Hillary/FBI Thread

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't think it has a thing to do with her health.

Then you need to have a conversation with your fellows about that. Because the liberals aren't the ones starting these conversations and implying that Hillary has, I don't know, Alzheimer's or something, and then refusing to man up and state a claim clearly, rather than hide behind vague insinuations.

It is just another example that she is a pathological liar

You realize that's a clinical term? It was added to the DSM in 1980. So, yeah, you're doing it, too.

who shouldn't be trusted with our security or anything else. She has just recently used this concussion excuse as a method to use the can't recall option some 35 times. She lies about the lies that she didn't lie.

Hell I worry about Trumps finger on the nuclear weapons and those 3 am calls and a host of other reasons, but Hillary terrifies me as well. He terrifies a lot of reasonable conservatives. The left in the majority dislike Hillary and feel that she is untrustworthy but that is only in the polling. They seem to defend her to the death, aggressively supporting her, and plan to vote for her.

As a conservative I am ashamed that my fellow conservatives are responsible for Trump being our candidate. Having said that I am amazed that the left doesn't feel this way about HRC. Here at the Cooler it seems that most of the left support her to the end and defend her even if she is indefensible. When one has the FBI and the Justice Dept and especially the latter in their hip pocket then it's pretty easy to use this "prove it" phrase and routine. The Clintons for decades have been surrounded by controversy and scandals and that isn't due to a right wing attack and witch hunt. They are greedy, lying, self-serving along with about every term that has been used here describing Trump.

If I were a Democrat and routinely defended Hillary for about anything I would be very reluctant to criticize a Republican supporting Trump or voting for him while holding their nose. This latest release of info regarding the FBI interview of Hillary is but one more example of her either being totally incompetent or an habitual liar and threat to security. Even the interview was laughable and apparent that the agents weren't to interested in obtaining anything significant or a threat to Hillary. I bet her attorneys suggested the can't recall option strongly as a method to simply get past it while avoiding anything that could threaten her legally even it did make her look stupid, confused and unfamiliar with the tech aspects of computers, emails etc.

Like I keep saying we have two primary turds running for POTUS. Some seem content to polish their turd up continuously.

This isn't about polishing a turd. This is about the fact that your fellow conservatives on this forum can't even have a genuine conversation about Hillary. There are all sorts of things I'd like to criticize her for.

I'd like to discuss her hawkishness, which I think is dangerous for America, though I see why some Neocons wouldn't care to criticize that.

I'd like to discuss her changing opinions on trade, since I don't believe a word she says on the topic. I think her current "position" is merely an appropriation of Trump and Bernie. But since I agree with what I think she really thinks, this is less important.

I'd love to discuss her 180 on the bankruptcy bill between her time in the WH and her time as Senator. That was despicable.

I've begged over and over to talk about her private email server as a runaround for FOIA. But alas! that's not sexy enough for you guys, because it doesn't come with a 180-year prison term.

But you guys don't want to talk about any of this. You've turned Hillary into a Bond villain in your heads, and any reasonable discussions about her actual faults are anathema to you, because they require the assumption she is a genuine human being.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Then you need to have a conversation with your fellows about that. Because the liberals aren't the ones starting these conversations and implying that Hillary has, I don't know, Alzheimer's or something, and then refusing to man up and state a claim clearly, rather than hide behind vague insinuations.


You realize that's a clinical term? It was added to the DSM in 1980. So, yeah, you're doing it, too.


This isn't about polishing a turd. This is about the fact that your fellow conservatives on this forum can't even have a genuine conversation about Hillary. There are all sorts of things I'd like to criticize her for.

I'd like to discuss her hawkishness, which I think is dangerous for America, though I see why some Neocons wouldn't care to criticize that.

I'd like to discuss her changing opinions on trade, since I don't believe a word she says on the topic. I think her current "position" is merely an appropriation of Trump and Bernie. But since I agree with what I think she really thinks, this is less important.

I'd love to discuss her 180 on the bankruptcy bill between her time in the WH and her time as Senator. That was despicable.

I've begged over and over to talk about her private email server as a runaround for FOIA. But alas! that's not sexy enough for you guys, because it doesn't come with a 180-year prison term.

