http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/clinton-untrue-statements-fbi-comey-225216

Getting embarrassing for Hillary. Notice this is from Politico, not The Blaze.

During an extended exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Comey affirmed that the FBI's investigation found information marked classified on her server even after Clinton had said that she had neither sent nor received any items marked classified.
"That is not true," Comey said. "There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents."
Asked whether Clinton's testimony that she did not email "any classified material to anyone on my email" and "there is no classified material" was true, Comey responded, "No, there was classified material emailed."
"Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?" Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, "She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state."
Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department.
"No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned," Comey said.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/clinton-untrue-statements-fbi-comey-225216#ixzz4DjsJBVi2
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

The few emails that were classified among the 10's of thousands that were not appropriately titled with the heading marking its classification.

There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton lied whatsoever.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The few emails that were classified among the 10's
> of thousands that were not appropriately titled
> with the heading marking its classification.
>
> There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton lied
> whatsoever.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The few emails that were classified among the 10's
> of thousands that were not appropriately titled
> with the heading marking its classification.
>
> There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton lied
> whatsoever.
Attachments:

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The few emails that were classified among the 10's
> of thousands that were not appropriately titled
> with the heading marking its classification.
>
> There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton lied
> whatsoever
This is the funniest thing ever posted on this board. In the past 20 years we all have seen politicians lie, some resign, maybe get some jail time, but if u ask anyone..the one person known to lie, over the years. Every person would say the same thing...hillary clinton, or the clintons

One of the problems we have is congress exempts itself from laws governing classified information. This obviously can cause a person going from the legislative branch to the executive branch as did Hillary Clinton to not be aware that the continued use of a personal email can have issues in terms of legality. This is the case even though a very small number of the tens of thousands of emails ended up being classified Hillary Clintons case.

Therefore this Republican congress should live up to their rhetoric and immediately legislate that congress become in line with our intelligence community when it comes to protecting critical classified information.

Hillary is now a proven liar by a non partisan government agency.


Trump



WINS


AGAIN!!!!

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton lied
> whatsoever.


You must do nothing on your shift at 7-11 but drink Democratic Kool-Aid!

Asked whether Clinton's testimony that she did not email "any classified material to anyone on my email" and "there is no classified material" was true, Comey responded, "No, there was classified material emailed."

Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department.
"No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned," Comey said.

"Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?" Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, "She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state."


GerryTurd.......please re read these statements made by the Director of the FBI UNDER OATH and revise your answer accordingly.

Doo doo brown Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The few emails that were classified among the
> 10's
> > of thousands that were not appropriately titled
> > with the heading marking its classification.
> >
> > There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton lied
> > whatsoever
> This is the funniest thing ever posted on this
> board. In the past 20 years we all have seen
> politicians lie, some resign, maybe get some jail
> time, but if u ask anyone..the one person known to
> lie, over the years. Every person would say the
> same thing...hillary clinton, or the clintons

The testimony from Comey supports what Gerry said. There were tens of thousands of emails in question. Only three had a [C] marking embedded in the text to denote a classified paragraph in the email. None of those three had the notation of classified in the header, as required for classified material.

And not true is not the same as lying. No, that's not a nit. This is why lawyers determine guilt, not the public - most of whom, frankly, are incredibly ignorant.

As I stated before the very few emails that were classified were not appropriately marked classified according to Comey. There is no evidence that she lied based on her knowledge. In fact based on the lack of an appropriate classification header she should have been under the impression that the emails were indeed not classified.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I stated before the very few emails that were
> classified were not appropriately marked
> classified according to Comey. There is no
> evidence that she lied based on her knowledge. In
> fact based on the lack of an appropriate
> classification header she should have been under
> the impression that the emails were indeed not
> classified.
Attachments:

Classified Emails Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Doo doo brown Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The few emails that were classified among the
> > 10's
> > > of thousands that were not appropriately
> titled
> > > with the heading marking its classification.
> > >
> > > There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton
> lied
> > > whatsoever
> > This is the funniest thing ever posted on this
> > board. In the past 20 years we all have seen
> > politicians lie, some resign, maybe get some
> jail
> > time, but if u ask anyone..the one person known
> to
> > lie, over the years. Every person would say the
> > same thing...hillary clinton, or the clintons
>
> The testimony from Comey supports what Gerry said.
> There were tens of thousands of emails in
> question. Only three had a [C] marking embedded in
> the text to denote a classified paragraph in the
> email. None of those three had the notation of
> classified in the header, as required for
> classified material.
>
> And not true is not the same as lying. No, that's
> not a nit. This is why lawyers determine guilt,
> not the public - most of whom, frankly, are
> incredibly ignorant.

So you're telling me a former US Senator, A former 1st lady who lived in the White House, and a former Secretary of State doesn't know what is sensitive or classified material when she sees it? If your answer is yes, then that right there should exclude her from being POTUS because she is obviously fucking clueless! Paging Alicia Silverstone!

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I stated before the very few emails that were
> classified were not appropriately marked
> classified according to Comey. There is no
> evidence that she lied based on her knowledge. In
> fact based on the lack of an appropriate
> classification header she should have been under
> the impression that the emails were indeed not
> classified.

