Who is claiming she lied under oath to the FBI? She wasn't even under oath to the FBI.
Tweedledee and tweedledumb. Dumb and dumber. 2 dumb peas in a pod.
Answer the two questions:
Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?
Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?
You're up to bat now
Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?
Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?
You were caught in a red lie. I exposed you.
That is why you're spinning your wheels with random questions now.
If you want to make an argument then make it. I'm not going to do it for you, dimwit.
It still all centers around intent.
You are having trouble with two questions we'll move it down to one.
Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?
he confirmed she didn't
Fuzzy takes strike 1
dodge noted
Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?
Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?
FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.
This comes down to you not having been properly informed.
Had you watched the hearing you would know a few key things.
There were only 3 emails that bore a classified signature letter "c" on the emails but that these emails were marked classified in error.
Furthermore, Comey himself said the emails were not properly marked as classified.
- Comey said three emails had “portion markings” on them indicating that they were classified, but they were not properly marked and therefore could have been missed by Clinton. He said the emails were marked as classified with the letter “C” in the body of the email.
- Kirby said the State Department believes that at least two of the emails were mistakenly marked as confidential. He could not speak to the third email, saying the department didn’t have “all of the records and do ents that the FBI used in their investigation.”
- Comey told the committee he is “highly confident” that FBI investigators consulted with the State Department about the marked emails. But he said he did not know that the department believes that any of them were marked in error
But later in the hearing, Democratic Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman asked Comey if he knew that the State Department had said that the emails were marked classified in error. Comey replied, “No.”
Likewise, Rep. Matt Cartwright, also a Democrat, asked Comey if the emails were properly classified, and Comey said they were not.
Cartwright, July 7: So, if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what’s classified and what’s not classified and we’re following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three do ents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/07/rev...d-information/
Whether a not they had a classified marking has no bearing on my question. Hillary signed an NDA stating she understood items are born classified.
From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.
stop deflecting, answer the questions:
Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?
Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?
We shouldn't allow TSA's braindead interpretation dictate the argument. He is both partisan and stupid as most here can attest.
Here is Fortune magazine which is not exactly a liberal bastion on the important points of law:
http://fortune.com/2016/07/12/donald...s-james-comey/As a matter of legal language, Comey was clearly splitting hairs, but he defended his conclusion by arguing that legal practice since the passage of the Espionage Act has led to prosecutions only in cases where some element of intent to divulge classified information to unauthorized persons was involved. This issue is not going to go away during this presidential campaign, but Comey has framed it appropriately. If Comey’s critics can demonstrate a pattern of prosecutions (a single case won’t do—it could be an exception to the rule) where negligence without intent has been prosecuted, then they can make a persuasive argument that there has been a double standard applied and that the powerful and influential are not being held to the same standard as other citizens. If the pattern of prosecutions supports the claim that prosecutions always, or almost always, require some element of intent to divulge classified information, then prosecuting Clinton under these cir stances would have been a violation of the norm of equal treatment under law. Legally (as opposed to politically), we shouldn’t hold Clinton to a higher standard than we apply to others just because she is an influential and powerful woman. The focus must go beyond the literal words of the statute to examine the history of prosecutions—the living law—and not the dead-letter law.
David Petraeus’s behavior was far more troubling than Clinton’s.
Donald Brand is a professor of political science at the College of the Holy Cross in Worcester, Mass.
After a thorough review of the evidence regarding Hillary Clinton’s email practices while secretary of state, FBI Director James Comey found much to criticize but insufficient evidence to indict. It was a close call, properly within the domain of prosecutorial discretion, and Comey concluded that “no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.” Comey has a reputation for integrity and nonpartisanship (he was appointed by George W. Bush), and partisans on both sides were unhappy with his report and his testimony, so he may have gotten it right.
The Espionage Act of 1917 criminalizes the mishandling of classified information. It is first and foremost directed at people who knowingly and intentionally share classified information with those who are not authorized to receive it. This would include sharing information with the media or with foreign governments who want to know our secrets. Comey focused on Clinton’s intent. While he found that she was “extremely careless” in her handling of information she should have known was classified, even though it was not clearly marked as such, he did not find evidence that she intended to make this information known to any unauthorized person.
