From my link....from your own linkHere is a link....STATEMENT: "Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified."Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified. She didn’t even lose her clearance until later. She treated the rules on classified information as just chickenshit by putting that info on an unauthorized and improperly secured server. I wonder if her negligence cost lives.I would call the BLM and Antifa rioters more of an insurrection then the mob in the Capitol.If the Trump supporters had really wanted to take over the Capitol Building they would have came armed to the teeth and accomplished that mission.Trump lost.
So Trump wanted to burn or blow the house down....
He convinced his minions, to enact his revenge... If democracy, voted him out, then he was going to destroy that democracy.
You ALL are just his helpers, so he doesn't have to get his precious little fingers, dirty.
YOU are being used and abused, but are so far in to supporting him as your savior from all the perceived liberal evil and deep state conspiracy, that you have to keep supporting him and his Big Lie, to save face....
It's a sad situation, but one that Trump, counts on.....
The “insurrection“ was simply a rowdy mob that got out of control. Mobs often do that. At least the Trump mob didn’t burn the Capitol building like The BLM and Antifa mobs did to many blocks in our cities.
View attachment 495007
Anyone who has watched and listened to trump understood that he incited the worst insurrection against our form of government since the Civil War.
If the January 6th fiasco was as serious as you suggest it would only seem logical that everybody involved would be facing long prison sentences.
Charged in Jan. 6 riot? Yes, but prison may be another story
More than 400 people have been charged with federal crimes in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. With new defendants still flooding into Washington's federal court, the Justice Department is under pressure to quickly resolve the least serious of cases. While defendants charged with crimes such...news.yahoo.com
Time will tell if any of those end up in USP ADX Florence. Even the most vile and dangerous of the insurrectionists will have their rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Unlike those supporters of Donald Trump who rant together, "Lock her up" ignore her rights; those who sought to kill Speaker Pelosi and hand VP Pence will have their day in court.
RESPONSE: Post the highly classified information or admit you don't have it and lied.
Arriana McLymore
July 7, 2016
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment.
The exchange grew heated at times, with comments like this one from Gowdy: "You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'"
Here's a full transcript of the exchange:
- ADVERTISEMENT -
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That's what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
Here's a transcript of Rep. Trey Gowdy grilling FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
###
FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified
FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified “Reasonable Inference” for Clinton to Infer “Immediately” That Emails Were Not in Fact Classified On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey stated with respect to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails: “Only a very small...oversight.house.gov
“Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”
They were marked classified.
I've said for years the size of the House of Representatives should double or even triple. It should look like the galactic Senate in Star Wars, because you're correct. One person can't represent the large constituency they have today. Given today's technology, there is no reason to have an in person quorum in D.C. for every single vote. They could be spending more time in their home districts and voting remotely. Smaller districts and more home time means more interaction from the voters and less lobbyist influences.
Here is a link....STATEMENT: "Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified."Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified. She didn’t even lose her clearance until later. She treated the rules on classified information as just chickenshit by putting that info on an unauthorized and improperly secured server. I wonder if her negligence cost lives.I would call the BLM and Antifa rioters more of an insurrection then the mob in the Capitol.If the Trump supporters had really wanted to take over the Capitol Building they would have came armed to the teeth and accomplished that mission.Trump lost.
So Trump wanted to burn or blow the house down....
He convinced his minions, to enact his revenge... If democracy, voted him out, then he was going to destroy that democracy.
You ALL are just his helpers, so he doesn't have to get his precious little fingers, dirty.
YOU are being used and abused, but are so far in to supporting him as your savior from all the perceived liberal evil and deep state conspiracy, that you have to keep supporting him and his Big Lie, to save face....
It's a sad situation, but one that Trump, counts on.....
The “insurrection“ was simply a rowdy mob that got out of control. Mobs often do that. At least the Trump mob didn’t burn the Capitol building like The BLM and Antifa mobs did to many blocks in our cities.
View attachment 495007
Anyone who has watched and listened to trump understood that he incited the worst insurrection against our form of government since the Civil War.
If the January 6th fiasco was as serious as you suggest it would only seem logical that everybody involved would be facing long prison sentences.
Charged in Jan. 6 riot? Yes, but prison may be another story
More than 400 people have been charged with federal crimes in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. With new defendants still flooding into Washington's federal court, the Justice Department is under pressure to quickly resolve the least serious of cases. While defendants charged with crimes such...
