Do you trust Hillary Clinton?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2016 2:23 AM GMT
    Do you trust Hillary Clinton?

    16%Yes, she gets a bad rap

    20%She’s no worse than other politicians

    61%No, she isn’t trustworthy

    3%I’m not sure
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2016 2:33 AM GMT
    I might start to see Hillary as a little bit trustworthy...when she admits that yes, the $158 million she and Bill got for "speeches" were actually bribes, and that calling them "speeches" was just a clever legal maneuver to make it all legal.

    But until then, I believe it will be a very sad day to see such a corrupt, dishonest and incompetent person actually elected to anything, especially US president.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2016 2:05 PM GMT
    please please trust me
    t-rump vs Clinton

    trust_me1-472x396.jpg
  • rnch

    Posts: 11524

    Mar 21, 2016 2:20 PM GMT
    As much as I would trust any other modern politician; I trust Hillary Clinton.


    Life IS a compromise and I believe that she will be the best voting booth compromise choice we Americans can make come November 2016.



    icon_idea.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2016 2:25 PM GMT
    I do believe Hillary is trustworthy. The Repugnants have mounted a somewhat successful campaign, quite some time ago when they saw her potential as a strong Presidential candidate, to falsely portray her as untrustworthy.

    But I will tell you, the one with the shifty eyes is Bill. I met him a number of times, and briefly was his military escort in 1991 for an event, when he was Arkansas Governor.

    (How that happened was strange, since I wasn't a member of the Arkansas National Guard, just representing an active US Army operation. But they wanted a good speaking voice for this banquet, to be co-MC, so my General tagged me. And next they needed someone with good "social graces" and protocol knowledge of sufficient rank to meet, greet, and take Clinton around, so I got nailed for that, too. He looked as puzzled as I was)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2016 3:32 PM GMT
    The list is long and well documented. She is untrustworthy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2016 3:41 PM GMT
    desertmuscl saidThe list is long and well documented. She is untrustworthy.

    "Documented" by the Radical Right. In other words, largely invention, distortion, and exaggeration.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2016 4:46 PM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    desertmuscl saidThe list is long and well documented. She is untrustworthy.

    "Documented" by the Radical Right. In other words, largely invention, distortion, and exaggeration.

    Included are emails and a letter from an intel community IG. If you are a former military officer who was cleared to handle classified material, even if only non-compartmentalized and not all the additional accesses, you would still understand what has been presented constitutes multiple felonies. The fact that you don't understand suggests you were either never in the military or suffering some malady.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2016 10:41 PM GMT
    Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis

    What follows reflects the knowledge and experience I have gained from working at the Department of Homeland Security from 2008 until 2011. While there, I took the lead in drafting a security classification manual for one of the divisions of the DHS science and technology directorate.

    Based on what has been revealed so far, there is no reason to think that Clinton committed any crimes with respect to the use of her email server, including her handling of classified information. While it is always possible that information not revealed will change this picture, at the moment Clinton’s optimism that she will not be criminally charged appears justified.


    About the Author
    Richard O. Lempert is the Eric Stein Distinguished University Professor of Law and Sociology emeritus at the University of Michigan.

    http://prospect.org/article/why-hillary-wont-be-indicted-and-shouldnt-be-objective-legal-analysis

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2016 1:23 AM GMT
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco said
    desertmuscl saidThe list is long and well documented. She is untrustworthy.

    "Documented" by the Radical Right. In other words, largely invention, distortion, and exaggeration.

    Included are emails and a letter from an intel community IG. If you are a former military officer who was cleared to handle classified material, even if only non-compartmentalized and not all the additional accesses, you would still understand what has been presented constitutes multiple felonies. The fact that you don't understand suggests you were either never in the military or suffering some malady.

    My rank automatically allowed me a Secret clearance. Different specific duties allowed me Top Secret. And, as you say, with restricted "need to know" confined access. A person with a Top Secret clearance does not get to know EVERY top secret the US has.

    Now what exactly are your OWN qualifications to be lecturing to ME about security access? Or to question my military credentials? I know more about the military than you ever will. As I demonstrate here nearly daily.

    It's an insult to all our career military veterans here to have a clown like you telling us what you think you know about us. I don't care if you even once did wear a uniform (if you actually have) in some menial position. That would have given you no meaningful knowledge of the subject being discussed here. These are matters far above anything you would have known about, or evidently know today.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2016 1:39 AM GMT
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco said
    desertmuscl saidThe list is long and well documented. She is untrustworthy.

    "Documented" by the Radical Right. In other words, largely invention, distortion, and exaggeration.

    Included are emails and a letter from an intel community IG. If you are a former military officer who was cleared to handle classified material, even if only non-compartmentalized and not all the additional accesses, you would still understand what has been presented constitutes multiple felonies. The fact that you don't understand suggests you were either never in the military or suffering some malady.

    My rank automatically allowed me a Secret clearance. Different specific duties allowed me Top Secret. And, as you say, with restricted "need to know" confined access. A person with a Top Secret clearance does not get to know EVERY top secret the US has.

    Now what exactly are your OWN qualifications to be lecturing to ME about security access? Or to question my military credentials? I know more about the military than you ever will. As I demonstrate here nearly daily.

    It's an insult to all our career military veterans here to have a clown like you telling us what you think you know about us. I don't care if you even once did wear a uniform (if you actually have) in some menial position. That would have given you no meaningful knowledge of the subject being discussed here. These are matters far above anything you would have known about, or evidently know today.

