The Justice Department has seized Hillary Clinton's infamous server.

 

She said she never sent classified information on her private server. They took a random sample of 40 emails and 4 of them were classified... 2 of those were the second highest top secret classification possible. If 10% of the 55,000 emails she turned over contain classified information... well you do the math. She turned over a thumb drive to her attorney with the contents of her server, which means she gave top secret documents to how many people without clearance?

 

http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/11/politics/hillary-clinton-email-server-justice-department/index.html

 

She's a liar of the first order, and they ruined General David Petraeus' career with a fraction of the same crime. Democrats better start "Feelin' the Bern".

Edited August 12, 201511 yr by Lysistrata

Revoking the deal after the next election would be an utterly utterly stupid thing to do. 

 

No one would trust the US to ever keep to its agreements again, and the only way to deal with Iran in the future would be via war as there would be no way that any political leader there could risk negotiating with the US again. And given that Iran is no Iraq, there would basically be no way to deal with them as the US does not have the military capacity to carry out a war. 

In thinking of writing a letter to Obama, get an autograph, and send a copy to you Lys.

 

I remember that W. Bush ran a program which would send an autographed letter congratulating a citizen for important events, provided someone requested it online. The yellowest-doggiest democrat I knew got a letter congratulating her for moving into a new house. She ended up burning it on the street in front of her house.

 

An Iran deal is something any Republican candidate would refuse on principle, but it's doubtful they would turn it over after the fact. They work better when they have a scapegoat for fallout.

Revoking the deal after the next election would be an utterly utterly stupid thing to do. 

 

No one would trust the US to ever keep to its agreements again, and the only way to deal with Iran in the future would be via war as there would be no way that any political leader there could risk negotiating with the US again. And given that Iran is no Iraq, there would basically be no way to deal with them as the US does not have the military capacity to carry out a war. 

Question: Is this an agreement that the American people approve? The point is... John Kerry made a deal that an overwhelming majority of the United States does not agree with. I believe there will be a war within 2 years, and it's because of this deal. Congress does not approve, therefore it is not a sanctioned and legally binding contract. It's just another Obama executive order that dies when he leaves office. Israel will probably attack when they have a US President that will support them... because that is a deal that had the approval of Congress. Crossing the people here has vast consequences, and I find your declaration that the US does not have the military capacity to carry out a war completely laughable. We could turn Iran into a wasteland without even setting foot in that despicable place. I have always known that we could just as easily drill through glass.

Republicans had opposed it from day 1, Republicans opposed it even without reading a damn word. So they are opposing it just for the sake of it. So Democrats are quite right in saying the deal would have been opposed by Republicans no matter what.

 

The deal is as constitutional as the veto is, which itself is legal and constitutional and an important tool to ensure the government keeps working and moving forward and not get hampered by partisan politics. It is the state of USA that is entering into agreement with several allied states in UNSC, not United States of Obama.

 

Another big assumption is 1. A republican will be the president 2. A republican will roll it back, it seemed that everyone has been diplotalking on the deal. You can roll it back sure, but you'd be the only one, a super power isolating itself by the stupidity of GOP in general and lobbby money in particular, another great feat for the GOP.

 

Overwhelming majority was so excited about Iraq war too. Today, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are despised, even a republican Presidential candidate is ahamed and afraid to utter the name of his brother.

 

PR can swing opinions in short and medium terms and there are millions flowing in PR by AIPAC.

Edited September 3, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

 

 

Another big assumption is 1. A republican will be the president

This is the only thing you said that has anything to do with this thread. Who is the Democrat that will win?

 

Cheryl Mills, a Hillary Clinton aide, is testifying today. Brian Pagliano, a Hillary Clinton aide, and the man responsible for setting up her private server, is expected to testify on September 10th and is said to be ready to plead the 5th amendment in order to not incriminate himself. Once he takes the 5th, then this all blows up. So my assumption that a Republican will be President comes from the fact that the Democrats have no one to run that can beat the Republican.

 

When a Republican takes office, the first order of business will be to begin the long task of undoing everything Obama has done... what he has done when he had Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi to do his dirty work for him, and after when he only had his phone and his pen... everything that has weakened the United States in every inch of our government, to every corner of the world. It will all be erased, and Jimmy Carter can breathe easy knowing he is no longer considered the worst President in US history.

