FBI Director will be holding a Press Conference at 11AM EST today

a reply to: Xcathdra

Comey very articulately laid out the case for gross negligence. It was surprising that he then went on to say there would be no indictment. To be fair to him, only one other case has been tried based on gross negligence, so Comey has some basis for not persuing this. However, I think the incompetence and dishonesty is probably more damaging for Clinton.

originally posted by: AMPTAH
Presumably, it is because it is necessary to do these illegal things in the interests of the Nation.

So violating the espionage act by using an unsecured private server to store Confidential, secret, top secrete and SAC information placing national security and peoples lives at risk as done in the name of..... national security?

Am I understanding you correctly.

Also, before someone throws a fit - The 22 emails that were SAC level contained information on drone strikes in a foreign country that contained identifying information of sources. That placed those individuals in danger.

a reply to: UKTruth

The issue with what Comey did was use the standard of intent and not gross negligence. While intent is a higher requirement the statute itself does not use it.

Secondly basing the decision off of a failed prosecution means nothing since the 2 cases are not even remotely close. For starters this deals with a Cabinet secretary.

There should have been a recommendation to indict and then send it to a grand jury and let them decide. We have a legal system for a reason and it should be used.

The last part of his press conference laid out the facts that violated the statute.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Your schtick:

1. Quote a law.

2. State that Clinton broke the law.

3. Proceed as if you're right.


I've pointed this out multiple times. This is your pattern. You aren't providing EVIDENCE.

Evidence, proof, inculpatory information ... whatever you want to call it.

Look at what you did above. You BOLDED text. You think that proves ANYTHING?

I've quoted the same law back to you twice now ... the operative part ... the part that requires in your chain of proof (evidence, information, "stuff you say") a direct example of action that trespasses that provision ... in this case, once again "permits same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust."

Show us how that happened. You can't, because IT DIDN'T.

You even admitted earlier that the server represents legitimate CUSTODY.

There is no "culpability" argument. Do I need to wait on you to look that up too? Culpability, responsibility, guilt. Her server represents her custody, you said it yourself.

By the way, every time you repeat that I don't know what I'm talking about when you obviously feel constrained to respond to everything I say demonstrates that you know that your argument is utterly lacking. I'm sure you're not aware of it, but your "responses" always incorporate something I've educated you on in the previous remark.

Demonstrate, show, elucidate or as any normal person would understand ... PROVIDE EVIDENCE that any materials left Clinton's custody or that she willingly turned said materials over to any hostile.

Stop the weak, limp attempts to attack me. MAKE YOUR CASE.
We're waiting.

originally posted by: olaru12
Who was it that said we would look back upon the Obama years as the "good ole days".....?

oh yeah, it was me...

I never thought I'd look back on the Bush years as "the good old days" until Obama. In fact, I was a Democrat (or thought I was) until Obama.

I suppose Hillary could end up being worse than Obama but I'm really not sure how. AS BAD AS? Sure. Worse? No.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xcathdra

Your schtick:

1. Quote a law.

2. State that Clinton broke the law.

3. Proceed as if you're right.


I've pointed this out multiple times. This is your pattern. You aren't providing EVIDENCE.

Evidence, proof, inculpatory information ... whatever you want to call it.

Look at what you did above. You BOLDED text. You think that proves ANYTHING?

I've quoted the same law back to you twice now ... the operative part ... the part that requires in your chain of proof (evidence, information, "stuff you say") a direct example of action that trespasses that provision ... in this case, once again "permits same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust."

Show us how that happened. You can't, because IT DIDN'T.

You even admitted earlier that the server represents legitimate CUSTODY.

There is no "culpability" argument. Do I need to wait on you to look that up too? Culpability, responsibility, guilt. Her server represents her custody, you said it yourself.

By the way, every time you repeat that I don't know what I'm talking about when you obviously feel constrained to respond to everything I say demonstrates that you know that your argument is utterly lacking. I'm sure you're not aware of it, but your "responses" always incorporate something I've educated you on in the previous remark.

Demonstrate, show, elucidate or as any normal person would understand ... PROVIDE EVIDENCE that any materials left Clinton's custody or that she willingly turned said materials over to any hostile.

Stop the weak, limp attempts to attack me. MAKE YOUR CASE.
We're waiting.

