Comey Lays His Cards on the Table

[Boss]

You are not a criminal unless you are indicted and convicted of a crime.

Well no one has claimed she is a CONVICTED criminal, dumb ass.

 

[candycorn]

I just found this funny, since so many Liberals are in denial that she's lying... constantly... and some even deny that she's even under investigation. You know, since he points out her lies.

Bwahahaha.....I can't believe you are calling a Republican (Comey) a liar because he didn't kiss the Republican witch hunt's ass and made Hillary to be a criminal as you all wanted. Had he done that you all would be kissing his ass. What hypocrites.

First, she's supposed to forward all of her emails to be archived(She didn't), she waited two years, until finally being caught, and only then did she forward them, and right after she did(Again after keeping the emails for two years), she deleted all of the ones she didn't send, some of which were work related. There's several laws broken there, and pretty obvious intent. There's also her mishandling of classified information, the lack of security, and lying under oath. This is no witch hunt, and anyone who calls it that is blind to reality. Furthermore, what's being discussed is 'lack of ability to prove intent', not lack of guilt. If you're celebrating, it's either her ability to get away with being a criminal, or the possibility that she's too incompetent to be charged with being a criminal.

You think you are better qualified than Comey to make such determinations? If Hillary is a criminal, then Comey is an accomplice and Republicans would be going after him....which they are not.

Give it up. Hillary did no worse than Powell or Rice, but Republicans are known to be hypocrites, just like with embassy attacks. They ignored the many that happened under Reagan and Bush, but tried to make Benghazi into something that it was not.

Give it up......like Benghazi, there is nothing there.

Firstly, he never said she was innocent, only that they can't prove intent. Secondly, the establishment Republicans are starting to back Hillary, they're probably throwing a party, because Hillary is basically an establishment lapdog, and that's exactly what they want. Furthermore, you've done nothing to disprove what I said, you only said "I'mma ignore everything you said because it's not what I want to hear".

Nobody ever said there was nothing there for Benghazi, the report detailed conflicting orders from two high levels of government. You're just repeating what CNN incorrectly reported.

 

[candycorn]

And we've still got her Clinton Foundation scandal to come.

That’ll fire up voters!!!! More DOA investigations…

 

[Care4all]

You are lying. Comey never said such a thing. Please post a link where Comey said "for the crime she committed". The fact is that he didn't accuse Clinton of gross negligence, either, just negligence, so the case you are referring to was "gross negligence" and Comey admitted that it was starkly different than Clinton's.

He didn't explain any damn thing except that he didn't think a "reasonable prosecutor" would bring the case. He certainly DID indicate she violated this statute. He used the term "extremely careless" instead of "gross negligence" but the two terms are exactly the same in meaning. You're trying to pull a Slick Willie "meaning of is" trick here and it's not going to work for you this time. She is going to continue to be plastered as the corrupt and crooked lying ***** she is all the way to the election and this administration is going to be grilled and hounded until someone spills the beans on what kind of shady underhanded shenanigans took place. We're a nation of laws and no one is above the law, not even Queen Hildabeast!

Why FBI didn't prosecute Hillary Clinton on Email Issue - CNN Video

 

[Pumpkin Row]

First, she's supposed to forward all of her emails to be archived(She didn't), she waited two years, until finally being caught, and only then did she forward them, and right after she did(Again after keeping the emails for two years), she deleted all of the ones she didn't send, some of which were work related. There's several laws broken there, and pretty obvious intent. There's also her mishandling of classified information, the lack of security, and lying under oath. This is no witch hunt, and anyone who calls it that is blind to reality. Furthermore, what's being discussed is 'lack of ability to prove intent', not lack of guilt. If you're celebrating, it's either her ability to get away with being a criminal, or the possibility that she's too incompetent to be charged with being a criminal.

You think you are better qualified than Comey to make such determinations? If Hillary is a criminal, then Comey is an accomplice and Republicans would be going after him....which they are not.

Give it up. Hillary did no worse than Powell or Rice, but Republicans are known to be hypocrites, just like with embassy attacks. They ignored the many that happened under Reagan and Bush, but tried to make Benghazi into something that it was not.

Give it up......like Benghazi, there is nothing there.