That statement right there should disqualify her for holding the office of President......of the PTA, much less of the country.

Ralph Pootawn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

A STUPID MEME THAT REFLECTS RALPH'S INTELLIGENCE

Ralph, ever hear this phrase? "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt." In your case, you don't even need to open your mouth.

Gerry is a homo, and a faggot. Stop responding to him.

CUCKS FOR CLINTON.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The few emails that were classified among the 10's
> of thousands that were not appropriately titled
> with the heading marking its classification.
>
> There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton lied
> whatsoever.


Yes there is. There is plenty of evidence she lied which constitutes perjury.

“A very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information,” Comey said.

http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286513-fbi-director-clinton-emails-were-marked-and-classified-at-the-time


JORDAN: Transparent. I -- how -- what's the relevance to protecting from (ph) classified information?
CLINTON: There was nothing marked classified on my e-mails, either sent or received. And I want to respond...
JORDAN: You used the write term there. Used "marked". That's the one -- that's what you -- you used the revised statement there.
CLINTON: ...well -- but that's -- well, Congressman, there was a lot of confusion because many -- many Americans have no idea how the classification process works. And therefore I wanted to make it clear that there is a system within our government, certainly within the State Department... JORDAN: (inaudible) one more question (inaudible).
CLINTON: ...where material that is thought to be classified is marked such, so that people have the opportunity to know how they are supposed to be handling those materials...
JORDAN: I got -- I got one second.
CLINTON: ...and that's why it became clearer, I believe, to say that nothing was marked classified at the time I sent or received it.

P.E.R.J.U.R.Y

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Therefore this Republican congress should live up
> to their rhetoric and immediately legislate that
> congress become in line with our intelligence
> community when it comes to protecting critical
> classified information.


It already is. Who investigates clearances for Congressional staff?

Like most things, you know jack shit about this.

Legislate in relation to making illegal the potential for classified information on private email accounts.

There is no indication that this Republican congress intends to hold themselves to the same standards they are holding Hillary Clinton to.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> There is no indication that this Republican
> congress intends to hold themselves to the same
> standards they are holding Hillary Clinton to.


Can't you read asshole? English?

You are referencing the unrelated investigations of clearances which means you are either a senile oldtard or an ignorant rightard.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legislate in relation to making illegal the
> potential for classified information on private
> email accounts.

So we have to create a new law every time Cankles breaks one?

Go clean the Slurpee machine you goat fucker.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are referencing the unrelated investigations
> of clearances which means you are either a senile
> oldtard or an ignorant rightard.


Blubbering retard shut up.


She lied, that's what Comey said.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Legislate in relation to making illegal the
> potential for classified information on private
> email accounts.


It already is. they sign the same security agreements as all Executive branch employees. You're drowning here, bub.

Clueless Clinton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> So you're telling me a former US Senator, A former
> 1st lady who lived in the White House, and a
> former Secretary of State doesn't know what is
> sensitive or classified material when she sees it?
> If your answer is yes, then that right there
> should exclude her from being POTUS because she is
> obviously fucking clueless! Paging Alicia
> Silverstone!


Cat got your tongue GerryTurd?

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are referencing the unrelated investigations
> of clearances which means you are either a senile
> oldtard or an ignorant rightard.


No. A security violation is a security violation no matter what branch of government it occurs.

perjurer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The few emails that were classified among the
> 10's
> > of thousands that were not appropriately titled
> > with the heading marking its classification.
> >
> > There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton lied
> > whatsoever.
>
>
> Yes there is. There is plenty of evidence she
> lied which constitutes perjury.
>
> “A very small number of the emails containing
> classified information bore markings indicating
> the presence of classified information,” Comey
> said.
>
> http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286513
> -fbi-director-clinton-emails-were-marked-and-class
> ified-at-the-time
>
>
> JORDAN: Transparent. I -- how -- what's the
> relevance to protecting from (ph) classified
> information?
> CLINTON: There was nothing marked classified on
> my e-mails, either sent or received. And I
> want to respond...
> JORDAN: You used the write term there. Used
> "marked". That's the one -- that's what you -- you
> used the revised statement there.
> CLINTON: ...well -- but that's -- well,
> Congressman, there was a lot of confusion because
> many -- many Americans have no idea how the
> classification process works. And therefore I
> wanted to make it clear that there is a system
> within our government, certainly within the State
> Department... JORDAN: (inaudible) one more
> question (inaudible).
> CLINTON: ...where material that is thought to be
> classified is marked such, so that people have the
> opportunity to know how they are supposed to be
> handling those materials...
> JORDAN: I got -- I got one second.
> CLINTON: ...and that's why it became clearer, I
> believe, to say that nothing was marked classified
> at the time I sent or received it.
>
> P.E.R.J.U.R.Y


Look at that little pussy Gerry run like a little faggot from this very glaring fact!

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As I stated before the very few emails that were
> classified were not appropriately marked
> classified according to Comey. There is no
> evidence that she lied based on her knowledge. In
> fact based on the lack of an appropriate
> classification header she should have been under
> the impression that the emails were indeed not
> classified.

