Comey Lays His Cards on the Table

[Boss]

From this day forward.... Not another word about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rice being "guilty of war crimes" or "Bush Lied!" or anything of that nature..... EVER AGAIN! I don't want to hear it from you people from this day forward.

If you're going to parse the truth and rule of law to THIS degree for Hillary, we're going to consistently apply that standard to Republicans. I don't recall ANY of you allowing this kind of leniency with him over Iraq, even after multiple commissions found he did nothing wrong. But you're going to now... every time you mention it again in the future, our response is going to be "Hillary's Emails!"

 

[Pumpkin Row]

From this day forward.... Not another word about Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld or Rice being "guilty of war crimes" or "Bush Lied!" or anything of that nature..... EVER AGAIN! I don't want to hear it from you people from this day forward.

If you're going to parse the truth and rule of law to THIS degree for Hillary, we're going to consistently apply that standard to Republicans. I don't recall ANY of you allowing this kind of leniency with him over Iraq, even after multiple commissions found he did nothing wrong. But you're going to now... every time you mention it again in the future, our response is going to be "Hillary's Emails!"

I like to think we won't sink to their level. Too hot in the earth's core.

 

[paperview]

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.

How did this all work out?

"While serving as attorney general, Alberto Gonzales mishandled top secret documents, risking the release of classified information about two of the Bush administration's most sensitive counterterrorism efforts - a surveillance program and detainee interrogations.

Mishandling classified materials violates Justice Department regulations and removing them from special secure facilities without proper authorization is a crime. But a report issued Tuesday by the Justice Department's inspector general says the agency decided not to press charges against Gonzales, who resigned under fire last year.

Lawyers for Gonzales acknowledge he did not store or protect the top secret documents - a set of handwritten notes about the surveillance program and 17 other papers - as he should have.
...
At issue is how, and where, Gonzales stored the documents, which are classified as sensitive compartmentalized information, or SCI.

SCI materials are among the highest and most sensitive levels of classified top secret documents and usually relate to national security cases."

DOJ: Gonzales Mishandled Top-Secret Docs
September 2, 2008, 4:12 AM

DOJ: Gonzales Mishandled Top-Secret Docs - CBS News
The damning OIG report is here:
Report - Office of the Inspector General - US Department of Justice

Give it a lil looksee. If you're pressed for time, do a Ctrl^F for TS/SCI markings.

Have fun!

"A small snip: "Gonzales told the OIG that he knew it was “very, very limited access.” However, he stated he could not say whether the program was TS or TS/SCI, although he said he knew it was of the highest level of secrecy.
11
Gonzales said he “assumed” documents related to the
program bore classification markings that would have indicated the precise
classification of the program, but that he did not create such documents, so he
could not be certain...."

He took TOP SECRET classified documents home, in an unlocked briefcase, stored them in his home, unprotected. Then later kept them in a safe hall outside his office where uncleared persons had access to him.

Intent?

He shouldn't have gotten off, either. The Bushes, and the people under them, are Establishment servants, and people seem to think that puts them above the law. They're no different from the Clintons. You seem to incorrectly believe I support the Bushes, and that I'd change my mind because they're Republicans.

No. I "seem to believe" the FBI - an independent agency, and the DOJ looks at the facts of the matter, the laws, and precedence. He did "get off" after it was found he mishandled and removed to his home, unsecure, highest level Top Secret information.

Intent.

Somehow you want to treat Hillary different. The TS info on Hillary's server wasn't even marked, and was upclassed later. In Gonzales' case, it was marked at the time he took them home.

 

[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.

How did this all work out?

"While serving as attorney general, Alberto Gonzales mishandled top secret documents, risking the release of classified information about two of the Bush administration's most sensitive counterterrorism efforts - a surveillance program and detainee interrogations.

Mishandling classified materials violates Justice Department regulations and removing them from special secure facilities without proper authorization is a crime. But a report issued Tuesday by the Justice Department's inspector general says the agency decided not to press charges against Gonzales, who resigned under fire last year.