Firstly, he never said she was innocent, only that they can't prove intent. Secondly, the establishment Republicans are starting to back Hillary, they're probably throwing a party, because Hillary is basically an establishment lapdog, and that's exactly what they want. Furthermore, you've done nothing to disprove what I said, you only said "I'mma ignore everything you said because it's not what I want to hear".

Nobody ever said there was nothing there for Benghazi, the report detailed conflicting orders from two high levels of government. You're just repeating what CNN incorrectly reported.

Comey never said she committed a crime, either. And, the fact that so many Republicans would rather vote for a Democrat, considering how much you all hate Democrats, ought to tell you that Trumpf must be really bad. Anything you have said, if it had substance, I'm sure that Comey, a Republican, would have jumped on to have Hillary arrested. The fact is, Comey doesn't want to appear like a fool among other prosecutors, something that rabid conservatives don't seem to mind, because he knows first-hand there is nothing to indict her with.

There is nothing there with the Benghazi Republican-made scandal either....Bush had more embassy attacks than Obama and Reagan had worse embassy attacks where more people died than did in Benghazi, but the hypocritical conservatives ignored those attacks are are focusing on Benghazi and won't even accept their own party's report that there was no blame found of Hillary or Obama because their main goal is to derail Hillary. It isn't going to happen. Only the dull-witted continue to wag their tongues regarding Benghazi.

Of course Trump is really bad. That's not the reason, though, it's because Hillary is a corrupt Establishment Servant, not that Trump is somehow worse. The Republican party has recently become as corrupt as the Democrat party, all they care about is serving their establishment masters.

Hillary was not found to be at blame for Benghazi, and did not commit a crime with the e-mail issue. That she is corrupt is only in the minds of Democratic-hating conservatives. None of the Republican created scandals have yielded any evidence that she is corrupt, so to put Trump at the same level, after claims of his "fake" university have been filed against him, and his disappearing condo project which he settled only on the condition that those suing buyers keep their mouths shut to thwart the government's investigation of fraud puts Trump at a very high level of dishonesty. Now that is corrupt.


A number of the suing buyers at Trump Soho may have simultaneously been cooperating with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office related to a criminal investigation of fraud at the new development. The probe was opened after the DA’s Major Economic Crimes Bureau caught wind of the allegations brought against the developers by attorney Adam Leitman Bailey. According to the New York Times, the settlement terms required more than 20 buyers to cease cooperating with government agencies charged with investigating any alleged fraud. The criminal investigation was later closed, likely because the key witnesses went silent.
Secret criminal investigation targeted fraud at Trump Soho: report

Comey doesn't have to say Hillary committed a crime, it's blatantly obvious for all to see, and the only people that deny it are delusional. Comey was appointed by Bush, who is an Establishment servant, and a friend of the Clintons, who are also Establishment servants. They stick up for their own and when suits them.

You are delusional. Of course Comey would have to say that Hillary committed a crime if she had. He didn't say it because Hillary did not commit a crime. You are claiming to have more knowledge of ithe situation without seeing the e-mails or knowing what constitutes a crime, which just makes discussing this with you a total waste of time. It doesn't become a crime just because you want it to be...no matter how obvious it may seem to non-experts.

There's plenty there about Benghazi, four Americans died due to incompetence in the high levels of government.

It is no worse than the many embassy attacks that occurred under Bush's watch and certainly not worse than one that occurred under Reagan where many more than 4 Americans lost their lives. That conservatives or myopic and are able to ignore those and focus only on Benghazi has become blatantly obvious to the rest of America that you really aren't that concerned about the 4 that died in Benghazi, just that Hillary be punished for it.

The Republican party never claimed Hillary had nothing to do with it, and the fact that you're claiming that only shows you know nothing about the report. You're only repeating what you were told by CNN after Republicans claimed it wasn't about Hillary, but four dead Americans. It was about the conflicting orders that prevented deployment of troops.

And, you are only repeating what you hear on Faux News and Rush Limbaugh. Of course the Republican committee, led by Republicans, did not find any blame on Hillary or Obama. Post a link if you have information where there was conflicting orders that prevented deployment of troops. And even if there was conflicting orders, they were not orders given by Hillary.