 

Brian Pagliano, a Hillary Clinton aide, and the man responsible for setting up her private server, is expected to testify on September 10th and is said to be ready to plead the 5th amendment in order to not incriminate himself. Once he takes the 5th, then this all blows up.

aaaah so he is the dude that did it, who gave him the clearance and know-how to do it? Cause again I doubt she just had to set-up her outlook with the mail password

 

 

Brian Pagliano, a Hillary Clinton aide, and the man responsible for setting up her private server, is expected to testify on September 10th and is said to be ready to plead the 5th amendment in order to not incriminate himself. Once he takes the 5th, then this all blows up.

aaaah so he is the dude that did it, who gave him the clearance and know-how to do it? Cause again I doubt she just had to set-up her outlook with the mail password

 

Not really getting your point here. Brian Pagliano is a former IT employee and Hillary Clinton aide. He set up a private email server in the Clinton home in Chappaqua, New York. It's illegal for the Secretary of State to store classified information on a private server at their home. It's also illegal for the Secretary of State to monitor their own actions, and destroy US property. Mr. Pagliano, in one way of saying it, knows where all the bodies are buried. My guess is he will be granted immunity from prosecution in exchange for his full cooperation.

 

I knew it would happen, and it has. A hacker has offered all 32,000 of the emails she tried to delete, for a cool half million. My guess is the deal has already been made since Sean Hannity and Donald Trump were just joking about it on TV a couple weeks ago that they would split the cost of the information. If a hacker has them... the FBI has them too.

 

http://radaronline.com/celebrity-news/hillary-clinton-hacked-emails-sale/

And I am just wondering who made the mail available to said server. You don't happen to think she just has to fire up her mail-processor, set-up the right password and delivery server info and be happy to start now do you?

And I am just wondering who made the mail available to said server. You don't happen to think she just has to fire up her mail-processor, set-up the right password and delivery server info and be happy to start now do you?

Once again I don't understand what you are saying. She had a "private server". One that only her people had access to. One that was not behind the State Department security. She wanted complete control over her emails, and wanted complete control over anyone who sees them. It didn't work... and everyone would have told it wouldn't work if they were ever asked. She should go to jail.

 

The running joke is... "Hey Hillary... You've Got Jail!"

And I am just wondering who made the mail available to said server. You don't happen to think she just has to fire up her mail-processor, set-up the right password and delivery server info and be happy to start now do you?

She used private email for job purposes, you know..you use office mail for office stuff, on and off you could rarely use personal email for some basic office stuff, but here she set up mail server for just this purpose. Also, her office happens to be that of SoS of USA, how stupid is that. (Still better than the misogynistic, xenophobic, war mongering, discriminating, and plutocratic views of GoP)

 

Clinton is going to drown out again.

Edited September 4, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

 

 

(Still better than the misogynistic, xenophobic, war mongering, discriminating, and plutocratic views of GoP)

 

Really Shah? You sound a little frightened. Everyone knows you guys in the Mid-East are much more tolerant.

 

Tell me... what would happen to someone in a similar situation where you come from?

What would your authorities do if some low level government employee said, "I'm taking the 5th!"?

 

My guess is he would be thrown off a building.

 

(Still better than the misogynistic, xenophobic, war mongering, discriminating, and plutocratic views of GoP)

 

Really Shah? You sound a little frightened. Everyone knows you guys in the Mid-East are much more tolerant.

 

Tell me... what would happen to someone in a similar situation where you come from?

What would your authorities do if some low level government employee said, "I'm taking the 5th!"?

 

My guess is he would be thrown off a building.

 

Or they'd cover it up. Or throw the prosecutor off the building.

 

But yeah, Hilary compromised the country's security. There's no denying that. Instead of trusting her employees at the State Department who actually knew how to set everything up, she set up a private email server with official mail specifically so they couldn't watch it. While not directly incriminating, it's shady as hell. Then having that system compromised is just extra.

 

I'm still too cynical to believe she'll get jail time, but I'm hoping it costs her the candidacy.

 

Revoking the deal after the next election would be an utterly utterly stupid thing to do. 

 

No one would trust the US to ever keep to its agreements again, and the only way to deal with Iran in the future would be via war as there would be no way that any political leader there could risk negotiating with the US again. And given that Iran is no Iraq, there would basically be no way to deal with them as the US does not have the military capacity to carry out a war. 