Lawyers for Gonzales acknowledge he did not store or protect the top secret documents - a set of handwritten notes about the surveillance program and 17 other papers - as he should have.
...
At issue is how, and where, Gonzales stored the documents, which are classified as sensitive compartmentalized information, or SCI.

SCI materials are among the highest and most sensitive levels of classified top secret documents and usually relate to national security cases."

DOJ: Gonzales Mishandled Top-Secret Docs
September 2, 2008, 4:12 AM

DOJ: Gonzales Mishandled Top-Secret Docs - CBS News
The damning OIG report is here:
Report - Office of the Inspector General - US Department of Justice

Give it a lil looksee. If you're pressed for time, do a Ctrl^F for TS/SCI markings.

Have fun!

"A small snip: "Gonzales told the OIG that he knew it was “very, very limited access.” However, he stated he could not say whether the program was TS or TS/SCI, although he said he knew it was of the highest level of secrecy.
11
Gonzales said he “assumed” documents related to the
program bore classification markings that would have indicated the precise
classification of the program, but that he did not create such documents, so he
could not be certain...."

He took TOP SECRET classified documents home, in an unlocked briefcase, stored them in his home, unprotected. Then later kept them in a safe hall outside his office where uncleared persons had access to him.

Intent?

He shouldn't have gotten off, either. The Bushes, and the people under them, are Establishment servants, and people seem to think that puts them above the law. They're no different from the Clintons. You seem to incorrectly believe I support the Bushes, and that I'd change my mind because they're Republicans.

No. I "seem to believe" the FBI - an independent agency, and the DOJ looks at the facts of the matter, the laws, and precedence. He did "get off" after it was found he mishandled and removed to his home, unsecure, highest level Top Secret information.

Intent.

Somehow you want to treat Hillary different. The TS info on Hillary's server wasn't even marked, and was upclassed later. In Gonzales' case, it was marked at the time he took them home.

Actually, I want to treat Hillary the same as the law dictates, regardless of who got off or not, she's not above the law. While you'd like to think these instances are the same, she break far more laws than he did, then lied about all of it. She also destroyed Federal Records. She also specifically asked that the classification marks be removed from some of the information she was sharing with uncleared people.

 

[paperview]

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.

How did this all work out?

"While serving as attorney general, Alberto Gonzales mishandled top secret documents, risking the release of classified information about two of the Bush administration's most sensitive counterterrorism efforts - a surveillance program and detainee interrogations.

Mishandling classified materials violates Justice Department regulations and removing them from special secure facilities without proper authorization is a crime. But a report issued Tuesday by the Justice Department's inspector general says the agency decided not to press charges against Gonzales, who resigned under fire last year.

Lawyers for Gonzales acknowledge he did not store or protect the top secret documents - a set of handwritten notes about the surveillance program and 17 other papers - as he should have.
...
At issue is how, and where, Gonzales stored the documents, which are classified as sensitive compartmentalized information, or SCI.

SCI materials are among the highest and most sensitive levels of classified top secret documents and usually relate to national security cases."

DOJ: Gonzales Mishandled Top-Secret Docs
September 2, 2008, 4:12 AM

DOJ: Gonzales Mishandled Top-Secret Docs - CBS News
The damning OIG report is here:
Report - Office of the Inspector General - US Department of Justice

Give it a lil looksee. If you're pressed for time, do a Ctrl^F for TS/SCI markings.

Have fun!

"A small snip: "Gonzales told the OIG that he knew it was “very, very limited access.” However, he stated he could not say whether the program was TS or TS/SCI, although he said he knew it was of the highest level of secrecy.
11
Gonzales said he “assumed” documents related to the
program bore classification markings that would have indicated the precise
classification of the program, but that he did not create such documents, so he
could not be certain...."

He took TOP SECRET classified documents home, in an unlocked briefcase, stored them in his home, unprotected. Then later kept them in a safe hall outside his office where uncleared persons had access to him.

