Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
There obviously are degrees of offenses and a level of discretion allotted to our investigators and prosecutors and judges to decide what punishments if any are deserved for specific crimes.Huma got security clearance in 2009. If she sent some meeting agendas to her husband to print out then that's on Huma not Clinton.Apparently you have your facts mixed up.you have some facts mixed up. Nothing was retroactively classified. Data becomes classified when it is put on paper, not when the classification stamp is put on it. It is classified when you just have it in your head, you violate the law if you talk about it to anyone who does not have the proper clearance.
Yes, Comey was clear. Hillary illegally sent classified data on an unsecure e-mail server. Whether she was too stupid to realize it is not an excuse. If she did not "intend" to violate the law that is also not an excuse.
She got special treatment because of who she is. That is wrong.
1. 30,000 emails were turned over and only 3 contained classified markings, many were retroactively classified
2. Clinton was never accused of discussing or giving classified information to anybody who did not have clearance. That part of the equation she handled responsibly, the entire issue revolves around the use of the private email server and the possible exposure IF somebody were to hack and steal the emails.
To my point, I'd have to see these classified emails that were on the server to determine the severity of the offense. For you to think she should go to jail without having that info is just plain ignorant
The GOP's opening over Hillary Clinton's email
1. it only takes one to create a felony violation
2. yes, she was. Weiner and Huma both had access and neither had a security clearance appropriate for that level of data.
You cant see those emails unless you have a TS clearance and can demonstrate a need to know.
What Comey revealed was sufficient for anyone else to be indicted and convicted. She got special treatment. Do you think maybe Bubba and Lynch made a deal on the tarmac in AZ? of course they did.
Again, without knowing what info those 3 emails contained we can't know the severity of the offense. Was she driving 2 mph over the speed limit or 20?
there are no degrees of classified data disclosure. Either she did it or not, and Comey said that she did. She is guilty and got off because of who she is. That is wrong.
you are correct, Huma should also be indicted.
Clinton did not intentionally expose or reveal classified info. She communicated 3 classified messages to people with clearance on an unsecured server. Yes, it's a violation, but it is not in par with somebody who intentionally gives national security secrets to the press or one of our enemies.
we're way too focused on the few things we disagree on vs. the many we in fact, do agree.Doubt Trump will be impeached, the government & the whole country continues to be a mess, It's party over what's best for our country. both sides have some valid points, no one seems interested in bridging the gap.
we're way too focused on the few things we disagree on vs. the many we in fact, do agree.Doubt Trump will be impeached, the government & the whole country continues to be a mess, It's party over what's best for our country. both sides have some valid points, no one seems interested in bridging the gap.
no one side can be to blame. it's more like a perfect storm of events that bring it about and suddenly we're our own worst enemy. we got divided up into "sides" and kept that way and told the other side is the cause for all our problems. this has been going around since 2 people ran for the same office in caveman days.we're way too focused on the few things we disagree on vs. the many we in fact, do agree.Doubt Trump will be impeached, the government & the whole country continues to be a mess, It's party over what's best for our country. both sides have some valid points, no one seems interested in bridging the gap.
any idea why that situation exists or who started it?
So you now abandon discussing the facts and resort to my head being up Clintons butt... Really smart man. I'm not a big Clinton supporter, I didn't even vote for her, but that doesn't mean I can't have an honest discussion about what actually happened.There obviously are degrees of offenses and a level of discretion allotted to our investigators and prosecutors and judges to decide what punishments if any are deserved for specific crimes.Huma got security clearance in 2009. If she sent some meeting agendas to her husband to print out then that's on Huma not Clinton.Apparently you have your facts mixed up.
1. 30,000 emails were turned over and only 3 contained classified markings, many were retroactively classified
2. Clinton was never accused of discussing or giving classified information to anybody who did not have clearance. That part of the equation she handled responsibly, the entire issue revolves around the use of the private email server and the possible exposure IF somebody were to hack and steal the emails.