SHUT
THE
FUCK
UP

work experience Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Legislate in relation to making illegal the
> > potential for classified information on private
> > email accounts.
>
>
> It already is. they sign the same security
> agreements as all Executive branch employees.
> You're drowning here, bub.

Not according to the congressional hearing that I have been watching for the past three hours. The Democrats are demanding congress abides legally by the same accountability and the Republicans are quiet on the point.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> work experience Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Legislate in relation to making illegal the
> > > potential for classified information on
> private
> > > email accounts.
> >
> >
> > It already is. they sign the same security
> > agreements as all Executive branch employees.
> > You're drowning here, bub.
>
> Not according to the congressional hearing that I
> have been watching for the past three hours. The
> Democrats are demanding congress abides legally by
> the same accountability and the Republicans are
> quiet on the point.


Why can't you accept the truth, shit for brains?

Are you saying I should believe you over my lying eyes?

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> work experience Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Legislate in relation to making illegal the
> > > potential for classified information on
> private
> > > email accounts.
> >
> >
> > It already is. they sign the same security
> > agreements as all Executive branch employees.
> > You're drowning here, bub.
>
> Not according to the congressional hearing that I
> have been watching for the past three hours. The
> Democrats are demanding congress abides legally by
> the same accountability and the Republicans are
> quiet on the point.


And the Democrats are wrong. (Imagine that)

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Are you saying I should believe you over my lying
> eyes?

She lied to America. Again.

Bernie got ripped off - he should be the nominee

DIAF, Gerryatrd.

SABBC YSOB

Cankles put the country at risk. The country she wants to be the leader of.

She should be impeached before she even takes office.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> SABBC YSOB


That's you'r job, cuck. Stay off our message board. This is your final warning.

perjurer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The few emails that were classified among the
> 10's
> > of thousands that were not appropriately titled
> > with the heading marking its classification.
> >
> > There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton lied
> > whatsoever.
>
>
> Yes there is. There is plenty of evidence she
> lied which constitutes perjury.
>
> “A very small number of the emails containing
> classified information bore markings indicating
> the presence of classified information,” Comey
> said.
>
> http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286513
> -fbi-director-clinton-emails-were-marked-and-class
> ified-at-the-time
>
>
> JORDAN: Transparent. I -- how -- what's the
> relevance to protecting from (ph) classified
> information?
> CLINTON: There was nothing marked classified on
> my e-mails, either sent or received. And I
> want to respond...
> JORDAN: You used the write term there. Used
> "marked". That's the one -- that's what you -- you
> used the revised statement there.
> CLINTON: ...well -- but that's -- well,
> Congressman, there was a lot of confusion because
> many -- many Americans have no idea how the
> classification process works. And therefore I
> wanted to make it clear that there is a system
> within our government, certainly within the State
> Department... JORDAN: (inaudible) one more
> question (inaudible).
> CLINTON: ...where material that is thought to be
> classified is marked such, so that people have the
> opportunity to know how they are supposed to be
> handling those materials...
> JORDAN: I got -- I got one second.
> CLINTON: ...and that's why it became clearer, I
> believe, to say that nothing was marked classified
> at the time I sent or received it.
>
> P.E.R.J.U.R.Y

First, there were only THREE emails out of thousands that included any indication of classification - and they were incorrectly marked. Moreover, Cummings has said that the three emails in question should not have been classified at all. Second, there is the issue of criminal I.N.T.E.N.T. Comey has consistently said during the hearing that there was no criminal intent, and therefore no reason for prosecution. That is his determination to make - not a politically motivated Congress and not the public.

W.R.O.N.G. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> perjurer Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > The few emails that were classified among the
> > 10's
> > > of thousands that were not appropriately
> titled
> > > with the heading marking its classification.
> > >
> > > There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton
> lied
> > > whatsoever.
> >
> >
> > Yes there is. There is plenty of evidence she
> > lied which constitutes perjury.
> >
> > “A very small number of the emails containing
> > classified information bore markings indicating
> > the presence of classified information,”
> Comey
> > said.
> >
> >
> http://thehill.com/policy/national-security/286513
>
> >
> -fbi-director-clinton-emails-were-marked-and-class
>
> > ified-at-the-time
> >
> >
> > JORDAN: Transparent. I -- how -- what's the
> > relevance to protecting from (ph) classified
> > information?
> > CLINTON: There was nothing marked classified
> on
> > my e-mails, either sent or received. And I
> > want to respond...
> > JORDAN: You used the write term there. Used
> > "marked". That's the one -- that's what you --
> you
> > used the revised statement there.
> > CLINTON: ...well -- but that's -- well,
> > Congressman, there was a lot of confusion
> because
> > many -- many Americans have no idea how the
> > classification process works. And therefore I
> > wanted to make it clear that there is a system
> > within our government, certainly within the
> State
> > Department... JORDAN: (inaudible) one more
> > question (inaudible).
> > CLINTON: ...where material that is thought to
> be
> > classified is marked such, so that people have
> the
> > opportunity to know how they are supposed to be
> > handling those materials...
> > JORDAN: I got -- I got one second.
> > CLINTON: ...and that's why it became clearer,
> I
> > believe, to say that nothing was marked
> classified
> > at the time I sent or received it.
> >
> > P.E.R.J.U.R.Y
>
> First, there were only THREE emails out of
> thousands that included any indication of
> classification - and they were incorrectly marked.