Intent?

He shouldn't have gotten off, either. The Bushes, and the people under them, are Establishment servants, and people seem to think that puts them above the law. They're no different from the Clintons. You seem to incorrectly believe I support the Bushes, and that I'd change my mind because they're Republicans.

No. I "seem to believe" the FBI - an independent agency, and the DOJ looks at the facts of the matter, the laws, and precedence. He did "get off" after it was found he mishandled and removed to his home, unsecure, highest level Top Secret information.

Intent.

Somehow you want to treat Hillary different. The TS info on Hillary's server wasn't even marked, and was upclassed later. In Gonzales' case, it was marked at the time he took them home.

Actually, I want to treat Hillary the same as the law dictates, regardless of who got off or not, she's not above the law. While you'd like to think these instances are the same, she break far more laws than he did, then lied about all of it. She also destroyed Federal Records. She also specifically asked that the classification marks be removed from some of the information she was sharing with uncleared people.

Your opinon is worth diddly squat.

Imma go with the team at the FBI who investigated this and found no there there. UNANIMOUSLY.

Too bad, so sad.

Have some Cheerios to cry in.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

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

How did this all work out?

"While serving as attorney general, Alberto Gonzales mishandled top secret documents, risking the release of classified information about two of the Bush administration's most sensitive counterterrorism efforts - a surveillance program and detainee interrogations.

Mishandling classified materials violates Justice Department regulations and removing them from special secure facilities without proper authorization is a crime. But a report issued Tuesday by the Justice Department's inspector general says the agency decided not to press charges against Gonzales, who resigned under fire last year.

Lawyers for Gonzales acknowledge he did not store or protect the top secret documents - a set of handwritten notes about the surveillance program and 17 other papers - as he should have.
...
At issue is how, and where, Gonzales stored the documents, which are classified as sensitive compartmentalized information, or SCI.

SCI materials are among the highest and most sensitive levels of classified top secret documents and usually relate to national security cases."

DOJ: Gonzales Mishandled Top-Secret Docs
September 2, 2008, 4:12 AM

DOJ: Gonzales Mishandled Top-Secret Docs - CBS News
The damning OIG report is here:
Report - Office of the Inspector General - US Department of Justice

Give it a lil looksee. If you're pressed for time, do a Ctrl^F for TS/SCI markings.

Have fun!

"A small snip: "Gonzales told the OIG that he knew it was “very, very limited access.” However, he stated he could not say whether the program was TS or TS/SCI, although he said he knew it was of the highest level of secrecy.
11
Gonzales said he “assumed” documents related to the
program bore classification markings that would have indicated the precise
classification of the program, but that he did not create such documents, so he
could not be certain...."

He took TOP SECRET classified documents home, in an unlocked briefcase, stored them in his home, unprotected. Then later kept them in a safe hall outside his office where uncleared persons had access to him.

Intent?

He shouldn't have gotten off, either. The Bushes, and the people under them, are Establishment servants, and people seem to think that puts them above the law. They're no different from the Clintons. You seem to incorrectly believe I support the Bushes, and that I'd change my mind because they're Republicans.

No. I "seem to believe" the FBI - an independent agency, and the DOJ looks at the facts of the matter, the laws, and precedence. He did "get off" after it was found he mishandled and removed to his home, unsecure, highest level Top Secret information.

Intent.

Somehow you want to treat Hillary different. The TS info on Hillary's server wasn't even marked, and was upclassed later. In Gonzales' case, it was marked at the time he took them home.

Actually, I want to treat Hillary the same as the law dictates, regardless of who got off or not, she's not above the law. While you'd like to think these instances are the same, she break far more laws than he did, then lied about all of it. She also destroyed Federal Records. She also specifically asked that the classification marks be removed from some of the information she was sharing with uncleared people.

Your opinon is worth diddly squat.

Imma go with the team at the FBI who investigated this and found no there there. UNANIMOUSLY.

Too bad, so sad.

Have some Cheerios to cry in.