To my point, I'd have to see these classified emails that were on the server to determine the severity of the offense. For you to think she should go to jail without having that info is just plain ignorant
The GOP's opening over Hillary Clinton's email
1. it only takes one to create a felony violation
2. yes, she was. Weiner and Huma both had access and neither had a security clearance appropriate for that level of data.
You cant see those emails unless you have a TS clearance and can demonstrate a need to know.
What Comey revealed was sufficient for anyone else to be indicted and convicted. She got special treatment. Do you think maybe Bubba and Lynch made a deal on the tarmac in AZ? of course they did.
Again, without knowing what info those 3 emails contained we can't know the severity of the offense. Was she driving 2 mph over the speed limit or 20?
there are no degrees of classified data disclosure. Either she did it or not, and Comey said that she did. She is guilty and got off because of who she is. That is wrong.
you are correct, Huma should also be indicted.
Clinton did not intentionally expose or reveal classified info. She communicated 3 classified messages to people with clearance on an unsecured server. Yes, it's a violation, but it is not in par with somebody who intentionally gives national security secrets to the press or one of our enemies.
does your head get stuck up her ass? is it hard to pull it out? Geez, man, open your eyes. Hillary Clinton should be in jail.
and you are wrong about security violations. you are trying to say that espionage is required to prove a violation. that is incorrect. I held TS and SAP clearances, I know the rules.
So you now abandon discussing the facts and resort to my head being up Clintons butt... Really smart man. I'm not a big Clinton supporter, I didn't even vote for her, but that doesn't mean I can't have an honest discussion about what actually happened.There obviously are degrees of offenses and a level of discretion allotted to our investigators and prosecutors and judges to decide what punishments if any are deserved for specific crimes.Huma got security clearance in 2009. If she sent some meeting agendas to her husband to print out then that's on Huma not Clinton.1. it only takes one to create a felony violation
2. yes, she was. Weiner and Huma both had access and neither had a security clearance appropriate for that level of data.
You cant see those emails unless you have a TS clearance and can demonstrate a need to know.
What Comey revealed was sufficient for anyone else to be indicted and convicted. She got special treatment. Do you think maybe Bubba and Lynch made a deal on the tarmac in AZ? of course they did.
Again, without knowing what info those 3 emails contained we can't know the severity of the offense. Was she driving 2 mph over the speed limit or 20?
there are no degrees of classified data disclosure. Either she did it or not, and Comey said that she did. She is guilty and got off because of who she is. That is wrong.
you are correct, Huma should also be indicted.
Clinton did not intentionally expose or reveal classified info. She communicated 3 classified messages to people with clearance on an unsecured server. Yes, it's a violation, but it is not in par with somebody who intentionally gives national security secrets to the press or one of our enemies.
does your head get stuck up her ass? is it hard to pull it out? Geez, man, open your eyes. Hillary Clinton should be in jail.
and you are wrong about security violations. you are trying to say that espionage is required to prove a violation. that is incorrect. I held TS and SAP clearances, I know the rules.
You say she should be in jail yet you haven't even seen the actual evidence against her. You claim that I said espionage was required to prove a violation, which is not even close to what I said. You seem much more partisan than objective and you are now trying to distort my statements to fit a narrative you can argue against. Comeback if you feel like honestly discussing the facts and not injecting your childish assumptions, distortions and banter.
no one side can be to blame. it's more like a perfect storm of events that bring it about and suddenly we're our own worst enemy. we got divided up into "sides" and kept that way and told the other side is the cause for all our problems. this has been going around since 2 people ran for the same office in caveman days.we're way too focused on the few things we disagree on vs. the many we in fact, do agree.Doubt Trump will be impeached, the government & the whole country continues to be a mess, It's party over what's best for our country. both sides have some valid points, no one seems interested in bridging the gap.
any idea why that situation exists or who started it?
todays iteration i'd put around a biased media full of hate, the fact we can get information more quickly than ever before but understanding it takes a LOT longer, only we don't invest in understanding it and thinking. we react. pretty normal human behavior all sides carry. just more fun to say it's the other side that is doing it all.