CLINTON: There was nothing marked classified on my e-mails, either sent or received.

CLINTON: ...and that's why it became clearer, I believe, to say that nothing was marked classified at the time I sent or received it.

She said it TWICE. She didn't say, to the best of my knowledge or none that I am aware of. She was emphatic.

> Moreover, Cummings has said that the three emails
> in question should not have been classified at
> all.

Cummings does not have the ability to make that determination. See EO 12356.

> Second, there is the issue of criminal
> I.N.T.E.N.T. Comey has consistently said during
> the hearing that there was no criminal intent, and
> therefore no reason for prosecution. That is his
> determination to make - not a politically
> motivated Congress and not the public.

He didn't examine her testimony under oath. He just said as much, so he cannot speak to what her intent was when she committed perjury. She said it twice in direct conflict with the facts.

It's cute though to watch you twist and convolute the facts in a feeble attempt to prove she didn't commit perjury.

I feel bad for the honorable FBI Director Comey. He seems like an upstanding civil servant we can all be proud of.

The Republican wolves are desperate and show no regard for honesty and dedication to furtherance of the rule of law.

This director did not indict. That is that. Accept it and move on you God forsaken spawns of Satan. For the love of God throw these Republican bums out and put our legislative branch back to work.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I feel bad for the honorable FBI Director Comey.
> He seems like an upstanding civil servant we can
> all be proud of.
>
> The Republican wolves are desperate and show no
> regard for honesty and dedication to furtherance
> of the rule of law.
>
> This director did not indict. That is that. Accept
> it and move on you God forsaken spawns of Satan.
> For the love of God throw these Republican bums
> out and put our legislative branch back to work.


YOU'RE A LYING SACK OF SHIT! SHE IS GUILTY AS SIN AND YOU DON'T CARE.

FaggotFUCK! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I feel bad for the honorable FBI Director
> Comey.
> > He seems like an upstanding civil servant we
> can
> > all be proud of.
> >
> > The Republican wolves are desperate and show no
> > regard for honesty and dedication to
> furtherance
> > of the rule of law.
> >
> > This director did not indict. That is that.
> Accept
> > it and move on you God forsaken spawns of
> Satan.
> > For the love of God throw these Republican bums
> > out and put our legislative branch back to
> work.
>
>
> YOU'RE A LYING SACK OF SHIT! SHE IS GUILTY AS SIN
> AND YOU DON'T CARE.

Please identify when and where you got your law degree so we can evaluate your credentials to make that determination.

ignorance of the law is not a defense.

Sure, Cletus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FaggotFUCK! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > I feel bad for the honorable FBI Director
> > Comey.
> > > He seems like an upstanding civil servant we
> > can
> > > all be proud of.
> > >
> > > The Republican wolves are desperate and show
> no
> > > regard for honesty and dedication to
> > furtherance
> > > of the rule of law.
> > >
> > > This director did not indict. That is that.
> > Accept
> > > it and move on you God forsaken spawns of
> > Satan.
> > > For the love of God throw these Republican
> bums
> > > out and put our legislative branch back to
> > work.
> >
> >
> > YOU'RE A LYING SACK OF SHIT! SHE IS GUILTY AS
> SIN
> > AND YOU DON'T CARE.
>
> Please identify when and where you got your law
> degree so we can evaluate your credentials to make
> that determination.

LOL! You're defending someone who is claiming "this director did not indict." Of course he didn't. He can only recommend prosecution. The US Attorney or someone else at DOJ issues the indictment (unless they go to a grand jury). In any event, the FBI director never indicts.

So, care to tell us what tier 4 law school you went to? Perhaps ask them for a refund.

Only a complete fucking retard would argue that she is innocent. Libtard sheep. Off the cliff you go.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The few emails that were classified among the 10's
> of thousands that were not appropriately titled
> with the heading marking its classification.
>
> There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton lied
> whatsoever.


Know what Ger? I've been on the internet a few years now. Seen a lot of people type "LOL" and figured not a one was actually laughing out loud. Whatever floats their boat.

Seen more than a couple of items on the net that made me snicker and smile.

But before today, I'd never read a post on this forum that before I read the whole thing, I burst out into full laughter.

Thanks, comrade. You made my day.

You just make my day everyday oldtard.

Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The few emails that were classified among the
> 10's
> > of thousands that were not appropriately titled
> > with the heading marking its classification.
> >
> > There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton lied
> > whatsoever.
>
>
> Know what Ger? I've been on the internet a few
> years now. Seen a lot of people type "LOL" and
> figured not a one was actually laughing out loud.
> Whatever floats their boat.
>
> Seen more than a couple of items on the net that
> made me snicker and smile.
>
> But before today, I'd never read a post on this
> forum that before I read the whole thing, I burst
> out into full laughter.
>
> Thanks, comrade. You made my day.
If hillarys mouth is moving she's lying. If u dont see her mouth moving, shes thinking how to get out of her last lie

Right on, Doofus Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Sure, Cletus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > FaggotFUCK! Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > I feel bad for the honorable FBI Director
> > > Comey.
> > > > He seems like an upstanding civil servant
> we
> > > can
> > > > all be proud of.
> > > >
> > > > The Republican wolves are desperate and
> show
> > no
> > > > regard for honesty and dedication to
> > > furtherance
> > > > of the rule of law.
> > > >
> > > > This director did not indict. That is that.
> > > Accept
> > > > it and move on you God forsaken spawns of
> > > Satan.
> > > > For the love of God throw these Republican
> > bums
> > > > out and put our legislative branch back to
> > > work.
> > >
> > >
> > > YOU'RE A LYING SACK OF SHIT! SHE IS GUILTY AS
> > SIN
> > > AND YOU DON'T CARE.
> >
> > Please identify when and where you got your law
> > degree so we can evaluate your credentials to
> make
> > that determination.
>
> LOL! You're defending someone who is claiming
> "this director did not indict."

No, I didn't reference Gerry at all. My comment was directed to the raging lunatic who is about to go postal.

> Of course he
> didn't. He can only recommend prosecution. The
> US Attorney or someone else at DOJ issues the
> indictment (unless they go to a grand jury). In
> any event, the FBI director never indicts.

Typical rightard. So he misspoke on a procedural issue that has no bearing on the hearing today. Big fucking deal.

> So, care to tell us what tier 4 law school you
> went to? Perhaps ask them for a refund.

Never said I went. I'm just recounting my understanding of the proceedings as they occurred. Im not the one screaming SHES AS GUILTY AS SIN with no supporting evidence.

W.R.O.N.G. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> First, there were only THREE emails out of
> thousands that included any indication of
> classification - and they were incorrectly marked.
> Moreover, Cummings has said that the three emails
> in question should not have been classified at
> all. Second, there is the issue of criminal
> I.N.T.E.N.T. Comey has consistently said during
> the hearing that there was no criminal intent, and
> therefore no reason for prosecution. That is his
> determination to make - not a politically
> motivated Congress and not the public.


Please buy a brain. There were 110 emails marked classified. And the issue here is not criminal intent, it's gross incompetence and/or negligence. Just who I want running my country. Although Obutthead has lowered the bar so far down no one may even notice if she wins.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I feel bad for the honorable FBI Director Comey.
> He seems like an upstanding civil servant we can
> all be proud of.
>
> The Republican wolves are desperate and show no
> regard for honesty and dedication to furtherance
> of the rule of law.
>
> This director did not indict. That is that. Accept
> it and move on you God forsaken spawns of Satan.
> For the love of God throw these Republican bums
> out and put our legislative branch back to work.

Comey and Lynch were paid off by Bill on that "chance" meeting at the airport in Phoenix. Bill isn't going to let this get in the way of his access to White House interns.

Fuck all leftards. You've completely lost any credibility you may have had by standing by and supporting Hillary like she's a saint after this. She is guilty as fuck, you know it, and you don't care. Fuck all you left-tard piece of shit hypocrites.

FaggotFUCK! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > This director did not indict. That is that.
> Accept


Jesus Christ GerryTurd, you are galactically stupid! The director of the FBI can't indict anyone. God what a moron you are. Stick to getting those hotdogs off the little revolving cooker at 7-11 and selling Mega Million tickets, although I'm not sure you're even qualified to do that.

Okay, Billy Bob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Right on, Doofus Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Sure, Cletus Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > FaggotFUCK! Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > I feel bad for the honorable FBI Director
> > > > Comey.
> > > > > He seems like an upstanding civil servant
> > we
> > > > can
> > > > > all be proud of.
> > > > >
> > > > > The Republican wolves are desperate and
> > show
> > > no
> > > > > regard for honesty and dedication to
> > > > furtherance
> > > > > of the rule of law.
> > > > >
> > > > > This director did not indict. That is
> that.
> > > > Accept
> > > > > it and move on you God forsaken spawns of
> > > > Satan.
> > > > > For the love of God throw these
> Republican
> > > bums
> > > > > out and put our legislative branch back
> to
> > > > work.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > YOU'RE A LYING SACK OF SHIT! SHE IS GUILTY
> AS
> > > SIN
> > > > AND YOU DON'T CARE.
> > >
> > > Please identify when and where you got your
> law
> > > degree so we can evaluate your credentials to
> > make
> > > that determination.
> >
> > LOL! You're defending someone who is claiming
> > "this director did not indict."
>
> No, I didn't reference Gerry at all. My comment
> was directed to the raging lunatic who is about to
> go postal.

You didn't? Then why is his post still quoted in this thread?

> > Of course he
> > didn't. He can only recommend prosecution.
> The
> > US Attorney or someone else at DOJ issues the
> > indictment (unless they go to a grand jury).
> In
> > any event, the FBI director never indicts.
>
> Typical rightard. So he misspoke on a procedural
> issue that has no bearing on the hearing today.
> Big fucking deal.

