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

a reply to: DancedWithWolves

He just confirmed that there is a different standard for them to be charged.

I was waiting for someone else to pick up on this message, that he made abundantly clear.

a reply to: introvert

Next time you get pulled over, tell them you did not intend to speed.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: introvert

Did she lie to the American people multiple times when she said she did not send or receive 'classified-at-the-time' information?

Was she "extremely careless" with national security while Secretary of State?

Don't deflect. The point was that the FBI did not rewrite laws in this case, as your source claims in the headline.

So you won't answer these questions:

Did she lie to the American people multiple times when she said she did not send or receive 'classified-at-the-time' information?

Was she "extremely careless" with national security while Secretary of State?

Not a surprise.

originally posted by: butcherguy
Hillary running for POTUS:
Hi, I am Hillary Clinton.
I was Secretary of State a number of years ago.
When I was Secretary of State, I took care of state secrets like a doddering old grandma.
Since then, I fell down a flight of steps and bonked myself on the head so hard that I had to take a few months off to recuperate. Now I have seizures and poop my pants.
I am a liar too.

Clearly 'Presidential' material.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: introvert

Did she lie to the American people multiple times when she said she did not send or receive 'classified-at-the-time' information?

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”).

"classified at the time"....sure, but not by the State Department...and "information"...not docs.

So if state discusses "information" that the CIA considers classified, but State hasn't classified..and State is responsible for classifying their own information unless it is marked classified from another agency.

Taking off the ideological glasses...you see what I explaining here?

Similarly...If the head of another agencies non-classified correspondence was scrutinized and then referred to State to determine if "information" shared was classified at the time...State references their material and can say Yes...that "information" was classified by us at the time. But no outright stamped classified docs were sent.

It's about the last time I will explain that, since people don't seem to want to hear it.

Every day in DC, some agency ...in some way...shares some information in an unclassified way that their own agency hasn't marked classified that some other agency has marked classified...and that information does not always originate from the same source. When "information" is unmarked, each agency is responsible for classifying their own information.

a reply to: IAMTAT

So you won't answer these questions:

Yes, she lied.

Now are you going to address the incorrect propaganda that you posted, that it also appears you are trying to disntance yourself from by asking those questions?

That's deflection. If you can't discuss something you posted without trying to draw attention away from it, perhaps you shouldn't have posted it to begin with.

Very dishonest.

a reply to: introvert

Conspiracy has become the standard excuse by those that cannot accept things for what they are if it doesn't reflect their political agenda and refuse to come to terms with reality.

Oh and American Politics is 'reality' ?

Son it's ALL make believe.

Just like FBI press conferences.

a reply to: Indigo5

Human intel is ALWAYS highly Classified. It doesnt matter who it is. All HUMINT is and everyone at that level knows it.

If a single identity is compromised much can happen.

Basically we dont have the rule of law in this country anymore.

F rules and laws. So say we all.

They found evidence of carelessness, but no CLEAR evidence it was intentional....hummm.

I wonder if Hillary played the woman card....the doddering old technologically challenged female!...and the FBI people bought it!

originally posted by: MotherMayEye

originally posted by: ketsuko
Basically, Comey's recommendation is mired in her lack of intent to do bad things that were in violation of the law. In other words, she didn't MEAN to break the law.

So, let me leave my child in a hot car and say I didn't mean to do it. Plenty of distracted professional parents have done this, and somehow, their lack of intent to break those laws is NO defense.

Ignorance of the law or unintentional negligence is no defense for pretty much all of us. So why is it for her? Oh, silly question. She's Hillary Clinton and we're not.

I sympathize with people who are disappointed and I really hate seeing the gloating I've seen here today. But proving intent is vital to a murder conviction. Most often the kinds of parents you describe are charged with manslaughter and/or neglect charges precisely because of lack of intent...although there was the recent father charged with murder because the investigation revealed he intended for his child to die.

The problem is that she had security clearance for the things she was mishandling.

I refuse to believe she didn't KNOW what she was doing. And if she didn't then, I am mystified as to how this makes her qualified to run for POTUS where she has to be trusted with the same kind of security if she wins. Clearly, she cannot be trusted.

a reply to: Indigo5

Trump....Trump....Trump....still cannot not talk about him can you? WTF does he have to do with this thread? Nothing.

As far as the books being open, well, they show the deceit but there is so much money it is all hushed.

FACT - The Foundation took money, on multiple occasions, from Russia. What did they sell. US Uranium. Where will it wind up? In Iran.

when asked about a 500k speech fee Bill responded with 'We needed the money"....

