Pretty well run down track of issues.

Pour a large Coffee, put the phone on silent, and give a read.

https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/

Pretty well run down track of issues.

Pour a large Coffee, put the phone on silent, and give a read.

https://informedvote2016.wordpress.com/2016/03/18/do-i-really-need-to-worry-about-hillarys-emails-yes-she-will-be-indicted-full-form/

Some surprising information here . Even for those of us that fully expected a cover up .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't see anything in here that hasn't been brought up before.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't see anything.....


Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

not surprising information

not surprising information
I do find it interesting that John would take the opinion of a 22 year old who honed his skills in high school debate club over real journalists talking to legal experts. Hey, he's a decent writer but please.

I do find it interesting that John would take the opinion of a 22 year old who honed his skills in high school debate club over real journalists talking to legal experts. Hey, he's a decent writer but please.

so you ignored the content and dismissed it because of the age (and probably angle) of the writer...

"real journalists"...that's funny too


too much comedy

I do find it interesting that John would take the opinion of a 22 year old who honed his skills in high school debate club over real journalists talking to legal experts. Hey, he's a decent writer but please.

He didn't take the opinion he posted the story and it's not a debate it's an FBI investigation
What real journalist are you referring too BTW ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I do find it interesting that John would take the opinion of a 22 year old who honed his skills in high school debate club over real journalists talking to legal experts. Hey, he's a decent writer but please.

Haha - even a 22 year old (that has had security training) is able to look up sources.

Bu that is OK, almost 150 FBI agents have been working this case at times, surely there is nothing to see
/sarc


Don't see anything in here that hasn't been brought up before.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/attachment.php?attachmentid=56652&d=1375401049

But that is OK, almost 150 FBI Secret agents have been working this case at times, surely there is nothing to see



fixed it :kewl:

it is government...maybe only 1 or 2 are actually working the case and the rest are standing around in bright yellow pinnies sipping coffee ??

seems to me if ANYONE at the FBI is looking into you or your activities, particularly if you are running around telling everyone you want to be President...there's probably something to see

fixed it :kewl:

it is government...maybe only 1 or 2 are actually working the case and the rest are standing around in bright yellow pinnies sipping coffee ??

seems to me if ANYONE at the FBI is looking into you or your activities, particularly if you are running around telling everyone you want to be President...there's probably something to see

Exactly! Spence and Paul would be having simultaneous orgasms if the FBI were investigating Donald Trump for parking violations .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Haha - even a 22 year old (that has had security training) is able to look up sources.

Bu that is OK, almost 150 FBI agents have been working this case at times, surely there is nothing to see
"Sources" are people with inside knowledge, not blogs.

Your 147 number just blew up by the way, WashPost retracted that reporting...

"Sources" are people with inside knowledge, ...

"Special" Sources

Your 147 number just blew up by the way, WashPost retracted that reporting..



"Sources" (people with inside knowledge) were wrong?

Exactly! Spence and Paul would be having simultaneous orgasms if the FBI were investigating Donald Trump for parking violations .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nah, I'm not infatuated with him (although I do think his campaign is a joke) and haven't posted as much as I'm guessing you seem to think I've posted. You have been posting far more than me about him. But since you mention Trump, did you see the stories saying there is a strong correlation of his support and number of racist web searches by state. Some people said that the measure was the single strongest correlation of Trump that they could find.

How is that?

"Sources" are people with inside knowledge, not blogs.

Your 147 number just blew up by the way, WashPost retracted that reporting...

Ya know - you are correct, the frequently rumored 147 (which has been the number circulated for weeks) has been retracted to less than 50 agents by WaPo for the WaPo article.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this article incorrectly said that Clinton used two different email addresses, sometimes interchangeably, as secretary of state. She used only hdr22@clintonemail.com as secretary of state. Also, an earlier version of this article reported that 147 FBI agents had been detailed to the investigation, according to a lawmaker briefed by FBI Director James B. Comey. Two U.S. law enforcement officials have since told The Washington Post that figure is too high. The FBI will not provide an exact figure, but the officials say the number of FBI personnel involved is fewer than 50.

So that means that the FBI agents on this case is less than those working on the September 11 Attacks, but more than worked on TWA 800.

BTW - did you read the article?

I do find it interesting that John would take the opinion of a 22 year old who honed his skills in high school debate club over real journalists talking to legal experts. Hey, he's a decent writer but please.



"Real journalist"

That's a good one.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

nah, I'm not infatuated with him (although I do think his campaign is a joke) and haven't posted as much as I'm guessing you seem to think I've posted. You have been posting far more than me about him. But since you mention Trump, did you see the stories saying there is a strong correlation of his support and number of racist web searches by state. Some people said that the measure was the single strongest correlation of Trump that they could find.

How is that?

No i didn't see that but I suspect a large portion of them could be liberals reaching for a smoking gun
Please post your source. I would love to read it and also I could use a good laugh
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Look up Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight. Didn't read the study but I know he is well regarded.

I guess one reaction would be to laugh.

Look up Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight. Didn't read the study but I know he is well regarded.

I guess one reaction would be to laugh.

If I had to bet which candidate actual racists support, I'd pick Trump. And if I had to bet which party ISIS hopes wins, it would be the Democrats. So I'm not sure you can use this to make the point you are trying to make.

The media and the Dems have done a wonderful job making the GOP out to be racist. The ironic thing is, it's the Democratic agenda that has been a disaster for blacks (I refer you to any urban area controlled by the Dems for 40 years, and do a before and after comparison). If I was a racist, I would absolutely vote for Dems, whose agenda is to treat blacks like pets, pat them on the head and say "there, there", give them just enough to avoid death, but not nearly enough to climb out of poverty.

Republicans want all blacks to succeed. Democrats want blacks to "behave", meaning, to vote for Democrats and to not move into wealthy, liberal, white neighborhoods. Because if blacks escaped poverty in huge numbers, they'd have no need to keep voting for Dems.

And if I had to bet which party ISIS hopes wins, it would be the Democrats.
This makes no sense.

Ya know - you are correct, the frequently rumored 147 (which has been the number circulated for weeks) has been retracted to less than 50 agents by WaPo for the WaPo article.



So that means that the FBI agents on this case is less than those working on the September 11 Attacks, but more than worked on TWA 800.

BTW - did you read the article?
Yes, I read just about everything.

This makes no sense.

To you, I'm sure it doesn't make sense. In all seriousness, when was the last time you were able to process something that made Democrats look like they were on the wrong side of an issue? I mean that, when was the last time? You won't admit that Hilary lies. So it's no surprise that this makes no sense.

To ISIS, the dems are seen as softer on terror and crime. Maybe you followed the issue of waterboarding, and what the 2 parties had to say on the subject. Eric Holder put forth the idea that terrorists captured on the battlefield should be mirandized (and after everyone in Congress got done laughing at that, they told him to run along and go play on the swings). Obama pulled us out of Iraq, which allowed ISIS to step up.

Look up Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight. Didn't read the study but I know he is well regarded.

I guess one reaction would be to laugh.

Couldn't find the study but I found a lot about how Nate totally miised on his predictions about Trump so far . I also couldn't find positive article about Trump written by Nate but I found a lot of negative ones .
He's obviously biased and to be honest not that funny 😁
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

To you, I'm sure it doesn't make sense. In all seriousness, when was the last time you were able to process something that made Democrats look like they were on the wrong side of an issue? I mean that, when was the last time? You won't admit that Hilary lies. So it's no surprise that this makes no sense.

To ISIS, the dems are seen as softer on terror and crime. Maybe you followed the issue of waterboarding, and what the 2 parties had to say on the subject. Eric Holder put forth the idea that terrorists captured on the battlefield should be mirandized (and after everyone in Congress got done laughing at that, they told him to run along and go play on the swings). Obama pulled us out of Iraq, which allowed ISIS to step up.
Was does ISIS want?

A) Muslims to feel disenfranchised in their home countries so they leave and come to fight for ISIS

B) Foreign boots on the ground and collateral damage to claim Western imperialism and disregard for Muslims in Syria and Iraq to get money from sympathetic Arabs

What does Trump want?

A) Surveillance of Muslims in America and to restrict free movement based on religion

B) US boots on the ground, torture of Muslims and burn the place down War footing

Was does ISIS want?