Time will tell if any of those end up in USP ADX Florence. Even the most vile and dangerous of the insurrectionists will have their rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Unlike those supporters of Donald Trump who rant together, "Lock her up" ignore her rights; those who sought to kill Speaker Pelosi and hand VP Pence will have their day in court.
RESPONSE: Post the highly classified information or admit you don't have it and lied.
Arriana McLymore
July 7, 2016
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment.
The exchange grew heated at times, with comments like this one from Gowdy: "You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'"
Here's a full transcript of the exchange:
- ADVERTISEMENT -
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That's what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
Here's a transcript of Rep. Trey Gowdy grilling FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
###
FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified
FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified “Reasonable Inference” for Clinton to Infer “Immediately” That Emails Were Not in Fact Classified On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey stated with respect to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails: “Only a very small...
except, it says this in your link.From my link....from your own linkHere is a link....STATEMENT: "Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified."Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified. She didn’t even lose her clearance until later. She treated the rules on classified information as just chickenshit by putting that info on an unauthorized and improperly secured server. I wonder if her negligence cost lives.I would call the BLM and Antifa rioters more of an insurrection then the mob in the Capitol.If the Trump supporters had really wanted to take over the Capitol Building they would have came armed to the teeth and accomplished that mission.Trump lost.
So Trump wanted to burn or blow the house down....
He convinced his minions, to enact his revenge... If democracy, voted him out, then he was going to destroy that democracy.
You ALL are just his helpers, so he doesn't have to get his precious little fingers, dirty.
YOU are being used and abused, but are so far in to supporting him as your savior from all the perceived liberal evil and deep state conspiracy, that you have to keep supporting him and his Big Lie, to save face....
It's a sad situation, but one that Trump, counts on.....
The “insurrection“ was simply a rowdy mob that got out of control. Mobs often do that. At least the Trump mob didn’t burn the Capitol building like The BLM and Antifa mobs did to many blocks in our cities.
View attachment 495007
Anyone who has watched and listened to trump understood that he incited the worst insurrection against our form of government since the Civil War.
If the January 6th fiasco was as serious as you suggest it would only seem logical that everybody involved would be facing long prison sentences.
Charged in Jan. 6 riot? Yes, but prison may be another story
More than 400 people have been charged with federal crimes in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. With new defendants still flooding into Washington's federal court, the Justice Department is under pressure to quickly resolve the least serious of cases. While defendants charged with crimes such...
Time will tell if any of those end up in USP ADX Florence. Even the most vile and dangerous of the insurrectionists will have their rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Unlike those supporters of Donald Trump who rant together, "Lock her up" ignore her rights; those who sought to kill Speaker Pelosi and hand VP Pence will have their day in court.
RESPONSE: Post the highly classified information or admit you don't have it and lied.
Arriana McLymore
July 7, 2016
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment.
The exchange grew heated at times, with comments like this one from Gowdy: "You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'"
Here's a full transcript of the exchange:
- ADVERTISEMENT -
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That's what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
Here's a transcript of Rep. Trey Gowdy grilling FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
###
FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified
FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified “Reasonable Inference” for Clinton to Infer “Immediately” That Emails Were Not in Fact Classified On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey stated with respect to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails: “Only a very small...
“Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”
They were marked classified.
First, Director Comey explained that he was talking about only three emails out of the 30,000 his office reviewed, or 1/100 of 1% of the emails.
Second, Director Comey explained that these three specific emails were not properly marked as classified pursuant to federal guidelines and manuals. They did not have a classification header, and they did not list the original classifier, the agency and office of origin, the reason for classification, or the date for declassification. Instead they included only a single “(c)” for “confidential” on one paragraph lower down in the text.
Finally, Director Comey explained that it would have been a “reasonable inference” for Secretary Clinton to “immediately” conclude that these emails were not in fact classified.
Here is the exchange between Director Comey and Rep. Matthew Cartwright:
Rep. Cartwright: Those three documents with the little “c”s on them, were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?
Director Comey: No.
Rep. Cartwright: According to the manual, and I ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record, Mr. Chairman. According to the manual, if you’re going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document, right?
Director Comey: Correct.
Rep. Cartwright: Was there a header on the three documents that we’ve discussed today that had the little “c” in the text someplace?
Director Comey: No, there were three e-mails. The “c” was in the body in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.