Comey Lays His Cards on the Table

Here's my breakdown and some of the laws in question. Aside from that, all I have to say is that this sort of behavior only proves my point that Democrats are not free thinkers.

 

[paperview]

How did this all work out?

"While serving as attorney general, Alberto Gonzales mishandled top secret documents, risking the release of classified information about two of the Bush administration's most sensitive counterterrorism efforts - a surveillance program and detainee interrogations.

Mishandling classified materials violates Justice Department regulations and removing them from special secure facilities without proper authorization is a crime. But a report issued Tuesday by the Justice Department's inspector general says the agency decided not to press charges against Gonzales, who resigned under fire last year.

Lawyers for Gonzales acknowledge he did not store or protect the top secret documents - a set of handwritten notes about the surveillance program and 17 other papers - as he should have.
...
At issue is how, and where, Gonzales stored the documents, which are classified as sensitive compartmentalized information, or SCI.

SCI materials are among the highest and most sensitive levels of classified top secret documents and usually relate to national security cases."

DOJ: Gonzales Mishandled Top-Secret Docs
September 2, 2008, 4:12 AM

DOJ: Gonzales Mishandled Top-Secret Docs - CBS News
The damning OIG report is here:
Report - Office of the Inspector General - US Department of Justice

Give it a lil looksee. If you're pressed for time, do a Ctrl^F for TS/SCI markings.

Have fun!

"A small snip: "Gonzales told the OIG that he knew it was “very, very limited access.” However, he stated he could not say whether the program was TS or TS/SCI, although he said he knew it was of the highest level of secrecy.
11
Gonzales said he “assumed” documents related to the
program bore classification markings that would have indicated the precise
classification of the program, but that he did not create such documents, so he
could not be certain...."

He took TOP SECRET classified documents home, in an unlocked briefcase, stored them in his home, unprotected. Then later kept them in a safe hall outside his office where uncleared persons had access to him.

Intent?

He shouldn't have gotten off, either. The Bushes, and the people under them, are Establishment servants, and people seem to think that puts them above the law. They're no different from the Clintons. You seem to incorrectly believe I support the Bushes, and that I'd change my mind because they're Republicans.

No. I "seem to believe" the FBI - an independent agency, and the DOJ looks at the facts of the matter, the laws, and precedence. He did "get off" after it was found he mishandled and removed to his home, unsecure, highest level Top Secret information.

Intent.

Somehow you want to treat Hillary different. The TS info on Hillary's server wasn't even marked, and was upclassed later. In Gonzales' case, it was marked at the time he took them home.

Actually, I want to treat Hillary the same as the law dictates, regardless of who got off or not, she's not above the law. While you'd like to think these instances are the same, she break far more laws than he did, then lied about all of it. She also destroyed Federal Records. She also specifically asked that the classification marks be removed from some of the information she was sharing with uncleared people.

Your opinon is worth diddly squat.

Imma go with the team at the FBI who investigated this and found no there there. UNANIMOUSLY.

Too bad, so sad.

Have some Cheerios to cry in.

Comey Lays His Cards on the Table

Here's my breakdown and some of the laws in question. Aside from that, all I have to say is that this sort of behavior only proves my point that Democrats are not free thinkers.

Your opinion is worth diddly squat.

Imma go with the expert team at the FBI who investigated this and found no there there. UNANIMOUSLY.

Too bad, so sad.

Have some Cheerios to cry in.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

He shouldn't have gotten off, either. The Bushes, and the people under them, are Establishment servants, and people seem to think that puts them above the law. They're no different from the Clintons. You seem to incorrectly believe I support the Bushes, and that I'd change my mind because they're Republicans.

No. I "seem to believe" the FBI - an independent agency, and the DOJ looks at the facts of the matter, the laws, and precedence. He did "get off" after it was found he mishandled and removed to his home, unsecure, highest level Top Secret information.

Intent.

