Correct. And the reason the FBI gave him immunity, is that now he isn't facing charges, therefore he no longer can plead the fifth, so they can compel his testimony. Someone wants to hear what he has to say.

I doubt she gets indicted (though obviously I would love it if she did), I just hope it's a thorough investigation so we can put it behind us and wait to see what he complete lack of scruples entertains us with next.

Yesterday: those women accusing my husband of anything unethical, are liars who are out for publicity and money. All of them.

Today: I'm a feminist!!!!!

No scruples, just ambition.

He may just have been advised that as his attorneys don't know exactly what's going on he should keep his mouth shut just in case. If I'm the FBI I don't want anyone stating my position is political, so the investigation needs to be as complete as possible.

It's just like the IRS investigation, Lerner pleads the fifth and the investigation showed nothing illegal.

I seem to recall John saying something about his guarantee that Russia was reading her emails...

she should be in jail too......

Did she even get fired? Or is harassing those who disagree with Obama, cause for promotion?

This, from the guy who doesn't see red states or blue states. Quite the uniter.

don't worry....Trump will have all of this at his disposal very soon :lasso:

Funny, the DOJ and FBI "found no evidence that any IRS official acted based on political, discriminatory, corrupt, or other inappropriate motives that would support a criminal prosecution."

But she should be in jail. Right.

yup

No she deserves a promotion, like Susan Rice .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Which means there is no criminal law to prevent an administration from using the IRS as a club against the other side (possibly because it never occurred to anyone, that an adiministration would have the audacity to attempt that). That she didn't break any criminal laws, doesn't mean what she did wasn't immoral (sorry about all the negatives there, you get the drift).

I just learned that if Trump goes to the convention as the leading delegate-getter (a good chance), but that he has less than 50% o fthe total delegates (also a good chance), they delegates can do what they want. I didn't know that.

I am a bit torn. I don't like the idea of the power-brokers un-doing what the voters do. But I also believe that if the "leader" has less than 50% of th etotal, then you take the top 2 and have a run off. I don't like the idea of anyone winning anything, if they didn't get 50% of the total. But I really, really don't want it to be Trump.

Read the finding again. Actually lift a finger and read the whole report.

And just the other day you were aghast that the Dem super delegates could vote for who they wanted.

As I said, I am torn. I hate to be hypocritical, sometimes you gotta put your money where your mouth is. But I have always believed, that if you didn't get 50% of the vote, you didn't win the election. I believe that, even when it benefits my side. If Trump is in first, but has 40% of teh delegates, and he doesn't get the nomination, that's not the same thing as truly winning the primaries (with more than 50%) and having it taken from you. I gues I wish that i fno one wins 50%, that they'd have a runoff with the top 2.

Your superdelegates aren't going to let Bernie get the nomination, even if he has mor ethan 50% of teh pledged delegates. We will never know I guess, as it's not likely.

I read your quote. The FBI said no evidence of a crime. It's not their job to saw whether or not it was immoral.

If their behavior was immoral it likely would have been illegal. Poor management oversight isn't immoral...

Sometimes I wonder if you really know much of anything about the issues you're most outraged by.

"Poor management oversight" would not look good on a resume if you were applying for President of the United States .
Funny the investigations continue even though " it's been done to death " .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Considering the different scale of complexities and the distance between management and the issue you're comparing apples and oranges.

But if you like to play a rigged one degree of Kevin Bacon game then have at it. You're a Sanders guy now anyway, I get it.

Look up "illegal" and "immoral" in the dictionary. They are not synonyms. You are coming completely un-glued, when you have reason to be gloating. My side is arguing over Trump's you-know-what, and you are insisting Hilary didn't lie about the sniper, and that immoral isn't a lot more broad than committing a federal offense.

Are you trying to channel Dangles humor? It's not working.

Lerner didn't do anything immoral or illegal. Get over it.

And yes, the GOP is a mess...I didn't think we were on different "sides" by the way. That's part of your problem.

Jim, one of the reasons you have a difficult time trying to convince Spence about anything is that each of you exists in a different philosophical, existential, or moral universe.

You're a Catholic absolutist. Spence is a relativist.

You can claim and believe according to your ethics that Lerner acted immorally. Spence can say with conviction that "Lerner didn't do anything immoral or illegal. Get over it."

I can understand you because I understand your system of "moral" beliefs. I sort of think I kind of have an inkling about Spence's "perspective" on political morality which seems to range from his version of pragmatism to an ability to be shocked by an array of common place foibles. Rather than being grounded by fundamental principles, he has a sort of situational ethics, shifting from case to case, using slippery enough language to create the air of plausibility if not certainty. If he is, apparently, in favor of an ad hoc policy or judicial decision, or person, and there is no irrefutable proof of illegality or "wrong doing," he will defend what he favors to the last drip of pragmatic sophistry if necessary. But if he disapproves of what someone does or says but there is no irrefutable proof of wrong doing, he will convict that person's action of not passing the "smell test."

If you want to argue with him on the basis of morality, consider before doing so, that you will be up against moral relativism. So don't even try. At best, merely consider the audience. Do your best to convince those who read your argument and "get over" trying to persuade Spence. That ain't gonna happen.

You might, for the fun of it, list the trail of scandals and controversies involving Hillary from the early days of her unethical work in the Nixon impeachment, to whitewater, to covering up her husbands infidelities while claiming to be a champion of women's rights, to travelgate, to the cattle futures bonanza, to the vast right wing conspiracy claim, and on and on, to the sniper thing, to Benghazi incompetence and questionable claims about a video and going after the video maker, and her wild accusations about Republican wars on women and children and minorities, and her railing against the rich and income inequality while she has done her best to be rich, and on and on . . . and ask Spence if the totality of it all passes the smell test.

Don't forget to add Circumventing security measures for her own convenience and the mishandling of classified material.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

state.gov isn't a secure system to begin with, I don't think there's an argument she was circumventing security measures...at least not a good one. The DOJ has already indicated it wasn't illegal. Considering state.gov was hacked and it looks like her server wasn't perhaps she was actually better off.

People seem to think (I can't imagine why...) she intended to use her own server for classified info which isn't the case.

As for mishandling classified material, this really has yet to be shown. The only item reported so far that should have technically been classified is the public article about drone strikes which is laughable.

I'd just like to her a final word from the FBI and move on.

Do you understand that state.gov is just a friggin domain name and has absolutely no bearing on what classification levels exist in the state department behind it.

.mil is just a frigging domain name....do you think there might actually be some different security levels behind that....

Just stop....please
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

:rotf2:....OK, now she was really smart to have had a secret, unsecured server next to her toilet for all of her important government business.........why, she should probably get a medal or be president or something....mind numbing

I'm using state.gov to broadly refer to the server and it's intended use. I would think anyone with any background in IT would be able to understand this.

I'm beginning to think you and Hillary are one in the same .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Well that clarified......nothing. The fact that you think that it, broadly, only refers to one server shows that you still have no clue.

I guess this is what I get for trying to talk IT to an end user.....

This is why organizations have a Help Desk.......weeds out those annoying questions like "is the Internet down?" (Yeah, the WHOLE internet) or "you guys having a problem with the server?" (because this entire organization only runs on one) from the people who think they are an IT wiz because they successfully setup their Netflix subscription and installed their own printer.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Spence probably uses a lambs wool chamois to wipe his hard drive...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

TDF ,you are betraying your own tag line in this instance.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device