FBI Clinton investigation - Comey delivers statement

[Spurminator]

"Christian, Conservative, Patriot and not afraid?"

How brave!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You think that someone should be allowed to do what she did and there be no consequences?

Equal protection is what it is. You want her to be prosecuted differently. Partisan nonsense is strong in you.

[boutons_deux]

FBI Director revises stance, says none of Hillary Clinton’s emails were classified at the time


The day after the Director of the FBI claimed that Hillary Clinton received classified emails on her personal email server before concluding that she violated no laws and would face no charges,

a State Department spokesman contradicted him, stating that the emails in question had been improperly marked to begin with and therefore she did nothing wrong (something we reported last night (http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/state-dept-now-says-fbi-got-it-wrong/25101/)).

This morning, as the Director was being interrogated by House Republicans over his findings, one of the Democrats on the committee pointed out the discrepancy. This prompted him to revise his stance on the matter.

Even as the Republicans spent the day suggesting to FBI Director James Comey’s face that he either failed to properly look into Hillary Clinton’s use of email or outright rigged the matter in her favor, he confidently shot down their conspiracies one after another, likely causing them to regret having hauled him in to begin with. But it was a House Democrat who finally asked Comey about the new State Department assertion that the emails in question were improperly marked.

The FBI Director responded by revising and clarifying his assessment, acknowledging that of the three email in question (originally reported as two emails by the New York Times), there were errors their classification markings which had nothing to do with Hillary Clinton and therefore could not have been her fault.

This came as he also made that clear Clinton voluntarily cooperated with every aspect of the inquiry, and that to the best of his knowledge, she was truthful throughout the matter.

https://control.phone.com/voip/blocking?_sid=pUQcRJIu2alUzzD43Tzo72B3LZ

Repugs fucked up! :lol

Comey fucked! :lol

:lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol

Comey did get in his slander in his protocol-violating press conference, so surely the VRWC will have extremely lucrative jobs for him after he leaves govt.

[Wild Cobra]

FBI recommends no criminal charges in Clinton email probe (https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-chief-plans-remarks-to-media-amid-heightened-focus-on-clinton-email-probe/2016/07/05/a53513c4-42b9-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-chief-plans-remarks-to-media-amid-heightened-focus-on-clinton-email-probe/2016/07/05/a53513c4-42b9-11e6-bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html?hpid=hp_hp-banner-main_comey-1125am%3Ahomepage%2Fstory

:lol Repug witch hunters get kicked in the teeth again. :lol





Do any of you want someone who the FBI says is "extremely careless with classified information" to be president of these sates?

Are Hillary lovers really that blind to the possibilities?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Do any of you want someone who the FBI says is "extremely careless with classified information" to be president of these sates?

Are Hillary lovers really that blind to the possibilities?

Reductio ad absurdum from the resident simpleton. How droll.

[Wild Cobra]

Reductio ad absurdum from the resident simpleton. How droll.

How long have you been sucking her balls?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

How long have you been sucking her balls?

Now binary logic from the simpleton. Not a fan of the Clintons but in this case you and your GOP overlords are grasping at straws.

Your desperation is showing.

[Wild Cobra]

Now binary logic from the simpleton. Not a fan of the Clintons but in this case you and your GOP overlords are grasping at straws.

Your desperation is showing.

Idiot.

I only dislike the GOP a little less the the demonrats.

haven't you figured it out yet?

They are both corrupt!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Idiot.

I only dislike the GOP a little less the the demonrats.

haven't you figured it out yet?

They are both corrupt!

You say this yet in every discussion you support the GOP candidate and their policies. You make up derisive nicknames boutox-style for the dems and not the GOP. You vote and campaign here for the GOP. People have made up nicknames like Republican Cobra and the like to satirize your method.

You still believe a 'solar burp' and subsequent atmospheric oxidation could have explained your Bible stories?

[Wild Cobra]

You say this yet in every discussion you support the GOP candidate and their policies.

Your pathetic extrapolation of facts only show how utterly stupid you are.

My dis'ing the democrats does not mean I support the republicans.

Please stop acting like a 9 year old.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your pathetic extrapolation of facts only show how utterly stupid you are.

My dis'ing the democrats does not mean I support the republicans.

Please stop acting like a 9 year old.

:lol uh-huh.

Sure thing Republican Cobra

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

Pathetic Fuzz...

Please show me when I have actually supported republicans.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lmao Republican administration's war crimes are being covered up and Republican Cobra says "See, this is bullshit!!" :spin


CROFL now Republican Cobra cares about the UN


Two years ago, I received a file and printed some of my own money. I never used it like it was meant to be used. This year, I'm going to buy stamps like crazy, and send this money to republican members of congress, and various RNC donation locations. Here is the money:

http://www.danegerus.com/weblog/images/heres_my_donation.jpg

I also plan to send a letter to the republican senator of my state, Gordon Smith. It will go something like this:

Dear senator Smith;

I have always voted for you in the past. I wish to thank-you for making me decide to register as a republican. For more than twenty years, my party affiliation is listed as "not affiliated." As an independent, I normally vote republican, but have occasionally voted democrat, libertarian, and constitution party. Because of your position on not enforcing border control and granting amnesty, I will register as a republican so I can vote against you for this upcoming primary.


