Hillary LOL (f/k/a Hillary Clinton Indictment Watch f/k/a Hillary 2016?)

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Do the non-hillary people that continuously deflect/defend/justify her actions really think this isn't a big deal? Seriously, you guys are okay with this?

[gatoveintisiete]

Don't forget volunteer for her 08 campaign.

[MakeItRain]

I don't think anyone is going to answer, fsd.

[CNS]

Do the hillary people really think this isn't a big deal? Seriously, you guys are okay with this?

I assume I am lumped into this group by some here.  No, I am not ok with this. 

[MakeItRain]

Do the hillary people really think this isn't a big deal? Seriously, you guys are okay with this?

I assume I am lumped into this group by some here.  No, I am not ok with this.

  you're a Hillary supporter?

[chuckjames]

The party of pathological liars as front runners and a I'll say anything to get elected candidate even if I totally model my ideals off of countries that are in reality moving Center-Right and in the process of reassessing their failed quests for socialists utopias (while being overrun with dangerous Middle Eastern Refugees) . . . will do anything to maintain power.

How . . . sad

I enjoyed this post very much. It is peak Dax.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

I just checked cbsnews.com, abcnews.com, nbcnews.com, cnn.com, foxnews.com, washingtonpost.com, and nytimes.com this white hot, scathing Hillary story only appears on three of the sites.
1. 8th headline on cbsnews.com
2. 6th headline on cnn.com but the story is mostly about Chuck Grassley's reaction to the email release
3. 16th headline on washingtonpost.com

No headline on the front of foxnews.com that website is something else though, it is amazing.

I guess America is too preoccupied with El Chapo, the lottery, the Philadelphia cop, the NFL playoffs, the batshit crazy racist Maine Gov, and the affulenza teen mom to care about Hillary's emails from five years ago.

Are you making the point that this is not an important story, or are you making the point that the liberal media would prefer this not to be an important story? One of those I agree with.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I don't think anyone is going to answer, fsd.

Probably ought to tone back calling Cruz a hypocrit for a while.

[MakeItRain]

I just checked cbsnews.com, abcnews.com, nbcnews.com, cnn.com, foxnews.com, washingtonpost.com, and nytimes.com this white hot, scathing Hillary story only appears on three of the sites.
1. 8th headline on cbsnews.com
2. 6th headline on cnn.com but the story is mostly about Chuck Grassley's reaction to the email release
3. 16th headline on washingtonpost.com

No headline on the front of foxnews.com that website is something else though, it is amazing.

I guess America is too preoccupied with El Chapo, the lottery, the Philadelphia cop, the NFL playoffs, the batshit crazy racist Maine Gov, and the affulenza teen mom to care about Hillary's emails from five years ago.

Are you making the point that this is not an important story, or are you making the point that the liberal media would prefer this not to be an important story. One of those I agree with.

foxnews.com is liberal media?

[star seed 7]

Media 

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/08/latest-batch-clinton-emails-contains-66-more-classified-messages.html

The latest batch of emails released from Hillary Clinton's personal account from her tenure as secretary of state includes 66 messages deemed classified at some level, the State Department said early Friday.

In one email, Clinton even seemed to coach a top adviser on how to send secure information outside secure channels.

All but one of the 66 messages have been labeled "confidential", the lowest level of classification. The remaining email has been labeled as "secret." The total number of classified emails found on Clinton's personal server has risen to 1,340 with the latest release. Seven of those emails have been labeled "secret."

In all, the State Department released 1,262 messages in the early hours of Friday, making up almost 2,900 pages of emails. Unlike in previous releases, none of the messages were searchable in the department's online reading room by subject, sender or recipient.

Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has repeatedly maintained that she did not send or receive classified material on her personal account. The State Department claims none of the emails now marked classified were labled as such at the time they were sent.

However, one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means.

In response to Clinton's request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, "They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it." Clinton responds "If they can't, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

Ironically, an email thread from four months earlier shows Clinton saying she was "surprised" that a diplomatic oficer named John Godfrey used a personal email account to send a memo on Libya policy after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi.]The latest batch of emails released from Hillary Clinton's personal account from her tenure as secretary of state includes 66 messages deemed classified at some level, the State Department said early Friday.

In one email, Clinton even seemed to coach a top adviser on how to send secure information outside secure channels.

All but one of the 66 messages have been labeled "confidential", the lowest level of classification. The remaining email has been labeled as "secret." The total number of classified emails found on Clinton's personal server has risen to 1,340 with the latest release. Seven of those emails have been labeled "secret."

In all, the State Department released 1,262 messages in the early hours of Friday, making up almost 2,900 pages of emails. Unlike in previous releases, none of the messages were searchable in the department's online reading room by subject, sender or recipient.

