CIA labels Trump 'threat to national security'

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/michael-morell-clinton-endorsement/index.html

1st time in history a candidate has been so bad that the former CIA chief was compelled to denounce him like this.

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

RaceBannon

But unsecured servers aren't an issue

DerekJohnson

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/michael-morell-clinton-endorsement/index.html

1st time in history a candidate has been so bad that the former CIA chief was compelled to denounce him like this.

I'm sure he was compensated well to issue that statement.

OZONE

But unsecured servers aren't an issue

As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.

Swaye

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.

You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.

Sledog

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/michael-morell-clinton-endorsement/index.html

1st time in history a candidate has been so bad that the former CIA chief was compelled to denounce him like this.

So a Obamao appointee says Trumps bad. That means Trumps not bad. But you don't get it. Jim Jones is serving Kool Aid drop by for a cup.

OZONE

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.

I've already essentially said this, why do I need to repeat it in every post? I agree she is not a great candidate, and I was in favor of somebody else, but it is time to move forward and choose from the two options, as bad as they both are.

I'm just having fun pointing out, daily, what an idiot the (R) party chose as their nominee. Regardless of how bad Clinton is, Trump is 1000 times worse, and so bad, that we are making history on a daily basis with people coming out against him. Republicans, government officials, etc.

BearsWiin

But unsecured servers aren't an issue

Unsecured server >>> insecure self-server

TierbsHsotBoobs

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/michael-morell-clinton-endorsement/index.html

1st time in history a candidate has been so bad that the former CIA chief was compelled to denounce him like this.
I'm sure he was compensated well to issue that statement.

We really need to be able to flag moderators

BearsWiin

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/michael-morell-clinton-endorsement/index.html

1st time in history a candidate has been so bad that the former CIA chief was compelled to denounce him like this.
I'm sure he was compensated well to issue that statement.
We really need to be able to flag moderators

Yeah, why is he still here?

2001400ex

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.

Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.

Sledog

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.

The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.

OZONE

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.

A Bush appointee is the one that made the call to not recommend charges.

HTH

TierbsHsotBoobs

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.

<img src="http://vault-cdn.si.com/SI_ISSUE_IMAGES/Sports%20Illustrated/1965/12/19651206/Sports_Illustrated_43446_19651206-001-2048.jpg" />

ThomasFremont

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.
A Bush appointee is the one that made the call to not recommend charges.

HTH

But HOW is @Sledog a stupid prole?

HoustonHusky

Let's see...the political appointee that started the Benghazi YouTube video lie and now works for a consulting firm supporting Hillary says Hillary is good and Trump is bad. News at 11.

Yet lemmings like OZONE lap this stuff up...

TierbsHsotBoobs

Let's see...the political appointee that started the Benghazi YouTube video lie and now works for a consulting firm supporting Hillary says Hillary is good and Trump is bad. News at 11.

Yet lemmings like OZONE lap this stuff up...

Fenderbender123

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't take anything the CIA director says seriously when it comes to what is and isn't a national security threat?

OZONE

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't take anything the CIA director says seriously when it comes to what is and isn't a national security threat?

You should probably stick to sharing infections with Race.

OZONE

Oh, and here is food for thought.

There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.

Baseman

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.

2001400ex

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.

That doesn't mean what you think it means.

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[15]

Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[16]

In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[17] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.

In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:

As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.

Based on the above quotation, it was noted by the lawyer William J. Olson in an amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[18] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions. As James Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States by], giving them aid and comfort.”"[18]

TierbsHsotBoobs

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.
That doesn't mean what you think it means.

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[15]

Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[16]

In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[17] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.

In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:

As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.

Based on the above quotation, it was noted by the lawyer William J. Olson in an amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[18] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions. As James Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States by], giving them aid and comfort.”"[18]

Agree

HoustonHusky

Oh, and here is food for thought.

There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.

And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...

TierbsHsotBoobs

Oh, and here is food for thought.

There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...

None of them started World War 3.

Baseman

Oh, and here is food for thought.

There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...

Rommel had a good record in the Middle East and North Africa.

BearsWiin

Oh, and here is food for thought.

There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...

