Comey being grilled live now

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Also, that was one small point of a four point post. Care to address any of the rest of it?

Can you be specific about what you would like me to comment on?

Thanks.

No. I just wondered if you wanted to comment on anything else, nothing in particular. Did anything stick out as incorrect or not make sense, or did y9u agree with anything.

I am not trying to be a jerk, I am open to criticism. I just noticed that you read my thread, and you were right that my quote wasn't an exact quote of Comey (although I feel my interpretation was fair), so I wondered if you had any thoughts on the post.

I went back through your posts and this is the only part I felt was worth discussing:

So now the precedent has been set. Anyone can now store any state information on private servers. If this evidence gets subpoenaed, you just have some low level guy wipe it clean. The FBI can't be bothered to take time to get a grand jury to subpoena people, so they will grant immunity to all low level people. And Viola! You get off scott free as those low level people will say they did it on there own, even if they afre seen online asking for help saying they asked him to do it. In other words, it is ok to destroy evidence that could prove your guilt.

I don't believe that precedent has been set as you describe. It is not ok to store state info on private servers or destroy it. What we should focus on is the intent of the people involved, because Comey specifically stated that intent was needed to prosecute. That was what many people failed to realize, even though it was pretty clear before his press conference.

a reply to: Grambler

The investigation is important because it is another illustration of the most important point, if you have the right connections, you are above the law.

I disagree. What this case has shown is that the laws are being equally applied. 80% of cases similar to this were never prosecuted and those that were they pled guilty because they could prove intent.

originally posted by: introvert




I went back through your posts and this is the only part I felt was worth discussing:


"So now the precedent has been set. Anyone can now store any state information on private servers. If this evidence gets subpoenaed, you just have some low level guy wipe it clean. The FBI can't be bothered to take time to get a grand jury to subpoena people, so they will grant immunity to all low level people. And Viola! You get off scott free as those low level people will say they did it on there own, even if they afre seen online asking for help saying they asked him to do it. In other words, it is ok to destroy evidence that could prove your guilt."


I don't believe that precedent has been set as you describe. It is not ok to store state info on private servers or destroy it. What we should focus on is the intent of the people involved, because Comey specifically stated that intent was needed to prosecute. That was what many people failed to realize, even though it was pretty clear before his press conference.

Thanks for the post.

I disagree with you about the intent thing.

First off, she intended to keep state info on her private info. This wasn't a mistake, she had it set up. It is a matter of did she intend to have classified or any other level of material that is supposed to be only on secured government servers on her computer.

Then we have to look at the evidence, but it was destroyed. So the question becomes did she intend to destroy that evidence after it was asked for? The FBI can not prove that Hillary did intend to have it destroyed.

However, they do know that Combetta did intend to destroy this evidence. The problem is that they gave him immunity before he admitted it, and once they did, he said he did it on his own.

So it is not a question of intent. The question is can they prove anyone without immunity had intent.

And so if you want to store this info privately so no one can see your communications, all you have to do is have a low level guy delete all of the information.

And if it is FBI policy to just give immunity to low level employees without any knowledge of rather or not they will roll on a big fish, these low level people will just continue to get immunity and take all of the blame. Now the FBI has no evidence of any wrong doing.

Why wouldn't you follow this pattern if you wanted to be corrupt and hide all of your state info from being seen by anyone?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

The investigation is important because it is another illustration of the most important point, if you have the right connections, you are above the law.

I disagree. What this case has shown is that the laws are being equally applied. 80% of cases similar to this were never prosecuted and those that were they pled guilty because they could prove intent.

Well, we have intent now.

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

The investigation is important because it is another illustration of the most important point, if you have the right connections, you are above the law.

I disagree. What this case has shown is that the laws are being equally applied. 80% of cases similar to this were never prosecuted and those that were they pled guilty because they could prove intent.

Well, we have intent now.

What intent has been proven? Can you provide that?

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

The investigation is important because it is another illustration of the most important point, if you have the right connections, you are above the law.

I disagree. What this case has shown is that the laws are being equally applied. 80% of cases similar to this were never prosecuted and those that were they pled guilty because they could prove intent.

Well, we have intent now.

What intent has been proven? Can you provide that?

Comey admitted Wednesday that one of Hillary’s lawyers — Cheryl Mills — told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved

Keep up introvert, Keep up.

originally posted by: introvert
What intent has been proven? Can you provide that?

Sure that was on my post #2 in that string of posts.

First off, the FBI admits Combetta intended to delet the emails. It was just that he had immunity. So they had no proof anyone asked him to do this.

Today at the hearing, Comey admitted that on the reddit thread, stonetear was combetta, the "they" that he said in the reddit post wanted him to remove a vip email was Cheryl Mills, and the VIP was Hillary.

