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

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

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

Yes dead...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/06/politi...ges/index.html

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

I'm afraid you are probably right .
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

Hahahaha

See - two sets of rules

Rethink.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/05/fl...te-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/

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

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....

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.

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

You should tell that to the State Department.

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...

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

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

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

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?

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).

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.

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?

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-...on-email-probe

I don't see anyone pardoning Snowden.

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.

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.