FBI Clinton investigation - Comey delivers statement

[rmt]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbanenwkB3M

[boutons_deux]

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

[Reck]

Fox news is having an epic meltdown. :lol

[baseline bum]

Fox news is having an epic meltdown. :lol

Dog bites man

[Fabbs]

Benghazi 10th probe!

[z0sa]

LOL @ the obvious corruption and selling/buying of favors going on.

[rmt]

LOL @ the obvious corruption and selling/buying of favors going on.

Wonderful timing isn't it? Comey's statement hours before Obama lands with Hillary in NC.

[boutons_deux]

Wonderful timing isn't it? Comey's statement hours before Obama lands with Hillary in NC.

It's great tactic, even if "dirty", because playing dirty is how the Repugs play.

Or do you think your beloved Repugs are angels trying to govern the country seriously and move the country forward, so they don't deserve any dirty tricks back at them?

[CosmicCowboy]

Everybody knew the fix was in but it's still disheartening to see it play out so blatantly.

[rmt]

It's great tactic, even if "dirty", because playing dirty is how the Repugs play.

Or do you think your beloved Repugs are angels trying to govern the country seriously and move the country forward, so they don't deserve any dirty tricks back at them?

boutons, for the most part, both sides are corrupt and dirty - owned by the donors - that's one of the reasons why I'm voting for Trump - he doesn't have any political future to consider and doesn't need their money - he should be off retired and playing golf - I actually think he's really hurt his businesses (like the golf tournament moving from Doral to Mexico) by running.

[boutons_deux]

Trash is begging for money, haven't you heard? Even spamming Scottish MPs.

He's not independent, won't blow his wealth on getting elected. And he losing the money war badly vs. Hillary.

Trash was well known (by people who bother to know) and has a long history of nasty shit, but as private citizen asshole, not that many knew or cared.

Now that he's the Repug joke candidate for the very public Presidency, he's going to get his nasty shit more widely exposed.

[rmt]

Trash is begging for money, haven't you heard? Even spamming Scottish MPs.

He's not independent, won't blow his wealth on getting elected. And he losing the money war badly vs. Hillary.

Trash was well known (by people who bother to know) and has a long history of nasty shit, but as private citizen asshole, not that many knew or cared.

Now that he's the Repug joke candidate for the very public Presidency, he's going to get his nasty shit more widely exposed.

So explain why he's even putting himself through this - hurting his brand by opening himself up to all this scrutiny? He could be off enjoying life than putting up with this rubbish. And he has spent his own money - some what $50 million? (whatever it is) - that's not pocket change - even to him.

[Wilt Chamberlain]

Everybody knew the fix was in but it's still disheartening to see it play out so blatantly.

Once I actually saw the cases that the DoJ over the past 20 years have prosecuted regarding classified information, I knew that this was going to be the result.

You should watch something other than Fox News for setting expectations.

[spankadelphia]

You know you're living in Clown World when the shitlib throngs are in a full force celebration over their candidate being described as "extremely careless" and "dangerously negligent", but at least she's not getting charged, AN BIGOTS! #LoveWins again! So what if she leaked Special Access Programs inadvertently to the Russians, she's AN WOMAN!

Daily reminder we put Nixon away for sending some LARP'ers over to the Watergate and saying the N word on tape.

I love my dead gay country.

[RandomGuy]

Everybody knew the fix was in but it's still disheartening to see it play out so blatantly.

(shrugs)

... or maybe, just maybe, it was careless, but no evidence of a crime was found.

Nah.

[CosmicCowboy]

Once I actually saw the cases that the DoJ over the past 20 years have prosecuted regarding classified information, I knew that this was going to be the result.

You should watch something other than Fox News for setting expectations.

Fuck you.

How about just reading the law? It doesn't say anything about getting a pass because of "intent". You either break the law or you don't.

[RandomGuy]

So explain why he's even putting himself through this - hurting his brand by opening himself up to all this scrutiny? He could be off enjoying life than putting up with this rubbish. And he has spent his own money - some what $50 million? (whatever it is) - that's not pocket change - even to him.

Ego.

Pure narcissism. If that wasn't obvious to you before, I don't think you were paying attention to the man.

[RandomGuy]

Fuck you.

How about just reading the law? It doesn't say anything about getting a pass because of "intent". You either break the law or you don't.

okaaay. What law are you talking about?

What was the evidence the FBI gathered concerning that law?

[spankadelphia]

Just in case anyone thought we were still living under the rule of law, the head of the FBI actually said this:


To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences.

This is a pass for Hillary Clinton only. All you little people will face punishment should you do what she did.

[CosmicCowboy]

okaaay. What law are you talking about?

What was the evidence the FBI gathered concerning that law?

18 U.S. Code § 793

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

[CosmicCowboy]

Direct quote from Comey:


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.

[RandomGuy]

The FBI chief explained the decision not to recommend charges by saying that previous cases that were prosecuted involved a blend of clearly intentional mishandling of national secrets, or disloyalty to the U.S., or obstruction of justice. “But we do not see those things here,” he said.

Was there evidence of intentional mishandling, disloyalty, or obstruction of justice?

[RandomGuy]

Just in case anyone thought we were still living under the rule of law, the head of the FBI actually said this:



This is a pass for Hillary Clinton only. All you little people will face punishment should you do what she did.


Still, Comey said, individuals found to have done what Clinton and her senior aides did rarely face “no consequences.”
Instead, “those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions,” he said.
But with Clinton and her top aides out of government, that seemed unlikely to occur.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-comey-no-charges-appropriate-000000895.html?nhp=1

The kinds of things you get fired or reprimanded for.

[CosmicCowboy]

Was there evidence of intentional mishandling, disloyalty, or obstruction of justice?

That's a straw man

again:


18 U.S. Code § 793

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

From Comeys quote:


lthough we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

What exactly is the difference between extremely careless and gross negligence? It's gross negligence if someone else does it but just extremely careless if Clinton does it?

[HI-FI]

LOL @ the obvious corruption and selling/buying of favors going on.
This. They're basically sticking it on our face at this point.

[rmt]

Ego.

Pure narcissism. If that wasn't obvious to you before, I don't think you were paying attention to the man.

Ego vs $50million and permanently hurting your brand and businesses? Don't think so - he wouldn't be flying around in a private jet if he put his ego before so much.

[boutons_deux]

So explain why he's even putting himself through this - hurting his brand by opening himself up to all this scrutiny? He could be off enjoying life than putting up with this rubbish. And he has spent his own money - some what $50 million? (whatever it is) - that's not pocket change - even to him.

Trash has a seriously disordered personality, probably caused by a privileged, wealthy life (money is the root of all evil), always bullying his way through life with money, etc, and maybe some "daddy issues" like Austin Powers and dubya.

He won't be President, and he may not come out of Cleveland as the candidate.

[TheSanityAnnex]

.

[TheSanityAnnex]

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

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."

what a fucking joke. going to be real interesting when the leaks start coming out from pissed of FBI agents.

full transcript here

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/07/05/james-comey-full-statement-clinton-email-fbi/86707988/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzRss&utm_campaign=usatoday-newstopstories&hl=1&noRedirect=1

[pgardn]

She still used unusually bad judgement. Judgement that shows how she thinks she is above rules.

I find it hilarious that Trump has had to state this though.
And Trump stating the system is rigged when he wantonly uses lawsuits to threaten people in real estate deals etc is also incredible hypocrisy. About 4000 lawsuits in 10 years he has been involved in, good Christ.

Our choices are so incredibly bad.
Give me Romney v. Obama over again. Give me Florida Bush v. Bernie

anything

[angrydude]

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





Yea for political corruption!

The FBI director said that there was evidence Clinton committed several felonies but they weren't going to prosecute based off a incredibly stupid and obvious intentional misreading of the statute!

[angrydude]

Not to mention that Clinton supporters now have to admit that she is dribbling on her shirt mentally retarded because she's officially too stupid to be charged with a crime. They basically gave her the insanity defense.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

“Nothing has changed my view that if the choice comes down to Clinton or Trump, I would still prefer Clinton,” said Tom Nichols, a professor at the Naval War College who writes for the Federalist, a conservative-leaning publication. “This was classic Clintonism: entitled, reckless, breaking the rules and beating the rap. It's infuriating, but it's not the same menace to American national security as the one presented by a man too ignorant to know the first thing about the American nuclear deterrent, who has promised to spark a civil-military crisis by ordering war crimes, and whose foreign policy boils down to "bombing the shit" out of bad guys.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/clinton-emails-trump-opponents-response-225131#ixzz4Da0lUCNV

[ducks]

Everybody knew the fix was in but it's still disheartening to see it play out so blatantly.



there was no intetent to break the law except there was atleast 110 classified emails she opened
doing it over and over is showing intent

[rmt]

Trash has a seriously disordered personality, probably caused by a privileged, wealthy life (money is the root of all evil), always bullying his way through life with money, etc, and maybe some "daddy issues" like Austin Powers and dubya.

He won't be President, and he may not come out of Cleveland as the candidate.

Not to nitpick, but the verse is actually, "For the LOVE of money is the root of all evil"

[ducks]

CLINTON: "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material." News conference, March 2015.

THE FACTS: Actually, the FBI identified at least 113 emails that passed through Clinton's server and contained materials that were classified at the time they were sent, including some that were Top Secret and referred to a highly classified special access program, Comey said.

Most of those emails — 110 of them — were included among 30,000 emails that Clinton returned to the State Department around the time her use of a private email server was discovered. The three others were recovered from a forensic analysis of Clinton's server. "Any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about the matters should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation," Comey said. Clinton and her aides "were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," he said.

CLINTON: "I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified." NBC interview, July 2016.

THE FACTS: Clinton has separately clung to her rationale that there were no classification markings on her emails that would have warned her and others not to transmit the sensitive material. But the private system did, in fact, handle emails that bore markings indicating they contained classified information, Comey said.

He said the marked emails were "a very small number." But that's not the only standard for judging how officials handle sensitive material, he added. "Even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."

CLINTON: "I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work related" to the State Department. News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: Not so, the FBI found.
Comey said that when his forensic team examined Clinton's server it found there were "several thousand work-related emails that were not in the group of 30,000" that had been returned by Clinton to the State Department.

CLINTON: "I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for personal emails instead of two." News conference, March 2015.

THE FACTS: This reasoning for using private email both for public business and private correspondence didn't hold up in the investigation. Clinton "used numerous mobile devices to view and send email" using her personal account, Comey said. He also said Clinton had used different servers.

CLINTON: "It was on property guarded by the Secret Service, and there were no security breaches. ... The use of that server, which started with my husband, certainly proved to be effective and secure." News conference, March 2015.

CLINTON campaign website: "There is no evidence there was ever a breach."

THE FACTS: The campaign website claimed "no evidence" of a breach, a less categorical statement than Clinton herself made last year, when she said there was no breach. The FBI did not uncover a breach but made clear that that possibility cannot be ruled out.

"We assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account," Comey said.

He said evidence would be hard to find because hackers are sophisticated and can cover their tracks. Comey said his investigators learned that Clinton's security lapses included using "her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries." Comey also noted that hackers breached the email accounts of several outsiders who messaged with Clinton.

Comey did not mention names, but a Romanian hacker who called himself Guccifer accessed and later leaked emails from Sidney Blumenthal, an outside adviser to Clinton who regularly communicated with her.
CLINTON: "I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department." News conference, March 2015.

THE FACTS: Comey did not address Clinton's reason for using a private server instead of a government one, but he highlighted the perils in routing sensitive information through a home server.

The FBI found that Clinton's personal server was "not even supported by full-time security staff like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government or even with a commercial email service like Gmail," the director said.

A May 2016 audit by the State Department inspector general found there was no evidence Clinton sought or received approval to operate a private server, and that she "had an obligation to discuss using her personal email account to conduct official business with their offices." Courts have frowned on such a practice.

In an unrelated case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled Tuesday that the purpose of public records law is "hardly served" when a department head "can deprive the citizens of their right to know what his department is up to" by maintaining emails on a private system.

[ducks]

What the FBI Investigation Found

Comey said today there were some occasions when Clinton's information could have been breached. He cited one instance in 2013 when the email software on the server was removed in order to be replaced with a newer version.

"That didn't remove the content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge unfinished jigsaw puzzle and dumping all of the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of email fragments ended up in the server's unused, or slack, space," he said.

Comey added that the FBI "did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal email domain in its various configurations since 2009 was hacked successfully."

The FBI determined that "hostile actors" did hack into the accounts of Clinton's confidants and that her travel overseas into "the territory of sophisticated adversaries" could have put the security of her correspondence at risk.

"Given that combination of factors, we assessed it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account," Comey said.

[ducks]

What the FBI Investigation Found

Comey said today that 110 emails in 52 email chains were determined to contain some form of classified information at the time they were sent.

He went on to specify that Clinton was on seven of those chains that were classified as top secret.

[ducks]

Former DOJ Lawyer: Hillary Can Be Prosecuted

A former Department of Justice attorney said Tuesday Hillary Clinton's actions regarding her use of private email can lead to criminal prosecution, regardless of the FBI's decision to not recommend charges.

Jacob Frenkel told CNBC he disagrees with FBI director James Comey regarding a key piece of the puzzle: intent.

