Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The forum left loons today.....ahahahahaha
Well, no. I realize that facts don't matter to the right, but facts show that the latest Comey crap is nothing more than immaterial crap.
"It is not the function of the FBI director to be making public pronouncements about an investigation, never mind about an investigation based on evidence that he acknowledges may not be significant," [former assistant U.S. attorney] Akerman stated. "
The job of the FBI is simply to investigate and to provide the results of its investigation to the prosecutorial arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. His job is not to give a running commentary about any investigation or his opinion about any investigation. This is particularly egregious since Secretary Clinton has no way to respond to what amounts to nebulous and speculative innuendo.”
Why FBI Director James Comey did the wrong thing ... again
His only fiasco was in not recommending an indictment in the first place. Thinking people KNOW she committed a crime. If she loses the election it will be because those people have had enough of her bullshit.
What "crime" is that?
"Thinking people" is an interesting phrase, since already today I've read several references here to yesterday's Comey statement as a "scandal". When I press on what this "scandal" is ---- nobody can articulate it. Best answer I got was that "Hillary may have had info on her computer".
No shit. EVERYBODY has info on their computer. But that's not the issue, and they're not interested in what the issue actually is -- they're interested in selling the idea of "scandal", with no basis, hoping nobody will question them.
That's why I'm here.
>> The disclosure by the Federal Bureau of Investigation late on Friday, October 28 that it had discovered potential new evidence in its inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s handling of her personal email when she was Secretary of State has virtually nothing to do with any actions taken by the Democratic nominee, according to government records and an official with knowledge of the investigation, who spoke to Newsweek on condition of anonymity.
.... This new evidence relates to how Abedin managed her emails. She maintained four email accounts—an unclassified State Department account, another on the clintonemail.com domain and a third on Yahoo. The fourth was linked to her husband’s account; she used it to support his activities when he was running for Congress, investigative records show. Abedin, who did not know Clinton used a private server for her emails, told the bureau in an April interview that she used the account on the clintonemail.com domain only for issues related to the Secretary’s personal affairs, such as communicating with her friends. For work-related records, Abedin primarily used the email account provided to her by the State Department.
Because Clinton preferred to read documents on paper rather than on a screen, emails and other files were often printed out and provided to her either at her office or home, where they were delivered in a diplomatic pouch by a security agent. Abedin, like many State Department officials, found the government network technology to be cumbersome, and she had great trouble printing documents there, investigative records show. As a result, she sometimes transferred emails from her unclassified State Department account to either her Yahoo account or her account on Clinton’s server, and printed the emails from there. It is not clear whether she ever transferred official emails to the account she used for her husband’s campaign.
Abedin would use this procedure for printing documents when she received emails she believed Clinton needed to see and when the Secretary forwarded emails to her for printing. Abedin told the FBI she would often print these emails without reading them. Abedin printed a large number of emails this way, in part because, investigative records show, other staff members considered her Clinton’s “gatekeeper” and often sent Abedin electronic communications they wanted the Secretary to see.
This procedure for printing documents, the government official says, appears to be how the newly discovered emails ended up on the laptop shared by Abedin and her husband. It is unclear whether any of those documents were downloaded onto the laptop off of her personal email accounts or were saved on an external storage device, such as a flash drive, and then transferred to the shared computer. There is also evidence that the laptop was used to send emails from Abedin to Clinton; however, none of those emails are the ones being examined by the FBI. Moreover, unless she was told by Abedin in every instance, Clinton could not have known what device her aide was using to transmit electronic information to her.
If the FBI determines that any of the documents that ended up on the shared device were classified, Abedin could be deemed to have mishandled them. In order to prove that was a criminal offense, however, investigators would have to establish that Abedin had intended to disclose the contents of those classified documents, or that she knew she was mishandling that information.
If the documents were not classified, no crime was committed. <<
Meaning, by Huma Abedin.
>> His decision to immediately reveal this discovery was not a partisan act, although it was a horribly mishandled one. Arguably, he had to issue his letter because of previous statements he had made to Congress. In September, he testified that the bureau had completed its review of the evidence in the case and found no crimes had been committed. With the discovery of the information on the laptop shared by Weiner and Abedin, that sworn statement was no longer true, and there was new evidence that needed to be examined. As a result, Comey felt he was obligated to inform the committees as quickly as possible that his previous statement was now incorrect.