Because of the senate rules, it might be true that no wrong-doing was found. However, these two have committed real ethics violations for fact.

Funny how when a demoncrap is involved in questionable activities, it goes unnoticed by the media, but it gets played for weeks if something that seems improper happens to a republican...

Just an example of media bias.


Many of us conservatives contacted the RNC and republicans in our districts telling them we desa0pproved of the pork. Pork and their immigration policies are likely why they cost control. They are starting to listen to us. They were swamped with calls and letters for the new Amnesty legislation, and are now running scared.

Expanded executive powers? I don't see it that way with what the constitution places on our presidents shoulders.



I disagree with both. I have not seen examples of Romney flip-flopping, nore do I agree with you interpretation. From wikipedia:

Flip-Flop (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip-flop_%28politics%29)

OK, where can you show mw he didn't support the NRA?

Your assessment that he became a member for political gain could be correct. However, a belief does not make it fact.

Well, it seems to me if you had your way, you would indict him for what you believe his reasons are. That is why I used the term "thought police."

Questioning a persons words and deeds are one thing, but when you assign a motive and fact without clearly knowing the facts, it is slander!

Do you wish to be known as a slanderous individual?

Really? You take one facet of a subject that has several hundred features, and strike the whole down because he is not a 100% flaming gay supporter?

What has Kennedy done anyway? He supports gay marriage. So what. They are on opposite sides here.

Is it impossible to believe that Romney may actually believe in states rights and personal freedoms, and not imposing his own values on others?

My feelings toward senator Kennedy and governor Romney come from what I see and read. It is difficult to go into the incidences that I have watched on TV over the course of time. I used to watch C-Span regularly. I've seen way to much of the windbag. Just because I cannot provide evidence, does not mean I don't have cause to call him unethical and a windbag. As for Romney's integrity... OK, I don't know him well enough to actually make that claim. However, I have not seen anything to show him to lack integrity. At least I am a "glass half full" rather than a "glass half empty" type of person. I believe in the good of others till they show me wrong.

I guess I have every right to call you cynical?

What position are you talking about? Every example you cited has a clear reason for what he said except the signing of the tax thing. Just because it isn't explained to your satisfaction doesn't make it a flip-flop. The earlier case was when running for governor, dealing with a state budget and tax code. The later is where he is now running for president, with a federal budget and tax code. There are different intricacies. It's like comparing apples and oranges.

As for believing he has unfailing integrity? Give me a break. There are different degrees of integrity like anything else. None of us are perfect, we all have faults. Some of us make mistakes more often than others, and some people don't even care about ethics, integrity, etc.
Agreed, most of what you bring in is fact. However, you derive a position that is an unfavorable one. In coming to the conclusion you present, you lack evidence to support that position when the truth may be something else. That is when it becomes slander, because you are presenting an unsubstantiated negative conclusion as fact!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Then of course there is this thread where you are regurgitating the justification for voting GOP based on reductio ad absurdum stupidity.

It's all you ever do here.

[Wild Cobra]

LOL...

How do any of those show I actively support republicans? You should read them carefully.

Do you realize you included a post that contains this:



Because of your position on not enforcing border control and granting amnesty, I will register as a republican so I can vote against you for this upcoming primary.


My God, you stupidity continues to make me laugh!

The one about printing money was joke money, maybe it was the $3 Bill. Don't remember, as the link is no longer laid.

Man...

You really take the cake in stupidity!

[FuzzyLumpkins]

LOL...

How do any of those show I actively support republicans? You should read them carefully.

Do you realize you included a post that contains this:



Because of your position on not enforcing border control and granting amnesty, I will register as a republican so I can vote against you for this upcoming primary.


My God, you stupidity continues to make me laugh!

The one about printing money was joke money, maybe it was the $3 Bill. Don't remember, as the link is no longer laid.

Man...

You really take the cake in stupidity!

It show you voting in the GOP primary simpleton.

This really isn't for your benefit. This reminds me when you claimed I couldn't find posts of you being blatantly racist.

[ducks]

comey changes stance on classified email and finds millions of dollars in his account

[FuzzyLumpkins]

comey changes stance on classified email and finds millions of dollars in his account

:lol Trump's losing badly in the polls and appears more incompetent in a general campaign every day with no money and high level aides quitting or getting canned.

How does that make you feel?

[ducks]

he has plenty of money he is close in most state polls except for California
he has hardy done anything yet against Hillary
the rebublicans polications do not know what to do because the people have spoken but they are getting paychecks from lobbyist and trump will not get bought
democrats want Hillary because she stands for the democrat lobbyist


trump unlike most running for office knows how to use the media and work the media he is getting more coverage then anyone else

Clinton is spending a half a million dollars or more a day on tv adds she is so bought

[FuzzyLumpkins]

he has plenty of money he is close in most state polls except for California
he has hardy done anything yet against Hillary
the rebublicans polications do not know what to do because the people have spoken but they are getting paychecks from lobbyist and trump will not get bought
democrats want Hillary because she stands for the democrat lobbyist


trump unlike most running for office knows how to use the media and work the media he is getting more coverage then anyone else

Clinton is spending a half a million dollars or more a day on tv adds she is so bought

Bullshit

http://www.people-press.org/2016/07/07/2016-campaign-strong-interest-widespread-dissatisfaction/

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/

[boutons_deux]

Polls?

