FBI reopens probe into Hillary Clinton's emails

[Publicus]

36 minutes ago, Linzz said:

 

You are right that Trump often doesn't help himself but the Press loved him in the Primaries because he was outrageous and a celebrity but nobody expected him to get as far as he has. Once he became a serious contender the liberal Press (journalists are mostly liberals) freaked out. It's pretty obvious that collectively they are behind Hillary if you look at the donations to her campaign from the media, 96%, compared to Trump who received only a tiny fraction, 4%. 

This makes the media not journalists but advocates.

 

https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/10/17/20330/journalists-shower-hillary-clinton-campaign-cash

 

MSM in the 1950s were nothing more than stenographers of Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-WI) as he shred the Constitution and destroyed the lives of Americans.

 

This worse than Joe McCarthy guy Trump isn't getting the same conveyor belt free ride, nor should he. 

 

Marc Ambinder: “Here’s a tried-and-true creed, straight from Journalism 101: Journalists should never take sides. But how do you not take sides when one of those sides is so clearly wrong?”

 

“Another: Journalists should not characterize political candidates as liars. But what happens when political candidates base their entire campaigns on very persuasive lies?”

 

“Science journalists no longer cover anthropogenic climate change as an issue that’s subject to dispute. (What to do about it surely is; the fact of it is not.)

 

In the period of U.S. History and of the organic ontology of journalism in the USA, there was the pre-bellum Period of the Partisan Press. We've re-entered that period but in the Age of IT. Which means the partisan media are much more diverse and pervasive.

 

Learn it, live with it. Youse guyz on the reactionary right love the bad old dayze so much there shouldn't be anything in the current times for you to complain about. Except that the current times are, well, the current times. That is, now the MSM are not owned exclusively by white wealthy old Republican Protestant men. That's your fundamental gripe and nothing else. 

Edited November 1, 2016 by Publicus
Typo and external interference.

[JHolmesJr]

3 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

MSM in the 1950s were nothing more than stenographers of Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-WI) as he shred the Constitution and destroyed the lives of Americans.

 

This worse than Joe McCarthy guy Trump isn't getting the same conveyor belt free ride, not should he. 

 

Marc Ambinder: “Here’s a tried-and-true creed, straight from Journalism 101: Journalists should never take sides. But how do you not take sides when one of those sides is so clearly wrong?”

 

“Another: Journalists should not characterize political candidates as liars. But what happens when political candidates base their entire campaigns on very persuasive lies?”

 

“Science journalists no longer cover anthropogenic climate change as an issue that’s subject to dispute. (What to do about it surely is; the fact of it is not.)

 

In the period of U.S. History and of the organic ontology of journalism in the USA, there was the pre-bellum Period of the Partisan Press. We've re-entered that period but in the Age of IT. Which means the partisan media are much more diverse and pervasive.

 

Learn it, live with it. Youse guyz on the reactionary right love the bad old dayze so much there shouldn't be anything in the current times for you to complain about. Except that the current times are, well, the current times. That is, now the MSM are not owned exclusively by white wealthy old Republican Protestant men. That's your fundamental gripe and nothing else. 

 

you must hate twitter.

[Linzz]

5 hours ago, Prbkk said:

 

CNN is the only one available to most people and I have to say it's a sick joke ( FAR worse than Fox, Hannity excluded). They can't be trusted. Not only on this issue but others, eg the story still on the website, headlined " Australian PM wants to ban migrants". ....an outrageous lie: it is a proposal to ban people who try to arrive illegally in Australia by boat but CNN offers no qualification and makes it into something it's not.

CNN poses as an honest broker but is anything but; at least with FOX you know the slant before you switch it on.

 

CNN is trying to look responsible by firing Brazile. They don't argue with Wikileaks.

http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tv/news/hillary-clinton-donna-brazile-cnn-political-commentator-spring-debate-question-wikileaks-john-a7389886.html

[Linzz]

5 hours ago, Publicus said:

HRC, her new AG and FBI director are going to turn on the lights, identify the culprits and the perps, sort things out, necessarily to sweep the place clear.

 

5 hours ago, Publicus said:

Manafort for instance has a long established money trail that is connected to, if not directly from, the Kremlin.