.... In a communication to bureau employees, Comey described his letter to Congress as an attempt to thread a needle – amend his testimony while not disclosing details of an ongoing investigation. The combination, however, created a circumstance where politicians are filling in the blanks, creating a storyline of corruption that was not justified by the evidence developed by the bureau. Making it worse, the communication to the bureau employees is far more detailed than what Comey issued to Congress.
“There is a significant risk of being misunderstood,” Comey told the bureau employees in the communication, explaining why he was so vague in his letter to Congress. “It would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression.”
... The truth is much less explosive. There is no indication the emails in question were withheld by Clinton during the investigation, the law enforcement official told Newsweek, nor does the discovery suggest she did anything illegal. Also, none of the emails were to or from Clinton, the official said. Moreover, despite the widespread claims in the media that this development had prompted the FBI to “reopen” of the case, it did not; such investigations are never actually closed, and it is common for law enforcement to discover new information that needs to be examined.<< Newsweek
There's the context the "scandal" mongers didn't bother to read.
Anybody who reads a headline and then just stops there is a complete idiot.
If it weren't you I would swear the poster was playing stupid. Her crimes are deleting 30,000 emails to hide them from a subpoena. That is Felony Obstruction of Justice. She also violated the National Archives Act. A Gross Misdemeanor. She used a private, non secured server for her SOS emails. A FELONY. I can go on but stupid people, like you, simply can't understand the obvious.
That's fascinating. Why didn't you come forward with your proof during the investigation? I'm sure the investigators never thought to check any of those things, because they didn't think there was anything worth prosecuting.
Uhhhh, they already have the proof clown boy. Comey said they chose to ignore it. She's politically protected. Duh. Oh wait. You ARE stupid.
The forum left loons today.....ahahahahaha
Well, no. I realize that facts don't matter to the right, but facts show that the latest Comey crap is nothing more than immaterial crap.
The facts are not out yet, clown. AHAHAHAHAHA This is delicious
His only fiasco was in not recommending an indictment in the first place. Thinking people KNOW she committed a crime. If she loses the election it will be because those people have had enough of her bullshit.
What "crime" is that?
"Thinking people" is an interesting phrase, since already today I've read several references here to yesterday's Comey statement as a "scandal". When I press on what this "scandal" is ---- nobody can articulate it. Best answer I got was that "Hillary may have had info on her computer".
No shit. EVERYBODY has info on their computer. But that's not the issue, and they're not interested in what the issue actually is -- they're interested in selling the idea of "scandal", with no basis, hoping nobody will question them.
That's why I'm here.
>> The disclosure by the Federal Bureau of Investigation late on Friday, October 28 that it had discovered potential new evidence in its inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s handling of her personal email when she was Secretary of State has virtually nothing to do with any actions taken by the Democratic nominee, according to government records and an official with knowledge of the investigation, who spoke to Newsweek on condition of anonymity.
.... This new evidence relates to how Abedin managed her emails. She maintained four email accounts—an unclassified State Department account, another on the clintonemail.com domain and a third on Yahoo. The fourth was linked to her husband’s account; she used it to support his activities when he was running for Congress, investigative records show. Abedin, who did not know Clinton used a private server for her emails, told the bureau in an April interview that she used the account on the clintonemail.com domain only for issues related to the Secretary’s personal affairs, such as communicating with her friends. For work-related records, Abedin primarily used the email account provided to her by the State Department.
Because Clinton preferred to read documents on paper rather than on a screen, emails and other files were often printed out and provided to her either at her office or home, where they were delivered in a diplomatic pouch by a security agent. Abedin, like many State Department officials, found the government network technology to be cumbersome, and she had great trouble printing documents there, investigative records show. As a result, she sometimes transferred emails from her unclassified State Department account to either her Yahoo account or her account on Clinton’s server, and printed the emails from there. It is not clear whether she ever transferred official emails to the account she used for her husband’s campaign.
Abedin would use this procedure for printing documents when she received emails she believed Clinton needed to see and when the Secretary forwarded emails to her for printing. Abedin told the FBI she would often print these emails without reading them. Abedin printed a large number of emails this way, in part because, investigative records show, other staff members considered her Clinton’s “gatekeeper” and often sent Abedin electronic communications they wanted the Secretary to see.
This procedure for printing documents, the government official says, appears to be how the newly discovered emails ended up on the laptop shared by Abedin and her husband. It is unclear whether any of those documents were downloaded onto the laptop off of her personal email accounts or were saved on an external storage device, such as a flash drive, and then transferred to the shared computer. There is also evidence that the laptop was used to send emails from Abedin to Clinton; however, none of those emails are the ones being examined by the FBI. Moreover, unless she was told by Abedin in every instance, Clinton could not have known what device her aide was using to transmit electronic information to her.
