way he retaliates is like a bully. The size of his ego will be the downfall of this country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think Trump came across as more genuine and as a leader who will listen to those around him with military expertise.

Clinton came across as arrogant and as a person who has all the answers. I don’t like the “answers” she has had in the past. Don’t trust her for our future.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is sexism.

Nope. It is Hillary Clinton. It is who she is. Sorry you can’t see that. She has been like this her whole life, as far as I can tell. Listening to the audio of her relating her experience as an attorney getting a light sentence for a rapist.... first lady..... SoS...... she has always come across as arrogant.

? And Trump isn't arrogant? He comes across as arrogant and ignorant and a bully. Dangerous combinations. The fact that Trump has stated that he doesn't need to read anything because he has general knowledge and common sense is arrogant, and stupid.

[Anonymous]

That money wasn't ours, it was the Iranian's cash in banks that we froze in 1979 during the hostage crisis. It's been tied up in international court for the last 30 years. Obama, if anything, was smart to tie the payment to the most recent hostage release. They were going to get that money regardless, because we lost in court.

But, most of it was interest--and, guess what? The account was in escrow and was not earning interest. So, guess who paid?

[Anonymous]

Have any of you actually been to Moscow or St. Petersburg? I wouldn't mind living there at all for the right amount of money.

The women - wow - 9's and 10's walking around everywhere.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

That money wasn't ours, it was the Iranian's cash in banks that we froze in 1979 during the hostage crisis. It's been tied up in international court for the last 30 years. Obama, if anything, was smart to tie the payment to the most recent hostage release. They were going to get that money regardless, because we lost in court.

But, most of it was interest--and, guess what? The account was in escrow and was not earning interest. So, guess who paid?

This one was in an international court and we weren't winning. So we settled. No, we didn't have to settle, and if we lost in international Court we could ignore that, too. We act in good faith to encourage everyone else to too. That's the idea, at least. Always acting in bad faith would hurt us internationally.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Am I crazy or did Trump say that Putin was a better leader than Obama?

...he is. Without question.

Stupid, ignorant idiots like you are why I truly fear for the future of this country. Whether you are a Democrat or a Republican, can you honestly say you feel this way? What is your IQ level? Did you complete schooling past the 5th grade?

[Anonymous]

Matt Lauer is a disgrace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Have any of you actually been to Moscow or St. Petersburg? I wouldn't mind living there at all for the right amount of money.

The women - wow - 9's and 10's walking around everywhere.

Do all of us a favor - please move there, like today . . .