Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating

Page 6 of 10

« First

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Striper Talk Striped Bass Fishing, Surfcasting, Boating (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/index.php)

- Political Threads (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/forumdisplay.php?f=66)

- - Hillary Email issues (http://www.striped-bass.com/Stripertalk/showthread.php?t=90335)

spence

07-07-2016 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 1103874)

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?

JohnR

07-07-2016 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slipknot (Post 1103871)

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).

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103875)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103875)

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...

DZ	07-07-2016 12:04 PM

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.

Slipknot

07-07-2016 01:40 PM

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?

JohnR

07-07-2016 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slipknot (Post 1103882)

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.

DZ	07-07-2016 02:37 PM

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

http://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-...on-email-probe

spence

07-07-2016 02:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZ (Post 1103878)

If she does gets a clearance then look for her to pardon Snowden.

I don't see anyone pardoning Snowden.

Slipknot

07-07-2016 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1103883)

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.

spence

07-07-2016 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slipknot (Post 1103890)

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.

JohnR

07-07-2016 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103894)

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.

The Dad Fisherman

07-07-2016 08:34 PM

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1103864)

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

fishbones

07-08-2016 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103894)

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

spence

07-08-2016 08:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnR (Post 1103897)

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?

spence

07-08-2016 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishbones (Post 1103910)

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

Ok.

Quote:

"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/pr...-e-mail-system

spence

07-08-2016 09:26 AM

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

fishbones

07-08-2016 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103943)

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

fishbones

07-08-2016 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103944)

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

spence

07-08-2016 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishbones (Post 1103953)

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

fishbones

07-08-2016 10:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103956)

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

spence

07-08-2016 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishbones (Post 1103954)

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.

spence

07-08-2016 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fishbones (Post 1103957)

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.

fishbones

07-08-2016 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103966)

Didn't include what.

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

The Dad Fisherman

07-08-2016 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103936)

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

ecduzitgood

07-08-2016 11:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103965)

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

Jim in CT

07-08-2016 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103875)

"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?

spence

07-08-2016 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1103975)

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.

Fly Rod

07-08-2016 01:45 PM

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...nal-email.html

sburnsey931

07-08-2016 03:59 PM

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

The Dad Fisherman

07-08-2016 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1103996)

"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

spence

07-08-2016 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1104025)

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 times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:43 PM.

Page 6 of 10

« First

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page