Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.

Putting classified information on a classified server is now a crime

2»

Comments

  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    edited September 2019
    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    Just read the headline. Tell me Bob, what AM radio talk show did you get that insight from?

    Not being a dumbfuck like you Hondo, I'm able to think for myself.

    Now stop being a fucking Kunt and give me the name of that "prosecutor" who put Clinton under oath.
    Be honest Bob. Where did you get the headline from?
    Go fuck yourself. Back up your fucking mouth for once in your pathetic life and tell us the name of the "prosecutor" who you claim put Clinton under oath before they had possession of the blue dress. You said it you pathetic fucking moron, back it up.
    Bob playing word semantics. As always. When he realizes he's fucking dumb. And has no clue what the topic is even about.

    Come on Bob, I share my source of information. Why are you always afraid to share your source??? I'm genuinely curious where you got that thought process from.
    I quoted what you said you lying sack of shit. There was no "prosecutor" who put Clinton under oath before they had possession of the blue dress. You fucking lied Kunt and instead of having the integrity to admit that you were fucking wrong, you called me a liar and made up some bullshit story about how you weren't talking about the Paula Jones case.

    How big a fucking Kunt do you have to be in order to be unable to admit you made a mistake on an anonymous message board?
    Bob I honestly don't even remember the specifics of that comment and I'm not going to dig it up, you are welcome to however and I can respond it to. That being said. The point of the comment was that Clinton was put under oath prior to having evidence. Which is absolutely correct. And was in response to you guys all saying Trump couldn't be investigated based on second hand information.

    Anyways. What is the source of your headline? Why are you embarrassed to say so Bob?
    Yeah, you only made them this morning lying sack of shit. Hondo is constantly trying to hold people accountable for shit they've never said years ago. Pizzagate!!! Seth Rich!!! While Hondo the fucking Kunt takes no responsibility for bullshit that left his mouth this very day.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    Just read the headline. Tell me Bob, what AM radio talk show did you get that insight from?

    Not being a dumbfuck like you Hondo, I'm able to think for myself.

    Now stop being a fucking Kunt and give me the name of that "prosecutor" who put Clinton under oath.
    Be honest Bob. Where did you get the headline from?
    Go fuck yourself. Back up your fucking mouth for once in your pathetic life and tell us the name of the "prosecutor" who you claim put Clinton under oath before they had possession of the blue dress. You said it you pathetic fucking moron, back it up.
    Bob playing word semantics. As always. When he realizes he's fucking dumb. And has no clue what the topic is even about.

    Come on Bob, I share my source of information. Why are you always afraid to share your source??? I'm genuinely curious where you got that thought process from.
    I quoted what you said you lying sack of shit. There was no "prosecutor" who put Clinton under oath before they had possession of the blue dress. You fucking lied Kunt and instead of having the integrity to admit that you were fucking wrong, you called me a liar and made up some bullshit story about how you weren't talking about the Paula Jones case.

    How big a fucking Kunt do you have to be in order to be unable to admit you made a mistake on an anonymous message board?
    Bob I honestly don't even remember the specifics of that comment and I'm not going to dig it up, you are welcome to however and I can respond it to. That being said. The point of the comment was that Clinton was put under oath prior to having evidence. Which is absolutely correct. And was in response to you guys all saying Trump couldn't be investigated based on second hand information.

    Anyways. What is the source of your headline? Why are you embarrassed to say so Bob?
    Yeah, you only made them this morning lying sack of shit.
    What's your source Bob? Don't be a pussy. Post it up.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    Just read the headline. Tell me Bob, what AM radio talk show did you get that insight from?

    Not being a dumbfuck like you Hondo, I'm able to think for myself.

    Now stop being a fucking Kunt and give me the name of that "prosecutor" who put Clinton under oath.
    Be honest Bob. Where did you get the headline from?
    Go fuck yourself. Back up your fucking mouth for once in your pathetic life and tell us the name of the "prosecutor" who you claim put Clinton under oath before they had possession of the blue dress. You said it you pathetic fucking moron, back it up.
    Bob playing word semantics. As always. When he realizes he's fucking dumb. And has no clue what the topic is even about.

