FBI director--Comey states Petraeus case worse than Clinton's emails

[paperview]

Chaffetz: "Did Hillary Clinton break the law?"

FBI Chief Comey: "My judgment is that she did not."

 

[Flash]

Silly statements like that just shows you the stupidity of the Obama Administration. We have come to expect dumbass statements like that from the idiots that tell us that global warming is a bigger threat to US security than Muslim terrorism.

 

[S.J.]

Why would anyone take Comey seriously after listing Hillary's crimes, then recommending she not be indicted?

When you figure out what the word INTENT means--come back and let us know.

To give you an example: If you screwed something up at work, (which everyone has been guilty of doing at least one time during their lives)--you are not investigated, and you're not prosecuted for it--Regardless of how much money it cost your employer to FIX. Why? Because you didn't INTEND to screw it up.

To charge Hillary Clinton--one would have to believe that she willfully and deliberately broke protocol by having a Senior IT staffer who worked at the State department setup and maintain her server. (Even that wouldn't have been considered a "criminal act" though.) One would have to believe that she deliberately and purposefully received and or sent classified information via the internet with absolute knowledge that she was putting National Security at risk.

And if you believe that you would also have to believe that Colin Powell & Condi Rice also "willfully" broke the law, and they should also be indicted. And if you're not willing to admit that, then at least admit it's a partisan attack, as most investigations on the Clinton's have been. In short,another Reich wing dog & pony show.
Rice Aides, Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Email Accounts

When you figure out that INTENT is not the threshold on putting the country at risk, come back and let us know. Having said that, she still KNOWINGLY put the country at risk by sending classified information over an unsecured server. There's your INTENT right there. The rest was just careless disregard for the security of the country, her convenience was more important. Comey admitted that the facts were different from what Hillary stated under oath. She committed perjury, according to Comey's remarks. You keep throwing out that red herring about Powell and Rice but it's been debunked many times. They used private emails for personal use but did not use them for State Department business (like Hillary), and they did not send classified information over them.

could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years.

TIA

What a stupid question. So, if no one had ever been prosecuted for murder, and you commit a murder, you shouldn't be prosecuted for it? Is that your argument?

 

[paperview]

Why would anyone take Comey seriously after listing Hillary's crimes, then recommending she not be indicted?

When you figure out what the word INTENT means--come back and let us know.

To give you an example: If you screwed something up at work, (which everyone has been guilty of doing at least one time during their lives)--you are not investigated, and you're not prosecuted for it--Regardless of how much money it cost your employer to FIX. Why? Because you didn't INTEND to screw it up.

To charge Hillary Clinton--one would have to believe that she willfully and deliberately broke protocol by having a Senior IT staffer who worked at the State department setup and maintain her server. (Even that wouldn't have been considered a "criminal act" though.) One would have to believe that she deliberately and purposefully received and or sent classified information via the internet with absolute knowledge that she was putting National Security at risk.

And if you believe that you would also have to believe that Colin Powell & Condi Rice also "willfully" broke the law, and they should also be indicted. And if you're not willing to admit that, then at least admit it's a partisan attack, as most investigations on the Clinton's have been. In short,another Reich wing dog & pony show.
Rice Aides, Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Email Accounts

When you figure out that INTENT is not the threshold on putting the country at risk, come back and let us know. Having said that, she still KNOWINGLY put the country at risk by sending classified information over an unsecured server. There's your INTENT right there. The rest was just careless disregard for the security of the country, her convenience was more important. Comey admitted that the facts were different from what Hillary stated under oath. She committed perjury, according to Comey's remarks. You keep throwing out that red herring about Powell and Rice but it's been debunked many times. They used private emails for personal use but did not use them for State Department business (like Hillary), and they did not send classified information over them.

could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years.

TIA

What a stupid question. So, if no one had ever been prosecuted for murder, and you commit a murder, you shouldn't be prosecuted for it? Is that your argument?

The question, which you didn't answer, was not stupid.

Your reply though, was.

 

[S.J.]

Why would anyone take Comey seriously after listing Hillary's crimes, then recommending she not be indicted?

When you figure out what the word INTENT means--come back and let us know.