Comey’s focus on Clinton’s intent was challenged by Jason Chaffetz, chairman of the House Oversight & Government Reform Committee, and U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), a member of the Committee, in hearings that were called immediately after Comey announced the decision not to indict. Chaffetz and Gowdy argued that the Espionage Act also imposes the duty on public officials to protect classified information and makes it a crime to remove such information from its “proper place of custody” through “gross negligence.” In the digital age, the meaning of “proper place of custody” is more difficult to ascertain, and Comey indicated that Clinton’s “extreme carelessness” did not rise to the legal standard of “gross negligence” as grounds for indictment.
As a matter of legal language, Comey was clearly splitting hairs, but he defended his conclusion by arguing that legal practice since the passage of the Espionage Act has led to prosecutions only in cases where some element of intent to divulge classified information to unauthorized persons was involved. This issue is not going to go away during this presidential campaign, but Comey has framed it appropriately. If Comey’s critics can demonstrate a pattern of prosecutions (a single case won’t do—it could be an exception to the rule) where negligence without intent has been prosecuted, then they can make a persuasive argument that there has been a double standard applied and that the powerful and influential are not being held to the same standard as other citizens. If the pattern of prosecutions supports the claim that prosecutions always, or almost always, require some element of intent to divulge classified information, then prosecuting Clinton under these cir stances would have been a violation of the norm of equal treatment under law. Legally (as opposed to politically), we shouldn’t hold Clinton to a higher standard than we apply to others just because she is an influential and powerful woman. The focus must go beyond the literal words of the statute to examine the history of prosecutions—the living law—and not the dead-letter law.
Was Clinton held to a different standard than General David Petraeus? Here, Comey was persuasive. In 2012, Petraeus knowingly shared classified information with his biographer and lover Paula Broadwell, who did not have the security clearance that would have authorized her to see the information. He lied to the FBI investigators about the whereabouts of classified information, indicating that he had returned it to its proper repository when it was found in his desk. He admitted to wrongdoing as part of a plea agreement. Intent was a central element in the Petraeus case; there was no evidence of intent in the Clinton case. Petraeus lied to the FBI; Clinton cooperated with the FBI.
Copmletely off topic. No one is discussing Comey's thoughts on Clinton's intent in his investigation.
Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?
Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?
The answer to both is yes. Prove me wrong.
Your assertion your proof and its irrelevant to the legal standard so who cares? This is boring as usual with you. I'm going to do something else.
Your problem is that Hillary very deliberately chose her words and stuck to her script that there was nothing MARKED classified. She never actually said she didn't send or receive classified information.
No one is discussing the legal standard nor her intent concerning the FBI's decision. The discussion is if she committed perjury under oath in front of congress. Comey confirmed she sent/received classified emails, that is not in dispute. Under oath to congress Hillary claimed she never sent/received classified emails. By default the FBI's investigation has confirmed Hillary lied to congress while under oath.
Signed NDA posted earlier disputes the "marked" classified excuse.
Hillary knew exactly what she was saying and it all revolved around MARKED. NDA had nothing to do with it. It's just like Bills testimony about "it depends on your definition of is".
Contending that his statement that "there's nothing going on between us" had been truthful because he had no ongoing relationship with Lewinsky at the time he was questioned, Clinton said, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is.
Did Comey confirm she sent classified information through her email yes or no?
Did Clinton testify under oath to congress she did not send classified information through her email yes or no?
Read post 318
She never said she didn't send classified information. She said she didn't send anything MARKED classified.
Misery loves company, I get that TSA but what's done is done.
Like I said a while back, focus your obssesion on the Clinton Foundation now. The email saga is done and if anything is going to land her in jail, it won't be because of the emails.
Both the FBI and the DOJ rejected to prosecute. Who is it do you think will now? The people who could have charged her didn't so...
And that is why I posted the NDA she signed saying she understood certain information is born classified, markings or not. She also said there was no classified material on her server.
I've said from the start the Foundation is what will bury her.
Why are you avoiding answering these two questions at all costs?
I'm not. I anwered your original questions that had to do with Comey.
If I answer your new questions, you'll simply spin new ones.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote