Obama says Hillary Clinton’s emails never jeopardized America’s national security

originally posted by: CynConcepts
I must admit, he sounds like he would pardon Clinton with his executive pen if this goes through before he leaves office! I am starting to wonder if the FBI are being slow in bringing forth an indictment due to suspecting the same.

Can a sitting president pardon herself? I don't think so. Correct me if I am wrong?

If that is indeed what the FBI wants to prevent by going slow, FBI.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

I doubt it.
There are reports that the FBI is being very careful because they are determined that Hillary be indicted.
I'm not sure how true, but there were various reports that Comey and other FBI top investigators threatened to walk out if she is not charged, because others have been convicted for much less.
Which would show how much outrage they have over their findings.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UnBreakable

Lol. Come to think of it lying probably wouldn't embarrass you.

Carry on LOL

"How to Tell When a Liberal Concedes an Argument"

4. The Personal Attack: Another common thread. Also designed to divert the lost argument. NEVER give any hint of personal information. Even something as innocuous as “I am a chef”. They will attempt to engage you andcall you a liar...

www.varight.com...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So quote that from the FBI ... Easy work for someone who doesn't buy into bs partisan rhetoric.

Been done time and again, yet Shillary's campaign folks cant
seem to hear it ( aka calculated denial )

a reply to: UnBreakable

So, since you want to take the stupid attempt at a joke to the extreme ... here's what I said in full:

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: Gryphon66

NO the right wingers lie BETTER because THEY can perform coverups QUITE WELL.
LEFT idiots apparently can't cover up a damn thing.
WHY else do you think we didn't KNOW about their s##t until the Internet?
DUH.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Got it. Right wingers are good liars. Left wingers are all idiots.

Impeccable insight as usual, Cavtrooper!

So, in an attempt to ... what, be funny, you edited out 70% of what I said as well as the context I said it in.

What an accomplishment. Good show!

#rightwingretchprovokingmoments

PS ... I know you right-wingers believe that taking a part of what someone says, and using it as you wish out of context, is telling the truth.

But then, again according to Cavtrooper not me ... you guys are pretty much known as blatant liars, right?

Like I said ... "impeccable"

a reply to: burntheships

Exactly what I reported earlier:

At 0:30 Director Comey makes the statement:

"The FBI is working on a referral given by Inspectors General in connection with former Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server."

Aside from that to his credit, Director Comey refuses to buy into the baiting of the Congressional panel DESPERATELY trying to get him to say something that can be used as a soundbyte against Hillary Clinton.

The Director could have said "We are investigating Secretary Clinton ..." if that's what he meant.

He didn't, because that is specifically NOT WHAT HE MEANT, he was being very careful to express himself clearly and truthfully.

Thanks for proving my points, BTS!

a reply to: Gryphon66

There was quite a lot more said by the Director...

Enjoy your earplugs and deep lot of sand in which to stick your head
into or your campaign contributions, whichever it is.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Gryphon66

Enjoy your lot of sand, or your campaign
contributions, whichever it is.

What? Let's talk about the quote from the video you posted ... c'mon.

Let's look at what DIrector Comey said ... here, i'll post it again:

"The FBI is working on a referral given by Inspectors General in connection with former Secretary Clinton's use of a private email server."

Don't just make some sideways irrelevant remark and duck the question YOU raised ...

Wouldn't the Director of the FBI, testifying before Congress under oath simply have said ...

The FBI is investigating Secretary Clinton or

The FBI is investigating the actions of Secretary Clinton or

The FBI is investigating the possible criminal activity of Secretary Clinton ...

IF that was what he meant?

DId he say that?

Nope.

Did he mean that?

Nope.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Gryphon66

There was quite a lot more said by the Director...

There sure was. He had to repeat himself several times instructing the Congressman that he wasn't going to provide soundbytes on an on-going investigation.

Or ... why not transcribe what you are trying to claim I missed?

You do stand behind the evidence you presented, don't you?

Lets take a close look at what Obama says about this situation when he stated: Obama says Hillary Clinton’s emails never jeopardized America’s national security.

Now here's the thing. You, me, and everyone else in America CAN NEVER apply the laws to a crime like this. If we could, then when someone robs a bank with a gun, but never shoots anyone, they can use the Obama style defense:

The bank robbers use of a gun when he robbed the bank never jeopardized anyone's life since the gun was never fired.

So this bank robber's crime should have "crime committed with a gun" part stricken from the list of charges. (According to the Obama excuse.) But he is ALWAYS suggesting an excuse for everything he does, not a surprise.

And the laws that clearly state how classified information can be used, and all the does and do not's, DON'T SAY: "You can do anything you want with classified materials as long as it doesn't Jeopardize national security!"

There is nothing in the books that allows this pathetic and brainless excuse Obama gives to be acceptable, only because of the (dubious) claim that it didn't harm national security.

