Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
She used multiple device but not at the same time. She went through 11 email capable devices while Secretary State. That does not mean that she had more than one device at any one time. Which is absolutely correct in the context the question was asked.Comey did not say she lied to the FBI.If the House had information that Hillary lied under oath she would be under arrest for contempt of congress right now. Comey said there was no indication Hillary nor her staffed lied to FBI so what the hell are talking about.Ain't gonna happen, unless there's explicit evidence of intentional wrongdoing, and there has not been any such evidence yet, let alone any convictions.
They have enough information to show she lied under oath... if you continue to have a Republican led House, and a Republican run Senate... it is going to be nothing but investigations.
Let's go over just ONE example. She said she used ONE device... Comey said that was a lie. In fact Gowdey asked Comey very specific questions to show each of her lies.
The report indicates the FBI investigation found 13 total mobile devices associated with her two known phone numbers that were potentially used to send emails via clintonemail.com.
The report does not say that she used more than one device at a time during her years at State.
“Investigation determined Clinton used in succession 11 e-mail capable BlackBerry mobile devices … eight of which she used during her tenure as Secretary of State," the report reads.
It says she used two mobile devices after she left office.
As I said, if she had lied to congress, Republicans in congress would have seen that the she was charged. Comey said she did not lie to the FBI. If she had she would be charged now.
WHAT!?!? She said she only used one device... you JUST said she used multiple devices, but it wasn't a lie? Are you smoke'n dope?
That bastard has been at war every day of his administration, hasn't he?
So do you want the US to surrender to ISIS, the Taliban, and Al Qaeda and let them take whatever territory the desire?
She used multiple device but not at the same time. She went through 11 email capable devices while Secretary State. That does not mean that she had more than one device at any one time. Which is absolutely correct in the context the question was asked.Comey did not say she lied to the FBI.If the House had information that Hillary lied under oath she would be under arrest for contempt of congress right now. Comey said there was no indication Hillary nor her staffed lied to FBI so what the hell are talking about.They have enough information to show she lied under oath... if you continue to have a Republican led House, and a Republican run Senate... it is going to be nothing but investigations.
Let's go over just ONE example. She said she used ONE device... Comey said that was a lie. In fact Gowdey asked Comey very specific questions to show each of her lies.
The report indicates the FBI investigation found 13 total mobile devices associated with her two known phone numbers that were potentially used to send emails via clintonemail.com.
The report does not say that she used more than one device at a time during her years at State.
“Investigation determined Clinton used in succession 11 e-mail capable BlackBerry mobile devices … eight of which she used during her tenure as Secretary of State," the report reads.
It says she used two mobile devices after she left office.
As I said, if she had lied to congress, Republicans in congress would have seen that the she was charged. Comey said she did not lie to the FBI. If she had she would be charged now.
WHAT!?!? She said she only used one device... you JUST said she used multiple devices, but it wasn't a lie? Are you smoke'n dope?
She used multiple device but not at the same time. She went through 11 email capable devices while Secretary State. That does not mean that she had more than one device at any one time. Which is absolutely correct in the context the question was asked.Comey did not say she lied to the FBI.If the House had information that Hillary lied under oath she would be under arrest for contempt of congress right now. Comey said there was no indication Hillary nor her staffed lied to FBI so what the hell are talking about.
Let's go over just ONE example. She said she used ONE device... Comey said that was a lie. In fact Gowdey asked Comey very specific questions to show each of her lies.
The report indicates the FBI investigation found 13 total mobile devices associated with her two known phone numbers that were potentially used to send emails via clintonemail.com.
The report does not say that she used more than one device at a time during her years at State.
“Investigation determined Clinton used in succession 11 e-mail capable BlackBerry mobile devices … eight of which she used during her tenure as Secretary of State," the report reads.
It says she used two mobile devices after she left office.
As I said, if she had lied to congress, Republicans in congress would have seen that the she was charged. Comey said she did not lie to the FBI. If she had she would be charged now.
