It would be safe to assume if you are Secretary of State, during your term you would both receive and send classified and top secret e-mail. Why hasn't anyone asked Hillary what provisions she made for these transmissions during her term. Could she honestly say she never thought she would receive any?
She continues to say she never sent or received classified emails, so what exactly was she doing on the job and how were people communicating top secret or classified information to her?

Originally Posted by Guest

It would be safe to assume if you are Secretary of State, during your term you would both receive and send classified and top secret e-mail. Why hasn't anyone asked Hillary what provisions she made for these transmissions during her term. Could she honestly say she never thought she would receive any?
She continues to say she never sent or received classified emails, so what exactly was she doing on the job and how were people communicating top secret or classified information to her?

When the investigation is over we will know what happened.
Or President Trump will explain it to us next year.

Originally Posted by Guest

It would be safe to assume if you are Secretary of State, during your term you would both receive and send classified and top secret e-mail. Why hasn't anyone asked Hillary what provisions she made for these transmissions during her term. Could she honestly say she never thought she would receive any?
She continues to say she never sent or received classified emails, so what exactly was she doing on the job and how were people communicating top secret or classified information to her?

She is a scumbag liar, and anyone that has ever had a position requiring a security clearance knows this. Anyone in her position has to read daily intelligence reports that are addressed to her. Hundreds of them. Even if someone else briefs her, she would still have read some every day of her career. And she signed non-disclosure paperwork before she was even privy to any classified. She is a criminal felon and should be incarcerated.

Originally Posted by Guest

It would be safe to assume if you are Secretary of State, during your term you would both receive and send classified and top secret e-mail. Why hasn't anyone asked Hillary what provisions she made for these transmissions during her term. Could she honestly say she never thought she would receive any?
She continues to say she never sent or received classified emails, so what exactly was she doing on the job and how were people communicating top secret or classified information to her?

But keep in mind she is and will continue to use the letter of the law to hide behind.

For example when she says she never sent or recieved classified emails she would/could/already has claimed that because someone who works for her "receives" them.

When dealing with experienced lawyer trained corrupted, lying, untrustworthy characters one must be as creative as they pretend to be about how they ask the questions.

Another example? She could command that someone be fired; an underling does the firing; she can and will state she did not fire the person.

With legal shennanigans it is part what they say and the other part is what they do not say.

She has years of experience successfully beating the system.

It will be a major black eye for anything that represents America if she gets off the hook for her crimes and gets nominated for president. She does not have that constant worn out smirk on her face as she wanders amongst her subjects.

For the sake of America's values she needs to be stopped in her tracks and prosecuted.
Sent home to be (or try to be Grandma Clinton).

She most certainly does not need to get off the hook and nominated as well.....how shameful for America.

A sign of how far our core values have degenerated.

"My accomplishments as Secretary of State? Well, I'm glad you asked! My proudest accomplishment in which I take the most pride, mostly because of the opposition it faced early on, you know… the remnants of prior situations and mind-sets that were too narrowly focused in a manner whereby they may have overlooked the bigger picture, and we didn't do that, and I'm proud of that. Very proud. I would say that's A major accomplishment."

- Hillary Clinton 11 March 2014

Can anyone guess as to what she said?

Anyone who has ever worked with classified material knows that there is no such marking as "Classified". Documents are marked Unclassified, Sensitive, Confidential, Secret, Top Secret.

My question is: Why on earth would someone with a position as high as Secretary of State NOT know by reading something whether or not it should contain one of the above mentioned classification markings? If she doesn't know what documents pertain to national security, then why was she even put in that position?

My point? She absolutely DID KNOW but didn't care. She was all about hiding facts that she knew would hurt her and Obama.

Originally Posted by Guest

Anyone who has ever worked with classified material knows that there is no such marking as "Classified". Documents are marked Unclassified, Sensitive, Confidential, Secret, Top Secret.

My question is: Why on earth would someone with a position as high as Secretary of State NOT know by reading something whether or not it should contain one of the above mentioned classification markings? If she doesn't know what documents pertain to national security, then why was she even put in that position?

My point? She absolutely DID KNOW but didn't care. She was all about hiding facts that she knew would hurt her and Obama.

...exactly!

Will somebody please ask Hillary..... Well they don't have to ask they already know. People far smarter than we and me know exactly what she did how she did it and why. However, what one knows and what one can hold up as conclusive evidence supporting allegations in either a criminal or civil setting is a horse of different color.

The FBI gets one shot at Clinton and they do not want to mess it up.

Clinton and Company are artful dodgers with plenty of political cover in and out of the White House coupled with a very liberal press that does not want to hurt their queen. We have a DOJ that has run cover for Obama and company since January 2008 and in fact appears to assist Obama in his questionable pursuits.

Hence the FBI has been placed in a situation of performing miracles. They have some 147 agents dedicated to investigation Hillary's personal server and more importantly the probability (likelihood) that it was hacked. Only one person (Pagano) has agreed to cooperate with the FBI. will other Clinton staff members fold? Perhaps they are more afraid of the Clinton's then the FBI?

