11–20 of 65 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
She is certainly not what you said. This video sums up her character perfectly https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtH7iv4ip1U Pure evil but you'll believe what you want.
As will you, yes?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am personally pro-Hillary, and she may be basically an honest person trying to do her job, but even I can see clearly that what she did was wrong. It was serious and shouldn't be hand-waved like it wasn't a big deal, even by supporters of her. Listing all these violations was essentially proof that she did something wrong.
If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her? http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email... Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?
Such as?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people who are determined to believe the fix is in, will believe the fix is in. Because what could be harder to believe than that Hillary Clinton is basically an honest person trying to do her job?
I am personally pro-Hillary, and she may be basically an honest person trying to do her job, but even I can see clearly that what she did was wrong. It was serious and shouldn't be hand-waved like it wasn't a big deal, even by supporters of her. Listing all these violations was essentially proof that she did something wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am personally pro-Hillary, and she may be basically an honest person trying to do her job, but even I can see clearly that what she did was wrong. It was serious and shouldn't be hand-waved like it wasn't a big deal, even by supporters of her. Listing all these violations was essentially proof that she did something wrong.
If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her? http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email... Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am personally pro-Hillary, and she may be basically an honest person trying to do her job, but even I can see clearly that what she did was wrong. It was serious and shouldn't be hand-waved like it wasn't a big deal, even by supporters of her. Listing all these violations was essentially proof that she did something wrong.
If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her? http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email... Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?
The law is the law. It should be held against all of them. This is akin to saying, 'well that robber got away with it in the past, why do you hold it against this gentlemen for stealing?'
>Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?
What do this have to do with the mishandling of classified info? If it's classified, it's classified; that it might have been classified erroneously or too liberally has nothing to do with the fact that it is currently classified and should be treated as such.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am personally pro-Hillary, and she may be basically an honest person trying to do her job, but even I can see clearly that what she did was wrong. It was serious and shouldn't be hand-waved like it wasn't a big deal, even by supporters of her. Listing all these violations was essentially proof that she did something wrong.
If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her? http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email... Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?
Two wrongs don't make a right. Should failure to prosecute prior crimes mean that charges for the same crimes in the future be dropped?
"Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?"
The regulations for declassification of classified material are quite clear about who is authorized to do it and when. Whether material is overclassified or not is as irrelevant as arguing that the quality of the diamond in a stolen ring should determine whether or not theft charges are filed against a suspect.
Edit: I cannot reply to @projectramo in the thread, who asked "Well, you can still go back and prosecute them now. Is that what you propose? That we also prosecute Rice and Powell?" My answer: yes, if the statute of limitations (if one exists in such a case) has not expired.
The law MUST be applied equally for all, or it is tyranny.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her? http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email... Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?
>previous people in the same position also had private servers Such as?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her? http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email... Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?
"If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her?" Two wrongs don't make a right. Should failure to prosecute prior crimes mean that charges for the same crimes in the future be dropped? "Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?" The regulat…
HN Discussion of actual FBI statement: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12037042
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am personally pro-Hillary, and she may be basically an honest person trying to do her job, but even I can see clearly that what she did was wrong. It was serious and shouldn't be hand-waved like it wasn't a big deal, even by supporters of her. Listing all these violations was essentially proof that she did something wrong.
If you believe that previous people in the same position also had private servers and received classified information on them, why do you hold it against her? http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email... Do you not believe that things are "overly" classified, and are liberally and retroactively labelled as such?