To give you an example: If you screwed something up at work, (which everyone has been guilty of doing at least one time during their lives)--you are not investigated, and you're not prosecuted for it--Regardless of how much money it cost your employer to FIX. Why? Because you didn't INTEND to screw it up.

To charge Hillary Clinton--one would have to believe that she willfully and deliberately broke protocol by having a Senior IT staffer who worked at the State department setup and maintain her server. (Even that wouldn't have been considered a "criminal act" though.) One would have to believe that she deliberately and purposefully received and or sent classified information via the internet with absolute knowledge that she was putting National Security at risk.

And if you believe that you would also have to believe that Colin Powell & Condi Rice also "willfully" broke the law, and they should also be indicted. And if you're not willing to admit that, then at least admit it's a partisan attack, as most investigations on the Clinton's have been. In short,another Reich wing dog & pony show.
Rice Aides, Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Email Accounts

When you figure out that INTENT is not the threshold on putting the country at risk, come back and let us know. Having said that, she still KNOWINGLY put the country at risk by sending classified information over an unsecured server. There's your INTENT right there. The rest was just careless disregard for the security of the country, her convenience was more important. Comey admitted that the facts were different from what Hillary stated under oath. She committed perjury, according to Comey's remarks. You keep throwing out that red herring about Powell and Rice but it's been debunked many times. They used private emails for personal use but did not use them for State Department business (like Hillary), and they did not send classified information over them.

could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years.

TIA

What a stupid question. So, if no one had ever been prosecuted for murder, and you commit a murder, you shouldn't be prosecuted for it? Is that your argument?

The question, which you didn't answer, was not stupid.

Your reply though, was.

Um, yeah, your question was very stupid. My reply pointed that out and I'm sure honest people would agree that your argument was exactly what I asked.

 

[MarcATL]

Republicans had a conniption fit over the FBI investigation into David Petraeus, and the classified infomation during his tenure as CIA chief. REMEMBER? Now we've been through many Clinton investigations over the years, and the Reich wing is never satisfied with the results, so they demand more investigations, and at great taxpayer expense to come up with the same result (always) as the first one.

Petraeus v Clinton

"Republicans have long insisted that former CIA Director Gen. David Petraeus' mishandling of classified information was far less egregious misconduct than Hillary Clinton's private email use while leading the State Department.

The talking point has gained steam this week after FBI Director James Comey recommended that the Justice Department bring no charges against Clinton, with presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump even suggesting a nefarious motive behind the decision.

On Thursday, Comey was given an opportunity to rebut some of those charges during a hearing on Capitol Hill before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

"The Petraeus case, to my mind, illustrates perfectly the kind of cases the Department of Justice is willing to prosecute," Comey told the committee.

Petraeus, the four-star general who oversaw military operations in both Afghanistan and Iraq, resigned as CIA director in 2012 after his extramarital affair with his biographer, Paula Broadwell, became public.

The FBI and Justice Department later recommended felony charges against him for sharing classified information with Broadwell. He ultimately avoided jail time after pleading guilty to a misdemeanor last year, resulting in two years probation and a $100,000 fine. At the time, members of Congress from both sides of the aisle rallied to Petraeus' defense and criticized the Justice Department for pursuing the case.

Republicans have argued that Petraeus' malfeasance was petty, especially relative to Clinton's use of a private email servers
.
At the hearing on Thursday, Democratic Rep. Elijah Cummings, the committee's ranking member, invited Comey to counter those claims.
Comey pointed out that Petraeus not only shared the classified information, but also hid the documents in his attic and then lied to investigators.

"So you have obstruction of justice, you have intentional misconduct and a vast quantity of information," Comey said. "He admitted he knew that was the wrong thing to do. That is a perfect illustration of the kind of cases that get prosecuted."
James Comey: David Petraeus case worse than Hillary Clinton's emails - CNNPolitics.com

He's absolutely correct. End of story.

 

[paperview]

When you figure out what the word INTENT means--come back and let us know.

To give you an example: If you screwed something up at work, (which everyone has been guilty of doing at least one time during their lives)--you are not investigated, and you're not prosecuted for it--Regardless of how much money it cost your employer to FIX. Why? Because you didn't INTEND to screw it up.