100%. and people flock to their side as valid and true because to them, it is. we can rail on one side cause we found vindication in a site we'll leverage and if someone says something the opposite, then their site is trash.no one side can be to blame. it's more like a perfect storm of events that bring it about and suddenly we're our own worst enemy. we got divided up into "sides" and kept that way and told the other side is the cause for all our problems. this has been going around since 2 people ran for the same office in caveman days.we're way too focused on the few things we disagree on vs. the many we in fact, do agree.Doubt Trump will be impeached, the government & the whole country continues to be a mess, It's party over what's best for our country. both sides have some valid points, no one seems interested in bridging the gap.
any idea why that situation exists or who started it?
todays iteration i'd put around a biased media full of hate, the fact we can get information more quickly than ever before but understanding it takes a LOT longer, only we don't invest in understanding it and thinking. we react. pretty normal human behavior all sides carry. just more fun to say it's the other side that is doing it all.
today's media is trying to create the news rather than report it. the media has become a propaganda outlet for one party. If that is not stopped, this country is doomed.
"Extremely careless" is good enough reason to keep her out of the White House.Apparently you have your facts mixed up.I don't think anybody should be above the law, but I also understand how intent factors into a situation with diplomatic communication, especially when information is being retroactively classified. I'd have to see the actually info in question to determine the seriousness of the offense. If a meeting agenda or the sharing of a newspaper article was passed between Clinton and her advisor via an unsecured email system, I'd treat that much different than sensitive national security intel. It's my understanding that the sensitive information was communicated through a different more secure system, not email.I'd be willing to bet that if you gathered and read everybody's emails in our government you'd find similar "carelessness". She didn't give classified information to anybody, just had a few that slipped through the cracks on a private email account, which I'd bet is true for many many other government officials. Perhaps its good that this thing got a spotlight as i'm sure people are going to be way more careful about this stuff from now on, but it makes sense that criminal charges weren't pressed.wrong again, little fool. SecState does not have the authority to declassify top secret material. The markings were removed from the classified material when she sent it, that is an illegal act. She should have been indicted. Comey saved her with bullshit about "carelessness, and not sophisticated enough". In reality he said that Hillary was ignorant and stupid and therefore should not be prosecuted. It was a circus filled with donkey shit.
No, you would not find that kind of carelessness in the general government employee e-mail system. Protection of classified data is a very serious thing. When you get a security clearance, especially TS or SAP you are told very clearly what the punishments are for leaking it, either on purpose or accidently. Any other person would have been indicted for doing what hilly did. She got special treatment as a political elite. Do you think politicians should be above the law?
You and I have not seen the information in question so those calling to lock her up don't know what they are talking about, just as those saying she did nothing wrong don't know what they are talking about. The best that we can do is take the word and judgement of those who investigated the matter. Comey was pretty clear about his findings.
you have some facts mixed up. Nothing was retroactively classified. Data becomes classified when it is put on paper, not when the classification stamp is put on it. It is classified when you just have it in your head, you violate the law if you talk about it to anyone who does not have the proper clearance.
Yes, Comey was clear. Hillary illegally sent classified data on an unsecure e-mail server. Whether she was too stupid to realize it is not an excuse. If she did not "intend" to violate the law that is also not an excuse.
She got special treatment because of who she is. That is wrong.
1. 30,000 emails were turned over and only 3 contained classified markings, many were retroactively classified
2. Clinton was never accused of discussing or giving classified information to anybody who did not have clearance. That part of the equation she handled responsibly, the entire issue revolves around the use of the private email server and the possible exposure IF somebody were to hack and steal the emails.
