LIVE: FBI Director testifies before House Oversight Committee at 10am est. Live feed

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: queenofswords

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: neo96

Hillary puts Jim Jones and Marshall Applewhite to shame.

Colin Powell and Condi Rice puts Hillary to shame...they did the same thing and not word from the republicans, no investigation, and no one here at ATS gives a damn about them....this is all a bucket of scrotum sweat to me, and the republicans are more than happy to be dipping their pasty faces in it.

Long time ago. Technology and technological know-how was entirely different back then. When was the Colin Powell thing? 2001 I believe or earlier. And neither of them had a personal SERVER in their home in the basement. Sheesh!

powell...up to 2005....condi rice...from 2006 to 2009....both of them had personal servers, look it up...uhh....somewhere other than a right-wing blog or website

2001 for Powell, and according to the State Dept. security rules had evolved since then. Hillary Clinton had no excuse. The Powell argument is a red herring. There are several sources that report this.

According to the IG report, Powell “installed a laptop computer on a private line” in his State Department office for unclassified email access and he used this laptop to send email via his personal email account to his “principal assistants, individual ambassadors, and foreign minister colleagues.” This was permissible in 2001, but would never be allowed today, since the Secretary’s office is a “Secure Compartmented Information Facility” from which personal electronics are banned. State officials also are now required to use the State system to access the Internet; they are not permitted to set up their own official accounts through commercial services.

www.breitbart.com...

If the truth from a source you don't like bothers you, then there is this:

The inspector general looked at all five secretaries of state in the digital age. It found that email was rarely employed at the agency under Secretary Madeleine Albright (1997-2001) and that she herself never used it. As for Secretary Condoleezza Rice (2005-2009), the inspector general concluded she did not use either personal or department email accounts for State Department business. Did Rice send classified emails on a private account? No. Did she conduct business on a personal account? Also, no, according to the report. The State Department said in February that some aides to Rice received classified information on email, but those were aides, not Rice, and the emails were received by, not sent from, private accounts.

www.pbs.org...

originally posted by: neo96
You'd just be a 'undocumented voter.

The politically correct title is undocumented democrat.

originally posted by: Xcathdra

originally posted by: neo96
You'd just be a 'undocumented voter.

The politically correct title is undocumented democrat.

Just as long as their no intent.

That's right as rain.

a reply to: neo96

Yes, black life matters will be taking some media time, I guess the FOX CEO sex scandal didn't last long enough.

a reply to: queenofswords

And, Comey said gmail has stronger security than Hillary's server(s) had.

Rumors starting that Hillary has Mandela Syndrome.

The power struggle in DC is very real...

originally posted by: introvert

Not really. You may be stuck on the perjury aspect, but that would be damn near impossible to prove that she intentionally lied to cover her ass, like Bill did.

So this may be just like Benghazi...fishing for guilt where it cannot be found.

Congress didn't pass the law to "prove intention"... It just needs to be proven that she was negligent and it has been proven several times.

In fact, President Obama himself passed an executive order in 2009 dealing with this topic...

Executive Order 13526- Classified National Security Information
...
(d) All original classification authorities must receive training in proper classification (including the avoidance of over-classification) and declassification as provided in this order and its implementing directives at least once a calendar year. Such training must include instruction on the proper safeguarding of classified information and on the sanctions in section 5.5 of this order that may be brought against an individual who fails to classify information properly or protect classified information from unauthorized disclosure. Original classification authorities who do not receive such mandatory training at least once within a calendar year shall have their classification authority suspended by the agency head or the senior agency official designated under section 5.4(d) of this order until such training has taken place. A waiver may be granted by the agency head, the deputy agency head, or the senior agency official if an individual is unable to receive such training due to unavoidable circumstances. Whenever a waiver is granted, the individual shall receive such training as soon as practicable.
...

www.whitehouse.gov...


This was done under Obama's watch and by his hand, since HIllary is the "Secretary of State" she is one of the "original authorities", and as thus received training on how to properly handle classified information. She obviously did the contrary, and allowed classified information to be disseminated with/to people who had no clearance to view or handle that information. Not to mention that she didn't use safe mediums to handle such classified information.

I apologize if this was posted, but does anybody have a complete back-up of the video?

originally posted by: butcherguy
Hillary was in charge of the department. If there were any training deficiencies, sloppiness and extreme carelessness happening, it all falls on her shoulders.
Didn't she win some sort of award for the great job she did while she ran the State Department?

Why yes. I think Obama recently presented her with :'THE MOST QUALIFIED PERSON TO EVER RUN THE STATE DEPARTMENT' award.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Gryphon66

I implied no such thing.
My position.... lying is bad.
I do not condone anyone doing it.... even if they are my favorite politician.

How can one not intentionally lie?

That's why they call it a lie, right?

They either don't know what the hell they are talking about or it's a lie.

