Deal With It Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> dJ3X7 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > First of all whether it was marked or
> unmarked
> > > helps establish intent and criminality so it
> is
> > > important.
> > >
> >
> > Which is irrelevant. Intent is this sense
> doesn't
> > mean what you think that it does. Nor is it
> > limited to intent. Negligence is equally
> > applicable.
> >
> >
> > > Second, the State Dept has said that even
> > emails
> > > that were marked were done by error and were
> > > indeed not classified.
> >
> > Marked or not doesn't matter. Again, that's
> > semantic bullshit by Clinton. Furthermore, the
> > State Department doesn't get to decide what is
> > classified beyond what it generates. The
> > determination remains with the originating
> agency
> > which has affirmed after multiple reviews
> > including by the Intelligence Community IG and
> > reiterated by Comey that in fact the
> information
> > was classified.
>
> The Director of the FBI - a Republican who was
> charged with determining criminal liability, and
> who is a lawyer and administrator with thirty
> years experience at the highest levels of
> Government - does not agree with you.


Yes, he does. He doesn't buy the "marked classified" or "retroactively marked classified" bs either.

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received," Comey said at his press conference Tuesday. "Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent."

I don't know what about the fact that the FBI Director and a couple dozen high level agents concluding together that charges were not appropriate rightards don't underatand?

Hillary Clinton insisted all along that none of the emails she sent or received on her private email server during her tenure as Secretary of State was marked classified at the time. That was contradicted by the Director of the FBI yesterday when he claimed that a “very small number” of her emails were in fact classified at the time. The New York Times then determined that that number was just two. And now the State Department has confirmed that the two emails in question weren’t actually classified at the time, and had merely been marked incorrectly during the course of the investigation.

In yet another development which helps make clear that Clinton did nothing demonstrably wrong with her email, the two emails sent to her by her aides in 2012 were harmless in nature. Both were merely used to schedule phone calls with foreign leaders, and on their face, clearly could not have possibly been classified at the time. Sure enough, a spokesman for the State Department has confirmed that they were not classified.

This comes just hours after CBS News reported that Hillary Clinton had asked the NSA for a secure smartphone for her email immediately upon taking office as Secretary of State, and had been turned down. One by one, the details coming out are making clear that despite having spent so many months running an investigation and despite having been given full cooperation by Clinton and her team, the conclusions made by the FBI Director yesterday were far removed from the actual facts involved.

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/state-dept-now-says-fbi-got-it-wrong/25101/

Ying Ko Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hillary Clinton insisted all along that none of
> the emails she sent or received on her private
> email server during her tenure as Secretary of
> State was marked classified at the time. That was
> contradicted by the Director of the FBI yesterday
> when he claimed that a “very small number” of
> her emails were in fact classified at the time.
> The New York Times then determined that that
> number was just two. And now the State Department
> has confirmed that the two emails in question
> weren’t actually classified at the time, and had
> merely been marked incorrectly during the course
> of the investigation.
>
> In yet another development which helps make clear
> that Clinton did nothing demonstrably wrong with
> her email, the two emails sent to her by her aides
> in 2012 were harmless in nature. Both were merely
> used to schedule phone calls with foreign leaders,
> and on their face, clearly could not have possibly
> been classified at the time. Sure enough, a
> spokesman for the State Department has confirmed
> that they were not classified.
>
> This comes just hours after CBS News reported that
> Hillary Clinton had asked the NSA for a secure
> smartphone for her email immediately upon taking
> office as Secretary of State, and had been turned
> down. One by one, the details coming out are
> making clear that despite having spent so many
> months running an investigation and despite having
> been given full cooperation by Clinton and her
> team, the conclusions made by the FBI Director
> yesterday were far removed from the actual facts
> involved.
>
> http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/state-dept-now-sa
> ys-fbi-got-it-wrong/25101/


Can you say that in your own words?

