Why not?

[layoutshooter]

People die from Presidents confiding in their wives? Do you have any examples?

Those briefings are classified FOR A REASON! The presidential briefings contain the absolute highest levels, and most sensitive, information available. It is a felony to mishandle those documents for a reason, very good reasons.

Hillary was NOT CLEARED. There was NO legal reason under God's green earth for her to have ever seen them, read them, or to have Bill discuss them with her.

In this regard Hillary was NO different than my wife. I handled documents of that classification for almost half of our married life. Read those same presidential briefings and had some minor input into them in the past.

At no point did I EVER discuss what I did at work with my wife, or anyone else for that matter, who was not cleared for the information.

IF Bill Clinton breached that trust, he, and his wife, should be arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

What I meant was people die when information leaks. There was no legal basis, no basis what so ever, for Hillary to see those briefings or Bill to discuss them with her. There is no way they, or anyone, should be above the law.

 

[Ragman]

There was no legal basis, no basis what so ever, for Hillary to see those briefings or Bill to discuss them with her.

Although this is all true, I'm sure other presidents have done the same.

 

[WanderngFool]

"So how was your day?"
"Can't tell you"
"Oh so that's how it's going to be... I'll set some sheets out for you"
"What, the couch again?"
"You don't value my judgement"
"Yes I do, sugar bottom honey plums, but you don't have security clearance"
"And you stand a snowball's chance of getting any anytime soon"

 

[layoutshooter]

"So how was your day?"
"Can't tell you"
"Oh so that's how it's going to be... I'll set some sheets out for you"
"What, the couch again?"
"You don't value my judgement"
"Yes I do, sugar bottom honey plums, but you don't have security clearance"
"And you stand a snowball's chance of getting any anytime soon"

IF you would like to discuss this in a reasonable way, let me know. Thank you, the end.

 

[layoutshooter]

Although this is all true, I'm sure other presidents have done the same.

SO, that makes it just OKEE DOKEE! Again proving that they believe that they are above the law and no one cares. GOOD PLAN!

 

[Ragman]

"So how was your day?"
"Can't tell you"
"Oh so that's how it's going to be... I'll set some sheets out for you"
"What, the couch again?"
"You don't value my judgement"
"Yes I do, sugar bottom honey plums, but you don't have security clearance"
"And you stand a snowball's chance of getting any anytime soon"

IF you would like to discuss this in a reasonable way, let me know. Thank you, the end.

Aw, come on Layout, just a bit of humor.

 

[zorry]

I wanna know....

What did Monica know and when did she know it ?

What did Marilyn know and when did she know it ?

Some of our Presidents probably shouldn't get all of the briefings.

 

[layoutshooter]

Aw, come on Layout, just a bit of humor.

Not funny.

 

[Ragman]

SO, that makes it just OKEE DOKEE! Again proving that they believe that they are above the law and no one cares. GOOD PLAN!

I didn't say it was OKEE DOKEE, just that other presidents have done the same.

 

[layoutshooter]

I wanna know....

What did Monica know and when did she know it ?

What did Marilyn know and when did she know it ?

Some of our Presidents probably shouldn't get all of the briefings.

Many of them, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama for sure, would have NEVER passed a counter-intel background check and would have NEVER been granted a clearance on their own merit.

Not sure about Reagan, or Nixon.

 

[cheri1122]

Although this is all true, I'm sure other presidents have done the same.

I'd bet Reagan did, because Nancy was the type who had to know everything about him. Other wives, not so much - I mean, can you imagine Betty Ford or Jackie Kennedy or Pat Nixon wanting to know any of the classified stuff?
Hilary was a different type, ambitious in her own right.
As for Bill sharing info with her, we elect a man because we trust his judgment, and his sharing whatever with someone he trusts is not something I'd get bent out of shape over.

 

[LDB]

What's the big deal? I mean, it's the democrats we're talking about, Bill and Hillary, Barack and Michelle, and the rules and laws are only suggestions for them. We'll just all chuckle a little bit at those rascals and come up with dismissive responses about how we can trust them and others did the same and whatever else that doesn't respond to the issue. Those scalawags.