Conservatives were criticizing Obama for not calling the Benghazi attackers terrorists, but one of your own, Charlene Lamb, who was in the middle of it all, and resigned in order to avoid any more exposure is never even mentioned.


But in October the House of Representatives formed an Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing to look into the Benghazi incident. Here are the facts as we know them:

1. The first fact is that Charlene Lamb, who as the State Department official stationed in Washington, was allegedly monitoring electronically from that post what was happening in real time in Benghazi, Libya. This means she would have been intimately aware of what was really going on.

2. Despite having first hand knowledge, Charlene Lamb would not answer the question of Representative Dan Burton (R-IN):

“You Miss Lamb…have described these attackers in a number of ways but you don’t mention terrorist at all. Why is that? I mean the compound had been attacked once before and breached. And these people had all these weapons; projectiles, grenades, all kinds of weapons. Why would you call this anything other than a terrorist attack? And why do you call them attackers?”

In reply, Charlene Lamb dodged the question:



Benghazi Timeline: Charlene Lamb Resignation Leaves Unanswered Consulate Deaths [Op-Ed]

Hillary was never 'exonerated', she has clearly committed all kinds of crimes. Lack of prosecution is not lack of guilt.

Why don't you list your supposed crimes that Hillary has committed? The fact that she hasn't been prosecuted is because there is no real evidence that she committed any crime. You need to give up your imagined evidence and come up with "real" evidence, if you believe she committed any crime.

First, yes, the law does permit the use a private email server, but only when you turn over every even loosely work-related email to the department for archiving and record-keeping. That's something that she did not do. She held onto the emails for two years before finally turning SOME over when she was caught, and even then, she still kept and deleted work-related emails. Yes, emails ARE Federal Records.
Federal Records Act of 1950
They are legally defined as Federal Records.

Now that we have that out of the way, what about deleting said emails, that are legally defined as Federal Records?
Well, you're supposed to notify the archivist first, who initiates the action through the Attorney General.
She did not do that, she instead chose to just delete all of the remaining emails, some of which WERE work-related, and thereby classified as Federal Records.
She did so while under investigation.
And even if it wasn't, it's still against the law.
What if it was by accident? It's still breaking the law.
Then there's the sharing of classified information.
Then there's the fact that she claimed she hadn't shared classified information, that her email server was organized, that she turned over all work-related emails, that she only used one device, etc.
Then there's the fact that she dismantled and tried to hide the server.
18 U.S. Code § 1623 - False declarations before grand jury or court
28 U.S. Code § 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury
18 U.S. Code § 152 - Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery
18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
You know, and I'm not even sure I've covered all of it. This is all just off the top of my head. These actions are all confirmed, by information disclosed by the FBI.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I just found this funny, since so many Liberals are in denial that she's lying... constantly... and some even deny that she's even under investigation. You know, since he points out her lies.

Bwahahaha.....I can't believe you are calling a Republican (Comey) a liar because he didn't kiss the Republican witch hunt's ass and made Hillary to be a criminal as you all wanted. Had he done that you all would be kissing his ass. What hypocrites.

First, she's supposed to forward all of her emails to be archived(She didn't), she waited two years, until finally being caught, and only then did she forward them, and right after she did(Again after keeping the emails for two years), she deleted all of the ones she didn't send, some of which were work related. There's several laws broken there, and pretty obvious intent. There's also her mishandling of classified information, the lack of security, and lying under oath. This is no witch hunt, and anyone who calls it that is blind to reality. Furthermore, what's being discussed is 'lack of ability to prove intent', not lack of guilt. If you're celebrating, it's either her ability to get away with being a criminal, or the possibility that she's too incompetent to be charged with being a criminal.

You think you are better qualified than Comey to make such determinations? If Hillary is a criminal, then Comey is an accomplice and Republicans would be going after him....which they are not.

Give it up. Hillary did no worse than Powell or Rice, but Republicans are known to be hypocrites, just like with embassy attacks. They ignored the many that happened under Reagan and Bush, but tried to make Benghazi into something that it was not.

Give it up......like Benghazi, there is nothing there.