"What I found a little bit more troubling is the continued and repeated reference to intent," Frenkel said. "They found no evidence of intent. There was one other point that he made during the press conference that I found a little bit troubling, which was they could not find any other such case historically.

[rmt]

Would someone please explain to me what you think he means by this:

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.

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

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

So if my husband does the same exact thing she did and they let her off because they couldn't find any prior case to support bringing criminal charges, that he would be able to get off on the basis of her case? How can my example be reconciled with the bolded above and what are they deciding now that's different from this person engaging in this activity that he would face consequences and be subject to security or administrative sanctions and she does not?

[ElNono]

Disgusting. And this election is going to be even worse.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Had Comey recommended an indictment none of this information would have been made public until well after the election was over. The administration could have sat on this much like they are trying to do with the release of the Clinton Foundation emails. He just provided tons of sound bites for Trump to use basically laying out all of the felonies she committed. I found it very odd to come out and release all of their findings like he did.

[rmt]

What about the Clinton Foundation part? and her aides/IT guy? They get off scot free too?

[TeyshaBlue]

BREAKING: FBI finds John Wilkes Booth "extremely careless" in discharge of firearm.

[z0sa]

BREAKING: FBI finds John Wilkes Booth "extremely careless" in discharge of firearm.:wakeup

[ElNono]

Had Comey recommended an indictment none of this information would have been made public until well after the election was over. The administration could have sat on this much like they are trying to do with the release of the Clinton Foundation emails. He just provided tons of sound bites for Trump to use basically laying out all of the felonies she committed. I found it very odd to come out and release all of their findings like he did.

Well, he is a registered republican after all...

[ducks]

http://www.theamericanmirror.com/trump-releases-video-contrasting-clinton-comey-statements/

[rmt]

The biggest loser in all this is Bernie - unless the Clinton Foundation investigation is still going on.

[ducks]

And other people might have faced punishment for similar actions, Comey said. While previous cases have not resulted in criminal prosecution, "those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions," he said.

[ElNono]

The biggest loser in all this is Bernie - unless the Clinton Foundation investigation is still going on.

She's likely going to be our next President. I'd say the biggest loser in all this is all of us.

[ducks]

The biggest loser in all this is Bernie - unless the Clinton Foundation investigation is still going on.

the biggest looser is the american people
little people have to obey law big people do not especially if they are a women who has never been able to run for president of the usa

[rmt]

I meant today (short-term) - not long term. His very small chance for nomination is gone.

[rmt]

And why didn't he take questions? Doesn't he usually?

[rmt]

http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3901/9257/original.jpg

[Reck]

And why didn't he take questions? Doesn't he usually?

He doesn't do pressers either. This should have gone straight to the DOJ but since this was a loss they went with the press consference.

[Pelicans78]

okaaay. What law are you talking about?

What was the evidence the FBI gathered concerning that law?

She was grossly negligent which can still be prosecuted even if the intent wasn't there.

[Pelicans78]

She still used unusually bad judgement. Judgement that shows how she thinks she is above rules.

I find it hilarious that Trump has had to state this though.
And Trump stating the system is rigged when he wantonly uses lawsuits to threaten people in real estate deals etc is also incredible hypocrisy. About 4000 lawsuits in 10 years he has been involved in, good Christ.

Our choices are so incredibly bad.
Give me Romney v. Obama over again. Give me Florida Bush v. Bernie

anything

It's too late. The country chose this and now watch it to continue to burn.

[rmt]

Trump should just run this as an ad:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbkS26PX4rc

[Pelicans78]

Had Comey recommended an indictment none of this information would have been made public until well after the election was over. The administration could have sat on this much like they are trying to do with the release of the Clinton Foundation emails. He just provided tons of sound bites for Trump to use basically laying out all of the felonies she committed. I found it very odd to come out and release all of their findings like he did.

I agree with this. Trump will get alot of ammunition from this. It plays into his "corrupt Hillary" soundbite.

[Reck]

She was grossly negligent which can still be prosecuted even if the intent wasn't there.

You cant prosecute stupid.

If we did, then half the country would be locked up. You could sense and hear how badly Comey wanted her but just couldn't. Under the law, she was found not to have done anything criminal.

[Pelicans78]

You cant prosecute stupid.

If we did, then half the country would be locked up. You could sense and hear how badly Comey wanted her but just couldn't. Under the law, she was found not to have done anything criminal.

Yes you can prosecute stupid. Happens all the time whether its manslaughter cases, DUIs, etc. And when it comes to classified stuff, being stupid can be prosecuted.

I know you support your candidate, but you don't have to be biased 100% of the times which is so annoying about die-hard supporters like you or Trumpbots who blindly support his retarded stuff.

[z0sa]

You cant prosecute stupid.

If we did, then half the country would be locked up. You could sense and hear how badly Comey wanted her but just couldn't. Under the law, she was found not to have done anything criminal.

That's not what happened at all.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You cant prosecute stupid.

If we did, then half the country would be locked up. You could sense and hear how badly Comey wanted her but just couldn't. Under the law, she was found not to have done anything criminal.
The law was ignored, Comey said it himself.

And the FBI goes after people for the same thing Clinton did all the time.
https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials

[rmt]

The law was ignored, Comey said it himself.

And the FBI goes after people for the same thing Clinton did all the time.
https://m.fbi.gov/#https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press-releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to-unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials

Yep. "this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions."

He spent most of the time laying a case against her and did a 180 at the end. He claims that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case - maybe he knows that no prosecutor would win a case against Hillary. Can you imagine just the selection of the jury?

[Reck]

Yes you can prosecute stupid. Happens all the time whether its manslaughter cases, DUIs, etc. And when it comes to classified stuff, being stupid can be prosecuted.

I know you support your candidate, but you don't have to be biased 100% of the times which is so annoying about die-hard supporters like you or Trumpbots who blindly support his retarded stuff.

This has nothing to do with me liking her or not. I leave it to the profesionals to do their jobs. Its not my job to judge these cases.

Looks like they probed her and worked on this case for a year and a half and couldn't find evidence to put forth charges. I disagree on prosecuting stupdity.

There is a penalty for that but to say it's worth jail time is going a little too far.

Had she been secretary of state she would have been diciplined, had access revoked or worst, be fired from her post.

It is what happened to Petraus and that guy TheSanityAnnex has a link to.

[TheSanityAnnex]

The more I think about it this was actually a genius move by Comey knowing Obama and Lynch would never charge her.

[ducks]

Yes giving everyone stuff to pile on the crooked Hillary

[TheGreatYacht]

No stopping the Clintrain now, nerds. Start bowing down

[CosmicCowboy]

The more I think about it this was actually a genius move by Comey knowing Obama and Lynch would never charge her.

yep.

That is the only thing that makes sense.

He knew if he just presented the report to the Justice Department they would just bury it and the real facts would never come out.

Dude is toast when Hillary becomes President. The Clinton's always get even.

[boutons_deux]

Legally she's in the clear, but Comey damaged her politically.

She's still going to trash Trash.

[rmt]

Comey is only 55 - too young to retire. BTW, he's really tall - 6 ft 8" - maybe he can come play for the Spurs :-)

[boutons_deux]

Repugs' witch hunting of Hillary have produced the usual nothing, just like their 60 repeals of Obamacare.

While Repugs' are stuck with tar-baby Trash, and probably don't have the balls to dump Trash at the convention.

[RandomGuy]

That's a straw man

again:



From Comeys quote:



What exactly is the difference between extremely careless and gross negligence? It's gross negligence if someone else does it but just extremely careless if Clinton does it?

You are misusing the term "strawman".
(helpfully, because knowing makes us better critical thinkers):
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html


It is not a strawman because I have not distorted anyone's position.

My question is entirely relevant, because it outlines the legal tests required, I am assuming, to meet the definition of gross negligence.

Since this is the law, definitions matter, as they should in any good discussion as well.

Again, since this is the law, evidence matters. You have not, I would assume, seen the exact evidence the FBI collected. I know that, which is why I asked you, so that you might want to consider the implications of assuming things without sufficient evidence to support assumptions.

In this case, your question "is Clinton being treated different when it comes to prosecution" is relevant.

Is she? How have other similar cases been considered? What is the standard? You tell me.

It seems to me you have bought the narrative of her political enemies, who have every motivation to lie and spin, without applying appropriate skepticism to it, because, in all liklihood, you already dislike her, and your confirmation bias has led you to accept something as true without properly considering it on its own merits.

Leaving me to close, by restating my question:

What is the actual evidence, and provide me with some past examples of similar cases, so that I can evaluate the claims she is being treated differently.

[RandomGuy]

yep.

That is the only thing that makes sense.

He knew if he just presented the report to the Justice Department they would just bury it and the real facts would never come out.

Dude is toast when Hillary becomes President. The Clinton's always get even.

If it is the only thing that makes sense, how have you excluded the fact that he might have appropriately reached his conclusions, without external considerations?

[CosmicCowboy]

If it is the only thing that makes sense, how have you excluded the fact that he might have appropriately reached his conclusions, without external considerations?

Because it is not the FBI's job to determine if the case should be prosecuted. It is their job to present the evidence and let the Justice Department decide whether to pursue prosecution.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's like the police coming out and saying someone driving drunk shouldn't be prosecuted because they didn't intend to get drunk when they went out that night.

[mrsmaalox]

What is the actual evidence, and provide me with some past examples of similar cases, so that I can evaluate the claims she is being treated differently.

Just a personal anecdote for you RG: My husband was the senior ranking (Lt. Col) medical officer at the Surgeon General's office from 2001 (he was working at the Pentagon on 9/11) until 2004 when he was deployed to Iraq as part of the team sent to "fix" the Abu Ghraib mess. He shared many email chains with those of the highest security clearances. His stories about the absolute nightmare the IT crews lived under Donald Rumsfeld would shock you. The Pentagon is chockfull of 60 to 70 yr olds who can't work a smart phone :lol They had to assign a personal IT guy to sit by Rumsfeld to help him open and send emails :lol Of course since his political enemies weren't interested, his "negligence" (ie "bumbling") was just routine day to day Pentagon operation.

Presently my "hasbeen" is with the Warrior Resiliency Program, a HUGE IT nightmare because it provides telebehavior counseling to active duty soldiers all over the globe. I've had the opportunity to chat with providers and IT folks socially and Hillary's email scandal is a common topic at the 2 parties I've been to. I never heard anyone say anything except "Eh, they can't nail her with this because everyone does it". Because it's all about "intent". Negligent does not mean intentional. Although there was careless handling of classified information, there is no proof that information from Rummy or Clinton ended up in the possession of anyone with a lesser security clearance. Where as Petraeus directly gave classified documents (intent) to someone of lesser security clearance, legally he should be the one in jail. But he got a plea deal so that right there set the precedent for Hillary.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Although there was careless handling of classified information, there is no proof that information from Rummy or Clinton ended up in the possession of anyone with a lesser security clearance. Where as Petraeus directly gave classified documents (intent) to someone of lesser security clearance, legally he should be the one in jail. But he got a plea deal so that right there set the precedent for Hillary.

Clinton gave her lawyer a thumb drive with classified information on it.

[mrsmaalox]

Clinton gave her lawyer a thumb drive with classified information on it.

As part of the investigation, not post sex pillow talk. I know you don't want to see a difference but there is.

[ducks]

Repugs' witch hunting of Hillary have produced the usual nothing, just like their 60 repeals of Obamacare.

While Repugs' are stuck with tar-baby Trash, and probably don't have the balls to dump Trash at the convention.

you have to admit she lied about the emails !

[TheSanityAnnex]

As part of the investigation, not post sex pillow talk. I know you don't want to see a difference but there is.

You think he had clearance for that information?

[boutons_deux]

you have to admit she lied about the emails !

You have to admit GENERAL Petraeus gave classified info to his fuckbuddy, and copped a plea, instead of prison.

[TheSanityAnnex]

The excuses here by some are shameful.

[ducks]

You have to admit GENERAL Petraeus gave classified info to his fuckbuddy, and copped a plea, instead of prison.


the problem with the liberal they instead of answering the question say something a republican does

[FromWayDowntown]

Because it is not the FBI's job to determine if the case should be prosecuted. It is their job to present the evidence and let the Justice Department decide whether to pursue prosecution.

I would think that in a lot of circumstances, local police officers who do the underlying factual investigation of crimes that lack eyewitnesses are asked by prosecutors to make recommendations -- non-binding recommendations, of course, but recommendations nonetheless -- about whether those officers believe the developed evidence is sufficient to support a prosecution. This is really no different; the FBI investigated the allegations, developed the evidence that Comey outlined yesterday, and made a recommendation to DOJ based upon that proof about where the case should go from there. That recommendation isn't binding, but it also isn't unwarranted.


It's like the police coming out and saying someone driving drunk shouldn't be prosecuted because they didn't intend to get drunk when they went out that night.

Except that DUI doesn't require a showing of intent to obtain a conviction.

[CosmicCowboy]

I would think that in a lot of circumstances, local police officers who do the underlying factual investigation of crimes that lack eyewitnesses are asked by prosecutors to make recommendations -- non-binding recommendations, of course, but recommendations nonetheless -- about whether those officers believe the developed evidence is sufficient to support a prosecution. This is really no different; the FBI investigated the allegations, developed the evidence that Comey outlined yesterday, and made a recommendation to DOJ based upon that proof about where the case should go from there. That recommendation isn't binding, but it also isn't unwarranted.