A) Muslims to feel disenfranchised in their home countries so they leave and come to fight for ISIS

B) Foreign boots on the ground and collateral damage to claim Western imperialism and disregard for Muslims in Syria and Iraq to get money from sympathetic Arabs

What does Trump want?

A) Surveillance of Muslims in America and to restrict free movement based on religion

B) US boots on the ground, torture of Muslims and burn the place down War footing

A) I don't even know what the hell you mean by this , disenfranchised ?
B) But didn't ISIS gain ground and stature after the US boots on the ground were pulled against the recommendation of many ?
You really aren't making much sense lately
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You really aren't making much sense lately

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

yup...he's lost it...:screwy:

maybe he needs some of that Trump Derangement Syndrome Therapy

Was does ISIS want?

A) Muslims to feel disenfranchised in their home countries so they leave and come to fight for ISIS

B) Foreign boots on the ground and collateral damage to claim Western imperialism and disregard for Muslims in Syria and Iraq to get money from sympathetic Arabs

What does Trump want?

A) Surveillance of Muslims in America and to restrict free movement based on religion

B) US boots on the ground, torture of Muslims and burn the place down War footing

Your list of what ISIS wants, seems to be missing some key htings, which I promise you are on their wishlist. They would prefer a President who isn't going to empty our arsenal of conventional bombs on thei rheads, and they want a President who is less likely to send in th ecavalry to kill them all. Since they also have sa stated goal of killing as many Americans as possible, they would also prefer a President who makes it easier, rather than harder, to get jihadists into the country. Gee, I wonder why you left those things, off your list of what the terrorists want?

"Foreign boots on the ground and collateral damage to claim Western imperialism and disregard for Muslims in Syria and Iraq to get money from sympathetic Arabs "

So if we stop bombing them altogether, which reduces collateral damage to zero, you say that's bad for ISIS? Man, oh man.

an indictment shall follow

John, Really????????????????????

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fed-source-about-12-fbi-agents-working-clinton-email-inquiry-n548026

It is more than 12, there may also be an investigation with the Clinton Global Initiative. And the NSA is pi$$ed.

Time will tell - looks like she has a date with Director Comey real soon.

State Dept. inspector general report sharply criticizes Clinton’s email practices

The State Department’s independent watchdog has issued a highly critical analysis of Hillary Clinton’s email practices while running the department, concluding that she failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private email server and that department staff would not have given its blessing because of the “security risks in doing so.”

Linky (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/state-dept-inspector-general-report-sharply-criticizes-clintons-email-practices/2016/05/25/fc6f8ebc-2275-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html)

Can she go to jail now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unless you can go to jail for not following "policies," I would say there is no jail in her future.

The issue is they have yet to unequivocally prove that she illegally shared classified info (in the way that Snowden did, for example).

I know. I was just kidding.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Can she go to jail now?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That's not likely.

There's not a lot of new information here. The biggest gripe is that she didn't turn over all state records when she left office (assuming copying gov servers was good enough) but they also found Colin Powell still has yet to produce any emails.

There was some discussion on low level concern over her server, but they also confirmed it wasn't prohibited.

Generally speaking the report found the State Department has had lax rules for quite some time, but most of the big issues were fixed after Clinton left office.

That's not likely.

There's not a lot of new information here. The biggest gripe is that she didn't turn over all state records when she left office (assuming copying gov servers was good enough) but they also found Colin Powell still has yet to produce any emails.

There was some discussion on low level concern over her server, but they also confirmed it wasn't prohibited.

Generally speaking the report found the State Department has had lax rules for quite some time, but most of the big issues were fixed after Clinton left office.

The report prepared by the Obama administration, proves you're a liar Spence
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Hillary Clinton and her team ignored clear guidance from the State Department that her email setup broke federal standards and could leave sensitive material vulnerable to hackers, an independent audit has found. Her aides twice brushed aside concerns, in one case telling technical staff “the matter was not to be discussed further.”

"The inspector general’s review also revealed that hacking attempts forced then-Secretary of State Clinton off email at one point in 2011, though she insists the personal server she used was never breached. Clinton and several of her senior staff declined to be interviewed for the State Department investigation."

http://www.boston.com/culture/politics/2016/05/25/ap-state-dept-audit-faults-hillary-clinton-emails

That's not likely.

There's not a lot of new information here. The biggest gripe is that she didn't turn over all state records when she left office (assuming copying gov servers was good enough) but they also found Colin Powell still has yet to produce any emails.

“By Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the department’s guidance was considerably more detailed and more sophisticated,” the report concluded. “Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives.”

http://www.boston.com/culture/politics/2016/05/25/ap-state-dept-audit-faults-hillary-clinton-emails

I'll highlight it again in case it was missed or glossed over:

The State Department’s independent watchdog has issued a highly critical analysis of Hillary Clinton’s email practices while running the department, concluding that she failed to seek legal approval for her use of a private email server and that department staff would not have given its blessing because of the “security risks in doing so.” “By Secretary Clinton’s tenure, the department’s guidance was considerably more detailed and more sophisticated,” the report concluded. “Secretary Clinton’s cybersecurity practices accordingly must be evaluated in light of these more comprehensive directives.”

http://www.boston.com/culture/politics/2016/05/25/ap-state-dept-audit-faults-hillary-clinton-emails


Ding, Ding, Ding, Ding.

The report prepared by the Obama administration, proves you're a liar Spence
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
No it doesn't. It doesn't really conflict any of Clinton's statements on the matter either. The report really shows the State department had standards that we're keeping pace for decades.

The review encompassed the email and information practices of the past five secretaries of state, finding them “slow to recognize and to manage effectively the legal requirements and cybersecurity risks associated with electronic data communications, particularly as those risks pertain to its most senior leadership.”

"The inspector general’s review also revealed that hacking attempts forced then-Secretary of State Clinton off email at one point in 2011, though she insists the personal server she used was never breached.

The audit said a Clinton aide had to shut down the server on Jan. 9, 2011, because he believed “someone was trying to hack us.” Later that day, he said: “We were attacked again so I shut (the server) down for a few min.”

A few minutes, must have been quite an attack.

Why did she have the server at her house in the first place? Seems to me it was only to have the ability to destroy evidence if need be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why did she have the server at her house in the first place? Seems to me it was only to have the ability to destroy evidence if need be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
If your intent was to hide evidence you wouldn't use email...ever.

If your intent was to hide evidence you wouldn't use email...ever.

Or if you did you would just delete 30,000 of them . You're a piece of work Jeff .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

exactly..

A few minutes, must have been quite an attack.

Your right, it wasn't much of an attack......considering the only defense they had was shutting down the server for a few minutes.

I bet that showed them..... :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If your intent was to hide evidence you wouldn't use email...ever.

...and there's another check mark in the "To Stupid" column

Maybe you shouldn't be in her corner.....with your defense she's starting to look like a regular Barney Fife
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Or if you did you would just delete 30,000 of them . You're a piece of work Jeff .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
She has no legal or ethical obligation to submit personal emails to the public record.

Your right, it wasn't much of an attack......considering the only defense they had was shutting down the server for a few minutes.

I bet that showed them..... :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
As a propeller head you know any server will come under attack from time to time. Just people fishing...

...and there's another check mark in the "To Stupid" column

Maybe you shouldn't be in her corner.....with your defense she's starting to look like a regular Barney Fife
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Story hasn't really changed over the past year though. Shouldn't have done it, she admits this, no harm we're aware of, no malicious motive and a lot has shown to be overblown inter-agency infighting.

As a propeller head you know any server will come under attack from time to time. Just people fishing...

Ugh.... :wall:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ugh.... :wall:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
So I'm wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Why did she have the server at her house in the first place? Seems to me it was only to have the ability to destroy evidence if need be.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yep.

If your intent was to hide evidence you wouldn't use email...ever.

If your intent was to hide evidence you wouldn't use email...ever on a server out of your control FIFY



Your right, it wasn't much of an attack......considering the only defense they had was shutting down the server for a few minutes.

I bet that showed them..... :rolleyes:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


well - at least when they started it back up and fully installed the RAT


As a propeller head you know any server will come under attack from time to time. Just people fishing...