Only the Repug inhouse polling bullshit house Rasmussen has Trash leading

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Democrats Surging As Hillary Clinton Is Destroying Donald Trump 74%-16% With Latinos

Donald Trump is a symptom of a much larger disease.

One-third of self-identified Latino Republicans said that they would support Hillary Clinton over Trump.

There aren’t enough while male voters in the electorate to make up for the overwhelming numbers of other voters who are fleeing Trump.

The structural elements of this election are not moving in Trump’s direction.

Latino voters have been alienated by the Republican Party and Trump.

Hillary Clinton and Democrats have done an outstanding job of making it clear that Latinos are welcome, and their voices are heard in the Democratic Party.

Contrary to Trump’s claims, Latinos don’t love him. :lol

In fact, they are close to hating the presumptive GOP nominee.

Republicans are fighting a demographic war that they can’t win.

With each poll, it is clear that Donald Trump may be swept into the dustbin of history as Latino voters reject his bigoted politics of

yesteryear.http://www.politicususa.com/2016/07/11/democrats-surging-hillary-clinton-destroying-donald-trump-74-16-latinos.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+politicususa%2FfJAl+%28Politi cus+USA+%29

So Trash loses badly in Latinos, women, blacks, LGBT, 18-34, college educated, and very probably independents.

Trump wins white high school grads and dropouts, and old white men who are pissed that their income has been essentially flat for 35 years.

[Wild Cobra]

It really sucks when promising the income of hard working people buys you votes.

[boutons_deux]

Top Intelligence Official Denies Paul Ryan's Request to Block Hillary Clinton From Classified Briefings


http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/top-intelligence-official-denies-paul-ryans-request-block/story?id=40517255&cid=abcn_fb

[TheSanityAnnex]

'Gag' order: FBI confirms special secrecy agreements for agents in Clinton email probe

The FBI has confirmed to a senior Republican senator that agents were sworn to secrecy -- and subject to lie detector tests -- in the Hillary Clinton email probe, an extensive measure one former agent said could have a "chilling effect."
A July 1 letter (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/07/13/clinton-nda-letter-july-5-2016/) sent by a senior deputy to FBI Director James Comey to Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, detailed the restrictions on agents. The letter, reviewed by Fox News, confirmed agents signed a "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" which says the disclosure of information is "strictly prohibited" without prior approval, and those who sign are subject to lie detector tests.


"The purpose of this form is to maintain an official record of persons knowledgeable of a highly sensitive Federal Bureau of Investigation counterintelligence investigation," the agreement attached to the Grassley letter reads, "....I (FBI agent) also understand that, due to the nature and sensitivity of this investigation, compliance with these restrictions may be subject to verification by polygraph examination."


The measures show the extent to which the bureau has gone to keep additional details of the politically sensitive case from going public. While Comey has provided some information ‎on why the FBI did not opt to pursue charges, Attorney General Loretta Lynch repeatedly ducked questions on specifics of the case at a House hearing Tuesday.


A recently retired FBI agent, who declined to speak on the record, citing the sensitivity of the matter, said a "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" is reserved for "the most sensitive of sensitive cases," and can have a "chilling effect" on agents, who understand "it comes from the very top and that there has to be a tight lid on the case."


The former agent said the agreements can also contribute to "group think" because investigators cannot bounce ideas off other agents, only those within a small circle.


Grassley first wrote to the FBI Director February 4 after a Fox News report that agents were asked to sign additional non-disclosure agreements. In his response to the senator, the FBI's Assistant Director, Office of Congressional Affairs, Stephen D. Kelly, said “this was not a unique circumstance” and agents "may from time to time be asked to sign similar forms.”


The July letter also says that the purpose of the agreement was two-fold: "to maintain an official record of all persons knowledgeable of this highly unusual investigation, and to remind individuals of their obligations to protect classified and sensitive information." The letter states "no one refused to sign" or “raised any questions or concerns.”


Comey said last week more than 100 classified emails were sent or received by Hillary Clinton, including some at the Top Secret level, which would require agents to have the necessary clearance to review and investigate. Some of the intelligence came from the U.S. government's most closely held programs, known as Special Access Programs, or SAP and included human spying.


The "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" is more evidence that the probe was always a serious criminal investigation, and never a "security review" or "security inquiry" as described by Clinton and her campaign team.
Responding one day after the FBI director said he would not recommend criminal charges, Grassley pointed to Comey's conclusions that a limited number of emails had classified markings, thousands of work related emails were not turned over by Clinton to the State Department despite a sworn declaration to a federal court and her public assurances, as well as "potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information."


