Jingthing Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 The reason this is ALL about politics now and NOTHING about what the "investigation" is about is because Comey's letter BOMB timing means there can't be any more known about what's behind it until AFTER the election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 5 minutes ago, Jingthing said: The reason this is ALL about politics now and NOTHING about what the "investigation" is about is because Comey's letter BOMB timing means there can't be any more known about what's behind it until AFTER the election. Yes, and moreover, I think voters will see through this soon after the initial shock headlines. Comey himself admits neither he, nor any agent has seen the contents, so essentially he is peddling hot air at this point. But, just the mere mention of additional emails has sent this crazy election into a spin cycle to end at the 11th hour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malibukid Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 she thinks she's president already. you can not "demand" anything from the FBI. they will do their job in a bipartisan manner much to the chagrin of Big Bill and Queen Bee Hilary. The director did the right thing by re-opening the investigation despite objections by the Attorney General, Bravo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
performance Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 2 hours ago, ilostmypassword said: You forgot Trump;s fake charitable foundation. The one for which he seems to be the neediest case. Go Trumpy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
performance Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 10 minutes ago, malibukid said: she thinks she's president already. you can not "demand" anything from the FBI. they will do their job in a bipartisan manner much to the chagrin of Big Bill and Queen Bee Hilary. The director did the right thing by re-opening the investigation despite objections by the Attorney General, Bravo The right thing is arrest her and charge her her. She should be in the holding cells. Not talking about ruling a nation. She may fair well in Thailand Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveB2 Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 (edited) 9 hours ago, gk10002000 said: I have a security clearance and have had one for 35 years and work in the defense industry. If anybody had done any little piece of what she had done, they would have been stripped of their security clearance, fired, and most likely prosecuted. The arrogance to even consider using ones own mail server and email address is still to me un fathomable. Not to mention that all government employees are given security briefings, and email accounts. Her motives, while not necessarily criminal in nature, show ridiculous judgement. Her actions certainly were criminal and she should be prosecuted. Sentencing may be light but she should be prosecuted. The same here. As a UK OS Act signatory and embedded USA DoD contractor I also worked with the more sensitive, complex electronic toys necessary to support modern warfare somewhere out in harms way - I have followed this case closely since the implications of HC's extremely clumsy handling of Top Secret information( and even higher classified documents) could directly impact my own safety and that of younger friends still out in the lands of the rising sword. I will hazard a guess that most folks just do not understand how secret the information was that Hilary had on her household server and many other mobile devices, nor how easy it was for hostile actors to hack into (Even a Romanian Taxi driver hacked into her server) For a better understanding, view the short clip below where the deputy head of Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) explains that not even their office had sufficient clearance to see the messages at ORCON secret level and had to be verbally 'Read in' to 'retracted/sanitized' secret documents. Edited October 30, 2016 by SteveB2 spelling, grammar as usual :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaidream Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 Well- if she broke the law indict her. However, she didn't break the law and all the talk of emails is baloney- The FBI director - a Republican no less- did not see fit to recommend indictment. Now, all of a sudden he sends a nebulous letter to Congress which should be confidential stating he may have some new information on emails he has never seen and information that he doesn't have details on. Come on- either you got something or you don't. If you got it produce it- if you don't shut the hell up. Complete incompetence by the Director to match 2 candidates who are incompetent. I am voting for the less incompetent- Hillary but its going to be a long 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LivinLOS Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 Just so funny that now clinton wants all the facts on the table.. Thats after she set up a secret server, denied having classified documents go through it, deleted work emails from it.. Used bleachbit scrubbing software to forensically destroy emails removing chance of evaluation.. And obfuscated, outright lied, and generally used every nuanced careful act of half truth possible to cover it up.. And NOW she wants all the facts on the table.. If she hadnt deleted emails, and actually handed everything over to state as she was legally obligated, there wouldnt be anything to hide !! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicog Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 (edited) 31 minutes ago, SteveB2 said: I will hazard a guess that most folks just do not understand how secret the information was that Hilary had on her household server and many other mobile devices, nor how easy it was for hostile actors to hack into (Even a Romanian Taxi driver hacked into her server) You've been reading Fox News again, haven't you? That's the only reason I can think that anyone would repeat this nonsense. If I told you I hacked into her mail server, would you believe me? Edited October 30, 2016 by Chicog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boomerangutang Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 Republicans, including the AG, seem to suffer from collective OCD (obsessive compulsive disorder). My high school girlfriend was like that. She would get an idea stuck in her brain (usually about me messing around with another girl) and she would verbalize that thought every 5 minutes, for weeks. It wouldn't so much matter (to her) whether the accusation was true, but it mattered that the issue was so important to her. Once, after I had been playing music with my buddies, I came home and found her standing next to a wall with spittle running down from her mouth. She had been knocking her head against a wall for two hours. Republicans, in their OCD attack-dog mode, are going to keep attacking HRC until they die. Even after they leave office, they'll be obsessed with trying to get muck to stick to her. Healthy-minded people would launch a legal attack one time, and then abide by the results of a commission or trial. It's like the one candidate who says (as no other candidate in US history has said) that if his opponent wins, it will be proof that the system is rigged in her favor. Trump is an appropriate leader for Republicans. They reflect his sick mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al007 Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 7 hours ago, Grouse said: The USA is a civilised country; lethal injection surely ? Can she not be burnt at the stake ? ? ? ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
al007 Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 2 hours ago, Thaidream said: Trump doesn't want anyone to believe the 12 women who have come forth because there is no 'evidence'. Why should I believe Hillary is guilty of anything as there is no 'evidence' that has been presented. She DESTROYED 30,000 emails despite being instructed not to, she wiped the drive with sophisticated cleaning software Absolute crass stupidity if she was not guilty, so she is either STUPID or GUILTY So unsuitable to be president on both counts Q E D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thaidream Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 Please explain to me how Donald Trump is qualified to be President? He has no plan; his temperament is hostile; he denigrates everyone he considers unworthy of his presence and he has no experience. Do you really want this person in charge of your destiny. I could care less about deleted emails- at least she has qualifications and won't destroy America with the remainder of the World. I would rather have a qualified person with a private email server than an incompetent, narcissistic meglomaniac that thinks only of himself. If it was possible- I would disqualify both of them and get 2 new candidates to run. In fact, let's do that and delay the election 6 months. How about it? How about Bernie Sanders for the Dems and Paul Ryan for the Repubs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHolmesJr Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 9 hours ago, boomerangutang said: Have you heard of presumption of innocence (until proven guilty)? I only heard it now.....it didnt seem to be around when scores of women were paraded around, accusing mr trump of all sorts of stuff...with zero evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHolmesJr Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 4 hours ago, Briggsy said: Hopefully the Dems will have held something else back in the bag to swing the pendulum back in their favour again. They did the "woefully unfit". They did the non-payment of taxes. They did the misogyny and groping. Did they keep any ammo back? Donalds hairpiece was made by a russian company that installed microscopic mind control sensors in it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dagnabbit Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 Donalds hairpiece was made by a russian company that installed microscopic mind control sensors in it. They are obviously misfiring!Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JHolmesJr Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 2 minutes ago, Dagnabbit said: They are obviously misfiring! Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk They only kick in after his inauguration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elgordo38 Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 Happy Halloween one and all. Vote early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gk10002000 Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 6 hours ago, Thaidream said: Please explain to me how Donald Trump is qualified to be President? He has no plan; his temperament is hostile; he denigrates everyone he considers unworthy of his presence and he has no experience. Do you really want this person in charge of your destiny. I could care less about deleted emails- at least she has qualifications and won't destroy America with the remainder of the World. I would rather have a qualified person with a private email server than an incompetent, narcissistic meglomaniac that thinks only of himself. If it was possible- I would disqualify both of them and get 2 new candidates to run. In fact, let's do that and delay the election 6 months. How about it? How about Bernie Sanders for the Dems and Paul Ryan for the Repubs. Unfortunately, there are very few qualifications to be President. Heck, the way the electoral voting system works, it technically isn't even a popularity contest because the popular vote doesn't necessarily determine the winner. Qualifications for the Office of President Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 Term limit amendment - US Constitution, Amendment XXII, Section 1 - ratified February 