Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that
famous Clintonesque way.

This weekend, she modified her statement about sending or receiving
classified emails on her private server by saying, "I did not email
anything that was classified at the time." The "that was classified
at the time" is new. Before this weekend she claimed she never sent
any classified emails period.

Meanwhile, there is growing evidence, including from the NSA that
indeed, some of the emails contained information that was definitely
classified. Concern exists that classified information was subject to
being compromised.

She violated government policy and rules. She denies it, yet now
alludes to the fact that some of the emails "may have become classified".

When it was requested that the server's emails be turned over for
inspection, she first refused, then selectively offered the emails she
was willing to release and "destroyed" the rest.

Trustworthy? What a joke.

I wonder if people serving in high government positions are subject to
the FBI background checks that us mere mortals are required to undergo
for security clearances. I held security clearances both in the
military and later as a civilian because one of the DOD programs I was
involved with in business required access to classified information.
In both cases, a background check was done by the FBI which included
friends and relatives being interviewed and asked questions about my
past and current activities. I remember the civilian one well because
issuance of the clearance was held up temporarily because the FBI needed
more information as to why I traveled to the PRC back in 1986.

Both the military and the DOD have specific regulations as to how
classified information and/or documents are handled and stored.
Inspections are conducted to ensure compliance.

I know a guy (he was the president of another company involved in the
program) who was indited and sentenced to a two year house arrest
(wearing an ankle bracelet) for failure to properly maintain classified
data at his company.

Richard it'll be interesting to see Harry's rebuttal and possibly a personal attack. Let's see- "you're a racist" - "you hate women" - "she's more honest than (pick a republican opponent).....

On 7/27/15 7:08 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that
famous Clintonesque way.


Trustworthy? What a joke.

Yawn. She's a lot more trustworthy than any of the mooks seeking the GOP
nomination.

On 7/27/15 7:20 AM, Tim wrote:
Richard it'll be interesting to see Harry's rebuttal and possibly a personal attack. Let's see- "you're a racist" - "you hate women" - "she's more honest than (pick a republican opponent).....



Richard is entitled to dislike Hillary, and I wouldn't believe any
accusations that he is a racist or a woman hater. Hillary is, however,
more honest than *any* of the mooks seriously seeking the GOP nomination.

Hey, it's a new week...and I can't wait to see what stupid remarks Jeb
makes this week, and whether EvangelHuckabee doubles down on his odious
comparisons to the Holocaust.

On 7/27/2015 7:20 AM, Tim wrote:
Richard it'll be interesting to see Harry's rebuttal and possibly a personal attack. Let's see- "you're a racist" - "you hate women" - "she's more honest than (pick a republican opponent).....



LOL. He chose option 3.

On 7/27/15 7:40 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/27/2015 7:20 AM, Tim wrote:
Richard it'll be interesting to see Harry's rebuttal and possibly a
personal attack. Let's see- "you're a racist" - "you hate women" -
"she's more honest than (pick a republican opponent).....



LOL. He chose option 3.



Why not? It's true.

On 7/27/2015 7:29 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/27/15 7:08 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that
famous Clintonesque way.


Trustworthy? What a joke.

Yawn. She's a lot more trustworthy than any of the mooks seeking the GOP
nomination.



No question that some of the GOP candidates are making some very stupid
statements that most, including me, would never agree with.

But we are discussing "trustworthiness". I can't think of a single
thing Hillary has ever said or done that would give me a feeling that
she is a truthful, honest and trustworthy person.

The polls on the subject appear to back up my opinion.

On 7/27/2015 7:08 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that
famous Clintonesque way.

This weekend, she modified her statement about sending or receiving
classified emails on her private server by saying, "I did not email
anything that was classified at the time." The "that was classified
at the time" is new. Before this weekend she claimed she never sent
any classified emails period.

Meanwhile, there is growing evidence, including from the NSA that
indeed, some of the emails contained information that was definitely
classified. Concern exists that classified information was subject to
being compromised.

She violated government policy and rules. She denies it, yet now
alludes to the fact that some of the emails "may have become classified".

When it was requested that the server's emails be turned over for
inspection, she first refused, then selectively offered the emails she
was willing to release and "destroyed" the rest.

Trustworthy? What a joke.

I wonder if people serving in high government positions are subject to
the FBI background checks that us mere mortals are required to undergo
for security clearances. I held security clearances both in the
military and later as a civilian because one of the DOD programs I was
involved with in business required access to classified information.
In both cases, a background check was done by the FBI which included
friends and relatives being interviewed and asked questions about my
past and current activities. I remember the civilian one well because
issuance of the clearance was held up temporarily because the FBI needed
more information as to why I traveled to the PRC back in 1986.

Both the military and the DOD have specific regulations as to how
classified information and/or documents are handled and stored.
Inspections are conducted to ensure compliance.

I know a guy (he was the president of another company involved in the
program) who was indited and sentenced to a two year house arrest
(wearing an ankle bracelet) for failure to properly maintain classified
data at his company.


So she's bending her statements to be more truthful once she's caught
lying. Purgered statements roll off the Clinton's tongues like honey. A
little vacation at Graybar Hotel might do them some good. Liberals seem
to think that lying is an entitlement for them.





--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

On 7/27/2015 7:32 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/27/15 7:20 AM, Tim wrote:
Richard it'll be interesting to see Harry's rebuttal and possibly a
personal attack. Let's see- "you're a racist" - "you hate women" -
"she's more honest than (pick a republican opponent).....



Richard is entitled to dislike Hillary, and I wouldn't believe any
accusations that he is a racist or a woman hater. Hillary is, however,
more honest than *any* of the mooks seriously seeking the GOP nomination.

Hey, it's a new week...and I can't wait to see what stupid remarks Jeb
makes this week, and whether EvangelHuckabee doubles down on his odious
comparisons to the Holocaust.


Time out for an announcement:

****Tim, You nailed it****

Carry on with your mook patrol Harry. You are such a schmuck.

--

Respectfully submitted by Justan

Laugh of the day from Krause

"I'm not to blame anymore for the atmosphere in here.
I've been "born again" as a nice guy."

On 7/27/15 7:45 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 7/27/2015 7:29 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 7/27/15 7:08 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Now Hillary is changing her story ... just a little ... again, in that
famous Clintonesque way.


Trustworthy? What a joke.

Yawn. She's a lot more trustworthy than any of the mooks seeking the GOP
nomination.



No question that some of the GOP candidates are making some very stupid
statements that most, including me, would never agree with.

But we are discussing "trustworthiness". I can't think of a single
thing Hillary has ever said or done that would give me a feeling that
she is a truthful, honest and trustworthy person.

The polls on the subject appear to back up my opinion.




As I said, whatever your opinion of her, she is more trustworthy than
the GOP mooks hoping to run against her.