To charge Hillary Clinton--one would have to believe that she willfully and deliberately broke protocol by having a Senior IT staffer who worked at the State department setup and maintain her server. (Even that wouldn't have been considered a "criminal act" though.) One would have to believe that she deliberately and purposefully received and or sent classified information via the internet with absolute knowledge that she was putting National Security at risk.

And if you believe that you would also have to believe that Colin Powell & Condi Rice also "willfully" broke the law, and they should also be indicted. And if you're not willing to admit that, then at least admit it's a partisan attack, as most investigations on the Clinton's have been. In short,another Reich wing dog & pony show.
Rice Aides, Powell Also Got Classified Info on Personal Email Accounts

When you figure out that INTENT is not the threshold on putting the country at risk, come back and let us know. Having said that, she still KNOWINGLY put the country at risk by sending classified information over an unsecured server. There's your INTENT right there. The rest was just careless disregard for the security of the country, her convenience was more important. Comey admitted that the facts were different from what Hillary stated under oath. She committed perjury, according to Comey's remarks. You keep throwing out that red herring about Powell and Rice but it's been debunked many times. They used private emails for personal use but did not use them for State Department business (like Hillary), and they did not send classified information over them.

could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years.

TIA

What a stupid question. So, if no one had ever been prosecuted for murder, and you commit a murder, you shouldn't be prosecuted for it? Is that your argument?

The question, which you didn't answer, was not stupid.

Your reply though, was.

Um, yeah, your question was very stupid. My reply pointed that out and I'm sure honest people would agree that your argument was exactly what I asked.

It wasn't my question, idiot.

But I note you still haven't answered it: could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years?

 

[S.J.]

When you figure out that INTENT is not the threshold on putting the country at risk, come back and let us know. Having said that, she still KNOWINGLY put the country at risk by sending classified information over an unsecured server. There's your INTENT right there. The rest was just careless disregard for the security of the country, her convenience was more important. Comey admitted that the facts were different from what Hillary stated under oath. She committed perjury, according to Comey's remarks. You keep throwing out that red herring about Powell and Rice but it's been debunked many times. They used private emails for personal use but did not use them for State Department business (like Hillary), and they did not send classified information over them.

could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years.

TIA

What a stupid question. So, if no one had ever been prosecuted for murder, and you commit a murder, you shouldn't be prosecuted for it? Is that your argument?

The question, which you didn't answer, was not stupid.

Your reply though, was.

Um, yeah, your question was very stupid. My reply pointed that out and I'm sure honest people would agree that your argument was exactly what I asked.

It wasn't my question, idiot.

But I note you still haven't answered it: could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years?

How the fuck would I know? Does it matter how many? If it was zero does that mean Hillary should not be prosecuted? Your question is stupid, and it WAS your question.

could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years.

 

[paperview]

could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years.

TIA

What a stupid question. So, if no one had ever been prosecuted for murder, and you commit a murder, you shouldn't be prosecuted for it? Is that your argument?

The question, which you didn't answer, was not stupid.

Your reply though, was.

Um, yeah, your question was very stupid. My reply pointed that out and I'm sure honest people would agree that your argument was exactly what I asked.

It wasn't my question, idiot.

But I note you still haven't answered it: could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years?

How the fuck would I know? Does it matter how many? If it was zero does that mean Hillary should not be prosecuted? Your question is stupid, and it WAS your question.

could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years.

Not originally, dunce. It was oreo who asked it.

And yes, precedence does matter. The answer is once.

In a hundred years. You'd know that if you 'd payed attention to what Comey said.

And that one time was an Espionage case, where it was never fully adjudicated.

Facts. Learnem.

 

[Contumacious]

When you figure out that INTENT is not the threshold on putting the country at risk, come back and let us know. Having said that, she still KNOWINGLY put the country at risk by sending classified information over an unsecured server. There's your INTENT right there. The rest was just careless disregard for the security of the country, her convenience was more important. Comey admitted that the facts were different from what Hillary stated under oath. She committed perjury, according to Comey's remarks. You keep throwing out that red herring about Powell and Rice but it's been debunked many times. They used private emails for personal use but did not use them for State Department business (like Hillary), and they did not send classified information over them.

could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years.

