Classified Hillary e-mail contained embassy security issues, sensitive diplomatic discussions
posted at 10:01 am on August 25, 2015 by Ed Morrissey
We already got a hint of this last week, when Fox News identified some of the subject matter in now-redacted e-mails from Hillary Clinton’s secret server — the part of the cache she shared, anyway. Two of the e-mails that got retroactively classified dealt with security issues in Benghazi and military intelligence on Libyan troop movements. The classification codes on those redactions from State suggest that, despite Hillary’s disclaimers, those materials were classified at the time those e-mails were sent.
The Washington Examiner’s Sarah Westwood took a deeper look at the redactions from State, and discovered that these were no fluke. The redactions involve high-level diplomatic discussions, embassy security issues, and even one about the travels of Jim Webb, who is now her opponent for the Democratic presidential nomination. Furthermore, Westwood notes that Hillary wrote some of those e-mails herself:
Despite her campaign’s claims that Clinton was simply a “passive recipient” of classified information, a review of her emails indicates she wrote messages that are now classified.
For example, in July 2009, she discussed relations with Russia and Afghanistan with then-Deputy Secretary William Burns in an email that has been partially classified. She also discussed her travel plans with Burns over the private network.
Another exchange drips with irony. Eric Boswell ended up as a scapegoat for the failure of State to adequately protect the consulate in Benghazi, thanks in large part to the so-called Accountability Review Board that magically decided that no one at the political appointment level should be accountable for this failure. Boswell had raised security issues at other embassies in a meeting three years earlier, raising the kind of vulnerabilities that State would not want out in public. And yet, Huma Abedin passed them along through an unencrypted, unsecured server to Hillary:
Huma Abedin, Clinton’s former deputy chief of staff, forwarded a summary of a high-level Sept. 2009 meeting to Clinton in which she detailed the “embassy security issues” that were discussed.
The issues had been raised by Eric Boswell, a diplomatic security official who was later forced to resign in the wake of the 2012 terror attack in Benghazi.
Here’s the classification note added to the page under the redactions:
Declassification dates are set for 10 years after material is first classified. The e-mail was created and sent by Daniel Smith to Abedin, Cheryl Mills, and Jake Sullivan on September 21, 2009, and forwarded two minutes later by Abedin to Hillary Clinton. The declassify date of 9/21/2019 shows that State considered this information classified at that time — as well it should, since it disclosed embassy security gaps and vulnerabilities. Only an idiot would send something like that in the open, and yet that’s exactly what happened.
The exchange noted by Westwood where Hillary sent classified data is perhaps a bit more comical. Now-retired Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns sent Hillary an e-mail with data that was classified during the review of her cache. Burns apparently sent it on a web-based e-mail service, because the footer has an ad for Free Credit Report. An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! Clearly, this is not a secure method of communications, and yet Hillary replies to it while also tossing in sensitive information, now classified, as an afterthought at the end of the reply.
There is no other way to describe this than willful disregard of laws and protocols pertaining to national security protections. The materials exposed here might be more sensitive and potentially dangerous than some of the Wikileaks material exposed by Bradley Manning, especially for diplomatic security. And yet, Hillary Clinton wants to run for the office which carries the ultimate responsibility for enforcing those laws and securing the nation’s sensitive data.
Related Posts:
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Sadly for you, an ongoing FBI investigation is not “some unsupported conspiracy theory”, except on your 5-ringed planet.
F-
Hillary blamed her husband’s adultery in the Oval Office not on him, but on Republicans. Was that an “unsupported conspiracy theory” as well?
(Starts sundial farm)
Del Dolemonte on August 25, 2015 at 12:40 PM
Hillary’s “yes men,” her firewall:
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/423015/hillary-clinton-emails-inner-circle-yes-men
onlineanalyst on August 25, 2015 at 12:40 PM
Funny. I remember you lefties cackling and giggling and cheering for that exact treatment of Sarah Palin, who didn’t actually break any laws.
fossten on August 25, 2015 at 12:56 PM
I would ruin that. WTF is wrong with Anthony?
Arnold Yabenson on August 25, 2015 at 12:56 PM
Calling Abedin and Shillary this is called a “blinding flash of the obvious”.