WHAT!?!? She said she only used one device... you JUST said she used multiple devices, but it wasn't a lie? Are you smoke'n dope?
Ok, I'm sure you have seen this video before... but since you seem to have a short memory I'll post it again.
Obama has not done that. The object of Obama's foreign policy seems to be to kiss the ass of the Muslims and fuck up every thing he touches. Crooked Hillary will be even worse.
She used multiple device but not at the same time. She went through 11 email capable devices while Secretary State. That does not mean that she had more than one device at any one time. Which is absolutely correct in the context the question was asked.Comey did not say she lied to the FBI.Let's go over just ONE example. She said she used ONE device... Comey said that was a lie. In fact Gowdey asked Comey very specific questions to show each of her lies.
The report indicates the FBI investigation found 13 total mobile devices associated with her two known phone numbers that were potentially used to send emails via clintonemail.com.
The report does not say that she used more than one device at a time during her years at State.
“Investigation determined Clinton used in succession 11 e-mail capable BlackBerry mobile devices … eight of which she used during her tenure as Secretary of State," the report reads.
It says she used two mobile devices after she left office.
As I said, if she had lied to congress, Republicans in congress would have seen that the she was charged. Comey said she did not lie to the FBI. If she had she would be charged now.
WHAT!?!? She said she only used one device... you JUST said she used multiple devices, but it wasn't a lie? Are you smoke'n dope?
Ok, I'm sure you have seen this video before... but since you seem to have a short memory I'll post it again.
She told the FBI she used multiple email device during her term as secretary of state. She told the House she used one email device but the context of the question was about her normal usage of email, not the total number of device she used as Secretary of State over 4 years. You can bet if there was a clear inconsistency in her statement, she would be under arrest for contempt of congress and we would not be having this conversation.
Trump;s stated foreign policy is to be non interventionists but if we have to kick a little ass because somebody is screwing with us like ISIS then that is OK.
She used multiple device but not at the same time. She went through 11 email capable devices while Secretary State. That does not mean that she had more than one device at any one time. Which is absolutely correct in the context the question was asked.Comey did not say she lied to the FBI.
The report indicates the FBI investigation found 13 total mobile devices associated with her two known phone numbers that were potentially used to send emails via clintonemail.com.
The report does not say that she used more than one device at a time during her years at State.
“Investigation determined Clinton used in succession 11 e-mail capable BlackBerry mobile devices … eight of which she used during her tenure as Secretary of State," the report reads.
It says she used two mobile devices after she left office.
As I said, if she had lied to congress, Republicans in congress would have seen that the she was charged. Comey said she did not lie to the FBI. If she had she would be charged now.
WHAT!?!? She said she only used one device... you JUST said she used multiple devices, but it wasn't a lie? Are you smoke'n dope?
Ok, I'm sure you have seen this video before... but since you seem to have a short memory I'll post it again.
She told the FBI she used multiple email device during her term as secretary of state. She told the House she used one email device but the context of the question was about her normal usage of email, not the total number of device she used as Secretary of State over 4 years. You can bet if there was a clear inconsistency in her statement, she would be under arrest for contempt of congress and we would not be having this conversation.
...and the fact the IT department told her that she could not use a secure Blackberry like Obama... so she used an unsecure one anyway? How in the fuck can you try to defend her actions when they are as obvious as the back of your hand they were lies?
She used multiple device but not at the same time. She went through 11 email capable devices while Secretary State. That does not mean that she had more than one device at any one time. Which is absolutely correct in the context the question was asked.WHAT!?!? She said she only used one device... you JUST said she used multiple devices, but it wasn't a lie? Are you smoke'n dope?
Ok, I'm sure you have seen this video before... but since you seem to have a short memory I'll post it again.
She told the FBI she used multiple email device during her term as secretary of state. She told the House she used one email device but the context of the question was about her normal usage of email, not the total number of device she used as Secretary of State over 4 years. You can bet if there was a clear inconsistency in her statement, she would be under arrest for contempt of congress and we would not be having this conversation.