 

Lol. Uranium can make bombs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/24/us/cash-flowed-to-clinton-foundation-as-russians-pressed-for-control-of-uranium-company.html

[Linzz]

5 hours ago, Khun Han said:

It's patently obvious to an outsider looking in, such as myself, that FBI Director Comey acted out of partisanship in sending the new 'emails' letter last week (helps the Reps), whilst opposing the release of information about Russian hacking (helped the Dems) nearly a month ago on the basis that it could influence the upcoming election. There is no other credible interpretation of Comey's behavaiour, though there will be endless prevarication by Rep supporters to explain and justify it.

 

Not according to Obama

https://regated.com/2016/10/obama-supports-director-comey/

[Ulysses G.]

3 hours ago, Morch said:

 

Alleging the media is solely responsible for Republican presidential campaign failures during the last 8 years (and preemptively making similar claims with regard to the current campaigns) is quite out there. 

 

Noone alleged that the media is "solely" responsible besides YOU. Red Herring much?

 

This is Trump from 2014 and it as anti-media as it gets. Quit making things up.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/05/donald-trump-media-106338

 

[Linzz]

23 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

MSM in the 1950s were nothing more than stenographers of Sen. Joe McCarthy (R-WI) as he shred the Constitution and destroyed the lives of Americans.

 

This worse than Joe McCarthy guy Trump isn't getting the same conveyor belt free ride, nor should he. 

 

Marc Ambinder: “Here’s a tried-and-true creed, straight from Journalism 101: Journalists should never take sides. But how do you not take sides when one of those sides is so clearly wrong?”

 

“Another: Journalists should not characterize political candidates as liars. But what happens when political candidates base their entire campaigns on very persuasive lies?”

 

“Science journalists no longer cover anthropogenic climate change as an issue that’s subject to dispute. (What to do about it surely is; the fact of it is not.)

 

In the period of U.S. History and of the organic ontology of journalism in the USA, there was the pre-bellum Period of the Partisan Press. We've re-entered that period but in the Age of IT. Which means the partisan media are much more diverse and pervasive.

 

Learn it, live with it. Youse guyz on the reactionary right love the bad old dayze so much there shouldn't be anything in the current times for you to complain about. Except that the current times are, well, the current times. That is, now the MSM are not owned exclusively by white wealthy old Republican Protestant men. That's your fundamental gripe and nothing else. 

 

The difference is that Fox does not hide the fact that most of their presenters are advocates of the Right. Most of the rest of the MSM pretend they are independent and above the fray while in reality are advocates of the left. I prefer a bit of honesty.

[Linzz]

4 hours ago, keemapoot said:

 

I can see it's going to be useless to try to explain these legal concepts on this forum.

 

As you were.

 

So now you have revealed that you are a smart lawyer you're going to use that platform to talk down to everyone on TVF except Publicus? You're getting off topic. Counsellor.

[Linzz]

4 hours ago, Khun Han said:

 

So, what makes you believe that Director Comey releasing the letter about new emails is not influencing the elecion?

 

Comey is a cop not a politician. It's not in his brief to influence or not influence elections. So much hot air about Comey. Clinton is entirely responsible for the situation.

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Talk about disingenuous….he had valid legal grounds to access wiener's laptop…he found a huge pile of what looked like incriminating evidence connected to another case of national importance….so he informed congress, hey we've found something that could be significant….then he got permission to dig deeper into the emails…..textbook compliance.

 

I cant believe you're a lawyer…..where did you go to school…I'd make a better lawyer than you.

 

When did Congress start issuing warrants? Stick to the day job if I wer you.

[Linzz]

4 hours ago, keemapoot said:

 

You and your Trump-level pals cannot grasp the most basic concepts of criminal law here, that you could easily just wiki, and that is the problem. Normally I would never bring it up, but really, the most simplistic stuff you just can't get. Lucky I am gladly wasting time today, because that's what this response is, a total waste of time. 

 

 

 

Snobby reply

[Khun Han]

4 minutes ago, Linzz said:

 

Comey is a cop not a politician. It's not in his brief to influence or not influence elections. So much hot air about Comey. Clinton is entirely responsible for the situation.

 

Comey argued against disclosure of information on Russian hacking solely on the basis that it could influence the upcoming election (it would be detrimental to Trump's campaign). Comey decided to release information on as-yet not analysed emails received from Clinton's private server solely on the basis of honest disclosure, knowing that it could influence the upcoming election (it would be helpful to Trump's campaign).

