FBI papers reveal that Hillary Clinton did not mislead Congress, but was 'extremely careless'

FBI papers reveal that Hillary Clinton did not mislead Congress, but was 'extremely careless' with classified info

Let's talk about Clinton today.

WASHINGTON — Notes of the FBI's interview with Hillary Clinton that were shared with congressional staff Tuesday afternoon showed the Democratic nominee indeed was "extremely careless" with classified information, while offering no obvious examples that she had previously misled Congress in her testimony, according to those familiar with the contents of the documents.

A Democrat with knowledge of the report's contents said that while Clinton's interview suggested a pattern of recklessness and lack of sophistication in regards to security measures, everything she said was consistent with her previous statements to Congress.

That testimony explains why FBI Director James Comey described her as being "extremely careless" with classified information when he announced the department recommended against prosecution.

So there you go. The notes are consistent with what Comey said. Hillary was extremely careless, but there is no intent to mislead. Also in a show of transparency, Hillary asked for this stuff to be released to the public at large so that the Republicans can't monopolize it and mischaracterize what it says.

Clinton's campaign called for the notes to be widely released, pointing out the "extraordinarily rare step" of releasing the information at all is a break with the FBI's normal protocol. As a general rule, when the FBI decides against recommending prosecution they don't share the details of their decision-making process.

"We believe that if these materials are going to be shared outside the Justice Department, they should be released widely so that the public can see them for themselves, rather than allow Republicans to mischaracterize them through selective, partisan leaks," Clinton campaign spokesman Brian Fallon told NBC.

That's a damn good idea.

Is lying misleading? I'm pretty sure it is. It's also misleading to delete thousands of emails after you know you're about to be investigated.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Serious question: Do you choose to share the limited positive news there is about Clinton solely for the purpose of being the "ATS goto guy for unpopular opinions", or do you just want her to win the election?

a reply to: FamCore

I see... Can't do a "what about Hillary?" response, so it's a "what about Krazysh0t?" response.

Serious answer: Get back on topic.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Don't worry, the Republicans will try to block a full release of the notes for "National Security Reasons." They would prefer innuendo in this case.

The US sailor who took pictures inside his sub also had no intent to do harm. He will be going to jail this week.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

We were already told by the FBI director that a corrupted, lying criminal was just extremely careless.

Even though it's proven that she knowingly lied to Congress and to the people of the USA.

a reply to: avgguy

Do you have anything to discuss about this article or are you just asking a bunch of random questions that are partially related to this controversy but are irrelevant to the article?

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Even though it's proven that she knowingly lied to Congress and to the people of the USA.

Proven by whom?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well per your source the "notes" that were provided to congress were "heavily redacted" and are classified and top secret. So if congress didn't get to see the real thing then what makes you think that they are going to be made public.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: avgguy

Do you have anything to discuss about this article or are you just asking a bunch of random questions that are partially related to this controversy but are irrelevant to the article?

What does it matter, if someone doesn't agree with you it will be because we are whiners, stupid, using logical fallacies, or red herrings as you say. Why try and debate you when all you are looking for is conformation bias. I guess wait for the 4 other Hillary supporters to come in and agree with you.

a reply to: Krazysh0t
Apologies sir as I usually agree with your posts, but it sounds like you are happy that Clinton was *merely* criminally negligent with national security issues, rather than deliberately misleading. If I had performed as poorly as her, negligent or deliberate, I would be fired forthwith.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Proven by watching the hearings. She lied to congress on just about everything.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well per your source the "notes" that were provided to congress were "heavily redacted" and are classified and top secret. So if congress didn't get to see the real thing then what makes you think that they are going to be made public.

Well congress shouldn't even be privy to them, but if they are going to be released to Congress, we should get them too. Are you against this idea? Sure it could be a pipe dream, but isn't transparency a good thing?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well, for start:



For someone who's extremely careless, this seems to me as direct, pathological lying to the American people

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Proven by watching the hearings. She lied to congress on just about everything.

Not according to Comey.

a reply to: SargonThrall

Actually, you would be put in jail, as shown in other examples.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

why should congress not be privy? They want to bring her up on perjury charges because she lied under oath.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Comey said she lied. Do you not follow the news

www.politifact.com...

Not only did Hillary mislead congress, she lied to them as well.

I guess that is what they mean by "extremely careless".

Her supporters will go to any lengths necessary to cover for her wrong doings. They'll even hire paid shills like Correct The Record.