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

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: UKTruth

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: UKTruth

Correct, but it was not "up-classification". The information sent or received by Clinton included secret and top secret information at the time it was sent or received. Undeniable fact.

And she deleted hundreds of emails marked classified, and did not
turn them over as she swore under oath to Congress.

That is aka Perjury.

... and your evidence for that is? ....

She testified under oath that she had released all her emails. Some were found that she did not release. We could chalk it up to yet another mistake I guess. Perhaps it was just another case of her not being on top of things and showing how incompetent she was as a Secretary of State. Maybe everyone can just use 'I didn't realise I was breaking the law' as a defence form now on.

You're dissolving into political patter now.

Best of luck to you on that.

The outrage and clutching of pearls on this site the last two days has been hilarious.

defending a law breaker is pretty low man. She broke laws but they arent going to prosecute because the DOJ would not do so even if they said they would follow the FBIs reccomendations.

They are not going to prosecute because the "laws" that were broken usually result in a hand slap.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: UKTruth

Your sole intention is to argue incompetency on a political basis.

I would argue that working within the system to actually accomplish things is perfectly competent.

She held a senior political position and has been described as 'extremely careless'. Of course it's a political issue.
Congratulations for the best spin yet though - so she was protecting information because she didn't trust the State Departments IT infrastructure. Got ya.

a reply to: UKTruth

The Director of the FBI made that characterisation, so if your argument is that Comey's act was a political act (as he is a Republican and has pursued the Clintons before) I can't disagree.

The American people will be the ultimate decision-makers as to Clinton's suitability for the job.

/shrug

a reply to: introvert

yeah you surely mean a "hand slap" like permanent cancellation of your security clearance due to the fact you have demonstrated your total untrustworthyness when it comes to handling classified information.


That's the kind of hand slap right?

How is that going to look on the Hillary 2016 campaign when the State Department drops her clearance like a hot potato?

a reply to: RickinVa

Sure. Whatever makes you feel better.

One interesting note to consider:

The President of the US does not have a security clearance.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Gryphon66

While you completely ignore the fact that the emails were CLASSIFIED at the time they were on her UNCLASSIFIED server.

Quit so desperately trying to sugar coat the massive pile of fecal material that Comey delivered to Hillary Clinton 2016 .... her "extreme carelessness" with classified information.... that is a classic definition of gross negligence no matter how you slice it.

Like Comey said anybody who did the same thing would face administrative actions...Hillary has not even faced any of those yet. And I stress yet because the State Department is going to have a massively hard time trying to justify allowing Hillary Clinton to continue to have an active clearance at this point.

There is no doubt 100% overwhelming proof positive that Hillary Clintons Security clearance should be cancelled immediately, never to the the light of day again.

Being trust worthy in the handling of classified information is a specific criteria for being granted / maintaining an active US security clearance and her actions have proven that she is totally incapable of that.

That was not a good report for Hillary Clinton....no matter how desperately you are trying to spin it into one.

Nope. Your narrative is flawed. I'm not ignoring anything. In fact, I'm making a statement about those "classified" materials.

... and I don't care about the remainder of your garden-variety Clinton-bashing ... been there, heard that. Keep repeating it; the American people quickly tire of such regurgitations.

a reply to: UKTruth

She held a senior political position and has been described as 'extremely careless'. Of course it's a political issue. Congratulations for the best spin yet though - so she was protecting information because she didn't trust the State Departments IT infrastructure.

I think we should listen when our masters speak.

If she is saying her information is not safe in the hands of the government. I think we should take heed.

Most of us here have known this for quite a while, but maybe it is time that the rest took notice that we need to protect ourselves from the government.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert

yeah you surely mean a "hand slap" like permanent cancellation of your security clearance due to the fact you have demonstrated your total untrustworthyness when it comes to handling classified information.


That's the kind of hand slap right?

How is that going to look on Hillary 2016 when the Sate Department drops her clearance like a hot potato?

question...if the e-mails she received WERE NOT marked classified, how has it been determined NOW that they were?...apparently the FBI director didn't bother to talk about that, nor did he seemed concerned.

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: UKTruth

She held a senior political position and has been described as 'extremely careless'. Of course it's a political issue. Congratulations for the best spin yet though - so she was protecting information because she didn't trust the State Departments IT infrastructure.