Comey said that despite this, he didn't feel that Combetta was asking for help to delete these emails, only to put in a place holder for Hillarys email, and thus as Comey put it today, it was just over "privacy concerns"

So pause here for a minute. This is proof that someone in Hillarys campaign told Combetta to do something with the emails the day after they were requested by congress. This is intent.

Now the question is was that something just to replace her email with a place holder so as to protect her official email from being seen, or was this to eliminate Hillary from these emails altogether.

However, I don't think it matters either way. When Congress asks for documents, you have to submit them as is. You don't get to make adjustments for privacy concerns. This means Cheryl Mills intentionally told Combetta to break the law.

Thats it. Now if you go back and read my post #2 on that string and you will see how I think this idea of Mills just having privacy concerns is ridiculous, but even without that, Mills intentionally told Combetta to break the law. This means at the least she should be prosecuted.

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

The investigation is important because it is another illustration of the most important point, if you have the right connections, you are above the law.

I disagree. What this case has shown is that the laws are being equally applied. 80% of cases similar to this were never prosecuted and those that were they pled guilty because they could prove intent.

Well, we have intent now.

What intent has been proven? Can you provide that?

Comey admitted Wednesday that one of Hillary’s lawyers — Cheryl Mills — told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved

Keep up introvert, Keep up.

And of course, Cheryl was acting in Hillary's best interests !!!!

Implied and impacted.

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

The investigation is important because it is another illustration of the most important point, if you have the right connections, you are above the law.

I disagree. What this case has shown is that the laws are being equally applied. 80% of cases similar to this were never prosecuted and those that were they pled guilty because they could prove intent.

Well, we have intent now.

What intent has been proven? Can you provide that?

Comey admitted Wednesday that one of Hillary’s lawyers — Cheryl Mills — told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved

Keep up introvert, Keep up.

Comey actually said "it might have been Cheryl Mills" that told Combetta to delete emails. That would indicate that they do not have proof of it.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

The investigation is important because it is another illustration of the most important point, if you have the right connections, you are above the law.

I disagree. What this case has shown is that the laws are being equally applied. 80% of cases similar to this were never prosecuted and those that were they pled guilty because they could prove intent.

I dont think that is true.

Show me an example of a case where someone had state info on a private server, then had it requested by Congress and deleted it instead of providing it to them. I am open to see something like this, but I am not sure it exisits.

Combetta said today that he was unaware of a case where a witness got to sit in an interview with a suspect in all of his years, yet that is what happened in this case,

One congressmen mentioned other cases where people had been arrested over this. Comey said the problem was the specifics of those cases were different. The congressmen brought up the case of one marine where he was prosecuted for leaving classified papers in a gym bag. Comey said the differnce was he had hard copies of the evidence.

How is this any worse than having digital classified info. Couldn't you just print it out? This seems to show that even Comey couldn't come up with a good reason why these two cases were different.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

The investigation is important because it is another illustration of the most important point, if you have the right connections, you are above the law.

I disagree. What this case has shown is that the laws are being equally applied. 80% of cases similar to this were never prosecuted and those that were they pled guilty because they could prove intent.

Well, we have intent now.

What intent has been proven? Can you provide that?

Comey admitted Wednesday that one of Hillary’s lawyers — Cheryl Mills — told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved

Keep up introvert, Keep up.

Comey actually said "it might have been Cheryl Mills" that told Combetta to delete emails. That would indicate that they do not have proof of it.

No - he actually said "one of her lawyers - it might have been Cheryl Mills told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved".

So regardless of who gave the order - it was given. That is intent.

a reply to: Grambler

Collin Powell.

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

The investigation is important because it is another illustration of the most important point, if you have the right connections, you are above the law.

I disagree. What this case has shown is that the laws are being equally applied. 80% of cases similar to this were never prosecuted and those that were they pled guilty because they could prove intent.

Well, we have intent now.

What intent has been proven? Can you provide that?

Comey admitted Wednesday that one of Hillary’s lawyers — Cheryl Mills — told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved

Keep up introvert, Keep up.

Comey actually said "it might have been Cheryl Mills" that told Combetta to delete emails. That would indicate that they do not have proof of it.

No - he actually said "one of her lawyers - it might have been Cheryl Mills told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved".

So regardless of who gave the order - it was given. That is intent.

MIght have been. Pay attention to the language. You have to be able to prove it.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Collin Powell.

Are you saying he deleted evidence after congress had requested it? I will be happy to read about it if you can provide a link.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

The investigation is important because it is another illustration of the most important point, if you have the right connections, you are above the law.

I disagree. What this case has shown is that the laws are being equally applied. 80% of cases similar to this were never prosecuted and those that were they pled guilty because they could prove intent.

Well, we have intent now.

What intent has been proven? Can you provide that?