TulsAmerican on August 25, 2015 at 12:58 PM
That’s exactly what Hillary said.
DFCtomm on August 25, 2015 at 1:05 PM
Seriously, Ed???? The emails didn’t get retroactively classified. They were retroactively MARKED classified.
How many times does this need to be explained to you.
blink on August 25, 2015 at 1:33 PM
Don’t forget…
… People were killed.
Seven Percent Solution on August 25, 2015 at 1:40 PM
You can’t be serious. Hillary has been PROTECTED because of her politics much more than she has been attacked because of it.
She lied to the American people about the cause of the Benghazi attacks because the truth made her and Obama look bad. But because of her politics, the media has completely protected her from that by touting the nonsense claim that CIA backed her up.
General Petraeus is now a convicted felon for having done much less than Hillary, but he wasn’t protected because of his politics.
I have no doubt that you’d cry about conspiracy if Hillary was caught by multiple witnesses stabbing someone in the chest. You’re a partisan tool.
blink on August 25, 2015 at 1:44 PM
Hmm, Something like:
Or maybe I just imagined it. I’m sure it was unintentional.
There Goes the Neighborhood on August 25, 2015 at 1:48 PM
Hillary for Jail!
Krupnikas on August 25, 2015 at 1:56 PM
Hillary, meet your cellmate, Toby Miles.
jangle12 on August 25, 2015 at 2:00 PM
Concise.
If you’re going to pop up on these threads all the time and remind us you’re an idiot, I suppose it’s good that you’re concise.
There Goes the Neighborhood on August 25, 2015 at 2:00 PM
I don’t think Huma would ever have considered being a whistle blower… I was merely pointing out that all this (sending classified documents) stems from Killary’s insistence on using a private email server.
While Ed may try to make Huma the idiot – that honor should go to the person who decided to bypass congressional oversight by setting up her own server.
Hill60 on August 25, 2015 at 2:07 PM
Morons have finally realized that the terrorists knew of Stevens location from Hillary’s server. Savage had this on his show last week.
alanstern on August 25, 2015 at 2:25 PM
*checks thread*
anything new actually substantiated?
Nope.
Very well, carry on with your assumptions and fallacies.
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 2:28 PM
How many @clintonmail.com addresses were contained in the Ashley Madison data-dump?
Another Drew on August 25, 2015 at 2:39 PM
Hillary is a documented liar, a documented false accuser (White House Travel Office), circumvents security, covers up her husband’s well-known infidelity and sexual assaults, uses the government to target her enemies — again, White House Travel Office and keeping FBI files of her adversaries,and people no longer useful to her have this strange but purely coincidental way of winding up dead, as Vince Foster, Ron Brown, Web Hubbell, and Christopher Stevens have found out.
Oh, wait, you were looking for new information….
What’s funny is you can keep playing this “unsubstantiated” game throughout the unfolding investigation. Even if she’s convicted and serving time, or pardoned by Obama to keep her out of jail, you can still claim it was “unsubstantiated.”
But you can’t make everyone else believe it.
There Goes the Neighborhood on August 25, 2015 at 2:39 PM
If by resign you mean get shoved into another office out of sight so no one knows you still work for State, then yes, he resigned. Or if you mean he resigned that specific position, you would also be correct. My wife works in the same building he works in.
Patriot Vet on August 25, 2015 at 2:46 PM
Yes, the subject matter of some of the redacted emails.
blink on August 25, 2015 at 2:51 PM
blink on August 25, 2015 at 2:51 PM
What’s the big deal. She was Secretary of State. Of course she would have this kind of information. Now, if I were to have this kind of information then it would be serious trouble. You guys are making a big deal out of nothing. BTW, did the PIAPS ever release the video guy from jail?
steveracer on August 25, 2015 at 2:56 PM
Ok…person who thinks they are the smartest in the room, what exactly has Ms. Clinton done that makes her eminently qualified to be President of the United States of America?
Are you able to list 3 or 4 diplomatic successes?
Can you cite 3 or 4 senate bills that she authored and saw passed that have improved the lot of women, men, children of the US?
Please enlighten us.
Neitherleftorright on August 25, 2015 at 3:01 PM
And I have little doubt it’d take very very little for you and many to believe she did just stab someone in the chest.