 

See what Comey did? He moved his 'principles' 180 degrees from the first case to the second. And in both cases, his 'principles' favoured Trump's campaign.

[Ulysses G.]

8 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Comey argued against disclosure of information on Russian hacking solely on the basis that it could influence the upcoming election (it would be detrimental to Trump's campaign).

 

Please provide a link to a CREDIBLE source. This sounds like baseless speculation from an anonymous informant. Comey is much more likely to be worried about damaging any investigation of these accusations.

[Linzz]

13 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

Comey argued against disclosure of information on Russian hacking solely on the basis that it could influence the upcoming election (it would be detrimental to Trump's campaign). Comey decided to release information on as-yet not analysed emails received from Clinton's private server solely on the basis of honest disclosure, knowing that it could influence the upcoming election (it would be helpful to Trump's campaign).

 

See what Comey did? He moved his 'principles' 180 degrees from the first case to the second. And in both cases, his 'principles' favoured Trump's campaign.

 

Fair enough. He got himself in the sh-t then making the recommendation not to indict Hillary in the first place, then seizing the opportunity to have a second bite at the apple being under pressure by huge discontent within the FBI. Maybe he also wanted to get ahead of Wikileaks

[Ulysses G.]

27 minutes ago, Khun Han said:

 

See what Comey did? He moved his 'principles' 180 degrees from the first case to the second. And in both cases, his 'principles' favoured Trump's campaign.

 

How did refusing to prosecute Hillary "favor" Trump's campaign? 

[Gary A]

It looks simple to me. You have a suspected murderer who wasn't charged and now there appears to be more evidence to prove that he is actually guilty. Would you think they would not consider that new evidence? The fact is that they have no choice.

[JHolmesJr]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

When did Congress start issuing warrants? Stick to the day job if I wer you.

 

Whoever said that?

[dcutman]

 

The big question here, do the citizen's of the United States want to hire somebody that has violated every one of the concerns on the following list while representing the US as Secretary Of State?

Or a maybe better question. Any body trying to gain Govt employment or military service that required a security clearance would be disqualified, why does this not apply to the presidency?

Eligibility Guidelines for Gaining Security Clearance

http://www.military.com/veteran-jobs/security-clearance-jobs/security-clearance-eligibility.html

The Concern:

• Having close ties with individuals who are not citizens of the United States could create the potential for foreign influence that could result in the compromise of classified information.
• Contacts with citizens of other countries or financial interests in other countries could also create vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or pressure.

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

• Sharing living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of their citizenship status, if the potential for adverse foreign influence exists;
• Relatives, cohabitants, or associates who are connected with any foreign government;
• Failing to report, where required, associations with foreign nationals
• Conduct which may make the individual vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or pressure by a foreign government;
• Indications that representatives or nationals from a foreign country are acting to increase the vulnerability of the individual to possible future exploitation, coercion or pressure;
• A substantial financial interest in a country, or in any foreign owned or operated business that could make the individual vulnerable to foreign influence.

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

• Reliable, unfavorable information provided by associates, employers, coworkers, neighbors, and other acquaintances;
• The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from investigations to determine security clearance eligibility;
• Personal conduct or concealment of information that may increase a persons susceptibility to blackmail;
• A pattern of dishonesty or rule violations, including violation of any written or recorded agreement made between the individual and the agency.
• Association with persons involved in criminal activity.

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

• Allegations or admissions of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged;
• A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses.

• Unauthorized disclosure of classified information;
• Violations that are deliberate or multiple or due to negligence.

• Illegal or unauthorized entry into any information technology system;
• Illegal or unauthorized modification, destruction, manipulation, or denial of access to information residing on an information technology system;
• Removal (or use) of hardware, software or media from any information technology system without authorization, when specifically prohibited by rules, procedures, guidelines or regulations;
• Introduction of hardware, software or media into any information technology system without authorization, when specifically prohibited by rules, procedures, guidelines or regulations;

Edited November 1, 2016 by dcutman

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

Talk about disingenuous….he had valid legal grounds to access wiener's laptop…he found a huge pile of what looked like incriminating evidence connected to another case of national importance….so he informed congress, hey we've found something that could be significant….then he got permission to dig deeper into the emails…..textbook compliance.

 

I cant believe you're a lawyer…..where did you go to school…I'd make a better lawyer than you.