If the FBI determines that any of the documents that ended up on the shared device were classified, Abedin could be deemed to have mishandled them. In order to prove that was a criminal offense, however, investigators would have to establish that Abedin had intended to disclose the contents of those classified documents, or that she knew she was mishandling that information.
If the documents were not classified, no crime was committed. <<
Meaning, by Huma Abedin.
>> His decision to immediately reveal this discovery was not a partisan act, although it was a horribly mishandled one. Arguably, he had to issue his letter because of previous statements he had made to Congress. In September, he testified that the bureau had completed its review of the evidence in the case and found no crimes had been committed. With the discovery of the information on the laptop shared by Weiner and Abedin, that sworn statement was no longer true, and there was new evidence that needed to be examined. As a result, Comey felt he was obligated to inform the committees as quickly as possible that his previous statement was now incorrect.
.... In a communication to bureau employees, Comey described his letter to Congress as an attempt to thread a needle – amend his testimony while not disclosing details of an ongoing investigation. The combination, however, created a circumstance where politicians are filling in the blanks, creating a storyline of corruption that was not justified by the evidence developed by the bureau. Making it worse, the communication to the bureau employees is far more detailed than what Comey issued to Congress.
“There is a significant risk of being misunderstood,” Comey told the bureau employees in the communication, explaining why he was so vague in his letter to Congress. “It would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression.”
... The truth is much less explosive. There is no indication the emails in question were withheld by Clinton during the investigation, the law enforcement official told Newsweek, nor does the discovery suggest she did anything illegal. Also, none of the emails were to or from Clinton, the official said. Moreover, despite the widespread claims in the media that this development had prompted the FBI to “reopen” of the case, it did not; such investigations are never actually closed, and it is common for law enforcement to discover new information that needs to be examined.<< Newsweek
There's the context the "scandal" mongers didn't bother to read.
Anybody who reads a headline and then just stops there is a complete idiot.
If it weren't you I would swear the poster was playing stupid. Her crimes are deleting 30,000 emails to hide them from a subpoena. That is Felony Obstruction of Justice. She also violated the National Archives Act. A Gross Misdemeanor. She used a private, non secured server for her SOS emails. A FELONY. I can go on but stupid people, like you, simply can't understand the obvious.
That's fascinating. Why didn't you come forward with your proof during the investigation? I'm sure the investigators never thought to check any of those things, because they didn't think there was anything worth prosecuting.
Uhhhh, they already have the proof clown boy. Comey said they chose to ignore it. She's politically protected. Duh. Oh wait. You ARE stupid.
Comey said no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the case you dumb goober. Of course someone like you who thinks our own government is the enemy and for whom every crazy conspiracy theory is a loved conspiracy theory would have problems understanding that.
The forum left loons today.....ahahahahaha
Well, no. I realize that facts don't matter to the right, but facts show that the latest Comey crap is nothing more than immaterial crap.
The facts are not out yet, clown. AHAHAHAHAHA This is delicious
Very few facts are out, but he stated clearly that there is no reason to believe anything potentially found will even be relevant to Clinton.
No, it’s perfectly understood that you and other desperate rightwing partisan hacks will contrive and attempt to propagate any ridiculous lie in an effort to win an election you’re destined to lose."It is not the function of the FBI director to be making public pronouncements about an investigation, never mind about an investigation based on evidence that he acknowledges may not be significant," [former assistant U.S. attorney] Akerman stated. "
The job of the FBI is simply to investigate and to provide the results of its investigation to the prosecutorial arm of the U.S. Department of Justice. His job is not to give a running commentary about any investigation or his opinion about any investigation. This is particularly egregious since Secretary Clinton has no way to respond to what amounts to nebulous and speculative innuendo.”
Why FBI Director James Comey did the wrong thing ... again
His only fiasco was in not recommending an indictment in the first place. Thinking people KNOW she committed a crime. If she loses the election it will be because those people have had enough of her bullshit.
What "crime" is that?
"Thinking people" is an interesting phrase, since already today I've read several references here to yesterday's Comey statement as a "scandal". When I press on what this "scandal" is ---- nobody can articulate it. Best answer I got was that "Hillary may have had info on her computer".
No shit. EVERYBODY has info on their computer. But that's not the issue, and they're not interested in what the issue actually is -- they're interested in selling the idea of "scandal", with no basis, hoping nobody will question them.