Lack of evidence has never been an obstacle.
I’m picturing a flurry of theories of where and when she got rid of the bloody knife (that doesn’t exist) or hide the body (of the person was never killed).
verbaluce on August 25, 2015 at 3:04 PM
Hey, speaking of substantiated, what happened to substantiating your claims with facts from the questions they elicit? It’s not like you weren’t provided with all the additional information you requested…
The Schaef on August 25, 2015 at 3:05 PM
You mean like the evidence that Bush reduced revenues during wartime?
Or how abortions are “3%” of Planned Parenthood services?
That kind of evidence?
The Schaef on August 25, 2015 at 3:07 PM
Heard a former Secret Service agent claim that being put on Killary’s detail was considered a form of punishment.
ShainS on August 25, 2015 at 3:55 PM
Clinton thread, fyi.
PP thread you won’t have to wait long for.
G W Bush? That could be a while.
verbaluce on August 25, 2015 at 4:00 PM
That’s all well and good, I’m just questioning your criticism regarding holding to something when the facts don’t agree with you.
There’s a bit of a history there.
The Schaef on August 25, 2015 at 4:09 PM
I’m aware of our history.
I prefer debates to contests.
Our interactions just became all about you maneuvering to prevent me from making my points. Even here, you come in and start off with some general attack on me.
Here’s another rhetorical question,
why would I even bother?
And even more so…why would you?
Hope you’re having a good summer.
I’m fogged in down-east, but word is we have a nice run of sun coming.
verbaluce on August 25, 2015 at 4:40 PM
I think you forgot the sarc tag. Or I’ve just taken the troll bait.
Hill60 on August 25, 2015 at 4:47 PM
I predict Uma going under the bus along with Mills. Hillary can always tap Jarrett after the election to be her “close” assistant
jake49 on August 25, 2015 at 5:00 PM
What you prefer is not to have them at all.
In our last exchange, your response to my questions, after four days of not answering them, was to ask questions of your own, for reasons that you admitted were selfish (your word), and some of them you admitted weren’t even real questions.
So I’m asking real questions in search of real answers, and you’re asking fake questions to be selfish. Who’s doing the “maneuvering” here?
The Schaef on August 25, 2015 at 5:14 PM
Uh huh. Why don’t you get a charge made against her before you claim others are denying evidence…
Not even an indictment much less a guilty verdict. Just a charge made.
I’ll wait.
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 5:22 PM
You don’t understand what ‘substantiated’ means clearly.
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 5:23 PM
And unsurprisingly all your claims of statements which I had no memory of making I never made, you just pretended I did.
I have no need to defend the statements you imagine I said.
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 5:27 PM
Lie. I showed direct quotes for the ones you asked about. I have quotes for the others.
Name one thing I claimed that you never said.
The Schaef on August 25, 2015 at 5:33 PM
Richard Nixon was never formally indicted or charged either. Was he “innocent”, too?
I’ll wait.
F-
Del Dolemonte on August 25, 2015 at 5:35 PM
Example of your “direct quote”:
That’s you reading into my words what you want me to have said instead of what I said. I explicitly said (it’s in the quote above since you so rapidly forget) “Obama tried for months to work with the right” that you change that in your head to “congress” is not my problem.
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 5:36 PM
Nixon was about to be impeached for an actual crime. So far you have neither indictment, impeachment, or crime to point towards…
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 5:38 PM
I did not “change” the fact that federal Congress writes federal legislation. That fact already existed independently of me or you.
You said he worked with the same people who did those things. Explain how he was working with a Meckelburg County party affiliate on passing federal legislation.
That way I can understand that when you said he has to work with the same people, that he was actually working with the people who did those things, and you were not saying he had to work with Congress… on federal legislation that Congress debated and voted on.
The Schaef on August 25, 2015 at 5:40 PM
About to be impeached is not impeached, so either a). you have no impeachment to “point towards”, or b). describe to us the federal position Hillary currently holds, from which she can now be impeached.
The Schaef on August 25, 2015 at 5:42 PM
Pathetic, disgustimg, This dem administration is so corrupt! And people don’t care?