Another example: Hey! Private Jones! did you take that disk home with you with SAP data on it??? "Sure did Sarge!, but it didn't jeopardize national security".

Sarge: "Okay Jones, no problem, carry on!"

Bottom line: Obama's statement has zero value except to his crime condoning audience as a legitimate defense of Clinton's criminally inspired, and for profit only use of that server.

That's like saying I forced myself on this girl, but she didn't get pregnant and was too beat up to call the cops so no one arrested me, so everything is fine.

She broke the law.

It hasn't been established whether there has been damage to national security yet. The investigation has not been completed.

a reply to: tkwasny

It hasn't been established whether there has been damage to national security yet. The investigation has not been completed.

Exactly. There also has not been a trial.

Why are people treating her as if she is already guilty?

a reply to: xuenchen

He is a bold faced liar. She is a treasonous, money hungary beech.

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: Gryphon66

The more Hillary and Obama says and the louder they yell convinces me the guilt is there.

The end will justify the means.

INDEED.

Actually, I cannot recall [with my flawed memory] . . .

ANY prior example

--in 'real' life . . . [as though what we are observing qualifies as REAL] . . .

OR

even in fictional literature

wherein all the first tier and virtually all the 2nd tier Presidential "hopefuls"

have been soooooooo BRAZENLY duplicitous, criminal, corrupt, in the service of demonic values and forces; arrogant beyond measure; mean-spirited; heartless; stupid; brazenly manipulative; . . .

And the gritchy one has such a long trail of arrogant pathologically lying videos in her own scratchy horrid voice . . . it's shocking that anything more than a rabid lobotomized dog would give her more than a microsecond of a listen.

. . . wellll . . . that's maybe slightly over stated a micro-gram's worth . . . but still shockingly true. LOL.

originally posted by: NewzNose
a reply to: xuenchen

He is a bold faced liar. She is a treasonous, money hungary beech.

I do think that she could have trillions and still would want more. Obviously daddy didn't love her sufficiently well nor enough the first years of her life.

That has left her brazenly scrabbling, scratching, grasping, screeching to fill her inner gaping bottomless pit of a hole in her inner person with wealth . . .

AND PARTICULARLY with POWER!

Ask those who used to work close to her about her control-freak power-mongering--usually with the foulest mouthed utterances they'd ever heard . . . as well as the meanest, most raw manifestations of evil they'd ever seen in their entire lives.

BTW, in terms of the "beech" . . . I think you forgot the apology to beech trees.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Obama is now claiming Hillary's use of her private email system never jeopardized national security !!

"unemployment will not go above 8 percent"
"these jobs are shovel ready"
"if you like your health insurance you can keep it"

What's the point if it didn't?

The law is the law. It is a federal offense to handle classified data in the manner she and her idiot staff did.

How do I know? Because I held a clearance too and the rules are the same across the board. What isn't the same is who gets to break those rules, apparently.

originally posted by: dbarnhart

originally posted by: xuenchen
Obama is now claiming Hillary's use of her private email system never jeopardized national security !!

"unemployment will not go above 8 percent"
"these jobs are shovel ready"
"if you like your health insurance you can keep it"

and

"If you like your doctor you can keep your doctor"

Gryphon is right about one thing. We won't actually know the actual facts of the investigation until the results are determined. At that point, people will still continue to argue about whether there was true justice or there was a cover up.

Then again, maybe the results of the investigation are ruled classified for a number of years. Seems that has happened before. Maybe my 3 year old son might actually hear the real facts in his middle years.

I will try to leave out my prejudice of Hillary this once and discuss only what we do know. This would apply to anyone in the position she was in.

It is state department policy that a full backup of emails be turned over to the state department before leaving. Hillary did not do this. She had to be requested to comply and she deleted 30,000 emails before doing so.

This conjecture on my part here, but couldn't that be considered destruction of evidence or at least attempt to conceal? It is against state department policy at the least.

Having her private server was against state department policy at the very least. If it wasn't, we wouldn't be having this discussion now.

Her use of an unapproved phone in China was 88gainst state department at the very least.

Had all of this came out while she was still Secretary, at the very least she would have been eligible to have her clearance revoked and be fired from her position, at the very least. I don't think either side can disagree with that.

My perspective is that at the very least, she wasn't very concerned about policy and she did violate policy.

Whether or not it is determined that she committed crimes will be determined...maybe.

It is also my opinion that the 30,000 deleted emails might be very damning, after all she did delete them. That is attempting to conceal. Conceal what? We don't know. If the FBI recovered them, then they are the only ones who know at this point.

I do wonder if she just deleted the emails or wiped them using an encryption program. If she used an encryption method, then more than likely, she is hiding something.

I tried to be nonprejudicial. Of course there is a lot of speculation out there and with good reason.

My prejudicial view is I think Hillary would look stunning in orange, but that is just my opinion.

a reply to: BO XIAN

Well if YOU like her so much YOU vote for her...I think MUCH less myself