Yes, but us propeller heads know that a lot of times you only know you are compromised is by inspecting the traffic that leaves your perimeter - not something this server or operation was capable of doing. Us propeller heads also know that the DptState systems are far more secure than an unpatched single exchange box in a bathroom. I can think of several ways to access that system. She created a monumental security blunder.

Unfortunately people are missing the point. SHE BROKE FEDERAL LAW. Why all the confusion, everyone knows if you cant trust someone with the small stuff, you can't trust them with the big stuff.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So I'm wrong?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Clueless" would be the more appropriate word....

...or "In Denial"....I'll let you choose

Unfortunately people are missing the point. SHE BROKE FEDERAL LAW. Why all the confusion, everyone knows if you cant trust someone with the small stuff, you can't trust them with the big stuff.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Exactly, and at a minimum ,you will see the information that the FBI has, which in an honest administration would bring an indictment , released before the national Democratic convention .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence will now say that breaking federal law is acceptable because people have done it before Hillary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She has no legal or ethical obligation to anything

fixed it:laugha:

Unfortunately people are missing the point. SHE BROKE FEDERAL LAW. Why all the confusion, everyone knows if you cant trust someone with the small stuff, you can't trust them with the big stuff.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
The report doesn't say she broke federal law, it says that the working assumption -- that copying a state.gov address on emails -- wasn't sufficient to satisfy State Department procedure to comply with the National Records Act. They wanted the emails to be printed instead.

Further the report states that both the NARA and OIG agreed "Clinton's production of 55,000 pages of emails mitigated her failure to properly preserve emails that qualified as Federal records during her tenure and to surrender such records on her departure."

So what the report says is that they would have liked them to be printed when she left, but her follow on action was good enough.

You can read the report here:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/apps/g/page/politics/state-department-report-on-clintons-email-practices/2039/?tid=a_inl

The report states that she acted without permission, did not ask to have her own server, and if she did, they would have said no.

The report states that she acted without permission, did not ask to have her own server, and if she did, they would have said no.

Irrelevent details, a fabrication that is part of the vast right wing conspiracy (likely funded by the Koch brothers) to take her down.

The report states that she acted without permission, did not ask to have her own server, and if she did, they would have said no.
That doesn't necessarily make it a violation, it's a grey area they cleaned up after she left. The report also states that John Kerry is the first Sec State to have a state.gov address.

That doesn't necessarily make it a violation, it's a grey area they cleaned up after she left.

How about a violation of Common Sense...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

The report also states that John Kerry is the first Sec State to have a state.gov address.

Moot.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence:

Significant Hillary FanBoy, Andrea Mitchell, even sounds like she is debating against you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q8CeuYStd3s

http://www.redstate.com/jaycaruso/2016/05/31/former-state-department-inspector-general-hillary-full/?utm_source=rsmorningbriefing&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl

The article ends with:

Now that a non-partisan source has said Clinton broke the rules, it will descend into, “Ok, she may have technically violated the rules but she didn’t do anything illegal!” Let’s see how long it takes before that sets in.


I think Spence had already set it in long before the article was written.

Maybe if the FBI wasnt overburdened with Hillary's criminal investigation things would be different in Orlando......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe if the FBI wasnt overburdened with Hillary's criminal investigation things would be different in Orlando......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
What would compel you to make such a reprehensible remark?

What would compel you to make such a reprehensible remark?

Isn't it infuriating when someone makes an illogical connection ?
I think I'm becoming liberal
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think I'm becoming liberal
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, at least you'll never be accused of being a racist :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Isn't it infuriating when someone makes an illogical connection ?
I think I'm becoming liberal
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Deplorable.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well, at least you'll never be accused of being a racist :hihi:
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nor will you ever be asked to accept responsibility for anything you do...

FBI drops the ball IMO

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/fbi-director-james-comey-has-concluded-the-investigation-into-clintons-emails.html

as her path is fixed by corruption plain as day

FBI drops the ball IMO

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/05/fbi-director-james-comey-has-concluded-the-investigation-into-clintons-emails.html

as her path is fixed by corruption plain as day
How can you suggest charges when there isn't a case you can prosecute?

Most important is it looks like there was no evidence of mal intent or attempts to cover anything up.

inappropriate and negligent
if it were anyone else, they would be fired, fined and in jail

it's up to prosecutors now

it's up to prosecutors now
Huh? Legally speaking this story is dead.

I listened to the press conference, I will post the transcript later and highlight key items. Had ANYONE else done that than the political uber elite they would have been prosecuted.

There will be significant protesting form the Intelligence Community.

The FBI has said either :

Nobody will be prosecuted for mishandling intelligence information if you say it was not intentional

or

The rules still apply to the peasants.

Both have significant, negative impacts on information storage.

Any thoughts on a 3rd possibility - those of you with a Security clearance (that can comment?)

And we are left to believe that this is just another situation of blaring incompetence and carelessness where nobody will be held accountable. Status quo for this administration
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Huh? Legally speaking this story is dead.

Yep. It's worth noting that the FBI doesn't have a history of being overly political. I think it was worth doing the investigation, you have to investigate to determine whether or not any laws were broken.

Yep. It's worth noting that the FBI doesn't have a history of being overly political. I think it was worth doing the investigation, you have to investigate to determine whether or not any laws were broken.


Laws were broken, they just apply to the little people.

Laws were broken, they just apply to the little people.

I don't know NEARLY enough about the technical stuff to conclude, for myself, if laws were broken, of if she received preferential treatment. This FBI director is known as being a straight shooter (I think). I had long ago accurately concluded about the character of this woman and her husband, this does very little to move the needle either way for me.

The FBI did say she was extremely careless in her handling of sensitive material. Is that who we want as POTUS when, whether she will say it or not, the civilized world is at war with jihadists? In a fair world, having the FBI say that you can't be trusted to handle sensitive intelligence, should be more than enough to lead people to conclude that she isn't nearly up for the job. She doesn't have the brains, she doesn't have the character.

And the fact that the FBI would release this, right after her husband had a secret meeting with the AG, is mind-boggling. The optics could not be more sleazy.

She's a moron, and she's morally bankrupt. I knew that already, and if anything, the outcome of this scandal (the latest of many) cements that.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.


Makes you wonder if this is the time, dunnit

I never thought that criminal charges would stick in this case. That said, based on Comey's scathing report on Hillary's carelessness her security clearance should be revoked at the very least. Any other government executive or employee would lose their clearance in a case like this for sure.

I just listened to the FBI briefing. The director said explicitly, that they found dozens of emails that were flagged as classified (or something like that) at the time she sent them to her personal server. Again, I'm not expert on these things, but doesn't that mean she lied? Hasn't her defense been all along, that she sent nothing that was classified at the time it was sent?

I just listened to the FBI briefing. The director said explicitly, that they found dozens of emails that were flagged as classified (or something like that) at the time she sent them to her personal server. Again, I'm not expert on these things, but doesn't that mean she lied? Hasn't her defense been all along, that she sent nothing that was classified at the time it was sent?

Read the transcript of the FBI directors announcement.
It was an indictment of her character and judgment.
She also lied about most things , including whether they were classified as top-secret or classified at the time they were sent ( well over 100 ) and the FBI found thousands of more emails that were work related that were not released by Hillary .
He even said that with the given evidence, anybody else could face charges.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I just listened to the FBI briefing. The director said explicitly, that they found dozens of emails that were flagged as classified (or something like that) at the time she sent them to her personal server. Again, I'm not expert on these things, but doesn't that mean she lied? Hasn't her defense been all along, that she sent nothing that was classified at the time it was sent?
Not necessarily, you could easily pass along an email thread containing classified information without even knowing it.

I've read that one "should have known" incident was discussing a public NYT article about drone strikes simply because the drone program was classified. Big whoop...

I'm glad they did the detailed investigationand that they found no evidence of intentional wrongdoing or cover up...conspiracy theories be dammed. You should also put the FBI comments on context of the IG report calling out lax information handling at State well before Clinton.

Fundamentally there's not a lot of new info here aside from the fact that the issue isn't worthy of prosecution...

The FBI has said either :

Nobody will be prosecuted for mishandling intelligence information if you say it was not intentional

or

The rules still apply to the peasants.

So can you inform us of all the significant cases where "peasants" were prosecuted for unintentional mishandling of intelligence information?