MN J on August 25, 2015 at 5:43 PM
Fine then. Give an example of a person “on the right” that
a. Obama tried to work with
AND
b. sent out emails of him as a witchdoctor and/or made less than subtle references to shooting him.
That’s not reading anything into anything. That’s what
actually means.
Pot’s light, call or fold.
GrumpyOldFart on August 25, 2015 at 5:47 PM
There is only one move the Clinton’s can make. They must seek political-asylum in Switzerland. A close personal friend, Marc Rich, was able to find freedom by doing this. With the majority of their wealth hidden in private-accounts, they could work out a method to bribe a future American President, and get a full blanket-pardon for Hillary.
Bugdust172 on August 25, 2015 at 5:48 PM
And lest we think that he’s being honest when he says he wasn’t hanging thing on the heads of the party at the federal level, he made the same accusation against RNC chair Reince Priebus.
The Schaef on August 25, 2015 at 5:58 PM
Ha ha. In your leftist brain, 8 witnesses from a cross-section of political beliefs would be considered “very very little….”
You would characterize all amounts and quality of evidence to be a “Lack of evidence…”
blink on August 25, 2015 at 6:45 PM
Why are you in such a rush for charges to be filed? What’s your hurry? Just enjoy it.
blink on August 25, 2015 at 6:47 PM
I most certainly understand what ‘substantiated’ means. It’s not my fault if you used it in the wrong context, but my comment is factually correct and a germane reply to your comment. Try rereading if you’re having trouble, Little Man.
blink on August 25, 2015 at 6:49 PM
So, Obama worked with “the right” even though he wasn’t working with Congress. Good grief, you’re pathetic.
blink on August 25, 2015 at 6:51 PM
Of course we have a crime to point towards, Idiot!
Hillary repeatedly broke the law by mishandling classified information. Do you think General Petraeus was convicted for something what WASN’T a crime?
Dude, seriously, your leftist talking point sources are making you look like a fool.
blink on August 25, 2015 at 6:55 PM
Have done so half a dozen times at least.
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 7:52 PM
To which you could have honestly said, “no the national party didn’t, it was just state parties.” Instead you decided to lie about my position which is now obvious.
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 7:54 PM
I’m not in a rush since I very much doubt it will ever happen. You are the one insisting you have absolute evidence of criminal activity yet your only explanation for why no charges are filed is “we’re…uh…still investigating.”
In other words you know you have nothing.
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 7:55 PM
Your reliance on fox news as an authoritative source says otherwise.
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 7:56 PM
Weak even for you. Obama worked with the right which included but is not limited to congress.
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 7:57 PM
You seem to think so, yet you have no answer to why no charges have been filed for this supposed crime.
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 7:58 PM
You have failed to notice the investigation is still ongoing and are evidently too dense to realize that charges are generally not filed until investigations are complete.
F X Muldoon on August 25, 2015 at 8:06 PM
You have not done this even once, and the post immediately following demonstrates that your example does not meet the criteria.
I DID NOT LIE about anything. I ASKED YOU A QUESTION, to supply a fact that corresponds to THE CLAIM THAT YOU MADE. You have had nine months to answer this question. You have never supplied that fact. and THAT is what I have said about you this whole time.
Additionally, I have corrected you on this point every time you have tried to claim that link satisfies what you said. More to the point, I have corrected you FURTHER on the point that it was NOT A STATE PARTY that distributed the email. It was distributed by a COUNTY AFFILIATE, and the state party of Virginia ORDERED HIM TO STOP.
So here we are nine months later having the exact same conversation that we had from the beginning, and here you are going, “oh, all you had to say was X”, inoring the fact that I’ve TOLD YOU X EVERY TIME YOU SAID Y, and ignoring the fact that the link in question DOES NOT MATCH WHAT YOU SAID.
I did not lie about anything. I posted your exact words every time. I asked you questions directly related to your exact words. You are the only one responsible for keeping so simple a subject open for so long.
The question remains open, and now has an alternate added. Name the federal congressman who sent these emails. OR, demonstrate the manner in which Obama negotiated with county party affiliates over federal legislation.
The Schaef on August 25, 2015 at 8:07 PM
Obama “worked with the same people who [sent witch doctor emails and made references to shooting him]”. Which IS limited to the people who did the actual things you said.