Except that DUI doesn't require a showing of intent to obtain a conviction.

No intent was required.


18 U.S. Code § 793

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

[Reck]

The excuses here by some are shameful.

C'mon man, this is over.

Time to move on to something else. May I suggest....the Clinton's foundation.

[CosmicCowboy]

C'mon man, this is over.

Time to move on to something else. May I suggest....the Clinton's foundation.

Good idea but the fix will be in there too. She will have already been President for two years when they finish that one.

[FromWayDowntown]

No intent was required.

So what? I wasn't commenting on the law of handling confidential documents, and I wasn't using the word "intent" in reference to the crimes that were alleged against Hillary. I was using it in response to your analogy that a drunk driver could avoid prosecution by claiming to have not intended to get drunk.

At that, gross negligence is (contrary to the spin most talking heads want to put on it) a term that connotes (or is expressly defined) to involve something akin to a conscious violation of other people's right to safety. In tort law, you don't get to gross negligence just by showing that somebody did something stupid and reckless; you have to show that the tortfeasor was objectively aware of the danger to others involved in his actions and that with awareness of that danger to others, proceeded anyway with the tortious conduct. Once you get to the point of requiring awareness or consciousness of the danger your conduct poses to others, you're all but requiring a showing of intent. Acting irresponsibly can be gross negligence in some instances, but as a matter of law it is not gross negligence in every instance.

[boutons_deux]

Comey listed points, as have several others in the past months, that could have gotten Hillary indicted. NONE of them were met.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Comey listed points, as have several others in the past months, that could have gotten Hillary indicted. NONE of them were met.

They were all met, and laid them all out clearly. Seems obvious to me they told Comey they wouldn't prosecute so this was his way of getting their findings out to the public.

And for those who keep claiming there was no intent lol

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/2FED92FE00000578-3391031-image-a-63_1452287824741_zpscdjlstz5.jpg

[Reck]

^Unclassified?

That one is a useless email exchanged.

[TheSanityAnnex]

^Unclassified?

That one is a useless email exchanged.

That is the heading from the IG case, not the original email. Clinton clearly tells Sullivan to scrub the classification and send unsecure.

[ducks]

Comey listed points, as have several others in the past months, that could have gotten Hillary indicted. NONE of them were met.

are you that much of a homer for the liberals

I am upset at both parties

[TheSanityAnnex]

C'mon man, this is over.

Time to move on to something else. May I suggest....the Clinton's foundation.

This is just getting started :lol

Clinton was hoping this would be over. A recommendation to indict would have surely buried all of this information until the election was over. Comey's move was brilliant and Obama/Clinton can do nothing to stop him now. He's already agreed to testify before the House committee, he'll just keep repeating all of the felonies she's committed and Clinton will be tried in the court of public opinion.

And the Foundation has always been the big fish, now he's got more manpower and resources to focus on that. You do remember Comey was unsuccessful going after the Clintons during Whitewater don't you. Comey is playing Washington DC chess.

[CosmicCowboy]

This is just getting started :lol

Clinton was hoping this would be over. A recommendation to indict would have surely buried all of this information until the election was over. Comey's move was brilliant and Obama/Clinton can do nothing to stop him now. He's already agreed to testify before the House committee, he'll just keep repeating all of the felonies she's committed and Clinton will be tried in the court of public opinion.

And the Foundation has always been the big fish, now he's got more manpower and resources to focus on that. You do remember Comey was unsuccessful going after the Clintons during Whitewater don't you. Comey is playing Washington DC chess.

You are living in fantasyland. That can got kicked way down the road. Comey will be gone when Hillary gets elected and a Clinton justice department will never allow Clinton to be indicted.

[Reck]

This is just getting started :lol

Clinton was hoping this would be over. A recommendation to indict would have surely buried all of this information until the election was over. Comey's move was brilliant and Obama/Clinton can do nothing to stop him now. He's already agreed to testify before the House committee, he'll just keep repeating all of the felonies she's committed and Clinton will be tried in the court of public opinion.

And the Foundation has always been the big fish, now he's got more manpower and resources to focus on that. You do remember Comey was unsuccessful going after the Clintons during Whitewater don't you. Comey is playing Washington DC chess.

If she makes it to the WH, it won't matter.

Comey is the one who could find himself out of a job if she gets there.

The public's opinions are already known. She has abysmal favoribility ratings. Most people know she's full of shit and most people will still vote for her over Trump just based on how much more shittier Trump is.

[TheSanityAnnex]

You are living in fantasyland. That can got kicked way down the road. Comey will be gone when Hillary gets elected and a Clinton justice department will never allow Clinton to be indicted.

This was Comey's only move and I think it was genius

[TheSanityAnnex]

If she makes it to the WH, it won't matter.

Comey is the one who could find himself out of a job if she gets there.

The public's opinions are already known. She has abysmal favoribility ratings. Most people know she's full of shit and most people will still vote for her over Trump just based on how much more shittier Trump is.
This was about keeping her from the WH.

[boutons_deux]

This was about keeping her from the WH.

of course it was. And that Repug strategy started long before tar baby Trash took over. Benghazi and all the other witch hunting was all about destroying the Dems, not about governing America, about which the Repugs don't GAF.

[Th'Pusher]

So what? I wasn't commenting on the law of handling confidential documents, and I wasn't using the word "intent" in reference to the crimes that were alleged against Hillary. I was using it in response to your analogy that a drunk driver could avoid prosecution by claiming to have not intended to get drunk.

At that, gross negligence is (contrary to the spin most talking heads want to put on it) a term that connotes (or is expressly defined) to involve something akin to a conscious violation of other people's right to safety. In tort law, you don't get to gross negligence just by showing that somebody did something stupid and reckless; you have to show that the tortfeasor was objectively aware of the danger to others involved in his actions and that with awareness of that danger to others, proceeded anyway with the tortious conduct. Once you get to the point of requiring awareness or consciousness of the danger your conduct poses to others, you're all but requiring a showing of intent. Acting irresponsibly can be gross negligence in some instances, but as a matter of law it is not gross negligence in every instance.
This is the crux of dismantling the 'no intent is required' argument. It has been and will continue to be ihnored by CC, TSA, etc.

[Capt Bringdown]

https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7584/28005468872_0231291775_b.jpg

[elbamba]

So what? I wasn't commenting on the law of handling confidential documents, and I wasn't using the word "intent" in reference to the crimes that were alleged against Hillary. I was using it in response to your analogy that a drunk driver could avoid prosecution by claiming to have not intended to get drunk.

At that, gross negligence is (contrary to the spin most talking heads want to put on it) a term that connotes (or is expressly defined) to involve something akin to a conscious violation of other people's right to safety. In tort law, you don't get to gross negligence just by showing that somebody did something stupid and reckless; you have to show that the tortfeasor was objectively aware of the danger to others involved in his actions and that with awareness of that danger to others, proceeded anyway with the tortious conduct. Once you get to the point of requiring awareness or consciousness of the danger your conduct poses to others, you're all but requiring a showing of intent. Acting irresponsibly can be gross negligence in some instances, but as a matter of law it is not gross negligence in every instance.

I am certainly no expert in criminal law. I believe that criminal gross negligence is similar in that to be found guilty of criminal gross negligence the defendant must be subjectively aware of the risk and disregard it. Whether that happened in this case, I will leave that to people who followed it more closely. I am getting my update via Spurstalk.

[TheSanityAnnex]

This is the crux of dismantling the 'no intent is required' argument. It has been and will continue to be ihnored by CC, TSA, etc.

Here is your intent.

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/2FED92FE00000578-3391031-image-a-63_1452287824741_zpscdjlstz5.jpg

[ducks]

lol 54 percent think fbi is wrong

[SnakeBoy]

You are living in fantasyland. That can got kicked way down the road. Comey will be gone when Hillary gets elected and a Clinton justice department will never allow Clinton to be indicted.

Comey is Director until 2023 unless he chooses not to be.

Not that I agree with TSA's assertion.

[boutons_deux]

FBI Director James Comey Breaks Federal Prosecutor Rules by Smearing but Not Indicting Clinton Over Emails

Prosecutorial excess and abuse of power.

But what almost nobody is questioning is whether the FBI director crossed the line, abusing his discretion and his power, by smearing Clinton in the press and interfering in a political campaign.

The Department of Justice’s manual for federal prosecutors bars them from making statements about people who aren’t indicted.
“It goes beyond discretion,” said an ex-Connecticut public defender. “It’s completely improper when there’s not going to be a trial.”
The Department of Justice’s voluminous U.S. Attorneys Manual (https://www.justice.gov/usam/united-states-attorneys-manual) has sections restricting (http://www.apple.com/) press comments when there’s no indictment in all but the most exceptional cases, barring (http://www.apple.com/) prosecutors from interfering in political campaigns. It states that prosecutors should not (http://www.apple.com/) name unindicted defendants, and even cites federal court rulings chastising prosecutors for doing exactly that.

Comey, a Republican appointed (http://theweek.com/articles/463795/james-comey-why-obama-wants-republican-fbi-chief) as FBI director by President Obama, crossed all three of those lines.

Very few commentators noted that Comey shouldn’t have said anything at all, and how unusual it was that he did. One exception was Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of the Lawfare blog and a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.

“The first notable thing in FBI director Jim Comey's statement on the Clinton email flap is that he issued it,” he wrote (https://www.lawfareblog.com/jim-comeys-statement-clinton-emails-quick-and-dirty-analysis).

“Normally, the FBI does not issue reports on its investigative findings separate from Justice Department decisions regarding what to do with those findings.

Much less does it make public its recommendations, particularly in a fashion that effectively preempts the Justice Department's prosecutorial decisions with respect to those recommendations.”

Comey’s hubris didn’t stop there, Wittes noted. The man who drew Obama’s attention because as an FBI official he privately opposed the Bush administration's torture proposals, told (http://www.apple.com/) the press Tuesday that, “I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.”

Beyond the fact that the DOJ prosecutors' manual states (http://www.apple.com/) that all statements have to be cleared through department filters,

Comey’s assertion that his remarks are called for as matter of great public interest—“Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way”—falls flat upon close scrutiny.

What he presented was extremely political, and if the DOJ prosecutors' manual is to be taken seriously, equally unprofessional.

Comey went in for the political hit,

“They were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” Comey said, referring to Clinton’s tech-support staff. “For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the top secret/special access program level when they were sent and received… 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.”

Then came a series of additional slaps and smears.

“None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails 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,” Comey said. “Even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

Comey then hit the State Department for allowing Clinton to use private emails, without acknowledging that former Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell did the same thing.

Then came more guilt-by-association.

“We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account,” he said, which translated, means people she was communicating with were likely targeted by hackers. He speculated, “Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

Then Comey backtracked, concluding that none of this carelessness rose to the level of a criminal violation that could be prosecuted.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/fbi-director-james-comey-breaks-federal-prosecutor-rules-smearing-not-indicting

Comey going full Ken Starr.

[ducks]

www.alternet.org most liberal site ever

[boutons_deux]

www.alternet.org (http://www.alternet.org) most liberal site ever

shoot the messenger.

The little bitch Comey smeared Hillary in the middle of Pres campaign, got his few minutes of fame.

[pgardn]

shoot the messenger.

The little bitch Comey smeared Hillary in the middle of Pres campaign, got his few minutes of fame.

She helped him by lying.

Of course Hillary's opponent for president is a serial liar, so, there's that.

[TheSanityAnnex]

FBI Director James Comey Breaks Federal Prosecutor Rules by Smearing but Not Indicting Clinton Over Emails

Prosecutorial excess and abuse of power.

But what almost nobody is questioning is whether the FBI director crossed the line, abusing his discretion and his power, by smearing Clinton in the press and interfering in a political campaign.

The Department of Justice’s manual for federal prosecutors bars them from making statements about people who aren’t indicted.
“It goes beyond discretion,” said an ex-Connecticut public defender. “It’s completely improper when there’s not going to be a trial.”
The Department of Justice’s voluminous U.S. Attorneys Manual (https://www.justice.gov/usam/united-states-attorneys-manual) has sections restricting (http://www.apple.com/) press comments when there’s no indictment in all but the most exceptional cases, barring (http://www.apple.com/) prosecutors from interfering in political campaigns. It states that prosecutors should not (http://www.apple.com/) name unindicted defendants, and even cites federal court rulings chastising prosecutors for doing exactly that.

Comey, a Republican appointed (http://theweek.com/articles/463795/james-comey-why-obama-wants-republican-fbi-chief) as FBI director by President Obama, crossed all three of those lines.

Very few commentators noted that Comey shouldn’t have said anything at all, and how unusual it was that he did. One exception was Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of the Lawfare blog and a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.

“The first notable thing in FBI director Jim Comey's statement on the Clinton email flap is that he issued it,” he wrote (https://www.lawfareblog.com/jim-comeys-statement-clinton-emails-quick-and-dirty-analysis).

“Normally, the FBI does not issue reports on its investigative findings separate from Justice Department decisions regarding what to do with those findings.

Much less does it make public its recommendations, particularly in a fashion that effectively preempts the Justice Department's prosecutorial decisions with respect to those recommendations.”