    Come on Bob, I share my source of information. Why are you always afraid to share your source??? I'm genuinely curious where you got that thought process from.
    I quoted what you said you lying sack of shit. There was no "prosecutor" who put Clinton under oath before they had possession of the blue dress. You fucking lied Kunt and instead of having the integrity to admit that you were fucking wrong, you called me a liar and made up some bullshit story about how you weren't talking about the Paula Jones case.

    How big a fucking Kunt do you have to be in order to be unable to admit you made a mistake on an anonymous message board?
    Bob I honestly don't even remember the specifics of that comment and I'm not going to dig it up, you are welcome to however and I can respond it to. That being said. The point of the comment was that Clinton was put under oath prior to having evidence. Which is absolutely correct. And was in response to you guys all saying Trump couldn't be investigated based on second hand information.

    Anyways. What is the source of your headline? Why are you embarrassed to say so Bob?
    Yeah, you only made them this morning lying sack of shit.
    What's your source Bob? Don't be a pussy. Post it up.
    I already told you my "source" Kunt.

    I'm not a fucking moron like you Hondo.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    Just read the headline. Tell me Bob, what AM radio talk show did you get that insight from?

    Not being a dumbfuck like you Hondo, I'm able to think for myself.

    Now stop being a fucking Kunt and give me the name of that "prosecutor" who put Clinton under oath.
    Be honest Bob. Where did you get the headline from?
    Go fuck yourself. Back up your fucking mouth for once in your pathetic life and tell us the name of the "prosecutor" who you claim put Clinton under oath before they had possession of the blue dress. You said it you pathetic fucking moron, back it up.
    Bob playing word semantics. As always. When he realizes he's fucking dumb. And has no clue what the topic is even about.

    Come on Bob, I share my source of information. Why are you always afraid to share your source??? I'm genuinely curious where you got that thought process from.
    I quoted what you said you lying sack of shit. There was no "prosecutor" who put Clinton under oath before they had possession of the blue dress. You fucking lied Kunt and instead of having the integrity to admit that you were fucking wrong, you called me a liar and made up some bullshit story about how you weren't talking about the Paula Jones case.

    How big a fucking Kunt do you have to be in order to be unable to admit you made a mistake on an anonymous message board?
    Bob I honestly don't even remember the specifics of that comment and I'm not going to dig it up, you are welcome to however and I can respond it to. That being said. The point of the comment was that Clinton was put under oath prior to having evidence. Which is absolutely correct. And was in response to you guys all saying Trump couldn't be investigated based on second hand information.

    Anyways. What is the source of your headline? Why are you embarrassed to say so Bob?
    Yeah, you only made them this morning lying sack of shit.
    What's your source Bob? Don't be a pussy. Post it up.
    I already told you my "source" Kunt.

    I'm not a fucking moron like you Hondo.
    Liar. And pussy.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    This statement by me was a statement of fact.

    Pretty sure they already had the blue dress before Clinton was put under oath by Starr. But when do you ever get anything right.

    You then put your head up your ass and responded:

    Bob is wrong. As always:

    Clinton gave a sworn deposition on January 17, 1998, where he denied having a "sexual relationship", "sexual affair" or "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. He also denied that he was ever alone with her.

    That Jan 17, depo wasn't given to Starr, it was a civil suit and despite the fact that you crammed your head even further up your ass and claimed Clinton was put under oath by a "prosecutor"


    There was no proof before the sworn deposition in January of 1998. So.... He was put under oath before the prosecutors had the dress or anything.

    You made all of these bullshit statements just a few hours ago and now you lie and claim you don't recall them.

    How big a fucking coward do you have to be in order to unable to admit you were wrong on an anonymous message board?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    SFGbob said:

    This statement by me was a statement of fact.

    Pretty sure they already had the blue dress before Clinton was put under oath by Starr. But when do you ever get anything right.

    You then put your head up your ass and responded:

    Bob is wrong. As always:

    Clinton gave a sworn deposition on January 17, 1998, where he denied having a "sexual relationship", "sexual affair" or "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. He also denied that he was ever alone with her.

    That Jan 17, depo wasn't given to Starr, it was a civil suit and despite the fact that you crammed your head even further up your ass and claimed Clinton was put under oath by a "prosecutor"


    There was no proof before the sworn deposition in January of 1998. So.... He was put under oath before the prosecutors had the dress or anything.

    You made all of these bullshit statements just a few hours ago and now you lie and claim you don't recall them.