"In light of all these inconsistencies, it is even more troubling that the FBI tried to gag its agents with a non-disclosure agreement on this matter, in violation of whistleblower protection statutes," Grassley said in the strongly worded letter (http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/judiciary/upload/2016-07-06%20CEG%20to%20FBI%20%28Clinton%20Investigation%2 0Transparency%29.pdf). "...you indicated that agents working on this case were required to sign a non-disclosure agreement that failed to exempt protected whistleblowing. Only after I wrote to you did you advise your FBI agents that they are still free to speak with Congress regarding waste, fraud, and abuse."


The "Case Briefing Acknowledgement Addendum" provided to Senator Grassley after the initial FBI response July 1 makes clear the agreement does not supersede or conflict with "communications to Congress" and "the reporting to an Inspector General of a violation, or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety, or….any other whistleblower protection."


Grassley also noted the timing of the FBI's response five months after his original request for information on the NDAs, with a partial response July 1 (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/07/13/clinton-nda-letter-july-1-2016/), and full response on July 5 2016 (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/07/13/clinton-nda-letter-july-1-2016/), the same day the FBI made a public recommendation at bureau headquarters against criminal charges.


The New York Post (http://nypost.com/2016/07/12/fbi-agents-signed-nda-for-matters-involving-hillarys-emails/) first reported that the "Case Briefing Acknowledgement" was signed by the Clinton email agents, citing anonymous sources, but the Grassley letter is believed to be the first public acknowledgement by the FBI, and includes a sample copy of the non-disclosure agreement.


Grassley’s letter is wide ranging, and beyond the non-disclosure agreements, requests a response by July 20 to questions including whether, after Bill Clinton and Lynch’s June 28 meeting on a Phoenix airport tarmac, there is no need for a special counsel. He also wanted to know about the FBI’s reported agreement that some questions would be off limits for Clinton’s personal attorney Cheryl Mills, and whether the FBI or Justice Department raised concerns that several of Clinton’s associates used the same attorneys to represent them in the investigation.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/14/gag-order-fbi-confirms-special-secrecy-agreements-for-agents-in-clinton-email-probe.html

[boutons_deux]

It really sucks when promising the income of hard working people buys you votes.

Repugs been doing it for decades.

This year maybe some of their ignorant, lied-to, all-emotions/no-brains base realized what the Repug game has been: ignoring the base's economic objectives.

Now they vote for a protest candidate piece of Trash lying, con man with orange-dyed hair and skin.

[rmt]

So the investigators sign and are sworn in but the subject of the investigation isn't.

[TheSanityAnnex]

So the investigators sign and are sworn in but the subject of the investigation isn't.

Hillary totally disregarded the NDA she signed, I hope the pissed off FBI agents do the same. Leaks will be coming soon.

[Reck]

Hillary totally disregarded the NDA she signed, I hope the pissed off FBI agents do the same. Leaks will be coming soon.

You still not letting go off your fantasy? Move on already. This is a done deal.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You still not letting go off your fantasy? Move on already. This is a done deal.

They don't think for themselves and they are only regurgitating the death throes they read off drudge and the like. I'm actually enjoying the obvious desperation and hedging going on. Now that this doesn't appear to be working I'm looking forward to the GOP really jumping the shark. Maybe another run for Palin?

[TheSanityAnnex]

You still not letting go off your fantasy? Move on already. This is a done deal.

done deal :lol
You truly believe that?

[TheSanityAnnex]

You still not letting go off your fantasy? Move on already. This is a done deal.Are you aware the State re-opened their investigation? Are you aware Clinton lied under oath to congress (confirmed by Comey) This isn't over by a long shot.

[Reck]

done deal :lol
You truly believe that?

Yes, I do and it is.

Weren't you the one saying she would get indicted on the account of your close sources? You have to take things for what they are man. I dont know how you can live so vicariously through this happening. You only set yourself for dissapointment.

Going forward, anything that comes out of this will be choked up to the mad republicans not letting it go. Just like the Benghazi witch hunt which ended up in 9 investigations and none of them found digly squat on her.

Republicans will waste away tons of tax payers money and that will only reflect bad on them as it always does.

[CosmicCowboy]

Sadly I agree with Reck on this for different reasons.

Clinton lied her ass off to congress and Comey proved it.

That being said, no way in hell Lynch lets it go to a grand jury for indictment.

The fix is definitely in.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Yes, I do and it is.

Weren't you the one saying she would get indicted on the account of your close sources? You have to take things for what they are man. I dont know how you can live so vicariously through this happening. You only set yourself for dissapointment.

Going forward, anything that comes out of this will be choked up to the mad republicans not letting it go. Just like the Benghazi witch hunt which ended up in 9 investigations and none of them found digly squat on her.

Republicans will waste away tons of tax payers money and that will only reflect bad on them as it always does.

:lol Reck

There are two open congressional investigations, an internal inquiry by the State Department, and a court proceeding that could see Clinton deposed.

[Reck]

Are you aware the State re-opened their investigation? Are you aware Clinton lied under oath to congress (confirmed by Comey) This isn't over by a long shot.


It's something that was in motion.

They stopped their internal review as to not get in the FBI's way. Now that the FBI investigation is over, they resumed their review on the emails. Nothing is going to come out of that.

It might do you well to know that Hillary is not the target on this particular internal review.