But you guys don't want to talk about any of this. You've turned Hillary into a Bond villain in your heads, and any reasonable discussions about her actual faults are anathema to you, because they require the assumption she is a genuine human being.

I talked about all of that

Except the bankruptcy issue. Don't know any thing about that. But I have been highly critical of her on the rest. So have others. I think your post is a huge overstatement.

Hillary promises to be the most trigger happy president in a long while. Trump might be naive about some of the defense issues but he can learn. Hillary has already learned and she is still your basic war monger.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I talked about all of that

Except the bankruptcy issue. Don't know any thing about that. But I have been highly critical of her on the rest. So have others. I think your post is a huge overstatement.

Hillary promises to be the most trigger happy president in a long while. Trump might be naive about some of the defense issues but he can learn. Hillary has already learned and she is still your basic war monger.

Hey, you're back! Are you here to finally explain exactly what is wrong with Hillary's health?

 

[Cajun54]

You realize that's a clinical term? It was added to the DSM in 1980. So, yeah, you're doing it, too.

I guess you have me there Goat. The term points to a mental problem or illness. She finds it difficult to tell the truth and lies often and lies that she lied. As I am not educated and trained in the field I will leave it to the experts whether she lies by design or whether she can't help it.

Nice deflection. Feel free to discuss anything you want regarding your concerns regarding Hillary. You have started many post here before on various topics with little concern of what conservatives might say.

In your prove it defense on most all things Hillary you haven't volunteered to inform us why we should be concerned with her as you just did with a few points.

I suggest you would prefer to defend her as opposed to criticizing her. Feel free to criticize her and your concerns with her. Do so in this thread or start a new one stating your concerns with Hillary. I for one will find it interesting reading.

She is a human being I must agree, but a despicable one. JUST LIKE SIR DONALD.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I guess you have me there Goat. The term points to a mental problem or illness. She finds it difficult to tell the truth and lies often and lies that she lied. As I am not educated and trained in the field I will leave it to the experts whether she lies by design or whether she can't help it.

Nice deflection. Feel free to discuss anything you want regarding your concerns regarding Hillary. You have started many post here before on various topics with little concern of what conservatives might say.

In your prove it defense on most all things Hillary you haven't volunteered to inform us why we should be concerned with her as you just did with a few points.

I suggest you would prefer to defend her as opposed to criticizing her. Feel free to criticize her and your concerns with her. Do so in this thread or start a new one stating your concerns with Hillary. I for one will find it interesting reading.

She is a human being I must agree, but a despicable one. JUST LIKE SIR DONALD.

Until you guys stop treating Infowars like it's the Encyclopedia Britannica, I'll probably spend a lot more time defending Hillary than attacking her. But you'd be very much mistaken to draw any conclusions about my own opinions based on that. Instead, it should point to the level of lunacy that many of you on the right half of this board have achieved when it comes to Hillary.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Hey, you're back! Are you here to finally explain exactly what is wrong with Hillary's health?

Did that a few months ago

Including specific references to interviews and sworn testimony where she appeared to be totally flummoxed and gave dumb answers. She wasn't like that 8 years ago. She also couldn't remember important events in her FBI interview. Huma, who sees her every day, said she was easily confused. Moreover, she is on light duty in this campaign. Finally Bill said it took her 6 months to recover from her fall and bump on the head. She uses glasses for double vision. That isn't evidence of a simple concussion but instead indications of a more serious TBI.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

Until you guys stop treating Infowars like it's the Encyclopedia Britannica, I'll probably spend a lot more time defending Hillary than attacking her. But you'd be very much mistaken to draw any conclusions about my own opinions based on that. Instead, it should point to the level of lunacy that many of you on the right half of this board have achieved when it comes to Hillary.

What I posted is not lunacy, it speaks of deception.

 

[Cajun54]

Until you guys stop treating Infowars like it's the Encyclopedia Britannica, I'll probably spend a lot more time defending Hillary than attacking her. But you'd be very much mistaken to draw any conclusions about my own opinions based on that. Instead, it should point to the level of lunacy that many of you on the right half of this board have achieved when it comes to Hillary.