...and the fact the IT department told her that she could not use a secure Blackberry like Obama... so she used an unsecure one anyway? How in the fuck can you try to defend her actions when they are as obvious as the back of your hand they were lies?
Two different accusations: First you said she lied about having one device. That is clearly not true because of the difference in context of the question.
You then divert to the issue of Clinton not being able to use her Blackberry so she continued to use her personal email server which did not meet security standards. That is clearly true but as Comey pointed out in their investigation they found nothing to indicate there was any intent to violate the law. Without intent the issue becomes one of an administration error, poor judgement, or mishandling of classified information, none of which warrant charges because there was no indication of intent making a successful prosecution very unlikely.
This issue is not likely to end up in court but rather is an issue for voters to consider in electing a president who is responsible for mishandled classified information.
Partisan Congressional investigations regardless of which party initiatives them are political in nature with a true goal of discrediting the target, not to uncover true. The House committee investigating Clinton is certainly such a committee.
She used multiple device but not at the same time. She went through 11 email capable devices while Secretary State. That does not mean that she had more than one device at any one time. Which is absolutely correct in the context the question was asked.
Ok, I'm sure you have seen this video before... but since you seem to have a short memory I'll post it again.
She told the FBI she used multiple email device during her term as secretary of state. She told the House she used one email device but the context of the question was about her normal usage of email, not the total number of device she used as Secretary of State over 4 years. You can bet if there was a clear inconsistency in her statement, she would be under arrest for contempt of congress and we would not be having this conversation.
...and the fact the IT department told her that she could not use a secure Blackberry like Obama... so she used an unsecure one anyway? How in the fuck can you try to defend her actions when they are as obvious as the back of your hand they were lies?
Two different accusations: First you said she lied about having one device. That is clearly not true because of the difference in context of the question.
You then divert to the issue of Clinton not being able to use her Blackberry so she continued to use her personal email server which did not meet security standards. That is clearly true but as Comey pointed out in their investigation they found nothing to indicate there was any intent to violate the law. Without intent the issue becomes one of an administration error, poor judgement, or mishandling of classified information, none of which warrant charges because there was no indication of intent making a successful prosecution very unlikely.
This issue is not likely to end up in court but rather is an issue for voters to consider in electing a president who is responsible for mishandled classified information.
Partisan Congressional investigations regardless of which party initiatives them are political in nature with a true goal of discrediting the target, not to uncover true. The House committee investigating Clinton is certainly such a committee.
...and as Gowdy clearly pointed out, criminals, even dumb ones, don't come out and say they are going to break the law in order to provide intent. However, lying about several parts of something clearly shows deception, and can be used as circumstantial evidence to prove intent.
Ok, I'm sure you have seen this video before... but since you seem to have a short memory I'll post it again.
She told the FBI she used multiple email device during her term as secretary of state. She told the House she used one email device but the context of the question was about her normal usage of email, not the total number of device she used as Secretary of State over 4 years. You can bet if there was a clear inconsistency in her statement, she would be under arrest for contempt of congress and we would not be having this conversation.
...and the fact the IT department told her that she could not use a secure Blackberry like Obama... so she used an unsecure one anyway? How in the fuck can you try to defend her actions when they are as obvious as the back of your hand they were lies?
Two different accusations: First you said she lied about having one device. That is clearly not true because of the difference in context of the question.
You then divert to the issue of Clinton not being able to use her Blackberry so she continued to use her personal email server which did not meet security standards. That is clearly true but as Comey pointed out in their investigation they found nothing to indicate there was any intent to violate the law. Without intent the issue becomes one of an administration error, poor judgement, or mishandling of classified information, none of which warrant charges because there was no indication of intent making a successful prosecution very unlikely.
This issue is not likely to end up in court but rather is an issue for voters to consider in electing a president who is responsible for mishandled classified information.
Partisan Congressional investigations regardless of which party initiatives them are political in nature with a true goal of discrediting the target, not to uncover true. The House committee investigating Clinton is certainly such a committee.