Somehow you want to treat Hillary different. The TS info on Hillary's server wasn't even marked, and was upclassed later. In Gonzales' case, it was marked at the time he took them home.

Actually, I want to treat Hillary the same as the law dictates, regardless of who got off or not, she's not above the law. While you'd like to think these instances are the same, she break far more laws than he did, then lied about all of it. She also destroyed Federal Records. She also specifically asked that the classification marks be removed from some of the information she was sharing with uncleared people.

Your opinon is worth diddly squat.

Imma go with the team at the FBI who investigated this and found no there there. UNANIMOUSLY.

Too bad, so sad.

Have some Cheerios to cry in.

Comey Lays His Cards on the Table

Here's my breakdown and some of the laws in question. Aside from that, all I have to say is that this sort of behavior only proves my point that Democrats are not free thinkers.

Your opinion is worth diddly squat.

Imma go with the expert team at the FBI who investigated this and found no there there. UNANIMOUSLY.

Too bad, so sad.

Have some Cheerios to cry in.

Goodness, you're no better than Candycorn. Substituting spamming for actual debate, and ignoring evidence that goes against what they're told to believe.

 

[paperview]

No. I "seem to believe" the FBI - an independent agency, and the DOJ looks at the facts of the matter, the laws, and precedence. He did "get off" after it was found he mishandled and removed to his home, unsecure, highest level Top Secret information.

Intent.

Somehow you want to treat Hillary different. The TS info on Hillary's server wasn't even marked, and was upclassed later. In Gonzales' case, it was marked at the time he took them home.

Actually, I want to treat Hillary the same as the law dictates, regardless of who got off or not, she's not above the law. While you'd like to think these instances are the same, she break far more laws than he did, then lied about all of it. She also destroyed Federal Records. She also specifically asked that the classification marks be removed from some of the information she was sharing with uncleared people.

Your opinon is worth diddly squat.

Imma go with the team at the FBI who investigated this and found no there there. UNANIMOUSLY.

Too bad, so sad.

Have some Cheerios to cry in.

Comey Lays His Cards on the Table

Here's my breakdown and some of the laws in question. Aside from that, all I have to say is that this sort of behavior only proves my point that Democrats are not free thinkers.

Your opinion is worth diddly squat.

Imma go with the expert team at the FBI who investigated this and found no there there. UNANIMOUSLY.

Too bad, so sad.

Have some Cheerios to cry in.

Goodness, you're no better than Candycorn. Substituting spamming for actual debate, and ignoring evidence that goes against what they're told to believe.

You're not worth the time, honey pie.

Nothing you say is going to matter against the top class independent professionals who have the information, are career investigators, consulting with career prosecutors - who know this **** inside and out and have spent well over a year digging into this matter.

So batcrap your *this is what I believe* all you like -- it

won't

matter.

You lost.
Again.
Deal with it
Like a big girl.

 

[paperview]

And your stupid pink and purple font colors are really annoying.

Grow up.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Actually, I want to treat Hillary the same as the law dictates, regardless of who got off or not, she's not above the law. While you'd like to think these instances are the same, she break far more laws than he did, then lied about all of it. She also destroyed Federal Records. She also specifically asked that the classification marks be removed from some of the information she was sharing with uncleared people.

Your opinon is worth diddly squat.

Imma go with the team at the FBI who investigated this and found no there there. UNANIMOUSLY.

Too bad, so sad.

Have some Cheerios to cry in.

Comey Lays His Cards on the Table

Here's my breakdown and some of the laws in question. Aside from that, all I have to say is that this sort of behavior only proves my point that Democrats are not free thinkers.

Your opinion is worth diddly squat.

Imma go with the expert team at the FBI who investigated this and found no there there. UNANIMOUSLY.

Too bad, so sad.

Have some Cheerios to cry in.

Goodness, you're no better than Candycorn. Substituting spamming for actual debate, and ignoring evidence that goes against what they're told to believe.

You're not worth the time, honey pie.