Outside of law, do you think what Hillary did was stupid and that she lied about it?

a reply to: Gryphon66

My case was made.
I have explained the case to you.
I presented evidence obtained by the FBI to you.
I explained the law to you.
I explained how that evidence ties into the law.
I have explained the mistake Comey made with regards to "intent" and "gross negligence".

I am done trying to dumb the conversation down in hopes you will actually understand whats being discussed. You are out of your element and trying to explain explain it all to you does nothing but derail the thread as its info that has been posted not only in this thread but others as well on this topic.


You are now once again trolling this thread by your repeated circular arguments while ignoring anything you don't understand. You are also once again trying to shift the goal post. I proved the server was in her custody. I proved your comment about culpability on the server issue was wrong. Now you are trying to shift over to did the info make it to a hostile. At the same time you are once again ignoring the law by trying to insert willingly. INTENT is not a factor so your use of the word "willingly" again demonstrates you are not understanding. You also seemed to be unaware that her server was disconnected at one point because they were scared it was under an attempt to hack it. She "willingly" refused to allow the IT department in on her problem all the while forcing the State Department IT staff to disable its security features because Clinton emails were blocked by spam filters.

She "willingly" placed the State Departments network in jeopardy by putting her own personal issues, namely her emails, ahead of national security.

Comey actually addressed that issue by saying it was likely "hostile" governments" were able to access it when she used her unsecured devices in those countries.

Please take the time to educate yourself on the topic as its apparent no amount of explanation from me or others is working.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: olaru12
Who was it that said we would look back upon the Obama years as the "good ole days".....?

oh yeah, it was me...

I never thought I'd look back on the Bush years as "the good old days" until Obama. In fact, I was a Democrat (or thought I was) until Obama.

I suppose Hillary could end up being worse than Obama but I'm really not sure how. AS BAD AS? Sure. Worse? No.

If we have learned anything from Obama and the Democratic party is that candidates can run as a Democrat even though they aren't.

After much pondering, I think I have a theory regarding the puzzling press conference, and Comey's apparent contradictory statements and conclusion.


If he was going to indict, he likely would not have been able to say much more. A prosecutor would call the case tainted if the FBI publicly said what he said. We should have known as soon as he started hitting her so hard that he was not going to indict.

If anything, we would have known the FBI recommended charges, it would have quietly gone to the prosecutors. In this administration, it might have died there. The most that would have happened is perhaps a misdemeanor charge, she pleads guilty, Obama pardons her, and it all goes away. Then they could claim it was all done fairly. And in this case, she could never be charged again.

Comey is a genius. He knew the outcome. She was never going to face justice. So he took his one opportunity to make public as much as he could. He exposed her lies. He exposed her incompetence. He made a point of that no one in government knew what he was going to say, and I assume he is now experiencing harsh admonishment from the administration.

He could never have made this information public in any other way.

Now, her opponents have ammunition. The only way to stop her is if Americans take to heart what he tried to tell us.

And if Trump is elected, they could suddenly find more evidence, which they already have, and justify indicting her. With a new Attorney General, she would face a fair trial. It is the only hope for bringing her to justice.

(I touched on this in an earlier post, but now fleshed my ideas out a bit.)

a reply to: Gryphon66

What's more fascinating is how "extreme carelessness" is different than "gross negligence"...

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Gryphon66

What's more fascinating is how "extreme carelessness" is different than "gross negligence"...

Yep.

Even more fascinating is the fact that the FBI Director stated plainly that in the process of this investigation:

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

Overclassification is a known problem in the Federal government and particularly in the State Department.

Colin Powell has noted this fact ...Source

... as has John Kerry. Source

Congress has passed legislation to attempt to deal with the problem ... Reducing Over Classification Act

But take note above ... what Director Comey says the FBI did;

Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

So ... the Director of the FBI didn't know whether or not a given email was classified, trained counterterrorism Agents didn't know ... they sent emails fished out of 30,000 some odd emails and sent them into one of the largest bureaucracies in the world that is known for its tendency to OVER CLASSIFY documents.

IF the target were anyone besides Hillary Clinton, the FBI might be accused of "ginning up" the classified notation.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: olaru12
Who was it that said we would look back upon the Obama years as the "good ole days".....?

oh yeah, it was me...