So can you inform us of all the significant cases where "peasants" were prosecuted for unintentional mishandling of intelligence information?


Here ya go - I know you will find problems with it though

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/08/01/kristian-saucier-alexandria-submarine-pictures-john-walker/30907091/

Here ya go - I know you will find problems with it though

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/08/01/kristian-saucier-alexandria-submarine-pictures-john-walker/30907091/
Because I like you I'll give you a mulligan. This is your oppy to bring some game...do it!

So can you inform us of all the significant cases where "peasants" were prosecuted for unintentional mishandling of intelligence information?

You don't need to show intent. She showed gross negligence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Huh? Legally speaking this story is dead.

Huh?
The FBI stated it was illegal but legally speaking the story is dead , HUH?

I just listened to the FBI briefing. The director said explicitly, that they found dozens of emails that were flagged as classified (or something like that) at the time she sent them to her personal server. Again, I'm not expert on these things, but doesn't that mean she lied? Hasn't her defense been all along, that she sent nothing that was classified at the time it was sent?


Yes it shows she has a nose bigger than Pinocchio, and this is the person half of our country wants as POTUS :tm::fishslap:

You don't need to show intent. She showed gross negligence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
That's not how the law works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not necessarily, you could easily pass along an email thread containing classified information without even knowing it.

I've read that one "should have known" incident was discussing a public NYT article about drone strikes simply because the drone program was classified. Big whoop...

I'm glad they did the detailed investigationand that they found no evidence of intentional wrongdoing or cover up...conspiracy theories be dammed. You should also put the FBI comments on context of the IG report calling out lax information handling at State well before Clinton.

Fundamentally there's not a lot of new info here aside from the fact that the issue isn't worthy of prosecution...

You are completely out of your gourd. She said that 0 emails were flagged as classified or higher, when she sent. There were over 100. The FBI director said no reasonable person could have failed to know they were being reckless. She's a pathological liar.

But when you won't concede she lied about the sniper attack, I guess denying that she lied here is nothing.

The FBI has concluded that she was extremely careless with the handling of sensitive information.

Because I like you I'll give you a mulligan. This is your oppy to bring some game...do it!

John Deutsch
Sandy Berger

That's not how the law works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes it is
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's not how the law works.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

This is a quote from the FBI director today....

"Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities."

What part of "violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information.....in a grossly negligent way" don't you understand????



Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As I suspected Some are unable to accept she didn't commit a crime and is not going to jail and this saddens them .. for me the issues has never been what she and her people did wasn't stupid or irresponsible and I dont disagree with those who feel that way .. My argument has always against the Jail time crowd like birthers no mater the evidence it's in their heads

I only hope that those who hate Hillary would put the same effort looking into the Donald and his Trustworthiness experience his knowledge of world politics his Maybe Crimes and temperament to be POTUS.. and have the same frank conversation ..just an idea

So can you inform us of all the significant cases where "peasants" were prosecuted for unintentional mishandling of intelligence information?

Spence - believe me as I have worked in this field all my working life. I've known plenty of examples where a silly mistake with classified information even with no "intent" has resulted in loss of job, security clearance, and those involved can never pass a background check again for government work. My guess is someone in Hillary's state dept office will be the fall guy and lose their job to protect her. I mean how can a potential POTUS not pass a background check?

As I suspected Some are unable to accept she didn't commit a crime and is not going to jail

That's not what the FBI determined at all however it does sadden me that she won't be going to jail ....for this crime at least .
I'm holding out hope that karma and justice eventually catch up to her .
Question ... Does it sadden you that she lied through her teeth ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As I suspected Some are unable to accept she didn't commit a crime and is not going to jail and this saddens them .. for me the issues has never been what she and her people did wasn't stupid or irresponsible and I dont disagree with those who feel that way .. My argument has always against the Jail time crowd like birthers no mater the evidence it's in their heads

I only hope that those who hate Hillary would put the same effort looking into the Donald and his Trustworthiness experience his knowledge of world politics his Maybe Crimes and temperament to be POTUS.. and have the same frank conversation ..just an idea


Comey said she broke laws and the laws she broke are felonies, he said he did not have something that was prosecutable.

BTW - a lot of us that think Hillary is unfit to be president feel Trump is unfit to be president. So get off your high horse.

Comey said she broke laws and the laws she broke are felonies, he said he did not have something that was prosecutable.

BTW - a lot of us that think Hillary is unfit to be president feet Trump is unfit to be president. So get off your high horse.

And isn't the FBI basically making the case she lied under oath ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As I suspected Some are unable to accept she didn't commit a crime and is not going to jail and this saddens them .. for me the issues has never been what she and her people did wasn't stupid or irresponsible and I dont disagree with those who feel that way .. My argument has always against the Jail time crowd like birthers no mater the evidence it's in their heads

Most of the anti-Hillary posters also believed that she would not be indicted, so that was accepted beforehand. Comay didn't say she didn't commit a crime. He said, essentially, that the evidence wasn't strong enough to successfully prosecute. The reason for that could be political as well as evidential since the Justice Dept. would have to prosecute. What he did say about what she did is very damning. For those of us who don't believe her, and Comay pointed out her obvious lies in the matter, the evidence he presented did show she violated the statute. But recommending indictment then having her acquitted by the Justice Dept. would not make the FBI look good.

I only hope that those who hate Hillary would put the same effort looking into the Donald and his Trustworthiness experience his knowledge of world politics his Maybe Crimes and temperament to be POTUS.. and have the same frank conversation ..just an idea

The anti-Hilary posters all have, looked negatively into the Donald's reputation, but a choice has to be made. Hillary already has a political resume which is one of failed policies and a rigid temperament to stick to and defend those policies, which should be enough to say no to her.

For those of us who don't believe her, and Comay pointed out her obvious lies in the matter, the evidence he presented did show she violated the statute. But recommending indictment then having her acquitted by the Justice Dept. would not make the FBI look good.




better to have tried and failed, then not having tried at all.

Now they look worse to people like me who are not asleep

What part of "violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information.....in a grossly negligent way" don't you understand????
He didn't say that was the finding, that was the initial inquiry...which they found didn't have sufficient evidence to prosecute.

John Deutsch
Sandy Berger
Deutsch? Nothing happened, he's still in good standing.

Berger? There you have intentional theft of classified material, lying about the theft and destruction of the documents. And for all that he got a slap on the wrist.

Swing, and a miss...

You don't need to show intent. She showed gross negligence.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
This is not what Comey said.

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

i.e. the felony standard for gross negligence was not met.

This is not what Comey said.



i.e. the felony standard for gross negligence was not met.

Extreme carelessness !!
That is the definition of gross negligence .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Comey said she broke laws and the laws she broke are felonies, he said he did not have something that was prosecutable.
He did not, specifically he said there was evidence of "potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information."

That's not the same thing as saying Clinton committed a felony.

Deutsch? Nothing happened, he's still in good standing...

Nothing happened? He lost his security clearance, which was unprecedented for someone in his position. And he was negotiating a plea deal with prosecutors at the time he was pardoned by President Clinton. By the way, no one from the CIA was consulted or informed that he was going to be pardoned on Clintons last day in office. I certainly wouldn't say he's in good standing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He didn't say that was the finding, that was the initial inquiry...which they found didn't have sufficient evidence to prosecute.

He stated that classified material WAS found on her server....

So SOMEONE is guilty of intentionally or negligently mis-handling classified material.

So who is it???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now her camp is saying they may keep lynch as ag? If that's true, Hilary has tons of contempt for all of us. Is she that brazen?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence - believe me as I have worked in this field all my working life. I've known plenty of examples where a silly mistake with classified information even with no "intent" has resulted in loss of job, security clearance, and those involved can never pass a background check again for government work. My guess is someone in Hillary's state dept office will be the fall guy and lose their job to protect her. I mean how can a potential POTUS not pass a background check? and


I would venture to say she would not be able to pass a Top Secret Clearance Test at this point and how can you elect a candidate for President that doesn't have one?

He stated that classified material WAS found on her server....

So SOMEONE is guilty of intentionally or negligently mis-handling classified material.

So who is it???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Considering the IG report showed a history of sloppy information handling well before Clinton, the amount of classified information was fairly low, there isn't any malicious intent and that it doesn't appear anything bad is known to happen as a result...I doubt we'll ever know.

