Bq you don't have the clearance (which they'd be breaking if they had them) to know all the secrets. They have friends at all levels of gov that gives them the information
FBI reopening the investigation of the crook?
- Thread starter KNIGHTTIME^
- Start date
Two geniuses, amazing. Make no mistake about it, if any of us did what she did we would be in jail for a very long time. You apologizers are okay with her breaking the law because she is your candidate. You are okay with her selling her office because she is on your side. You are okay with her lying to the FBI because she is on your side. You are okay with her saying "I do not recall" 40 times during her FBI questioning because she is on your side. You are okay with all of her BS because she is on your side.
That is why liberals are liberals, say what you want about conservatives or republicans, they either chose Trump or not because they disliked the system. Liberals, not so much but the thing I laugh a liberals so much about is this. If you hate the 1% or the "uber rich" as libs call them, why do you support the part of the 1% or the uber rich? Jay Z, Mark Cuban, Beyonce, Katie Perry, Lebron James, John Bon Jovi and the rest of hollywood and wall street, they are not in your income bracket. Sometimes you just have to ask why.
One final questions for your liberals. Why are they running?
This is what they found........................
The classified investigation is closed, yes.
Hillary gathered her lawyers and their techs, had them dictate terms to the DoJ, while the FBI would be handcuffed to those terms. Meanwhile, her lawyers and techs were not cleared (much less held any InfoSec certification), and she just continually violated so many agreements she signed. Not one, single person with a security clearance, much less at her level, would ever excuse this.
I think my favorite will be Hillary -- quite publicly stating -- she never send/received anything, then saying she never sent anything and then finally claiming things weren't classified when she sent them. Some of the US media, so a lot of 'la-la-la, finger in my ears' Progressive-Democratic voters, still believe this. To them, it doesn't matter Clinton claimed she didn't know what classified markings were on the e-mails she responded to herself, and materials she transposed in her own, new e-mails out. It doesn't matter the FBI flat out laid that down like a smoking gun. No one listens, especially people who have never held a clearance and never signed away their rights.
And this is where we are at. Progressive-Democratic voters are literally saying she is a great public servant, and lambasting most of the FBI's public servants, not just Comey.
- http://www.salon.com/2016/11/03/don...ith-pro-trump-anti-hillary-clinton-partisans/
- http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slat...n_targeted_by_trump_fbi_fans_report_says.html
Now add that, with this ...
- http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-company-linked-to-opm-hack-just-got-hired-by-the-government-again/
Do you think anyone with a security clearance, much less one at a very high level that just had their entire life's portfolio handed to the Chinese ... has high morale right now?
You can be the best of the best in the agency considered the most objective, and now ... you're just a sh--faced public servant who isn't as good as Hillary Clinton?
Seriously ... Progressive-Democrats really need to think how far they've fallen from being true Liberals, and honestly f'd any morale left, especially in the FBI and anyone of any long-serving tenure in such honored roles.
Huh? You missed that whole criminal negligence and guilty of a felony under an Executive Order her own husband, Bill Clinton, signed? Yes, it's a felony to mishandle classified information, per Bill Clinton executive order. President Obama uses that Executive Order regularly and there are people in jail over it.
The FBI was handicapped by the DoJ from seizing all systems and asking anything but specific questions negotiated by Clinton's lawyers. That's why they didn't find 'criminal intent,' even though that was not required! Did any 'Progressive-Democratic' actually listen to Comey's statements? Or did they just listen to MSNBC?
Now it didn't help that Combetta, who received immunity, continued to cover-up his own tracks even after his interviews, was caught lying, more than once, and even after the investigation was closed. I honestly hope the FBI goes after him as his immunity will not apply in that case.
The FBI was handicapped by the DoJ from seizing all systems and asking anything but specific questions negotiated by Clinton's lawyers. That's why they didn't find 'criminal intent,' even though that was not required! Did any 'Progressive-Democratic' actually listen to Comey's statements? Or did they just listen to MSNBC?
