DescentBB

go to his website if you wish to read his entire statement.

Good grief! Where's Webb in the press? He needs to get front and center everywhere. I'm tired of Hillary this and Hillary that. She needs to go bye bye.

she will. The game is still young, and right now the Donald sideshow sucks the air out of the whole matter. You'll see and hear plenty from Jim. Quite a few very favorable newspaper writeups and three news channel appearances in the last week and a half.

tunnelcat wrote:Good grief! Where's Webb in the press? He needs to get front and center everywhere. I'm tired of Hillary this and Hillary that. She needs to go bye bye.

Hillary Clinton may have a tough time running her canpaign from jail

"WASHINGTON — Two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state, senior government officials said Thursday."

WASHINGTON—An internal government review found that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent at least four emails from her personal account containing classified information during her time heading the State Department.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/investigati ... 1437714369

she isn't going to jail. She likely isn't even going to get the Attorney General's office appointing an investigator, let alone bringing an indictment.

WSJ? wrote:WASHINGTON—An internal government review found that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton sent at least four emails from her personal account containing classified information during her time heading the State Department.

AP wrote:None of the emails were marked as classified at the time they were sent or received, but some should have been handled as such and sent on a secure computer network, said the letter sent to congressional oversight committees.

Not to defend her, I don't much care. It would seem to me if she really wanted to be nefarious, she would've used both the government server and her private server. Use the government server for the happy 'look i'm doing my job' stuff, and use her personal server when talking about the CLINTON BODY COUNT™.

I'm more curious as to whether the email travels across the internet unencrypted through either service. I would imagine using the government service, internal email doesn't touch the internet. (I'm guessing they're using Blackberry Enterprise or similar) But what about external mail? Are emails to external recipients PGP encrypted? Signed? Where the emails she was sending through her private server encrypted?

Once again the press goes out of it's way to protect a Demoscammer:

"The paper (New York Times) initially reported that two inspectors general have asked the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation "into whether Hillary Rodham Clinton mishandled sensitive government information on a private email account she used as secretary of state."

That clause, which cast Clinton as the target of the potential criminal probe, was later changed: the inspectors general now were asking for an inquiry "into whether sensitive government information was mishandled in connection with the personal email account Hillary Rodham Clinton used as secretary of state."

The Times also changed the headline of the story, from "Criminal Inquiry Sought in Hillary Clinton’s Use of Email" to "Criminal Inquiry Is Sought in Clinton Email Account," reflecting a similar recasting of Clinton's possible role. The article's URL was also changed to reflect the new headline."

Tell me something slick, does Hillary receive a get out of jail free card because she is innocent or because her last name is Clinton.

she gets out of jail because she technically violated no laws. As I noted at the outset, it DOES show a mentality I'd prefer to avoid in a President, which is why I'm supporting someone else.

Shorter woodchip: wahhh facts have a liberal bias wahhh

Vander wrote:Shorter woodchip: wahhh facts have a liberal bias wahhh

I have absolutely no idea what you're posting about.

That's not shocking. I will draw you a picture. You have claimed the press is "once again" going out of it's way to protect a "Demoscammer." Your evidence is the changing of a NYT article whose initial claim was inaccurate. Rather than accepting the new, more accurate version, you claim the change as a show of bias in favor of Clinton instead of bias in favor of accuracy.

Nevermind that the inaccuracy of the original report has shown Clinton in a disfavorable light. One might consider that bias against Clinton.

But yeah, I don't care much for another Clinton presidency, and all the baggage that comes along with it. This stuff can be directed at anyone, but with the Clintons there seems to be a lot of muscle memory.

Jim Webb. I haven't heard his views on foreign policy.

Vander wrote:That's not shocking. I will draw you a picture. You have claimed the press is "once again" going out of it's way to protect a "Demoscammer." Your evidence is the changing of a NYT article whose initial claim was inaccurate. Rather than accepting the new, more accurate version, you claim the change as a show of bias in favor of Clinton instead of bias in favor of accuracy.

and where do you get the first version was inaccurate?

Other than the actual change?

http://www.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton ... ils-357246

It's basically 'Clinton mishandled email' vs 'Clinton's email mishandled.'