Question: Is this an agreement that the American people approve? The point is... John Kerry made a deal that an overwhelming majority of the United States does not agree with. I believe there will be a war within 2 years, and it's because of this deal. Congress does not approve, therefore it is not a sanctioned and legally binding contract. It's just another Obama executive order that dies when he leaves office. Israel will probably attack when they have a US President that will support them... because that is a deal that had the approval of Congress. Crossing the people here has vast consequences, and I find your declaration that the US does not have the military capacity to carry out a war completely laughable. We could turn Iran into a wasteland without even setting foot in that despicable place. I have always known that we could just as easily drill through glass.

 

What do you think the military options are with Iran? 

 

1) Nuclear strike? Politically impossible, and would permanently sever most global relationships

2) Mass bombing campaign? Maybe, but Iran actually has some decent Anti-Aircraft weaponry (unlike Iraq, Libya or Syria) so there would be losses.Civilian targets are off limits as usual, and miltiary targets will be fairly well defended. Mass bombing campaigns in Iraq were not all that successful, and IS seem well able to withstand it. Add in that the US fleets in the gulf of persia immediately become very vulnerable to anti-ship missiles, as do all the freighters in the gulf, and you have a recipe for a very long, drawn out, and probably fruitless mission. 

3) Ground troops...in a Country three times the size and with a far better military than Iraq. It would be hell. 

 

Overall, a war with Iran would burn massive international and domestic capital for anyone carrying it out, it would be expensive, and whilst it might be possible to defeat Iran, it would not be possible for the US to emerge as a victor either. The only groups that could gain would be groups like Islamic State, and countries like Russia and China watching the US burn all its money again.

 

And I am just wondering who made the mail available to said server. You don't happen to think she just has to fire up her mail-processor, set-up the right password and delivery server info and be happy to start now do you?

Once again I don't understand what you are saying. She had a "private server". One that only her people had access to. One that was not behind the State Department security. She wanted complete control over her emails, and wanted complete control over anyone who sees them. It didn't work... and everyone would have told it wouldn't work if they were ever asked. She should go to jail.

 

 

Its all about what kind of mails she actually received on it, as I doubt she could just "hook it up" and receive every governmental mail, ranging from "whats nexts week lunch menu" up until "Plan Y on herassing enemy Z to pleasure friend X". Hence I am wondering what kind of "aid" she received in setting it up. If she really received any kind of sensitive material, which was sent thruw encryption into the 11th dimension, someone had to set her up for that. You don't tap into an embassy's secure line with a run-off-the-mill server, basic software and just the right 8-digit password.

 

Thusfar of the mails revealed, a fraction have been censorred, and knowing what the US likes to do in censorring, who says they weren't censorred post-date? Heck they could be censorring stuff just to make her look bad. Nobody knows what below the black lines, perhaps she was asking for a cupcake recipy >_>

 

 

I agree that the ethic itself is bad, the infringement scale is something neither of us know thou.

 

also for a kicker, if indeed some hacker got ALL the mails, howmuch chance is it that the hacker got them from Clinton's server pre-blowup or got it from the Justice or Fireighn Affairs department

 

 

Revoking the deal after the next election would be an utterly utterly stupid thing to do. 

 

No one would trust the US to ever keep to its agreements again, and the only way to deal with Iran in the future would be via war as there would be no way that any political leader there could risk negotiating with the US again. And given that Iran is no Iraq, there would basically be no way to deal with them as the US does not have the military capacity to carry out a war. 

Question: Is this an agreement that the American people approve? The point is... John Kerry made a deal that an overwhelming majority of the United States does not agree with. I believe there will be a war within 2 years, and it's because of this deal. Congress does not approve, therefore it is not a sanctioned and legally binding contract. It's just another Obama executive order that dies when he leaves office. Israel will probably attack when they have a US President that will support them... because that is a deal that had the approval of Congress. Crossing the people here has vast consequences, and I find your declaration that the US does not have the military capacity to carry out a war completely laughable. We could turn Iran into a wasteland without even setting foot in that despicable place. I have always known that we could just as easily drill through glass.

 

What do you think the military options are with Iran? 

 

2) Mass bombing campaign? Maybe, but Iran actually has some decent Anti-Aircraft weaponry (unlike Iraq, Libya or Syria) so there would be losses.Civilian targets are off limits as usual, and miltiary targets will be fairly well defended. Mass bombing campaigns in Iraq were not all that successful, and IS seem well able to withstand it. Add in that the US fleets in the gulf of persia immediately become very vulnerable to anti-ship missiles, as do all the freighters in the gulf, and you have a recipe for a very long, drawn out, and probably fruitless mission. 