    How big a fucking coward do you have to be in order to unable to admit you were wrong on an anonymous message board?

    Thanks Bob for showing that you are a word semantics genius and I suck at being exactly precise on my wording. Now that are you done with that exercise and you've shown your superiority. Do you want to comment on the actual point that Clinton was put under oath before any actual corroborated evidence was found? Hell he was under oath before Monica even admitted to it. Monica never confirmed it until she was offered a deal.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    edited September 2019
    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    This statement by me was a statement of fact.

    Pretty sure they already had the blue dress before Clinton was put under oath by Starr. But when do you ever get anything right.

    You then put your head up your ass and responded:

    Bob is wrong. As always:

    Clinton gave a sworn deposition on January 17, 1998, where he denied having a "sexual relationship", "sexual affair" or "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. He also denied that he was ever alone with her.

    That Jan 17, depo wasn't given to Starr, it was a civil suit and despite the fact that you crammed your head even further up your ass and claimed Clinton was put under oath by a "prosecutor"


    There was no proof before the sworn deposition in January of 1998. So.... He was put under oath before the prosecutors had the dress or anything.

    You made all of these bullshit statements just a few hours ago and now you lie and claim you don't recall them.

    How big a fucking coward do you have to be in order to unable to admit you were wrong on an anonymous message board?

    Thanks Bob for showing that you are a word semantics genius and I suck at being exactly precise on my wording. Now that are you done with that exercise and you've shown your superiority. Do you want to comment on the actual point that Clinton was put under oath before any actual corroborated evidence was found? Hell he was under oath before Monica even admitted to it. Monica never confirmed it until she was offered a deal.
    He was put under oath in a civil suit not a criminal suit. You're comparing apples to dog shit. And the only person playing a "word semantics" game is you Kunt. I clearly said Clinton was put under oath by Starr and that Starr already had the dress. You're the one who decided to stick your head up your ass and claim the "prosecutors" put him under oath in the Paula Jones case. It's obvious you didn't know that January depo was in the Jones case, instead of just admitting your error you went full Kunt.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,754 Standard Supporter
    edited September 2019
    insinceredawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    insinceredawg said:

    SFGbob said:

    But emailing classified information on a non-secured serve is not a crime.

    Got it.

    My post from earlier certainly aged well. Dance bob dance!

    I love how this board full of uneducated right wing nutjobs thinks they know more about national security than the actual professionals. Can't wait to see the dance of the bitchass partisan Kunt.
    So explain to us dumbfuck, what's the crime of putting classified materials on a classified server? You claimed I didn't want to talk about that an now you're running and hiding like a Kunt from the topic.
    The whistleblower says in the complaint that they had learned from several sources that senior White House officials had intervened to "lock down" all records of the call, particularly an official word-for-word transcript.

    "This set of actions underscored to me that White House officials understood the gravity of what had transpired in the call," the whistleblower wrote in the complaint.

    The whistleblower says details of the call were stored in a "stand-alone computer system reserved for codeword-level intelligence information, such as covert action".

    The whistleblower adds that officials said it was "'not the first time' under this administration that a presidential transcript was placed into this codeword-level system solely for the purpose of protecting politically sensitive - rather than national security sensitive - information".
    All bullshit since he has ZERO first hand info. Odd you believe the mystery "Someone said something to me guy" but the president of the Ukraine denies it happened in any way means shape or from. You believe someone violating security, likely committing a crime themselves over the victim saying it didn't happen.

    Fuck your arms must be 20 feet long to reach that far.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    This statement by me was a statement of fact.

    Pretty sure they already had the blue dress before Clinton was put under oath by Starr. But when do you ever get anything right.

    You then put your head up your ass and responded:

    Bob is wrong. As always:

    Clinton gave a sworn deposition on January 17, 1998, where he denied having a "sexual relationship", "sexual affair" or "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. He also denied that he was ever alone with her.

    That Jan 17, depo wasn't given to Starr, it was a civil suit and despite the fact that you crammed your head even further up your ass and claimed Clinton was put under oath by a "prosecutor"


    There was no proof before the sworn deposition in January of 1998. So.... He was put under oath before the prosecutors had the dress or anything.

    You made all of these bullshit statements just a few hours ago and now you lie and claim you don't recall them.