 

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

When did Congress start issuing warrants?

24 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

Whoever said that?

"so he informed congress, hey we've found something that could be significant….then he got permission to dig deeper into the emails"

 

And the odd thing is, Comey was against making the Russian hacks investigation public because it would affect the election campaigh (Trump's election campaign was the only one to suffer from this information going public).

[Khun Han]

1 hour ago, Gary A said:

It looks simple to me. You have a suspected murderer who wasn't charged and now there appears to be more evidence to prove that he is actually guilty. Would you think they would not consider that new evidence? The fact is that they have no choice.

 

The choice was about whether or not they went public with it.

[SheungWan]

1 hour ago, Gary A said:

It looks simple to me. You have a suspected murderer who wasn't charged and now there appears to be more evidence to prove that he is actually guilty. Would you think they would not consider that new evidence? The fact is that they have no choice.

 

Murder? What? Or is this a version of Miss Scarlet, In The Study, With The Lead Piping.

[Publicus]

2 hours ago, JHolmesJr said:

 

you must hate twitter.

 

You yourself make an objectionable characterisation. A reckless, irresponsible and a wild one. 

 

I don't use Twitter but I do access it sometimes. Your statement is an OTT assertion that is presumptuous, declaratory, arbitrary and a summary accusation made out of your own (alleged) mind. 

 

And it is trolling.

[Publicus]

1 hour ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

Please provide a link to a CREDIBLE source. This sounds like baseless speculation from an anonymous informant. Comey is much more likely to be worried about damaging any investigation of these accusations.

 

This source in the matter you requested of another poster is but one of a hundred sources over the course of 2016 and prior to this year....

 

“FBI Director James Comey argued privately that it was too close to Election Day for the United States government to name Russia as meddling in the U.S. election and ultimately ensured that the FBI’s name was not on the document that the U.S. government put out,” a former FBI official tells CNBC.

 

“The official said some government insiders are perplexed as to why Comey would have election timing concerns with the Russian disclosure but not with the Huma Abedin email discovery disclosure he made Friday.”

 

You're invited to get back to me if you have any questions about my providing of the source. Anything in the report, you'd need to contact CNBC. 

[Publicus]

44 minutes ago, dcutman said:

 

The big question here, do the citizen's of the United States want to hire somebody that has violated every one of the concerns on the following list while representing the US as Secretary Of State?

Or a maybe better question. Any body trying to gain Govt employment or military service that required a security clearance would be disqualified, why does this not apply to the presidency?

Eligibility Guidelines for Gaining Security Clearance

http://www.military.com/veteran-jobs/security-clearance-jobs/security-clearance-eligibility.html

The Concern:

• Having close ties with individuals who are not citizens of the United States could create the potential for foreign influence that could result in the compromise of classified information.
• Contacts with citizens of other countries or financial interests in other countries could also create vulnerability to coercion, exploitation, or pressure.

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

• Sharing living quarters with a person or persons, regardless of their citizenship status, if the potential for adverse foreign influence exists;
• Relatives, cohabitants, or associates who are connected with any foreign government;
• Failing to report, where required, associations with foreign nationals
• Conduct which may make the individual vulnerable to coercion, exploitation, or pressure by a foreign government;
• Indications that representatives or nationals from a foreign country are acting to increase the vulnerability of the individual to possible future exploitation, coercion or pressure;
• A substantial financial interest in a country, or in any foreign owned or operated business that could make the individual vulnerable to foreign influence.

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

• Reliable, unfavorable information provided by associates, employers, coworkers, neighbors, and other acquaintances;
• The deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant and material facts from investigations to determine security clearance eligibility;
• Personal conduct or concealment of information that may increase a persons susceptibility to blackmail;
• A pattern of dishonesty or rule violations, including violation of any written or recorded agreement made between the individual and the agency.
• Association with persons involved in criminal activity.

Conditions that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include:

• Allegations or admissions of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the person was formally charged;
• A single serious crime or multiple lesser offenses.

• Unauthorized disclosure of classified information;
• Violations that are deliberate or multiple or due to negligence.

• Illegal or unauthorized entry into any information technology system;
• Illegal or unauthorized modification, destruction, manipulation, or denial of access to information residing on an information technology system;
• Removal (or use) of hardware, software or media from any information technology system without authorization, when specifically prohibited by rules, procedures, guidelines or regulations;
• Introduction of hardware, software or media into any information technology system without authorization, when specifically prohibited by rules, procedures, guidelines or regulations;

 

You're reading the Riot Act when there isn't any riot.