It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails

Sledog

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.
That doesn't mean what you think it means.

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[15]

Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[16]

In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[17] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.

In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:

As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.

Based on the above quotation, it was noted by the lawyer William J. Olson in an amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[18] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions. As James Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States by], giving them aid and comfort.”"[18]

And where does arming ISIS and Al Qaueda fall on your scale Hondo?

HoustonHusky

Oh, and here is food for thought.

There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails

'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'

Brilliant.

BallSacked

Oh, and here is food for thought.

There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'

Brilliant.

So the solution is Donald Trump?

HoustonHusky

Oh, and here is food for thought.

There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'

Brilliant.
So the solution is Donald Trump?

A definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

I'd trust him over a proven liar that set a few more Middle Eastern countries ablaze in her limited tenure as Sec of State.

Comments

RaceBannon

But unsecured servers aren't an issue

DerekJohnson

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/michael-morell-clinton-endorsement/index.html

1st time in history a candidate has been so bad that the former CIA chief was compelled to denounce him like this.

I'm sure he was compensated well to issue that statement.

OZONE

But unsecured servers aren't an issue

As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.

Swaye

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.

Sledog

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/michael-morell-clinton-endorsement/index.html

1st time in history a candidate has been so bad that the former CIA chief was compelled to denounce him like this.

So a Obamao appointee says Trumps bad. That means Trumps not bad. But you don't get it. Jim Jones is serving Kool Aid drop by for a cup.

OZONE

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.

BearsWiin

But unsecured servers aren't an issue

Unsecured server >>> insecure self-server

TierbsHsotBoobs

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/michael-morell-clinton-endorsement/index.html

1st time in history a candidate has been so bad that the former CIA chief was compelled to denounce him like this.
I'm sure he was compensated well to issue that statement.

We really need to be able to flag moderators

BearsWiin

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/05/politics/michael-morell-clinton-endorsement/index.html

1st time in history a candidate has been so bad that the former CIA chief was compelled to denounce him like this.
I'm sure he was compensated well to issue that statement.
We really need to be able to flag moderators

Yeah, why is he still here?

2001400ex

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.

Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.

Sledog

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.

The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.

OZONE

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.

A Bush appointee is the one that made the call to not recommend charges.

HTH

TierbsHsotBoobs

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.

<img src="http://vault-cdn.si.com/SI_ISSUE_IMAGES/Sports%20Illustrated/1965/12/19651206/Sports_Illustrated_43446_19651206-001-2048.jpg" />

ThomasFremont

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.
A Bush appointee is the one that made the call to not recommend charges.

HTH

But HOW is @Sledog a stupid prole?

HoustonHusky

TierbsHsotBoobs

Let's see...the political appointee that started the Benghazi YouTube video lie and now works for a consulting firm supporting Hillary says Hillary is good and Trump is bad. News at 11.

Yet lemmings like OZONE lap this stuff up...

Fenderbender123

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't take anything the CIA director says seriously when it comes to what is and isn't a national security threat?

OZONE

So what you're saying is that we shouldn't take anything the CIA director says seriously when it comes to what is and isn't a national security threat?

You should probably stick to sharing infections with Race.

OZONE

Baseman

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.

2001400ex

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.

TierbsHsotBoobs

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.
That doesn't mean what you think it means.

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[15]

Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[16]

In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[17] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.

In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:

As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.

Based on the above quotation, it was noted by the lawyer William J. Olson in an amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[18] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions. As James Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States by], giving them aid and comfort.”"[18]

Agree

HoustonHusky

Oh, and here is food for thought.

There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.

And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...

TierbsHsotBoobs

Oh, and here is food for thought.

There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...

None of them started World War 3.

Baseman

Oh, and here is food for thought.

There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...

Rommel had a good record in the Middle East and North Africa.

BearsWiin

Oh, and here is food for thought.

There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...

It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails

Sledog

But unsecured servers aren't an issue
As security experts have proven, there is no proof that the emails would have been more secure if the gov't ran the servers.
You aren't dumb, stop acting like it. Yes, the servers may not have been more secure, but there would have been oversight of them, and breach detection/mitigation if it occurred. Good God. Why do you defend shit you know is so fucking stupid? Just say look, I know what Hillary did was dumb as fuck, and borderline criminal, but I like her better than Trump anyway. Christ.
Yet, after several investigations, there's been zero evidence any breech occurred.