I never thought I'd look back on the Bush years as "the good old days" until Obama. In fact, I was a Democrat (or thought I was) until Obama.

I suppose Hillary could end up being worse than Obama but I'm really not sure how. AS BAD AS? Sure. Worse? No.

If we have learned anything from Obama and the Democratic party is that candidates can run as a Democrat even though they aren't.

If I have learned anything from Obama and the Democratic party over the last 8 years it is that everything I thought I knew before 2008 was wrong.

I believed that the Democrats meant well but they were just hopelessly outmatched by the Republicans between 2000 and 2008. But that was not the case. They were ALLOWING the Republicans to run the show. They were losing elections on purpose.

And THEN, in 2012, the Republicans did exactly the same thing with Romney. Now they're doing it again with Trump.. Trump will lose. And no one will really care. Because hey. The man is obviously insane, right? Or is he?

They don't put crazy people on TV unless they have a use for them.

a reply to: Gryphon66

You kind of missed the fact that 110 of those emails were classified when sent / received on the unclassified server itself, including 8 email chains of top secret info regarding special access programs.

Comey also made statements that contradict your claim that the SD has an 'over-classification problem' and actually mentioned that the SD under Clinton had major issues with security of sensitive and classified information based on the evidence they found.

a reply to: Gryphon66


Right...so now your story is even though they were classified, it is all simply a mistake of over classification..


Rationalize much these days?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Gryphon66

What's more fascinating is how "extreme carelessness" is different than "gross negligence"...

Yep.

Even more fascinating is the fact that the FBI Director stated plainly that in the process of this investigation:

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

Overclassification is a known problem in the Federal government and particularly in the State Department.

Colin Powell has noted this fact ...Source

... as has John Kerry. Source

Congress has passed legislation to attempt to deal with the problem ... Reducing Over Classification Act

But take note above ... what Director Comey says the FBI did;

Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

So ... the Director of the FBI didn't know whether or not a given email was classified, trained counterterrorism Agents didn't know ... they sent emails fished out of 30,000 some odd emails and sent them into one of the largest bureaucracies in the world that is known for its tendency to OVER CLASSIFY documents.

IF the target were anyone besides Hillary Clinton, the FBI might be accused of "ginning up" the classified notation.

Comey clearly said in his statement that some of the emails on the private server were up to top secret level at the time they were sent and / or received. The whole 'classification after the fact' argument relates to only some of the emails.

originally posted by: SonOfThor
a reply to: Gryphon66

You kind of missed the fact that 110 of those emails were classified when sent / received on the unclassified server itself, including 8 email chains of top secret info regarding special access programs.

Comey also made statements that contradict your claim that the SD has an 'over-classification problem' and actually mentioned that the SD under Clinton had major issues with security of sensitive and classified information based on the evidence they found.

I haven't missed that statement from Director Comey; I've quoted it.

Go back and look at the process he described in their investigation. They scanned the emails, then they sent those out to various government departments and agencies ASKING if they should be or were classified. Comey states specifically that this is the process of "up-classification."

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Gryphon66


Right...so now your story is even though they were classified, it is all simply a mistake of over classification..


Rationalize much these days?

Perhaps if that was what I'm arguing, you'd have a point.

It isn't. If you'd like to move beyond your strawman, deal with what I actually claimed or stated.

a reply to: Gryphon66

...which is irrelevant because:

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.

(Comey)

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Gryphon66


Right...so now your story is even though they were classified, it is all simply a mistake of over classification..


Rationalize much these days?

Perhaps if that was what I'm arguing, you'd have a point.

It isn't. If you'd like to move beyond your strawman, deal with what I actually claimed or stated.

You claimed over classification is a problem,, you are IMPLYING that Hillarys problems were caused by over classification.

That is NOT what Comey said.

a reply to: UKTruth

Yes, but I'm pointing to what Comey said about the process of the FBI investigation ... that invovled the FBI:

1. Skimming the 30,000 or so emails.

2. Identifying those that were "potentially classified" (so at that moment the FBI itself wasn't sure)

3. Sending those potentially classified documents to a notably dysfunctional Federal bureaucracy asking them to literally "put their stamps" on them.

And in that process, rather than any simple review of the emails, 110 were identified as "classified."

The process seems to smack of "ginning up" evidence.