Now it didn't help that Combetta, who received immunity, continued to cover-up his own tracks even after his interviews, was caught lying, more than once, and even after the investigation was closed. I honestly hope the FBI goes after him as his immunity will not apply in that case.
This is what they found........................
BS, you can provide wrong/misguided answers in much shorter posts. Sir G does it all the time.
And when Trump goes to court for his civil (not criminal) racketeering/fraud charges later this month, or any of the other 75 active lawsuits against him, are you standing by your candidate? Of course you are. You probably think those charges are imaginary, too. Reagan can almost take credit for the phrase "I do not recall" when he testified during Iran-Contra he said it so much, yet nobody dared bring him up on charges. It works both ways.
One thing is absolutely clear. No matter what happens tomorrow, we will all lose.
We will all be fine. It may not go exactly how you want but we will be fine.
I think you misunderstand my position. I fully expect her to win tomorrow as I've said many times that a republican can't win a national election. Now I used to think it was due to the demographic shift in the country and to a point I still believe that. What has also come to light is the sheer collusion between the media and the democrats which makes it harder for the republicans.
But please understand this, Wednesday morning I will wake up as I always do, walk down to my office and start work as I always do. My kids will still go to school and I will eat dinner with the family as I always do. I am insulated at this point, if Hillary wins as I expect her to do, my investment portfolio will continue in stock and my rental houses will do better as the housing market will experience higher interest rates quickly thus making it harder to buy a home allowing me to charge more rent. Yes I will experience minor tax increases but for the most part I can have my income look like anything I want by using deferred maintenance costs and other games.
You're too dumb and inexperienced to understand that it is your generation that is going to be paying the majority of today's giveaways. I will be just fine.
And you must be too old and senile to understand that some people think differently than you. I am more than aware that a lot of the "giveaways" I want do cost something and that may cause me to pay more taxes. We have two different ideas on how a country should be run and there is nothing wrong with that. You get to vote for who you want and I get to vote for who I want. I guess we will see where the country is in 20 or 30 years.
Also - get over the whole media and democrats are colluding BS. For how much conservatives scream about it, you'd think that the whole country would know the "media is biased" and not give two sh!ts about what the media says. There are enough media outlets on both sides that everyone has access too. There are ridiculous outlets on the left and ridiculous outlets on the right. Once again - the only person you have to blame for the media's coverage of Trump is Trump himself. He asked, no, begged for it by how he ran his campaign.
And that's the thing ... I'm tired of it from both parties.
The major difference here is Clinton got priority when the FBI found classified materials on her servers and systems. That totally caused the DoD and others to tell the DoJ they couldn't prevent the FBI from investigating any further. Of course, the DoJ still tied both hands behind the FBI's back, but that's always going to be the case.
The investigation was directed by Clinton's legal team via the DoJ agreement.
There were 3 FBI investigations. There's Anthony Weiners, the Clinton E-mail server (which was reopened due to data found as part of Anthony Weiners investigation), and the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation investigation has been going on for more than a year now and is still open. Comey only said they did not change their opinion on the Clinton E-mail server. She's still under FBI investigation through the Clinton Foundation investigation. Is there anything damaging in that investigation? It remains to be seen and it most certainly won't be closed before the election. But to say it's spin that something may happen, is burying your head in the sand. The Clinton Foundation investigation is a very real investigation.
Indeed. The classified materials investigation was the 'distraction' that required full attention. It was also quite hampered by the Clinton laywer - DoJ 'deal.'
The DoJ is still trying to prevent the Clinton Foundation / Clinton Global Initiative investigation from moving forward. And they've successfully prevented the FBI from even being able to seize assets for even the classified investigation. So I don't think much will come about anything.
Most Americans don't even realize that Comey had publicly refuted Clinton's statements on sending materials, materials that had markings. They literally believe Clinton's public statements are true. This is all part of the vast right wing conspiracy and Comey and his agents are 'out to get Clinton.'