    I am a former military officer who worked on projects in the military and as a civilian with clearances including TS and well beyond. The projects included some whose names were classified and whose existence was classified.

    Can't say how impressed about you knowing "need to know". Geez, I thought someone with a clearance got to see everything in the whole US of A. (That was sarcasm in case you missed it.)

    I keep in regular touch with other vets, some political, some not. I can tell you this: You would be held to scorn by the great majority of them and ignored by the rest.

    I know that you, even as an ordinary officer with a Secret clearance, would be expected to understand the seriousness in the mishandling of classified material. But you deny.

    Are you so foolish that you believe some of the so-called "legal" analyses proclaiming Hillary's innocence? That includes not addressing US Code 793 at all or Subsection (f) in particular, which does not require intent but addresses gross negligence. Or using a low level Confidential material to suggest someone might know something is classified if unmarked, when, in fact, the material was so sensitive that members of Congress with clearances could not see them. That also includes ignoring the IG letters and emails heavily redacted.

    That you don't see the felonious acts shows you are totally fucked-up. And that's coming from a vet.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2016 2:07 PM GMT
    ALL politicians are untrustworthy--that's the nature of the beast. It's simply a matter of gradation. Do I think Clinton is untrustworthy? Yes. Do I think she's smarter than most active politicians? Yes.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2016 7:37 PM GMT
    socalfitness said That includes not addressing US Code 793 at all or Subsection (f) in particular, which does not require intent but addresses gross negligence.


    US Code 793(f) appears to be the last refuge of right-wing pundits (and Socal) in their desperation to see Clinton indicted. Meanwhile, back in the real world - an analysis of classified information laws shows it takes intentional disclosure to get an indictment.

    Clinton's Email: Unwise, But Likely Not Criminal

    Politics aside, it is difficult to find prior cases where the unwise handling of classified information led to a federal indictment. For the last 20 years, the federal statutes have been used when there were intentional unauthorized disclosures. The Department of Justice appears to have gone after "leakers", but not bunglers.

    http://www.nationallawjournal.com/id=1202737626175/Clintons-Email-Unwise-But-Likely-Not-Criminal#ixzz43f6EevJp
  • tj85016

    Posts: 4123

    Mar 22, 2016 9:55 PM GMT
    NO, she's proven over and over since the Watergate Commission that only a fool would
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2016 1:37 AM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco said
    socalfitness said
    Art_Deco said
    desertmuscl saidThe list is long and well documented. She is untrustworthy.

    "Documented" by the Radical Right. In other words, largely invention, distortion, and exaggeration.

    Included are emails and a letter from an intel community IG. If you are a former military officer who was cleared to handle classified material, even if only non-compartmentalized and not all the additional accesses, you would still understand what has been presented constitutes multiple felonies. The fact that you don't understand suggests you were either never in the military or suffering some malady.

    My rank automatically allowed me a Secret clearance. Different specific duties allowed me Top Secret. And, as you say, with restricted "need to know" confined access. A person with a Top Secret clearance does not get to know EVERY top secret the US has.

    Now what exactly are your OWN qualifications to be lecturing to ME about security access? Or to question my military credentials? I know more about the military than you ever will. As I demonstrate here nearly daily.

    It's an insult to all our career military veterans here to have a clown like you telling us what you think you know about us. I don't care if you even once did wear a uniform (if you actually have) in some menial position. That would have given you no meaningful knowledge of the subject being discussed here. These are matters far above anything you would have known about, or evidently know today.

    I am a former military officer who worked on projects in the military and as a civilian with clearances including TS and well beyond. The projects included some whose names were classified and whose existence was classified.

    Can't say how impressed about you knowing "need to know". Geez, I thought someone with a clearance got to see everything in the whole US of A. (That was sarcasm in case you missed it.)

    I keep in regular touch with other vets, some political, some not. I can tell you this: You would be held to scorn by the great majority of them and ignored by the rest.

    I know that you, even as an ordinary officer with a Secret clearance, would be expected to understand the seriousness in the mishandling of classified material. But you deny.

    Are you so foolish that you believe some of the so-called "legal" analyses proclaiming Hillary's innocence? That includes not addressing US Code 793 at all or Subsection (f) in particular, which does not require intent but addresses gross negligence. Or using a low level Confidential material to suggest someone might know something is classified if unmarked, when, in fact, the material was so sensitive that members of Congress with clearances could not see them. That also includes ignoring the IG letters and emails heavily redacted.

    That you don't see the felonious acts shows you are totally fucked-up. And that's coming from a vet.



    Well it appears that the Kolonel has once again been proven to be a fraud - or just a lying idiot. Reminds me of this exchange from last week:

    Southbeach1500 said: WEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!


    Art_Deco said: Well, if you actually lived here you would have known this. And told us about your own primary voting. So what's the voting been like in New York, or wherever you do really live?


    Southbeach1500 said: Oh come now Kolonel, I've written time and time again here that I'm registered as an Independent. No primary voting for me.


    Art_Deco said: In Florida you could still vote in the primary. That's a minor issue. Busted again.


    Southbeach1500 said: Don't let the facts get in the way of another one of your whopper of a lies Kolonel Klueless:

    Florida is a closed primary state. If you wish to vote in a partisan primary election, you must be a registered voter in the party for which the primary is being held.

    http://www.flaglerelections.com/Voter-Education/Closed-Primary-Elections

    http://www.realjock.com/gayforums/4196217
    I don't know about Florida but I can tell you he would be extremely unpopular in veterans groups, even among those who are not highly political.