Ying Ko Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hillary Clinton insisted all along that none of
> the emails she sent or received on her private
> email server during her tenure as Secretary of
> State was marked classified at the time. That was
> contradicted by the Director of the FBI yesterday
> when he claimed that a “very small number” of
> her emails were in fact classified at the time.
> The New York Times then determined that that
> number was just two. And now the State Department
> has confirmed that the two emails in question
> weren’t actually classified at the time, and had
> merely been marked incorrectly during the course
> of the investigation.
>
> In yet another development which helps make clear
> that Clinton did nothing demonstrably wrong with
> her email, the two emails sent to her by her aides
> in 2012 were harmless in nature. Both were merely
> used to schedule phone calls with foreign leaders,
> and on their face, clearly could not have possibly
> been classified at the time. Sure enough, a
> spokesman for the State Department has confirmed
> that they were not classified.
>
> This comes just hours after CBS News reported that
> Hillary Clinton had asked the NSA for a secure
> smartphone for her email immediately upon taking
> office as Secretary of State, and had been turned
> down. One by one, the details coming out are
> making clear that despite having spent so many
> months running an investigation and despite having
> been given full cooperation by Clinton and her
> team, the conclusions made by the FBI Director
> yesterday were far removed from the actual facts
> involved.
>
> http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/state-dept-now-sa
> ys-fbi-got-it-wrong/25101/

if you're too stupid to see through hillary and the clinton$, then americas fucked..I learned one thing in life, people only believe what they want.

No American will vote for Hillary. Americans love this country. She's a piece of shit elitist liar who hates Americans.

Why don't we cut to the chase and cite the FBI Director's own words at the hearing. This was the Director's reasoning process in deciding not to prosecute Hillary Clinton. This is the heart of his testimony. Please do all of us a favor and read this in full before bloviating further, right wingers.

JAMES COMEY: There are two things that matter in a criminal investigation of a subject: What did the person do and, when they did that thing, what were they thinking. When you look at the 100 years plus of the Justice Department's investigation and prosecution of the mishandling of classified information, those two questions are, obviously, present. What did the person do, did they mishandle classified information? And when they did it, did they know they were doing something that was unlawful? That has been the characteristic of every charged criminal case involving the mishandling of classified information.

I'm happy to go through the cases in particular. In our system of law, there's a thing called mens rea. It's important to know what you did, but when you did it, this Latin phrase, mens rea, means what were you thinking? We don't want to put people in jail unless we prove that they knew they were doing something they shouldn't do. That is the characteristic of all the prosecutions involving mishandling of classified information.

There is a statute that was passed in 1917 that on its face makes it a crime, a felony for someone to engage in gross negligence. So that would appear to say, well, maybe in that circumstance you don't need to prove they knew they were doing something that was unlawful, maybe it's enough to prove that they were just really, really careless beyond a reasonable doubt. At the time Congress passed that statute in 1917, there was a lot of concern in the House and the Senate about whether that was going to violate the American tradition of requiring that before you're going to lock somebody up, you prove they knew they were doing something wrong. So there was a lot of concern about it. The statute was passed.

As best I can tell, the Department of Justice has used it once in the 99 years since, reflecting that same concern. I know from 30 years with the Department of Justice they have grave concerns about whether it's appropriate to prosecute somebody for gross negligence, which is why they have done it once that I know of in a case involving espionage. And so when I look the facts we gathered here, as I said, I see evidence of great carelessness, but I do not see evidence that is sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton or those with whom she was corresponding both talked about classified information on email and knew when they did it they were doing something that was against the law. So given that assessment of the facts, my understanding of the law, my conclusion was and remains: No reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the second case in 100 years focused on gross negligence. And so I know that's been a source of some confusion for folks. That's just the way it is. I know the Department of Justice, I know no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. I know a lot of my former friends are out there saying where they would. I wonder where they were the last 40 years, because I'd like to see the cases they brought on gross negligence. Nobody would, nobody did. So my judgment was the appropriate resolution of this case was not with a criminal prosecution. As I said, folks can disagree about that, but I hope they know that view -- not just my view, but of my team -- was honestly held, fairly investigated and communicated with unusual transparency because we know folks care about it. [House Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing, 7/7/16]

