Jump to content

Bush's defense secretary

Big girl

By Big girl
in Political Forum

 Share

Recommended Posts

tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, Big girl said:

Occupy Democrats POLITICS

Bush’s Defense Secretary Defends Hillary’s Emails, Admits It Could’ve Happened to Him.

This is the name of the article. The link eouldnt post

Occupy Democrats... now there is an unbiased website. But let's move on.......

Gates is hardly a partisan Republican. He is a lifelong member of the military and CIA. He was chosen for various defense posts due to his experience but not only by Republicans but also Democrats such as Obama. He never ran or was elected to any public office. 

Secondly, the title to the article is a scam. The only time it says in the entire article that it could have happened to him...  is in the title. Nowhere in the article does it show Gates saying anything like, "That could have happened to me". It is simply an outright lie and the article itself lists no evidence of him saying that. I guess the author can read minds and can tell what Gates meant to say. 

The article goes on to spin the Clinton email scandal as a non-issue with the statement, "the irrefutable evidence that Clinton did not knowingly send or receive classified information". That doesn't go along with the FBI director's testimony to the House a couple of days ago. 

To be sure, the author has the right to state any opinion that he wishes. His "irrefutable evidence" is his statement alone and pure opinion not shared by the head of the FBI. The author is entitled to his opinion but that is all it is. It is hardly fact.    

LumRaiderFan

LumRaiderFan

Posted
Posted
8 hours ago, tvc184 said:

Occupy Democrats... now there is an unbiased website. But let's move on.......

Gates is hardly a partisan Republican. He is a lifelong member of the military and CIA. He was chosen for various defense posts due to his experience but not only by Republicans but also Democrats such as Obama. He never ran or was elected to any public office. 

Secondly, the title to the article is a scam. The only time it says in the entire article that it could have happened to him...  is in the title. Nowhere in the article does it show Gates saying anything like, "That could have happened to me". It is simply an outright lie and the article itself lists no evidence of him saying that. I guess the author can read minds and can tell what Gates meant to say. 

The article goes on to spin the Clinton email scandal as a non-issue with the statement, "the irrefutable evidence that Clinton did not knowingly send or receive classified information". That doesn't go along with the FBI director's testimony to the House a couple of days ago. 

To be sure, the author has the right to state any opinion that he wishes. His "irrefutable evidence" is his statement alone and pure opinion not shared by the head of the FBI. The author is entitled to his opinion but that is all it is. It is hardly fact.    

dang facts...sure can hose up a good point.

Big girl

Big girl

Posted
  • Author
Posted
2 hours ago, 77 said:

who cares what he says he's long gone if he did something to break the law they should have charged him and I would agree with them!

Hiliary didn't break any laws according to the investigations

Big girl

Big girl

Posted
  • Author
Posted

The article stated that these are his words. If The article is vaild, He appears to be defending her. Did he ever appear on "This week with George Stepanopoulous"?

Speaking on ABC’s This Week With George Stephanopoulos today, Gates

This is the hidden content, please
 the rampant overclassification, confusion, and retroactive classifications that have resulted in many of the emails Clinton handled on her private server being labelled classified AFTER THE FACT. Responding to a question about whether or not he would have a good idea of the degree of classification an email would be marked as in the future, Gates said:

Sometimes not. The truth is, things are overclassified, and sometimes I would get something and it would be classified Secret or Top Secret. And I would look at somebody and say, I’m about to tell a foreign leader what is on this piece of paper that’s marked Top Secret… Why are you giving it to me as a talking point if it’s classified Top Secret? So it is tough sometimes. And if you don’t have any markings on a piece of paper, it is tough sometimes to tell whether it’s classified or not.

PhatMack19

PhatMack19

Posted
Posted
28 minutes ago, Big girl said:

Hiliary didn't break any laws according to the investigations

That's not what the investigations said.  FBI Director Comey said Hillary broke many laws but they are not going to recommend charges.  There is a big difference.  She's a lying crook but is untouchable. 

stevenash

stevenash

Posted
Posted

I am not nearly as interested in whether or not she technically broke any laws as I am with the  fact that someone in her position with her experience ought to know if something is classified whether it is marked that way or not.  If the "smartest woman in the world" is unable, after 30 years of government involvement, to discern between secret and not so secret emails, then she is simply INCOMPETENT.

Big girl

Big girl

Posted
  • Author
Posted

This is the hidden content, please

Colin Powell said he didn't, as did Gates. If i understand correctly, some email were viewed as classified after it was written and the person was no longer serving in that capacity. The email should say classified when it is sent.

stevenash

stevenash

Posted
Posted

If the email has sensitive information in it, someone with the background/experience of Mrs. Clinton should NOT need a designation attached to it in order to understand it contains sensitive material.

LumRaiderFan

LumRaiderFan

Posted
Posted
58 minutes ago, PhatMack19 said:

That's not what the investigations said.  FBI Director Comey said Hillary broke many laws but they are not going to recommend charges.  There is a big difference.  She's a lying crook but is untouchable. 

Both very true, and yet remains very electable...smh.

77

77

Posted
Posted

She cant be trusted and thats enough for most normal thinking people but I do realize that dems these days are not normal thinking  people. My gandpas dems are long gone!

stevenash

stevenash

Posted
Posted
19 minutes ago, 77 said:

She cant be trusted and thats enough for most normal thinking people but I do realize that dems these days are not normal thinking  people. My gandpas dems are long gone!

Many Dems believe that the Dems possess superior intellect.

tvc184

tvc184

Posted
Posted
6 hours ago, Big girl said:

I read that she didn't break any laws. Are the investigators classifying email "after the fact"?

email-state-dept/story?id

You can post all of your opinion articles that you wish. I can do the same. Let's hear the FBI director under direct questioning under oath last week.

 

 

Gowdy: "Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her emails either sent or received, was that true?"

FBI Director Comey: "That's not true, there were small number of portion markings on three of the documents". 

Gowdy: "Secretary Clinton said I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email, there is no classified material, was that true?"

Comey: "There was classified material emailed". 

Gowdy: "Secretary Clinton said that she just used one device, is that true?"

Comey: "She used multiple devices during in the four years of her term as Secretary of State". 

Gowdy: "Secretary Clinton said that all work related emails were returned to the State Department, was that true?"

Comey: "No, we found work emails, thousands that were not returned". 

 

Okay, that is the first minute of the above exchange. Gowdy is talking about Clinton's under oath testimony and the FBI Director just stated in the first three questions that she lied. The last time I checked the criminal statutes, lying under oath is a crime whether it be in court, on a sworn statement to the police, in front of a grand jury, in front of Congress, etc.

We all know that Clinton did not turn over her emails as required by law and then she lied about it under oath. She then accidentally shredded her hard drives trying to cover it up. But oops.... thousands of the emails were recovered. The FBI Director above stated that there were thousands of emails not returned. He stated that Clinton lied when she stated that her lawyers read each emails, etc.  He stated that there were classified documents sent, he stated that the did not use a single device and so on. The Director goes on for several minutes to state over and over again that Clinton's statements were lies. 

We need no interpretation or opinion article to view the above and see the Director's own words where asked over and over again, when Clinton stated "this", was this "true"? Comey's answer over and over again was, "No". 

Sure sounds like perjury and/or obstruction of justice to me. 

baddog

baddog

Posted
Posted

Isn't Gowdy the on Trump wants as his Attorney General if elected? I don't think we have to worry about him meeting the Clintons on the tarmac unless he has a pair of cuffs with him.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Member Statistics

    46,282
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Unknown472929300
    Newest Member
    Unknown472929300
    Joined


×
×
  • Create New...