Clinton, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination, has repeatedly maintained that she did not send or receive classified material on her personal account. The State Department claims none of the emails now marked classified were labled as such at the time they were sent.

However, one email thread from June 2011 appears to include Clinton telling her top adviser Jake Sullivan to send secure information through insecure means.

In response to Clinton's request for a set of since-redacted talking points, Sullivan writes, "They say they've had issues sending secure fax. They're working on it." Clinton responds "If they can't, turn into nonpaper [with] no identifying heading and send nonsecure."

Ironically, an email thread from four months earlier shows Clinton saying she was "surprised" that a diplomatic oficer named John Godfrey used a personal email account to send a memo on Libya policy after the fall of Muammar Qaddafi.

[CNS]

Do the hillary people really think this isn't a big deal? Seriously, you guys are okay with this?

I assume I am lumped into this group by some here.  No, I am not ok with this.

  you're a Hillary supporter?

I am not.  However, if you aren't signing up to kill illegals from a helicopter or trying to defund our education system this part of the board lumps you into the "libtard" category.  Because of that, I assume that I am also lumped into the Hill camp. 

[MakeItRain]

I don't think anyone is going to answer, fsd.

Probably ought to tone back calling Cruz a hypocrit for a while.

I'm confused as to who you are calling a hypocrite here. Also for the record the search function confirms I have never called Rafael a hypocrite.

[MakeItRain]

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/01/08/latest-batch-clinton-emails-contains-66-more-classified-messages.html

Read better, dummy.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I don't think anyone is going to answer, fsd.

Probably ought to tone back calling Cruz a hypocrit for a while.

I'm confused as to who you are calling a hypocrite here. Also for the record the search function confirms I have never called Rafael a hypocrite.

So he's a sociopath, but you aren't going to comment on hillary. Yeah, okay

[MakeItRain]

I don't think anyone is going to answer, fsd.

Probably ought to tone back calling Cruz a hypocrit for a while.

I'm confused as to who you are calling a hypocrite here. Also for the record the search function confirms I have never called Rafael a hypocrite.

So he's a sociopath, but you aren't going to comment on hillary. Yeah, okay

Sorry but for me sending emails on an unsecured server doesn't rise to the level of using your own children as political pawns. Also I have never called Rafael a sociopath either, he's definitely a piece of crap though. Whatever Hilz did or didn't do with those servers doesn't rise to the level of sociopath, if you want to think she's a piece of crap, it's well within your right to do so.

[michigancat]

I think Hillary is a piece of crap, but don't really care about the emails!

[Tobias]

this is like when mocat tried really hard to get that freight house nickname or whatever to stick

[star seed 7]

GE libtards: I don't like hilldawg, she's a piece of crap

GE regresocons: see! The libtards will do anything to defend their anointed princess

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

I don't think anyone is going to answer, fsd.

Probably ought to tone back calling Cruz a hypocrit for a while.

I'm confused as to who you are calling a hypocrite here. Also for the record the search function confirms I have never called Rafael a hypocrite.

So he's a sociopath, but you aren't going to comment on hillary. Yeah, okay

Sorry but for me sending emails on an unsecured server doesn't rise to the level of using your own children as political pawns. Also I have never called Rafael a sociopath either, he's definitely a piece of crap though. Whatever Hilz did or didn't do with those servers doesn't rise to the level of sociopath, if you want to think she's a piece of crap, it's well within your right to do so.

Seriously? You think using kids in a spoof political ads is worse and more reprehensible than the secretary of state recklessly conducting national security business through a private email account, in violation of internal policy and the law, obfuscating the investigation by withholding and destroying evidence, and repeatedly lying about the whole thing?

That's a new rational, moral and competence low for the libtard

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Yes, surprising position for a "moderate." I would think that for any rational person who is not a committed liberal ideologue, committing felonies to avoid open record requests and simultaneously exposing state secrets to hackers and foreign governments would be disqualifying for a presidential candidate. That is just an incredibly stupid, arrogant, corrupt, illegal thing to do.

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Even if it weren't illegal or didn't involve classified information, it is still horrible and should be disqualifying.

It shows a willingness to tell bald faced lies to to public and a disdain for justice, open government, basic internal controls and policy.  These things are fundamenally contrary to everything an elected leader would be expected to do in the same situation.

If this is how she'll conduct herself as president, there's no way she should be a choice.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

[michigancat]

one thing that amuses me about the classified emails is how much the right wing thinks the government should be trusted with secrets. If dear leader says it's secret, it's secret, and we have to trust them no matter what!