To my point, I'd have to see these classified emails that were on the server to determine the severity of the offense. For you to think she should go to jail without having that info is just plain ignorant
The GOP's opening over Hillary Clinton's email
The FBI didn't produce evidence they produced their analysis of an investigation. You haven't seen shit as far as details. I find it very convenient that you are deciding to take Comeys word when he said she was careless but not when he said she didn't commit a violation worth prosecuting. You go with whatever fits your agenda though, I'll continue to not take you seriouslySo you now abandon discussing the facts and resort to my head being up Clintons butt... Really smart man. I'm not a big Clinton supporter, I didn't even vote for her, but that doesn't mean I can't have an honest discussion about what actually happened.There obviously are degrees of offenses and a level of discretion allotted to our investigators and prosecutors and judges to decide what punishments if any are deserved for specific crimes.Huma got security clearance in 2009. If she sent some meeting agendas to her husband to print out then that's on Huma not Clinton.
Again, without knowing what info those 3 emails contained we can't know the severity of the offense. Was she driving 2 mph over the speed limit or 20?
there are no degrees of classified data disclosure. Either she did it or not, and Comey said that she did. She is guilty and got off because of who she is. That is wrong.
you are correct, Huma should also be indicted.
Clinton did not intentionally expose or reveal classified info. She communicated 3 classified messages to people with clearance on an unsecured server. Yes, it's a violation, but it is not in par with somebody who intentionally gives national security secrets to the press or one of our enemies.
does your head get stuck up her ass? is it hard to pull it out? Geez, man, open your eyes. Hillary Clinton should be in jail.
and you are wrong about security violations. you are trying to say that espionage is required to prove a violation. that is incorrect. I held TS and SAP clearances, I know the rules.
You say she should be in jail yet you haven't even seen the actual evidence against her. You claim that I said espionage was required to prove a violation, which is not even close to what I said. You seem much more partisan than objective and you are now trying to distort my statements to fit a narrative you can argue against. Comeback if you feel like honestly discussing the facts and not injecting your childish assumptions, distortions and banter.
I am going by what Comey said under oath. If he was not perjuring himself, he confirmed her guilt and then excused it by saying she didn't intend it and was too ignorant to understand what she was doing.
lack of intent and stupidity are not valid excuses for violating the law.
I do lose patience with the constant defenses of the most corrupt person ever to run for president. She should in jail---------------based on the evidence presented by the then director of the FBI
And that's exactly what happened, she isn't in the White House... unfortunately an even more wreckless and careless and dishonest person got the seat, and now he is under fire and pouring gasoline everywhere"Extremely careless" is good enough reason to keep her out of the White House.Apparently you have your facts mixed up.I don't think anybody should be above the law, but I also understand how intent factors into a situation with diplomatic communication, especially when information is being retroactively classified. I'd have to see the actually info in question to determine the seriousness of the offense. If a meeting agenda or the sharing of a newspaper article was passed between Clinton and her advisor via an unsecured email system, I'd treat that much different than sensitive national security intel. It's my understanding that the sensitive information was communicated through a different more secure system, not email.I'd be willing to bet that if you gathered and read everybody's emails in our government you'd find similar "carelessness". She didn't give classified information to anybody, just had a few that slipped through the cracks on a private email account, which I'd bet is true for many many other government officials. Perhaps its good that this thing got a spotlight as i'm sure people are going to be way more careful about this stuff from now on, but it makes sense that criminal charges weren't pressed.
No, you would not find that kind of carelessness in the general government employee e-mail system. Protection of classified data is a very serious thing. When you get a security clearance, especially TS or SAP you are told very clearly what the punishments are for leaking it, either on purpose or accidently. Any other person would have been indicted for doing what hilly did. She got special treatment as a political elite. Do you think politicians should be above the law?
You and I have not seen the information in question so those calling to lock her up don't know what they are talking about, just as those saying she did nothing wrong don't know what they are talking about. The best that we can do is take the word and judgement of those who investigated the matter. Comey was pretty clear about his findings.
you have some facts mixed up. Nothing was retroactively classified. Data becomes classified when it is put on paper, not when the classification stamp is put on it. It is classified when you just have it in your head, you violate the law if you talk about it to anyone who does not have the proper clearance.