    How big a fucking coward do you have to be in order to unable to admit you were wrong on an anonymous message board?

    Thanks Bob for showing that you are a word semantics genius and I suck at being exactly precise on my wording. Now that are you done with that exercise and you've shown your superiority. Do you want to comment on the actual point that Clinton was put under oath before any actual corroborated evidence was found? Hell he was under oath before Monica even admitted to it. Monica never confirmed it until she was offered a deal.
    He was put under oath in a civil suit not a criminal suit. You're comparing apples to dog shit. And the only person playing a "word semantics" game is you Kunt. I clearly said Clinton was put under oath by Starr and that Starr already had the dress. You're the one who decided to stick your head up your ass and claim the "prosecutors" put him under oath in the Paula Jones case. It's obvious you didn't know that January depo was in the Jones case, instead of just admitting your error you went full Kunt.
    So he was put under oath prior to having actual evidence. Thanks for finally admitting that. Fuck it's painful talking to you man.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    So Bob where did you get your genius talking point from?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    This statement by me was a statement of fact.

    Pretty sure they already had the blue dress before Clinton was put under oath by Starr. But when do you ever get anything right.

    You then put your head up your ass and responded:

    Bob is wrong. As always:

    Clinton gave a sworn deposition on January 17, 1998, where he denied having a "sexual relationship", "sexual affair" or "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. He also denied that he was ever alone with her.

    That Jan 17, depo wasn't given to Starr, it was a civil suit and despite the fact that you crammed your head even further up your ass and claimed Clinton was put under oath by a "prosecutor"


    There was no proof before the sworn deposition in January of 1998. So.... He was put under oath before the prosecutors had the dress or anything.

    You made all of these bullshit statements just a few hours ago and now you lie and claim you don't recall them.

    How big a fucking coward do you have to be in order to unable to admit you were wrong on an anonymous message board?

    Thanks Bob for showing that you are a word semantics genius and I suck at being exactly precise on my wording. Now that are you done with that exercise and you've shown your superiority. Do you want to comment on the actual point that Clinton was put under oath before any actual corroborated evidence was found? Hell he was under oath before Monica even admitted to it. Monica never confirmed it until she was offered a deal.
    He was put under oath in a civil suit not a criminal suit. You're comparing apples to dog shit. And the only person playing a "word semantics" game is you Kunt. I clearly said Clinton was put under oath by Starr and that Starr already had the dress. You're the one who decided to stick your head up your ass and claim the "prosecutors" put him under oath in the Paula Jones case. It's obvious you didn't know that January depo was in the Jones case, instead of just admitting your error you went full Kunt.
    So he was put under oath prior to having actual evidence. Thanks for finally admitting that. Fuck it's painful talking to you man.
    No. they had evidence you fucking lying sack of shit. I didn't admit anything other than the fact that you're a fucking moron and a liar.

    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath.

    That's what you said dumbfuck. You clearly thought the January Paula Jones case depo had something to do with Monica. Why would they have needed evidence that Clinton had sex with Monica before putting him under oath in the Paula Jones civil suit you fucking moron?

    Keep digging Hondo you lying sack of shit.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    And other than an affidavit that Monica signed in the Jones matter where she denied having a sexual relationship with Clinton and 20 hours of audio tape where Monica discussed having sex with Clinton, they had no proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica, right Hondo, you fucking dipshit.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    Epic GayBob meltdown. Seek help.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Epic GayBob meltdown. Seek help.

    Could there be a more clearer sign that you hate yourself.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    SFGbob said:

    CirrhosisDawg said:

    Epic GayBob meltdown. Seek help.

    Could there be a more clearer sign that you hate yourself.
    Yes.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 2001400ex
    2001400ex Member Posts: 29,457
    SFGbob said:

    I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath.

    That's what you said dumbfuck. You clearly thought the January Paula Jones case depo had something to do with Monica. Why would they have needed evidence that Clinton had sex with Monica before putting him under oath in the Paula Jones civil suit you fucking moron?

    Keep digging Hondo you lying sack of shit.

    If it only had something to do with Paula Jones. Then why did they ask him about Lewisnky? Seriously. The team giving the deposition was trying to establish a track record of Clinton harassing women. That's why he was asked about it. Fuck Bob. You are fucking delusional and it gets even worse.