TIA

What a stupid question. So, if no one had ever been prosecuted for murder, and you commit a murder, you shouldn't be prosecuted for it? Is that your argument?

The question, which you didn't answer, was not stupid.

Your reply though, was.

Um, yeah, your question was very stupid. My reply pointed that out and I'm sure honest people would agree that your argument was exactly what I asked.

It wasn't my question, idiot.

But I note you still haven't answered it: could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years?

The Department of Political Justice
By Andrew P. Napolitano

Thus, in the past two years, the DOJ has prosecuted a young sailor for sending a single selfie to his girlfriend that inadvertently showed a submarine sonar screen in its background. It also prosecuted a Marine lieutenant who sent his military superiors a single email about the presence of al-Qaida operatives dressed as local police in a U.S. encampment in Afghanistan — but who inadvertently used his Gmail account rather than his secure government account.

And it famously prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for sharing paper copies of his daily calendar in his guarded home with a military colleague also in the home — someone who had a secret security clearance herself — because the calendar inadvertently included secret matters in the pages underneath the calendar.

 

[S.J.]

What a stupid question. So, if no one had ever been prosecuted for murder, and you commit a murder, you shouldn't be prosecuted for it? Is that your argument?

The question, which you didn't answer, was not stupid.

Your reply though, was.

Um, yeah, your question was very stupid. My reply pointed that out and I'm sure honest people would agree that your argument was exactly what I asked.

It wasn't my question, idiot.

But I note you still haven't answered it: could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years?

How the fuck would I know? Does it matter how many? If it was zero does that mean Hillary should not be prosecuted? Your question is stupid, and it WAS your question.

could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years.

Not originally, dunce. It was oreo who asked it.

And yes, precedence does matter. The answer is once.

In a hundred years. You'd know that if you 'd payed attention to what Comey said.

And that one time was an Espionage case, where it was never fully adjudicated.

Facts. Learnem.

What's your point, moron, that because it was only once, Hillary should not be prosecuted, even though she clearly violated the law? That's your argument.

 

[paperview]

could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years.

TIA

What a stupid question. So, if no one had ever been prosecuted for murder, and you commit a murder, you shouldn't be prosecuted for it? Is that your argument?

The question, which you didn't answer, was not stupid.

Your reply though, was.

Um, yeah, your question was very stupid. My reply pointed that out and I'm sure honest people would agree that your argument was exactly what I asked.

It wasn't my question, idiot.

But I note you still haven't answered it: could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years?

The Department of Political Justice
By Andrew P. Napolitano

Thus, in the past two years, the DOJ has prosecuted a young sailor for sending a single selfie to his girlfriend that inadvertently showed a submarine sonar screen in its background. It also prosecuted a Marine lieutenant who sent his military superiors a single email about the presence of al-Qaida operatives dressed as local police in a U.S. encampment in Afghanistan — but who inadvertently used his Gmail account rather than his secure government account.

And it famously prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for sharing paper copies of his daily calendar in his guarded home with a military colleague also in the home — someone who had a secret security clearance herself — because the calendar inadvertently included secret matters in the pages underneath the calendar.

Nappy

Nappy's been soundly trounced. All his bullshit has been reduced to rubble/

Sorry.

No pony.

 

[paperview]

The question, which you didn't answer, was not stupid.

Your reply though, was.

Um, yeah, your question was very stupid. My reply pointed that out and I'm sure honest people would agree that your argument was exactly what I asked.

It wasn't my question, idiot.

But I note you still haven't answered it: could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years?

How the fuck would I know? Does it matter how many? If it was zero does that mean Hillary should not be prosecuted? Your question is stupid, and it WAS your question.

could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years.

Not originally, dunce. It was oreo who asked it.

And yes, precedence does matter. The answer is once.

In a hundred years. You'd know that if you 'd payed attention to what Comey said.

And that one time was an Espionage case, where it was never fully adjudicated.

Facts. Learnem.

What's your point, moron, that because it was only once, Hillary should not be prosecuted, even though she clearly violated the law? That's your argument.