So show the article that talks about the Obamacare negotiations betweenthe president and these specific persons.
The Schaef on August 25, 2015 at 8:10 PM
I noticed that incredibly lame argument, yes. What I haven’t found is why you think anyone would buy it. If you had actual evidence of a crime to pin on hillary you would not wait a heartbeat to use it.
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 8:13 PM
I have and you even mention it yourself. You just chose to pretend I said something other than I did so you could pretend my giving you evidence didn’t really count.
No, you demanded I support the claim you made, one I never made at all. I choose not to play that game. I supoported what I said. If you can’t parse a sentence well enough to understand…not my problem.
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 8:15 PM
The link I mentioned is not an example of these things being done by the same people Obama works with.
I did not say Obama worked with the same people who did this. YOU DID. I did not pretend you said that. I QUOTED YOU SAYING IT.
You said Obama worked with the same people who did this. So unless you show a congressman doing this, or Obama working with county party affiliates, what you gave DOES NOT support what you said.
The Schaef on August 25, 2015 at 8:18 PM
No, you’re convincing yourself that because it didn’t happen yesterday that it will never happen.
What is “absolute evidence” and why do you alway resort to putting such definitive adjectives in front of the word evidence. Maybe I’ll compile a fun little comment with all your ____ evidence demands.
I, and everyone else, has EVIDENCE that Hillary broke the law. You might not like the evidence. You might not like the fact that we all have evidence. But we all have it.
Ha ha. The investigation is definitely still going on while Obama and DOJ continue to wring their hands about it. What will Obama and DOJ do? I don’t know, but Obama isn’t above letting Hillary get away with crimes – if he can – or if it’s not too politically taxing on him.
But your demands for charges NOW will always continue to amuse me.
blink on August 25, 2015 at 8:25 PM
Oh dear……..Tlaloc buddy, do better.
libfreeordie on August 18, 2015 at 11:21 AM
blink on August 25, 2015 at 8:26 PM
Inviting a group to the White House in order to lecture them about why they should give him what he wants is NOT working with congress.
blink on August 25, 2015 at 8:27 PM
Obama worked with the right. Included in the right are congressional GOP and the larger GOP of the parties.
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 8:28 PM
Hillary’s email issue has opened a can of worms. There are quite a few people that have committed crimes. Obama and DOJ need to sort out quite a bit. Why are you demanding that this happen overnight?
blink on August 25, 2015 at 8:29 PM
You quoted me saying one thing and then insisted it meant something else.
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 8:29 PM
Fixed
blink on August 25, 2015 at 8:31 PM
So Obama worked with every single right-leaning person in politics, all the way down to municipalities? Do I understand that correctly?
No. I quoted you saying he worked with the same people who did these things and insisted it meant he WORKED WITH THE SAME PEOPLE WHO DID THESE THINGS.
The Schaef on August 25, 2015 at 8:32 PM
1. Who is YOU? You realize that we’re not Obama, right? You realize that we’re not the US Attorney General, right?
2. Can you ask us again why the state AGs don’t file charges? That was so much fun.
blink on August 25, 2015 at 8:33 PM
Not never, but when you;ve failed 30 times in a row to make charges against someone I’d be pretty gullible to take it at face value when you say you are sure you will this time.
Because we all know that evidence can be weak, or circumstantial, or hearsay. But you insisted you have absolute undeniable concrete evidence. Evidence that guarantees conviction and can be in no way argued against.
And yet no charges. I guess you’re waiting out of sympathy? What exactly is there to investigate when you have all this evidence?
Expect to be amused every time you insist you have evidence that you promise is totally convincing but which you never actually seem to produce for any judicial body…
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 8:34 PM
I keep looking for any evidence that your claims reflect reality…but so far I can’t find anything that supports your fantasy.
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 8:35 PM
You can take your evidence to the federal or state AGs anytime.
Sorry I missed you demonstrating ignorance of how state AGs work, care to repeat it?
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 8:36 PM
The point to which I am driving here, is that on this point, you have a good deal of cleaning in your own house to do, before presuming to mock other people for it.
The Schaef on August 25, 2015 at 8:37 PM
You’re being deliberately obtuse, which I assure you is entirely redundant.