Firstly, he never said she was innocent, only that they can't prove intent. Secondly, the establishment Republicans are starting to back Hillary, they're probably throwing a party, because Hillary is basically an establishment lapdog, and that's exactly what they want. Furthermore, you've done nothing to disprove what I said, you only said "I'mma ignore everything you said because it's not what I want to hear".

Nobody ever said there was nothing there for Benghazi, the report detailed conflicting orders from two high levels of government. You're just repeating what CNN incorrectly reported.

You know, that's about my reaction to most of your posts. When I'm not laughing at you, I'm just disappointed that some human beings really are that ignorant, and they're capable of reproducing. You should just go ahead and read through my above post, that way you can move on to the next phase of what passes as your method of 'debating'; realizing you're wrong, and outclassed, and just not replying in the thread anymore while you try to reassure yourself that I'm somehow wrong.

 

[Boss]

You are lying. Comey never said such a thing. Please post a link where Comey said "for the crime she committed". The fact is that he didn't accuse Clinton of gross negligence, either, just negligence, so the case you are referring to was "gross negligence" and Comey admitted that it was starkly different than Clinton's.

He didn't explain any damn thing except that he didn't think a "reasonable prosecutor" would bring the case. He certainly DID indicate she violated this statute. He used the term "extremely careless" instead of "gross negligence" but the two terms are exactly the same in meaning. You're trying to pull a Slick Willie "meaning of is" trick here and it's not going to work for you this time. She is going to continue to be plastered as the corrupt and crooked lying ***** she is all the way to the election and this administration is going to be grilled and hounded until someone spills the beans on what kind of shady underhanded shenanigans took place. We're a nation of laws and no one is above the law, not even Queen Hildabeast!

Why FBI didn't prosecute Hillary Clinton on Email Issue - CNN Video

Awww... Do you have a source besides the Clinton News Network?

 

[candycorn]

Bwahahaha.....I can't believe you are calling a Republican (Comey) a liar because he didn't kiss the Republican witch hunt's ass and made Hillary to be a criminal as you all wanted. Had he done that you all would be kissing his ass. What hypocrites.

First, she's supposed to forward all of her emails to be archived(She didn't), she waited two years, until finally being caught, and only then did she forward them, and right after she did(Again after keeping the emails for two years), she deleted all of the ones she didn't send, some of which were work related. There's several laws broken there, and pretty obvious intent. There's also her mishandling of classified information, the lack of security, and lying under oath. This is no witch hunt, and anyone who calls it that is blind to reality. Furthermore, what's being discussed is 'lack of ability to prove intent', not lack of guilt. If you're celebrating, it's either her ability to get away with being a criminal, or the possibility that she's too incompetent to be charged with being a criminal.

You think you are better qualified than Comey to make such determinations? If Hillary is a criminal, then Comey is an accomplice and Republicans would be going after him....which they are not.

Give it up. Hillary did no worse than Powell or Rice, but Republicans are known to be hypocrites, just like with embassy attacks. They ignored the many that happened under Reagan and Bush, but tried to make Benghazi into something that it was not.

Give it up......like Benghazi, there is nothing there.

Firstly, he never said she was innocent, only that they can't prove intent. Secondly, the establishment Republicans are starting to back Hillary, they're probably throwing a party, because Hillary is basically an establishment lapdog, and that's exactly what they want. Furthermore, you've done nothing to disprove what I said, you only said "I'mma ignore everything you said because it's not what I want to hear".

Nobody ever said there was nothing there for Benghazi, the report detailed conflicting orders from two high levels of government. You're just repeating what CNN incorrectly reported.

You know, that's about my reaction to most of your posts. When I'm not laughing at you, I'm just disappointed that some human beings really are that ignorant, and they're capable of reproducing.

And when I’m not laughing at you…oh wait…there are no times when I’m not laughing at you. Carry on.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

First, she's supposed to forward all of her emails to be archived(She didn't), she waited two years, until finally being caught, and only then did she forward them, and right after she did(Again after keeping the emails for two years), she deleted all of the ones she didn't send, some of which were work related. There's several laws broken there, and pretty obvious intent. There's also her mishandling of classified information, the lack of security, and lying under oath. This is no witch hunt, and anyone who calls it that is blind to reality. Furthermore, what's being discussed is 'lack of ability to prove intent', not lack of guilt. If you're celebrating, it's either her ability to get away with being a criminal, or the possibility that she's too incompetent to be charged with being a criminal.