    Clinton gave a sworn deposition on January 17, 1998, where he denied having a "sexual relationship", "sexual affair" or "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. He also denied that he was ever alone with her. His lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, stated with Clinton present that Lewinsky's affidavit showed that there was no sex in any manner, shape or form between Clinton and Lewinsky.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,754 Standard Supporter
    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath.

    That's what you said dumbfuck. You clearly thought the January Paula Jones case depo had something to do with Monica. Why would they have needed evidence that Clinton had sex with Monica before putting him under oath in the Paula Jones civil suit you fucking moron?

    Keep digging Hondo you lying sack of shit.

    If it only had something to do with Paula Jones. Then why did they ask him about Lewisnky? Seriously. The team giving the deposition was trying to establish a track record of Clinton harassing women. That's why he was asked about it. Fuck Bob. You are fucking delusional and it gets even worse.



    Clinton gave a sworn deposition on January 17, 1998, where he denied having a "sexual relationship", "sexual affair" or "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. He also denied that he was ever alone with her. His lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, stated with Clinton present that Lewinsky's affidavit showed that there was no sex in any manner, shape or form between Clinton and Lewinsky.
    Clinton shill shilling!

    Get back to work on Hillary's ham wallet Hondo, stat!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    edited September 2019
    2001400ex said:

    SFGbob said:

    I don't feel like they had proof that Clinton had sexual relations with Monica when he was put under oath.

    That's what you said dumbfuck. You clearly thought the January Paula Jones case depo had something to do with Monica. Why would they have needed evidence that Clinton had sex with Monica before putting him under oath in the Paula Jones civil suit you fucking moron?

    Keep digging Hondo you lying sack of shit.

    If it only had something to do with Paula Jones. Then why did they ask him about Lewisnky? Seriously. The team giving the deposition was trying to establish a track record of Clinton harassing women. That's why he was asked about it. Fuck Bob. You are fucking delusional and it gets even worse.



    Clinton gave a sworn deposition on January 17, 1998, where he denied having a "sexual relationship", "sexual affair" or "sexual relations" with Lewinsky. He also denied that he was ever alone with her. His lawyer, Robert S. Bennett, stated with Clinton present that Lewinsky's affidavit showed that there was no sex in any manner, shape or form between Clinton and Lewinsky.
    Sorry I don't speak lying, barely literate dumbfuck. The deposition with Clinton was scheduled months in advance and Monica wasn't even in the picture at the time. They didn't need evidence that he had sex with Monica to depose him about the Jones case.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    And by the time of Clinton's deposition Jan. 17 1998, the "prosecutor" had the evidence they needed to show that Clinton had sex with Lewinsky and that Lewinsky perjured herself in her affidavit. So despite what you may "feel" Hondo, you don't know shit.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • HHusky
    HHusky Member Posts: 23,898
    SFGbob said:

    Securing classified information on a classified serve is now a “cover up.”

    SFGbob said:

    Securing classified information on a classified serve is now a “cover up.”

    Playing dumb is a good look for you.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Sledog
    Sledog Member Posts: 37,754 Standard Supporter
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/24/democrats-wrote-to-ukraine-in-may-demanding-it-investigate-trump/

    Nothing to see. Ok for us not Trump.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    Securing classified information on a classified serve is now a “cover up.”

    SFGbob said:

    Securing classified information on a classified serve is now a “cover up.”

    Playing dumb is a good look for you.
    Yeah, shocking that a smart Kunt like you couldn’t address anything I said.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    SFGbob said:

    HHusky said:

    SFGbob said:

    Securing classified information on a classified serve is now a “cover up.”

    SFGbob said:

    Securing classified information on a classified serve is now a “cover up.”

    Playing dumb is a good look for you.
    Yeah, shocking that a smart Kunt like you couldn’t address anything I said.
    GayBob is “working class.”
    And a coward.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SFGbob
    SFGbob Member Posts: 33,183
    El Monte’s melt down continues
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CirrhosisDawg
    CirrhosisDawg Member Posts: 6,390
    SFGbob said:

    El Monte’s melt down continues

    Did you get a federal income tax cut in 2019? You’ve been running like the bitch you are all day afraid to answer the question. Man of integrity? Not working class? You are a coward GayBob.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter