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?

seeing as how everything made here is junk now- why can't that damn ed executive pen of his break, or run out ink....

You know, Obama would actually have to understand the intelligence of the apparatis of secrecy to KNOW that.
Such knowledge would OBVIOUSLY cut into his golf time and he is QUITE well known for ignoring the briefings.
So he would go to LYNCH for the information and THERE'S A SKEWED source.

Obama is an absentee. Hillary's a happy female dog. I think we know the rest. SHE is not FIT FOR OFFICE. She likes power-y things tho.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: watchitburn
a reply to: Gryphon66

Sending classified information over unsecured networks is a crime.

Unauthorized possession of classified information is a crime.

Claiming ignorance is not a valid excuse.

Obama can't make it not a crime by not believing it.

... and you and your right-winger fellows can't make it a crime by simply claiming it happened.

So, wait a minute, are you guys waiting for the FBI investigation results? Or are you just waiting for another item on the grand "Clinton Scandal List" that you can toss around illegitimately on the internet?

Which is it? You'll only believe the results of the investigation if it confirms your biased beliefs?

PFFfft. At least you're honest about that.

Do you think she should have her clearance revoked like any other person would that used carelessness in her practices handling highly sensitive material.

Let me give you a scenario, so when I was on a U.S. submarine we had to deal with cryptographic material. When handling this material which encrypted/decrypted our communication circuits, 2 eyes had to be present on the material at all times. When finished, all the material had to be inventoried and destroyed if superceded, then signed for by both parties before locking up the safe.

Now this process is very tedious, especially due to all the logs, handling, safeguarding and destruction procedures. But, if you happened to miss even one minor detail your entire job could be on the line. Even minor mistakes like a missing signature, or not noticing a specific piece of cryptographic material now has to be destroyed because you opened the safe and they sent a message 2 days before saying it had been compromised. Let me tell you it becomes chaotic at times and hopefully they have improved the program since I got out, because it was ridiculous.

Now, just your average joe transmitting intelligence reports to our intelligence agencies deal with this process all the time out in the field in not such luxurious conditions, you know in a war zone. So hearing a presidential candidate using "carelessness" in the safety of her own home. On top of that in regards to probably some of the more applicable intelligence when it comes to our National Security is a huge red flag for myself. Like I've said before, I don't know if she deserves to serve time for what happened, but losing a clearance should be a no brainer. This is just another prime example of someone in a position of power being treated differently than the rest of us.

All of that described above was just for material up to Top Secret. I don't even want to get into what the process is for compartmentalized information (SCI). If she doesn't care enough about her job to follow rules to ensure all Americans safety, well I definitely don't trust her to our deepest secrets let alone the seat to the most powerful position in the world.

a reply to: BlueAjah

Seems to me they may have already made their findings known to the president. A little advanced notice of how this is going.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Whitewater? They weren't found guilty of anything in that were they? No again.

Benghazi? No again.

This?
My money is on no once more.

a reply to: burntheships

Comey did say that. Hillary is not under investigation.
That's the entire issue right there. The misconception that she is being investigated. How stupid is that? The woman is running for president and they think she's going to jail for espionage and treason.

Living in their heads wishing and hoping and praying.

a reply to: Gryphon66

I don't have any booze and it's 10:30 on a Monday morning.

a reply to: butcherguy

He set the system up. He's answering questions about how and when and even why he set it up. Don't pretend ignorance of that. It's just silly to say stuff like oh are they going to indict the server?

a reply to: CynConcepts

Are you a New Yorker?
Her time as senator in N.Y. was actually very successful for her and the people of N.Y. were overall pleased with her work there. Not getting that you didn't like her as senator unless she acted against a cause you supported.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: UnBreakable

Whitewater? They weren't found guilty of anything in that were they? No again.

Benghazi? No again.

This?
My money is on no once more.

They weren't "found" guilty. Neither was OJ.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: CynConcepts

Are you a New Yorker?
Her time as senator in N.Y. was actually very successful for her and the people of N.Y. were overall pleased with her work there. Not getting that you didn't like her as senator unless she acted against a cause you supported.

"The Curious Myth of Hillary Clinton’s Senate Effectiveness"

There is not one single example of any legislation with her name appended to it. In fact, the page devoted to her Senate biography is a mush-mash, a laundry list of good intentions. When she talks about “sponsoring” and “introducing” and “fighting for” legislation that obviously hasn’t passed, that’s a smokescreen for failure.

www.huffingtonpost.com...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: butcherguy

He set the system up. He's answering questions about how and when and even why he set it up. Don't pretend ignorance of that. It's just silly to say stuff like oh are they going to indict the server?

If they are investigating the server.... why does he need immunity from prosecution?
We keep hearing from the Hillary supporters that no laws were broken, hell, they are just investigating the server.
My point is not silly.

a reply to: BlueAjah

No no one does. When did the president say she was under investigation?

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Not quite. What we are saying is that we know she's not guilty of anything. Basically we're not led around by our noses by Fox news or right wing rhetoric.
All it takes is reading.

Oh and comprehension of what's read. Not someone's opinion on what they think should be.

a reply to: VforVendettea

Personal opinions really don't matter.
Also you lie to yourself about him.

a reply to: BlueAjah

I want to see those reports that say the FBI is being careful because they want to indict hillary. I really want to see those reports. Please provide a link or a web address where we can all see those reports.

a reply to: UnBreakable

That's how to tell when anybody has lost an argument. Has zero to do with affiliations.

a reply to: burntheships

Perhaps you can quote or provide timestamps.

a reply to: NoCorruptionAllowed

Because the law says all you have to to is bringing a gun and you get added time. It's mere presence is the threat.
That's a silly argument.