Comey’s hubris didn’t stop there, Wittes noted. The man who drew Obama’s attention because as an FBI official he privately opposed the Bush administration's torture proposals, told (http://www.apple.com/) the press Tuesday that, “I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.”

Beyond the fact that the DOJ prosecutors' manual states (http://www.apple.com/) that all statements have to be cleared through department filters,

Comey’s assertion that his remarks are called for as matter of great public interest—“Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way”—falls flat upon close scrutiny.

What he presented was extremely political, and if the DOJ prosecutors' manual is to be taken seriously, equally unprofessional.

Comey went in for the political hit,

“They were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” Comey said, referring to Clinton’s tech-support staff. “For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the top secret/special access program level when they were sent and received… 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.”

Then came a series of additional slaps and smears.

“None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails 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,” Comey said. “Even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

Comey then hit the State Department for allowing Clinton to use private emails, without acknowledging that former Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell did the same thing.

Then came more guilt-by-association.

“We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account,” he said, which translated, means people she was communicating with were likely targeted by hackers. He speculated, “Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

Then Comey backtracked, concluding that none of this carelessness rose to the level of a criminal violation that could be prosecuted.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/fbi-director-james-comey-breaks-federal-prosecutor-rules-smearing-not-indicting

Comey going full Ken Starr.




Of course he did what he did. He knew the DOJ would never indict if he recommended and he knew if he recommended indictment the DOJ would sit on the information and keep it from the public until after the general election. The sitting attorney general just met with the former President who's wife was being investigated for fucks sake. The voting public deserved to hear about the multiple felonies the Democratic nominee lied about and tried to cover up.

[boutons_deux]

Of course he did what he did. He knew the DOJ would never indict if he recommended and he knew if he recommended indictment the DOJ would sit on the information and keep it from the public until after the general election. The sitting attorney general just met with the former President who's wife was being investigated for fucks sake. The voting public deserved to hear about the multiple felonies the Democratic nominee lied about and tried to cover up.

"of course" the Repug broke DoJ rules and smeared the Dem candidate.

Felonies? :lol

[boutons_deux]

John Galt Ryan, another nasty fucking Catholic Repug, says he will sic his Congress attack dogs on Hillary about the emails.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Question to all of the shameless Clinton defenders, do you think Lynch would have indicted had Comey recommended?

[Fabbs]

John Galt Ryan, another nasty fucking Catholic Repug, says he will sic his Congress attack dogs on Hillary about the emails.
Do Repugs ever actually do anything, attempt to implement any of their own policies?
All I ever see and hear them do is bitch about ____ _____ ____ Democrat.

[DarrinS]

I wonder what would happen to someone if they violated their company's security policy hundreds of times over the course of four years?

[DarrinS]

Ask your CIO if you can set up your own email server?

[TheSanityAnnex]

FBI Director James Comey Breaks Federal Prosecutor Rules by Smearing but Not Indicting Clinton Over Emails

Prosecutorial excess and abuse of power.

But what almost nobody is questioning is whether the FBI director crossed the line, abusing his discretion and his power, by smearing Clinton in the press and interfering in a political campaign.

The Department of Justice’s manual for federal prosecutors bars them from making statements about people who aren’t indicted.
“It goes beyond discretion,” said an ex-Connecticut public defender. “It’s completely improper when there’s not going to be a trial.”
The Department of Justice’s voluminous U.S. Attorneys Manual (https://www.justice.gov/usam/united-states-attorneys-manual) has sections restricting (http://www.apple.com/) press comments when there’s no indictment in all but the most exceptional cases, barring (http://www.apple.com/) prosecutors from interfering in political campaigns. It states that prosecutors should not (http://www.apple.com/) name unindicted defendants, and even cites federal court rulings chastising prosecutors for doing exactly that.

Comey, a Republican appointed (http://theweek.com/articles/463795/james-comey-why-obama-wants-republican-fbi-chief) as FBI director by President Obama, crossed all three of those lines.

Very few commentators noted that Comey shouldn’t have said anything at all, and how unusual it was that he did. One exception was Benjamin Wittes, editor in chief of the Lawfare blog and a senior fellow in governance studies at the Brookings Institution.

“The first notable thing in FBI director Jim Comey's statement on the Clinton email flap is that he issued it,” he wrote (https://www.lawfareblog.com/jim-comeys-statement-clinton-emails-quick-and-dirty-analysis).

“Normally, the FBI does not issue reports on its investigative findings separate from Justice Department decisions regarding what to do with those findings.

Much less does it make public its recommendations, particularly in a fashion that effectively preempts the Justice Department's prosecutorial decisions with respect to those recommendations.”

Comey’s hubris didn’t stop there, Wittes noted. The man who drew Obama’s attention because as an FBI official he privately opposed the Bush administration's torture proposals, told (http://www.apple.com/) the press Tuesday that, “I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.”

Beyond the fact that the DOJ prosecutors' manual states (http://www.apple.com/) that all statements have to be cleared through department filters,

Comey’s assertion that his remarks are called for as matter of great public interest—“Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way”—falls flat upon close scrutiny.

What he presented was extremely political, and if the DOJ prosecutors' manual is to be taken seriously, equally unprofessional.

Comey went in for the political hit,

“They were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information,” Comey said, referring to Clinton’s tech-support staff. “For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the top secret/special access program level when they were sent and received… 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.”

Then came a series of additional slaps and smears.

“None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails 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,” Comey said. “Even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

Comey then hit the State Department for allowing Clinton to use private emails, without acknowledging that former Republican Secretary of State Colin Powell did the same thing.

Then came more guilt-by-association.

“We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account,” he said, which translated, means people she was communicating with were likely targeted by hackers. He speculated, “Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal email account.”

Then Comey backtracked, concluding that none of this carelessness rose to the level of a criminal violation that could be prosecuted.

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/fbi-director-james-comey-breaks-federal-prosecutor-rules-smearing-not-indicting

Comey going full Ken Starr.



:lol alternet
:lol boutons
:lol Comey the Federal Prosecutor
:lol Comey's ability to indict

[Th'Pusher]

Of course he did what he did. He knew the DOJ would never indict if he recommended and he knew if he recommended indictment the DOJ would sit on the information and keep it from the public until after the general election. The sitting attorney general just met with the former President who's wife was being investigated for fucks sake. The voting public deserved to hear about the multiple felonies the Democratic nominee lied about and tried to cover up.

This tinfoil hat theory is boarding on lunacy. Do you have any idea of the optics of the FBI director recommending indictment and the DOJ sitting on that information until after the election? Having the director of the FBI recommend an indictment would have killed her campaign. Just knowing of the recommended indictment without knowing the specifics would be exponentially worse than knowing factually that she was grossly careless with 100 classified emails.

[TheSanityAnnex]

This tinfoil hat theory is boarding on lunacy. Do you have any idea of the optics of the FBI director recommending indictment and the DOJ sitting on that information until after the election? Having the director of the FBI recommend an indictment would have killed her campaign. Just knowing of the recommended indictment without knowing the specifics would be exponentially worse than knowing factually that she was grossly careless with 100 classified emails.
He just as well could have been told (forced) not to recommend an indictment, and this was his fine and now fuck you to them. He literally laid out all of the reasons to indict and then said he would not recommend because of who she was, all without disclosing to the DOJ what he was going to say.

Do you think honestly think Lynch would have indicted had he recommended it? Do you think Obama would have allowed that considering he was actively campaigning with her as the sitting President? Can you name the last sitting President to do that?

[TheSanityAnnex]

This tinfoil hat theory is boarding on lunacy. Do you have any idea of the optics of the FBI director recommending indictment and the DOJ sitting on that information until after the election? Having the director of the FBI recommend an indictment would have killed her campaign. Just knowing of the recommended indictment without knowing the specifics would be exponentially worse than knowing factually that she was grossly careless with 100 classified emails.
:lol recommended indictment killing her campaign
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2016/50_say_clinton_should_keep_running_even_if_indicte d

[Th'Pusher]

He just as well could have been told (forced) not to recommend an indictment, and this was his fine and now fuck you to them. He literally laid out all of the reasons to indict and then said he would not recommend because of who she was, all without disclosing to the DOJ what he was going to say.

Do you think honestly think Lynch would have indicted had he recommended it? Do you think Obama would have allowed that considering he was actively campaigning with her as the sitting President? Can you name the last sitting President to do that?
How would he have been forced not to recommend an indictment? You're just making shit up dude. Back your shit up with facts and quit with the bullshit tbh.

If if he would have recommended indictment it would have been devastating for her campaign and it would have been compounded by lynch sitting on the details of why he recommended. Your theory is moronic.

[ElNono]

IMO, this has nothing to do with intent or any of that, and everything to do with likelyhood of winning a trial and obtaining a conviction. And analysis like that happens all the time in pretty much all cases before going ahead and pressing charges.

There's zero doubt that such test isn't applied evenly when the alleged perpetrator is a petty criminal, a megamillionaire, or a public figure. This case isn't an exception to that. You might not like that system (I particularly do not), but that's how it works.

That doesn't excuse Shillary's actions, at all, but those looking for the "coverup" angle, I think, are deeply misguided, mostly feeding their inner red teamer frustration.

[Th'Pusher]

:lol recommended indictment killing her campaign
http://m.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/may_2016/50_say_clinton_should_keep_running_even_if_indicte d
That assumes she is indicted by the DOJ Nad facts of the indictment would available. Not your bullshit theory of a recommended indictment that never comes while the DOJ covers up the facts of the case.

And :lol @ Rasmussen

[Th'Pusher]

IMO, this has nothing to do with intent or any of that, and everything to do with likelyhood of winning a trial and obtaining a conviction. And analysis like that happens all the time in pretty much all cases before going ahead and pressing charges.

There's zero doubt that such test isn't applied evenly when the alleged perpetrator is a petty criminal, a megamillionaire, or a public figure. This case isn't an exception to that. You might not like that system (I particularly do not), but that's how it works.

That doesn't excuse Shillary's actions, at all, but those looking for the "coverup" angle, I think, are deeply misguided, mostly feeding their inner red teamer frustration.

i agree with this. And your last statement is exactly where CC, TSA are living...just another emotional tailspin completely unhinged from logic and reason.

[TheSanityAnnex]

How would he have been forced not to recommend an indictment? You're just making shit up dude. Back your shit up with facts and quit with the bullshit tbh.

If if he would have recommended indictment it would have been devastating for her campaign and it would have been compounded by lynch sitting on the details of why he recommended. Your theory is moronic.
How would he have been forced? Is that a serious question? Lol

[TheSanityAnnex]

How would he have been forced not to recommend an indictment? You're just making shit up dude. Back your shit up with facts and quit with the bullshit tbh.

If if he would have recommended indictment it would have been devastating for her campaign and it would have been compounded by lynch sitting on the details of why he recommended. Your theory is moronic.
Do you think honestly think Lynch would have indicted had he recommended it? Do you think Obama would have allowed that considering he was actively campaigning with her as the sitting President? Can you name the last sitting President to do that?

[TheSanityAnnex]

IMO, this has nothing to do with intent or any of that, and everything to do with likelyhood of winning a trial and obtaining a conviction. And analysis like that happens all the time in pretty much all cases before going ahead and pressing charges.

There's zero doubt that such test isn't applied evenly when the alleged perpetrator is a petty criminal, a megamillionaire, or a public figure. This case isn't an exception to that. You might not like that system (I particularly do not), but that's how it works.

That doesn't excuse Shillary's actions, at all, but those looking for the "coverup" angle, I think, are deeply misguided, mostly feeding their inner red teamer frustration.
So you too believe Bill Clinton was just in PHX to golf in 110 degree heat and he and Lynch just talked about their kids.

[Th'Pusher]

How would he have been forced? Is that a serious question? Lol
Yes. It's a serious question. Please answer it.

[ducks]

So you too believe Bill Clinton was just in PHX to golf in 110 degree heat and he and Lynch just talked about their kids.

I think they talked about her tits and his balls

[TheSanityAnnex]

i agree with this. And your last statement is exactly where CC, TSA are living...just another emotional tailspin completely unhinged from logic and reason.
You've yet to even give your own opinion on why you think Comey did what he did. Political hit? Yes? We are in agreement.

[Th'Pusher]

Do you think honestly think Lynch would have indicted had he recommended it? Do you think Obama would have allowed that considering he was actively campaigning with her as the sitting President? Can you name the last sitting President to do that?
wheter or not she would have been indicted is irrelevant. As I've said multiple times the optics of recommended indictment compounded by the administration sitting on the evidence would be politically disastrous one only a complete moron would be live it.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Yes. It's a serious question. Please answer it.
Obama.
Now answer all the questions I asked, please.

[TheSanityAnnex]

wheter or not she would have been indicted is irrelevant. As I've said multiple times the optics of recommended indictment compounded by the administration sitting on the evidence would be politically disastrous one only a complete moron would be live it.
I've asked you three questions twice now. Just answer them.

[Th'Pusher]

You've yet to even give your own opinion on why you think Comey did what he did. Political hit? Yes? We are in agreement.
Absolutely a damaging blow to Hillary, but that's because he knew there would be no conviction even if the DOJ pursued it.

[Th'Pusher]

Obama.
Now answer all the questions I asked, please.
How is Obama going to force the director of the FBI to not recommend an indictment? Be specific.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Absolutely a damaging blow to Hillary, but that's because he knew there would be no conviction even if the DOJ pursued it.
And why would there be no conviction?