It's not like they're going to go make an example of people when the policies have already been tightened up.

Spence - believe me as I have worked in this field all my working life. I've known plenty of examples where a silly mistake with classified information even with no "intent" has resulted in loss of job, security clearance, and those involved can never pass a background check again for government work. My guess is someone in Hillary's state dept office will be the fall guy and lose their job to protect her. I mean how can a potential POTUS not pass a background check?
I'm note sure that's such a clean cut decision. Executives are often given more wiggle room on matters like this out of respect for the weight and complexities of their responsibilities...and in this case responsibilities born out of public service rather than shareholders.

Now her camp is saying they may keep lynch as ag? If that's true, Hilary has tons of contempt for all of us. Is she that brazen?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's called a bribe .
If Hillary gets in she will nominate Obama and then Lynch for SCJ
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm note sure that's such a clean cut decision. Executives are often given more wiggle room on matters like this out of respect for the weight and complexities of their responsibilities...and in this case responsibilities born out of public service rather than shareholders.

"Public Service " lmao
Yea she only got mega mega wealthy off her " public service "
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm note sure that's such a clean cut decision. Executives are often given more wiggle room on matters like this out of respect for the weight and complexities of their responsibilities...and in this case responsibilities born out of public service rather than shareholders.

So you agree that would be a double standard?

Nothing happened? He lost his security clearance, which was unprecedented for someone in his position. And he was negotiating a plea deal with prosecutors at the time he was pardoned by President Clinton. By the way, no one from the CIA was consulted or informed that he was going to be pardoned on Clintons last day in office. I certainly wouldn't say he's in good standing.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
It looks like it was temporarily Suspended and he got it back. His case does appear to be a bit different though, Deutsch was routinely using non-classified systems to knowingly process large volumes of classified information. It was intentional, not a small volume of classified information spilling into an unclassified system which from what I understand is quite common.

not a small volume of classified information spilling into an unclassified system which from what I understand is quite common.

From what I understand, your understanding is incorrect......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So you agree that would be a double standard?
I wouldn't say it's a double standard, rather there are other factors that may be considered or have more weight under certain circumstances. There's a lot of judgement involved which is why you hope the process is apolitical.

Kind of like why 1st class passengers got the lifeboats on the titanic. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Kind of like why 1st class passengers got the lifeboats on the titanic. ;)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Haha, funny but unfortunately in this case very true.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Huh?
The FBI stated it was illegal but legally speaking the story is dead , HUH?
Yes dead...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-emails-no-charges/index.html

Yes dead...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-emails-no-charges/index.html

Not quite
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not quite
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I've got to believe that a guy like Comey did plenty of homework before he went in front of the cameras yesterday. Just because Rudy is misusing legal terms to mislead people doesn't make for a case.

and we thought john gotti was the Teflon one....

Lets face it. Hillary will defeat Trump in the election and we will have to live with 4 years at least of more divisive politics.. More polarization of a divided nation. Probably more war because Hillary is a Hawk... This makes me really pessimistic about our future.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lets face it. Hillary will defeat Trump in the election and we will have to live with 4 years at least of more divisive politics.. More polarization of a divided nation. Probably more war because Hillary is a Hawk... This makes me really pessimistic about our future.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm afraid you are probably right .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I've got to believe that a guy like Comey did plenty of homework before he went in front of the cameras yesterday. Just because Rudy is misusing legal terms to mislead people doesn't make for a case.

but it will continue to show how blatenly she lied.
Curious if you and the Mrs. are using this as a teaching moment for your children ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

but it will continue to show how blatenly she lied.
Curious if you and the Mrs. are using this as a teaching moment for your children ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://youtu.be/wbkS26PX4rc
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It looks like it was temporarily Suspended and he got it back. His case does appear to be a bit different though, Deutsch was routinely using non-classified systems to knowingly process large volumes of classified information. It was intentional, not a small volume of classified information spilling into an unclassified system which from what I understand is quite common.

Hahahaha

See - two sets of rules

Hahahaha

See - two sets of rules
Rethink.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Rethink.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


On Friday August 20, 1999, then-director of the CIA George Tenet announced (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/daily/aug99/deutch21.htm) he had suspended the security clearance of previous director John M. Deutch for storing classified information on a private server at his home. On January 20, 2001, as one of his last acts as president, Bill Clinton granted Deutch a presidential pardon, sparing him the prospect of a criminal conviction.
“The pardon of Mr. Deutch spares the former spy director any criminal charges for mishandling secret information on his home computer. Mr. Deutch, who resigned in 1996, has already had his security clearance stripped,” The New York Times reported (http://www.nytimes.com/2001/01/21/politics/21CLIN.html?pagewanted=all) at the time. “He had been considering a deal with the Justice Department in which he would plead guilty to a misdemeanor charge of keeping classified data on home computers.”

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/flashback-bill-clinton-pardoned-cia-director-for-private-server-use/#ixzz4DgOVvG8K



http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/flashback-bill-clinton-pardoned-cia-director-for-private-server-use/

There you go again, John....using actual facts as a basis of your thoughts on an issue....don't you know you need to base it on Spence's feelings and understandings......or apples and oranges.....or whatever metaphor he wants to throw out there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interesting piece and well worth the read. Spence will call it spilled milk or something but he has a thing for felons in Armani Mao suits.

http://spectator.org/comeys-hanoi-confession/

Interesting piece and well worth the read. Spence will call it spilled milk or something but he has a thing for felons in Armani Mao suits.

http://spectator.org/comeys-hanoi-confession/

Cmon, John.....obviously the writer was taking Comey's comments out of context.....

Apples and Oranges....

It's my understanding.....

You need to reread it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Comey said she broke laws and the laws she broke are felonies, he said he did not have something that was prosecutable.

BTW - a lot of us that think Hillary is unfit to be president feel Trump is unfit to be president. So get off your high horse.


John you may express your feeling he is unfit and 1 other .. the lot of us remain silent focused on Hillary .. So asking for equal scrutiny of Donald is being on a high horse ...

this administration continues to set a remarkably low bar for the next administration....

John you may express your feeling he is unfit and 1 other .. the lot of us remain silent focused on Hillary .. So asking for equal scrutiny of Donald is being on a high horse ...

I am not sure what you mean. Both are unfit IMO to be President. The fact that the Nation, at large, will need to chose between them is horrible. I really hope we can make it through the next 4-12 years. There may be a small chance I will vote for one of these two - we are beyond the lesser of two weevils - but too much is at stake not to vote.

The problem I have is I thought (and now I KNOW) Hillary broke the law, thinks she is above the masses, and she is a a horrible person. Trump I know is a horrible person but I don't know if he has broken the law.

We are as divided as a nation as we have been for the past 150 years.

this administration continues to set a remarkably low bar for the next administration....

Which could come in really useful for either candidate
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

From what I understand, your understanding is incorrect......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
You should tell that to the State Department.

Cmon, John.....obviously the writer was taking Comey's comments out of context.....

Apples and Oranges....

It's my understanding.....

You need to reread it.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Perhaps the author didn't really pay attention to Comey's remarks? He clearly said you either needed intent or volume of which Clinton met neither...

Funny how the State Department has long said they should release all the emails so people can see the classified ones are much to do about nothing...

You should tell that to the State Department.

What part of, nobody believes anything this administration says, don't you understand ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Perhaps the author didn't really pay attention to Comey's remarks? He clearly said you either needed intent or volume of which Clinton met neither...

Funny how the State Department has long said they should release all the emails so people can see the classified ones are much to do about nothing...

You mean these comments.....

"For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

Don't know how you can spin this any other way..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

They will be charging her with perjury by Friday

Watching the Comey grilling on the tube right now - fascinating.

DZ

Watching the Comey grilling on the tube right now - fascinating.

DZ

He sure is spinning and answering everything his way

it's like an inquisition

He sure is spinning and answering everything his way

it's like an inquisition

Trey asked him straight out questions . Sure looks like to my uneducated mind she committed perjury on several accounts . But then again I'm a little person
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Trey asked him straight out questions . Sure looks like to my uneducated mind she committed perjury on several accounts . But then again I'm a little person
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Unless you can prove she knew she was making a false statements I don't think a perjury charge is going to stick. She likely did think she had turned over all relevant emails and because a whopping 3 (out of 30,000) emails had a (C) marking in the email text how can you know she even read them?

