I don't have to watch this video. The answer is YES. At a minimum she is guilty of lying to congress. This is not up for debate nor interpretation. She is guilty of lying to congress.

IMO she is also guilty of murder in the case of Benghazi. IMO she is a crook and is corrupt in the inappropriate actions surrounding her foundation. 

Does the sun rise in the east and set in the west?   YES.

The awnser is YES, the FBI said shes guilty but they didnt think a prosecutor would get a guilty verdict

The awnser is YES, the FBI said shes guilty but they didnt think a prosecutor would get a guilty verdict

Now, now, that fish eye character will be along to tell everyone why there is reason for doubt, and she may well be totally innocent.................


/barf.... HPD approved post

If you think she is dishonest and a crook now, which she is, watch what happens if she becomes POTUS.  She even looks dishonest.  At least the polls today show a dead heat with Trump instead of the 11 point lead she had earlier.

Now, now, that fish eye character will be along to tell everyone why there is reason for doubt, and she may well be totally innocent.................


/barf.... HPD approved post

Troll much?

Straw man. I never said there is reason for doubt, I speculated whether there could be and what it could be.

But having watched more of the testimony and press releases and commentary I a consider the opening for doubt to be ever shrinking.

Maybe those with doubts should not only watch this, but discuss the particulars with people who might work with Top Secret programs.  Hillary's server gave people WITH NO CLEARANCES access to these emails -- admins, staffers, friends, foundation members/donors (many foreigners) and whoever might have hacked her servers.  We have no way of knowing who she emailed the info to.  She had no idea, apparently, there was any classified, so why not send it to anyone she thought would be interested?

The way some compartmentalized TS is handled, you can't even view it without another person standing next to you who is also cleared (2 man rule) to prevent compromise.

"Top Secret shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to
cause exceptionally grave damage to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe."

It is believed that 1.4 million Americans have top secret clearances.

Never dealt with compartmentalized TS stuff, just technical data like radar cross sections.

Even that, you did not get it from a safe and take it to your desk to peruse, you went to a vault to read it.  The material never left the vault.

That this corrupt criminal tries to blow this off as not a big deal, when anyone with a brush with classified material knows far better, is so far beyond comprehension..................This filthy creature's crime escapades have to come to an end, now!

Never been a big fan of Trump, but if he can come in and start cleaning out this filthy nest of incestuous criminals like Comey, Lynch, etc.  I am all for him.

Judge Napolitano: What if the fix was in for Hillary at the Obama Justice Department?

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/07/21/judge-napolitano-what-if-fix-was-in-for-hillary-at-obama-justice-department.html

If they cannot find the emails, they should just ask the Russian hackers for a copy of it.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/05/hillarys-emails-hacked-russia-kremlin-deciding-whether-release-20000-emails-hacked/

If they cannot find the emails, they should just ask the Russian hackers for a copy of it.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/05/hillarys-emails-hacked-russia-kremlin-deciding-whether-release-20000-emails-hacked/

There is legal precedence that, if you know someone purposely destroyed evidence which had both the potential to damn and the potential to exonerate the defendant, you are permitted to assume the evidence was not good for the defendant's case. 

If it was helpful or neutral, why destroy it?  Let everyone look at it and decide for themselves.

It it's bad for the defense, then of course you are going to get rid of it!

She's a lawyer who hired more lawyers to destroy evidence, so there's no "I didn't think about preserving helpful evidence" excuse.   Since we can't see what was in it, we should assume it was evidence of wrongdoing. 

She learned from the best. Enron. Worldcom. Heck, Building 7!

She learned from the best. Enron. Worldcom. Heck, Building 7!

Don't forget that rash of "crashed" hard drives and "missing" backups all around the Obama administration:  IRS, VA, Federal Elections Commission, ....  It's like hard drives of people under subpoena or being deposed experience this problem at the worst possible time -- almost as if it's planned!

She used a cloth to wipe the drives clean!!! 

She used a cloth to wipe the drives clean!!! 

When the "best qualified to be President" candidate has been in government for 40 years, served as Secretary of State, and was a US Senator pulls the "Dumb Blonde" act, it's all you need to know about her.  Either she's incompetent or lying about things she should have learned long before being in the Senate.

I wonder how many bills she's voted on that affected our national security.  Was she thinking "I hope the Chinese don't have rags, or we'll never get that critical information!"