Yes, Comey was clear. Hillary illegally sent classified data on an unsecure e-mail server. Whether she was too stupid to realize it is not an excuse. If she did not "intend" to violate the law that is also not an excuse.
She got special treatment because of who she is. That is wrong.
1. 30,000 emails were turned over and only 3 contained classified markings, many were retroactively classified
2. Clinton was never accused of discussing or giving classified information to anybody who did not have clearance. That part of the equation she handled responsibly, the entire issue revolves around the use of the private email server and the possible exposure IF somebody were to hack and steal the emails.
To my point, I'd have to see these classified emails that were on the server to determine the severity of the offense. For you to think she should go to jail without having that info is just plain ignorant
The GOP's opening over Hillary Clinton's email
The FBI didn't produce evidence they produced their analysis of an investigation. You haven't seen shit as far as details. I find it very convenient that you are deciding to take Comeys word when he said she was careless but not when he said she didn't commit a violation worth prosecuting. You go with whatever fits your agenda though, I'll continue to not take you seriouslySo you now abandon discussing the facts and resort to my head being up Clintons butt... Really smart man. I'm not a big Clinton supporter, I didn't even vote for her, but that doesn't mean I can't have an honest discussion about what actually happened.There obviously are degrees of offenses and a level of discretion allotted to our investigators and prosecutors and judges to decide what punishments if any are deserved for specific crimes.there are no degrees of classified data disclosure. Either she did it or not, and Comey said that she did. She is guilty and got off because of who she is. That is wrong.
you are correct, Huma should also be indicted.
Clinton did not intentionally expose or reveal classified info. She communicated 3 classified messages to people with clearance on an unsecured server. Yes, it's a violation, but it is not in par with somebody who intentionally gives national security secrets to the press or one of our enemies.
does your head get stuck up her ass? is it hard to pull it out? Geez, man, open your eyes. Hillary Clinton should be in jail.
and you are wrong about security violations. you are trying to say that espionage is required to prove a violation. that is incorrect. I held TS and SAP clearances, I know the rules.
You say she should be in jail yet you haven't even seen the actual evidence against her. You claim that I said espionage was required to prove a violation, which is not even close to what I said. You seem much more partisan than objective and you are now trying to distort my statements to fit a narrative you can argue against. Comeback if you feel like honestly discussing the facts and not injecting your childish assumptions, distortions and banter.
I am going by what Comey said under oath. If he was not perjuring himself, he confirmed her guilt and then excused it by saying she didn't intend it and was too ignorant to understand what she was doing.
lack of intent and stupidity are not valid excuses for violating the law.
I do lose patience with the constant defenses of the most corrupt person ever to run for president. She should in jail---------------based on the evidence presented by the then director of the FBI
And that's exactly what happened, she isn't in the White House... unfortunately an even more wreckless and careless and dishonest person got the seat, and now he is under fire and pouring gasoline everywhere"Extremely careless" is good enough reason to keep her out of the White House.Apparently you have your facts mixed up.I don't think anybody should be above the law, but I also understand how intent factors into a situation with diplomatic communication, especially when information is being retroactively classified. I'd have to see the actually info in question to determine the seriousness of the offense. If a meeting agenda or the sharing of a newspaper article was passed between Clinton and her advisor via an unsecured email system, I'd treat that much different than sensitive national security intel. It's my understanding that the sensitive information was communicated through a different more secure system, not email.No, you would not find that kind of carelessness in the general government employee e-mail system. Protection of classified data is a very serious thing. When you get a security clearance, especially TS or SAP you are told very clearly what the punishments are for leaking it, either on purpose or accidently. Any other person would have been indicted for doing what hilly did. She got special treatment as a political elite. Do you think politicians should be above the law?