 

I wouldn't say massive, but I think somebody could orchestrate a targeted bombing campaign. Enough is known about their facilities to seriously set back their nuclear program. They build it again, then bomb it again. Iraq was kept from developing nuclear weapons after the Gulf War, despite W. Bush's assertions to the contrary. That proves that a country can be kept from producing these sorts of weapons.

 

Iran is a theocracy that values religious dogma over human life, whether Persian or global. Allowing them to develop nukes would be a disaster, because they would not hesitate to use them without regard to their own safety. An Iranian A-bomb WOULD be used in a first strike for religious ideology. That's what makes it dangerous. You cannot negotiate with a cult member that has a nuke. You shoot them in the head and hope their children survive to be put in a foster home.

 

That's probably the biggest thing that the liberal left does not get about ultra-conservative Muslims. Ultra-religious Abrahamists (Christian, Muslim, or Jewish) do NOT value life. They value their soul. That makes it easy to push them into violent and suicidal acts. Give them an illusion of threat to their soul, or a loved one's soul, and they will do whatever you tell them to do. A lot of the time, Abrahamists definitely don't value non-believers, and use various methods to de-personify anyone that does not match their belief system, which makes it easier to kill them. Conservatives in America get it because the vast majority either are or associate with extreme Abrahamists.

 

Liberals see everyone as a human being that values their own life, but don't realize that other cultures don't reciprocate that world view.

 

Don't let North Korea fool you. The Kims may not value Korean or other lives, but they value their own. That's why they have never launched a nuke, because it would be their end. Theocrats don't value their own life or the world, especially Abrahamists with an apocalyptic worldview. They would rather end history than be a part of a secular present.

I don't agree with your assessment of Iran. They may be a theocracy and have strong rhetoric, but every action they take is more consistent with wanting to be a regional power rather than wanting to bring about Holy War. 

I don't agree with your assessment of Iran. They may be a theocracy and have strong rhetoric, but every action they take is more consistent with wanting to be a regional power rather than wanting to bring about Holy War. 

Just change the name and it's the same thing.

 

"I don't agree with your assessment of ISIS. They may be a theocracy and have strong rhetoric, but every action they take is more consistent with wanting to be a regional power rather than wanting to bring about Holy War."

 

I don't know where you are getting your information, but Iran is not a friendly nation. They support and finance terrorism, they are not good neighbors, and they have openly declared their intentions to destroy us. Let's let them create nuclear weapons... yeah that's real smart. There is nothing in their history that gives us any hope that any deal they make will be followed. I believe their religion exempts them from complying with deals made with "infidels". They will say anything you want to hear to get their money and room to complete their goals. There will be a war now, it's only a matter of time.

 

What's Hillary's position on the Iran deal? I guess you're desperately trying to avoid the topic. Survey USA came out with the first national poll showing Donald Trump now ahead of Hillary Clinton 45-40. Draft Biden or get on board with Bernie... she's goin' down quick.

Who is letting them create nukes? This deal does not takes military option OFF the table. In fact, it makes Iran far more easier to be caught cheating than today and longers their break out time should they choose to take that path.

 

I do not for a second think USA is going to cut down on any intelligence monitoring.

 

 

"

They support and finance terrorism, they are not good neighbors, and they have openly declared their intentions to destroy us"

 

For a moment I thought you were speaking of GOP foriegn policy.

 

Duderonomy, you are right, some liberals take a very naive world view that everyone is bound to reciprocate a very humane world view, which is unfortunately not true, but IMO it is still better then bomb first talk later.which is the other extreme view. An ideal one is you know, you see who you are talking too. There is a world of difference between Iran's democracy under theocracy and ISIS's cult. They simply cannot be compared even tho on surface it makes for a good rhetoric, its kinda like saying what Nazis did to Jews is similar to what zionist Jews are doing go Palestinians. This kind of rhetoric over simplifies an othervise complex and vastly different scenarios, really dumbs it down to be sold to say someone who wouldn't know where Middle east on map.

 

Off course the regime isn't friendly to US, you are actually trying to overthrow them by supporting fringe groups there.

Edited September 11, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

Edit: won't fix grammer/auto corrects on mobile.

 

Also, yea my gut tells me that Hillary is going down, there is a wave of support for players percieved as non establishment on both sides. Hillary exemplifies the holier than thou arrogance of politicians who feel they're better than the average joe. What she lacks is the authenticity. She says what needs to be said rather than she truly believes in, or at least that's the vibe she gives off, same is true for many other contenders on other side. And they're all loosing the support.