Typical leftard. Deflect, deny, and snivel your way out of the facts.

> > So, care to tell us what tier 4 law school you
> > went to? Perhaps ask them for a refund.
>
> Never said I went.

No need to. It's obvious.

> I'm just recounting my
> understanding of the proceedings as they occurred.

And your understanding is flawed.

> Im not the one screaming SHES AS GUILTY AS SIN
> with no supporting evidence.

The FBI Director gave plenty of supporting evidence in his statement on Tuesday. After he laid out the facts, he basically said however when he should have said therefore. He's playing the roles of cop, prosecutor, judge and jury.

lol gotta love the bottom feeders leftover rightards that enter the thread after the discussion has ended and shit all over the place.

Like clock work.

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.

YtLcV Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> W.R.O.N.G. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > First, there were only THREE emails out of
> > thousands that included any indication of
> > classification - and they were incorrectly
> marked.
> > Moreover, Cummings has said that the three
> emails
> > in question should not have been classified at
> > all. Second, there is the issue of criminal
> > I.N.T.E.N.T. Comey has consistently said during
> > the hearing that there was no criminal intent,
> and
> > therefore no reason for prosecution. That is
> his
> > determination to make - not a politically
> > motivated Congress and not the public.
>
>
> Please buy a brain. There were 110 emails marked
> classified.

Right back at you. And no, you're wrong. Per Comey, there were only three emails that had any confidential markings, and they were marked wrong. Moreover, according to Politifact...

The State Department confirmed July 6 that it was aware of two emails that were marked confidential, the lowest level of classification, when they were sent. An aide sent the two emails to Clinton to prepare her for phone calls with foreign leaders, according to the New York Times.

State Department spokesman John Kirby said call sheets are often classified when they are prepared. But then at some point before the call is made, someone with the appropriate authority will declassify them. These two call sheets sent to Clinton unnecessarily retained their confidential markings due to human error, Kirby said.

The bolded is probably what Cummings was referring to.

> And the issue here is not criminal
> intent, it's gross incompetence and/or negligence.

No, you're wrong. Comey has said in no uncertain terms that Clinton was grossly negligent. BUT she is not criminally liable.

> Just who I want running my country. Although
> Obutthead has lowered the bar so far down no one
> may even notice if she wins.

You're right. Trump can't find his ass with both hands, but he'd be so much better.

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.

Gerry, take a hike. Get lost. Everyone on this forum absolutely hates your fucking guts. You're a world class piece of shit. FUCK OFF.

FrankR. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
> Gerry, take a hike. Get lost. Everyone on this
> forum absolutely hates your fucking guts. You're a
> world class piece of shit. FUCK OFF.

Frank, reasonable people can disagree, but you're just being an asshole - as usual. Oh, and I like Gerry. He's one of the few sane people here.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The few emails that were classified among the 10's
> of thousands that were not appropriately titled
> with the heading marking its classification.
>
> There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton lied
> whatsoever.


You act like ignorance is a virtue. Of course there is evidence, even many top Democrats concede she lied. It is also believed hundreds of the shredded emails were classified documents, the lawyers focused on shredding classified documents but messed up and missed a few.

Take A Nap, Frank - Or A Xanax Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FrankR. Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 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.
> >
> > Gerry, take a hike. Get lost. Everyone on this
> > forum absolutely hates your fucking guts. You're
> a
> > world class piece of shit. FUCK OFF.
>
> Frank, reasonable people can disagree, but you're
> just being an asshole - as usual. Oh, and I like
> Gerry. He's one of the few sane people here.


if you like Gerry, you should kill yourself.

Liberals and clintons again showing that no one is held accountable for crimes and wrong doings.
An example, a restaurant employee is told, never give out out secret ingredients, he goes out blabbing the secret ingredients, he gets fired, may have a hard time finding a job at another restaurant. Hillary misplaces and misuses top secret documents and information, a countries top secret information, but yet she's still allowed to be a candidate for the president of america.

ONLY IN AMERICA

I'm sorry there aren't special laws governing Democrats that criminalize politics for the left. That would be tyranny, unfortunately our law enforcement agencies strive to implement justice fairly and consistently.

A lie is to intentionally mislead. If she believed what she was saying...then it wasnt a lie.

The emails containing classified materiel at the time she sent or received them....110...constitutes .04% of the total. The percentage misclassified by the sending office was at a rate over 15 times greater. So Hillary was actally better at protecting classified materiel then other agencies.

that's ridiculous Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The few emails that were classified among the
> 10's
> > of thousands that were not appropriately titled
> > with the heading marking its classification.
> >
> > There is no evidence that Hillary Clinton lied
> > whatsoever.
>
>
> You act like ignorance is a virtue. Of course
> there is evidence, even many top Democrats concede
> she lied.

Name them.

> It is also believed hundreds of the
> shredded emails were classified documents, the
> lawyers focused on shredding classified documents
> but messed up and missed a few.

