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

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

This just translates to me that you never looked at this situation unbiased. The only answer you'd except is indict and you are willing to invent reasoning to dismiss all other answers.

originally posted by: Irishhaf
a reply to: Krazysh0t

IF foreign agents hacked her why would they release the info now?

Lets say I was Russian spy that hacked her server, I wouldnt say a thing at this point... I would wait for her to be elected then I would have leverage over her.

Shooting your wad early is no fun for anyone.

If you are Russia, you want Trump elected. Why wait for her to be elected when releasing the info would destroy her chances for election?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Funny how that works huh?
Last week he was the messiah that was going to deliver us from evil. Now he's a vehicle bringing the evil.
Contrary Mary's with flip flopping loyalties.

They really make it easy to identify themselves as the ones incapable of analyzing this situation objectively.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: interupt42

This is the PERFECT opportunity for Russia or Trump to release info if they have it. She's exposed and public opinion is skeptical of Comey's findings. If you want to destroy her rep with this info, now is the time to do it. Waiting until later would just give time for countermeasures to be thought up.

Like I said that is one scenario and that is assuming your primary intentions is to destroy her.

a reply to: interupt42

I watched all five hours of the hearing yesterday. That's the reality I live in.

a reply to: interupt42

They completely ruled out criminal activity. COMPLETELY.

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: interupt42

This is the PERFECT opportunity for Russia or Trump to release info if they have it. She's exposed and public opinion is skeptical of Comey's findings. If you want to destroy her rep with this info, now is the time to do it. Waiting until later would just give time for countermeasures to be thought up.

Like I said that is one scenario and that is assuming your primary intentions is to destroy her.

Whatever. It's all speculation anyways. I don't believe they have anything incriminating and you do. Without any data dumps we won't ever know who is correct. So I'm going to continue to believe Comey's words because that is the most reliable info we have at the moment. You can proceed to trust your bias instead though.

a reply to: interupt42

If you haven't gotten the point by now why would I waste more time trying to teach the unreachable?
Why would I do that?

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: interupt42

Your so confused. Sit down. Get out of the sun.

So what I'm I exactly confused about here:

1. She is a liar

2. She was incompetent and ignorant as secretary of state on handling critical sensitive information required for her job.

3. She has no regards for the law or ethics by having her Husband meet with Lynch during an ongoing investigation about her.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

How does it translate that way?
The only bias I have is for the little guy, who actually get in trouble when they break the law.
The way I understood the law, when this was all going down, was that gross negligence was just as bad as intent.
All I'm saying is,
Gross negligence was obviously displayed in Hillary's case and intent was obviously displayed in Petraeus's.
Punish them both harshly, so this might not happen again.

a reply to: Irishhaf

Prove she was.The FBI couldn't show she was hacked. There was no evidence of a hack All they could say was she used her BlackBerry in a country that had the technology to hack her. They didn't say she was. They didn't even say it was likely. They said it was possible.
Stretch that to mean she was.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: interupt42

Not qualified? .

She is not qualified to be president because of her ethical behaviour and disregard for the law.

a reply to: o0oTOPCATo0o

Because you cannot accept the conclusion as presented and you are thinking of all these justifications to dismiss it without any compelling evidence to do so. That is textbook bias. Hell you are partially admitting it by saying you care about the little guy getting arrested but the rich people always get off like EVERY time a rich person gets off its because they gamed the system and aren't actually innocent.

PS: I know this may be a blow to your ego, but it's quite possible you don't understand the law as fully as you think you do.

a reply to: interupt42

Like Delores Clairborn right? Do you know the story?
Wait eight years after finding out you're a beneficiary of a will to murder the woman leaving you the money. Just to throw the cops off the trail.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

You can proceed to trust your bias instead though.

Being that I'm not republican nor democrat and I have thrashed both Trump and Hillary for their BS and you keep defending her BS no matter what, I say you may want to re look into who is blinded by biased here.


Stop treating a politician like Hillary as if she was your daughter by supporting her no matter what.
She is a liar and ethically corrupt.

a reply to: interupt42

I don't care who you support. You are being biased with your analysis here. You are throwing out an unbiased investigation on Hillary's email scandal because you've already convinced yourself that she is guilty. THAT is textbook bias. Sorry, but thems the brakes.

a reply to: Irishhaf

You realize they are talking about the time frame of 2009-2012 right?
When she had said she wasn't planning on running for president again? Soooo why again would they not release what they hacked? No evidence either physical or circumstantial supports the story of a hack.

a reply to: avgguy

No she didn't. She said there was an attempt. Jesus you disdain lying then stop lying.

a reply to: avgguy

They did the deleting. Keep up.

I can play this game.
OH ?YOU KNOW FOR A FACT SHE WAS HACKED??? LINK PLEASE.