Clinton's comments to FBI distorted by Media

[ClosedCaption]

Ah, you're confusing what he said under oath with what he said in his stump speech again. Under oath a hundred became 3. Sorry!

Under oath a hundred became 3.https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...on2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-systemQUOTE]

3 with <c> markings...

Over 100 without markings
but with classified information.

"Sorry"

only about your lack of comprehension

Link?



Now watch this

I already gave you that link, Comeys statement.
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

You, on the other hand, have parroted that the 3 with <c> markings were the only ones classified, and they were recanted

The one where he says it under oath. Do you have that or just the stuff he took back later?

according to YOUR link, he only took back the 3 marked <c>.

False...no where there does it say he ONLY took back 3.

But back on topic because I'm curious for this information.

If there were more marked classified he had a whole 2-3 hours of testimony under oath. Go see if you can find him repeating that anywhere in his testimony under oath. Go ahead...happy hunting!

 

[Auld Phart]

3 with <c> markings...

Over 100 without markings
but with classified information.

"Sorry"

only about your lack of comprehension

Link?



Now watch this

I already gave you that link, Comeys statement.
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

You, on the other hand, have parroted that the 3 with <c> markings were the only ones classified, and they were recanted

The one where he says it under oath. Do you have that or just the stuff he took back later?

according to YOUR link, he only took back the 3 marked <c>.

False...no where there does it say he ONLY took back 3.

But back on topic because I'm curious for this information.

If there were more marked classified he had a whole 2-3 hours of testimony under oath. Go see if you can find him repeating that anywhere in his testimony under oath. Go ahead...happy hunting!

Sorry, can't prove a negative.

He only recanted on the 3 marked <c>, no record of him recanting the other 110.

Unless you have evidence he did.

 

[Mertex]

He wasn't, you were.

I'm glad you learned that "pwned" means. The hard way.

Where did you get it from?

You two must be twins....both ignorant and childish.

For the fourth time, your "news" about MSNBC are 13 years old.

I explained it to you. I draw it for you. I link it to you, and you still don't get it.

You can't be THAT stupid. Oh, wait.

For the second time how old the information doesnt matter. Want proof? A long time ago we found out gravity exists.

Now go to the top of the highest cliff and yell about how old the information is and throw yourself off.

They're just trying to derail the thread because they are heartbroken that Trump didn't really go ahead in the polls...

Dont worry, they'll switch to "polls dont count" mode soon again

You're just as ignorant as Trump....or probably more so. I didn't say she didn't know they'd be asking her questions, I said she didn't know what questions they were going to be asking her. Pay attention.

but it's her job to be prepared, and you're saying she doesn't know how to anticipate what someone may ask her. That my friend is a very important asset as president.

Yeah, sure, if you say so....so I guess Trump doesn't have that important asset to be president since he changes his mind back and forth on every issue. First he is going to mass deport....then he softens up but he makes his supporters think he's still going to mass deport...Sad.

One must be skilled at anticipating an opponent. It's what makes generals, generals. And dude, she most likely can't even cook. I'd say you hurt her case for president more than you helped her. Thanks again.

She's way better at all of those than Trump. Trump doesn't even know what a good Taco salad is....and his surrogates think that Taco trucks would be bad for the country.......what doofuses.

Taco Trucks and the Soul of America

nice tactic. way to deflect Hitlery's short coming as 'a I know you are but what am I' response.

I'm just pointing out Trump's big shortcomings which you Trumpbots seem to ignore.

I don't ignore anything he does. he is not owned by any party faction and is the only reason I'm going with him.

Yes you do. He paid to play with Bondi and Abbott, yet you all don't hold him accountable for it, but instead are whining that Clinton's foundation paid to play yet have not provided any evidence of it at all. He lies at everyone of his rallies, but I don't see any of his supporters calling him out on it....instead you all just repeat the lies.

No GOP straps, no Libturd straps. he's his own man.

You claim that, yet the establishment GOP has been telling him what to say and how to act. He can't be his own man because he knows nothing about running a government.

My kind of politician, is not becomming to no one accept those who voted for him. And, he's sincere in his message, and he didn't kill anyone like hitlery. Can you say Benghazi?