It's lunacy because you say its so? Those info wars, the FBI directors comments and on and on are based on fact. You choose to ignore facts. I almost feel sorry for the HRC surrogates that appear on tv trying to explain away her lies and incompetence. They are lies Goat and she has proven herself extremely careless and reckless in her handling of security matters. That's a fact. Her foundation is....well you know the facts there about all the donations from nations who treat women like shit and persecute gays via murder or prison and on and on.

She can't recall signing documents and receiving training. She couldn't recall 35 times in the FBI interview. Either she lies, she is stupid, or she has a problem.

Infowars is a laugh! I know...prove she couldn't recall, prove this and prove that. You have about the same opinion of Trump as I do yet you don't require the same burden of proof against him as you do dear Hillary.

How do you explain her forgetting all the stuff ask her by the FBI? Or perhaps you think the whole report was ginned up in some back room by her enemies. What about not remembering some very key and elementary items required of her and her position.

What about the thorough wipe of her server and destruction of devices?? Whats the point as her supporters hear no evil and see no evil. All the material released by the FBI and the State Dept is all false and made up to hear the left speak of it. It's all infowars

Are you saying Hillary has been truthful and competent in her handling of classified material and government emails? You can't be that naive and you aren't.

I think that should something devastating and criminal make the limelight that it would not make any difference to her supporters and it may just come up before the election.

I think you are partially correct for the reasons she set up a private server to begin with which in itself is fishy.

Lunacy is you guys defending her religiously when its obvious she is a blatant liar to the people, Congress and the law. Lunacy is sweeping it all under the rug and using Trump as a reason to defend her. My lunacy use is as valid as yours.

You Liberals keep telling us we conservatives have such and intense dislike and hatred for Hillary that we simply can't help ourselves. Yet the comments about Trump around here are just as negative and vicious and probably more of them and that's ok as he is fair game where HRC is not apparently. Its we Pubs that have the problem and are lunatics regarding Hillary we are often told.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It's lunacy because you say its so? Those info wars, the FBI directors comments and on and on are based on fact. You choose to ignore facts. I almost feel sorry for the HRC surrogates that appear on tv trying to explain away her lies and incompetence. They are lies Goat and she has proven herself extremely careless and reckless in her handling of security matters. That's a fact. Her foundation is....well you know the facts there about all the donations from nations who treat women like shit and persecute gays via murder or prison and on and on.

She can't recall signing documents and receiving training. She couldn't recall 35 times in the FBI interview. Either she lies, she is stupid, or she has a problem.

Infowars is a laugh! I know...prove she couldn't recall, prove this and prove that. You have about the same opinion of Trump as I do yet you don't require the same burden of proof against him as you do dear Hillary.

How do you explain her forgetting all the stuff ask her by the FBI? Or perhaps you think the whole report was ginned up in some back room by her enemies. What about not remembering some very key and elementary items required of her and her position.

What about the thorough wipe of her server and destruction of devices?? Whats the point as her supporters hear no evil and see no evil. All the material released by the FBI and the State Dept is all false and made up to hear the left speak of it. It's all infowars

Are you saying Hillary has been truthful and competent in her handling of classified material and government emails? You can't be that naive and you aren't.

I think that should something devastating and criminal make the limelight that it would not make any difference to her supporters and it may just come up before the election.

I think you are partially correct for the reasons she set up a private server to begin with which in itself is fishy.

Lunacy is you guys defending her religiously when its obvious she is a blatant liar to the people, Congress and the law. Lunacy is sweeping it all under the rug and using Trump as a reason to defend her. My lunacy use is as valid as yours.

You Liberals keep telling us we conservatives have such and intense dislike and hatred for Hillary that we simply can't help ourselves. Yet the comments about Trump around here are just as negative and vicious and probably more of them and that's ok as he is fair game where HRC is not apparently. Its we Pubs that have the problem and are lunatics regarding Hillary we are often told.

