They "know" Hillary is guilty. The FBI concluded otherwise. Therefore, the FBI is corrupt.
There is no end to what they'll burn down to defend Orange Julius Caesar.
Peter Strzok & Lisa Page
- Thread starter Lucy01
- Start date
There is no end to what they'll burn down to defend Orange Julius Caesar.
It’s like talking to schizophrenics. They believe what they believe no matter what.
No Rock, I think you meant to say, defend the orange Nerō
Last edited:
.
The entire statement was very scathing, and until the last few paragraphs, sounded like he was making a case for prosecution. And then he didn't recommend it. However, though he didn't recommend prosecution, he made it clear that persons that were handling classified information in such an extremely careless (grossly negligent) way would face consequences for it. Those would be loss of clearance (and that would have happened in a heart beat for me or any other of us little people with clearances) and most likely firing. In the military there isn't even the slightest doubt that she'd have face NJP at minimum and most likely court-martial. HRC's consequences were that she didn't get elected President, but she shouldn't even have been running at that point. The bottom line is that her email scandal was not even close to a "nothing burger" as some here erroneously continue to claim - it was a very serious matter and just about anyone not-Hillary would have faced serious legal and/or administrative consequences.
Despite that, Lord help me, I still preferred her to be President over Trump. The only caveat was that I couldn't possibly pull the lever for her unless I thought it would make a difference. I was confident it wouldn't and I didn't. I'm very satisfied with having no personal responsibility for the outcome of the election.
Comey's statement is worth rereading because many people remain ignorant of what was found. Although he used the words "extremely careless" to describe her and her staffers' handling of classified information in his statement, it's clear that "grossly negligent" was also fully appropriate - and of course the statute only requires "grossly negligent" handling (not intent) of classified information for commission of a felony violation of statute. Here is part:
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.
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.
The entire statement was very scathing, and until the last few paragraphs, sounded like he was making a case for prosecution. And then he didn't recommend it. However, though he didn't recommend prosecution, he made it clear that persons that were handling classified information in such an extremely careless (grossly negligent) way would face consequences for it. Those would be loss of clearance (and that would have happened in a heart beat for me or any other of us little people with clearances) and most likely firing. In the military there isn't even the slightest doubt that she'd have face NJP at minimum and most likely court-martial. HRC's consequences were that she didn't get elected President, but she shouldn't even have been running at that point. The bottom line is that her email scandal was not even close to a "nothing burger" as some here erroneously continue to claim - it was a very serious matter and just about anyone not-Hillary would have faced serious legal and/or administrative consequences.
Despite that, Lord help me, I still preferred her to be President over Trump. The only caveat was that I couldn't possibly pull the lever for her unless I thought it would make a difference. I was confident it wouldn't and I didn't. I'm very satisfied with having no personal responsibility for the outcome of the election.
Last edited:
I’m not trying to get anyone. I want Mueller to complete an honest and credible investigation of Trump and let the chips fall where they may.
I want the same for HRC , Sanders , and any others.
So let me see if I finally understand. You are saying on May 20th a draft went out that used language indicating she broke the law. However, at that time they had decided no laws were broken so that obviously the language had to be changed. Question: why would extremely smart people place language indicating guilt in a draft email exonerating HRC if they knew no laws were broken. A different take is that there was enough evidence already found to indicate guilt and that is why the draft was issued with the language in it. As it became apparent that Trump was going to get the Republican nomination it was obvious the HRC was the only Dem capable of beating him so it became very high priority for the email scandal to go away. At that point the time line fell into place.
This is why a formal investigation is needed.
Except for the email scandal showed up again 10 days before the election and most everyone concurs that it swayed the election. If they were crooked, why do that?
Comey's statement was quite scathing. He probably shouldn't have made it. He probably should have just quietly reported his recommendations and told Congress the investigation was closed. (Of course, Loretta Lynch should have told bill Clinton, "Don't come on this damn plane," and if she had done that, maybe Comey wouldn't have convinced himself this was all a good idea.)
But it doesn't matter how convinced you are that other people would be in jail for what Hillary may have done. You might be right, you might be wrong, but it's an opinion based on necessarily incomplete information. Comey decided not to recommend charges. Once he did that, it would have been inappropriate to publicly accuse Clinton of gross negligence. So however that language ended up in the rough draft, it needed to be changed. And that's ultimately all this conversation is about. Someone changed the language, because the rough draft language was inappropriate for the context. Normal people should see that as lawyers doing their jobs. Some people see that as evidence of a conspiracy.
You're simply convinced she's guilty, and nothing can change your mind. Comey completed an honest and credible investigation, and the chips fell where they did. But you're not happy with that, because the result doesn't match your predetermined ideas about what should have happened.
No I’m not convinced she’s guilty and no, I don’t think Comey completed an honest and credible investigation. I think he was interfered with. How do you explain Pres Obama endorsing her before the final press conference?