In His Own Words Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why don't we cut to the chase and cite the FBI
> Director's own words at the hearing. This was the
> Director's reasoning process in deciding not to
> prosecute Hillary Clinton. This is the heart of
> his testimony. Please do all of us a favor and
> read this in full before bloviating further, right
> wingers.
>
> JAMES COMEY: There are two things that matter
> in a criminal investigation of a subject: What did
> the person do and, when they did that thing, what
> were they thinking. When you look at the 100 years
> plus of the Justice Department's investigation and
> prosecution of the mishandling of classified
> information, those two questions are, obviously,
> present. What did the person do, did they
> mishandle classified information? And when they
> did it, did they know they were doing something
> that was unlawful? That has been the
> characteristic of every charged criminal case
> involving the mishandling of classified
> information.
>
> I'm happy to go through the cases in particular.
> In our system of law, there's a thing called mens
> rea. It's important to know what you did, but when
> you did it, this Latin phrase, mens rea, means
> what were you thinking? We don't want to put
> people in jail unless we prove that they knew they
> were doing something they shouldn't do. That is
> the characteristic of all the prosecutions
> involving mishandling of classified information.
>
> There is a statute that was passed in 1917 that on
> its face makes it a crime, a felony for someone to
> engage in gross negligence. So that would appear
> to say, well, maybe in that circumstance you don't
> need to prove they knew they were doing something
> that was unlawful, maybe it's enough to prove that
> they were just really, really careless beyond a
> reasonable doubt. At the time Congress passed that
> statute in 1917, there was a lot of concern in the
> House and the Senate about whether that was going
> to violate the American tradition of requiring
> that before you're going to lock somebody up, you
> prove they knew they were doing something wrong.
> So there was a lot of concern about it. The
> statute was passed.
>
> As best I can tell, the Department of Justice has
> used it once in the 99 years since, reflecting
> that same concern. I know from 30 years with the
> Department of Justice they have grave concerns
> about whether it's appropriate to prosecute
> somebody for gross negligence, which is why they
> have done it once that I know of in a case
> involving espionage. And so when I look the facts
> we gathered here, as I said, I see evidence of
> great carelessness, but I do not see evidence that
> is sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton
> or those with whom she was corresponding both
> talked about classified information on email and
> knew when they did it they were doing something
> that was against the law. So given that assessment
> of the facts, my understanding of the law, my
> conclusion was and remains: No reasonable
> prosecutor would bring this case. No reasonable
> prosecutor would bring the second case in 100
> years focused on gross negligence. And so I know
> that's been a source of some confusion for folks.
> That's just the way it is. I know the Department
> of Justice, I know no reasonable prosecutor would
> bring this case. I know a lot of my former friends
> are out there saying where they would. I wonder
> where they were the last 40 years, because I'd
> like to see the cases they brought on gross
> negligence. Nobody would, nobody did. So my
> judgment was the appropriate resolution of this
> case was not with a criminal prosecution. As I
> said, folks can disagree about that, but I hope
> they know that view -- not just my view, but of my
> team -- was honestly held, fairly investigated and
> communicated with unusual transparency because we
> know folks care about it. [House Oversight and
> Government Reform Committee hearing, 7/7/16]

So fucking what? She was grossly negligent. So he should've recommended charges. She is guilty as fuck! She couldn't even get a job at the FBI after this. Why would you want this scumbag bitch president? I thought democrats hated white, rich, elitist, neocons, cronys, wall street thugs and jews. That's Hillary. Oh well, I guess you libtards love Bush policies.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I don't know what about the fact that the FBI
> Director and a couple dozen high level agents
> concluding together that charges were not
> appropriate rightards don't underatand?


What about the fact that Comey and the FBI very clearly indicated that she fucked up and lied about it don't you understand. That they chose not to criminally prosecute her for doing so doesn't change the FACTS that she did.

State Department reopens Hillary Clinton emails investigation

Originally published July 7, 2016 at 4:00 pm Updated July 7, 2016 at 4:56 pm


WASHINGTON (AP) — The State Department is reopening an internal investigation of possible mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton and top aides, officials told The Associated Press on Thursday.