You think you are better qualified than Comey to make such determinations? If Hillary is a criminal, then Comey is an accomplice and Republicans would be going after him....which they are not.

Give it up. Hillary did no worse than Powell or Rice, but Republicans are known to be hypocrites, just like with embassy attacks. They ignored the many that happened under Reagan and Bush, but tried to make Benghazi into something that it was not.

Give it up......like Benghazi, there is nothing there.

Firstly, he never said she was innocent, only that they can't prove intent. Secondly, the establishment Republicans are starting to back Hillary, they're probably throwing a party, because Hillary is basically an establishment lapdog, and that's exactly what they want. Furthermore, you've done nothing to disprove what I said, you only said "I'mma ignore everything you said because it's not what I want to hear".

Nobody ever said there was nothing there for Benghazi, the report detailed conflicting orders from two high levels of government. You're just repeating what CNN incorrectly reported.

You know, that's about my reaction to most of your posts. When I'm not laughing at you, I'm just disappointed that some human beings really are that ignorant, and they're capable of reproducing.

And when I’m not laughing at you…oh wait…there are no times when I’m not laughing at you. Carry on.

It's what Liberals do to substitute actual debate; Pretend it's funny while reassuring themselves that the person and all the actual logic and facts you're ignoring are somehow false, while you provide no evidence to the contrary.

Sure, keep rating posts funny as a substitute for debate. It only shows you have no facts to work with.

 

[Boss]

This is SO pathetic... the CNN apologist makes the same idiotic argument that she "didn't intend to break the law" ...since when do you have to intend to be grossly negligent? Has anyone in history EVER been intentionally grossly negligent???

 

[Pumpkin Row]

This is SO pathetic... the CNN apologist makes the same idiotic argument that she "didn't intend to break the law" ...since when do you have to intend to be grossly negligent? Has anyone in history EVER been intentionally grossly negligent???

Even if that were a valid argument, there's still a massive amount of laws that didn't require it to be intentional.

 

[candycorn]

You think you are better qualified than Comey to make such determinations? If Hillary is a criminal, then Comey is an accomplice and Republicans would be going after him....which they are not.

Give it up. Hillary did no worse than Powell or Rice, but Republicans are known to be hypocrites, just like with embassy attacks. They ignored the many that happened under Reagan and Bush, but tried to make Benghazi into something that it was not.

Give it up......like Benghazi, there is nothing there.

Firstly, he never said she was innocent, only that they can't prove intent. Secondly, the establishment Republicans are starting to back Hillary, they're probably throwing a party, because Hillary is basically an establishment lapdog, and that's exactly what they want. Furthermore, you've done nothing to disprove what I said, you only said "I'mma ignore everything you said because it's not what I want to hear".

Nobody ever said there was nothing there for Benghazi, the report detailed conflicting orders from two high levels of government. You're just repeating what CNN incorrectly reported.

You know, that's about my reaction to most of your posts. When I'm not laughing at you, I'm just disappointed that some human beings really are that ignorant, and they're capable of reproducing.

And when I’m not laughing at you…oh wait…there are no times when I’m not laughing at you. Carry on.

It's what Liberals do to substitute actual debate; Pretend it's funny while reassuring themselves that the person and all the actual logic and facts you're ignoring are somehow false, while you provide no evidence to the contrary.

Sure, keep rating posts funny as a substitute for debate. It only shows you have no facts to work with.

HRC up by 12% in some polls. Slated by the best prognosticators in recent memory to have an 80% chance of winning the 2016 Presidential election. Rumors have it that your Messiah Trump is ready to draft a guy to be VP who is a philandering thrice divorced “politician” who hasn’t been in office in almost 20 years as his “inside” man. Meanwhile, Obama’s approval ratings are up above 50% (as I predicted), unemployment is down, the stock market is up and gas is around $2 a gallon.

Enjoy your facts there.

 

[Boss]

Get those DIGS in while you still can corny-babe!