He sure is spinning and answering everything his way

it's like an inquisition

I disagree - he looks like a true professional and like many quality people that we WANT to be in senior levels of government - we need more like him. If Hillary had half his integrity we would not have this issue (and I would probably vote for her).

Unless you can prove she knew she was making a false statements I don't think a perjury charge is going to stick.

Agree, lying to the American people does not rise to the level of perjuring herself. We do not yet know if she lied to the FBI probe or not.


She likely did think she had turned over all relevant emails and because a whopping 3 (out of 30,000) emails had a (C) marking in the email text how can you know she even read them?

Yeh, we don't know about that...

I think Comey has done a great job and was correct with his decision not to prosecute criminally. That said I was very surprised that he mentioned he could not use any of her under oath testimony to other government committees as evidence of contradiction in her statements. Hillary is not a current government employee so she is immune to any punishment but I'm thinking that administrative sanctions against any future employment will become the "new" issue. The fact that he called Hillary's actions reckless and careless will become a big issue should she win the presidency when it comes time for her renewed background check for security clearance. If she does gets a clearance then look for her to pardon Snowden.

John, I am sure he believes in his conclusion and stands behind his decision and recommendation.

Shouldn't he have been disqualified from this case for conflict of interest because he previously was involved in the Whitewater investigation?

John, I am sure he believes in his conclusion and stands behind his decision and recommendation.

Shouldn't he have been disqualified from this case for conflict of interest because he previously was involved in the Whitewater investigation?

IMO - no. He probably has the most integrity of anyone in that room.


Here is the nuts and bolts of what I can see based on my hours of watching this. The FBI is not prosecuting Hillary for mishandling of classified documents because they cannot determine sufficiently that she had the INTENT of doing something malicious. For example, if they could prove she intentionally committed espionage, they could try her for espionage.

What he does indicate is that she did what she did and a current employee of any agency handling classified information, that department would have the obligation to investigate, determine, and produce judgement on her, such as reprimand, loss of security clearance, or firing.

Now they're getting into details about classified info compromise here:

http://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe

If she does gets a clearance then look for her to pardon Snowden.
I don't see anyone pardoning Snowden.

IMO - no. He probably has the most integrity of anyone in that room.


Good



What I see is him hanging his hat on the fact that only one case in 1917 was based on negligence and nothing as far as National Security scandal since. There seems to have been plenty of intent so I believe his conclusion is wrong and this is not over yet. The coverup, deleting, lying about it and general scheme shows intent to me plain as day.

The coverup, deleting, lying about it and general scheme shows intent to me plain as day.
Even the FBI said the deleting appeared routing cleaning up of old emails. I'm not sure you can say she lied about things, she quite possibly didn't know.

That being said, I'd sum up Comey's position on intent as this...Clinton seemed to have reasonable explanations for most of the charges, that he couldn't find real evidence to prove mal intent.

I think for the FBI director, that people here seem to respect, would say directly he didn't think Clinton broke the law or lied to the FBI is significant.

Even the FBI said the deleting appeared routing cleaning up of old emails. I'm not sure you can say she lied about things, she quite possibly didn't know.

That being said, I'd sum up Comey's position on intent as this...Clinton seemed to have reasonable explanations for most of the charges, that he couldn't find real evidence to prove mal intent.

I think for the FBI director, that people here seem to respect, would say directly he didn't think Clinton broke the law or lied to the FBI is significant.

Clinton broke the law. Comey signified multiple cases on where she did. He said it was not prosecutable because he could not prove the intent.

He pretty much admitted she is not responsible enough to handle classified information.

Comey's comments pretty much summed up how she screwed up....

You mean these comments.....

"For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

Don't know how you can spin this any other way..
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Even the FBI said the deleting appeared routing cleaning up of old emails.

I'm assuming you meant to say "routine" and not "routing" there. And your statement is wrong. No one from the FBI said the deleting appeared to be routine cleaning of old emails. Don't make stuff up and expect people to go along with it. You make yourself look stupid and I know that you're not. You're delusional and misguided, but not stupid. Just try sticking to the truth from now on. No more "I'm assuming", "I think", or "I believe" statements. Just the facts, as Joe Friday would say.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clinton broke the law. Comey signified multiple cases on where she did. He said it was not prosecutable because he could not prove the intent.
Then why did the FBI director say in his judgement she didn't break the law?

No one from the FBI said the deleting appeared to be routine cleaning of old emails.

Ok.

"I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed."

James B. Comey
FBI Director

Washington, D.C.
July 05, 2016

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Now the State Department is saying none of the emails were marked classified.

Ok.

You used the quote about "additional emails". Next time listen to the statement in its entirety. You're missing out on some interesting stuff by only reading and listening to what fits your agenda. The hearing yesterday was, for the most part, pretty interesting to listen to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Now the State Department is saying none of the emails were marked classified.

Correct, the email headers were not marked. They're saying the (c) markings were in the paragraphs in the body of the emails.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You used the quote about "additional emails". Next time listen to the statement in its entirety. You're missing out on some interesting stuff by only reading and listening to what fits your agenda. The hearing yesterday was, for the most part, pretty interesting to listen to.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Be more specific. I've read his statement multiple times and watched a good portion of the hearing...

Be more specific. I've read his statement multiple times and watched a good portion of the hearing...

You should watch about the last 90 minutes of it since clearly "a good portion" didn't include that. Or, maybe you weren't paying attention.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Correct, the email headers were not marked. They're saying the (c) markings were in the paragraphs in the body of the emails.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Yes, in just three emails...and the State Department is saying that the information wasn't really classified, someone just forgot to remove the markings.

You should watch about the last 90 minutes of it since clearly "a good portion" didn't include that. Or, maybe you weren't paying attention.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Didn't include what.

Didn't include what.

Go back and read.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Then why did the FBI director say in his judgement she didn't break the law?

That's not what he said....

Reading is Fundamental...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, in just three emails...and the State Department is saying that the information wasn't really classified, someone just forgot to remove the markings.

So Hillary never sent or received anything classified?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Unless you can prove she knew she was making a false statements I don't think a perjury charge is going to stick. She likely did think she had turned over all relevant emails and because a whopping 3 (out of 30,000) emails had a (C) marking in the email text how can you know she even read them?

"Unless you can prove she knew she was making a false statements I don't think a perjury charge is going to stick."

Mark Furhman got charged with perjury, with no one able to try to show that he knew he was lying. How do you prove intent to lie, unless the person confesses?

"She likely did think she had turned over all relevant emails"

She said she turned over all work-related emails. Comey said there were "thousands" of work emails that she didn't turn over. Thousands.

"a whopping 3 (out of 30,000) emails had a (C) marking in the email text how can you know she even read them?"

So it's OK to you, if she concluded that the information was not classified and thus safe to send to her personal server, without having read the emails? Great. Maybe she can give the briefcase with the nuclear codes to Putin, after all, if she doesn't open the briefcase, it's not HER fault.

Do you listen to yourself?

That's not what he said....

Reading is Fundamental...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Did Hillary Clinton break the law?" Chaffetz asked.

"In connection with her use of the email server? My judgment is that she did not," Comey said.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/14/hero-marine-nailed-for-sending-classified-report-from-personal-email.html#/articles/2015/08/14/hero-marine-nailed-for-sending-classified-report-from-personal-email.html

I am curious about the 30 thousand personal emails deleted......the FBI recovered "several thousand" work related.... I wonder if they found emails pertaining to the " Clinton Foundation"... showing the sale of influence world wide. I remember a leaked email about HRC asking someone to set up a charity of at least 50k with no restrictions on its use..... I am just curious though....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"Did Hillary Clinton break the law?" Chaffetz asked.

"In connection with her use of the email server? My judgment is that she did not," Comey said.

That's not what he said to the American people.....

"Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That's not what he said to the American people.....
Right, because speaking before the House Panel isn't being in front of the American people? Or perhaps you're saying the most honorable person in the room changed his story?

If he thought she broke the law, it would be because he had sufficient evidence to prove it, which he clearly said he did not...