The only sites and news outlets that at all seem to think there is ANYTHING regarding the Clinton Foundation are the Breitbart type sites.
Oh sorry, cue the "liberal media" is suppressing it BS. There's nothing there guys, sorry. And just an FYI - I think the "liberal" versions of those sites like USUncut and stuff are just as silly. It's all BS and spin.
Oh sorry, cue the "liberal media" is suppressing it BS. There's nothing there guys, sorry. And just an FYI - I think the "liberal" versions of those sites like USUncut and stuff are just as silly. It's all BS and spin.
Ummm, the New York Times has been pretty good as of late. This includes when Chelsea came in and had to deal with Band and Teneo. I had a very negative opinion of Chelsea before, but this has changed things. It very much sounds like Band's remarks about her wedding was just sour milk as Chelsea started to cut off the 'conflict-of-interest' issues that had become the norm before she came in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/28/us/politics/bill-chelsea-clinton-foundation.html
Add that to all of the 'issues' the officers of the Clinton Foundation and Global Initiative had to do when Bill would pull all sorts of deals, plus what we'll never find in e-mails destroyed by Combetta, and you can paint your own picture. The Clintons have been repeatedly investigated, and Hillary (far more than Bill) found at-fault in several of them, because Hillary Clinton honestly believes it's 'business as usual' to ignore conflicts-of-interests and the appearance of impropriety.
Heck, even Bill was making excuses the other week about how it's 'just how it is.'
Yes they can. However, Donald trump is not a lifelong Republican. He's only playing one on TV. He had been a Clinton supporter for years.
Even Fox stopped trying to cover Trump's stupidity. I guess now they are "liberal media" too.
What republicans fail to understand is that they created this problem. If they had nominated somebody with a brain, he would have won by at least 10%. Republicans allowed this to happen by:
1. Having 17 candidates
2. allowing the crazies to pick their nominee
Now the choice is between an alleged crook and an imbecile and they are surprised the crook is going to win
I think they remember what happened in 2012. They marginalized several candidates who qualified for the 2nd round of the primaries. This includes Gary Johnson who qualified, but CNN was told to leave him out.
That's always been his story. I guess with Trump they found a candidate who was even more hated by the Republican establishment than Johnson, and then some!
Hopefully the NYT is a good enough source for you. The article is focused on the FBI and how reopening the e-mail case is a departure from how they've handled two other open cases that would influence the election: Paul Manafort and Clinton Foundation.
"The F.B.I. and Justice Department faced a hard decision in two investigations this past summer that had the potential to rock the presidential election. The first case involved Donald J. Trump’s campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, and secretive business dealings in Ukraine. The second focused on Hillary Clinton’s relationships with donors to her family foundation.
At the urging of the Justice Department, the F.B.I. agreed not to issue subpoenas or take other steps that would make the cases public so close to the election, according to federal law enforcement officials."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/02/u...llary-clinton-donald-trump.html?smid=tw-share
We already knew she was too dumb to know how to use email properly....like every other gov't & contractor employee knows. Nothing new here. Anyone who based their decision on this "new information" doesn't understand the original issue. And maybe shouldn't be voting.This is what they found........................
.
Here's what I'm looking forward to: HRC wins the election. And by the end of November is indicted. And Tim Kaine becomes POTUS. And in an act of solidarity, somehow Mike Pence becomes VP.
It's sure better than the other scenarios.
.
It's sure better than the other scenarios.
.
But indicted for what?
In case you guys havent caught on yet...there's nothing there. R's have been pushing and pushing and pushing and raising every damn point they can imagine and pushing every little leak into the media. And its been going on for years. Still not one actual shred of evidence of anything that would actually make her a criminal. A politician sure...but not a criminal.
No one has been more scrutinized and personally invaded including going through all her damn e-mails. Still nothing.