[TheSanityAnnex]

How is Obama going to force the director of the FBI to not recommend an indictment? Be specific.
You don't fuck with the guy who appointed you and you do as he says, pretty simple.

[Th'Pusher]

I've asked you three questions twice now. Just answer them.

If the Director of the FBI recommended an indictment I think there would be significant political pressure for the DOJ to pursue an indictment. I don't pretend to be able to predict how that would play out.

[Th'Pusher]

And why would there be no conviction?

That was explained upstream by ElNono.

[Th'Pusher]

You don't fuck with the guy who appointed you and you do as he says, pretty simple.
Obama is in the last 6 months of his presidency and Comey can be the director of the FBI for the next 7 years if he so chooses. Your explanations don't hold water.

[TheSanityAnnex]

That was explained upstream by ElNono.
I asked you directly, be specific.

[TheSanityAnnex]

If the Director of the FBI recommended an indictment I think there would be significant political pressure for the DOJ to pursue an indictment. I don't pretend to be able to predict how that would play out.
That was one, two more to go.

Do you think Obama would have allowed that considering he was actively campaigning with her as the sitting President? Can you name the last sitting President to do that?

[Th'Pusher]

I asked you directly, be specific.

There was no chance of winning a trial and obtaining a conviction against Clinton. Analysis like this happens all the time in pretty much all cases before going ahead and pressing charges.

[boutons_deux]

Issa asshole, fucking up government is Repug idea of being in office

Darrell Issa challenges House GOP to “shutdown the government” over Clinton email investigation: “Are you willing to shutdown all business of the people for this?”

Darell Issa is apparently still a little salty over being pushed out of his chairmanship over the House Oversight Committee in favor of a young and ambitious congressman. Hours after his replacement, Utah Republican Jason Chaffetz,announced (http://www.salon.com/2016/07/06/james_comey_just_became_the_newest_target_of_repub lican_outrage_house_gop_call_on_fbi_head_to_testif y_on_clinton_email_investigation/) an unprecedented hearing into the FBI’s recommendation not to pursue criminal charges against Hillary Clinton over her use of a private email server as secretary of state, calling Director James Comey to Capitol Hill to testify (http://www.salon.com/2016/07/06/james_comey_just_became_the_newest_target_of_repub lican_outrage_house_gop_call_on_fbi_head_to_testif y_on_clinton_email_investigation/) this week, Issa attempted to one-up his replacement.

Calling previous Republican-led government shutdowns over things like Obamacare “small points compared to the actual balance of our republic,” the California Republican who once vowed (http://www.govexec.com/oversight/2015/09/issa-says-hes-never-voted-shut-down-government/121844/) never to vote for a government shutdown, called for one over the FBI’s email investigation.

“I received and accepted their unanimous recommendation that the thorough, year-long investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individuals within the scope of the investigation,” Attorney General Loretta Lynch said in astatement (http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/no-prosecution-clinton-attorney-general-says?utm_content=buffere6ae5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer) after meeting with FBI Director James Comey Wednesday.

“The administration is covering its own backend,” Issa alleged on SiriusXM’s Breitbart News Daily (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/06/darrell-issa-we-are-in-a-crisis-and-hillary-clinton-is-a-criminal-involved-in-a-criminal-enterprise/) Wednesday. “That is the crisis we face.”
“We are in a crisis because Hillary Clinton, if the voters do not stop her, will be the next President of the United States,” Issa, who has claimed (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/06/25/exclusive-darrell-issa-there-is-enough-evidence-to-indict-hillary-clinton/) that “there is more than enough for an indictment,” said.

“She will, in fact, on day one say, ‘Pardon me,’ and she’ll mean it. She’ll have pardoned herself,” he quipped.

Issa then called on Breitbart listeners to demand a government shutdown over the FBI’s failure to recommend criminal charges against Clinton.

“We cannot simply wait for a president that is willing to voluntarily sign away some of his or her own power,” Issa insisted.“We should be willing to shut down the government if the president won’t limit his power.”

http://www.salon.com/2016/07/06/darrel_issa_challenges_house_gop_to_shutdown_the_g overnment_over_clinton_email_investigation_are_you _willing_to_shutdown_all_business_of_the_people_fo r_this/

What the asshole means is

“We should be willing to shut down the government if a Dem president, to whom we deny any and all legitimacy, doesn't do exactly as we Repugs dictate.”

Of course, it was dickhead Cheney who conceived and pushed for the Unitary Executive, of course, that's only a REPUG Unitary Executive.

[Th'Pusher]

That was one, two more to go.

Do you think Obama would have allowed that considering he was actively campaigning with her as the sitting President? Can you name the last sitting President to do that?

i dont know what Obama would have done, but I do think you're underestimating the impact of a recommendation for an indictment from a sitting director of the FBI who just concluded the investigation.

WRT what the last sitting president did in this situation, I don't know that there is any precedent for this particular circumstance. Feel free to inform me if you have more details.

[TheSanityAnnex]

There was no chance of winning a trial and obtaining a conviction against Clinton. Analysis like this happens all the time in pretty much all cases before going ahead and pressing charges.
Why was there no chance? in your opinion.

[TheSanityAnnex]

i dont know what Obama would have done, but I do think you're underestimating the impact of a recommendation for an indictment from a sitting director of the FBI who just concluded the investigation.

WRT what the last sitting president did in this situation, I don't know that there is any precedent for this particular circumstance. Feel free to inform me if you have more details.

And I think you are underestimating the impact the sitting President has over his FBI appointee.

[Th'Pusher]

Why was there no chance? in your opinion.

Because there was no evidence of intentional mishandling, disloyalty, or obstruction of justice that would hold up in court.

[ElNono]

So you too believe Bill Clinton was just in PHX to golf in 110 degree heat and he and Lynch just talked about their kids.

It doesn't matter what you or I believe. ^that kind of rhetorical statements reek of estrogen and bitterness.

What matters is that in almost every case evidence is gathered and before a decision to press charges is made, that's weighed against the likelihood of winning the case. That doesn't excuse what she did, nor excuses the fact that we're sold "Justice for all", but justice has a lot to do with who you are or what kind of lawyers you can afford.

Cases like the Trayvon Martin one, where a conviction doesn't happen, are a huge waste of time, taxpayer money, and for some prosecutors a damn near career killer. You might not like the system to work like that (I don't), but that's how it actually does work.

[ElNono]

I mean, if you're going with conspiracies, it's just as plausible that Comey, a registered republican, who donated money to the Romney campaign, and served in the George W Bush administration, did not want to press charges to give Trump more ammo.

If he really thinks the DOJ doesn't have his back, then he would've resigned by now, right?

It's easy to twist and turn to fit a narrative. The reality is normally a lot more simple: it's difficult to prosecute a recognizable public figure unless you have overwhelming evidence to secure a conviction. It sucks the system works like this, but this was well known when this whole thing started. I'm almost surprised to see people mad/disappointed about this. It reminds me of the outrage about Holder and the fast and furious "scandal", but when Alberto Gonzales was doing all sorts of dirty shit, that was A-OK.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Because there was no evidence of intentional mishandling, disloyalty, or obstruction of justice that would hold up in court.
:lmao

[TheSanityAnnex]

I mean, if you're going with conspiracies, it's just as plausible that Comey, a registered republican, who donated money to the Romney campaign, and served in the George W Bush administration, did not want to press charges to give Trump more ammo.

If he really thinks the DOJ doesn't have his back, then he would've resigned by now, right?

It's easy to twist and turn to fit a narrative. The reality is normally a lot more simple: it's difficult to prosecute a recognizable public figure unless you have overwhelming evidence to secure a conviction. It sucks the system works like this, but this was well known when this whole thing started. I'm almost surprised to see people mad/disappointed about this. It reminds me of the outrage about Holder and the fast and furious "scandal", but when Alberto Gonzales was doing all sorts of dirty shit, that was A-OK.
I'm neither mad nor disappointed, I like what Comey did, and I like that he's going before congress.

[ElNono]

“We should be willing to shut down the government if the president won’t limit his power.”

This is actually hilarious at many levels. He can thank John Yoo and Dick Cheney for the relative limitless expansion of executive power.

They should've thought that someday perhaps a Democrat was going to be President and would actually use that same power.

[Th'Pusher]

:lmao

So your sticking with your shitbag conspiracy theory? Cool.

[Th'Pusher]

It doesn't matter what you or I believe. ^that kind of rhetorical statements reek of estrogen and bitterness.


I'm neither mad nor disappointed, I like what Comey did, and I like that he's going before congress.

:lmao

EN has you pegged. We all have you pegged. You've been emotionally invested in this for months. Your hatred for Clinton has you spinning to the point where your willing to grasp onto irrational conspiracy theories.

[DarrinS]

Meh, I guess she'll be more careful as POTUS? I didn't expect criminal charges, but it's astonishing that this is just being blown off. If Haillary had an (R.) next to her name, Michael Moore would be making a movie about this.

[boutons_deux]

"just being blown off"

:lol ... NOT by the Repugs. They're gonna drag Comey in, probaby the AG. Ryan is talking (eternal) committee hearings, etc, etc.

Benghazi!! ;lol is not dead, yet! :lol

Repug MISgoverance. :lol

Repugs passed any problem-solving bills, regs? :lol

Repugs do plan to fuck over poor people with defunding of Title X, just as their cherished paymasters dictate.

Thanks, Repug voters! You and your politicians are all America-hating assholes, doing more damage than all the terrorists combined.

[pgardn]

Boots and SA both just digging deep to find motives that suit them.


Hiliary lied.
Hillary was so derelict in her use of communication without security that I have to believe she just thought the rules did not apply to her because she is not a stupid woman. And the blatant abuse of rules might be worse than stupid.

[boutons_deux]

Boots and SA both just digging deep to find motives that suit them.


Hiliary lied.
Hillary was so derelict in her use of communication without security that I have to believe she just thought the rules did not apply to her because she is not a stupid woman. And the blatant abuse of rules might be worse than stupid.

the number of emails was something like 0.00000x% of total email traffic.

pfarten is as suckered by Repug witch hunting and lies as any other suckerable asshole.

[DarrinS]

At the end of the day, the low IQ voter isn't going to care about this.

But she did this and the CEO of the country is promoting her. Smh

[pgardn]

Meh, I guess she'll be more careful as POTUS? I didn't expect criminal charges, but it's astonishing that this is just being blown off. If Haillary had an (R.) next to her name, Michael Moore would be making a movie about this.

If the Republicans could put up a legit alternative I would not have to be concerned about her blatant trampling of rules. It should make the majority of the country even more worried.

[pgardn]

the number of emails was something like 0.00000x% of total email traffic.

pfarten is as suckered by Repug witch hunting and lies as any other suckerable asshole.

Like she never knew it was not wrong. She never was briefed about government communication... Sure...
GTFOH damn lap dog.

[boutons_deux]

Like she never knew it was not wrong. She never was briefed about government communication... Sure...
GTFOH damn lap dog.

how many mails were classified AT THE TIME? how many were misclassified, sucker?

The Repugs have, as usual INFLATED and LIED a molehill into mountain, and you, TSA, other rightwingnuts are right there cheek-by-jowl with them. :lol

Dupes! Suckers! gullible fuckoffs!

[pgardn]

how many mails were classified AT THE TIME? how many were misclassified, sucker?

The Repugs have, as usual INFLATED and LIED a molehill into mountain, and you, TSA, other rightwingnuts are right there cheek-by-jowl with them. :lol

Dupes! Suckers! gullible fuckoffs!

She lied boots.
Get over it.

That chronology excuse IS GONE with some of those emails so quit with that excuse. As I have said before, you and TSA were made for each other. She is getting revealed by the more liberal leaning legit newsites in this country.


It found that eight email threads contained information that was classified “top secret” at the time, the highest classification level. Several dozen more contained information that was either “secret” or “confidential,” the lowest level.

nytimes and wapo

[DarrinS]

If the Republicans could put up a legit alternative I would not have to be concerned about her blatant trampling of rules. It should make the majority of the country even more worried.

It's a fake New Yorker vs a a fake Republican. I don't like either one.

[ElNono]

Meh, I guess she'll be more careful as POTUS? I didn't expect criminal charges, but it's astonishing that this is just being blown off. If Haillary had an (R.) next to her name, Michael Moore would be making a movie about this.

D'Souza will be happy to do one before November, tbh... and she's going to be a terrible prez, IMO... same goes for Trump too... I guess we'll try to survive.

[ElNono]

At the end of the day, the low IQ voter isn't going to care about this.

But she did this and the CEO of the country is promoting her. Smh

The high IQ voter can't consciously vote for her OR Trump, tbh...

[ElNono]

If the Republicans could put up a legit alternative I would not have to be concerned about her blatant trampling of rules. It should make the majority of the country even more worried.

This is pretty much what it amounts to. The GOP can't afford this shit anymore. It shouldn't take a genius to put a semi-decent candidate to beat this Shillary, but they managed somehow to pick Trump. smh

[boutons_deux]

D'Souza will be happy to do one before November, tbh... and she's going to be a terrible prez, IMO... same goes for Trump too... I guess we'll try to survive.