One possible outcome of such internal reviews is that employees, even if they no longer work there, could face a range of disciplinary actions, from having notes placed in their employment files to losing their security clearances.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/state-department-opens-internal-review-of-clintons-email-use/2016/07/07/30255ea8-cc1d-4192-814a-d9e6fa3f74fa_story.html

Holy shit, you got your facts twisted. :lol

Comey never said she lied under oath. A while ago I asked you a question and you conviniently avoided it.

So, again..

Did you watched Comey's hearing in it's completion?

If you did then you wouldn't bring that up that Comey comfirmed she lied.

In fact, he said she didn't lie to them. It was the idiot head of the comitte who was pushing his agenda on Comey and failed.


"We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI," Comey told House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) during one of the hearing's opening exchanges.


Chaffetz then asked whether Clinton lied to the public. "That's a question I'm not qualified to answer. I can speak about what she said to the FBI," Comey said.


Asked whether Clinton lied under oath, Comey remarked that she did not do so to the FBI. Asked whether he had reviewed Clinton's testimony from last October's Benghazi hearing in which the former secretary of state told Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) that "there was nothing marked classified on my emails," Comey said that he had not.
"Did the FBI investigate her statements under oath on this topic?" Chaffetz asked, to which Comey responded, "Not to my knowledge. I don't think there's been a referral from Congress."

So so much for your "Comey comfirmed" bullshit. :lmao

[TheSanityAnnex]

It's something that was in motion.

They stopped their internal review as to not get in the FBI's way. Now that the FBI investigation is over, they resumed their review on the emails. Nothing is going to come out of that.

It might do you well to know that Hillary is not the target on this particular internal review.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/state-department-opens-internal-review-of-clintons-email-use/2016/07/07/30255ea8-cc1d-4192-814a-d9e6fa3f74fa_story.html

Holy shit, you got your facts twisted. :lol

Comey never said she lied under oath. A while ago I asked you a question and you conviniently avoided it.

So, again..

Did you watched Comey's hearing in it's completion?

If you did then you wouldn't bring that up that Comey comfirmed she lied.

In fact, he said she didn't lie to them. It was the idiot head of the comitte who was pushing his agenda on Comey and failed.



So so much for your "Comey comfirmed" bullshit. :lmao

Are you really this stupid?

In conclusion of the FBI's investigation Comey confirmed she sent classified documents through her emails, there is no arguing this.
When testifying before congress under oath Clinton said she never sent any classified emails.
By default Comey has confirmed she lied while under oath to congress.

[CosmicCowboy]

Are you really this stupid?

In conclusion of the FBI's investigation Comey confirmed she sent classified documents through her emails, there is no arguing this.
When testifying before congress under oath Clinton said she never sent any classified emails.
By default Comey has confirmed she lied while under oath to congress.

Reck has a difficult time comprehending basic logic.

[Reck]

Are you really this stupid?

In conclusion of the FBI's investigation Comey confirmed she sent classified documents through her emails, there is no arguing this.
When testifying before congress under oath Clinton said she never sent any classified emails.
By default Comey has confirmed she lied while under oath to congress.

Apparently you cannot read.

My post completelty refutes your claim that he confirmed she lied under oath. Nowhere does it say she did.

One of my quote reads...Did Hillary Clinton lied under oath? Comey's reply was...she did not do so to the FBI.

Not my words.

But keep spinning for an angle. Something tells me you're grwo thorns waiting.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Apparently you cannot read.

My post completelty refutes your claim that he confirmed she lied under oath. Nowhere does it say she did.

One of my quote reads...Did Hillary Clinton lied under oath? Comey's reply was...she did not do so to the FBI.

Not my words.

But keep spinning for an angle. Something tells me you're grwo thorns waiting.

God damn it stop being so stupid. I'll walk you through it for fucks sake.

Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?
Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?

[Reck]

God damn it stop being so stupid. I'll walk you through it for fucks sake.

Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?
Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?

Now you're jumping through hoops.

Your first question was that Comey confirmed that she lied to congress. Where does it say that? Can you please give me a direct quote?

I'm working with what he said at the hearing, not some make believe.

You're asking two entirely different questions here. Did she lied to congress and did Comey confirmed she lied to congress.

The latter didn't happened at all. Comey never said she lied to congress because he wouldn't know.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Now you're jumping through hoops.

Your first question was that Comey confirmed that she lied to congress. Where does it say that? Can you please give me a direct quote?

I'm working with what he said at the hearing, not some make believe.

You're asking two entirely different questions here. Did she lied to congress and did Comey confirmed she lied to congress.

The latter didn't happened at all. Comey never said she lied to congress because he wouldn't know.

just answer the two simple questions

Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?

[Reck]

just answer the two simple questions

Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?

Why would I answer your questions when you cant answer mine?

Seems to me you're singing a new tune now. Fiirst it was Comey confirmed she lied to did she sent clasified information. :lmao

You fucked up. Admit it.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Why would I answer your questions when you cant answer mine?

Seems to me you're singing a new tune now. Fiirst it was Comey confirmed she lied to did she sent clasified information. :lmao

You fucked up. Admit it.

i didn't fuck up, you are just too stupid to put 2 and 2 together. I'm trying to help you, answer the questions with a simple yes or no.

Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?

[Reck]

:lmao

When common sense fails, insult your way through the point you're trying to make...and failing.

TSA, you've done quite the 180 in here. You started out asking one sets of questions and ended up asking different questions when I disproved your claim.

What's simple about this is that Comey never confirmed Hillary lied to congress as you behemently claimed. Oops.

You cant just make shit up then ask different questions when you get callled out.

Or you can show me where he even said anything remotely close to what you're saying and I'll concede. I'll wait.

Use post #281 for reference if you forgot your own question.

[TheSanityAnnex]

:lmao

When common sense fails, insult your way through the point you're trying to make...and failing.

TSA, you've done quite the 180 in here. You started out asking one sets of questions and ended up asking different questions when I disproved your claim.

What's simple about this is that Comey never confirmed Hillary lied to congress as you behemently claimed. Oops.

You cant just make shit up then ask different questions when you get callled out.

Or you can show me where he even said anything remotely close to what you're saying and I'll concede. I'll wait.

Use post #281 for reference if you forgot your own question.
I'm sorry for insulting you I will refrain from calling you stupid, for the time being. Now please stop avoiding my questions.

Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Cartwright, July 7: So, if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what’s classified and what’s not classified and we’re following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

Apparently TSA is too stupid to tell the difference between lying and telling apparent untruths. It once again comes down to intent.

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

Apparently TSA is too stupid to tell the difference between lying and telling apparent untruths. It once again comes down to intent.Uh no.

classified information NDA she signed
https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/documents/hrc_ndas/1/doc_0c05833708/c05833708.pdf





https://m.fbi.gov/#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

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again lying to investigators requires proof of intent. Nuance is tough I know.

Where is all the outrage towards the state department employee who was mistagging classified documents? It's obvious that the interest here is not in national security and instead partisan axe grinding.

This conversation is pointless. She isn't getting indicted.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

"We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI," Comey told House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) during one of the hearing's opening exchanges.

[Reck]

"We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI," Comey told House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) during one of the hearing's opening exchanges.

I already went over this with him. He doesn't seem to get it.

[TheSanityAnnex]

"We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI," Comey told House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) during one of the hearing's opening exchanges.

Who is claiming she lied under oath to the FBI? She wasn't even under oath to the FBI.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I already went over this with him. He doesn't seem to get it.
Tweedledee and tweedledumb. Dumb and dumber. 2 dumb peas in a pod.

Answer the two questions:

Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?

[TheSanityAnnex]

"We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI," Comey told House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) during one of the hearing's opening exchanges.
You're up to bat now

Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?

[Reck]

Tweedledee and tweedledumb. Dumb and dumber. 2 dumb peas in a pod.

Answer the two questions:

Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?


Are you aware the State re-opened their investigation? Are you aware Clinton lied under oath to congress (confirmed by Comey) This isn't over by a long shot.

You were caught in a red lie. I exposed you.

That is why you're spinning your wheels with random questions now.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You're up to bat now

Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?

If you want to make an argument then make it. I'm not going to do it for you, dimwit.

It still all centers around intent.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You were caught in a red lie. I exposed you.

That is why you're spinning your wheels with random questions now.
You are having trouble with two questions we'll move it down to one.


Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

[boutons_deux]

Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

he confirmed she didn't

[TheSanityAnnex]

If you want to make an argument then make it. I'm not going to do it for you, dimwit.

It still all centers around intent.

Fuzzy takes strike 1
dodge noted

Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?

[TheSanityAnnex]

he confirmed she didn't
FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

[Reck]

You are having trouble with two questions we'll move it down to one.


Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

This comes down to you not having been properly informed.

Had you watched the hearing you would know a few key things.

There were only 3 emails that bore a classified signature letter "c" on the emails but that these emails were marked classified in error.

Furthermore, Comey himself said the emails were not properly marked as classified.




Comey said three emails had “portion markings” on them indicating that they were classified, but they were not properly marked and therefore could have been missed by Clinton. He said the emails were marked as classified with the letter “C” in the body of the email.
Kirby said the State Department believes that at least two of the emails were mistakenly marked as confidential. He could not speak to the third email, saying ​the department didn’t have​ “all of the records and documents that the FBI used in their investigation.”
Comey told the committee he is “highly confident” that FBI investigators consulted with the State Department about the marked emails. But he said he did not know that the department believes that any of them were marked in error




But later in the hearing, Democratic Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman asked (http://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe******=11016) Comey if he knew that the State Department had said that the emails were marked classified in error. Comey replied, “No.”

Likewise, Rep. Matt Cartwright, also a Democrat, asked (http://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe******=6685) Comey if the emails were properly classified, and Comey said they were not.

Cartwright, July 7: So, if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what’s classified and what’s not classified and we’re following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?


Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/

[TheSanityAnnex]

This comes down to you not having been properly informed.

Had you watched the hearing you would know a few key things.

There were only 3 emails that bore a classified signature letter "c" on the emails but that these emails were marked classified in error.

Furthermore, Comey himself said the emails were not properly marked as classified.