All these people know that she is going to be the next president. It would be career suicide to take this further and risk "payback" next year.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

All these people know that she is going to be the next president. It would be career suicide to take this further and risk "payback" next year.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Bingo! Sad but true.

Comey wasn't there during the Hillary Clinton interview and I recall he said he didn't speak to all the agents that interviewed Hillary. He also had the agents doing the investigation sign a non disclosure agreement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Comey wasn't there during the Hillary Clinton interview and I recall he said he didn't speak to all the agents that interviewed Hillary. He also had the agents doing the investigation sign a non disclosure agreement.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Clearly Comey is part of the Clinton Foundation's Illuminati division.

Clearly Comey is part of the Clinton Foundation's Illuminati division.

Are you saying he was present during the FBI interview of Hillary?
Are you saying he spoke to all the agents who interviewed Hillary?
Are you saying he didn't make the agents investigating Hillary sign a confidentiality agreement?
Or are you just deflecting?

You want a conspiracy theory here you go...

http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/07/comey-has-long-history-of-clinton-related-cases/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/14/hero-marine-nailed-for-sending-classified-report-from-personal-email.html#/articles/2015/08/14/hero-marine-nailed-for-sending-classified-report-from-personal-email.html
I think the situations are quite a bit different. That's not to say that his punishment isn't too harsh, though I can see the military drawing much straighter lines than the State Department.

...but in this case you have someone knowingly moving a large number of well marked classified documents onto a private system and then knowingly exposing some of that information.

...versus an unintentional drip of some classified bits onto an unclassified system.

Hey, if he can use the argument to lessen his punishment that may be a good thing. I don't think he was trying to do anything wrong by warning his team.

...versus an unintentional drip of some classified bits onto an unclassified system..

When I read statements like this, I drop to my knees and thank God almighty.....that you have absolutely nothing to do with national security
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

When I read statements like this, I drop to my knees and thank God almighty.....that you have absolutely nothing to do with national security
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I'm not saying it's not important, but the recent IG report found both Powell and aids to Rice all had classified information transmitted on their personal email accounts.

It was a system problem and State tightened up the rules after Clinton as a result.

I'm not saying it's not important, but the recent IG report found both Powell and aids to Rice all had classified information transmitted on their personal email accounts.

Making a surface comparison is a sly trick, the rational being that it will be accepted without a deeper analysis. Powell's and Rice's statements as abbreviated by Reuters:

"Powell has said the State Department was technologically backward when he joined in 2001 and that he had to fight to get an Internet-connected computer installed in his office, from which he continued to use his personal email account.

Georgia Godfrey, Rice's chief of staff at Stanford University's Hoover Institution, said Rice did not use email while at the State Department, and that the 10 emails to her staff were reports on 'diplomatic conversations.'"

A deeper analysis of the comparison to Hilary's personal email account is this by Guy Benson in a Feb. 5, 2016 article in Townhall:

"'Condi and Colin did it, too!' relies on a thoroughly bogus equivalency. Above all else, neither Rice nor Powell set up and used a recklessly unsecure private emails server on which they conducted all of their official business, against "clear cut rules" implemented in 2005. (A former CIA director and Secretary of Defense have each stated that her [Clinton's] vulnerable server was likely penetrated by foreign powers like the Russians and Chinese). This review identified ten -- total -- emails that have now been assigned retroactive, low-level classification levels. Only two of them went to then-Secretary of State Powell, with the others going to Rice's aides, and both of those are now classified at the lowest level ("confidential"). As mentioned above, Hillary's server contained 1,600 classified emails and counting, including the most sensitive level of intelligence in existence (SAP, beyond-top-secret). There is no comparison between the conduct of Hillary Clinton and that of her immediate predecessors. Beyond her exclusive use of an improper and unsecure server, Sec. Clinton was personally and specifically warned about the vulnerability of her email scheme in 2011, when a State Department security expert sounded the alarm over foreign hackers seeking to infiltrate US secrets by targeting high-ranking officials' private emails. Mrs. Clinton carried on with her arrangement anyway.

"In summary, Hillary Clinton's server is the scandal. It's possible that Rice's aides and Sec. Powell may have acted improperly (though the email rules were set forth after Powell left office). They may have been sloppy with a small number of low-level classified information on an ad hoc basis. The rules and laws pertaining to the US government's data security must be followed. By everyone. But Clinton mishandled hundreds upon hundreds of classified emails, which held state secrets at the highest classification levels. In fact, just this week, the State Department deemed another seven Clinton emails too sensitive to release in any form, even with redactions, bringing that total to 29. Intelligence officials who've seen some of the documents in question say they betray operational intelligence, the leakage of which puts covert missions and lives at risk. A former NSA official has intelligence community sources who say Clinton's emails included the true identities of CIA operatives and assets, including foreign nationals working for the agency. Unlike Powell and Rice, Mrs. Clinton exhibited ongoing gross negligence by exposing reams of sensitive and classified intelligence to foreign governments. She ignored her sworn duty to safeguard secrets, 'marked and unmarked,' and declined to alter her behavior after she was admonished of an explicit vulnerability pertaining to personal email use. And unlike Powell and Rice, Hillary has consistently lied about this scandal. Her smug assertion that the (twice expanded) FBI investigation won't go anywhere amounts to waving a red flag in front of career investigators and intelligence officials, who are reportedly fuming over her irresponsible, and likely criminal, conduct. Remember, the probe reportedly entails more than just her email misconduct, Gen. David Petraeus was charged for classified intelligence spillage that was far more limited and contained, and a former US Attorney General says there's already sufficient evidence to justify an indictment. Clinton seems confident that her political power and privilege will shield her from accountability in the end, sending a less-than-subtle message to the Justice Department, which has already been influenced by two public White House statements.

It was a system problem and State tightened up the rules after Clinton as a result.

It was not a "system" problem. It was a Hilary Clinton problem.

It was not a "system" problem. It was a Hilary Clinton problem.
Powell sure sounds a lot like Clinton...

"I have reviewed the messages and I do not see what makes them classified." Powell said. "The emails were from my Executive Assistant and forwarded messages sent by two of our Ambassadors to State Department staff members. My Executive Assistant thought I should see them in a timely manner so sent them to my personal account. Both messages were unclassified. There was no reason not to forward them in this manner. ... The Ambassadors did not believe the contents were Confidential at the time and they were sent as unclassified. That is a fact. While they have not yet clarified this point, the State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't. If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share."

Your author is pretty sloppy with the facts. Clinton didn't mishandle "hundreds upon hundreds of classified emails" as they suggest, nor did anyone expose a CIA source.

The last paragraph is a hoot..

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/clinton-emails-held-indirect-references-undercover-cia-officers-n510741

Clinton insists she didn't send or receive information marked classified. But she signed a non-disclosure agreement acknowledging that information can be classified regardless of whether it is "marked or unmarked."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Powell sure sounds a lot like Clinton...

"I have reviewed the messages and I do not see what makes them classified." Powell said. "The emails were from my Executive Assistant and forwarded messages sent by two of our Ambassadors to State Department staff members. My Executive Assistant thought I should see them in a timely manner so sent them to my personal account. Both messages were unclassified. There was no reason not to forward them in this manner. ... The Ambassadors did not believe the contents were Confidential at the time and they were sent as unclassified. That is a fact. While they have not yet clarified this point, the State Department cannot now say they were classified then because they weren't. If the Department wishes to say a dozen years later they should have been classified that is an opinion of the Department that I do not share."

Your author is pretty sloppy with the facts. Clinton didn't mishandle "hundreds upon hundreds of classified emails" as they suggest, nor did anyone expose a CIA source.

However it "sounds" to you, the Clinton and Powell cases are way different. And you're a "sloppy" and selective reader. Still, as always, you spin.

You can choose to read the portion of the article in anyway you choose to spin it. Others will read it differently.

Powell sure sounds a lot like Clinton...

Above all else, neither Rice nor Powell set up and used a recklessly unsecure private emails server on which they conducted all of their official business, against "clear cut rules" implemented in 2005.

Your author is pretty sloppy with the facts. Clinton didn't mishandle "hundreds upon hundreds of classified emails" as they suggest,

"Hillary's server contained 1,600 classified emails and counting, including the most sensitive level of intelligence in existence (SAP, beyond-top-secret). There is no comparison between the conduct of Hillary Clinton and that of her immediate predecessors."

nor did anyone expose a CIA source.