Although the former secretary of state's closest confidants have left the agency, they could still face punishment. The most serious is the loss of security clearances, which could complicate her aides' hopes of securing top positions on her national security team if she becomes president.

The State Department started its review in January after declaring 22 emails from Clinton's private server to be "top secret." It was suspended in April so as not to interfere with the FBI's inquiry. State Department spokesman John Kirby said the probe is restarting after the Justice Department's announcement Wednesday that it won't bring any criminal charges.

"We will aim to be as expeditious as possible, but we will not put artificial deadlines on the process," Kirby said. "Our goal will be to be as transparent as possible about our results, while complying with our various legal obligations."

Kirby wouldn't say anything more about the precise information officials are evaluating. But when the probe was launched almost six months ago, officials said it pertained particularly to a set of emails that were upgraded to one of the nation's highest classification levels. One question they said they were investigating was whether any of the emails were classified at the time of transmission.

I hate Hillary Clinton. The last thing I want to do is vote for this pathological liar. If the GOP had nominated Rubio, Kasich or Bush, I would have gladly voted for one of them. But the GOP's 8-year romance with the batshit crazy racist "Tea Party" has resulted in the GOP nominating a batshit crazy racist Presidential candidate. Hillary is a liar. But I'm confident she won't instigate a nuclear war with Putin or start a crippling trade war with China. I can't say the same for Trump.

Voting for Hillary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hate Hillary Clinton. The last thing I want to
> do is vote for this pathological liar. If the GOP
> had nominated Rubio, Kasich or Bush, I would have
> gladly voted for one of them. But the GOP's 8-year
> romance with the batshit crazy racist "Tea Party"
> has resulted in the GOP nominating a batshit crazy
> racist Presidential candidate. Hillary is a liar.
> But I'm confident she won't instigate a nuclear
> war with Putin or start a crippling trade war with
> China. I can't say the same for Trump.

Hillary still don't want to talk about it. Don't ask, don't tell. The Queen shall not be bothered.

Hillaroids love being lied to and manipulated by their 1% corporate whore. Useful idiots.

Voting for Hillary Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I hate Hillary Clinton. The last thing I want to
> do is vote for this pathological liar. If the GOP
> had nominated Rubio, Kasich or Bush, I would have
> gladly voted for one of them. But the GOP's 8-year
> romance with the batshit crazy racist "Tea Party"
> has resulted in the GOP nominating a batshit crazy
> racist Presidential candidate. Hillary is a liar.
> But I'm confident she won't instigate a nuclear
> war with Putin or start a crippling trade war with
> China. I can't say the same for Trump.


um, nobody fell for it.

Libtards are defenseless.

They're still trying to use Hillary's old talking points from weeks ago that Comey just took a big steaming shit all over.

The mushroom feeders at Media Matters and Think Progress are slacking. lmao

Conserva-tards!


LoLz!

Conserva-tards! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I got nuthin.
>
> LoLz!

Conserva-tards! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Conserva-tards!
>
>
> LoLz!

Lmao, there is no more that needs to be said these days. Conservatards seems like more of a genius every passing day into more rightard lunacy.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Conserva-tards! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Conserva-tards!
> >
> >
> > LoLz!
>
> Lmao, there is no more that needs to be said these
> days. Conservatards seems like more of a genius
> every passing day into more rightard lunacy.


Both you and this worthless faggot conservatards loser deserve a violent death.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Conserva-tards! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Conserva-tards!
> >
> >
> > LoLz!
>
> Lmao, there is no more that needs to be said these
> days. Conservatards seems like more of a genius
> every passing day into more rightard lunacy.


There's nothing that you can say that Comey didn't already shit all over. lol

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let me tell you something. You take every single
> God damn Republican piece of shit in that chamber
> and it wouldn't compare to a tiny portion of the
> integrity Comey has.
>
> By the way, he used to be a self identified
> Republican. For the first time he said today that
> he no longer wishes to proclaim a party
> affiliation.

LOL