Nothing you say is going to matter against the top class independent professionals who have the information, are career investigators, consulting with career prosecutors - who know this **** inside and out and have spent well over a year digging into this matter.

So batcrap your *this is what I believe* all you like -- it

won't

matter.

You lost.
Again.
Deal with it
Like a big girl.

"Well, the experts told me this, so I instantly believe them with no verification or self-research whatsoever! I'm totally, totally an independent thinker!"

The irony of your post is astounding, at the very least.

 

[Vigilante]

Commie said so...and I believe him, since it was on CNN!

 

[paperview]

Your opinon is worth diddly squat.

Imma go with the team at the FBI who investigated this and found no there there. UNANIMOUSLY.

Too bad, so sad.

Have some Cheerios to cry in.

Comey Lays His Cards on the Table

Here's my breakdown and some of the laws in question. Aside from that, all I have to say is that this sort of behavior only proves my point that Democrats are not free thinkers.

Your opinion is worth diddly squat.

Imma go with the expert team at the FBI who investigated this and found no there there. UNANIMOUSLY.

Too bad, so sad.

Have some Cheerios to cry in.

Goodness, you're no better than Candycorn. Substituting spamming for actual debate, and ignoring evidence that goes against what they're told to believe.

You're not worth the time, honey pie.

Nothing you say is going to matter against the top class independent professionals who have the information, are career investigators, consulting with career prosecutors - who know this **** inside and out and have spent well over a year digging into this matter.

So batcrap your *this is what I believe* all you like -- it

won't

matter.

You lost.
Again.
Deal with it
Like a big girl.

"Well, the experts told me this, so I instantly believe them with no verification or self-research whatsoever! I'm totally, totally an independent thinker!"

The irony of your post is astounding, at the very least.

You've got to be 12 years old, I swear.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Comey Lays His Cards on the Table

Here's my breakdown and some of the laws in question. Aside from that, all I have to say is that this sort of behavior only proves my point that Democrats are not free thinkers.

Your opinion is worth diddly squat.

Imma go with the expert team at the FBI who investigated this and found no there there. UNANIMOUSLY.

Too bad, so sad.

Have some Cheerios to cry in.

Goodness, you're no better than Candycorn. Substituting spamming for actual debate, and ignoring evidence that goes against what they're told to believe.

You're not worth the time, honey pie.

Nothing you say is going to matter against the top class independent professionals who have the information, are career investigators, consulting with career prosecutors - who know this **** inside and out and have spent well over a year digging into this matter.

So batcrap your *this is what I believe* all you like -- it

won't

matter.

You lost.
Again.
Deal with it
Like a big girl.

"Well, the experts told me this, so I instantly believe them with no verification or self-research whatsoever! I'm totally, totally an independent thinker!"

The irony of your post is astounding, at the very least.

You've got to be 12 years old, I swear.

Just translating your post for you. No need to thank me.

 

[Ame®icano]

Reminder what Hillary said over past few months. Story changes every time when previous disproved as lie.

Nothing classified.
Nothing really classified.
Nothing classified at the time.
Others did the exact same thing.
Others did mostly the same thing.
Others did much worse.
Nothing marked classified.
Nothing not personal deleted.
Nothing not turned over already.
No intention to deceive.
No evidence of being hacked.

All lies.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

REPEATING

Repeating the stupid doesn't make it any less stupid.

Can you tell us what defense information Hillary supposedly gave away?

No?

You mean you're just making shit up?

Thanks for clarifying your double standard.

Didn't need to actually "give any information away".. This has never been about espionage. It's about blatant mishandling of classified information which by itself is against rules and regulations and law. She arrogantly REFUSED approved, secure methods of communication and set up a flimsy ad hoc unprotected system to do the MAJORITY of her business/personal communications.

That's removing classified information from the approved methods and practices of protecting it.

That is correct.

She is not the president yet and the hillarites are already claiming that

"when Hillary does it , it means is not a crime."

.


.

"Did Hillary Clinton break the law?" Chaffetz asked.