 

[billyerock1991]

I just found this funny, since so many Liberals are in denial that she's lying... constantly... and some even deny that she's even under investigation. You know, since he points out her lies.

actual he said that in her testimony to the FBI he didn't find any lies ... so where are you getting this information about comey said she lied ... hell even at the hearing he said as far as he was concerned she was truthful in her testimony ... when comey was asked about benghazi he said he couldn't comment on it because it wasn't proper ... so where did you get this lie of yours of comey saying she lied >>>

 

[Boss]

Straight from the lying horse's mouth.

 

[billyerock1991]

You think you are better qualified than Comey to make such determinations? If Hillary is a criminal, then Comey is an accomplice and Republicans would be going after him....which they are not.

Give it up. Hillary did no worse than Powell or Rice, but Republicans are known to be hypocrites, just like with embassy attacks. They ignored the many that happened under Reagan and Bush, but tried to make Benghazi into something that it was not.

Give it up......like Benghazi, there is nothing there.

Firstly, he never said she was innocent, only that they can't prove intent. Secondly, the establishment Republicans are starting to back Hillary, they're probably throwing a party, because Hillary is basically an establishment lapdog, and that's exactly what they want. Furthermore, you've done nothing to disprove what I said, you only said "I'mma ignore everything you said because it's not what I want to hear".

Nobody ever said there was nothing there for Benghazi, the report detailed conflicting orders from two high levels of government. You're just repeating what CNN incorrectly reported.

Comey never said she committed a crime, either. And, the fact that so many Republicans would rather vote for a Democrat, considering how much you all hate Democrats, ought to tell you that Trumpf must be really bad. Anything you have said, if it had substance, I'm sure that Comey, a Republican, would have jumped on to have Hillary arrested. The fact is, Comey doesn't want to appear like a fool among other prosecutors, something that rabid conservatives don't seem to mind, because he knows first-hand there is nothing to indict her with.

There is nothing there with the Benghazi Republican-made scandal either....Bush had more embassy attacks than Obama and Reagan had worse embassy attacks where more people died than did in Benghazi, but the hypocritical conservatives ignored those attacks are are focusing on Benghazi and won't even accept their own party's report that there was no blame found of Hillary or Obama because their main goal is to derail Hillary. It isn't going to happen. Only the dull-witted continue to wag their tongues regarding Benghazi.

Of course Trump is really bad. That's not the reason, though, it's because Hillary is a corrupt Establishment Servant, not that Trump is somehow worse. The Republican party has recently become as corrupt as the Democrat party, all they care about is serving their establishment masters.

Hillary was not found to be at blame for Benghazi, and did not commit a crime with the e-mail issue. That she is corrupt is only in the minds of Democratic-hating conservatives. None of the Republican created scandals have yielded any evidence that she is corrupt, so to put Trump at the same level, after claims of his "fake" university have been filed against him, and his disappearing condo project which he settled only on the condition that those suing buyers keep their mouths shut to thwart the government's investigation of fraud puts Trump at a very high level of dishonesty. Now that is corrupt.


A number of the suing buyers at Trump Soho may have simultaneously been cooperating with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office related to a criminal investigation of fraud at the new development. The probe was opened after the DA’s Major Economic Crimes Bureau caught wind of the allegations brought against the developers by attorney Adam Leitman Bailey. According to the New York Times, the settlement terms required more than 20 buyers to cease cooperating with government agencies charged with investigating any alleged fraud. The criminal investigation was later closed, likely because the key witnesses went silent.
Secret criminal investigation targeted fraud at Trump Soho: report

Comey doesn't have to say Hillary committed a crime, it's blatantly obvious for all to see, and the only people that deny it are delusional. Comey was appointed by Bush, who is an Establishment servant, and a friend of the Clintons, who are also Establishment servants. They stick up for their own and when suits them.

You are delusional. Of course Comey would have to say that Hillary committed a crime if she had. He didn't say it because Hillary did not commit a crime. You are claiming to have more knowledge of ithe situation without seeing the e-mails or knowing what constitutes a crime, which just makes discussing this with you a total waste of time. It doesn't become a crime just because you want it to be...no matter how obvious it may seem to non-experts.

There's plenty there about Benghazi, four Americans died due to incompetence in the high levels of government.