You and I have not seen the information in question so those calling to lock her up don't know what they are talking about, just as those saying she did nothing wrong don't know what they are talking about. The best that we can do is take the word and judgement of those who investigated the matter. Comey was pretty clear about his findings.
you have some facts mixed up. Nothing was retroactively classified. Data becomes classified when it is put on paper, not when the classification stamp is put on it. It is classified when you just have it in your head, you violate the law if you talk about it to anyone who does not have the proper clearance.
Yes, Comey was clear. Hillary illegally sent classified data on an unsecure e-mail server. Whether she was too stupid to realize it is not an excuse. If she did not "intend" to violate the law that is also not an excuse.
She got special treatment because of who she is. That is wrong.
1. 30,000 emails were turned over and only 3 contained classified markings, many were retroactively classified
2. Clinton was never accused of discussing or giving classified information to anybody who did not have clearance. That part of the equation she handled responsibly, the entire issue revolves around the use of the private email server and the possible exposure IF somebody were to hack and steal the emails.
To my point, I'd have to see these classified emails that were on the server to determine the severity of the offense. For you to think she should go to jail without having that info is just plain ignorant
The GOP's opening over Hillary Clinton's email
I agree that it wasn't Comeys call to make that announcement and he should have let the DOJ handle the prosecution of it. I understand his reasoning, why he did what he did, given the distrust that was created between the public and the DOJ after the Clinton meet. But still to my point, I don't think any of this discredits Comeys ability to evaluate evidence. He was in fact informed on all the evidence, we were not. He, in my opinion acts as an independent thinker, not a partisan puppet, he did damage to both sides and was ultimately fired for not playing ball with Trump.The FBI didn't produce evidence they produced their analysis of an investigation. You haven't seen shit as far as details. I find it very convenient that you are deciding to take Comeys word when he said she was careless but not when he said she didn't commit a violation worth prosecuting. You go with whatever fits your agenda though, I'll continue to not take you seriouslySo you now abandon discussing the facts and resort to my head being up Clintons butt... Really smart man. I'm not a big Clinton supporter, I didn't even vote for her, but that doesn't mean I can't have an honest discussion about what actually happened.There obviously are degrees of offenses and a level of discretion allotted to our investigators and prosecutors and judges to decide what punishments if any are deserved for specific crimes.
Clinton did not intentionally expose or reveal classified info. She communicated 3 classified messages to people with clearance on an unsecured server. Yes, it's a violation, but it is not in par with somebody who intentionally gives national security secrets to the press or one of our enemies.
does your head get stuck up her ass? is it hard to pull it out? Geez, man, open your eyes. Hillary Clinton should be in jail.
and you are wrong about security violations. you are trying to say that espionage is required to prove a violation. that is incorrect. I held TS and SAP clearances, I know the rules.
You say she should be in jail yet you haven't even seen the actual evidence against her. You claim that I said espionage was required to prove a violation, which is not even close to what I said. You seem much more partisan than objective and you are now trying to distort my statements to fit a narrative you can argue against. Comeback if you feel like honestly discussing the facts and not injecting your childish assumptions, distortions and banter.
I am going by what Comey said under oath. If he was not perjuring himself, he confirmed her guilt and then excused it by saying she didn't intend it and was too ignorant to understand what she was doing.
lack of intent and stupidity are not valid excuses for violating the law.
I do lose patience with the constant defenses of the most corrupt person ever to run for president. She should in jail---------------based on the evidence presented by the then director of the FBI
It is not necessary that the general public see the evidence. We are not judge and jury. All I can tell you is that based on my experience as a holder of top secret and SAP clearances, if I did what Hillary did, I would be typing this from a jail cell.
Comey said that no prosecutor would take the case, that's not his call. He should have turned the evidence over to the DOJ and let them make that decision. But the fix was already in at DOJ via Bill Clinton's meeting with Lynch on the tarmac.
It was corruption in its most vile form, and half of America is willing to dismiss it for political reasons. THAT is what is wrong with this country.