Rep. Cartwright: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what’s not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
Director Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.
please show the three felonies Comey said she committed and should be indicted for....as you state he said...Here is a link....STATEMENT: "Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified."Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified. She didn’t even lose her clearance until later. She treated the rules on classified information as just chickenshit by putting that info on an unauthorized and improperly secured server. I wonder if her negligence cost lives.I would call the BLM and Antifa rioters more of an insurrection then the mob in the Capitol.If the Trump supporters had really wanted to take over the Capitol Building they would have came armed to the teeth and accomplished that mission.Trump lost.
So Trump wanted to burn or blow the house down....
He convinced his minions, to enact his revenge... If democracy, voted him out, then he was going to destroy that democracy.
You ALL are just his helpers, so he doesn't have to get his precious little fingers, dirty.
YOU are being used and abused, but are so far in to supporting him as your savior from all the perceived liberal evil and deep state conspiracy, that you have to keep supporting him and his Big Lie, to save face....
It's a sad situation, but one that Trump, counts on.....
The “insurrection“ was simply a rowdy mob that got out of control. Mobs often do that. At least the Trump mob didn’t burn the Capitol building like The BLM and Antifa mobs did to many blocks in our cities.
View attachment 495007
Anyone who has watched and listened to trump understood that he incited the worst insurrection against our form of government since the Civil War.
If the January 6th fiasco was as serious as you suggest it would only seem logical that everybody involved would be facing long prison sentences.
Charged in Jan. 6 riot? Yes, but prison may be another story
More than 400 people have been charged with federal crimes in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. With new defendants still flooding into Washington's federal court, the Justice Department is under pressure to quickly resolve the least serious of cases. While defendants charged with crimes such...
Time will tell if any of those end up in USP ADX Florence. Even the most vile and dangerous of the insurrectionists will have their rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Unlike those supporters of Donald Trump who rant together, "Lock her up" ignore her rights; those who sought to kill Speaker Pelosi and hand VP Pence will have their day in court.
RESPONSE: Post the highly classified information or admit you don't have it and lied.
Arriana McLymore
July 7, 2016
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment.
The exchange grew heated at times, with comments like this one from Gowdy: "You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'"
Here's a full transcript of the exchange:
- ADVERTISEMENT -
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That's what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
Here's a transcript of Rep. Trey Gowdy grilling FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
###
FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified
FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified “Reasonable Inference” for Clinton to Infer “Immediately” That Emails Were Not in Fact Classified On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey stated with respect to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails: “Only a very small...
Bullshit. Comey in his now infamous press conference, described three felonies that she committed, then declared she was too stupid to understand that what she did was a crime.
Irrespective of the fact that that is not a predicate for an indictment.
And they rely on stupid you to give her a pass because she's a poor poor woman....and you're stupid.
I posted the link for you long ago..please show the three felonies Comey said she committed and should be indicted for....as you state he said...Here is a link....STATEMENT: "Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified."Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified. She didn’t even lose her clearance until later. She treated the rules on classified information as just chickenshit by putting that info on an unauthorized and improperly secured server. I wonder if her negligence cost lives.I would call the BLM and Antifa rioters more of an insurrection then the mob in the Capitol.If the Trump supporters had really wanted to take over the Capitol Building they would have came armed to the teeth and accomplished that mission.Trump lost.
So Trump wanted to burn or blow the house down....
He convinced his minions, to enact his revenge... If democracy, voted him out, then he was going to destroy that democracy.
You ALL are just his helpers, so he doesn't have to get his precious little fingers, dirty.
YOU are being used and abused, but are so far in to supporting him as your savior from all the perceived liberal evil and deep state conspiracy, that you have to keep supporting him and his Big Lie, to save face....
It's a sad situation, but one that Trump, counts on.....
The “insurrection“ was simply a rowdy mob that got out of control. Mobs often do that. At least the Trump mob didn’t burn the Capitol building like The BLM and Antifa mobs did to many blocks in our cities.
View attachment 495007
Anyone who has watched and listened to trump understood that he incited the worst insurrection against our form of government since the Civil War.
If the January 6th fiasco was as serious as you suggest it would only seem logical that everybody involved would be facing long prison sentences.
Charged in Jan. 6 riot? Yes, but prison may be another story
More than 400 people have been charged with federal crimes in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. With new defendants still flooding into Washington's federal court, the Justice Department is under pressure to quickly resolve the least serious of cases. While defendants charged with crimes such...
