FBI Director: Petraeus Leaks Were Much Worse Than Clinton Email Mess

a reply to: Sillyolme

That bastard lied and got everybody all worked up and it turns out he never hacked Clinton. Like I had said all along.

So you had access to Guccifer and the FBI information all along, Or did you just bury your head in the sand and blindly came to that conclusion from the start?

We don't know to what extent her computer was hacked nor to what extent guccifer accessed it, its not like when criminals get arrested they own up to additional charges for the fun of it.

Clinton was protected, Patraeus wasn't simple as that. Clinton had an SAP on her unprotected server, intent or not that is a major no no. Why wasn't she under oath, why is there no transcript? The fact that some people here are taking Comey at his word is a joke.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

She will face at the very least another investigation for obstruction(most likely) and possiblly perjury for her misstatements under oath in front of congress.

Dowdy and Chafetz are both drafting requests from Congress for those investigations to commence.
Whether or not she will charged or subsequently prosecuted remains unknown and doubtful given Clinton's power but another investigation is coming.

For all you millennials, welcome back to the 90s....we had 8 years of this kinda stuff and now you will see the utter depravity that is the Clinton dynasty...

Just a piece of advice in life: if people always find you to be breaking laws the one should inevitably ask "is it me" or remain defiant and adopt the ethos of the despot and leave no room for your fallibility...the clintons adopted the latter as y'all will now see...

-Christosterone

a reply to: Sillyolme

Her emails are on the wiki site that is not to be named.

a reply to: boncho

Another scenario: Neither Russia nor Trump have anything incriminating on Hillary to leak at all.

originally posted by: jaws1975
Clinton was protected, Patraeus wasn't simple as that. Clinton had an SAP on her unprotected server, intent or not that is a major no no. Why wasn't she under oath, why is there no transcript? The fact that some people here are taking Comey at his word is a joke.

Not to mention Bill meeting with Lynch days before the charges were dismissed and not a peep.

The real give away it this was rigged : was because the FBI stating they couldn't recover emails. The gov't has access to your email without having to get it from your harddrive with software and hardware directly hooked into the infrastructure and telecom industries. XKeyscore is one such method, which none of the bobbing head GOP or DNC senators occupied with getting sound bites asked about .

a reply to: Christosterone

I'm a millennial that remembers the Clinton Presidency just fine. Trust me I already know that these investigations aren't over. You didn't have to bring up the circus that was the Bill Clinton investigations. Just bring up the Benghazi circus. It's practically a given that the Republicans aren't going to let this go anytime soon and MUCH tax payer money will be wasted on frivolous investigations that don't produce any new results or information, all while whining about government spending.

a reply to: interupt42

Because FBI Directory James E Comey under oath in front of the house oversight committee said he interviewed Guccifer who said he lied about hacking Clinton's server.
I actually watched the hearings. I don't argue without facts.

As for how I concluded it. I said over and over that Guccifer played show and tell with every hack he accomplished. He released actual content from every system he got into. But Clinton he decides to keep for years and doesn't brag about Then after he's locked up for hacking in Romania he says he has this cache of emails. Anyone who bought it were fools. I was never fooled . Common sense and deductive reasoning.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm a moralist rather than a republican.

So forgive me if I take offense at you referring to the death of a US diplomat in Benghazi as a "circus."

Your callousness belies your religion of liberalism which is absolutely and unfathomably insensitive. But that is the ethos of the Clinton acolyte who is long since bereft of morality and blind to the clintons deptavity and tendency towards fascist despotism...

It's a matter of time of time until you being the name calling..

a reply to: Sillyolme

It's funny how all these people are jumping through hoops to continue to convince themselves that Hillary should have been indicted. It clearly shows how much they deceived themselves in echo chambers instead of looking at the situation objectively. Comey did everything in his power to find wrongdoing, and at the end of the day there wasn't anything to prosecute. Yet we have people in this thread arguing with Comey's very words like they would know better than he.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: interupt42

I don't argue without facts.

No , you just make them up to meet your narrative.

You said from the start that you knew even before his testimony yesterday. So either you had access to insider information or you just make up your mind before any facts are presented.

originally posted by: Christosterone
a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'm a moralist rather than a republican.

So forgive me if I take offense at you referring to the death of a US diplomat in Benghazi as a "circus."

To be clear here, I'm referring to the investigations that transpired afterwards as a circus, not the actual event.

Your callousness belies your religion of liberalism which is absolutely and unfathomably insensitive. But that is the ethos of the Clinton acolyte who is long since bereft of morality and blind to the clintons deptavity and tendency towards fascist despotism...

Thanks for the moral breakdown on my character, but I don't care what you think about me. I am me and I won't apologize for my opinions, even if they offend you. But hey, if this were me being offended, all sorts of people such as yourself would be calling me a "special snowflake" or using the word "triggered". I'm not going to do that with you because I don't like lowering the bar deliberately, but watch yourself and stick to the content of the thread, guy.

It's a matter of time of time until you being the name calling..

Matter of time? You are doing it in this post. This whole post is a childish ad hominem and has nothing to do with the OP.

a reply to: interupt42

And then the commercial came on and we realised it was just a tv show on the SyFy channel.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

It's funny how all these people are jumping through hoops to continue to convince themselves that Hillary should have been indicted

I think you will find that is not the case, what people are convinced is that she is not qualified to be president nor is she deserving to be president based on what the FBI released yesterday.

What I find amazing is the people jumping through hoops to continue to convince themselves that she is a moral and honest individual competent and worthy to be the POTUS.

a reply to: interupt42

She is qualified to be president though. There is no Constitutional problem with her and her ability to be President. So you are wrong. You may not think she is fit to be President, but you are a liar if you think she isn't qualified (or you don't know the definition of the word qualified).

PS: You aren't doing yourself an services creating strawmans about why I will be voting for Hillary. I've been very clear that I am voting for her because she isn't Trump and because I want Bernie to continue his politics. It has nothing to do with her and her positions.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: interupt42

And then the commercial came on and we realised it was just a tv show on the SyFy channel.

Thats the problem . You associate reality to that Hillary Clinton ad that comes on.

a reply to: interupt42

No one is saying she is innocent. Errors were made but there was never any intent to break any laws and there was not crime without intending.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

He said point blank that any one else doing the same thing could be prosecuted, so how exactly was there nothing to prosecute?

originally posted by: jaws1975
a reply to: Krazysh0t

He said point blank that any one else doing the same thing could be prosecuted, so how exactly was there nothing to prosecute?

Where did he say that? Got a source?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Tell me how investigating a dead US diplomat along with those who died defending him from a coordinated attack about which Clinton lied to create a false narrative is unfounded, or in your words, a "circus".

My post was in reference to your unbelievably naive comment about "Benghazi" being a "circus"....I followed your amoral comment with a defense as I am want to do...moral relativism as practiced by the progressives is an ideology bereft of humanity as the innate instincts we are programmed with as Homo sapiens are ignored by the moral relativist.
They see the world as grey instead of black and white, good and evil, right and wrong...

I am a moralist and make no such alterations to my genetic programming to overcome my humanity and its instinct to do what is right and good...

-Christosterone