Cartwright, July 7: So, if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what’s classified and what’s not classified and we’re following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?


Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.

http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/revisiting-clinton-and-classified-information/




Whether a not they had a classified marking has no bearing on my question. Hillary signed an NDA stating she understood items are born classified.

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.



stop deflecting, answer the questions:


Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

We shouldn't allow TSA's braindead interpretation dictate the argument. He is both partisan and stupid as most here can attest.

Here is Fortune magazine which is not exactly a liberal bastion on the important points of law:


As a matter of legal language, Comey was clearly splitting hairs, but he defended his conclusion by arguing that legal practice since the passage of the Espionage Act has led to prosecutions only in cases where some element of intent to divulge classified information to unauthorized persons was involved. This issue is not going to go away during this presidential campaign, but Comey has framed it appropriately. If Comey’s critics can demonstrate a pattern of prosecutions (a single case won’t do—it could be an exception to the rule) where negligence without intent has been prosecuted, then they can make a persuasive argument that there has been a double standard applied and that the powerful and influential are not being held to the same standard as other citizens. If the pattern of prosecutions supports the claim that prosecutions always, or almost always, require some element of intent to divulge classified information, then prosecuting Clinton under these circumstances would have been a violation of the norm of equal treatment under law. Legally (as opposed to politically), we shouldn’t hold Clinton to a higher standard than we apply to others just because she is an influential and powerful woman. The focus must go beyond the literal words of the statute to examine the history of prosecutions—the living law—and not the dead-letter law.

David Petraeus’s behavior was far more troubling than Clinton’s.
Donald Brand is a professor of political science at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass.

After a thorough review of the evidence regarding Hillary Clinton’s email practices while secretary of state, FBI Director James Comey found much to criticize but insufficient evidence to indict. It was a close call, properly within the domain of prosecutorial discretion, and Comey concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” Comey has a reputation for integrity and nonpartisanship (he was appointed by George W. Bush), and partisans on both sides were unhappy with his report and his testimony, so he may have gotten it right.

The Espionage Act of 1917 criminalizes the mishandling of classified information. It is first and foremost directed at people who knowingly and intentionally share classified information with those who are not authorized to receive it. This would include sharing information with the media or with foreign governments who want to know our secrets. Comey focused on Clinton’s intent. While he found that she was “extremely careless” in her handling of information she should have known was classified, even though it was not clearly marked as such, he did not find evidence that she intended to make this information known to any unauthorized person.

Comey’s focus on Clinton’s intent was challenged by Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, and U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a member of the Committee, in hearings that were called immediately after Comey announced the decision not to indict. Chaffetz and Gowdy argued that the Espionage Act also imposes the duty on public officials to protect classified information and makes it a crime to remove such information from its “proper place of custody” through “gross negligence.” In the digital age, the meaning of “proper place of custody” is more difficult to ascertain, and Comey indicated that Clinton’s “extreme carelessness” did not rise to the legal standard of “gross negligence” as grounds for indictment.

As a matter of legal language, Comey was clearly splitting hairs, but he defended his conclusion by arguing that legal practice since the passage of the Espionage Act has led to prosecutions only in cases where some element of intent to divulge classified information to unauthorized persons was involved. This issue is not going to go away during this presidential campaign, but Comey has framed it appropriately. If Comey’s critics can demonstrate a pattern of prosecutions (a single case won’t do—it could be an exception to the rule) where negligence without intent has been prosecuted, then they can make a persuasive argument that there has been a double standard applied and that the powerful and influential are not being held to the same standard as other citizens. If the pattern of prosecutions supports the claim that prosecutions always, or almost always, require some element of intent to divulge classified information, then prosecuting Clinton under these circumstances would have been a violation of the norm of equal treatment under law. Legally (as opposed to politically), we shouldn’t hold Clinton to a higher standard than we apply to others just because she is an influential and powerful woman. The focus must go beyond the literal words of the statute to examine the history of prosecutions—the living law—and not the dead-letter law.


Was Clinton held to a different standard than General David Petraeus? Here, Comey was persuasive. In 2012, Petraeus knowingly shared classified information with his biographer and lover Paula Broadwell, who did not have the security clearance that would have authorized her to see the information. He lied to the FBI investigators about the whereabouts of classified information, indicating that he had returned it to its proper repository when it was found in his desk. He admitted to wrongdoing as part of a plea agreement. Intent was a central element in the Petraeus case; there was no evidence of intent in the Clinton case. Petraeus lied to the FBI; Clinton cooperated with the FBI.

http://fortune.com/2016/07/12/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-emails-james-comey/

[TheSanityAnnex]

We shouldn't allow TSA's braindead interpretation dictate the argument. He is both partisan and stupid as most here can attest.

Here is Fortune magazine which is not exactly a liberal bastion on the important points of law:



http://fortune.com/2016/07/12/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-emails-james-comey/

Copmletely off topic. No one is discussing Comey's thoughts on Clinton's intent in his investigation.

Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?

The answer to both is yes. Prove me wrong.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Copmletely off topic. No one is discussing Comey's thoughts on Clinton's intent in his investigation.

Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?

The answer to both is yes. Prove me wrong.