Not defending, pointing out a fact. So don't twist.
The extent of her treasonous actions will never be known. Too embarrassing for the country and Owebama.
That doesn't mean what you think it means.

Section 3 defines treason and its punishment.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.

The Constitution defines treason as specific acts, namely "levying War against [the United States], or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort." A contrast is therefore maintained with the English law, whereby crimes including conspiring to kill the King or "violating" the Queen, were punishable as treason. In Ex Parte Bollman, 8 U.S. 75 (1807), the Supreme Court ruled that "there must be an actual assembling of men, for the treasonable purpose, to constitute a levying of war."[15]

Under English law effective during the ratification of the U.S. Constitution, there were essentially five species of treason.[citation needed] Of the five, the Constitution adopted only two: levying war and adhering to enemies. Omitted were species of treason involving encompassing (or imagining) the death of the king, certain types of counterfeiting, and finally fornication with women in the royal family of the sort which could call into question the parentage of successors. James Wilson wrote the original draft of this section, and he was involved as a defense attorney for some accused of treason against the Patriot cause.

Section 3 also requires the testimony of two different witnesses on the same overt act, or a confession by the accused in open court, to convict for treason. This rule was derived from an older English statute, the Treason Act 1695.[16]

In Cramer v. United States, 325 U.S. 1 (1945), the Supreme Court ruled that "[e]very act, movement, deed, and word of the defendant charged to constitute treason must be supported by the testimony of two witnesses."[17] In Haupt v. United States, 330 U.S. 631 (1947), however, the Supreme Court found that two witnesses are not required to prove intent, nor are two witnesses required to prove that an overt act is treasonable. The two witnesses, according to the decision, are required to prove only that the overt act occurred (eyewitnesses and federal agents investigating the crime, for example).

Punishment for treason may not "work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person" so convicted. The descendants of someone convicted for treason could not, as they were under English law, be considered "tainted" by the treason of their ancestor. Furthermore, Congress may confiscate the property of traitors, but that property must be inheritable at the death of the person convicted.

In Federalist No. 43 James Madison wrote regarding the Treason Clause:

As treason may be committed against the United States, the authority of the United States ought to be enabled to punish it. But as new-fangled and artificial treasons have been the great engines by which violent factions, the natural offspring of free government, have usually wreaked their alternate malignity on each other, the convention have, with great judgment, opposed a barrier to this peculiar danger, by inserting a constitutional definition of the crime, fixing the proof necessary for conviction of it, and restraining the Congress, even in punishing it, from extending the consequences of guilt beyond the person of its author.

Based on the above quotation, it was noted by the lawyer William J. Olson in an amicus curiae in the case Hedges v. Obama that the Treason Clause was one of the enumerated powers of the federal government.[18] He also stated that by defining treason in the U.S. Constitution and placing it in Article III "the founders intended the power to be checked by the judiciary, ruling out trials by military commissions. As James Madison noted, the Treason Clause also was designed to limit the power of the federal government to punish its citizens for “adhering to [the] enemies [of the United States by], giving them aid and comfort.”"[18]

And where does arming ISIS and Al Qaueda fall on your scale Hondo?

HoustonHusky

Oh, and here is food for thought.

There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails

'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'

Brilliant.

BallSacked

Oh, and here is food for thought.

There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'

Brilliant.

So the solution is Donald Trump?

HoustonHusky

Oh, and here is food for thought.

There are 4 living former presidents. Two (D)s and two (R)s, and a sitting president (D).

They don't agree on everything, but they do agree on one thing... Trump is not fit for the job.
And Carter, Clinton, Bush, and Obama have such sparkling records on foreign policy, esp when it relates to the Middle East...
It's easy and lazy to shit on the job that somebody does, when you have no fucking clue what the job entails
'Middle East is up in flames and hordes of refugees are flooding the world, but at least the world didn't end so how could anyone question the "great" job being done'

Brilliant.
So the solution is Donald Trump?