Hillary didn't kill anybody, and she didn't scam people like Trump with his fake university, his realty deal, but you don't care, because like most conservatives, as long as it doesn't happen to them, they don't give a rat's ass about anyone else.

Please post a link where Hillary killed anyone.....here's a link about how Donald scammed property buyers.

Trump's failed Baja condo resort left buyers feeling betrayed and angry

 

[whitehall]

Leave it to the ungrateful hypocrite left. NBC's Chuck Todd tries to do the right thing and give Hillary a dozen excuses and the other radical left throws him under the bus for it.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Love the sarcastic Onion style OP

 

[TooTall]

Thats how it happens...they make up a narrative and then dismiss the actual facts for the quick bumper sticker. Like Hillary sent hundreds of classified emails through her server!

Easier to remember than:

Hillary sent 3 classified docs via email but they were improperly marked which Comey admitted and the State Dept admitted to the mistake also.

Too much minutiae

And then there was this:

"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."

 

[theHawk]

As usual.....Trumpbots cannot provide any facts....all they can do is post their jr-hi comments....

The facts are that Hillary and her IT crew broke every goddamn rule, regulation, and law there is for classified communications within the government. Having a private server for official use would never be approved. She sent classified information on that system multiple times, that's a fact. That means she broke the law. Pleading ignorance is the only "defense" she has. Does it matter if she "recalls" having the training or not? No. It doesn't change the FACT that the whole system was illegal to begin with.

The funny thing is that you are telling us she didn't say that she didn't recall. So what does that mean? She did recall having the training and willfully choose to break the rules for handling classified information? You're claiming she isn't that incompetent or forgetful....but if that's the case then that means she willfully broke the law. The only defense she has legally is that she was "unaware" that the law was being broken. We all know she wasn't that stupid, she did it willfully and should be in jail for it. Obama's cronies in the FBI have to put out the narrative she was too stupid to know what's going on, or they have to press charges.

But hey, keep arguing she's not that dumb and knew what was going on. Maybe the FBI will press charges someday.

 

[TooTall]

Comey said she didnt delete emails with the purpose of hiding anything. So the media smacks it off the table and opts for the "I think" defense: I think she deleted them because she had something to hide

Viola! Fuck evidence you can just assert it to be true

That is not what Comey said.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Comey said she didnt delete emails with the purpose of hiding anything. So the media smacks it off the table and opts for the "I think" defense: I think she deleted them because she had something to hide

Viola! Fuck evidence you can just assert it to be true

That is not what Comey said.

Here's a full transcript of the exchange:

Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?

Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.

Gowdy: It was not true?

Comey: That's what I said.

Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?

Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?

Comey: There was classified information emailed.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?

Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.

Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?

Comey: No.

Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?

Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

Comey: That is right?


U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy

Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.

You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether

They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.

Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.

This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.

She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'

 

[TooTall]

He took back the 3 that were marked <c>.

not the others

False, he said under oath that only 3 were classified and were missed because they werent labeled correctly. But thats too hard to remember so you just go "She sent classified info" or "She cant identify what classified info looks like" because thats easier

Link?

FBI Director Admits Hillary Clinton Emails Were Not Properly Marked Classified
Rep. Matt Cartwright: were these properly documented, were they properly marked according to the manual with the little “cs”?

FBI Director James Comey: no…There were three e-mails. Yhe “c” was in the body, in the text but there was no header on the e-mail or the text.

Rep. Matt Cartwright: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what’s classified and what’s not classified, and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

FBI Director James Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.

Womp womp...that one is for free

FBI Director James Comey: no…There were three e-mails. Yhe “c” was in the body, in the text but there was no header on the e-mail or the text.

Out of over 100?

Thank you

Ah, you're confusing what he said under oath with what he said in his stump speech again. Under oath a hundred became 3. Sorry!

FBI Directors do NOT make stump speeches dumbass.

 

[PoliticalChic]

.....the NYTimes writes:

1. "Hillary Clinton may not be indicted on criminal charges over her handling of classified email, but the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, all but indicted her judgment and competence on Tuesday – two vital pillars of her presidential candidacy – and in the kind of terms that would be politically devastating in a normal election year."


This is really some piece.

"Mrs. Clinton’s campaign is built on the premise that she has the national security experience and well-honed instincts to keep Americans safe in the age of terrorism, and that Donald J. Trump does not. Nearly every day, she seeks to present herself as a more thoughtful and responsible leader.