It is no worse than the many embassy attacks that occurred under Bush's watch and certainly not worse than one that occurred under Reagan where many more than 4 Americans lost their lives. That conservatives or myopic and are able to ignore those and focus only on Benghazi has become blatantly obvious to the rest of America that you really aren't that concerned about the 4 that died in Benghazi, just that Hillary be punished for it.

The Republican party never claimed Hillary had nothing to do with it, and the fact that you're claiming that only shows you know nothing about the report. You're only repeating what you were told by CNN after Republicans claimed it wasn't about Hillary, but four dead Americans. It was about the conflicting orders that prevented deployment of troops.

And, you are only repeating what you hear on Faux News and Rush Limbaugh. Of course the Republican committee, led by Republicans, did not find any blame on Hillary or Obama. Post a link if you have information where there was conflicting orders that prevented deployment of troops. And even if there was conflicting orders, they were not orders given by Hillary.

Conservatives were criticizing Obama for not calling the Benghazi attackers terrorists, but one of your own, Charlene Lamb, who was in the middle of it all, and resigned in order to avoid any more exposure is never even mentioned.


But in October the House of Representatives formed an Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing to look into the Benghazi incident. Here are the facts as we know them:

1. The first fact is that Charlene Lamb, who as the State Department official stationed in Washington, was allegedly monitoring electronically from that post what was happening in real time in Benghazi, Libya. This means she would have been intimately aware of what was really going on.

2. Despite having first hand knowledge, Charlene Lamb would not answer the question of Representative Dan Burton (R-IN):

“You Miss Lamb…have described these attackers in a number of ways but you don’t mention terrorist at all. Why is that? I mean the compound had been attacked once before and breached. And these people had all these weapons; projectiles, grenades, all kinds of weapons. Why would you call this anything other than a terrorist attack? And why do you call them attackers?”

In reply, Charlene Lamb dodged the question:



Benghazi Timeline: Charlene Lamb Resignation Leaves Unanswered Consulate Deaths [Op-Ed]

Hillary was never 'exonerated', she has clearly committed all kinds of crimes. Lack of prosecution is not lack of guilt.

Why don't you list your supposed crimes that Hillary has committed? The fact that she hasn't been prosecuted is because there is no real evidence that she committed any crime. You need to give up your imagined evidence and come up with "real" evidence, if you believe she committed any crime.

First, yes, the law does permit the use a private email server, but only when you turn over every even loosely work-related email to the department for archiving and record-keeping. That's something that she did not do. She held onto the emails for two years before finally turning SOME over when she was caught, and even then, she still kept and deleted work-related emails. Yes, emails ARE Federal Records.
Federal Records Act of 1950
They are legally defined as Federal Records.

Now that we have that out of the way, what about deleting said emails, that are legally defined as Federal Records?
Well, you're supposed to notify the archivist first, who initiates the action through the Attorney General.
She did not do that, she instead chose to just delete all of the remaining emails, some of which WERE work-related, and thereby classified as Federal Records.
She did so while under investigation.
And even if it wasn't, it's still against the law.
What if it was by accident? It's still breaking the law.
Then there's the sharing of classified information.
Then there's the fact that she claimed she hadn't shared classified information, that her email server was organized, that she turned over all work-related emails, that she only used one device, etc.
Then there's the fact that she dismantled and tried to hide the server.
18 U.S. Code § 1623 - False declarations before grand jury or court
28 U.S. Code § 1746 - Unsworn declarations under penalty of perjury
18 U.S. Code § 152 - Concealment of assets; false oaths and claims; bribery
18 U.S. Code § 798 - Disclosure of classified information
You know, and I'm not even sure I've covered all of it. This is all just off the top of my head. These actions are all confirmed, by information disclosed by the FBI.

and yet the FBI couldn't use one of your so-called codes... codes that you believe that would hold her accountable for what you believe was a crime ... so what you're saying here that you are smarter then COMEY, and the 22 other FBI agents who went over everyone of her emails to determine if she violated the law ... mind you they all said without any doubt that they couldn't find any law that she violated ... so now you're saying you have more intellect then these people in the FBI who have been doing this kind of thing for many years and now you're smarter then them ... or could it be you are pissed because you didn't get your way, because the legal way said differently

 

[billyerock1991]

Straight from the lying horse's mouth.

talk about cut and paste this was sooooooooooo obvious, and done poorly ... so what right wing site did you get this bull shit video from ... you don't get to cut and paste then cut out the whole statement to justify your means Hillary hater

 

[billyerock1991]

This is SO pathetic... the CNN apologist makes the same idiotic argument that she "didn't intend to break the law" ...since when do you have to intend to be grossly negligent? Has anyone in history EVER been intentionally grossly negligent???

actually they FBI director never said she was gross negligent ... please point out in any of his statement where he said she was grossly negligent ... stop making shit up ...