Time will tell if any of those end up in USP ADX Florence. Even the most vile and dangerous of the insurrectionists will have their rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Unlike those supporters of Donald Trump who rant together, "Lock her up" ignore her rights; those who sought to kill Speaker Pelosi and hand VP Pence will have their day in court.
RESPONSE: Post the highly classified information or admit you don't have it and lied.
Arriana McLymore
July 7, 2016
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment.
The exchange grew heated at times, with comments like this one from Gowdy: "You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'"
Here's a full transcript of the exchange:
- ADVERTISEMENT -
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That's what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
Here's a transcript of Rep. Trey Gowdy grilling FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
###
FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified
FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified “Reasonable Inference” for Clinton to Infer “Immediately” That Emails Were Not in Fact Classified On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey stated with respect to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails: “Only a very small...
Bullshit. Comey in his now infamous press conference, described three felonies that she committed, then declared she was too stupid to understand that what she did was a crime.
Irrespective of the fact that that is not a predicate for an indictment.
And they rely on stupid you to give her a pass because she's a poor poor woman....and you're stupid.
Right, that bore a small c, in a spot in the context of the email, but without the proper classified marking header, which indicates the date, time, agency and dept, and Agent signature who classified it, the little c in the context meant diddly squat without the classified header Marked Classified.except, it says this in your link.From my link....from your own linkHere is a link....STATEMENT: "Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified."Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified. She didn’t even lose her clearance until later. She treated the rules on classified information as just chickenshit by putting that info on an unauthorized and improperly secured server. I wonder if her negligence cost lives.I would call the BLM and Antifa rioters more of an insurrection then the mob in the Capitol.If the Trump supporters had really wanted to take over the Capitol Building they would have came armed to the teeth and accomplished that mission.Trump lost.
So Trump wanted to burn or blow the house down....
He convinced his minions, to enact his revenge... If democracy, voted him out, then he was going to destroy that democracy.
You ALL are just his helpers, so he doesn't have to get his precious little fingers, dirty.
YOU are being used and abused, but are so far in to supporting him as your savior from all the perceived liberal evil and deep state conspiracy, that you have to keep supporting him and his Big Lie, to save face....
It's a sad situation, but one that Trump, counts on.....
The “insurrection“ was simply a rowdy mob that got out of control. Mobs often do that. At least the Trump mob didn’t burn the Capitol building like The BLM and Antifa mobs did to many blocks in our cities.
View attachment 495007
Anyone who has watched and listened to trump understood that he incited the worst insurrection against our form of government since the Civil War.
If the January 6th fiasco was as serious as you suggest it would only seem logical that everybody involved would be facing long prison sentences.
Charged in Jan. 6 riot? Yes, but prison may be another story
More than 400 people have been charged with federal crimes in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. With new defendants still flooding into Washington's federal court, the Justice Department is under pressure to quickly resolve the least serious of cases. While defendants charged with crimes such...
Time will tell if any of those end up in USP ADX Florence. Even the most vile and dangerous of the insurrectionists will have their rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Unlike those supporters of Donald Trump who rant together, "Lock her up" ignore her rights; those who sought to kill Speaker Pelosi and hand VP Pence will have their day in court.
RESPONSE: Post the highly classified information or admit you don't have it and lied.
Arriana McLymore
July 7, 2016
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment.
The exchange grew heated at times, with comments like this one from Gowdy: "You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'"
Here's a full transcript of the exchange:
- ADVERTISEMENT -
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That's what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
Here's a transcript of Rep. Trey Gowdy grilling FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
###
FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified
FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified “Reasonable Inference” for Clinton to Infer “Immediately” That Emails Were Not in Fact Classified On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey stated with respect to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails: “Only a very small...
“Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”
They were marked classified.
First, Director Comey explained that he was talking about only three emails out of the 30,000 his office reviewed, or 1/100 of 1% of the emails.
Second, Director Comey explained that these three specific emails were not properly marked as classified pursuant to federal guidelines and manuals. They did not have a classification header, and they did not list the original classifier, the agency and office of origin, the reason for classification, or the date for declassification. Instead they included only a single “(c)” for “confidential” on one paragraph lower down in the text.
Finally, Director Comey explained that it would have been a “reasonable inference” for Secretary Clinton to “immediately” conclude that these emails were not in fact classified.