She has spent months describing Mr. Trump as “reckless,” “unprepared” and “temperamentally unfit” to be president, and she has presented her four years as secretary of state and eight in the senate as unparalleled preparation for becoming commander in chief.

Yet in just a few minutes of remarks, Mr. Comey called into question Mrs. Clinton’s claims of superiority more memorably, mightily and effectively than Mr. Trump has over the past year. And with potentially lasting consequences."
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/clinton-campaign-trump.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=1

 

[PoliticalChic]

 

[jc456]

You two must be twins....both ignorant and childish.

For the fourth time, your "news" about MSNBC are 13 years old.

I explained it to you. I draw it for you. I link it to you, and you still don't get it.

You can't be THAT stupid. Oh, wait.

For the second time how old the information doesnt matter. Want proof? A long time ago we found out gravity exists.

Now go to the top of the highest cliff and yell about how old the information is and throw yourself off.

They're just trying to derail the thread because they are heartbroken that Trump didn't really go ahead in the polls...

Dont worry, they'll switch to "polls dont count" mode soon again

but it's her job to be prepared, and you're saying she doesn't know how to anticipate what someone may ask her. That my friend is a very important asset as president.

Yeah, sure, if you say so....so I guess Trump doesn't have that important asset to be president since he changes his mind back and forth on every issue. First he is going to mass deport....then he softens up but he makes his supporters think he's still going to mass deport...Sad.

One must be skilled at anticipating an opponent. It's what makes generals, generals. And dude, she most likely can't even cook. I'd say you hurt her case for president more than you helped her. Thanks again.

She's way better at all of those than Trump. Trump doesn't even know what a good Taco salad is....and his surrogates think that Taco trucks would be bad for the country.......what doofuses.

Taco Trucks and the Soul of America

nice tactic. way to deflect Hitlery's short coming as 'a I know you are but what am I' response.

I'm just pointing out Trump's big shortcomings which you Trumpbots seem to ignore.

I don't ignore anything he does. he is not owned by any party faction and is the only reason I'm going with him.

Yes you do. He paid to play with Bondi and Abbott, yet you all don't hold him accountable for it, but instead are whining that Clinton's foundation paid to play yet have not provided any evidence of it at all. He lies at everyone of his rallies, but I don't see any of his supporters calling him out on it....instead you all just repeat the lies.

No GOP straps, no Libturd straps. he's his own man.

You claim that, yet the establishment GOP has been telling him what to say and how to act. He can't be his own man because he knows nothing about running a government.

My kind of politician, is not becomming to no one accept those who voted for him. And, he's sincere in his message, and he didn't kill anyone like hitlery. Can you say Benghazi?

Hillary didn't kill anybody, and she didn't scam people like Trump with his fake university, his realty deal, but you don't care, because like most conservatives, as long as it doesn't happen to them, they don't give a rat's ass about anyone else.

Please post a link where Hillary killed anyone.....here's a link about how Donald scammed property buyers.

Trump's failed Baja condo resort left buyers feeling betrayed and angry

prove he did pay to play. you can't. It's all a ploy. your whole premise is a ploy. Sorry, hitlery four dead Benghazi. cheated, lied, can't anticipate, total failure.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So you're basically saying Hillary is a liar. We get it. Geeze give it a rest. She doesn't deserve this.

She deserves every fucking bit of it. She is a pathological liar, and she, according to the FBI, is so stupid that she can't comprehend the importance of computer security. A concept my 10 year old daughter understands completely. The fact that she has been caught lying, and you "fellow travelers" allow her to get away with it is despicable.

From the NYTimes, early on...

"Americans of all political persuasions are coming to the sad realization that our First Lady -- a woman of undoubted talents who was a role model for many in her generation -- is a congenital liar.

Drip by drip, like Whitewater torture, the case is being made that she is compelled to mislead, and to ensnare her subordinates and friends in a web of deceit.

1. Remember the story she told about studying The Wall Street Journal to explain her 10,000 percent profit in 1979 commodity trading? We now know that was a lie told to turn aside accusations that as the Governor's wife she profited corruptly, her account being run by a lawyer for state poultry interests through a disreputable broker.