Your assertion your proof and its irrelevant to the legal standard so who cares? This is boring as usual with you. I'm going to do something else.

[CosmicCowboy]

Copmletely off topic. No one is discussing Comey's thoughts on Clinton's intent in his investigation.

Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?

The answer to both is yes. Prove me wrong.

Your problem is that Hillary very deliberately chose her words and stuck to her script that there was nothing MARKED classified. She never actually said she didn't send or receive classified information.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Your assertion your proof and its irrelevant to the legal standard so who cares? This is boring as usual with you. I'm going to do something else.
No one is discussing the legal standard nor her intent concerning the FBI's decision. The discussion is if she committed perjury under oath in front of congress. Comey confirmed she sent/received classified emails, that is not in dispute. Under oath to congress Hillary claimed she never sent/received classified emails. By default the FBI's investigation has confirmed Hillary lied to congress while under oath.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Your problem is that Hillary very deliberately chose her words and stuck to her script that there was nothing MARKED classified. She never actually said she didn't send or receive classified information.
Signed NDA posted earlier disputes the "marked" classified excuse.

[CosmicCowboy]

Signed NDA posted earlier disputes the "marked" classified excuse.

Hillary knew exactly what she was saying and it all revolved around MARKED. NDA had nothing to do with it. It's just like Bills testimony about "it depends on your definition of is".


Contending that his statement that "there's nothing going on between us" had been truthful because he had no ongoing relationship with Lewinsky at the time he was questioned, Clinton said, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

[TheSanityAnnex]

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/the-administration/287652-hillary-signed-on-the-dotted-line-and-then-broke-the

[TheSanityAnnex]

You were caught in a red lie. I exposed you.

That is why you're spinning your wheels with random questions now.

Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?

[CosmicCowboy]

Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?

Read post 318

She never said she didn't send classified information. She said she didn't send anything MARKED classified.

[Reck]

Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?

Misery loves company, I get that TSA but what's done is done.

Like I said a while back, focus your obssesion on the Clinton Foundation now. The email saga is done and if anything is going to land her in jail, it won't be because of the emails.

Both the FBI and the DOJ rejected to prosecute. Who is it do you think will now? The people who could have charged her didn't so...

[TheSanityAnnex]

Read post 318

She never said she didn't send classified information. She said she didn't send anything MARKED classified.
And that is why I posted the NDA she signed saying she understood certain information is born classified, markings or not. She also said there was no classified material on her server.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Misery loves company, I get that TSA but what's done is done.

Like I said a while back, focus your obssesion on the Clinton Foundation now. The email saga is done and if anything is going to land her in jail, it won't be because of the emails.

Both the FBI and the DOJ rejected to prosecute. Who is it do you think will now? The people who could have charged her didn't so...
I've said from the start the Foundation is what will bury her.

Why are you avoiding answering these two questions at all costs?

[Reck]

I've said from the start the Foundation is what will bury her.

Why are you avoiding answering these two questions at all costs?

I'm not. I anwered your original questions that had to do with Comey.

If I answer your new questions, you'll simply spin new ones.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I'm not. I anwered your original questions that had to do with Comey.

If I answer your new questions, you'll simply spin new ones.
You say your not avoiding them and then immediately admit to avoiding them. Answer the questions or just plead the 5th.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well TSA has devolved the topic into stupidity because he cannot make his own arguments and needs people to play along to do it. How droll.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Well TSA has devolved the topic into stupidity because he cannot make his own arguments and needs people to play along to do it. How droll.

Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?

Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well TSA has devolved the topic into stupidity because he cannot make his own arguments and needs people to play along to do it. How droll.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Hard to argue when two cowards constantly dodge two questions.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well TSA has devolved the topic into stupidity because he cannot make his own arguments and needs people to play along to do it. How droll.

[Reck]

Hard to argue when two cowards constantly dodge two questions.

I actually entertained you long enough. Two entire pages worth of back and forth.

You just cant admit when you're wrong. Now that's someone hard to argue with.

You're never going to be right 100% of the time like you seem to think.

[TheSanityAnnex]

I actually entertained you long enough. Two entire pages worth of back and forth.

You just cant admit when you're wrong. Now that's someone hard to argue with.

You're never going to be right 100% of the time like you seem to think.You've entertained me by refusing to answer my questions, I'll give that to you. Since it is obvious you will continue to refuse to answer my questions, like a pussy, at least explain why you won't answer my questions.

[Reck]

You've entertained me by refusing to answer my questions, I'll give that to you. Since it is obvious you will continue to refuse to answer my questions, like a pussy, at least explain why you won't answer my questions.

I did explained why.

And I did answered your initial questions. However, I stopped playing your games when you started moving the goal post.

You initially said Comey comfirmed she had lied under oath. That was the whole point of the back and forth then you changed the questions to better fit your narrative.

Let me make clear that I dont care whether she lied to congress or not. It doesn't have anything to do with Comey.

And as far as the question about Comey saying she sent classified information, I gave you a response.

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=262009&page=11&p=8674878&viewfull=1#post8674878

[Bender]

I haven't read a single page of this thread, but both Clintons are lying scumbags that consider themselves above any laws