I'm sure Breitbart and the Republican members of the committee today believe that, but there is no evidence to support that. 'It is believed' is not proof.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sorry there aren't special laws governing
> Democrats that criminalize politics for the left.
> That would be tyranny, unfortunately our law
> enforcement agencies strive to implement justice
> fairly and consistently.
Well then the clintons shouldve been in jail years ago, even top washington post journalist said fbi director was wrong.

Now thats a lie.....read today's editorial on the case.

Maybe this was all settled before the FBI released their finding. A conspiracy between the Director of the FBI and the Attorney General Lynch. My theory is that the AG approached the Director and said to recommend no charges, in the meantime I'll say that whatever you suggest I'll go with, I'll make this Public information. That way the citizens will be appeased and we can proceed getting our gal in the White House. Good thinking answered the Director. That's why I'm the Attorney General said Lynch pin.

The only problem is Comey said all the high level agents, 15 or so ,were in agreement in the FBI's final conclusion.

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.

Who can blame him. This was a witch hunt and a PR stunt today. Republicans weren't looking for the truth or an understanding of Comey's thought process; they were looking for sound bites. That little weasel Chaffetz smirked through the whole thing. Trey Gowdy looked and sounded like a rabid chicken. Fortunately, Comey held his own.

The Republicans are going to beat this to death until they get the answer they want. They're already sending referrals back to the FBI and/or the Justice Department. It's going to get even uglier than it already is.

Gotta throw them out this November. The entire party is becoming unhinge and extraordinarily corrupt. They need to focus on legislating again to win votes.

Dog With A Bone Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.
>
> Who can blame him. This was a witch hunt and a PR
> stunt today. Republicans weren't looking for the
> truth or an understanding of Comey's thought
> process; they were looking for sound bites. That
> little weasel Chaffetz smirked through the whole
> thing. Trey Gowdy looked and sounded like a rabid
> chicken. Fortunately, Comey held his own.
>
> The Republicans are going to beat this to death
> until they get the answer they want. They're
> already sending referrals back to the FBI and/or
> the Justice Department. It's going to get even
> uglier than it already is.


Cuz they're right, we all know it. Any you guys remember the OJ simpson case, we all knew he was guilty, all the niggers celebrated cause a guilty nigger beat the justice system, well before OJ dies, hes gonna confess. We all know hillarys guilty and proof that america isnt ready for a dumb bitch, pampered bitch that doesnt take out country serious enough to want have her twat gadgets, and needs to have her computer with americas secrets on it at her housrr..stupid, lazy, needy woman.

Guilty of what you idiot? This isnt murder you fucking piece of shit. She got sent emails moron.

So Shillary is careless with sensitive information, but that's quite fitting for a presidential candidate?

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gotta throw them out this November. The entire
> party is becoming unhinge and extraordinarily
> corrupt. They need to focus on legislating again
> to win votes.


It had been known publicly since March that Brown, a Democrat, was facing a Department of Justice Investigation related to "fraudulent activities," and whether or not she improperly solicited charitable donations and misused campaign funds. DOJ officials asked the House Ethics Committee to halt a separate investigation while they conducted their probe.

The target of the investigation has not been identified, but Brown does have links to the head of a charity who pleaded guilty in March to conspiracy to commit wire fraud and agreed to cooperate with the feds. Court documents mention a public official, identified only as "person A." In addition, Brown was also served with a federal subpoena in January.

Despite the looming investigation, Brown is running for reelection to her 5th Congressional District seat. She is challenged in the primary by Tallahassee Democrat Al Lawson, who is a former state senator.


Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/corrine-brown-federal-indictment-225246#ixzz4Dl15WLsk
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Anyways, you rightards seem desperate and want to do nothing but play games. She's gonna destroy you come november and I am going to do nothing but celebrate for an entire week.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyways, you rightards seem desperate and want to
> do nothing but play games. She's gonna destroy you
> come november and I am going to do nothing but
> celebrate for an entire week.


Not like we'd expect you to start working then....

A whole week of celebration. Non stop, music blasting beer pouring party time. Will be.watching football then too. Gonna be great.

quiet know nothings - Hillary will be found innocent when they are dont spending money on investigating

like a sore pecker - you can't beat it !

Sharky8 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So Shillary is careless with sensitive
> information, but that's quite fitting for a
> presidential candidate?

Top secret isnt sensitive. Its not like discussing obama care or ssi. Its top secret stuff that she had no right to being a stupid bitch to have it on her server at house that been hacked multiple times, even a fucking retard knows better

maybe just maybe Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Maybe this was all settled before the FBI released
> their finding. A conspiracy between the Director
> of the FBI and the Attorney General Lynch. My
> theory is that the AG approached the Director and
> said to recommend no charges, in the meantime I'll
> say that whatever you suggest I'll go with, I'll
> make this Public information. That way the
> citizens will be appeased and we can proceed
> getting our gal in the White House. Good
> thinking answered the Director. That's why I'm
> the Attorney General said Lynch pin.

Oh Lord... This is exactly what the Republicans want you to think. Comey's reputation is impeccable. Chaffetz, the chair of today's proceeding, is on record as saying that he has complete faith in Comey's ability to investigate and present his recommendations in a fair way - until, of course, Comey's recommendations weren't what Chaffetz wanted to hear. And, as Gerry noted, none of the main players in this investigation at the FBI (thought I heard 25) believed that there were grounds for prosecution. This must be one hell of a conspiracy.