Lots of words, and no evidence of anything. Par for the course.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

My glib response upset your best buddy, so let me rephrase:

How do you expect someone to honestly respond to a post like this? You've written an tremendous mixture of partisan hackery and conspiracy theorism here. And what is this growing obsession you guys seem to have with Hillary's health? CO.H has been hinting for months that there is something seriously wrong with her, and that he knows exactly what it is, but whenever anyone tries to get the details, he demurs. Perhaps you can fill in the gaps. What exactly do you think is wrong with her, and why do you think that? Give us some specifics. No more of this "Isn't it obvious?" crap. Objectively, coldly, factually. Lay it out.

Thanks in advance.

Ladoga has unwittingly admitted that Hillary handled republicans in hours and hours and hours of hearings about Benghazi with one brain tied behind her back. He's not saying much for those republicans

 

[stollcpa]

It's lunacy because you say its so? Those info wars, the FBI directors comments and on and on are based on fact. You choose to ignore facts. I almost feel sorry for the HRC surrogates that appear on tv trying to explain away her lies and incompetence. They are lies Goat and she has proven herself extremely careless and reckless in her handling of security matters. That's a fact. Her foundation is....well you know the facts there about all the donations from nations who treat women like shit and persecute gays via murder or prison and on and on.

She can't recall signing documents and receiving training. She couldn't recall 35 times in the FBI interview. Either she lies, she is stupid, or she has a problem.

Infowars is a laugh! I know...prove she couldn't recall, prove this and prove that. You have about the same opinion of Trump as I do yet you don't require the same burden of proof against him as you do dear Hillary.

How do you explain her forgetting all the stuff ask her by the FBI? Or perhaps you think the whole report was ginned up in some back room by her enemies. What about not remembering some very key and elementary items required of her and her position.

What about the thorough wipe of her server and destruction of devices?? Whats the point as her supporters hear no evil and see no evil. All the material released by the FBI and the State Dept is all false and made up to hear the left speak of it. It's all infowars

Are you saying Hillary has been truthful and competent in her handling of classified material and government emails? You can't be that naive and you aren't.

I think that should something devastating and criminal make the limelight that it would not make any difference to her supporters and it may just come up before the election.

I think you are partially correct for the reasons she set up a private server to begin with which in itself is fishy.

Lunacy is you guys defending her religiously when its obvious she is a blatant liar to the people, Congress and the law. Lunacy is sweeping it all under the rug and using Trump as a reason to defend her. My lunacy use is as valid as yours.

You Liberals keep telling us we conservatives have such and intense dislike and hatred for Hillary that we simply can't help ourselves. Yet the comments about Trump around here are just as negative and vicious and probably more of them and that's ok as he is fair game where HRC is not apparently. Its we Pubs that have the problem and are lunatics regarding Hillary we are often told.

Goats answer below your post shows you're wasting your time.

 

[zeke4ahs]

I don't think it has a thing to do with her health. It is just another example that she is a pathological liar who shouldn't be trusted with our security or anything else. She has just recently used this concussion excuse as a method to use the can't recall option some 35 times. She lies about the lies that she didn't lie.

Hell I worry about Trumps finger on the nuclear weapons and those 3 am calls and a host of other reasons, but Hillary terrifies me as well. He terrifies a lot of reasonable conservatives. The left in the majority dislike Hillary and feel that she is untrustworthy but that is only in the polling. They seem to defend her to the death, aggressively supporting her, and plan to vote for her.

As a conservative I am ashamed that my fellow conservatives are responsible for Trump being our candidate. Having said that I am amazed that the left doesn't feel this way about HRC. Here at the Cooler it seems that most of the left support her to the end and defend her even if she is indefensible. When one has the FBI and the Justice Dept and especially the latter in their hip pocket then it's pretty easy to use this "prove it" phrase and routine. The Clintons for decades have been surrounded by controversy and scandals and that isn't due to a right wing attack and witch hunt. They are greedy, lying, self-serving along with about every term that has been used here describing Trump.

If I were a Democrat and routinely defended Hillary for about anything I would be very reluctant to criticize a Republican supporting Trump or voting for him while holding their nose. This latest release of info regarding the FBI interview of Hillary is but one more example of her either being totally incompetent or an habitual liar and threat to security. Even the interview was laughable and apparent that the agents weren't to interested in obtaining anything significant or a threat to Hillary. I bet her attorneys suggested the can't recall option strongly as a method to simply get past it while avoiding anything that could threaten her legally even it did make her look stupid, confused and unfamiliar with the tech aspects of computers, emails etc.