Face it. She's a lot better of a nominee than years of smear attempts would lead you to believe. I still disagree on some policies but that's actually healthy discussion...but the criminal stuff is getting laughably embarrassing.
Also if you want to take a moment to read a piece about how the e-mail thing could come to be a thing in the first place then give this article a chance: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/4/13500018/clinton-email-scandal-bullshit
If you have a closed mind then you'll just cry about it but whatever. It's worth a read if you want to actually understand the issue a little bit.
If you have a closed mind then you'll just cry about it but whatever. It's worth a read if you want to actually understand the issue a little bit.
It is illegal to lie under oath in Congress.
It is illegal to store and/or circulate classified information on non-classified servers.
If another candidate could have won please tell me how. Trump has generated something, do you think any other candidate could have generated the excitement Trump has?
What's laughably embarrassing is how you view the deliberate mishandling of our nation's secrets, for pure petty personal reasons, to be a small, irrelevant matter.
There is something there- plenty. Comey said as much in July when he ranted for 10 minutes about how she fits the bill for gross negligence, then proceeded to say "well, we won't prosecute anyways".
You and your HRC fanboys continue to ignore the really valid point that we have soldiers sitting in prison RIGHT NOW for violations with classified material that don't come anywhere near what Hillary pulled. There is a gross, despicable double standard simply because she's a cretin who has bent the rules her entire life.
It's laughably embarrassing to listen to you try and defend this person. Her and her husband have been in scandal after scandal and only survive since they have built a network of people willing to protect them through years of peddling influence and money.
She lied directly to everyone's face by declaring that she never sent or received classified material only to have it come out that this was grossly flase.
She had a crony erase over 30,000 emails that were under subpoena. Convenient we won't know what was in those!
I know you're not too smart so let me help you out with this. The republicans Trump won the nomination and it was not close so you're saying 60% of the party are "crazies," nice. Hey moron, percentage points don't win presidential elections, states do and no matter who the republicans nominated most of the Clinton states tomorrow would still be no matter the republican candidate. If Trump wins its because he did what a republican could not do, win Florida, Ohio and or Pennsylvania or Michigan.
i dont think you know how e-mail works.
which is why the 30,000 e-mail thing is by far my favorite conspiracy line.
You are either an idiot or completely uninformed. Clearly you havent been paying attention to the wikileaks. Alot of the mass media was bought and paid for in this election cycle.
Anyone that commits perjury and mishandles classified information should be in jail.
And why is that? Why?
Because Hillary Clinton has no concept of conflict-of-interest and believes she doesn't have to follow policy, repeatedly! Did you actually read not only the Travelgate findings, but the resulting liabilities? You don't get to fire people because you want to bring your friends in. Bill was cleared, but Hillary was not. And that was just the beginning in 1993!
Now follow this trail. Even the President repeatedly warned her not to mix her Foundation with her State work, and more than once. She maintained a personal server to keep things under her discretion. The DoJ prevented the FBI from even investigating it, until the classified materials were uncovered. Then it became an issue for more than just the DoJ-FBI, and the DoJ couldn't keep other agencies out of it. But they could limit what the FBI could do, which Clinton's lawyers did.
Let's review ...
She claimed she never sent/received classified information. False, and the FBI stated so.
She claimed she never sent classified information. False, and the FBI stated so.
She claimed its wasn't classified at the time she sent it. False, and the FBI stated so.
She claimed she didn't know what the classifications meant. False, and the FBI reiterated she is bound by her own, signed agreements.
Now lying to the American public is not criminal. She was also not sworn under oath and the investigation was closed at the time of her interview. This was a condition Clinton's lawyers required of the DoJ, along with not letting the FBI seize systems and limited their questioning of her staff. Clinton stated in public she was ready to be interviewed at any time by the FBI, but she was not interviewed until the end, per DoJ orders, to prevent the situation that got Petraeus ... lying to the FBI.