Obama endorsed her the day after she clinched the nomination. It likely had nothing to do with the investigation.
I completely get why she wasn't prosecuted and why they changed the wording so it didn't include the "gross negligent" wording in the statute. It's because they almost certainly couldn't have gotten a conviction and it would have been a long, drawn out, political mess of "politics of personal destruction" and all that goes with it - she's Hillary F'ing Clinton!
Now if she was a 20 year career service civil servant, her life would have been f*cked. She would have lost her clearance and her job at the very least. Life's not fair and then you die, or something like that . . .I fear you misunderstand what happened. There was a preliminary draft indicating they knew she had been grossly negligent - requiring the bringing of felony charges. However, they were under orders from above not to prosecute her no matter what the evidence required so they had to change the draft to use language not exactly the same as the statute she violated. Its backward. They wrote the language and then changed it to comply with their previous decision not to bring the felony charges of which she is and was so obviously guilty. She's a felon, no mater what words were used.
Did Comey interview her to decide innocence or guilt? Or did he decide innocence before interviewing her? Did she lie to the FBI? Did good ole Bill interfere with the investigation? Comey stated she was guilty just didn't think it could be proved in the courtroom. That was not his job. He was not the judge and jury. Did Comey commit a felony as well? Yeah they are all stand up model politicians. Got it.
She was under investigation until July 5th. By endorsing her he put the weight of the President right on the investigation.
Wait, did Obama influence the decision, or did he already know which way it was going to go? You need to get your corruption straight. You keep changing it.
Ok, but the FBI did investigate Hillary. No crimes, no charges.
I’m not sure why you keep bringing this up.
And WTF is the FBI supposed to investigate Bernie for?
Hey Man U need to stay up with the news. LOL
Sanders, under FBI investigation for bank fraud, hire lawyers
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/bernie...bi-investigation-for-bank-fraud-hire-lawyers/
This discussion about the FBI investigation into the emails has been about how poorly it was handled. That is the discussion.
I feel the answer is both. I was trying to respond to your post that Pres Obama endorsed her after she won the nomination. I wasn’t changing my view.
Obviously further discussion isn’t going to change anything. Everyone has their views. At least, for me, this was one of the more civil discussions I have had on this board. Usually it quickly goes to name calling, etc.
Thanks for that. Merry Christmas!
Well, it doesn’t matter what they find. We all know the FBI and DOJ are corrupt to the core. It’s been made clear we can’t trust them.
I agree with you about the email scandal. It wasn't a nothingburger and it caused me to lose a lot of respect for her. But I voted for her here in Ohio because Trump needed to be beat. You were right when you told me it wasn't going to be close in Ohio but I couldn't take the chance to be the vote that kept Hillary from beating him. I hope we pick a much better and younger Democrat to run in 2020 to keep Trump from continuing. Or Pence if Trump is impeached and I think that could happen if we win the House and Senate next year. I'm hoping.
Legally it was a nothingburger. Lack-of-judgment-wise it was a Whopper. I hope Trump runs again in 2020. Need to chase his ass the hell out of Dodge.
It wasn't a nothingburger legally either. I have a different perspective than most do because I work with classified information from Confidential to Top Secret every day. I know with a capital K that I would have lost my clearance and my job for mishandling classified information in my unclassified email. I know that I'd at least have faced NJP for it and I'm 90 percent certain that I'd probably gone to court-martial. I know that my Air Force career would be over. But I also understand she's not in the military and the rules are different for Hillary than for an ordinary government peeps too. Her lack of judgment was incredible also. Despite that I voted for her. I felt good about it because of Trump and also because I respected her Democratic policies even while not respecting her. I feel let down by her because I was a real Hillary believer in 2008. I've only volunteered to help one politician in my life and it was to help her in the 2008 primaries.
I'm hoping for a Democratic candidate I can respect in 2020. I really liked Bernie but he's way to old for that race so we need a young Democrat that's kind of like him.
I like him but has anyone ever won President from the House of Reps?
So you're saying it's been a long time!
I think we'll do better with a Senator or Governor. Ryan could be a good VP pick.
Gillibrand-Ryan?So you're saying it's been a long time!
I'm not up on all these politicians like some of you are. I heard of her recently because she called for Franken to resign for groping women but had to Google her to see what's she's about. She looks like she would be a strong candidate but she will have that New York Liberal issue to overcome in the Midwest. If Trump is still around and stays as unpopular as he is that might not be an issue. I read she co-sponsored Bernie's single payer healthcare bill so that's a plus for me.
The better statement for Bruce1will be:
"I decided that Hilary Clinton would be guilty because she is the Democratic candidate for the presidency."
See how that sounds better and expresses your desire?
She's not my first choice, but she's the most obvious candidate right now in the sense that she's obviously going to run and is carefully positioning herself.
I hate to say it, but I really don't think 2020 is the year for the Dems to run another woman. I think a Midwestern white guy is the smart play.
Similar threads
