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

originally posted by: butcherguy
BAMMMM!
Chairman sez...
You can't even tell me which agency will not allow Congress to see the emails that Hillary allowed a person with no clearance to see????

I am glad you didn't miss that. Mr.Cummins thinks it is more important to bang on about reclassification of emails that WERE NOT THOSE involved in this case.

a reply to: Jonjonj

Some man thanks.

a reply to: Aazadan

Every company who has ever marketed a product to you has lied to you.

So that means it is OKAY?

Every politician who has ever opened their mouth has lied to you.

So when we find it happening, we should reward it?

a reply to: Indigo5

Is interesting that you are spelling out those terms the way they have been used by those in charge of the outcome of the investigation.

I guess if you insert the right word or change it for another word it sounds all nice and clear.

I can pretty much say that seem like the FBI Director no only knows how to use his words but is a masters of the English language and knows the law very well, to keep Hillary free of fault.

a reply to: Aazadan

You need to start a new topic (thread) about "actual issues".

Then see how popular those "actual issues" are.

Lying when it comes to national security is not a serious issue.

Alright, I guess you people deserve Killary to rule over you...

originally posted by: butcherguy
They are lying about the perjury and the '3' emails.

There were thousands deleted that were work related but not classified.
They were subpoenaed by Congress and Hillary testified that all had been turned over.
She lied under oath to Congress.

It isn't about 3 emails.

A few are working really hard to twist Comey's words to make that work for them.
I think they believe if they keep saying it enough it will become true, or at least that people will believe that's the truth.
Or else they are just too dense to understand the difference.

a reply to: butcherguy

Yes in todays world of politics is ok, for a president to be corrupted, conniving, a liar and dirty, as long as is the candidate of once choice.

See no evil, hear no evil

originally posted by: Aazadan

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Again, I care and I am not a republican. I don't even really support any candidate although I may vote third party.

I just happen to think both parties get away with criminal behavior because they work hard to protect the corrupt system they work in.

Great, there's always outliers. Now show me the polls that suggest the swing voters in battleground states care. Most people have been listening to Hillary attacks for 24 years straight now. Those who are willing to vote against her have already long since been convinced.

I was a staunch Hillary supporter in 2008, so you don't need to tell me. And I don't give a hoot about about swing voters or battleground states. Whoever is elected is going to be someone I don't support, regardless.

a reply to: Indigo5

I restricted my reply to 'lying.'

BTW, one thing I did not hear today was an argument why a perjury investigation is not warranted. If the democrats did not think it was warranted, I didn't hear them speak up.

originally posted by: butcherguy
They are lying about the perjury and the '3' emails.

There were thousands deleted that were work related but not classified.
They were subpoenaed by Congress and Hillary testified that all had been turned over.
She lied under oath to Congress.

It isn't about 3 emails.

Technically they were "turned over" when they handed over the servers etc. The FBI said the emails were in "slack" and could have landed there during routine archiving, pc crashes or server transitions. No evidence it was intentional.

And in order for it to be "Perjury", they have to prove that she was aware she was not speaking the truth and intentionally obstructing the outcome in a material way. So they have to prove that she knew/remembered those 3 emails with the (c) notation out of 30K emails over several years and chose to intentionally mislead the congress in a material way.

All politics aside?...That there is impossible to prove...it's another 20 Million in tax payer money flushed down the toilet on a political campaign for the GOP.

a reply to: marg6043

See no evil, hear no evil

Something to thing about... all you '3' email people.

The Chairman asked one OIG testifying which agency 'owned' a certain email thread that is classified .
His answer was that he was not allowed to divulge which agency.
That is how secret this information is that we are talking about.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Indigo5

I restricted my reply to 'lying.'

BTW, one thing I did not hear today was an argument why a perjury investigation is not warranted. If the democrats did not think it was warranted, I didn't hear them speak up.

Comey did make a comment about perjury. I cannot remember what he said, specifically, but if I am not mistaken he said that would be tough to stick.

All Hillary would have to do is say that she believed her statement was true.

Even if you read the paper she signed stating that all of the required emails were provided, it includes wording about her believing all the requirements have been met.

a reply to: neo96

My husband have a good one that shows she is a vampire, it shows the pictures of Bill before and after, the after one looks like somebody that has been bleed to zombie state.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Indigo5

I restricted my reply to 'lying.'

BTW, one thing I did not hear today was an argument why a perjury investigation is not warranted. If the democrats did not think it was warranted, I didn't hear them speak up.

Research the legal definition of "perjury"....It is not possible to hang that on her for what she said...they have to prove without question that she did in fact remember those 3 emails out of 30K with the (c) notation years ago...at the time she told them she had not sent or received classified material.

It is an insane waste of effort and taxpayer money...and frankly a waste of GOP resources focusing on an issue that will not flip any of the voters they need to even remotely compete in November.

The GOP is suffering from the bubble...assuming everyone is eager for a reason to vote Trump.

Strategically?...The GOP have long since beat this horse to death and further investigations is the equivalent of pouncing up and down on the dead horse like mad men shouting nonsense...the majority of the American public is exhausted with the GOP and they need to return to REAL issues soon if they are to survive.

a reply to: introvert

If you can find that statement from Comey? I'm interested in hearing it.

Did you have a chance to watch Gowdy's first set of questions? He was particularly focused on false statements and intent.

a reply to: butcherguy

Apparently it doesnt matter, because hey, everybody lies. Why are we so mad at that criminal for doing the same thing, even though shes supposed to lead our country, and we all trust her with our lives, but hey, its okay.

Here man, smoke a weed and enjoy life, while we fight for the rights of transgender people and totally ignore that democracy is falling apart in front of our eyes...

originally posted by: butcherguy
Something to thing about... all you '3' email people.

The Chairman asked one OIG testifying which agency 'owned' a certain email thread that is classified .
His answer was that he was not allowed to divulge which agency.
That is how secret this information is that we are talking about.

Then why the eff was that agency "owning" the thread? Meaning they started the correspondence with Hillary???

Shouldn't that presumably senior agency official be in the hot seat as well? Sending classified info to a private server?

Doesn't make sense...regardless it has obviously already been looked into and the FBI has concluded it's investigation.

Good luck to the GOP on the horse beatings they have planned.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: introvert

If you can find that statement from Comey? I'm interested in hearing it.

Did you have a chance to watch Gowdy's first set of questions? He was particularly focused on false statements and intent.

No, I was only able to hear bits and pieces, as I have other responsibilities that take priority. I hope to watch more of it once I get settled in for the night.

I did hear Comey make a comment about intent, which pretty much put that gross negligence nonsense to bed.