These are the facts in red. The whole 'classified investigation' became the priority once uncovered. Furthermore ...
Clinton's legal team were not cleared, yet withheld and reviewed documents, deciding what to share.
Clinton's technicians, especially those of her legal team, were often not certified (much less cleared) to handle classified materials.
Overall, a total violation of not just policy, but Legislative, Executive and Department statues and, in some cases, yes laws that are felony charges.
Those are the facts in red and they are not disputed. The fact that even Lynch had to tell Clinton to stop regurgitating falsehoods that were easily refuted by the DoJ (let alone FBI) was only when Clinton finally stopped lying to the American people. Seriously. Everything she stated about the investigation was a lie.
This includes even on Colin Powell as well. Colin Powell did not use his Internet e-mail for anything sensitive, let alone on classified networks.
Comey decided not to bring up charges because he wanted to prove 'criminal intent' (you can speculate who made that a requirement). Let me say that again, the FBI wanted to prove 'criminal intent.' They had no issue proving 'criminal negligence,' namely using a private system, that should never have been used in the first place and was constantly compromised, that ended up being a total security liablity. This included State admitting in 2016 June -- as every InfoSec professional predicted (including myself, we all looked up the public info on her server when this came out in 2015) -- that her servers were on blackhole lists and running various services that provided known, compromised services and was considered by State's own Trend Micro software as compromised and refused to communicate with her. So State further disabled their own security, just to talk to Clinton's servers, which meant her servers were just a huge liability, and the whole reason you have policies in the first place!
That is also fact and, now, public knowledge.
Let me say that again ... State literally and, now (as of 2016 June), admittedly knew about her servers, the liability of them, for years knew they were regularly marked compromised by watchdog lists on the Internet, and disabled State's own Trend Micro security services so they could communicate with her, because even Symantec and Trend Micro security software considered them regularly compromised too!
This is beyond just ignoring policy. It's arrogance (Cliton), non-repudable non-ignorance (her own, signed agreements), incompetence (State) and carelessness (State, lawyers, others ... basically everyone but the DoD).
And that's before we even touch Combettea. What Combetta did and lied to the American public just pissed the FBI off. Even Comey had to 'play dumb' because he was under his rules. But if you can find an InfoSec professional who isn't pissed off about what Combetta did, then you'll surprise me. C-Span kept the coverage up, but the US media didn't report any of it.
Video: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4622326/combetta-lied-immunity
Actually, she broke several laws, including the Executive Order her husband signed that made it a felony to mishandle classified materials. The Obama administration has used it before, and uses it as a threat not to leak federal information to this day.
Nothing?! Seriously, you're watching MSNBC too much.
No, she's actual guilty. But the FBI wasn't going to prosecute her for criminal negligence (and you can assume who made that call, not the FBI) when Petraeus didn't get jail time. But they will prosecute anyone who isn't a public figure.
You think morale is high right now? You've got Salon and Slate calling the FBI -- not just Comey, but agents -- 'partisan' and otherwise questioning their integrity. Add this to the OPM non-sense, and do you think America's best and brightest want to work in the space?
http://www.zdnet.com/article/the-company-linked-to-opm-hack-just-got-hired-by-the-government-again/
A lot of freedom loving, law believing Americans do not any more. I just know too many who already told me they are getting out. Surprised?
Last edited:
True. Trump has generated a lot of passionate discussion and ignited a segment of society who is fed up with establishment politics. That is definitely a discussion worth having and noting. He has also kicked the hornet's nest of the DNC and riled up their base to go out and vote against him, and as a result, we might have one of the largest voter turnouts in our country's history.
I don't claim to have all the answers, but I would think having a candidate with a decent track record of getting things done and focusing on the issues would have served the GOP better than letting a loudmouth besmirch the party. Or maybe that's what you were hoping for and to blow it all up.
The left doesnt know how to respond to this simple answer. Its not rocket science. Do the crime, do the time. You would think that is something everyone can agree on...
