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

a reply to: Krazysh0t

ou 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.

No , I'm not throwing out what Comey said. I'm putting it into context. He did not say that Hillary was 100% innocent,he said that there was not enough proof to prosecute her. Big Difference

I'm also not the one saying that Petraeus was worse or vice versa, because their is no way to compare the two cases. The FBI didn't have all the information as some was deleted nor technically possible to proof.

Text book bias is YOU believing that their is NO WAY Hillary did anything criminal, despite even the head of the FBI admitting that he can't say that because its a possibility he just doesn’t have enough to prosecute.

You are no different than the rabid trump supporters, you are clearly what disgusts you. but on the opposite spectrum.

I agree with a lot of things you post here but your bias to Hillary and hate of trump has clouded your ability to think rationally when it comes to her.

a reply to: boncho

Do you realize the difference in that though? Paetraeus willingly gave classified information to someone, in the other case it was hacked. There's a clear difference. Intent.

So the lawyer of hers who got to review the e-mails without security clearance is different how? See that alone makes it equal! We got intent with that.

originally posted by: interupt42
a reply to: Krazysh0t
No , I'm not throwing out what Comey said. I'm putting it into context. He did not say that Hillary was innocent,he said that there was not enough proof to prosecute her. Big Difference

No, he specifically said there wasn't anything criminal that went on. Comey: No evidence that Clinton acted with 'necessary criminal intent'. See, you are arguing with the actual facts of the matter. "Extremely careless" doesn't mean criminal.

I'm also not the one saying that Petraeus was worse or vice versa, because their is no way to compare the two cases because the FBI didn't have all the information as some was deleted nor technically possible to proof.

Yeah I know. Comey is saying it. The guy in charge of both investigations.

Text book bias is YOU believing that their is NO WAY Hillary did anything criminal, despite even the head of the FBI admitting that he can't say that because its a possibility.

I never said that. I said I believe Comey. You are putting words in my mouth.

You are no different than the rabid trump supporters, you are clearly what disgusts you. but on the opposite spectrum.

I agree with a lot of things you post here but your bias to Hillary and hate of trump has clouded your ability to think rationally when it comes to her.

*eyeroll* When in doubt, start the character assassination... It never fails with you guys...

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: interupt42

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

So you are aware that it was proven by the FBI that Hillary is incompetent to handle classified information as a govt official and is a liar.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

No, he specifically said there wasn't anything criminal that went on

Try reading your own source, perhaps why you decided to leave out the quote itself?

He did not say

there wasn't anything criminal that went on.

He said

We did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet the intent standard," Comey explained.

Not finding sufficient evidence does not mean that something criminal didn't happen. Do you believe that the only crime Al Capone did was fraud the IRS too?

Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
Read more: www.politico.com...

I never said that. I said I believe Comey. You are putting words in my mouth.

So you agree its possible that Hillary did break law.

When in doubt, start the character assassination...

So you lost the argument long ago when you called me a liar, Gotcha.

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).

a reply to: interupt42

Of course I believe it's possible she broke the law. I'm just willing to accept Comey's words at face value too. But somehow that gets me labeled as biased.

If Comey had come back recommending indictment I'd be right there agreeing with it. That is what I do. I reserve judgement until the professional verdict is in. Then I accept that. I don't let myself believe the media hype so I set myself up for failure in case I'm wrong.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: interupt42

Of course I believe it's possible she broke the law. I'm just willing to accept Comey's words at face value too. But somehow that gets me labeled as biased.

What gets you labelled as biased is not you taking Comeys word at face value, its your willingness to overlook the following things and still think she is a good candidate for president.

1. She is a proven liar and has traits of a habitual liar.

2. She is incompetent to handle critical sensitive information as a gov't official.

3. She has proven herself and her family to be unethical by having her husband meet with the Attorney General while under a criminal investigation about her was going on.

4. She has a lackluster career in politics when it comes to the regular every day people.

5. She has numerous conflict of interest that are not in the best interest of the people , she is suppose to represent.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Of the two of us only you made an absolute statement so tge burden of proof is on you.

I said if she was... You said she wasn't.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: interupt42

They completely ruled out criminal activity. COMPLETELY.

WRONG , they just didn't have enough to prosecute.

We did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet the intent standard," Comey explained.

Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.
Read more: www.politico.com...

a reply to: interupt42

With those standards the only people qualified to be president are Eagle Scouts.
Who in Washington qualifies then?

a reply to: interupt42

So basically it's not party lines and ideology? When it comes to Hillary, it's personal.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: interupt42

With those standards the only people qualified to be president are Eagle Scouts.
Who in Washington qualifies then?

So by your response you agree she is incompetent , has numerous conflict of interest, lacklustre career in office, a liar, and not a good candidate for president.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: interupt42

So basically it's not party lines and ideology? When it comes to Hillary, it's personal.

No its not party lines nor ideology, nor personal , its UNBIASED common-sense.

A Person with the following traits is not a good candidate for POTUS:

1. She is a proven liar and has traits of a habitual liar.

2. She is incompetent to handle critical sensitive information as a gov't official.

3. She has proven herself and her family to be unethical by having her husband meet with the Attorney General while under a criminal investigation about her was going on.

4. She has a lackluster career in politics when it comes to the regular every day people.

5. She has numerous conflict of interest that are not in the best interest of the people , she is suppose to represent.

a reply to: interupt42

No he didn't say there was not enough proof. What he said was there was no evidence of a crime.

a reply to: hangedman13

Because they didn't read thirty thousand emails and oh yeah, prior to reclassification there was not top secret stuff to be found. Only confidential like Momar Quadify is a dick. Stuff like that. If it's this easy for me then for sure the worst lawyer on the planet could get her off
It's a joke .

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: interupt42

No he didn't say there was not enough proof. What he said was there was no evidence of a crime.

Wrong again.

We did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet the intent standard," Comey explained.

a reply to: interupt42

No that's one of those opinion things.
I got she was very busy doing an outstanding and demanding job as Secretary of State between 2009 and 2012
I got that for convenience she stuck with a system she knew so she didn't miss a step in starting and continuing that job.
I got that she said she didn't receive anything MARKED classified and it turns out that wasn't true. She had three emails with a c marking a paragraph that turns out mean confidential. I get that out of thirty thousand emails sent between three and seven years ago she didn't remember those three little c marks.
I got that they said she did not break any laws.
I got that she never intended that any harm come to our nation through her actions. I got that she's a loyal civil servant who keeps getting knocked down and who doesn't turn tail and run. She picks herself up says hrumph and puts herself out there to serve again.
I got that a divided house spoke as if about two different people.

a reply to: interupt42

"Sufficient evidence" is not the same as" evidence sufficient to establish."
One speaks of quantity the other of quality. There was no evidence to support a crime.
You're not reading the legalese with which he speaks. Lol.

a reply to: Sillyolme

That is ALL BIASED opinions here are the FACTS for Hillary:


1. She is a proven liar and has traits of a habitual liar.

2. She has proven incompetent to handle critical sensitive information as a gov't official.

3. She has proven herself and her family to be unethical by having her husband meet with the Attorney General while under a criminal investigation about her was going on.

4. She has a lackluster career in politics when it comes to the regular every day people.

5. She has numerous conflict of interest that are not in the best interest of the people , she is suppose to represent.

originally posted by: interupt42

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: interupt42

Of course I believe it's possible she broke the law. I'm just willing to accept Comey's words at face value too. But somehow that gets me labeled as biased.

What gets you labelled as biased is not you taking Comeys word at face value, its your willingness to overlook the following things and still think she is a good candidate for president.

1. She is a proven liar and has traits of a habitual liar.

2. She is incompetent to handle critical sensitive information as a gov't official.

3. She has proven herself and her family to be unethical by having her husband meet with the Attorney General while under a criminal investigation about her was going on.

4. She has a lackluster career in politics when it comes to the regular every day people.

5. She has numerous conflict of interest that are not in the best interest of the people , she is suppose to represent.

Don't care about any of that. For everything that is against Hillary, Trump makes me feel far worse about him being President. Since Gary Johnson doesn't have a prayer to beat either of the two, then I'm going to vote for Hillary because she has the best chance to beat him. Also I have the best chance of seeing Bernie ideals being implemented under Hillary.

See you seem to be under the misunderstanding that I've always been a Hillary supporter or something, but that's not true. I only support her out of necessity not because I want to. But at the same time I won't stand for people lying and making # up about people. I do this when people slander Obama too.