...and as Gowdy clearly pointed out, criminals, even dumb ones, don't come out and say they are going to break the law in order to provide intent. However, lying about several parts of something clearly shows deception, and can be used as circumstantial evidence to prove intent.
Intend to do what? Intend to leak classified information? Intent to get herself in trouble? What did she intend to do? You and congress aren't capable of pointing to an email that hurt American interests, the only thing you have is a notion that she did something that was against the state department rules. Although careless and stupid, she didn't do it with any motive to leak information, saying different makes it the political witch hunt it is. That's why the FBI isn't recommending prosecution.
[
That was a partisan statement if i ever heard one. LOL.
Both candidates are flawed, and neither is a criminal. Each one has their own experiences & policy preferences.
One is a lawyer/politician and the other a businessman. Pros & cons.
However, all you can see is black & white extremes based on your biases.
Not very intelligent or useful in civic discourse.
I am not a Republican. I have already voted and I did not vote for Trump so you can take your partisan BS comment and cram it.
I was commenting on relativism. If my voting strategy was to vote for the lesser of two evils then Trump would win hands down in that contest because Crooked Hillary is so corrupt, dishonest and incompetent.
I am not a Republican. I have already voted and I did not vote for Trump so you can take your partisan BS comment and cram it.
He didn't say he knows more about Isis than all of the Generals...He said he knows more about Isis than THE Generals The Generals hand picked by Obama. And he may be right about that since we are still fighting and dying in the middle east after Obama's entire 8 freakin years of ruin. 8 years of war with the best military in the world and Obama's Generals can't get the job done.Trump has been running on a platform of non interventionism
How does he manage to defeat ISIS knowing more than all the generals by not intervening where ISIS is?
If the House had information that Hillary lied under oath she would be under arrest for contempt of congress right now. Comey said there was no indication Hillary nor her staffed lied to FBI so what the hell are talking about.Ain't gonna happen, unless there's explicit evidence of intentional wrongdoing, and there has not been any such evidence yet, let alone any convictions.Hillary better just hope the Senate doesn't get to the point where there is close to a 2/3rds group of people in the Senate that will remove her from office.Or, the Repubs don't win the Senate again and the POTUS & Congress can get more meaningful legislation done with less partisan bullshit.
They have enough information to show she lied under oath... if you continue to have a Republican led House, and a Republican run Senate... it is going to be nothing but investigations.
Let's go over just ONE example. She said she used ONE device... Comey said that was a lie. In fact Gowdey asked Comey very specific questions to show each of her lies.
Thanks Lakhota this seems to imply Bush prefers Clinton but it is not a public endorsement. It seems to indicate faith the GOP does not need Trump in office in order to defend the Constitution and govt from corruption and abuse. If the situation were more dire, yes Bush would vote for Trump. But if his dislike of Trump is enough to vote no, he has more faith the GOP can still do their job without that. Wow that's more faith than I have. I still think we need a balanced SC or ppl will keep relying on judges to make laws for them.Dear TyroneSlothrop I thought BUSH Sr endorsed Trump.With two days to go until election day, let's recap Trump's suitability for the office of President of the United States:
No major newspaper endorses Trump.
For only the 3rd time in its history, the Atlantic Monthly, started in 1858, endorsed Lincoln, no one else until they anti-endorsed Goldwater in '64. Now Trump is anti-endorsed.
The Harvard Republican Club was founded in 1888 and has endorsed a Republican in every presidential election. Until now. 128 years, if you're counting.
Penn State College Republicans won't endorse Trump.
Princeton College Republicans won't endorse Trump.
Rutgers Republican Club won't endorse Trump.