She lied for good reason: To admit otherwise would be to confess taking, and paying taxes on, what some think amounted to a $100,000 bribe."
Essay;Blizzard of Lies

 

[Auld Phart]

The key word is 'marked'.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The key word is 'marked'.

Well....it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is.

 

[Ame®icano]

No, shithead, if he smelled like poop he would smell like you..

Quit deflecting, moron. You've already been pwned and shown you were pwned. Go lick your wounds and quit posting crap.

He wasn't, you were.

I'm glad you learned that "pwned" means. The hard way.

Where did you get it from?

You two must be twins....both ignorant and childish.

For the fourth time, your "news" about MSNBC are 13 years old.

I explained it to you. I draw it for you. I link it to you, and you still don't get it.

You can't be THAT stupid. Oh, wait.

For the second time how old the information doesnt matter. Want proof? A long time ago we found out gravity exists.

Now go to the top of the highest cliff and yell about how old the information is and throw yourself off.

It does matter. In OP she claims that MSNBC is owned by Microsoft, and they're biased in Trump's favor.

First, MSNBC is not owned by Microsoft. It used to be some 10 years ago.
Second, MSNBC and msnbc.com are two different companies.
Third, MSNBC is shilling for Democrats and Hillary.

Every single thing she claims she pulled out of ass.

You're even dumber than she is, if after (now) five explanations, you still agree with her. But, you proved that long time ago, so it's been expected from you.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Link?



Now watch this

I already gave you that link, Comeys statement.
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

You, on the other hand, have parroted that the 3 with <c> markings were the only ones classified, and they were recanted

The one where he says it under oath. Do you have that or just the stuff he took back later?

according to YOUR link, he only took back the 3 marked <c>.

False...no where there does it say he ONLY took back 3.

But back on topic because I'm curious for this information.

If there were more marked classified he had a whole 2-3 hours of testimony under oath. Go see if you can find him repeating that anywhere in his testimony under oath. Go ahead...happy hunting!

Sorry, can't prove a negative.

He only recanted on the 3 marked <c>, no record of him recanting the other 110.

Unless you have evidence he did.

So he never said what you claimed? You said he said it and now you can't prove it? Strange stuff

 

[ClosedCaption]

False, he said under oath that only 3 were classified and were missed because they werent labeled correctly. But thats too hard to remember so you just go "She sent classified info" or "She cant identify what classified info looks like" because thats easier

Link?

FBI Director Admits Hillary Clinton Emails Were Not Properly Marked Classified
Rep. Matt Cartwright: were these properly documented, were they properly marked according to the manual with the little “cs”?

FBI Director James Comey: no…There were three e-mails. Yhe “c” was in the body, in the text but there was no header on the e-mail or the text.

Rep. Matt Cartwright: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what’s classified and what’s not classified, and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

FBI Director James Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.

Womp womp...that one is for free

FBI Director James Comey: no…There were three e-mails. Yhe “c” was in the body, in the text but there was no header on the e-mail or the text.

Out of over 100?

Thank you

Ah, you're confusing what he said under oath with what he said in his stump speech again. Under oath a hundred became 3. Sorry!

FBI Directors do NOT make stump speeches dumbass.

That's not the key point. Call his speech anything you want but it's not the same as being under oath. Now, you are free to complain about my punctuation.

 

[Auld Phart]

I already gave you that link, Comeys statement.
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System

You, on the other hand, have parroted that the 3 with <c> markings were the only ones classified, and they were recanted

The one where he says it under oath. Do you have that or just the stuff he took back later?

according to YOUR link, he only took back the 3 marked <c>.

False...no where there does it say he ONLY took back 3.

But back on topic because I'm curious for this information.

If there were more marked classified he had a whole 2-3 hours of testimony under oath. Go see if you can find him repeating that anywhere in his testimony under oath. Go ahead...happy hunting!

Sorry, can't prove a negative.

He only recanted on the 3 marked <c>, no record of him recanting the other 110.

Unless you have evidence he did.

So he never said what you claimed? You said he said it and now you can't prove it? Strange stuff

He said it in his statement on July 5th.

I can't prove a negative,

the only classified emails he recanted before Congress were the 3 with the <c> marking.

He did not recant the other 110 that had classified material..

IF he did, give me the link proving it