Comey admitted Wednesday that one of Hillary’s lawyers — Cheryl Mills — told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved

Keep up introvert, Keep up.

Comey actually said "it might have been Cheryl Mills" that told Combetta to delete emails. That would indicate that they do not have proof of it.

No - he actually said "one of her lawyers - it might have been Cheryl Mills told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved".

So regardless of who gave the order - it was given. That is intent.

MIght have been. Pay attention to the language. You have to be able to prove it.

I just did prove it.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Collin Powell.

Are you saying he deleted evidence after congress had requested it? I will be happy to read about it if you can provide a link.

When I entered the State Department I found an antiquated system that had to be modernized and modernized quickly,” he said. “I started using [email] in order to get everybody to use it, so we could be a 21st-century institution and not a 19th-century [one]. But I retained none of those emails, and we are working with the State Department to see if there’s anything else they want to discuss with me about those emails Read more: www.politico.com... Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

He was asked to provide those records and never has to this day. If he did not "retain" those emails, it means he deleted them off of his private system.

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

The investigation is important because it is another illustration of the most important point, if you have the right connections, you are above the law.

I disagree. What this case has shown is that the laws are being equally applied. 80% of cases similar to this were never prosecuted and those that were they pled guilty because they could prove intent.

Well, we have intent now.

What intent has been proven? Can you provide that?

Comey admitted Wednesday that one of Hillary’s lawyers — Cheryl Mills — told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved

Keep up introvert, Keep up.

Comey actually said "it might have been Cheryl Mills" that told Combetta to delete emails. That would indicate that they do not have proof of it.

No - he actually said "one of her lawyers - it might have been Cheryl Mills told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved".

So regardless of who gave the order - it was given. That is intent.

MIght have been. Pay attention to the language. You have to be able to prove it.

I just did prove it.

No you did not. You did not prove Cheryl Mills told Combetta to delete emails. He said "might have been". That is not a definitive statement.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

Collin Powell.

Are you saying he deleted evidence after congress had requested it? I will be happy to read about it if you can provide a link.

When I entered the State Department I found an antiquated system that had to be modernized and modernized quickly,” he said. “I started using [email] in order to get everybody to use it, so we could be a 21st-century institution and not a 19th-century [one]. But I retained none of those emails, and we are working with the State Department to see if there’s anything else they want to discuss with me about those emails Read more: www.politico.com... Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

He was asked to provide those records and never has to this day. If he did not "retain" those emails, it means he deleted them off of his private system.

I don't see on that source where congress subpoenaed this info. but regardless your source says this.

Powell said it would be inappropriate to comment on Clinton’s email use. The State Department’s policy on personal email accounts dates back to 2005, the year Powell left the administration.

“When I entered the State Department I found an antiquated system that had to be modernized and modernized quickly,” he said. “I started using [email] in order to get everybody to use it, so we could be a 21st-century institution and not a 19th-century [one]. But I retained none of those emails, and we are working with the State Department to see if there’s anything else they want to discuss with me about those emails.”

The emails he sent were all unclassified, mostly “benign,” he said, and probably not important even if they can be recovered.

So this was before the current state department policy was in place. I do not know what the policy was at the time. He also didn't delete his info after congress asked for them, and there is no proof that anyo of his info was classified.

All of this is different than Hillary.

Lastly, I don't believe there was an FBI investigation of Powell, so this doesn't prove that he would not be charged.

I there is sufficient evidence for an investigation of him, by all means I hope they get him. The law is the law, and if he broke it, then he should be punished.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

The investigation is important because it is another illustration of the most important point, if you have the right connections, you are above the law.

I disagree. What this case has shown is that the laws are being equally applied. 80% of cases similar to this were never prosecuted and those that were they pled guilty because they could prove intent.

Well, we have intent now.

What intent has been proven? Can you provide that?

Comey admitted Wednesday that one of Hillary’s lawyers — Cheryl Mills — told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved

Keep up introvert, Keep up.

Comey actually said "it might have been Cheryl Mills" that told Combetta to delete emails. That would indicate that they do not have proof of it.

No - he actually said "one of her lawyers - it might have been Cheryl Mills told Paul Combetta to delete e-mail files from Clinton’s secret server only days after Congress ordered them to be preserved".

So regardless of who gave the order - it was given. That is intent.

MIght have been. Pay attention to the language. You have to be able to prove it.

I just did prove it.

No you did not. You did not prove Cheryl Mills told Combetta to delete emails. He said "might have been". That is not a definitive statement.

It might have been Mills. However, he said it definitely was one of her lawyers. So what does it matter which lawyer it was? Someone from the Clinton staff told Combetta to do this. This is intent. Was it Mills, Huma, Hillary herself? Who cares? They know that one of them intended this, so why has no one been charged?