27, 1951 No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gk10002000 Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, 14 hours ago, WaywardWind said: I have read and researched Section 798 many times over the course of my career, so I am well-versed in application of its provisions. For the third time, which actions of Hillary Clinton violated one or more of those provisions, or any other federal criminal statutes, in order to justify a criminal prosecution, as you state? You may ask, but it is pointless to answer since you are simply being argumentative and clearly not reading nor understanding the very first paragraph. JL Crab provided the answer but I will also. (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person In addition, I am sure she should be prosecuted for obstructing justice, hindering the investigation, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dunroaming Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 Certainly makes it closer than the landslide it was heading towards. Still time for more fireworks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JLCrab Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 To me, the words 'knowingly and willfully' suggest intent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaywardWind Posted October 30, 2016 Share Posted October 30, 2016 2 hours ago, gk10002000 said: (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, You may ask, but it is pointless to answer since you are simply being argumentative and clearly not reading nor understanding the very first paragraph. JL Crab provided the answer but I will also. (a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person In addition, I am sure she should be prosecuted for obstructing justice, hindering the investigation, etc. You quote a section of the statute, yet continue to be unwilling to point to actions by Clinton which violated that or any other provision of the law. In short, you have nothing to offer, like many others posting here, despite your initial claim to have familiarity with the security clearance parameters in the US. Just another poser quoting FOX News sound bites.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gk10002000 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 (edited) 2 hours ago, WaywardWind said: You quote a section of the statute, yet continue to be unwilling to point to actions by Clinton which violated that or any other provision of the law. In short, you have nothing to offer, like many others posting here, despite your initial claim to have familiarity with the security clearance parameters in the US. Just another poser quoting FOX News sound bites.... why are you such an obtuse person? I did quote the statute directly, para (a) the lead off paragraph that she violated, admits she violated, that other people that were unauthorized to see the information have admitted to seeing it, and by definition of the server being where it was several unauthorized personnel got access to. I guess you are just one of those people that have some need to go off on tangents. so be it. Oh and I don't watch nor quote Fox. and I assume from you acidity that you don't think Clinton did anything wrong, violated no policies or laws? That in itself is a joke. The very fact of having the email server violates governmental policies, and violation of those policies can be grounds for disciplinary action. I assure you, government employees are NOT authorized to have private email servers, capture and store government emails, etc. How hundreds of people did not notice or report her email domain that unless being spoofed had to be different from the standard .gov domains used is another story and I would love to hear the details on that one Edited October 31, 2016 by gk10002000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WaywardWind Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 56 minutes ago, gk10002000 said: why are you such an obtuse person? I did quote the statute directly, para (a) the lead off paragraph that she violated, admits she violated, that other people that were unauthorized to see the information have admitted to seeing it, and by definition of the server being where it was several unauthorized personnel got access to. I guess you are just one of those people that have some need to go off on tangents. so be it. Oh and I don't watch nor quote Fox. and I assume from you acidity that you don't think Clinton did anything wrong, violated no policies or laws? That in itself is a joke. The very fact of having the email server violates governmental policies, and violation of those policies can be grounds for disciplinary action. I assure you, government employees are NOT authorized to have private email servers, capture and store government emails, etc. How hundreds of people did not notice or report her email domain that unless being spoofed had to be different from the standard .gov domains used is another story and I would love to hear the details on that one You continue to spout these talking points, conflating policies and laws, yet seem to be unable provide any evidence of the statements you make. 1. When did she admit violating any provision of 18 USC 798? 2. Which unauthorized individuals admitted seeing information which was classified at the time it was viewed? 3. Violating a government policy may well be grounds for disciplinary action, but there is a vast difference between that and committing a crime, which you unequivocally stated. You said she committed a crime, and have offered not a shred of verifiable evidence for that assertion. 4. Provide authority for the assertion that"... government employees are NOT authorized to have private email servers, capture and store government emails, etc." I don't think you will be able to answer these questions with links to reliable sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khon Kaen Dave Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 I dont pretend to be politically minded.Its all the same to me.No matter who gets in,the people will be moaning about them in time.But i read a very interesting thing some time ago,and i read it on Google.That a very high percentage of the,then,senate had criminal records.Among them being the tax thing,dealings with prostitutes and street hookers.Also driving offences by the bucket load. I am not sure whether its still available,but i had to read it.I even think it was published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveB2 Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 20 hours ago, Chicog said: You've been reading Fox News again, haven't you? That's the only reason I can think that anyone would repeat this nonsense. If I told you I hacked into her mail server, would you believe me? Careful chap I'll leave it to Reuters(see link below) to fill in the holes about the Romanian Hackers exploits - there are more, very reputable sources out their without referring to the Fox News comedy show. I tend to shy away from the usual alphabet soup US news networks who together with the BBC and ABC all have their own comically obvious, political slant. It should be noted that such a gifted hacker was old 'Guccifer' (convicted in this exploit) that the US government had him extradited to take down his email server hacking activities. I bet he spent a few hours 'having his face washed under towel' so as to get to the bottom of the story. I will suggest that if hostile actors of this low level, knew of and had the ability to successfully hack into HC's basement server and mobile devices provably holding the USA's highest classified ORCON secrets, then consider what resources a hostile government might throw at this tempting cache to exploit it. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-cyber-guccifer-idUSKCN0WY5MK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abrahamzvi Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 On 10/30/2016 at 1:56 PM, Steely Dan said: Look, Clinton is toast. For Comey to act as he did means one of two things. Either there is something really serious which will sink HRC, or her party and behind the scenes backers think she bring the system down with scandal if she were ever elected. Even the legacy media are tearing her a new one, all she has left are the diehard rags such as Vox, Slate and Being liberal. Not forgetting some of our esteemed members who will go down with the ship rather than face facts. Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect Which facts?? The FBI is saying the now discovered mails may be "pertinent" to their investigation of HRC. Only yesterday, 2 days after the letter to Congress, did the FBI obtain a warrant allowing them to even look at the said mails. Can anybody say that the said letter isn't politically motivated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keemapoot Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 1 minute ago, abrahamzvi said: Which facts?? The FBI is saying the now discovered mails may be "pertinent" to their investigation of HRC. Only yesterday, 2 days after the letter to Congress, did the FBI obtain a warrant allowing them to even look at the said mails. Can anybody say that the said letter isn't politically motivated? The FBI is really in a real serious pickle here. It relates to the legal requirement that there be an unbroken chain of custody of items of evidence to be used in a criminal trial. One break in the chain and the chain is busted...inadmissible. Nada. So, unless the FBI has perfectly preserved any possible evidence, and crossed all the Ts and dotted every i, there will be legal challenges to the integrity of any proffered evidence. Not having a warrant to view the emails will be such a break in the chain, and even if they are damning emails, will be of no avail to be used in bringing charges against Clinton. Comey, as a lawyer, knows this, and for that reason, we can assume that either somebody peeked at the emails and whispered in Comey's ear they are damning, and if that someone is at FBI, it is the fruit of the poison tree. No dice. So, Comey has to either pretend nobody at FBI has seen them until they got the warrant, which already smacks untrue, or any disclosures will be shown to be de minimus, which means he acted purely in a political act of anarchy. He is screwed both ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gk10002000 Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 On 10/30/2016 at 6:40 PM, WaywardWind said: You continue to spout these talking points, conflating policies and laws, yet seem to be unable provide any evidence of the statements you make. 1. When did she admit violating any provision of 18 USC 798? 2. Which unauthorized individuals admitted seeing information which was classified at the time it was viewed? 3. Violating a government policy may well be grounds for disciplinary action, but there is a vast difference between that and committing a crime, which you unequivocally stated. You said she committed a crime, and have offered not a shred of verifiable evidence for that assertion. 4. Provide authority for the assertion that"... government employees are NOT authorized to have private email servers, capture and store government emails, etc." I don't think you will be able to answer these questions with links to reliable sources. There are no answers you would accept so it would be pointless. She admitted de facto by the very fact she had the email server at her house and people under her employ that maintained the server had access it to. I already said that in a previous post but of course you are simply trying to be argumentative and acting quite silly and will ignore everything . Now you think to assert your point 4 that government employees can use private email servers? Now you are showing how inane you are to even assert that that may be so. Run along and get back to your paper route. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now