It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT
Oh please ... for goodness sakes drop the act.
It's us. We know the score here.
This isn't about any righteous concern that politicians are truthful or not. Because if anyone knows they're not, it's ATS.
We are intimately familiar with just HOW dishonest all governments are to their people, and that dishonesty absolutely DWARFS anything Clinton has done in regard to this email jazz ... and all of you acting all Polly-Anna about it know that as well.
Why not just be frank and admit that it's pure politics?
originally posted by: Indigo5
Further facts...
Comey said that the classified material was not "properly" marked and only contained the (c) denotation and it was not clear that Clinton or others understood that denotation to mean classified.
Comey said he had no reason to believe that Clinton intentionally lied at any point during her interviews with the FBI.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT
Going to stick with the innocent wide-eye approach eh? Disappointing.
Should we hold officials guilty of obvious illegal acts resulting in the deaths of thousands?
Perhaps ask George Bush? Dick Cheney? Don Rumsfeld?
I find your concerns hollow overall in regard to Hillary Clinton.
originally posted by: AMPTAH
originally posted by: Indigo5
Further facts...
Comey said that the classified material was not "properly" marked and only contained the (c) denotation and it was not clear that Clinton or others understood that denotation to mean classified.
Comey said he had no reason to believe that Clinton intentionally lied at any point during her interviews with the FBI.
Right. Apparently, Hillary deleted all the emails that were properly classified, but missed a few, because they were improperly classified, and contained (C) classification marks only in the body of the text itself.
originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: Gryphon66
There have been plenty of broken promises from congress and the administration...but, 'no biggie'...they're politicians and it's 'just pure politics'...they ALL break promises (just like they all lie)...so just ignore it.
originally posted by: shooterbrody
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: shooterbrody
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
Another waste of taxpayer dollars on a political snipe hunt.
Not if Hillary testifies in front of congress again. She will have the opportunity to clarify her record.
She doesn't need to clear her record. We all know what the facts of the matter are.
I don't want to see more government waste and misuse of Constitutional power directed at a ridiculous doomed-to-fail pure partisan effort.
Facts?
Comey said she sent and recieved classified info.
Hillary said she did not.
Comey said she did not provide all work emails.
Hillary said she did.
Further facts...
Comey said that the classified material was not "properly" marked and only contained the (c) denotation and it was not clear that Clinton or others understood that denotation to mean classified.
Comey said he had no reason to believe that Clinton intentionally lied at any point during her interviews with the FBI.
Comey said there was no indication that the emails that were not directly provided to the FBI were intentionally deleted or held back and that the "slack" they were found in could have easily been due to device crashes or server transitions...aka..emails regularly lost due to standard technical issues.
Again...Not defending Hillary...but those are Comeys actual, under oath, statements...reality matters.
When asked if she lied to congress what did Comey reply?
Hillary Clinton did not lie to FBI investigators during their probe into her use of a private server as secretary of state, FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday.
"We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI," Comey told House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) during one of the hearing's opening exchanges.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT
Going to stick with the innocent wide-eye approach eh? Disappointing.
Should we hold officials guilty of obvious illegal acts resulting in the deaths of thousands?
Perhaps ask George Bush? Dick Cheney? Don Rumsfeld?
I find your concerns hollow overall in regard to Hillary Clinton.
originally posted by: IAMTAT
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT
Going to stick with the innocent wide-eye approach eh? Disappointing.
Should we hold officials guilty of obvious illegal acts resulting in the deaths of thousands?
Perhaps ask George Bush? Dick Cheney? Don Rumsfeld?
I find your concerns hollow overall in regard to Hillary Clinton.
And I'm disappointed you couldn't answer my question with an actual answer.
“It will be a shark with no teeth,” said Rusty Hardin, the lawyer who successfully defended the pitcher Roger Clemens when he was charged with lying to Congress about doping in 2010. “Perjury is a very, very difficult crime to prosecute.”
“They get referrals all the time,” said Hardin, reached as he watched the Comey testimony on television from his vacation in Florida. “Every time a congressman gets bent out of shape about something, they try to refer it.”
originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Indigo5
He said that he had not been tasked with nor requested by congress to make that determination.
So isn't that what congress is doing?
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: IAMTAT
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT
Going to stick with the innocent wide-eye approach eh? Disappointing.
Should we hold officials guilty of obvious illegal acts resulting in the deaths of thousands?
Perhaps ask George Bush? Dick Cheney? Don Rumsfeld?
I find your concerns hollow overall in regard to Hillary Clinton.
And I'm disappointed you couldn't answer my question with an actual answer.
I think I am waiting on an answer of my own?
A couple pages back when you said Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury...were you "lying" ...or just miss-remembered?
And how would a prosecutor prove under burden of proof that you were lying?
in reality world..
Clinton unlikely to face perjury charges in email scandal
“It will be a shark with no teeth,” said Rusty Hardin, the lawyer who successfully defended the pitcher Roger Clemens when he was charged with lying to Congress about doping in 2010. “Perjury is a very, very difficult crime to prosecute.”
“They get referrals all the time,” said Hardin, reached as he watched the Comey testimony on television from his vacation in Florida. “Every time a congressman gets bent out of shape about something, they try to refer it.”
www.politico.com...
originally posted by: IAMTAT
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: IAMTAT
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT
Going to stick with the innocent wide-eye approach eh? Disappointing.
Should we hold officials guilty of obvious illegal acts resulting in the deaths of thousands?
Perhaps ask George Bush? Dick Cheney? Don Rumsfeld?
I find your concerns hollow overall in regard to Hillary Clinton.
And I'm disappointed you couldn't answer my question with an actual answer.
I think I am waiting on an answer of my own?
A couple pages back when you said Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury...were you "lying" ...or just miss-remembered?
And how would a prosecutor prove under burden of proof that you were lying?
in reality world..
Clinton unlikely to face perjury charges in email scandal
“It will be a shark with no teeth,” said Rusty Hardin, the lawyer who successfully defended the pitcher Roger Clemens when he was charged with lying to Congress about doping in 2010. “Perjury is a very, very difficult crime to prosecute.”
“They get referrals all the time,” said Hardin, reached as he watched the Comey testimony on television from his vacation in Florida. “Every time a congressman gets bent out of shape about something, they try to refer it.”
www.politico.com...
So sorry...I should've informed you earlier...
...
I ceased taking you seriously.
originally posted by: IAMTAT
originally posted by: Indigo5
originally posted by: IAMTAT
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: IAMTAT
Going to stick with the innocent wide-eye approach eh? Disappointing.
Should we hold officials guilty of obvious illegal acts resulting in the deaths of thousands?
Perhaps ask George Bush? Dick Cheney? Don Rumsfeld?
I find your concerns hollow overall in regard to Hillary Clinton.
And I'm disappointed you couldn't answer my question with an actual answer.
I think I am waiting on an answer of my own?
A couple pages back when you said Bill Clinton was convicted of perjury...were you "lying" ...or just miss-remembered?
And how would a prosecutor prove under burden of proof that you were lying?
in reality world..
Clinton unlikely to face perjury charges in email scandal
“It will be a shark with no teeth,” said Rusty Hardin, the lawyer who successfully defended the pitcher Roger Clemens when he was charged with lying to Congress about doping in 2010. “Perjury is a very, very difficult crime to prosecute.”
“They get referrals all the time,” said Hardin, reached as he watched the Comey testimony on television from his vacation in Florida. “Every time a congressman gets bent out of shape about something, they try to refer it.”
www.politico.com...
So sorry...I should've informed you earlier...
When I realized you were trying to analogize moral and legal equivalence