Trump is a proven failed businessman, with many failed business ventures; Trump Taj Mahal Casino, Trump Plaza Casino, Trump Marina Casino, Trump Airlines, Trump Network (a vitamin-hawking pyramid scheme), Trump talk radio (Trumped!), Trump New Media (a video-on-demand company), Trump Vodka, Trump Ice (bottled water company), Trump Football (New Jersey Generals), Trump Steaks, Trump Travel Agency (GoTrump), Trump Mortgage Company, Trump Magazine, Trump bike race (Tour de Trump), Trump on the Ocean (failed restaurant & catering business), Trump: The Game, Trump University, and most recently Trump Tower in Toronto.
With those failed businesses, Trump is able to leverage the tax loopholes that were designed and inserted by his counterparts, and in doing so always shifts the risk to the public. Meanwhile his contractors, stockholders, and employees received pennies on the dollar. Trump wins, everyone else loses.
Trump's foundation has been exposed as a slush fund.
Not ONE Fortune 100 company endorses Trump. Nor do the CEO's.
Christianity Today denounced Donald Trump stating "He’s the very embodiment of what the Bible calls a fool."
Trump has repeatedly denigrated Mexicans, women, people of color, handicapped people, veterans, veterans with PTSD, Gold Star families, people of other faiths, in reality, anyone who is not Christian, male and white.
No living president endorses Trump.
The last Republican presidential nominee won't endorse Trump.
Trump has now been revealed as a serial sexual predator owning some sense of "entitlement" due to his wealth and status.
Trump's ties with Vladimir Putin and the Russian cyber-hacking incidents (to include state voting machines on election day) are borderline espionage and only now are the details being revealed. (Google: Malcolm Nance)
Former CIA and NSA head, Michael Hayden won't endorse Trump. Hayden was one of 50 officials from past Republican administrations who signed a letter labeling Donald Trump "a risk to America's national security and well-being."
Barbara Res, who worked 18 years for Donald Trump and served as executive vice president and senior vice president of his company, said her longtime boss is "dangerously unsuited in every meaningful way to serve as president of the United States."
Trump's ghost writer, Tony Schwartz, said that he “genuinely believes that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes, there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”
Trump's faithful minority are expecting a landslide victory, and if Trump doesn't win, they have been told, TOLD that the election was rigged. Many have stated that they will start the armed revolution, with liberals and minorities in the cross hairs. Kentucky governor, Matt Bevin, even stated "Whose blood will be shed? It may be that of those in this room." By the way, the NRA endorses Trump.
I guess we can thank Trump for helping to expose the angry, misinformed, intentionally disinformed, gullible people in our society. We all know who to avoid now.
Liberal media GAVE Trump a billion dollars worth of air time. Anyone with a brain can see the scam. Anyone with a brain and any sense of financial and national preservation will refuse to be YET ANOTHER Trump mark. Liberal media, my ass.
Cruz endorses him as a Constitutionalist because at least the Supreme Court appts. are justification.
This is a battle of corporate media vs. Constitutional law enforcement.
Sure it's David against the Goliath monopoly but the battle to find truth in the midst of darkness has always been an uphill battle. What's new.
The real leaders who would make better Presidents have to wait for this front line surge to fight itself out. None of them can beat the media and corporate party games in the way that Trump took on.
Like Normandy and when the troops in front get crushed but open up the way for later troops to surge in. Someone had to be the one in front to get smashed.
But it opens the door for the others who won't have to fight that fight.
They know they'll have it easier next time.
Same with the minority leaders after Obama and Clinton who won't have to play dirty politics to be the first. In the future we can play fair, not the trashy corrupt games we see now.
Wrong.
George H.W. Bush to vote for Hillary Clinton - POLITICO
The FBI can only review those emails covered in the warrant; that is emails directly connected to the Clinton email investigation. Thus they are limited to emails to and from Huma Abedin, Clinton's aid and Wiener's wife. A State Dept. review of State Dept emails is not limited by court order. They can review thousands of emails if they chose to do so.The FBI reviewed 650,000 emails in a week or so...but it's going to take the State Department 5 years to review 31,000 page of hLIARt's email?
Something stinky is afoot in the Wagon Circling DC.
State Department tells court it needs 5 years to review deleted Clinton emails