"In connection with her use of the email server? My judgment is that she did not," Comey said.


That's the Director of the FBI.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Comey never said she committed a crime, either.

Yes he did... he even said that one other person has been tried in the past for the crime she committed and he didn't feel it warranted charges and no prosecutor would take the case. But he most certainly said she broke the law.

"Did Hillary Clinton break the law?" Chaffetz asked.

"In connection with her use of the email server? My judgment is that she did not," Comey said.

 

[paperview]

Your opinion is worth diddly squat.

Imma go with the expert team at the FBI who investigated this and found no there there. UNANIMOUSLY.

Too bad, so sad.

Have some Cheerios to cry in.

Goodness, you're no better than Candycorn. Substituting spamming for actual debate, and ignoring evidence that goes against what they're told to believe.

You're not worth the time, honey pie.

Nothing you say is going to matter against the top class independent professionals who have the information, are career investigators, consulting with career prosecutors - who know this **** inside and out and have spent well over a year digging into this matter.

So batcrap your *this is what I believe* all you like -- it

won't

matter.

You lost.
Again.
Deal with it
Like a big girl.

"Well, the experts told me this, so I instantly believe them with no verification or self-research whatsoever! I'm totally, totally an independent thinker!"

The irony of your post is astounding, at the very least.

You've got to be 12 years old, I swear.

Just translating your post for you. No need to thank me.

Lets see...who to believe...who to believe...a 12 year old girl who rides magic ponies and writes in pinkpokimonish and purple font and has exhibited she hasn't a clue what she's talking about --

Or the team of the top law enforcement experts in the country, consulting with the top prosecutors in the country, with hundreds of years of combined experience behind them who eat live and breathe this stuff day in and day out.

Who to believe....?

Hmmm...That's a tough one.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

REPEATING

Repeating the stupid doesn't make it any less stupid.

Can you tell us what defense information Hillary supposedly gave away?

No?

You mean you're just making shit up?

Thanks for clarifying your double standard.

Didn't need to actually "give any information away".. This has never been about espionage. It's about blatant mishandling of classified information which by itself is against rules and regulations and law. She arrogantly REFUSED approved, secure methods of communication and set up a flimsy ad hoc unprotected system to do the MAJORITY of her business/personal communications.

That's removing classified information from the approved methods and practices of protecting it.

That is correct.

She is not the president yet and the hillarites are already claiming that

"when Hillary does it , it means is not a crime."

.


.

"Did Hillary Clinton break the law?" Chaffetz asked.

"In connection with her use of the email server? My judgment is that she did not," Comey said.

That's the Director of the FBI.

And he's right. Use of a private server is not prohibited by any law. The way she used it, the things she did with it, the things she did after it was discovered, and all the lies she told... those are what broke the law. So yeah. Server, totally legal. Hillary's actions? Absolutely not.

Comey is being very careful of what he says, and very specific.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

REPEATING

Repeating the stupid doesn't make it any less stupid.

Can you tell us what defense information Hillary supposedly gave away?

No?

You mean you're just making shit up?

Thanks for clarifying your double standard.

Didn't need to actually "give any information away".. This has never been about espionage. It's about blatant mishandling of classified information which by itself is against rules and regulations and law. She arrogantly REFUSED approved, secure methods of communication and set up a flimsy ad hoc unprotected system to do the MAJORITY of her business/personal communications.

That's removing classified information from the approved methods and practices of protecting it.

That is correct.

She is not the president yet and the hillarites are already claiming that

"when Hillary does it , it means is not a crime."

.


.

"Did Hillary Clinton break the law?" Chaffetz asked.

"In connection with her use of the email server? My judgment is that she did not," Comey said.

That's the Director of the FBI.

And he's right. Use of a private server is not prohibited by any law. The way she used it, the things she did with it, the things she did after it was discovered, and all the lies she told... those are what broke the law. So yeah. Server, totally legal. Hillary's actions? Absolutely not.

Comey is being very careful of what he says, and very specific.

Keep that hope alive.