Here is the exchange between Director Comey and Rep. Matthew Cartwright:
Rep. Cartwright: Those three documents with the little “c”s on them, were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?
Director Comey: No.
Rep. Cartwright: According to the manual, and I ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record, Mr. Chairman. According to the manual, if you’re going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document, right?
Director Comey: Correct.
Rep. Cartwright: Was there a header on the three documents that we’ve discussed today that had the little “c” in the text someplace?
Director Comey: No, there were three e-mails. The “c” was in the body in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.
Rep. Cartwright: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what’s not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
Director Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.
“Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”
classified was marked.
exceptRight, that bore a small c, in a spot in the context of the email, but without the proper classified marking header, which indicates the date, time, agency and dept, and Agent signature who classified it, the little c in the context meant diddledy dot without the classified header Marked Classified.except, it says this in your link.From my link....from your own linkHere is a link....STATEMENT: "Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified."Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified. She didn’t even lose her clearance until later. She treated the rules on classified information as just chickenshit by putting that info on an unauthorized and improperly secured server. I wonder if her negligence cost lives.I would call the BLM and Antifa rioters more of an insurrection then the mob in the Capitol.If the Trump supporters had really wanted to take over the Capitol Building they would have came armed to the teeth and accomplished that mission.Trump lost.
So Trump wanted to burn or blow the house down....
He convinced his minions, to enact his revenge... If democracy, voted him out, then he was going to destroy that democracy.
You ALL are just his helpers, so he doesn't have to get his precious little fingers, dirty.
YOU are being used and abused, but are so far in to supporting him as your savior from all the perceived liberal evil and deep state conspiracy, that you have to keep supporting him and his Big Lie, to save face....
It's a sad situation, but one that Trump, counts on.....
The “insurrection“ was simply a rowdy mob that got out of control. Mobs often do that. At least the Trump mob didn’t burn the Capitol building like The BLM and Antifa mobs did to many blocks in our cities.
View attachment 495007
Anyone who has watched and listened to trump understood that he incited the worst insurrection against our form of government since the Civil War.
If the January 6th fiasco was as serious as you suggest it would only seem logical that everybody involved would be facing long prison sentences.
Charged in Jan. 6 riot? Yes, but prison may be another story
More than 400 people have been charged with federal crimes in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. With new defendants still flooding into Washington's federal court, the Justice Department is under pressure to quickly resolve the least serious of cases. While defendants charged with crimes such...
Time will tell if any of those end up in USP ADX Florence. Even the most vile and dangerous of the insurrectionists will have their rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Unlike those supporters of Donald Trump who rant together, "Lock her up" ignore her rights; those who sought to kill Speaker Pelosi and hand VP Pence will have their day in court.
RESPONSE: Post the highly classified information or admit you don't have it and lied.
Arriana McLymore
July 7, 2016
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment.
The exchange grew heated at times, with comments like this one from Gowdy: "You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'"
Here's a full transcript of the exchange:
- ADVERTISEMENT -
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That's what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
Here's a transcript of Rep. Trey Gowdy grilling FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
###
FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified
FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified “Reasonable Inference” for Clinton to Infer “Immediately” That Emails Were Not in Fact Classified On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey stated with respect to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails: “Only a very small...
“Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”
They were marked classified.
First, Director Comey explained that he was talking about only three emails out of the 30,000 his office reviewed, or 1/100 of 1% of the emails.
Second, Director Comey explained that these three specific emails were not properly marked as classified pursuant to federal guidelines and manuals. They did not have a classification header, and they did not list the original classifier, the agency and office of origin, the reason for classification, or the date for declassification. Instead they included only a single “(c)” for “confidential” on one paragraph lower down in the text.
Finally, Director Comey explained that it would have been a “reasonable inference” for Secretary Clinton to “immediately” conclude that these emails were not in fact classified.
Here is the exchange between Director Comey and Rep. Matthew Cartwright:
Rep. Cartwright: Those three documents with the little “c”s on them, were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?
Director Comey: No.
Rep. Cartwright: According to the manual, and I ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record, Mr. Chairman. According to the manual, if you’re going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document, right?
Director Comey: Correct.
Rep. Cartwright: Was there a header on the three documents that we’ve discussed today that had the little “c” in the text someplace?
Director Comey: No, there were three e-mails. The “c” was in the body in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.
Rep. Cartwright: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what’s not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
Director Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.
“Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”
classified was marked.