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 8:37 PM
No, I’m fully prepared to continue mocking you.
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 8:37 PM
I’m not being obtuse, I am trying to make sure I understand. You are saying The Right ™, in such a manner that it includes the people who have treated him as you say.
If he works with all of these people, it is required that my statement correctly reflect what you said. Otherwise, saying “The Right” ™ does not accurately represent him working with THE SAME PEOPLE WHO DID IT.
DID HE, OR DID HE NOT, WORK WITH THE SAME PEOPLE WHO DID THESE THINGS?
The Schaef on August 25, 2015 at 8:41 PM
Yes, you are being obtuse. Saying he worked with the right means he worked some subset of all the people on the right. Saying the same people who portrayed him as an african witch doctor means some subset of the people he worked with (“the right”) did this. It in no way means there have to be members of either subset in common between the two. That’s why we have the concept of groups.
And now I’m explaining to you things you should have mastered in preschool.
Tlaloc on August 25, 2015 at 8:50 PM
So now you are admitting that the people Obama worked with, and the people who did these things, are two separate subsets with zero members in common?
The Schaef on August 25, 2015 at 8:53 PM
You are.
Still.
It’s obvious that the actual topics and issues are secondary for you.
You’re the one who refuses or is incapable of answering questions.
But I do now think you truly just don’t see that.
So if it’s not maneuvering, it’s delusion.
Again…why do you bother?
(No need to not answer. )
verbaluce on August 25, 2015 at 9:05 PM
I’m not asking you to take me at face value, Idiot. Take your nose out of leftist talking points and look for yourself. I’m not playing “I’ve got secret evidence.” I know you’re completely clueless about classified information since you never spent a day in the military or as a defense contractor, but it’s not that complicated of an issue to learn. I know you’re a little skittish about it after having your ignorance smacked down by me over the past several weeks, but man-up and learn something for yourself. Stop letting the leftist bullet point writers make you look like an idiot.
Is that how you would characterize the current evidence against Hillary? Hearsay, circumstantial, and weak? Seriously?
Oh dear……..Tlaloc buddy, do better.
libfreeordie on August 18, 2015 at 11:21 AM
Your insistence on lying about my characterization of evidence shows your desperation. It’s funny that I’m twice as confident about this issue than you. You always seem a few posts away from shear panic.
Are you somehow under the impression that I can bring charges against Hillary? Do you understand anything about criminal justice? Why do you always insist on embarrassing yourself?
Heh. It’s still funny to see you use hyperbole about the evidence. Relax. It’s coming. It will be revealed.
blink on August 25, 2015 at 9:09 PM
Color me SHOCKED that YOU don’t think Hillary has done anything wrong! Ha ha!
Oh dear……..Tlaloc buddy, do better.
libfreeordie on August 18, 2015 at 11:21 AM
blink on August 25, 2015 at 9:10 PM
False.
My questions were directly related to the actual topics and issues.
Your questions by your own admission were not.
False.
I have asked questions that you have explicitly said you will not answer.
You have asked me questions which I have agreed to answer, even though you admit they are not all legitimate, and even though you have admitted your motives are selfish. My only condition was a demonstration of good faith on your part.
There is no maneuvering or delusion. Everything I have stated is what has happened. The written record is there for review.
I told you earlier that the questions would not go away. And every time you claim to be the reasonable voice in the room, you are going to be held to account for behaving unreasonably.
The Schaef on August 25, 2015 at 9:10 PM
Further, he’s saying it’s perfectly cool to take whatever wild claim is made by any leftist Democrat anywhere and consider Obama, and Tlaloc himself, to be “the same people” as them. That counts as reason in Tlaloc-world.
Obama and Tlaloc are the same people as Alan Grayson and Cynthia McKinney.
Obama and Tlaloc are the same people as Louis Farrakhan and Jeremiah Wright.
Obama and Tlaloc are the same people that worry about Guam tipping over.
GrumpyOldFart on August 25, 2015 at 9:12 PM
There is one federal AG. Do you know who it is? Do you know who she works for? Are you stupid?
What state crimes have you EVER heard me accuse her of breaking? Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself like this?
blink on August 25, 2015 at 9:12 PM
You really are a troll. I think you probably kinda try to get it right some of the time, but when that inevitably fails, you quickly revert to trolling out of frustration.