Like I keep saying we have two primary turds running for POTUS. Some seem content to polish their turd up continuously.

http://www.attn.com/stories/10483/chart-compares-presidential-candidates-honesty I've probably posted this chart 10 times. But the right does such a good job painting with a broad brush and ignoring the facts, it doesn't seem to sink in, no more how many times the facts are posted. I've seen multiple other charts that say the say thing. Does Hillary lie? I'm sure she does. But as the facts show, much less than every other politician not named Obama, and certainly abundantly less than the person she is running against.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Why not stick to HRC? we already know that Trump's medical report from the quack is bogus. His health may not be good and her health might not be so good either. Don't know if either are in great health really.

Because Hillary has already released her medical reports, with a clean bill of health. It's just another fake issue to make up for the totally unqualified candidate put up by the right.

 

[zeke4ahs]

Your description applies to only a very small handful of conservatives. Your side has some whackos as well. It is also very scary that so many of you liberal faithful believe that Hillary is any better. Sadly there seems to be nothing that will impact your positive vibes about HRC. You look at the facts, ignore them, defend her and then back to the routine of mocking Trump and conservatives in general. There is something like 55 million registered Republicans and less than 25% supported Trump in the primaries.

I don't think Hillary is a great candidate, but I think she is a hundred times better qualified than the demagogue reality star. Hillary is respected around the world, she understands the issues ( you may not agree with her). All reports indicate that the Donald doesn't even have the attention span to study the issues for more than a few minutes. Hillary will not stand in front of the world and mock the disabled, make racist comments, make misogynist comments and rate women on their looks, and paint whole countries with a broad, negative brush. I have concern with some of her stands too, but the fake outrage and attacks that the right have gone after her fail to bother me. They've spent so many hours and so much money, and they still can't charge her with anything. The Donald, on the other hand , has thousands of lawsuits still against him, including the one for his bogus university and now it looks like he bribed someone in Florida to get rid of it. I just honestly can't comprehend someone that could picture the Donald meeting at the Great 8 for example, and not making a total fool of himself and his country. Our bumper sticker should be At Least She's Sane.

 

[Ladoga]

The only reason to wipe a server and destroy devices and claim you don't recall is to hide behavior.

And to do it after receiving the subpoena for the contents of the servers is a federal felony - Obstruction of Justice. Now, is there any lefty here who will claim that destroying subpoenaed material - which it is certain that she or her staff did - is not a crime? Go ahead and defend that.

 

[stollcpa]

http://www.attn.com/stories/10483/chart-compares-presidential-candidates-honesty I've probably posted this chart 10 times. But the right does such a good job painting with a broad brush and ignoring the facts, it doesn't seem to sink in, no more how many times the facts are posted. I've seen multiple other charts that say the say thing. Does Hillary lie? I'm sure she does. But as the facts show, much less than every other politician not named Obama, and certainly abundantly less than the person she is running against.

We're suppose to accept this as the absolute authority on lying. SMH.

 

[davegolf]

I don't think Hillary is a great candidate, but I think she is a hundred times better qualified than the demagogue reality star. Hillary is respected around the world, she understands the issues ( you may not agree with her). All reports indicate that the Donald doesn't even have the attention span to study the issues for more than a few minutes. Hillary will not stand in front of the world and mock the disabled, make racist comments, make misogynist comments and rate women on their looks, and paint whole countries with a broad, negative brush. I have concern with some of her stands too, but the fake outrage and attacks that the right have gone after her fail to bother me. They've spent so many hours and so much money, and they still can't charge her with anything. The Donald, on the other hand , has thousands of lawsuits still against him, including the one for his bogus university and now it looks like he bribed someone in Florida to get rid of it. I just honestly can't comprehend someone that could picture the Donald meeting at the Great 8 for example, and not making a total fool of himself and his country. Our bumper sticker should be At Least She's Sane.