Honorable people admit their errors ask for forgiveness and/ or resign their positions. But most of Washington's political population are anything but honorable. So we the people continue to suffer fools.

Personal Best Regards:

Originally Posted by Guest

Will somebody please ask Hillary..... Well they don't have to ask they already know. People far smarter than we and me know exactly what she did how she did it and why. However, what one knows and what one can hold up as conclusive evidence supporting allegations in either a criminal or civil setting is a horse of different color.

The FBI gets one shot at Clinton and they do not want to mess it up.

Clinton and Company are artful dodgers with plenty of political cover in and out of the White House coupled with a very liberal press that does not want to hurt their queen. We have a DOJ that has run cover for Obama and company since January 2008 and in fact appears to assist Obama in his questionable pursuits.

Hence the FBI has been placed in a situation of performing miracles. They have some 147 agents dedicated to investigation Hillary's personal server and more importantly the probability (likelihood) that it was hacked. Only one person (Pagano) has agreed to cooperate with the FBI. will other Clinton staff members fold? Perhaps they are more afraid of the Clinton's then the FBI?

Honorable people admit their errors ask for forgiveness and/ or resign their positions. But most of Washington's political population are anything but honorable. So we the people continue to suffer fools.

Personal Best Regards:

And the lazy, uninformed, could care less, keep the freebies coming lemmings keep re-elcting them.
As we become more and more outnumbered each year the hope of ever getting America back becomes a wishfull dream of the past.

Originally Posted by Guest

And the lazy, uninformed, could care less, keep the freebies coming lemmings keep re-elcting them.
As we become more and more outnumbered each year the hope of ever getting America back becomes a wishfull dream of the past.

The social services provided to the poor are necessary for the survival of these people. You would rather let them be homeless and starve. Does your minister agree with your viewpoint?

Yes, you and your ilk are becoming fewer and fewer. Thank Goodness for that!

What precisely do you want America gotten back to? An all-white government, women subservient to men, or Beaver Cleaver's father getting drunk after work and beating on his wife who endures it because she has no other choice?

Vote Hillary!

Originally Posted by Guest

The social services provided to the poor are necessary for the survival of these people. You would rather let them be homeless and starve. Does your minister agree with your viewpoint?

Yes, you and your ilk are becoming fewer and fewer. Thank Goodness for that!

What precisely do you want America gotten back to? An all-white government, women subservient to men, or Beaver Cleaver's father getting drunk after work and beating on his wife who endures it because she has no other choice?

Vote Hillary!

Why all the Ward Cleaver hate? Did someone steal your EBT card?

Originally Posted by Guest

Why all the Ward Cleaver hate? Did someone steal your EBT card?

No, my EBT card is safe. Thanks for asking.

As you know, Hugh Beaumont was an alcoholic. It was quite common for husbands to batter their wife in the 1950's and no place for the women to go or no options available for them except to take the beatings. Also, it was very common for fathers to beat their children - not the mild spankings but whipped with barber straps.

Do you want America going back to that? Of course not.

Originally Posted by Guest

The social services provided to the poor are necessary for the survival of these people. You would rather let them be homeless and starve. Does your minister agree with your viewpoint?

Yes, you and your ilk are becoming fewer and fewer. Thank Goodness for that!

What precisely do you want America gotten back to? An all-white government, women subservient to men, or Beaver Cleaver's father getting drunk after work and beating on his wife who endures it because she has no other choice?

Vote Hillary!

Funny how you can take a specific and turn it into a general statement so that it fits the point you want to make.....even though it has absolutely no relationship or meaning to the intent of the original post.

As far as getting America back to what some of refer to....if you have to ask....you have no idea and your attitude does not warrant any discussion.

And the icing on the cake of totally inconsiderate head up your a$$ ignorance is highlighted above.

And we also know you have no objective what so ever other than to bait.
Doesn't take much knowledge or understanding to do that.

Originally Posted by Guest

No, my EBT card is safe. Thanks for asking.

As you know, Hugh Beaumont was an alcoholic. It was quite common for husbands to batter their wife in the 1950's and no place for the women to go or no options available for them except to take the beatings. Also, it was very common for fathers to beat their children - not the mild spankings but whipped with barber straps.

Do you want America going back to that? Of course not.

It is in poor taste to disparage the late Hugh Beaumont and his character, Ward Cleaver, and insinuate that one or both beat their wives without any proof. Some might suggest that your are the one deserving of a beating.

Originally Posted by Guest

It is in poor taste to disparage the late Hugh Beaumont and his character, Ward Cleaver, and insinuate that one or both beat their wives without any proof. Some might suggest that your are the one deserving of a beating.

You understood this woman's point. When Leave It to Beaver was popular it was more likely that when domestic violence occurred, men being physically larger then women, were more likely to get off on charges. You knew she didn't mean Beaumont in particular.
So what is your cowardly response.
Maybe the woman making the post should get beat up. You made her point.