He got Gorsuch and a bunch of executive orders... other than that it's been an operational, communications, and legislative disasterAnd that's exactly what happened, she isn't in the White House... unfortunately an even more wreckless and careless and dishonest person got the seat, and now he is under fire and pouring gasoline everywhere"Extremely careless" is good enough reason to keep her out of the White House.Apparently you have your facts mixed up.I don't think anybody should be above the law, but I also understand how intent factors into a situation with diplomatic communication, especially when information is being retroactively classified. I'd have to see the actually info in question to determine the seriousness of the offense. If a meeting agenda or the sharing of a newspaper article was passed between Clinton and her advisor via an unsecured email system, I'd treat that much different than sensitive national security intel. It's my understanding that the sensitive information was communicated through a different more secure system, not email.
You and I have not seen the information in question so those calling to lock her up don't know what they are talking about, just as those saying she did nothing wrong don't know what they are talking about. The best that we can do is take the word and judgement of those who investigated the matter. Comey was pretty clear about his findings.
you have some facts mixed up. Nothing was retroactively classified. Data becomes classified when it is put on paper, not when the classification stamp is put on it. It is classified when you just have it in your head, you violate the law if you talk about it to anyone who does not have the proper clearance.
Yes, Comey was clear. Hillary illegally sent classified data on an unsecure e-mail server. Whether she was too stupid to realize it is not an excuse. If she did not "intend" to violate the law that is also not an excuse.
She got special treatment because of who she is. That is wrong.
1. 30,000 emails were turned over and only 3 contained classified markings, many were retroactively classified
2. Clinton was never accused of discussing or giving classified information to anybody who did not have clearance. That part of the equation she handled responsibly, the entire issue revolves around the use of the private email server and the possible exposure IF somebody were to hack and steal the emails.
To my point, I'd have to see these classified emails that were on the server to determine the severity of the offense. For you to think she should go to jail without having that info is just plain ignorant
The GOP's opening over Hillary Clinton's email
Trump is getting his agenda implemented in spite of the media, the dems, and the DC establishment.
She lied to everyone. The lazy fucks at the FBI didn't even follow traditional investigational techniques. No warrants for her homes or offices. Then her email (that she lied about) showed up on a child moleter's computer. Then to top it off they destroyed the evidence and gave immunity to everyone involved. The FBI is a joke.It's simple, really.fbi
You see, regardless of how bad you may think HC's transgressions were vis-à-vis having a private e-mail server, she fundamentally understood something when it came to dealing with the FBI. It's this: You don't lie to the FBI if you want to avoid federal charge.
Enter Trump...
To put it mildly, Trump lies more easily, more effortlessly, more frequently, and quite frankly, more needlessly than anyone before him. In fact, Trump's lying is so incessantly frequent that it probably rises to the level of compulsive lying. (If you don't know what compulsive lying truly is, please look it up).
What that means is this: If and when Trump is ever interviewed by the FBI, even though I'm not a betting man, I WOULD bet that Trump would lie simply because he can't help himself. Trump would essentially pave the way to his own Impeachment.
He was fired for being an incompetent ass.I agree that it wasn't Comeys call to make that announcement and he should have let the DOJ handle the prosecution of it. I understand his reasoning, why he did what he did, given the distrust that was created between the public and the DOJ after the Clinton meet. But still to my point, I don't think any of this discredits Comeys ability to evaluate evidence. He was in fact informed on all the evidence, we were not. He, in my opinion acts as an independent thinker, not a partisan puppet, he did damage to both sides and was ultimately fired for not playing ball with Trump.The FBI didn't produce evidence they produced their analysis of an investigation. You haven't seen shit as far as details. I find it very convenient that you are deciding to take Comeys word when he said she was careless but not when he said she didn't commit a violation worth prosecuting. You go with whatever fits your agenda though, I'll continue to not take you seriouslySo you now abandon discussing the facts and resort to my head being up Clintons butt... Really smart man. I'm not a big Clinton supporter, I didn't even vote for her, but that doesn't mean I can't have an honest discussion about what actually happened.does your head get stuck up her ass? is it hard to pull it out? Geez, man, open your eyes. Hillary Clinton should be in jail.
and you are wrong about security violations. you are trying to say that espionage is required to prove a violation. that is incorrect. I held TS and SAP clearances, I know the rules.