Comey was a prick to Hillary, to even bring it up.
except, it says this in your link.From my link....from your own linkHere is a link....STATEMENT: "Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified."Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified. She didn’t even lose her clearance until later. She treated the rules on classified information as just chickenshit by putting that info on an unauthorized and improperly secured server. I wonder if her negligence cost lives.I would call the BLM and Antifa rioters more of an insurrection then the mob in the Capitol.If the Trump supporters had really wanted to take over the Capitol Building they would have came armed to the teeth and accomplished that mission.Trump lost.
So Trump wanted to burn or blow the house down....
He convinced his minions, to enact his revenge... If democracy, voted him out, then he was going to destroy that democracy.
You ALL are just his helpers, so he doesn't have to get his precious little fingers, dirty.
YOU are being used and abused, but are so far in to supporting him as your savior from all the perceived liberal evil and deep state conspiracy, that you have to keep supporting him and his Big Lie, to save face....
It's a sad situation, but one that Trump, counts on.....
The “insurrection“ was simply a rowdy mob that got out of control. Mobs often do that. At least the Trump mob didn’t burn the Capitol building like The BLM and Antifa mobs did to many blocks in our cities.
View attachment 495007
Anyone who has watched and listened to trump understood that he incited the worst insurrection against our form of government since the Civil War.
If the January 6th fiasco was as serious as you suggest it would only seem logical that everybody involved would be facing long prison sentences.
Charged in Jan. 6 riot? Yes, but prison may be another story
More than 400 people have been charged with federal crimes in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. With new defendants still flooding into Washington's federal court, the Justice Department is under pressure to quickly resolve the least serious of cases. While defendants charged with crimes such...
Time will tell if any of those end up in USP ADX Florence. Even the most vile and dangerous of the insurrectionists will have their rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Unlike those supporters of Donald Trump who rant together, "Lock her up" ignore her rights; those who sought to kill Speaker Pelosi and hand VP Pence will have their day in court.
RESPONSE: Post the highly classified information or admit you don't have it and lied.
Arriana McLymore
July 7, 2016
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment.
The exchange grew heated at times, with comments like this one from Gowdy: "You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'"
Here's a full transcript of the exchange:
- ADVERTISEMENT -
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That's what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
Here's a transcript of Rep. Trey Gowdy grilling FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
###
FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified
FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified “Reasonable Inference” for Clinton to Infer “Immediately” That Emails Were Not in Fact Classified On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey stated with respect to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails: “Only a very small...
“Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”
They were marked classified.
First, Director Comey explained that he was talking about only three emails out of the 30,000 his office reviewed, or 1/100 of 1% of the emails.
Second, Director Comey explained that these three specific emails were not properly marked as classified pursuant to federal guidelines and manuals. They did not have a classification header, and they did not list the original classifier, the agency and office of origin, the reason for classification, or the date for declassification. Instead they included only a single “(c)” for “confidential” on one paragraph lower down in the text.
Finally, Director Comey explained that it would have been a “reasonable inference” for Secretary Clinton to “immediately” conclude that these emails were not in fact classified.
Here is the exchange between Director Comey and Rep. Matthew Cartwright:
Rep. Cartwright: Those three documents with the little “c”s on them, were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?
Director Comey: No.
Rep. Cartwright: According to the manual, and I ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record, Mr. Chairman. According to the manual, if you’re going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document, right?
Director Comey: Correct.
Rep. Cartwright: Was there a header on the three documents that we’ve discussed today that had the little “c” in the text someplace?
Director Comey: No, there were three e-mails. The “c” was in the body in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.
Rep. Cartwright: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what’s not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
Director Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.
“Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”
classified was marked.
Right, that bore a small c, in a spot in the context of the email, but without the proper classified marking header, which indicates the date, time, agency and dept, and Agent signature who classified it, the little c in the context meant diddly squat without the classified header Marked Classified.except, it says this in your link.From my link....from your own linkHere is a link....STATEMENT: "Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified."Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified. She didn’t even lose her clearance until later. She treated the rules on classified information as just chickenshit by putting that info on an unauthorized and improperly secured server. I wonder if her negligence cost lives.I would call the BLM and Antifa rioters more of an insurrection then the mob in the Capitol.If the Trump supporters had really wanted to take over the Capitol Building they would have came armed to the teeth and accomplished that mission.Trump lost.
So Trump wanted to burn or blow the house down....