He didn't say that anyone did. What did he say that was untrue?

http://nypost.com/2016/07/25/clinton-practically-handed-her-email-password-to-the-russians/?ref=yfp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

If hackers are REALLY good....you never even know they were here...

She really should stop thinking she is smarter than everyone else and do as the left tells Trump.....shut up, oh well more icing for the cake..

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-deposition-private-serve-226428

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe Hillary and her staff just didn't know what they were doing.

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/741659?ref=yfp&section=Politics&keywords=hillary-clinton-security-training-state&year=2016&month=08&date=01&id=741659&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Main
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

May not be the Russians

https://www.yahoo.com/news/nsa-whistleblower-agency-clintons-deleted-122519001.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe Hillary and her staff just didn't know what they were doing.

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/741659?ref=yfp&section=Politics&keywords=hillary-clinton-security-training-state&year=2016&month=08&date=01&id=741659&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Main
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Or they were to to STFU, and salute

BTW - Newsmax is on par with Huffington for excellence

Or they were to to STFU, and salute

BTW - Newsmax is on par with Huffington for excellence

It does list sources so it should be easy to refute....time will tell.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Imagine that , the State wants to run defense for Hillary and slow down the wheels of justice.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/state-wants-review-fbis-notes-clinton-congress-204933771--election.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.yahoo.com/news/judge-wants-huma-abedin-documents-124408445.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://www.yahoo.com/news/clinton-server-tech-told-fbi-colleagues-worries-system-200305298.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

hmmmmmmmm........:huh:

"Well, what would Friday be without the latest document dump from the Clinton email investigation? Friday afternoon, with the public in distracted anticipation of the coming weekend and Monday’s Clinton-Trump debate showdown, the FBI released another 189 pages of interview reports. Along with this document dump comes remarkable news: The Obama Justice Department reportedly gave top Clinton aide and confidant Cheryl Mills immunity from prosecution for any incriminating information located on her personal computer. According to House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah), the limited immunity was granted in order to persuade Ms. Mills to surrender her laptop computer so the FBI could check whether classified information was stored on it.

This is very strange. "

Maybe Hillary and her staff just didn't know what they were doing.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Stating the obvious 😊
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently they all knew what they were doing.
http://observer.com/2016/09/the-fbi-investigation-of-emailgate-was-a-sham/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/750064?ref=yfp&section=Newsfront&keywords=Trey-Gowdy-State-Department-Cover-Up&year=2016&month=09&date=25&id=750064&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Main
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently Hillary didn't understand that the "c" meant classified even though there were other markings including "sbu" (sensitive but unclassified) that must have really confused Hillary. Maybe she also felt that "sbu" was some form of organizing the information contained within the emails or perhaps it was part of the alphabet Hillary believed started with "c"....Maybe Trump should have Hillary recite the alphabet to see if she starts at "c" and where "sbu" comes in.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/27/fewer-than-one-in-five-state-dept-employees-with-security-clearance-completed-classified-info-training.html?ref=yfp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://nypost.com/2016/09/28/the-fbis-hillary-email-probe-is-looking-even-more-like-a-coverup/?ref=yfp
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And she used it as a deduction on her tax return...lol
http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/750867?ref=yfp&section=Newsfront&keywords=clinton-tax-deductions-payments-email-server&year=2016&month=09&date=29&id=750867&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Main
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/judicial-watch-fbi-used-redacted-documents-question-clinton-aides?ref=yfp

I will try and copy and paste but for now use the link. It doesn't appear possible for me to cut and paste the whole article using a phone.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

https://youtu.be/cj5BkmGEmz8
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Laptops are gone, the FBI destroyed them as part of the immunity agreement.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/03/fbi-agreed-to-destroy-immunized-clinton-aides-laptops-sources-say.html
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Lots of regret inside the FBI...
http://truepundit.com/exclusive-fbi-used-agents-as-pawns-to-insulate-hillary-aides-clinton-foundation-from-prosecutions/
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Jason Chaffitz 4 minute spank down...

https://youtu.be/sqdPnB6dXog
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

FBI reopening email investigation...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-re-open-investigation-clinton-email-server-n674631
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[QUOTE=ecduzitgood;1111293]FBI reopening email investigation...
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-re-open-investigation-clinton-email-server-n674631
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device[/QUOTE

Damn I hate when reality gets in the way . Game changer
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

when the walls come tumbling down....

If Trump is the most offensive candidate, she is the most corrupt.

God, she deserves this and more.

Send her to Levinworth...

I wonder how the FBI found more emails?? Didn't she say, many times, that she turned over all work-related emails??

How can this be??

It's not possible that she resorted to any tomfoolery, is it?

related to Anthony Weiner

Couldn't have wrote a better script.
Hillary Clinton brought down by a Weiner !!!
And this time Bill is not to blame
Bahaha
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

related to Anthony Weiner

You have to be careful who you hang out with and who possibly might have access to your classified emails . Carlos Danger might have really screwed up this time .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You have to be careful who you hang out with and who possibly might have access to your classified emails . Carlos Danger might have really screwed up this time .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is just to sweet that Weiner is now embroiled in this.

She's the new Teflon Don....she'll get away.....sadly
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

She's the new Teflon Don....she'll get away.....sadly
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have a feeling this is very serious . Two weeks before the election and the FBI comes out with this . There has to be a lot to it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No indication 1 way or the other that it has anything to do with Hillary. If this came out after the election, people would be complaining. Commey needs to release more info.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have a feeling this is very serious . Two weeks before the election and the FBI comes out with this . There has to be a lot to it .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I think Comey is under pressure to look like he's not in Clinton's camp. I'd be willing to wager there's nothing there, just like the last 60,000...

No indication 1 way or the other that it has anything to do with Hillary. If this came out after the election, people would be complaining. Commey needs to release more info.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No.
He needs to fit her for a prison jump suit.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Ok
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No indication 1 way or the other that it has anything to do with Hillary.

Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:laughs::rotf2:

I'd be willing to wager there's nothing there,

..

:alright::rotf3:

I think Comey is under pressure to look like he's not in Clinton's camp. I'd be willing to wager there's nothing there, just like the last 60,000...

NO
Coney is looking to save his own ass for his part in the initial cover up .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No indication 1 way or the other that it has anything to do with Hillary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Huh???
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No indication 1 way or the other that it has anything to do with Hillary. If this came out after the election, people would be complaining. Commey needs to release more info.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He does need to release more info, but his letter makes it clear that the emails appear to be pertinent to the original investigation of Hillary.

You guys think wiener showed her his wiener ?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

removed

I think Comey is under pressure to look like he's not in Clinton's camp. I'd be willing to wager there's nothing there, just like the last 60,000...

Possibly causing her to loose the election ? I don't think so
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Isn't it great

One day soon Clinton's association with Huma Abedin is going to really bite her in the azz.

Possibly causing her to loose the election ? I don't think so
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
I think he's paranoid, it's time to go.

Looks like this is potentially 3 emails Humana forwarded to herself to print out...this isn't anything.

Possibly not these current emails, but do you not find Huma Abedin's access to Hillary's emails a threat to national security? Especially given her ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamist groups?

Possibly not these current emails, but do you not find Huma Abedin's access to Hillary's emails a threat to national security? Especially given her ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamist groups?
You're trolling right?

Possibly not these current emails, but do you not find Huma Abedin's access to Hillary's emails a threat to national security? Especially given her ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamist groups?

😂
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Possibly not these current emails, but do you not find Huma Abedin's access to Hillary's emails a threat to national security? Especially given her ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamist groups?

Most with common sense would , But since it's just her parents it's ok .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You're trolling right?
I don't need to.

Are you denying her ties with these groups?

:cheers:

I think he's paranoid, it's time to go.

Looks like this is potentially 3 emails Humana forwarded to herself to print out...this isn't anything.

I find it amazing that Hillary is demanding to know what's going on, yet, you seem to already know.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I find it amazing that Hillary is demanding to know what's going on, yet, you seem to already know.....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device
Hillary needs to hire spence to be her press secretary.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Most with common sense would , But since it's just her parents it's ok .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

People should use snopes
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device