 

This is going to be all very interesting.

 

Biden is a good person, but I feel he is also riding on a bit of sympathy. Either way, he needs to make up his mind. His entry will hurt Hillary the most.

Edited September 11, 201511 yr by Shahenshah

I need to stop reading Lysistrata posts, I hope he hates gays and people of other races too because I really have no respect for Americans who hate foreigners but like gays and people of different races that are American.

I mean if you're going to be ignorant about people from other countries don't be just an American pride dick head, dislike Americans too. 

I need to stop reading Lysistrata posts, I hope he hates gays and people of other races too because I really have no respect for Americans who hate foreigners but like gays and people of different races that are American.

I mean if you're going to be ignorant about people from other countries don't be just an American pride dick head, dislike Americans too. 

I do not hate foreigners, gays, or people of other races... I don't know where you get this from. I do love my country, those that respect the law, take responsibility for their lives, care about people, and contribute to society. I think you have issues with Americans, and that makes you the one that is hating foreigners. The USA is the most successful country in the entire history of the world... that is fact. I have no problem saying that, but you, for some reason, just don't like hearing it.

 

Hello Shah... the anti-establishment candidates are all Republican. Donald Trump, Ben Carson, and Carly Fiorina have not spent a single day in elected office. The Democrats are all establishment. Bernie Sanders has been a politician for over 40 years, which puts him right up there with the most establishment of all. They are career politicians, and that's what "establishment" means. Being a socialist doesn't make you anti-establishment... it makes you anti-capitalist.

 

We have a debate on CNN on Wednesday. Rick Perry dropped out and soon there will be more. I think this is the last chance to take down Trump. His support is increasing, and when it touches into the 40's, there will be no stopping him. What amazes me the most is he is winning in Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina. No one wins all three. This means it's a populist movement. The same thing that elected Barack Obama in 2008. No one cares about qualifications anymore... it's all about popularity.

Honestly I don't know how to speak to someone so ignorant and war crazed, I just typed out something and I think I said cunt maybe 8 times with some other terms thrown in as well to make it diverse. Having cunt showing up without any variation really does cunt no favors. 

 

So yeah you're a war crazed lunatic which has nothing to do with you being American, you could be British but most war crazed lunatics like yourself are from the US.

I'm not sure how you don't know how much of a lunatic you're, I only started paying attention to this section of the forum but in my short time a lot of posts from you regarding foreign countries other than America were filled with contempt, aggression and ignorance. 

But please talk about you think America is the most successful country, the only successful thing about America atm is it's military so I guess it goes full circle in that you're war crazed because of your military. 

 

 

Honestly I don't know how to speak to someone so ignorant and war crazed

 

Then just be content with your own ignorance and don't speak to me. 

I personally don't understand this desperate need for an anti-establishment figure. It seems odd that Government is the one career choicer were previous career experience counts against you.I mean, if interviewing for a lorry driver you have one candidate with 20 years experience driving a lorry, and one candidate who has spent 20 years as a bricklayer but thinks lorries are totally cool, you don't put the bricklayer in place because they are an outsider and will shake things up. 

 

Just realised, for the non-native English speakers (namely the Americans), lorry has the same meaning as truck in your garbled gutter tongue. 

I personally don't understand this desperate need for an anti-establishment figure. It seems odd that Government is the one career choicer were previous career experience counts against you.I mean, if interviewing for a lorry driver you have one candidate with 20 years experience driving a lorry, and one candidate who has spent 20 years as a bricklayer but thinks lorries are totally cool, you don't put the bricklayer in place because they are an outsider and will shake things up. 

 

Just realised, for the non-native English speakers (namely the Americans), lorry has the same meaning as truck in your garbled gutter tongue. 

Elected office should be more about service and giving back, and less about self enrichment. That's why we have term limits. Congressmen and Senators do not have such limits, therefore we get these people that only visit the state they represent during fall recess. They come and say everything we want to hear, and make promises they never intend to keep, just so they can get re-elected and go back to Washington DC to make deals to make themselves, and their donors, rich. We are sick of it.

 

Having the most experience in fundraising, and becoming the best liar, does not best qualify you to be President.

It's high time we have a successful American citizen take office and get things done for a change.

 

Did that explain it okay? ... even if it's garbled gutter tongue? Check under the hood... I mean bonnet. Take the elevator... I mean lift. Maybe go smoke a cigarette... I mean fag... sorry for the gutter tongue dude