Do some research.
blink on August 25, 2015 at 9:13 PM
Fixed
blink on August 25, 2015 at 9:15 PM
LOL! Several weeks ago I quoted you stating that the US “deposed” Hitler and Hirohito and Mussolini after World War 2, and in “response” you insisted the word “deposed” meant something else. Not terribly bright, as usual!
F+
Never lose your special kind of Stupid.
“That’s Gold!”
Del Dolemonte on August 25, 2015 at 9:28 PM
Sorry, but fact is your are insincere and you are disingenuous.
I’ve never seen you engage reasonably with anyone.
I just don’t think you really care about any of these issues.
You moan about questions not being answered yet never answer a question. You will only play these games.
It’s become more than strange.
Maybe just just switch to posting personal musings or something?
verbaluce on August 25, 2015 at 9:36 PM
False. I have been honest and direct. I will stand by what I’ve said, I have the written record to refer to, I apologize when I’m caught in the wrong (already done so to Tlaloc recently), and I drop issues when they are satisfactorily resolved (also done with Tlaloc).
Well, you already have a history of misconstruing things I’ve said in order to falsely paint me with ill motives, so it doesn’t really surprise me to hear you say that.
Well, the good news for me is, what I care about has nothing to do with your ill-formed conclusions. You’ve been content to rest on your presumptions of my ill intent and not actually discover anything about me, so I take what you think with the appropriate amount of consideration.
That is simpmly not true. I answer a great many questions. I do not allow people to answer questions with other questions to drag things off-point, which is in no way the same thing. I’m sorry if you don’t like that, but the simple fact of the matter is, a wise person would be much more careful about words like “always” and “never” than you are being right now.
So let’s take a look at this so-called insincerity.
I said I asked you questions on-topic. Are you claiming that was false?
I said you explicitly refused to answer. Are you claiming that was false?
I said that some of the questions you asked were by your own admission not legitimate. Are you claiming that was false?
I said that your behavior was by your own admission motivated by selfishness. Are you claiming that was false?
I said that I had agreed to answer your questions immediately after establishing good will on your part by ending your embargo. Are you claiming that was false?
On that topic, by the way, you seem to have a very easy way of establishing whether I am a man of my word, but apparently, and I said this at the time, there are more important things to you than demonstrating that you are genuine and I am not, although you never seem to lack for desire to point it out. Never learned what those things were.
I said all of those things above, and I stand by all of them. Show me i’m false.
The Schaef on August 25, 2015 at 9:54 PM
Keep that one handy, Ed.
AesopFan on August 25, 2015 at 10:48 PM
First-hand information that is just too haaaarrrrrd for journalists to find.
AesopFan on August 25, 2015 at 10:49 PM
How could anyone consider this some kind of conspiracy against Hillary, when it is obvious the only conspiracy is to cover up Hillary’s treasonous behavior.
Hillary Clinton was criminally negligent with our national security. Something that all of our lives depend on.
This is worse than being infiltrated by enemy spies. This is beyond that.
All enemies of the United States now have more information than they have ever gotten any other way, and it was handed over by The Secretary of State. She just handed it to them.
I can not express the level of out rage this causes in me.
She should be hanged for treason, she betrayed this country.
petunia on August 26, 2015 at 2:38 AM
turdloc, wishing, thinking, pretending and writing that something is so, doesn’t make it so.
Of course for you, the right is wherever you choose to move the goal posts.
Most of the time when you say right, you either say or imply the tea party and conservative right, but now you wish to invoke anything that pretends to be right, completely disregarding most conservative’s, on this website, disdain for RINOs.
No one needs even charges, much less convictions to flush this campaign.. just the appearance that she is at best disingenuous, incompetent, disdainful and at worst, criminally negligent, perjurious, and hindering a legal investigation.
Feel the swirl.
Neitherleftorright on August 26, 2015 at 1:43 PM
Hillary,
Please give us the dirt on the Obamas, Biden and Warren, who “stole your destiny” as POTUS, as you wind down your campaign.
You could do this from jail, but sadly nothing will happen to you.
Typicalwhitewoman on August 26, 2015 at 3:51 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2