And I haven't heard anyone say she doesn't know what she is talking about, soooo...

She has to explain either one and either one is troubling for a candidate.

originally posted by: eisegesis
I apologize if this was posted, but does anybody have a complete back-up of the video?

Its about 4-5 hours. The link may look deformed but it works.

www.c-span.org.../fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe&live

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

perjury requires a person to lie under oath which she did numerous times to 2 or 3 different government hearings. The fact she did it multiple times under oath in addition to her public comments, which can be used, meets the requirements under the statutes.

Here is the actual statute -
18 U.S. Code § 1001 - Statements or entries generally

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
(1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
(2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
(3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry;
shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both. If the matter relates to an offense under chapter 109A, 109B, 110, or 117, or section 1591, then the term of imprisonment imposed under this section shall be not more than 8 years.
(b) Subsection (a) does not apply to a party to a judicial proceeding, or that party’s counsel, for statements, representations, writings or documents submitted by such party or counsel to a judge or magistrate in that proceeding.
(c) With respect to any matter within the jurisdiction of the legislative branch, subsection (a) shall apply only to—
(1) administrative matters, including a claim for payment, a matter related to the procurement of property or services, personnel or employment practices, or support services, or a document required by law, rule, or regulation to be submitted to the Congress or any office or officer within the legislative branch; or
(2) any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress, consistent with applicable rules of the House or Senate.

Ok. Sometimes you have to step back and look at a situation from a distance to see what's going on. Let's do that for just a moment.

When we look at this issue we see that the very same people that were citing certain statutes and laws previous to the FBI's determination, are doing the same thing again in regards to perjury.

Problem is, you were wrong. We went back and forth about certain statutes and come to find out you did not know what the hell you were talking about. Specifically, 793(f), in regards to past precedence and intent.

Without batting an eye, or taking a moment to reflect on how you completely screwed the pooch, the same people are jumping on to other statues and codes in an effort to prove she is guilty of something else. You can cite anything you want, but you still do not understand that Hillary has put herself in a position in which she can claim her comments were made in good faith. She did not handle the email issue personally, and relied on her lawyers to do the work.

She has plausible deniability.

That being said, cite whatever law, code or statute you like. You guys have no credibility left at all and it is completely reasonable to suggest that it would be illogical to give your opinion any weight whatsoever, when you have already proven to be unable to properly interpret such codes and put them in context with past precedent.

a reply to: introvert
You are relying on the decision of the FBI Director.

The same guy that could not give a cut and dry answer to a very simple question asked of him yesterday.

The question:

Would you hire a person at the FBI to work handling classified materials that had shown a history of extreme carelessness when working with classified materials in the past?

He couldn't give a straight up answer to that question.

The fact of the matter is, you probably couldn't get hired there if you had shown a history of extreme carelessness in handling ANYTHING, much less classified materials.

a reply to: butcherguy

You are relying on the decision of the FBI Director.

His decision mirrored exactly what I have been saying. If one is able to read the laws as they are and compare that to past precedence, as he stated, the same conclusion can be made.

The problem is, many people are not willing to do that because their political agenda is more important than the truth.

The same guy that could not give a cut and dry answer to a very simple question asked of him yesterday. The question: Would you hire a person at the FBI to work handling classified materials that had shown a history of extreme carelessness when working with classified materials in the past? He couldn't give a straight up answer to that question. The fact of the matter is, you probably couldn't get hired there if you had shown a history of extreme carelessness in handling ANYTHING, much less classified materials.

It is not his job to give his personal opinion on hypothetical questions.

His job is to investigate the matter, find the facts and make a decision based on law/precedence. He did that.

If your opinion hinges on that one question, then it is quite possible you are not interested in the facts.

a reply to: jhn7537

Is much more than power struggle, we have corruption, the corruption has gone on and on for decades, the entire political structure is lies, those pushing the strings behind the presidential seat had become careless on how they push their favorites, then those that play the game like Hilary knows the game, the Clinton has gotten powerful for what they know, she wants to be a President and by any means she will.

We are living in a time in our nations history that the corruption is so big that it can not be fix without destroying the entire system and our nation with It.

I find it interesting the POTUS does not need a security clearance

originally posted by: USASA
I find it interesting the POTUS does not need a security clearance

Hi USASA, welcome to ATS!

I find it interesting the POTUS does not need a security clearance

Welcome to the state of secrets, security clearance granted as long as you keep them.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Indigo5

And reality sets in as Chaffetz looks up the definition of "Perjury"

Despite a vow Thursday from Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) to deliver a referral to FBI Director James Comey “in the next few hours,” committee leaders are still working on the request, the aide said.

Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said Friday that he was reviewing more than 100 transcripts of witness testimony before the House Select Committee on Benghazi to determine whether such a referral was appropriate.

Gowdy confirmed that the committee has not yet submitted a referral to the FBI.

thehill.com...