Several Repug Congress assholes have said that they will be able to control wildman President Trash, so don't worry, Repugs are in control, which worked so well in Iraq.

[DarrinS]

The high IQ voter can't consciously vote for her OR Trump, tbh...

Lol, true

[boutons_deux]

Lol, true

[boutons_deux]

The high IQ voter can't consciously vote for her OR Trump, tbh...

for? no the intelligent voter votes AGAINST Trash.

[TheSanityAnnex]

So your sticking with your shitbag conspiracy theory? Cool.
Theories are theories. To me they're fun to toss around but I can't read shit like this with a straight face

"Because there was no evidence of intentional mishandling, disloyalty, or obstruction of justice that would hold up in court"

Do I need to dismantle this quote 1 by 1 or can you just accept how fraud doesn't your claim is?

[TheSanityAnnex]

She lied boots.
Get over it.

That chronology excuse IS GONE with some of those emails so quit with that excuse. As I have said before, you and TSA were made for each other. She is getting revealed by the more liberal leaning legit newsites in this country.


It found that eight email threads contained information that was classified “top secret” at the time, the highest classification level. Several dozen more contained information that was either “secret” or “confidential,” the lowest level.

nytimes and wapo
I believe Comey said 110 born classified. That is no small blunder. I'm waiting to see if Julian Assange really has the compromised emails he claims.

[TheSanityAnnex]

The high IQ voter can't consciously vote for her OR Trump, tbh...
Quite the pickle. But I hate Hillary too much to stay at home, and Trumps a dipshit so it's tough.

[Reck]

Do you think honestly think Lynch would have indicted had he recommended it? Do you think Obama would have allowed that considering he was actively campaigning with her as the sitting President? Can you name the last sitting President to do that?

Dude it doesn't matter whether Obama would have intervined. Had Comey reccomended indictment she would have been finsihed.

Look at what's happening now. She's already being exposed as a serial liar and her trustworthness will not recovered. Comey did as much damage as he could and this will probably reflect in the polls soon.

Imagine what a reccomendation to indict would have meant and then have Obama say, never mind. It would be a disaters of epic proportion.

And the reason why she'll probably win the presidency will be because she's going against Trump.


You don't fuck with the guy who appointed you and you do as he says, pretty simple.

Comey is a dirty republican. He doesn't care what Obama has to say.

Just read up on Comey's history when he was AG.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Dude it doesn't matter whether Obama would have intervined. Had Comey reccomended indictment she would have been finsihed.

Look at what's happening now. She's already being exposed as a serial liar and her trustworthness will not recovered. Comey did as much damage as he could and this will probably reflect in the polls soon.

Imagine what a reccomendation to indict would have meant and then have Obama say, never mind. It would be a disaters of epic proportion.

And the reason why she'll probably win the presidency will be because she's going against Trump.

Rabid Clinton defenders like yourself (her base) could give two shits if she was indicted, and would still vote for her.

[ElNono]

Quite the pickle. But I hate Hillary too much to stay at home, and Trumps a dipshit so it's tough.

Like you voting red was ever in doubt :lol (and don't take that as admonishing you, it's your right and that's fine by me).

I'm gonna do what I always do: go to the office and do some work, make some bucks and catch the soap opera later on. I don't buy into the lesser of two evils BS. Frankly, neither of those two are going to do shit for me anyways, so they're really not worth my time.

[Reck]

Rabid Clinton defenders like yourself (her base) could give two shits if she was indicted, and would still vote for her.

You seem abit rabid yourself. You're coming undone.

Her base of voters wouldn't be enough to elect her. The majority wouldn't if she was to be indicted.

Also read


You don't fuck with the guy who appointed you and you do as he says, pretty simple.

Comey is a dirty republican. He doesn't care what Obama has to say.

Just read up on Comey's history when he was AG.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Like you voting red was ever in doubt :lol (and don't take that as admonishing you, it's your right and that's fine by me).

I'm gonna do what I always do: go to the office and do some work, make some bucks and catch the soap opera later on. I don't buy into the lesser of two evils BS. Frankly, neither of those two are going to do shit for me anyways, so they're really not worth my time.
Last time I cast a vote for President it was for Clinton.

[boutons_deux]

Ryan formally asks DNI to block Clinton's access to classified info

House Speaker Paul Ryan sent a letter to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (http://bit.ly/29Aenqe) Wednesday requesting he deny any classified information to Hillary Clinton for the rest of the 2016 campaign.

After FBI Director James Comey called Clinton's handling of classified material "extremely careless," Ryan argued in an interview on Fox on Tuesday that the Democratic nominee shouldn't be permitted to get top secret briefings, but the letter formalizes that recommendation.

Ryan cites his own experience receiving classified intelligence briefings as his party's vice presidential nominee in 2012 in his letter, saying he understands Clinton is set to begin getting similar briefings after her party formally nominates her at the Democratic convention later this month.

"There is no legal requirement for you to provide Secretary Clinton with classified information, and it would send the wrong signal to all those charged with safeguarding our nation's secrets if you choose to provide her access to this information despite the FBI's findings," Ryan write

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/paul-ryan-hillary-clinton-emails-dni/index.html?sr=fbCNN070716paul-ryan-hillary-clinton-emails-dni1137AMVODtopLink&linkId=26297625

[Spurminator]

Like you voting red was ever in doubt :lol (and don't take that as admonishing you, it's your right and that's fine by me).

I'm gonna do what I always do: go to the office and do some work, make some bucks and catch the soap opera later on. I don't buy into the lesser of two evils BS. Frankly, neither of those two are going to do shit for me anyways, so they're really not worth my time.

There are about 100 other things and candidates to vote on in an election, and your vote matters more for each of those than it does for the Presidential vote.

[Reck]

Ryan formally asks DNI to block Clinton's access to classified info

House Speaker Paul Ryan sent a letter to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (http://bit.ly/29Aenqe) Wednesday requesting he deny any classified information to Hillary Clinton for the rest of the 2016 campaign.

After FBI Director James Comey called Clinton's handling of classified material "extremely careless," Ryan argued in an interview on Fox on Tuesday that the Democratic nominee shouldn't be permitted to get top secret briefings, but the letter formalizes that recommendation.

Ryan cites his own experience receiving classified intelligence briefings as his party's vice presidential nominee in 2012 in his letter, saying he understands Clinton is set to begin getting similar briefings after her party formally nominates her at the Democratic convention later this month.

"There is no legal requirement for you to provide Secretary Clinton with classified information, and it would send the wrong signal to all those charged with safeguarding our nation's secrets if you choose to provide her access to this information despite the FBI's findings," Ryan write

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/07/politics/paul-ryan-hillary-clinton-emails-dni/index.html?sr=fbCNN070716paul-ryan-hillary-clinton-emails-dni1137AMVODtopLink&linkId=26297625




While letting Trump have access to it. :lmao

[Th'Pusher]

Theories are theories. To me they're fun to toss around but I can't read shit like this with a straight face

"Because there was no evidence of intentional mishandling, disloyalty, or obstruction of justice that would hold up in court"

Do I need to dismantle this quote 1 by 1 or can you just accept how fraud doesn't your claim is?

Do whatever you like. Comey said basically the same thing before congress today. There was no evidence she knowingly did anything wrong and they would not be able to successfully prosecute her...

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm sure Hillary's housekeeper has intermingled trash and recycling and that Hillary probably didn't do anything to stop that.

Perhaps congressional republicans should look into that next.

[Reck]

The hearing was a massive waste of time. They got nothing out of Comey.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Do whatever you like. Comey said basically the same thing before congress today. There was no evidence she knowingly did anything wrong and they would not be able to successfully prosecute her.

Are you claiming she didn't know scrubbing top secret classification and sending non secure was wrong? :lol


http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/2FED92FE00000578-3391031-image-a-63_1452287824741_zpscdjlstz5.jpg

[angrydude]

Hillary is either a criminal, and has no business being president, or she's dangerously stupid and incompetent, in which case she has no business being President.

[pgardn]

Trump is either a criminal, and has no business being president, or he is dangerously stupid and incompetent, in which case he has no business being President.

Goes for both.

Also both are liars. I would say lying is much easier for Trump as he lies about both important and innocuous subjects. Hillary tends to lie on important matters.

[Th'Pusher]

Are you claiming she didn't know scrubbing top secret classification and sending non secure was wrong? :lol


http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/2FED92FE00000578-3391031-image-a-63_1452287824741_zpscdjlstz5.jpg
That's the 3rd time you've posted this email is this thread alone. I'm interested to know why you think it's so important.

[TheSanityAnnex]

That's the 3rd time you've posted this email is this thread alone. I'm interested to know why you think it's so important.
Are you claiming she didn't know scrubbing top secret classification and sending non secure was wrong?

[boutons_deux]

When Repugs tried to trash Hillary, her ratings went up.

We'll see how her ratings do after the Repugs went after Comey and the mainly popular FBI (60% approval).

Trash is totally out of control, off script, off message, and so is his campaign. Trash is mentally disordered, a grifter, a fraud, a crook.

Just ask the 100s if not 1000s of suppliers he stiffed.

He pocketed $160M as his totally mismanaged casinos, trashed by his ignorance of the business, went bankrupt, as other casinos did OK.

[Th'Pusher]

Are you claiming she didn't know scrubbing top secret classification and sending non secure was wrong?

What secure information was in the email?

[TheSanityAnnex]

What secure information was in the email?
Irrelevant what the classified information was, she instructed him to scrub classification and send non secure. Stop dodging, did she not know this was wrong?

[TheSanityAnnex]

Will be interesting to see if they can get her on perjury for lying to congress under oath, which Comey said she did.

[Th'Pusher]

Irrelevant what the classified information was, she instructed him to scrub classification and send non secure. Stop dodging, did she not know this was wrong?
We do not know that the information in the email was classified. What we do know is that the email contained talking points which are generally used for unclassified purposes and that it is not uncommon for non classified documents to be crafted and shared on a classified system.

Now what evidence do you have that the email contained classified information? especially in light of the fact that Comey had access to the email and explicitly said that Clinton did not intentionally share classified information.

Your inability to reason is making me think you may be slightly retarded.

[TheSanityAnnex]

We do not know that the information in the email was classified. What we do know is that the email contained talking points which are generally used for unclassified purposes and that it is not uncommon for non classified documents to be crafted and shared on a classified system.

Now what evidence do you have that the email contained classified information? especially in light of the fact that Comey had access to the email and explicitly said that Clinton did not intentionally share classified information.

Your inability to reason is making me think you may be slightly retarded.
Calling me retarded when they are clearly discussing a fax and not an email you keep referring to lol.

[Th'Pusher]

Calling me retarded when they are clearly discussing a fax and not an email you keep referring to lol.
She asked that the talking points be sent non secure. Are talking points generally classified? Is it reasonable to assume the talking points while not clasified were crafted and shared on a secure system requiring secure fax for transmission?

Now, what information do you have that the talking points in question were classified?

ive answered all your questions. Now answer mine.

[TheSanityAnnex]

She asked that the talking points be sent non secure. Are talking points generally classified? Is it reasonable to assume the talking points while not clasified were crafted and shared on a secure system requiring secure fax for transmission?

Now, what information do you have that the talking points in question were classified?

ive answered all your questions. Now answer mine.
Why ask for the heading to be removed?

[Th'Pusher]

Why ask for the heading to be removed?
Because the original talking points were crafted and shared on a secure system even though they were not considered clasified.

Now answer my questions.

[TheSanityAnnex]

especially in light of the fact that Comey had access to the email and explicitly said that Clinton did not intentionally share classified information.


Were these just "unintentional" sharing of classified emails?

"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"

[TheSanityAnnex]

Because the original talking points were crafted and shared on a secure system even though they were not considered clasified.

Now answer my questions.
And you know they were not classified how?

[Th'Pusher]

And you know they were not classified how?
I know that Comey had access to the information and explicitly said that Clinton did not intentionally share classified information.

What evidence do you have the the information sent was classified?

[Th'Pusher]

Were these just "unintentional" sharing of classified emails?

"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"

nobody is denying that. She's an idiot. But, Comey also stated that she did not intentionally share classified information via the email server. What you're suggesting is that she did.

[TheSanityAnnex]

nobody is denying that. She's an idiot. But, Comey also stated that she did not intentionally share classified information via the email server. What you're suggesting is that she did.
How do you unintentionally send an email? Are you claiming she didn't know ANY of this was classified? That she completely forgot the NDA she signed her first day being sworn in? That she accidentally hit send? Are you saying she's the absolute stupidest person to ever been given access to top secret information?

[Th'Pusher]

How do you unintentionally send an email? Are you claiming she didn't know ANY of this was classified? That she completely forgot the NDA she signed her first day being sworn in? That she accidentally hit send? Are you saying she's the absolute stupidest person to ever been given access to top secret information?

Since you refuse to answer my questions, I'm going to assume you have absolutely no evidence that the talking points referenced in the email you posted three times as if we're some sort of a smoking gun were classified.

[Reck]

Irrelevant what the classified information was, she instructed him to scrub classification and send non secure. Stop dodging, did she not know this was wrong?

Did you watch Comey's hearing today? He explained this very same email.