 

Producing laws in anything can impress the impressionable however regardless of whether they apply or whether the law needs to be applied.

 

It's an old cheap trick that fails every time. You got nothing real, then read the riot act so people will think there's a riot somewhere when there isn't one.

[Publicus]

3 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

 

Now if a Trump supporter cited that little ditty, they would be accused of inciting violence, yet you come on here being so full of yourself that anyone who has a differing opinion needs to be (hammered) whacked between the eyes with a lump of timber.  Good one Mo, showing your true self I see, just like the rest of the leftist thugs. 

 

No one on the extreme far right is going to change, but rhetoric exists nonetheless to be used, often in contrast to the literal....

 

Rhetoric is the study and practice of communication that persuades, informs, inspires, or entertains target audiences in order to change or reinforce beliefs, values, habits or actions.

 

https://edurhetor.wordpress.com/about/rhetoric/

 

 

If reading makes anyone fearful, I'd offer some intervention assistance....

 

http://www.readwritethink.org/classroom-resources/lesson-plans/building-reading-comprehension-through-139.html

 

Hang in there.

Edited November 1, 2016 by Publicus
Better reading link

[Ulysses G.]

5 minutes ago, Publicus said:

 

This source in the matter you requested of another poster is but one of a hundred sources over the course of 2016 and prior to this year....

 

 

 

 

I said CREDIBLE - not an anonymous source.

 

Another anonymous source that directly contradicts yours:

 

A former senior law enforcement official with detailed knowledge of the matter said on condition of anonymity that Comey argued that disclosing that operatives based in Russia were behind the widespread hacking not only might interfere with the U.S. election but also could violate Justice Department guidelines.

A senior FBI official, however, disputed that account, telling NBC News that Comey did raise concerns about publicly naming Russia but that those concerns were based on the potential impact on any related investigation, not the U.S. elections.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-director-comey-opposed-naming-russia-hacking-probe-officials-n675951

 

[Publicus]

2 minutes ago, Ulysses G. said:

 

 

I said CREDIBLE - not an anonymous source.

 

Another anonymous source that directly contradicts yours:

 

A former senior law enforcement official with detailed knowledge of the matter said on condition of anonymity that Comey argued that disclosing that operatives based in Russia were behind the widespread hacking not only might interfere with the U.S. election but also could violate Justice Department guidelines.

A senior FBI official, however, disputed that account, telling NBC News that Comey did raise concerns about publicly naming Russia but that those concerns were based on the potential impact on any related investigation, not the U.S. elections.

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/fbi-director-comey-opposed-naming-russia-hacking-probe-officials-n675951

 

 

Comey violated the DoJ 60-day before an election guidline, practice and effectively its policy, since the death of the criminal Director J. Edgar Hoover.

[dcutman]

1 hour ago, Publicus said:

 

You're reading the Riot Act when there isn't any riot.

 

Producing laws in anything can impress the impressionable however regardless of whether they apply or whether the law needs to be applied.

 

It's an old cheap trick that fails every time. You got nothing real, then read the riot act so people will think there's a riot somewhere when there isn't one.

Instead of your usual attacks and defensive deflections.

Can you tell me why most Govt employees, defence contract employees, and military personnel would  face possible disqualification from gaining a security clearance and or employment by violating any of the above concerns and a presidential candidate should not have to meet the same  high ethical and character standard as any other person.

 And if you could, please read down the list from the above and tell me which one does not apply to your preferred presidential candidate. I would be happy to retract any item you identify to be false or an inaccurate description.

 

 

Edited November 1, 2016 by dcutman

[JHolmesJr]

1 hour ago, Khun Han said:

 

 

 

"so he informed congress, hey we've found something that could be significant….then he got permission to dig deeper into the emails"

 

 

Well, did i say that he asked congress for permission? I said he got permission....too bad you read into it what you wanted to. 

[Khun Han]

4 minutes ago, JHolmesJr said:

Well, did i say that he asked congress for permission? I said he got permission....too bad you read into it what you wanted to. 

 

So, why did congress need to be involved at this stage, in view of the 60 day rule that was cited by him for the Russian email hack case?