I think we should listen when our masters speak.

If she is saying her information is not safe in the hands of the government. I think we should take heed.

Most of us here have known this for quite a while, but maybe it is time that the rest took notice that we need to protect ourselves from the government.

I absolutely agree. There is no iteration of the US Government (or any level of government) that should be "trusted" to be anything other than it is ... a bureaucratic behemoth of which we are most lucky when we totally avoid its direct notice.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

Well, if that is going to be her campaign strategy,
its laughable.

And I'll be laughing the first time I see another Democrat
try and hold anyone to a record keeping statute.

a reply to: jimmyx

See above.

The FBI selected some and sent them out into the Federal bureaucracy for "determination."

If that sounds a wee bit like "ginning up evidence" to you, I wouldn't disagree.

a reply to: Gryphon66

and I don't care about the remainder of your garden-variety Clinton-bashing

Interestingly enough, the way the republicans have pulled the puppet strings on all of this 'investigating' (I use that term laughingly lets face it its been a political witch hunt to try win an election) is back firing on them with the swing vote and possibly moderate republicans.

They did it with Bill and now with her. Regular people (not radicalized right wingers) I suspect see the continuous legal barrage of her as bullying.

Whether she is the naughty lass I suspect she is (which politician isn't? ) is irrelevant, people get sick of hearing about it, and won't believe the forced 'crooked hillary' dialogue. The louder they make the memes she is a witch, the more it will backfire on them as women don't like seeing another woman seemingly harassed (it's our nurturing nature) and the radicalized component of the right will have no one to blame but themselves when they lose an election.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

We see the matters fairly much identically.

I love to see Republicans come up with irritating mantras ... mostly, because they're irritating.

Americans don't enjoy irritation.

originally posted by: UKTruth

She held a senior political position and has been described as 'extremely careless'. Of course it's a political issue.
Congratulations for the best spin yet though - so she was protecting information because she didn't trust the State Departments IT infrastructure. Got ya.

Of course, the state dept IT infrastructure is assessable to opponents from the Republican camp.

She was trying to avoid leaks.

a reply to: AMPTAH

.... not to mention, the Chinese, the Russians, the North Koreans ... etc. etc. etc.

originally posted by: [post=20947016]Dfairlite

But to the point, if powell removed classified material and handled it through his private email, then yes I would support him being investigated and charged. I have no fealty to any politician who has violated their oath or the law.

I understand the root of the confusion, but it warrants clarifying.

Clinton never "removed classified material and handled it through his private email"

Some of the emails were flagged as potentially containing subject matter "derived" from classified material. How much, if any, was singularly identified as "must have" been derived from classified material is not known.

In the sense that classified documents were actually sent or received via the server...that never happened.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: introvert

How is that going to look on the Hillary 2016 campaign when the State Department drops her clearance like a hot potato?

A desperate and hopeful hypothetical on your part, but as far as "how it would look"?...irrelevant would be my short answer.

The incoming POTUS by default receives security clearance..They are considered vetted by the American voter and government agencies do not have the power to deny security clearances to incoming Presidents...Seperation of powers.

a reply to: UKTruth

...because she didn't trust the State Departments IT infrastructure. Got ya.

The Generals' Revolt: Rolling Stone's 2009 Story on Obama's Struggle With His Own Military

Its' an interesting read, and there's more out there. I'm not arguing pro or con - just that things aren't maybe as simple as they seem

Like I said - I wish this story was more interesting than it is

She was Secretary of State - serving a president that was facing some unusual circumstances for, you know - being POTUS

She wasn't keeping her notes on a yellow legal pad In Mayberry. I'm not sure that America isn't at war with itself as much as it is with the rest of the world

a reply to: introvert


Who said anything about the president?

Why deflect so much?

What is Hillarys answer during the debate when Trump asks her about the director of the FBI saying she was extemely careless?

Are you such a Hillary fan that you can not even admit that what the director of the FBI said about a potential presidential candidate is devastating to their campaign?

a reply to: Indigo5

Last time I checked, she still has to be elected to become president...hasn't happened where I come from.

Around here, we see the director of the FBI's comments as loading up Donald Trump to fire cruise missiles at Hillary Clinton during their first debate.