Look, you can quack till the cows come home -- but this will not change: The persons charged with looking into it explored it, and found no there there.

Chaffetz: Did Hillary Clinton break the law?

Comey: My judgment is that she did not.

 

[LaDexter]

This makes perfect sense. Gen Petreaus said the invasion of Iraq did nothing for the US. That was the wrong answer for Comey. The invasion of Iraq re-conquered Israel's NE border according to Ch1 of Book of Joshua. Hence, screw Petreaus and give NeoCon Hillary a free pass...

 

[S.J.]

What a stupid question. So, if no one had ever been prosecuted for murder, and you commit a murder, you shouldn't be prosecuted for it? Is that your argument?

The question, which you didn't answer, was not stupid.

Your reply though, was.

Um, yeah, your question was very stupid. My reply pointed that out and I'm sure honest people would agree that your argument was exactly what I asked.

It wasn't my question, idiot.

But I note you still haven't answered it: could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years?

The Department of Political Justice
By Andrew P. Napolitano

Thus, in the past two years, the DOJ has prosecuted a young sailor for sending a single selfie to his girlfriend that inadvertently showed a submarine sonar screen in its background. It also prosecuted a Marine lieutenant who sent his military superiors a single email about the presence of al-Qaida operatives dressed as local police in a U.S. encampment in Afghanistan — but who inadvertently used his Gmail account rather than his secure government account.

And it famously prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for sharing paper copies of his daily calendar in his guarded home with a military colleague also in the home — someone who had a secret security clearance herself — because the calendar inadvertently included secret matters in the pages underneath the calendar.

Nappy

Nappy's been soundly trounced. All his bullshit has been reduced to rubble/

Sorry.

No pony.

And paperview folds like a wet rag.

 

[HenryBHough]

It is funny that the FBI Director is claiming that Hilary is stupid and the far left is eating it up!

Funny?

Yup.

Surprising?

ROFLMAO

 

[S.J.]

The persons charged with looking into it explored it, and found no there there.

Yeah, the Obama administration. Not exactly known for it's honesty and integrity. Every legal expert in the country disagrees with Comey (except Dem political hacks).

 

[paperview]

The question, which you didn't answer, was not stupid.

Your reply though, was.

Um, yeah, your question was very stupid. My reply pointed that out and I'm sure honest people would agree that your argument was exactly what I asked.

It wasn't my question, idiot.

But I note you still haven't answered it: could you let us know how many people have been successfully convicted under 793 for gross negligence without intent in the last hundred years?

The Department of Political Justice
By Andrew P. Napolitano

Thus, in the past two years, the DOJ has prosecuted a young sailor for sending a single selfie to his girlfriend that inadvertently showed a submarine sonar screen in its background. It also prosecuted a Marine lieutenant who sent his military superiors a single email about the presence of al-Qaida operatives dressed as local police in a U.S. encampment in Afghanistan — but who inadvertently used his Gmail account rather than his secure government account.

And it famously prosecuted Gen. David Petraeus for sharing paper copies of his daily calendar in his guarded home with a military colleague also in the home — someone who had a secret security clearance herself — because the calendar inadvertently included secret matters in the pages underneath the calendar.

Nappy

Nappy's been soundly trounced. All his bullshit has been reduced to rubble/

Sorry.

No pony.

And paperview folds like a wet rag.

ha ha.

Go head, smart boy. Show us that case Nappy 'n you think is comparable.

Be ready. I'm way ahead of you on this.

 

[paperview]

The persons charged with looking into it explored it, and found no there there.

Yeah, the Obama administration. Not exactly known for it's honesty and integrity. Every legal expert in the country disagrees with Comey (except Dem political hacks).

Humongous pile of turdshit there. ^^

 

[S.J.]

The persons charged with looking into it explored it, and found no there there.

Yeah, the Obama administration. Not exactly known for it's honesty and integrity. Every legal expert in the country disagrees with Comey (except Dem political hacks).

Humongous pile of turdshit there. ^^

Yeah, we all know how honest Mr. "You can keep your doctor" is. And we all know how trustworthy Ms. " What difference does it make?" child rapist defender is.