The Clinton's are by far the most corrupt political team to ever attempt to control this country.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: IAMTAT

So you won't answer these questions:

Yes, she lied.

Now are you going to address the incorrect propaganda that you posted, that it also appears you are trying to disntance yourself from by asking those questions?

That's deflection. If you can't discuss something you posted without trying to draw attention away from it, perhaps you shouldn't have posted it to begin with.

Very dishonest.

What you call "incorrect propaganda"...I call another 'opinion'...worth considering in the overall debate.

So you admit she lied multiple times to the American people. Do you support the idea of electing her...knowing full well she lied to you and everyone else in the country?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: IAMTAT

So you won't answer these questions:

Very dishonest.

Since when do you have a problem with dishonesty? You support the poster child of dishonesty.

a reply to: IAMTAT

There is a legal definition to "gross negligence", and it's different than plain old negligence.

Gross negligence is a conscious and voluntary disregard of the need to use reasonable care, which is likely to cause foreseeable grave injury or harm to persons, property, or both. It is conduct that is extreme when compared with ordinary Negligence, which is a mere failure to exercise reasonable care.

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

He's saying that it would be difficult or impossible to prove "gross negligence", which is how the statute is written.

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: IAMTAT
a reply to: introvert

Did she lie to the American people multiple times when she said she did not send or receive 'classified-at-the-time' information?

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”).

"classified at the time"....sure, but not by the State Department...and "information"...not docs.

So if state discusses "information" that the CIA considers classified, but State hasn't classified..and State is responsible for classifying their own information unless it is marked classified from another agency.

Taking off the ideological glasses...you see what I explaining here?

Similarly...If the head of another agencies non-classified correspondence was scrutinized and then referred to State to determine if "information" shared was classified at the time...State references their material and can say Yes...that "information" was classified by us at the time. But no outright stamped classified docs were sent.

It's about the last time I will explain that, since people don't seem to want to hear it.

Every day in DC, some agency ...in some way...shares some information in an unclassified way that their own agency hasn't marked classified that some other agency has marked classified...and that information does not always originate from the same source. When "information" is unmarked, each agency is responsible for classifying their own information.

Hmmm...what did Comey state?

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. 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.

It seems like Hillary should have known whether something is classified even without a marking. Though, not just to point a finger at Hillary alone, those that participated in those email chains also mishandled this information. Who? Apparently, they are to big to even name!

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

Conspiracy has become the standard excuse by those that cannot accept things for what they are if it doesn't reflect their political agenda and refuse to come to terms with reality.

Oh and American Politics is 'reality' ?

Son it's ALL make believe.

Just like FBI press conferences.

Sounds like a religion to me.

Thank god I'm not a believer. Reality suits me better.

originally posted by: ketsuko
Basically, Comey's recommendation is mired in her lack of intent to do bad things that were in violation of the law. In other words, she didn't MEAN to break the law.

So, let me leave my child in a hot car and say I didn't mean to do it. Plenty of distracted professional parents have done this, and somehow, their lack of intent to break those laws is NO defense.

Ignorance of the law or unintentional negligence is no defense for pretty much all of us. So why is it for her? Oh, silly question. She's Hillary Clinton and we're not.

I keep seeing all of these odd comparisons. Drunk drivers who run people over. Parents who leave children in hot cars and they die. In both cases there is a dead person. In fact, some of the 'hot car deaths' have not gotten charged. That was based on intent.

Drunk drivers who run people over are normally charged with criminally negligent homicide. They did not plan out and intend a murder. Therefore, they don't get charged with murder.

In this case, there is no body, as such. There would need to be an intent great enough to where it appears she wanted the information to be accessed by enemies of the state and that it was.

It would be more akin to someone driving drunk 2 years ago, without damage to a person or property. Possibly they did this several times. Someone reports this fact to police 2 years later. What do you expect the police to do?

Well now we know why Lynch announced to the public that she intends to follow the FBI's recommendation.

a reply to: IAMTAT

Do you support the idea of electing her...knowing full well she lied to you and everyone else in the country?

I've said many times that I am not voting in this election, considering the choices we have.

Clinton lies, Trump lies, you lie...everyone lies.

I find it disingenuous to get on a moral high horse and exclaim one's hypocrisy for all to see.

a reply to: UnBreakable

Since when do you have a problem with dishonesty? You support the poster child of dishonesty.

When have I ever stated I support Hillary? I've said the opposite numerous times.

Stop with the personal crap and accept reality, ladies. We have better things to do then cry about this nonsense any longer.