Comey said Clinton told FBI agents that she was intending to instruct the aide to “make it into a non-classified document.” He said he believed Clinton asked for the header to be removed because it would have no longer been necessary, if the document were no longer classified.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-director-set-to-appear-before-congressional-committee-to-answer-questions-on-clinton-investigation/2016/07/07/eb43ec7e-43c1-11e6-88d0-6adee48be8bc_story.html

And read this..


We now know that the “very small number” Comey referenced was two (http://www.mediaite.com/online/heres-why-hillary-clinton-isnt-a-liar-and-james-comey-needs-to-shut-the-entire-hell-up/), that neither email was sent by Hillary Clinton, and at Wednesday’s State Department daily briefing, we learned that the notations contained in both of the emails in question were the result of human error.


That’s why Comey couldn’t claim that the “very small number” of emails, which turned out to be the smallest possible number you could still use in the plural, were “marked classified,” because they weren’t. They bore incomplete markings, and those markings themselves were in error.


Update: In testimony before Congress today, FBI Director James Comey confirmed the “portion markings,” and said he “thinks” there were three such emails that bore the incomplete designations:



http://www.mediaite.com/online/only-2-hillary-clinton-emails-bore-marking-indicating-classified-info-and-both-were-errors/

[Th'Pusher]

Just move on to another obsession TSA. This one is over and you've moved beyond looking ridiculous to the point where I feel embarrassed for you.

[TheSanityAnnex]

Since you refuse to answer my questions, I'm going to assume you have absolutely no evidence that the talking points referenced in the email you posted three times as if we're some sort of a smoking gun were classified.
I assume it was classified because if it wasn't classified they'd have no problem sending it over a non secure fax.

Your turn.

How do you unintentionally send an email? Are you claiming she didn't know ANY of this was classified? That she completely forgot the NDA she signed her first day being sworn in? That she accidentally hit send? Are you saying she's the absolute stupidest person to ever been given access to top secret information?

[Th'Pusher]

I assume it was classified because if it wasn't classified they'd have no problem sending it over a non secure fax.

Your turn.

How do you unintentionally send an email? Are you claiming she didn't know ANY of this was classified? That she completely forgot the NDA she signed her first day being sworn in? That she accidentally hit send? Are you saying she's the absolute stupidest person to ever been given access


Addrssed in Reck's post above with direct quotes from Comey.

Wrt your other ridiculous questions... No one said any emails were sent unintentionally. Comey indicated she was unaware emails she sent were classified. I have no reason to believe he lied. NDA is totally irrelevant. Nobody accidentally hit send. She is definitely not the stupidest person that has ever been granteted access to confidential information, but she is clearly technologically incompetent. That doesn't surprise me though, A lot of people her age are. She doesn't drive a car...

[TheSanityAnnex]

Addrssed in Reck's post above with direct quotes from Comey.

Wrt your other ridiculous questions... No one said any emails were sent unintentionally. Comey indicated she was unaware emails she sent were classified. I have no reason to believe he lied. NDA is totally irrelevant. Nobody accidentally hit send. She is definitely not the stupidest person that has ever been granteted access to confidential information, but she is clearly technologically incompetent. That doesn't surprise me though, A lot of people her age are. She doesn't drive a car...
NDA is totally irrelevant :lol
And I see you are just using the "she's utterly incompetent" excuse. If she is truly this incompetent how is she fit for office and why would you vote for her?

[boutons_deux]

How many emails now considered classified? IIRC, only a 100+ or so, out of many 1000s.

Why are the Repugs not going after Colin Powell?

Why did Betraeus skate free after giving his fuckbuddy 8 binders of classified info?

You rightwingnuts are buying Repug witchhunt messaging and purely political, fabricated outrage, blowing a mole into a mountain.

It's all about taking Hillary down, not about competence, national security, emails, Benghazi, etc, etc, etc.

[RandomGuy]

It's like the police coming out and saying someone driving drunk shouldn't be prosecuted because they didn't intend to get drunk when they went out that night.

No actually it isn't. That a failed analogy, because intent is not part of drunk driving laws.

[RandomGuy]

While letting Trump have access to it. :lmao

Not that he will read any of it.

[RandomGuy]

I'm sure Hillary's housekeeper has intermingled trash and recycling and that Hillary probably didn't do anything to stop that.

Perhaps congressional republicans should look into that next.

OUTRAGE!!

I am sure they will demand a special prosecutor to investigate Trashgate.

[RandomGuy]

Are you claiming she didn't know scrubbing top secret classification and sending non secure was wrong? :lol


http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/2FED92FE00000578-3391031-image-a-63_1452287824741_zpscdjlstz5.jpg

.. a photobucket image?

Source before photobucket?

[CosmicCowboy]

No actually it isn't. That a failed analogy, because intent is not part of drunk driving laws.

Intent wasn't a requirement for violating national security laws either.

[boutons_deux]

Intent wasn't a requirement for violating national security laws either.

actually, it is, which I've heard from a couple legal types on TeeVee. Comey fingered through several conditions that were not met.

[CosmicCowboy]

actually, it is, which I've heard from a couple legal types on TeeVee. Comey fingered through several conditions that were not met.

According the statute negligence was enough. Comey said he couldn't find a precedent where the negligence clause was applied. Doesn't matter at this point. It's done.

Doesn't mean she isn't a lying bitch.

[boutons_deux]

According the statute negligence was enough. Comey said he couldn't find a precedent where the negligence clause was applied. Doesn't matter at this point. It's done.

Doesn't mean she isn't a lying bitch.

Thank <somebody>, Trash is an honest Boy Scout.

[CosmicCowboy]

Thank <somebody>, Trash is an honest Boy Scout.

Didn't say that. they both suck.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

According the statute negligence was enough. Comey said he couldn't find a precedent where the negligence clause was applied. Doesn't matter at this point. It's done.

Doesn't mean she isn't a lying bitch.

Ahh youre a dumbass that thinks that 'extremely careless' being chosen for the language meets the standard for negligence. If he had seen negligence he would have said negligence. Word choice is more important than your wishful thinking towards semantics.

[CosmicCowboy]

Ahh youre a dumbass that thinks that 'extremely careless' being chosen for the language meets the standard for negligence. If he had seen negligence he would have said negligence. Word choice is more important than your wishful thinking towards semantics.

Fuck off Babyboo.

[rmt]

Can someone explain what is the use of Congress writing laws if they aren't going to be used. Comey's excuse that it's been used once in almost 100 years is not an excuse not to use it. Doesn't someone have to the the first, second, third, etc.? And how would they change the gross negligence statute to include no willful intent (it currently doesn't mention it). I just don't understand why he used willful intent to disqualify prosecution - after all if I speed, the cop doesn't care whether I intended to or not - I'm gonna get a ticket.

So sad about the police killings. Disappointed with Federer CHOKING - up 40-0, double faults twice :( probably his last chance at a GS.

[CosmicCowboy]

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

Hillary partisans say it didn't meet the threshold because she was too technically illiterate to understand that her unsecured email could put lives at risk. hmmmm

Personally I think putting her email completely out of the reach of government security officials to "protect her privacy" with total disregard for the implications to national security was pretty damn gross.

No point in arguing it, though. No one is going to change their mind.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Can someone explain what is the use of Congress writing laws if they aren't going to be used. Comey's excuse that it's been used once in almost 100 years is not an excuse not to use it. Doesn't someone have to the the first, second, third, etc.? And how would they change the gross negligence statute to include no willful intent (it currently doesn't mention it). I just don't understand why he used willful intent to disqualify prosecution - after all if I speed, the cop doesn't care whether I intended to or not - I'm gonna get a ticket.

So sad about the police killings. Disappointed with Federer CHOKING - up 40-0, double faults twice :( probably his last chance at a GS.

Ahh you are as clueless as CC.

IF Comey thought the standard for negligence had been met he would have said that it had been. The choice of similar words like 'extremely careless' was intentional doublespeak.

It's people like you that have led us into this Orwellian dystopia. Thanks for being incapable of thinking for yourself.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Hillary partisans say it didn't meet the threshold because she was too technically illiterate to understand that her unsecured email could put lives at risk. hmmmm

Personally I think putting her email completely out of the reach of government security officials to "protect her privacy" with total disregard for the implications to national security was pretty damn gross.

No point in arguing it, though. No one is going to change their mind.

Speak for yourself. The burden of proof is on demonstrating the 'likely' part. You cannot even articulate simple arguments and instead wishcast like everyone things as you do.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Fuck off Babyboo.

Surrender harder, pedobear.

[CosmicCowboy]

Speak for yourself. The burden of proof is on demonstrating the 'likely' part. You cannot even articulate simple arguments and instead wishcast like everyone things as you do.

Like I said...partisans will be partisans and no one is changing their mind.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Like I said...partisans will be partisans and no one is changing their mind.

Burden of proof as a legal standard is an objective truth. Your inability to articulate is demonstrable by once again you parroting a cliche that is meaningless. Using the term 'extremely careless' when the legal standard is 'gross negligence' is objectively double speak.

I don't like either team. I just like your team less. I agree that your partisan approach to politics is a big part of the problem. Your ilk are dying off and change is coming. I am content.

[rmt]

Ahh you are as clueless as CC.

IF Comey thought the standard for negligence had been met he would have said that it had been. The choice of similar words like 'extremely careless' was intentional doublespeak.

It's people like you that have led us into this Orwellian dystopia. Thanks for being incapable of thinking for yourself.

From what I heard, Comey thinks she does meet the standard for negligence. What he can't prove is criminal intent.

BUT YOUR STATEMENT ON TUESDAY SAID THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT ANY REASONABLE PERSON IN SECRETARY CLINTON'S POSITION SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT AN UNCLASSIFIED SYSTEM WAS NO PLACE FOR THE CONVERSATION.

Comey: I STAND BY THAT. THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF CARELESSNESS, OF NEGLIGENCE.

WHICH HAPPENED.

Comey: OH, YEAH.

AS A RESULT OF OUR SECRETARY OF STATE'S -- FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE'S DECISIONS.

Comey: YES

IS IT YOUR STATEMENT THEN BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE THAT SECRETARY CLINTON SHOULD HAVE KNOWN NOT TO SEND CLASSIFIED MATERIAL AND YET SHE DID.

Comey: CERTAINLY, SHE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN NOT TO SEND HE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. AS I SAID, THAT'S THE DEFINITION NEGLIGENCE. I THINK SHE WAS EXTREMELY CARELESS. I THINK SHE WAS NEGLIGENT. THAT I COULD ESTABLISH. WHAT WE CAN'T ESTABLISH THAT SHE ACTED WITH THE NECESSARY CRIMINAL INTENT.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT SINCE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HASN'T USED THE STATUTE CONGRESS PASSED, IT'S INVALID?

Comey: NO. I THINK THEY ARE WORRY IT IS INVALID, THAT IT WILL BE CHALLENGED ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS WHICH IS WHY THEY'VE USED IT EXTRAORDINARILY SPARINGLY IN THE DECADES.


http://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe&live
Filter by Speaker: James Comey
Search this transcript: Negligence
02:07:04

[FuzzyLumpkins]

From what I heard, Comey thinks she does meet the standard for negligence. What he can't prove is criminal intent.

BUT YOUR STATEMENT ON TUESDAY SAID THERE IS EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CONCLUSION THAT ANY REASONABLE PERSON IN SECRETARY CLINTON'S POSITION SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT AN UNCLASSIFIED SYSTEM WAS NO PLACE FOR THE CONVERSATION.

Comey: I STAND BY THAT. THAT'S THE DEFINITION OF CARELESSNESS, OF NEGLIGENCE.

WHICH HAPPENED.

Comey: OH, YEAH.

AS A RESULT OF OUR SECRETARY OF STATE'S -- FORMER SECRETARY OF STATE'S DECISIONS.

Comey: YES

IS IT YOUR STATEMENT THEN BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE THAT SECRETARY CLINTON SHOULD HAVE KNOWN NOT TO SEND CLASSIFIED MATERIAL AND YET SHE DID.

Comey: CERTAINLY, SHE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN NOT TO SEND HE CLASSIFIED INFORMATION. AS I SAID, THAT'S THE DEFINITION NEGLIGENCE. I THINK SHE WAS EXTREMELY CARELESS. I THINK SHE WAS NEGLIGENT. THAT I COULD ESTABLISH. WHAT WE CAN'T ESTABLISH THAT SHE ACTED WITH THE NECESSARY CRIMINAL INTENT.

DO YOU BELIEVE THAT SINCE THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HASN'T USED THE STATUTE CONGRESS PASSED, IT'S INVALID?

Comey: NO. I THINK THEY ARE WORRY IT IS INVALID, THAT IT WILL BE CHALLENGED ON CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS WHICH IS WHY THEY'VE USED IT EXTRAORDINARILY SPARINGLY IN THE DECADES.


http://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe&live
Filter by Speaker: James Comey
Search this transcript: Negligence
02:07:04

Again the phrase in question is GROSS negligence. That has a specific legal definition. Negligence is something else. It's still double speak.

Nuance is tough, sophist.

[tlongII]

Again the phrase in question is GROSS negligence. That has a specific legal definition. Negligence is something else. It's still double speak.

Nuance is tough, sophist.

What is that specific legal definition?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What is that specific legal definition?

What difference does it make? Fact is that it is different than the legal standard.

[rmt]

Again the phrase in question is GROSS negligence. That has a specific legal definition. Negligence is something else. It's still double speak.