Bottom line, it was illegal, Hillary did it, Hillary bragged about it to advance her campaign until advised to shut up. Therefore, Hillary is a self admitted felon. No, she isn't an indicted felon (although she probably should be). No, she isn't a convicted felon (although she probably should be). But for those with difficulties, it was never claimed she was, only that she was an admitted felon, and that she is. Maybe still too complicated for some.

 

[RLENT]

IF you would like to discuss this in a reasonable way, let me know. Thank you, the end.

I want to discuss this in a reasonable way ...

That would be ... in complete contrast to discussing it with a degree of drama that borders on the utterly hysterical ...

Personally, I think - that in terms of characterizing Hillary Clinton as an admitted felon - you are completely f*** of s*** ...

Just more overblown hyperbole and "drama queen ranting" of the type:

... Layoushooter ...

Can you point us to any law which makes it illegal for her to read such classified info and briefings ?

You'll get double bonus points if you can manage to do it ... and not claim that the law itself is seckret and non-public ...

... lol ...

Steven Aftergood, director of the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists notes that

... inquiring into classified government information and disclosing it is something that many national security reporters and policy analysts do, or try to do, every day. And with a few narrow exceptions—for particularly sensitive types of information—courts have determined that this is not a crime." Aftergood notes, "The universe of classified information includes not only genuine national security secrets, such as confidential intelligence sources or advanced military technologies, but an endless supply of mundane bureaucratic trivia, such as 50-year-old intelligence budget figures, as well as the occasional crime or cover-up.
​

I assume that you are at least aware that the USG has never successfully prosecuted anyone other than a government employee for unlawfully disseminating or publishing classified info under the Espionage Act of 1917 ... let alone merely reading/accessing it ...

And, of course, you already made the case that Mrs. Clinton was not a government employee at the time ...

 

[skyraider]

Now the administration is refusing to release the number of illegal immigrant families they have released. Why not? What are they afraid of? Why do they think that the American people don't have a right or don't want to know the number? Just more plan old arrogance? The ole, "We can do whatever the heck we want and no one is going to stop us" attitude?

Those illegals should NOT have been released, they should have been returned to where they came from.

When is the congress going to do their job and reign this administration in? They are WAY out of control.


[h=1]US releases immigrant families, won't say how many[/h]
"The Obama administration has released into the U.S. an untold number of immigrant families caught traveling illegally from Central America in recent months — and although the government knows how many it's released, it won't say publicly."

http://news.yahoo.com/us-releases-immigrant-families-wont-many-203735169--politics.html

There is a new technique being used now to cause more border confusion. It would appear they and whoever they are, are using children to run the border without parents tagging along,,now how do you fight that one?

 

[muttly]

There are few things in her past that are dubious, omitting Layout's charge. Goes to show you if someone stays in politics long enough, their past transgressions fade away from the public's consciousness. What a lot of people see now is a former President's wife, senator, and secretary of state. All examples of her parlaying the success in politics due to at least partly, from previous lapses in judgment and integrity a long time ago.

 

[layoutshooter]

A Sec of State who is dodging responsibility for her failure in Benghazi. The press will not even mention it, unless only in passing, and she, and Obama, are going to get away with it. Just as Carter did. These people are just evil.

 

[muttly]

The press often helps them get away it. Probably why they feel emboldened to do it. They probably weigh the likelihood they will get caught, and if the press will even care to look that way.

 

[layoutshooter]

The press often helps them get away it. Probably why they feel emboldened to do it. They probably weigh the likelihood they will get caught, and if the press will even care to look that way.

The press is now an extension of the Federal Government. They no longer even pretend to be the watchdog of freedom, their role is now to protect the "Rulers".

 

[RLENT]

A Sec of State who is dodging responsibility for her failure in Benghazi. The press will not even mention it, unless only in passing, and she, and Obama, are going to get away with it. Just as Carter did. These people are just evil.

So ... what would be the "ideal" outcome in your mind, in order for her to not "get away with it" ?

In order to answer this, you will need to actually define her alleged transgression(s) ... and state what the particular consequences ought to be ...

Now I realize that that is probably not anywhere near as fun as endlessly ranting like some deranged old man chasing the kids off his lawn ... but it might make for an interesting discussion ...

You can include your answer to these questions along with the answer to the previous one: what law, specifically ?

 

[muttly]

Clinton bristled at Benghazi deception | New York Post