It is also incredibly insulting to the Attorney General to imply that she can be bought. I've never heard a single bad thing regarding her integrity.

The only people with an integrity problem are the corrupt right wing sold out proven historical failures we have to deal with in America.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The only people with an integrity problem are the
> corrupt right wing sold out proven historical
> failures we have to deal with in America.

And don't forget Chaka Fattah you filthy son of pigs.

Corrupt POS

Doo doo brown Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Cuz they're right, we all know it. Any you guys
> remember the OJ simpson case, we all knew he was
> guilty, all the niggers celebrated cause a guilty
> nigger beat the justice system, well before OJ
> dies, hes gonna confess. We all know hillarys
> guilty and proof that america isnt ready for a
> dumb bitch, pampered bitch that doesnt take out
> country serious enough to want have her twat
> gadgets, and needs to have her computer with
> americas secrets on it at her housrr..stupid,
> lazy, needy woman.

And here we have it - the heart of the matter. Lying niggers and uppity women. That's what really animates the ignorant goobers. They try to pretend to be civilized human beings but they inevitably lose it when things don't go their way. I'm just surprised it took this long for you to become unhinged, Caca. I can feel you gripping your gun through the screen.

While Gerry usually gets his muzzie ass kicked here, there are some threads that he gets destroyed and he just keeps coming back and gets pulverized over and over and over again. This is one such thread. Cary needs to have a tag that we can use to tag these threads. They are very enjoyable to read.

Did You Even Listen? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> YtLcV Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > W.R.O.N.G. Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > First, there were only THREE emails out of
> > > thousands that included any indication of
> > > classification - and they were incorrectly
> > marked.
> > > Moreover, Cummings has said that the three
> > emails
> > > in question should not have been classified
> at
> > > all. Second, there is the issue of criminal
> > > I.N.T.E.N.T. Comey has consistently said
> during
> > > the hearing that there was no criminal
> intent,
> > and
> > > therefore no reason for prosecution. That is
> > his
> > > determination to make - not a politically
> > > motivated Congress and not the public.
> >
> >
> > Please buy a brain. There were 110 emails
> marked
> > classified.
>
> Right back at you. And no, you're wrong. Per
> Comey, there were only three emails that had any
> confidential markings, and they were marked wrong.
> Moreover, according to Politifact...
>
> The State Department confirmed July 6 that it
> was aware of two emails that were marked
> confidential, the lowest level of classification,
> when they were sent. An aide sent the two emails
> to Clinton to prepare her for phone calls with
> foreign leaders, according to the New York Times.
>
>
> State Department spokesman John Kirby said call
> sheets are often classified when they are
> prepared. But then at some point before the call
> is made, someone with the appropriate authority
> will declassify them. These two call sheets
> sent to Clinton unnecessarily retained their
> confidential markings due to human error, Kirby
> said.
>
> The bolded is probably what Cummings was referring
> to.
>
> > And the issue here is not criminal
> > intent, it's gross incompetence and/or
> negligence.
>
> No, you're wrong. Comey has said in no uncertain
> terms that Clinton was grossly negligent. BUT she
> is not criminally liable.
>
> > Just who I want running my country. Although
> > Obutthead has lowered the bar so far down no
> one
> > may even notice if she wins.
>
> You're right. Trump can't find his ass with both
> hands, but he'd be so much better.


WRONG.

Whether things are *marked* classified or not is not and never was the issue. That was a dumb red herring that Hillary tossed out to distract you stupid fuckers. As anyone who has ever had a security clearance knows, very little of what you deal with is ever marked in any way. That typically is done long after the fact. Information is not deemed classified because it is marked classified. It is marked classified because the information is deemed to be classified.

"As used in this Agreement, classified information is marked or unmarked classified information, including oral communications, that is classified under the standards of Executive Order 13526."

http://freebeacon.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/HRC-classified-NDA1.pdf

First of all whether it was marked or unmarked helps establish intent and criminality so it is important.

Second, the State Dept has said that even emails that were marked were done by error and were indeed not classified.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> First of all whether it was marked or unmarked
> helps establish intent and criminality so it is
> important.
>
> Second, the State Dept has said that even emails
> that were marked were done by error and were
> indeed not classified.


That's bullshit. They don't make errors like that. To mark something as classified which is not is also a violation of the DOD Classification Regulations. It may happen once in a while, to say it happened to all of those emails is preposterous and unbelievable,

Once again, the document wasn't marked classified. It had a marking in its text for portions that may be classified that were indeed not after the State Dept reviewed them.

For fabricating stories, he has been posting some of the most absurd comments, almost in desperation. Very few have any real basis in fact. He a worse liar than Hillary.

Yall didn't watch the hearings today? Thanks to Republicans witch hunting I got all of the 411.

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.

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.

Im watching hearing now, that fucker mustve been threatened, he looked a fool. Slick billy mustve put the word out and madr it clear on that plane

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