Nuance is tough, sophist.

Comey explains that he establishes that she was negligent (whether gross or not) - what he can't prove is the necessary criminal intent. If you read/listen to the entire interview, he acknowledges she did many things that were negligent but it's almost like because only one other case had used that statute, he couldn't recommend the prosecution.

Comey: IT'S A COMPLICATED MATTER. IT INVOLVES UNDERSTANDING HOW THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WORKS ACROSS DECADES, HOW PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION IS EXERCISED. I GET THAT FOLKS SEE DISCONNECTIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY SEE A STATUTE THAT SAYS GROSS NEGLIGENCE.

THE DIRECTOR JUST SAID SHE WAS EXTREMELY CARELESS. HOW IS THAT NOT PROSECUTABLE.

Comey: IT TAKES AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S GONE ON OVER THE LAST 99 YEARS, WHAT'S THE PRECEDENT. I GET PEOPLE'S QUESTIONS AND I THINK THEY'RE IN GOOD FAITH.

DO YOU -- WE TALKED ABOUT GROSS NEGLIGENCE HERE, AND YOU SAID THAT SECRETARY CLINTON WAS EXTREMELY CARELESS WITH THIS CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. AND HOW DANGEROUS IT COULD BE, HOW THREATENING TO EVEN TO PEOPLE'S LIVES THAT IT COULD BE TO DISCLOSE CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. DO YOU AGREE THAT THERE IS A VERY THIN LINE BETWEEN GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND EXTREME CARELESS CARELESSNESS? AND WOULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE THAT DIFFERENCE?

Comey: SURE, JUDGE. CONGRESSMAN. AS A FORMER JUDGE, YOU KNOW THERE ISN'T ACTUALLY A GREAT DEFINITION IN THE LAW OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE. SOME COURTS INTERPRET IT AS CLOSE TO WILLFUL, WHICH MEANS YOU KNOW YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG. OTHERS DROP IT LOWER. MY TERM EXTREMELY CARELESS, TRYING TO BE KIND OF AN ORDINARY PERSON, A COMMONSENSE WAY OF DESCRIBING IT SURE LOOKS CARELESS TO ME. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THAT AMOUNTS TO GROSS NEGLIGENCE FRANKLY IS REALLY NOT AT THE CENTER OF THIS BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE PROSECUTIONS AND SEE, IT'S BEEN ONE CASE BROUGHT ON A GROSS NEGLIGENCE THEORY. I KNOW FROM 30 YEARS THERE'S NO WAY ANYBODY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS BRINGING A CASE AGAINST JOHN DOE OR HILLARY CLINTON FOR THE SECOND TIME IN 100 YEARS BASED ON THOSE FACTS.

YOU ENDED YOUR STATEMENT TO CONGRESSMAN COOPER A WHILE AGO SAYING ONCE AGAIN THAT NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR COULD HAVE BROUGHT THIS CASE, YET YOU ALSO MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY THAT YOU HAD SEEN SEVERAL OF YOUR FRIENDS AND OTHER PROSECUTORS WHO HAVE SAID PUBLICLY, MANY ACROSS THIS COUNTRY, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN GLAD TO PROSECUTE THIS CASE.

Comey: I SMILE BECAUSE THEY'RE FRIENDS, AND I WANT TO SAY, GUYS, WHERE WERE YOU OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS? WHERE WERE THESE CASES? THEY HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT FOR REASONS I SAID EARLIER.

[Reck]

^So if I killed someone with a cup, does that mean I wouldn't get charged because it was however many years ago that someone got prosecuted with killing someone with a cup?

Comey and his team didn't find sufficient evidence or intent. That's why he couldn't reccomend indictment, not because it has been a 100 years since someone got indicted of a crime because of it.

A crime is a crime and if you committed one and were proven GUILTY of it, it wouldn't matter that the last person to commit said crime was 100 years ago.

[boutons_deux]

As many commentators said, since their was no recommendations to indict, he should not have even held a press conference, which is the convention, even protocol for no-indictment cases. Comey went in to smear Hillary severely in the middle of a Presidential campaign, which is typical for a rightwing politicized asshole govt official.

Hilarious that he got pissed before Congress when his integrity was questioned. :lol

Just a typical fucking cop,

"Don't EVER fucking criticize or even doubt me. All cops are perfect and above reproach. You're under arrest for resisting arrest. BLAM BLAM BLAM"

[rmt]

Take off your partisan hats and read Comey's OWN words:

DEFINITION IN THE LAW OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE. SOME COURTS INTERPRET IT AS CLOSE TO WILLFUL, WHICH MEANS YOU KNOW YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG

I THINK SHE WAS NEGLIGENT. THAT I COULD ESTABLISH. WHAT WE CAN'T ESTABLISH THAT SHE ACTED WITH THE NECESSARY CRIMINAL INTENT

WHEN I LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE PROSECUTIONS AND SEE, IT'S BEEN ONE CASE BROUGHT ON A GROSS NEGLIGENCE THEORY. I KNOW FROM 30 YEARS THERE'S NO WAY ANYBODY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS BRINGING A CASE AGAINST JOHN DOE OR HILLARY CLINTON FOR THE SECOND TIME IN 100 YEARS BASED ON THOSE FACTS.

boutons, I listened to his entire interview and he was not pissed - quite the opposite - he was very accommodating and bent over backwards to explain his reasoning.

Would you all re-read my post #225 and comment on how to FIX this problem because it has to be fixed. I am puzzled by his reasoning.

[Th'Pusher]

Take off your partisan hats and read Comey's OWN words:

DEFINITION IN THE LAW OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE. SOME COURTS INTERPRET IT AS CLOSE TO WILLFUL, WHICH MEANS YOU KNOW YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG

I THINK SHE WAS NEGLIGENT. THAT I COULD ESTABLISH. WHAT WE CAN'T ESTABLISH THAT SHE ACTED WITH THE NECESSARY CRIMINAL INTENT

WHEN I LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE PROSECUTIONS AND SEE, IT'S BEEN ONE CASE BROUGHT ON A GROSS NEGLIGENCE THEORY. I KNOW FROM 30 YEARS THERE'S NO WAY ANYBODY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS BRINGING A CASE AGAINST JOHN DOE OR HILLARY CLINTON FOR THE SECOND TIME IN 100 YEARS BASED ON THOSE FACTS.

boutons, I listened to his entire interview and he was not pissed - quite the opposite - he was very accommodating and bent over backwards to explain his reasoning.

Would you all re-read my post #225 and comment on how to FIX this problem because it has to be fixed. I am puzzled by his reasoning.

Why are you so puzzled by his reasoning? He is simply saying that she did not intend to break the law and therefore he is not going to seek prosecution. Historically prosecution is sought when there is intent.

He did not believe she could be successfully prosecuted without proof of intent.

[rmt]

Why are you so puzzled by his reasoning? He is simply saying that she did not intend to break the law and therefore he is not going to seek prosecution. Historically prosecution is sought when there is intent.

He did not believe she could be successfully prosecuted without proof of intent.

Well, that's not what many of you are saying - some are choosing to believe that she didn't break the law at all. I am puzzled by why they chose this particular law to have the higher standard of willful intent - it is not so with other laws like the speeding one. How do you propose they fix it? Because the current law doesn't mention willful intent - put the words "regardless of willful intent"?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Comey explains that he establishes that she was negligent (whether gross or not) - what he can't prove is the necessary criminal intent. If you read/listen to the entire interview, he acknowledges she did many things that were negligent but it's almost like because only one other case had used that statute, he couldn't recommend the prosecution.

Comey: IT'S A COMPLICATED MATTER. IT INVOLVES UNDERSTANDING HOW THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE WORKS ACROSS DECADES, HOW PROSECUTORIAL DISCRETION IS EXERCISED. I GET THAT FOLKS SEE DISCONNECTIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY SEE A STATUTE THAT SAYS GROSS NEGLIGENCE.

THE DIRECTOR JUST SAID SHE WAS EXTREMELY CARELESS. HOW IS THAT NOT PROSECUTABLE.

Comey: IT TAKES AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S GONE ON OVER THE LAST 99 YEARS, WHAT'S THE PRECEDENT. I GET PEOPLE'S QUESTIONS AND I THINK THEY'RE IN GOOD FAITH.

DO YOU -- WE TALKED ABOUT GROSS NEGLIGENCE HERE, AND YOU SAID THAT SECRETARY CLINTON WAS EXTREMELY CARELESS WITH THIS CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. AND HOW DANGEROUS IT COULD BE, HOW THREATENING TO EVEN TO PEOPLE'S LIVES THAT IT COULD BE TO DISCLOSE CLASSIFIED MATERIAL. DO YOU AGREE THAT THERE IS A VERY THIN LINE BETWEEN GROSS NEGLIGENCE AND EXTREME CARELESS CARELESSNESS? AND WOULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME WHAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE THAT DIFFERENCE?

Comey: SURE, JUDGE. CONGRESSMAN. AS A FORMER JUDGE, YOU KNOW THERE ISN'T ACTUALLY A GREAT DEFINITION IN THE LAW OF GROSS NEGLIGENCE. SOME COURTS INTERPRET IT AS CLOSE TO WILLFUL, WHICH MEANS YOU KNOW YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING WRONG. OTHERS DROP IT LOWER. MY TERM EXTREMELY CARELESS, TRYING TO BE KIND OF AN ORDINARY PERSON, A COMMONSENSE WAY OF DESCRIBING IT SURE LOOKS CARELESS TO ME. THE QUESTION OF WHETHER THAT AMOUNTS TO GROSS NEGLIGENCE FRANKLY IS REALLY NOT AT THE CENTER OF THIS BECAUSE WHEN I LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF THE PROSECUTIONS AND SEE, IT'S BEEN ONE CASE BROUGHT ON A GROSS NEGLIGENCE THEORY. I KNOW FROM 30 YEARS THERE'S NO WAY ANYBODY AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS BRINGING A CASE AGAINST JOHN DOE OR HILLARY CLINTON FOR THE SECOND TIME IN 100 YEARS BASED ON THOSE FACTS.

YOU ENDED YOUR STATEMENT TO CONGRESSMAN COOPER A WHILE AGO SAYING ONCE AGAIN THAT NO REASONABLE PROSECUTOR COULD HAVE BROUGHT THIS CASE, YET YOU ALSO MENTIONED EARLIER TODAY THAT YOU HAD SEEN SEVERAL OF YOUR FRIENDS AND OTHER PROSECUTORS WHO HAVE SAID PUBLICLY, MANY ACROSS THIS COUNTRY, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN GLAD TO PROSECUTE THIS CASE.

Comey: I SMILE BECAUSE THEY'RE FRIENDS, AND I WANT TO SAY, GUYS, WHERE WERE YOU OVER THE LAST 40 YEARS? WHERE WERE THESE CASES? THEY HAVE NOT BEEN BROUGHT FOR REASONS I SAID EARLIER.

So he is saying that there are different standards used in judicial review. Still doesn't change anything. If he thought she would meet any standard he would have said it.

His equivocation doesn't mean he thought her culpable of gross negligence. If anything he is saying what you are waving your hands at is a red herring.

As he says: where are the cases?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Well, that's not what many of you are saying - some are choosing to believe that she didn't break the law at all. I am puzzled by why they chose this particular law to have the higher standard of willful intent - it is not so with other laws like the speeding one. How do you propose they fix it? Because the current law doesn't mention willful intent - put the words "regardless of willful intent"?

What do you think he meant when he said 'necessary?' Necessary for what? A successful prosecution maybe? IOW, he thought that if it was a losing position.

And again while the law you are intent on fixating on doesn't state 'intent' it is part of the judicial review process for gross negligence. They did not create some special form of review for Clinton and she is treated like every other espionage case.

[Th'Pusher]

Well, that's not what many of you are saying - some are choosing to believe that she didn't break the law at all. I am puzzled by why they chose this particular law to have the higher standard of willful intent - it is not so with other laws like the speeding one. How do you propose they fix it? Because the current law doesn't mention willful intent - put the words "regardless of willful intent"?

There is nothing to "fix". He did not think he could successfully prosecute her based on the evidence so he chose not to indict her. It literally happens every day. I don't know why you're struggling with such a basic concept.

[boutons_deux]

People like rmt don't give a shit about the DoJ and SEC refusing to prosecute systemic theft and fraud in BigFinance, MILLIONS of homes foreclosed illegally, but absolutely must have Hillary prosecuted for a couple 100 emails.

[rmt]

There is nothing to "fix". He did not think he could successfully prosecute her based on the evidence so he chose not to indict her. It literally happens every day. I don't know why you're struggling with such a basic concept.

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

[Th'Pusher]

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

I think someone who "did what she did" would generally lose their security clearance. The fact that she is running for president does afford her a different status, as it does Donald. I'm not losing any sleep about it.

[ducks]

https://www.facebook.com/ChristianConservativeAndNotAfraid/photos/a.254362961349268.60315.254361774682720/979978142121076/?type=3&theater

[rmt]

https://www.facebook.com/ChristianConservativeAndNotAfraid/photos/a.254362961349268.60315.254361774682720/979978142121076/?type=3&theater

LOL

[Reck]

ZOMG what a burn! Doubt she'll ever recover.