He convinced his minions, to enact his revenge... If democracy, voted him out, then he was going to destroy that democracy.
You ALL are just his helpers, so he doesn't have to get his precious little fingers, dirty.
YOU are being used and abused, but are so far in to supporting him as your savior from all the perceived liberal evil and deep state conspiracy, that you have to keep supporting him and his Big Lie, to save face....
It's a sad situation, but one that Trump, counts on.....
The “insurrection“ was simply a rowdy mob that got out of control. Mobs often do that. At least the Trump mob didn’t burn the Capitol building like The BLM and Antifa mobs did to many blocks in our cities.
View attachment 495007
Anyone who has watched and listened to trump understood that he incited the worst insurrection against our form of government since the Civil War.
If the January 6th fiasco was as serious as you suggest it would only seem logical that everybody involved would be facing long prison sentences.
Charged in Jan. 6 riot? Yes, but prison may be another story
More than 400 people have been charged with federal crimes in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. With new defendants still flooding into Washington's federal court, the Justice Department is under pressure to quickly resolve the least serious of cases. While defendants charged with crimes such...
Time will tell if any of those end up in USP ADX Florence. Even the most vile and dangerous of the insurrectionists will have their rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.
Unlike those supporters of Donald Trump who rant together, "Lock her up" ignore her rights; those who sought to kill Speaker Pelosi and hand VP Pence will have their day in court.
RESPONSE: Post the highly classified information or admit you don't have it and lied.
Arriana McLymore
July 7, 2016
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment.
The exchange grew heated at times, with comments like this one from Gowdy: "You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'"
Here's a full transcript of the exchange:
- ADVERTISEMENT -
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That's what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right?
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
Here's a transcript of Rep. Trey Gowdy grilling FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting Hillary Clinton.
###
FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified
FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified “Reasonable Inference” for Clinton to Infer “Immediately” That Emails Were Not in Fact Classified On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey stated with respect to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails: “Only a very small...
“Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”
They were marked classified.
First, Director Comey explained that he was talking about only three emails out of the 30,000 his office reviewed, or 1/100 of 1% of the emails.
Second, Director Comey explained that these three specific emails were not properly marked as classified pursuant to federal guidelines and manuals. They did not have a classification header, and they did not list the original classifier, the agency and office of origin, the reason for classification, or the date for declassification. Instead they included only a single “(c)” for “confidential” on one paragraph lower down in the text.
Finally, Director Comey explained that it would have been a “reasonable inference” for Secretary Clinton to “immediately” conclude that these emails were not in fact classified.
Here is the exchange between Director Comey and Rep. Matthew Cartwright:
Rep. Cartwright: Those three documents with the little “c”s on them, were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?
Director Comey: No.
Rep. Cartwright: According to the manual, and I ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record, Mr. Chairman. According to the manual, if you’re going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document, right?
Director Comey: Correct.
Rep. Cartwright: Was there a header on the three documents that we’ve discussed today that had the little “c” in the text someplace?
Director Comey: No, there were three e-mails. The “c” was in the body in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.
Rep. Cartwright: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what’s not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
Director Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.
“Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”
classified was marked.
Comey was a prick to Hillary, to even bring it up.
It is very troubling that so many ignorant trumpanzees dominate this message board with BIG LIES and support trump and the current iteration of the Republican Party. If anyone doubts that the GOP has devolved into a right wing radical party they are seriously demented or so radical that they are not patriots and members of the idiot fringe.
Only a misogynist would make this claim ^^^. BTW, your definition of Mrs. Pelosi is much more fitting for McConnell. The other difference is Pelosi puts the people first, and McConnell abuses the power that he lusts to keep.
Well now, a personal attack suggests the truth of my comment. Stating I've never been, "that bright" is evidence of the truth of my remark.
just more whining over a group that disagrees with you and won't be complicit to nonsense. you hate that, that we don't align with your cult. Never will, none of us. you can whine for fking ever as you want. Won't change who we are. From a trmpanzee!!! whoa who, more insults please, cause basically that's all you got.
Mea culpa: I reread your post, this time reading the entire post above, to which you were responding; I made a false claim that is was you attacking Pelosi.
"Trumpanzee: an irrational and irritable assclownish beast that is completely immunized {hannitized magatized} to logic-or-reason, any-and-all negative facts-or-evidence concerning Trump, and remains a devout and mindless supporter of the buffoon."
www.urbandictionary.com