The problem is the false premise that she is respected around the world. Article after article both liberal and conservative complain about her foreign policy approach. She in fact is not respected and much of the turmoil started on her watch as SOS. The only leaders that respect her are the ones that contribute to the "Foundations" and expect something in return. In the foreign policy arena she was tolerated because she was Bill's wife and he generally had respect as one of the "good ole boys".

 

[davegolf]

In this political season I am reminded of a several sayings.

The great scientist, Albert Einstein, had observed:
Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one.

George Washington, had intoned: Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains taken to bring it to light.

Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan had famously said:
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.

The finality of truth can be summed up in this quotation from The Bhagavad Gita:
What is not real never was and never will be. What is real always was and cannot be destroyed.

From my Father/Judge: "When one choses to bury their heads in the sand they only see the grains and not the desert."

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Because Hillary has already released her medical reports, with a clean bill of health. It's just another fake issue to make up for the totally unqualified candidate put up by the right.

No she didn't. All that has been released is a letter from her Doctor, about a year ago, saying she was in good health. Both have only released letters. I will readily agree that the letter about Trump was probably bogus and the Doctor at least seems like a quack, but nether have released actual medical reports or records. I Presidential candidates should have independent medical examinations, but it's not a requirement.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Goats answer below your post shows you're wasting your time.

Yes, he is, as are you all, because you continue to simply prove me right: no evidence, no logical arguments. Hillary is a Bond villain to you. She's just plain evil. It's ridiculous.

 

[SuperHoosierFan]

Yes, he is, as are you all, because you continue to simply prove me right: no evidence, no logical arguments. Hillary is a Bond villain to you. She's just plain evil. It's ridiculous.

Yeah, but, we've all heard for decades that she's evil and corrupt with a heart that pumps a thick, vomitous oil. I've been hearing it too long for it to not be true. Isn't it obvious?

 

[davegolf]

Yes, he is, as are you all, because you continue to simply prove me right: no evidence, no logical arguments. Hillary is a Bond villain to you. She's just plain evil. It's ridiculous.

She is a corrupt egotistic liar whose only truth is in her own mind based on the proposition that the end will justify the means. She is counting on the fact that the American voters will ignore her lies as did the FBI. Not sure what the next release of info will be about but September and October are going to be very interesting. Just wish we had an acceptable alternative although Trumps visit to the Black Church has some positives.

 

[UncleMark]

The only reason to wipe a server and destroy devices and claim you don't recall is to hide behavior.

And to do it after receiving the subpoena for the contents of the servers is a federal felony - Obstruction of Justice. Now, is there any lefty here who will claim that destroying subpoenaed material - which it is certain that she or her staff did - is not a crime? Go ahead and defend that.

If this is the case, then how can it be there are no charges? Comey made a judgment call on how she handled her email, but if the above is true, it looks like there's no judgment involved. Is he totally in the tank for HRC? Really?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

She is a corrupt egotistic liar whose only truth is in her own mind based on the proposition that the end will justify the means. She is counting on the fact that the American voters will ignore her lies as did the FBI. Not sure what the next release of info will be about but September and October are going to be very interesting. Just wish we had an acceptable alternative although Trumps visit to the Black Church has some positives.

I rest my case.

 

[Rockport Zebra]

If this is the case, then how can it be there are no charges? Comey made a judgment call on how she handled her email, but if the above is true, it looks like there's no judgment involved. Is he totally in the tank for HRC? Really?

I stand with my statement that the only reason is to hide behavior.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I stand with my statement that the only reason is to hide behavior.

Makes sense, but I can think of another: a genuine fear that political enemies would comb through everything, take stuff out of context, and use it to attack her. A well-founded fear, that would be, based on history.

 

[UncleMark]

I stand with my statement that the only reason is to hide behavior.

Makes sense, but I can think of another: a genuine fear that political enemies would comb through everything, take stuff out of context, and use it to attack her. A well-founded fear, that would be, based on history.

So Comey is flat out ignoring a blatant case of obstruction, for whatever reason?

 

[stollcpa]

Makes sense, but I can think of another: a genuine fear that political enemies would comb through everything, take stuff out of context, and use it to attack her. A well-founded fear, that would be, based on history.