You say she should be in jail yet you haven't even seen the actual evidence against her. You claim that I said espionage was required to prove a violation, which is not even close to what I said. You seem much more partisan than objective and you are now trying to distort my statements to fit a narrative you can argue against. Comeback if you feel like honestly discussing the facts and not injecting your childish assumptions, distortions and banter.
I am going by what Comey said under oath. If he was not perjuring himself, he confirmed her guilt and then excused it by saying she didn't intend it and was too ignorant to understand what she was doing.
lack of intent and stupidity are not valid excuses for violating the law.
I do lose patience with the constant defenses of the most corrupt person ever to run for president. She should in jail---------------based on the evidence presented by the then director of the FBI
It is not necessary that the general public see the evidence. We are not judge and jury. All I can tell you is that based on my experience as a holder of top secret and SAP clearances, if I did what Hillary did, I would be typing this from a jail cell.
Comey said that no prosecutor would take the case, that's not his call. He should have turned the evidence over to the DOJ and let them make that decision. But the fix was already in at DOJ via Bill Clinton's meeting with Lynch on the tarmac.
It was corruption in its most vile form, and half of America is willing to dismiss it for political reasons. THAT is what is wrong with this country.
I agree that it wasn't Comeys call to make that announcement and he should have let the DOJ handle the prosecution of it. I understand his reasoning, why he did what he did, given the distrust that was created between the public and the DOJ after the Clinton meet. But still to my point, I don't think any of this discredits Comeys ability to evaluate evidence. He was in fact informed on all the evidence, we were not. He, in my opinion acts as an independent thinker, not a partisan puppet, he did damage to both sides and was ultimately fired for not playing ball with Trump.The FBI didn't produce evidence they produced their analysis of an investigation. You haven't seen shit as far as details. I find it very convenient that you are deciding to take Comeys word when he said she was careless but not when he said she didn't commit a violation worth prosecuting. You go with whatever fits your agenda though, I'll continue to not take you seriouslySo you now abandon discussing the facts and resort to my head being up Clintons butt... Really smart man. I'm not a big Clinton supporter, I didn't even vote for her, but that doesn't mean I can't have an honest discussion about what actually happened.does your head get stuck up her ass? is it hard to pull it out? Geez, man, open your eyes. Hillary Clinton should be in jail.
and you are wrong about security violations. you are trying to say that espionage is required to prove a violation. that is incorrect. I held TS and SAP clearances, I know the rules.
You say she should be in jail yet you haven't even seen the actual evidence against her. You claim that I said espionage was required to prove a violation, which is not even close to what I said. You seem much more partisan than objective and you are now trying to distort my statements to fit a narrative you can argue against. Comeback if you feel like honestly discussing the facts and not injecting your childish assumptions, distortions and banter.
I am going by what Comey said under oath. If he was not perjuring himself, he confirmed her guilt and then excused it by saying she didn't intend it and was too ignorant to understand what she was doing.
lack of intent and stupidity are not valid excuses for violating the law.
I do lose patience with the constant defenses of the most corrupt person ever to run for president. She should in jail---------------based on the evidence presented by the then director of the FBI
It is not necessary that the general public see the evidence. We are not judge and jury. All I can tell you is that based on my experience as a holder of top secret and SAP clearances, if I did what Hillary did, I would be typing this from a jail cell.
Comey said that no prosecutor would take the case, that's not his call. He should have turned the evidence over to the DOJ and let them make that decision. But the fix was already in at DOJ via Bill Clinton's meeting with Lynch on the tarmac.
It was corruption in its most vile form, and half of America is willing to dismiss it for political reasons. THAT is what is wrong with this country.