 

[billyerock1991]

You think you are better qualified than Comey to make such determinations? If Hillary is a criminal, then Comey is an accomplice and Republicans would be going after him....which they are not.

Give it up. Hillary did no worse than Powell or Rice, but Republicans are known to be hypocrites, just like with embassy attacks. They ignored the many that happened under Reagan and Bush, but tried to make Benghazi into something that it was not.

Give it up......like Benghazi, there is nothing there.

Firstly, he never said she was innocent, only that they can't prove intent. Secondly, the establishment Republicans are starting to back Hillary, they're probably throwing a party, because Hillary is basically an establishment lapdog, and that's exactly what they want. Furthermore, you've done nothing to disprove what I said, you only said "I'mma ignore everything you said because it's not what I want to hear".

Nobody ever said there was nothing there for Benghazi, the report detailed conflicting orders from two high levels of government. You're just repeating what CNN incorrectly reported.

You know, that's about my reaction to most of your posts. When I'm not laughing at you, I'm just disappointed that some human beings really are that ignorant, and they're capable of reproducing.

And when I’m not laughing at you…oh wait…there are no times when I’m not laughing at you. Carry on.

It's what Liberals do to substitute actual debate; Pretend it's funny while reassuring themselves that the person and all the actual logic and facts you're ignoring are somehow false, while you provide no evidence to the contrary.

Sure, keep rating posts funny as a substitute for debate. It only shows you have no facts to work with.

heres what you said
"First, she's supposed to forward all of her emails to be archived(She didn't), she waited two years, until finally being caught, and only then did she forward them, and right after she did(Again after keeping the emails for two years), she deleted all of the ones she didn't send, some of which were work related. There's several laws broken there, and pretty obvious intent. There's also her mishandling of classified information, the lack of security, and lying under oath. This is no witch hunt, and anyone who calls it that is blind to reality. Furthermore, what's being discussed is 'lack of ability to prove intent', not lack of guilt. If you're celebrating, it's either her ability to get away with being a criminal, or the possibility that she's too incompetent to be charged with being a criminal."

you said she was suppose to forward all of her emails to and archive and she kept them for two years ... my question for you is, wheres your anger over colen powell emails he still hasn't achieved his emails ... what about rice she hasn't archived her emails too ... and what about Karl Rove's he deleted 2 million government emails and I don't see he up for any crime ... tell us where your anger there ??? at least hillary gave them hers ... finally being caught really thats why she gave them up ??? she was caught... now you see why people are laughing at you ... your post are off the wall and so biased ... then you say theres several laws broken here ... this is you telling us about laws being violated, when a republican, head of the FBI, and 20 of his agents tell us that she didn't fit the mold for what you said was a violation of the law ... and you stiil can't understand why we laugh at you??? then the funnest thing you said starting with furthermore I had a hard time sitting in my chair ... you have so much hate towards Dems/liberals and Hillary that you make a fool of yourself by making inaccurate statements about what the law says ...

 

[Boss]

Straight from the lying horse's mouth.

talk about cut and paste this was sooooooooooo obvious, and done poorly ... so what right wing site did you get this bull shit video from ... you don't get to cut and paste then cut out the whole statement to justify your means Hillary hater

It's a little right wing site we call YouTube, maybe you've heard about it? No?
It's very nice... billions of people have access all around the globe.

Yes... nice cut and paste of Hillary lying through her teeth to the American people and Comey exposing her lies one by one as she reels them off. Very well done, I might add.

Yes... Hillary hater for sure! Just as you are a Trump hater. It's called POLITICS, my friend.

Hang on tight, it's going to be a bumpy ride!