That could very well be correct but why not use a private email and secure government email correctly? All of my friends and clients that work at the Crane Naval Center do it with no issues. The answer must be she's stupid, didn't give a damn or wanted to make sure she could pick and choose what to hide and delete in all instances.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

That could very well be correct but why not use a private email and secure government email correctly? All of my friends and clients that work at the Crane Naval Center do it with no issues. The answer must be she's stupid, didn't give a damn or wanted to make sure she could pick and choose what to hide and delete in all instances.

Huh? She used secure government communications all the time. You think the three emails she received with classification markings were the only three classified communications she got in four years?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So Comey is flat out ignoring a blatant case of obstruction, for whatever reason?

No. It's not clear anyone obstructed anything, and if someone did, it probably wasn't Hillary.

 

[Aloha Hoosier]

Huh? She used secure government communications all the time. You think the three emails she received with classification markings were the only three classified communications she got in four years?

She never had a SIPRNET email account, which meant she had to get classified information through other less convenient means (briefings, printed reports, etc.). That was a contributing factor to the extremely careless handling of classified information that happened via her unsecured and unauthorized private email systems.

 

[Joe_Hoopsier]

Makes sense, but I can think of another: a genuine fear that political enemies would comb through everything, take stuff out of context, and use it to attack her. A well-founded fear, that would be, based on history.

If it was only to protect from enemies, just unplug the connection from the network. Wouldn't destroy requested info, would have appearance of working with her accusers to clear her name. Unless of course there were things she didn't want the FBI to see. Is so, make that disappear! But she couldn't even totally do that correctly.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

She never had a SIPRNET email account, which meant she had to get classified information through other less convenient means (briefings, printed reports, etc.). That was a contributing factor to the extremely careless handling of classified information that happened via her unsecured and unauthorized private email systems.

Based on what I read, her preferred method of receiving classified info was in person, and her backup was the secure fax.

I don't know the technical details, but she received tons and tons of classified diplomatic cables, per the wiki leaks dump. Weren't those transferred over SIPRNet?

 

[Hank Reardon]

No. It's not clear anyone obstructed anything, and if someone did, it probably wasn't Hillary.

So using Bleachbit to digitally destroy material subpoenaed three weeks earlier doesn't qualify as obstruction?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

So using Bleachbit to digitally destroy material subpoenaed three weeks earlier doesn't qualify as obstruction?

It might, it might not. Depends on the circumstances. Not having read all the materials, I'm willing to trust the FBI would have made a case if they could.

 

[Hank Reardon]

It might, it might not. Depends on the circumstances. Not having read all the materials, I'm willing to trust the FBI would have made a case if they could.

The FBI's own report says that this happened. So if there are documents under subpoena and someone willfully destroys them, how can that not be obstruction? Given this set of acknowledged facts (again, by the FBI) why should I trust that they handled this case based strictly on guilt or innocence? Seems to me we have every reason to doubt their conclusion.

 

[UncleMark]

The FBI's own report says that this happened. So if there are documents under subpoena and someone willfully destroys them, how can that not be obstruction?

That's what I'm getting at. If this actually is the case, then obstruction charges should be a slam dunk. If they aren't brought, then I can only think of two rational explanations, a) it really is not the case, or b) Comey is willfully ignoring the law.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

The FBI's own report says that this happened. So if there are documents under subpoena and someone willfully destroys them, how can that not be obstruction? Given this set of acknowledged facts (again, by the FBI) why should I trust that they handled this case based strictly on guilt or innocence? Seems to me we have every reason to doubt their conclusion.

There might not be intent. Most federal crimes, including the varied forms of obstruction, are not strict liability.

 

[Hank Reardon]

There might not be intent. Most federal crimes, including the varied forms of obstruction, are not strict liability.

Intent? They didn't intend to use a product like Bleachbit to wipe email from a server three weeks after being told to preserve all copies of email? Is that what we're to accept?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Intent? They didn't intend to use a product like Bleachbit to wipe email from a server three weeks after being told to preserve all copies of email? Is that what we're to accept?

Who is "they?" From what I can tell, one guy used bleachbit. If that one guy was unaware of the subpoena when he did it, it would be very hard to make a criminal case.