That's why I'm here.
>> The disclosure by the Federal Bureau of Investigation late on Friday, October 28 that it had discovered potential new evidence in its inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s handling of her personal email when she was Secretary of State has virtually nothing to do with any actions taken by the Democratic nominee, according to government records and an official with knowledge of the investigation, who spoke to Newsweek on condition of anonymity.
.... This new evidence relates to how Abedin managed her emails. She maintained four email accounts—an unclassified State Department account, another on the clintonemail.com domain and a third on Yahoo. The fourth was linked to her husband’s account; she used it to support his activities when he was running for Congress, investigative records show. Abedin, who did not know Clinton used a private server for her emails, told the bureau in an April interview that she used the account on the clintonemail.com domain only for issues related to the Secretary’s personal affairs, such as communicating with her friends. For work-related records, Abedin primarily used the email account provided to her by the State Department.
Because Clinton preferred to read documents on paper rather than on a screen, emails and other files were often printed out and provided to her either at her office or home, where they were delivered in a diplomatic pouch by a security agent. Abedin, like many State Department officials, found the government network technology to be cumbersome, and she had great trouble printing documents there, investigative records show. As a result, she sometimes transferred emails from her unclassified State Department account to either her Yahoo account or her account on Clinton’s server, and printed the emails from there. It is not clear whether she ever transferred official emails to the account she used for her husband’s campaign.
Abedin would use this procedure for printing documents when she received emails she believed Clinton needed to see and when the Secretary forwarded emails to her for printing. Abedin told the FBI she would often print these emails without reading them. Abedin printed a large number of emails this way, in part because, investigative records show, other staff members considered her Clinton’s “gatekeeper” and often sent Abedin electronic communications they wanted the Secretary to see.
This procedure for printing documents, the government official says, appears to be how the newly discovered emails ended up on the laptop shared by Abedin and her husband. It is unclear whether any of those documents were downloaded onto the laptop off of her personal email accounts or were saved on an external storage device, such as a flash drive, and then transferred to the shared computer. There is also evidence that the laptop was used to send emails from Abedin to Clinton; however, none of those emails are the ones being examined by the FBI. Moreover, unless she was told by Abedin in every instance, Clinton could not have known what device her aide was using to transmit electronic information to her.
If the FBI determines that any of the documents that ended up on the shared device were classified, Abedin could be deemed to have mishandled them. In order to prove that was a criminal offense, however, investigators would have to establish that Abedin had intended to disclose the contents of those classified documents, or that she knew she was mishandling that information.
If the documents were not classified, no crime was committed. <<
Meaning, by Huma Abedin.
>> His decision to immediately reveal this discovery was not a partisan act, although it was a horribly mishandled one. Arguably, he had to issue his letter because of previous statements he had made to Congress. In September, he testified that the bureau had completed its review of the evidence in the case and found no crimes had been committed. With the discovery of the information on the laptop shared by Weiner and Abedin, that sworn statement was no longer true, and there was new evidence that needed to be examined. As a result, Comey felt he was obligated to inform the committees as quickly as possible that his previous statement was now incorrect.
.... In a communication to bureau employees, Comey described his letter to Congress as an attempt to thread a needle – amend his testimony while not disclosing details of an ongoing investigation. The combination, however, created a circumstance where politicians are filling in the blanks, creating a storyline of corruption that was not justified by the evidence developed by the bureau. Making it worse, the communication to the bureau employees is far more detailed than what Comey issued to Congress.
“There is a significant risk of being misunderstood,” Comey told the bureau employees in the communication, explaining why he was so vague in his letter to Congress. “It would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression.”
... The truth is much less explosive. There is no indication the emails in question were withheld by Clinton during the investigation, the law enforcement official told Newsweek, nor does the discovery suggest she did anything illegal. Also, none of the emails were to or from Clinton, the official said. Moreover, despite the widespread claims in the media that this development had prompted the FBI to “reopen” of the case, it did not; such investigations are never actually closed, and it is common for law enforcement to discover new information that needs to be examined.<< Newsweek
There's the context the "scandal" mongers didn't bother to read.
Anybody who reads a headline and then just stops there is a complete idiot.
If it weren't you I would swear the poster was playing stupid. Her crimes are deleting 30,000 emails to hide them from a subpoena. That is Felony Obstruction of Justice. She also violated the National Archives Act. A Gross Misdemeanor. She used a private, non secured server for her SOS emails. A FELONY. I can go on but stupid people, like you, simply can't understand the obvious.
I haven't been following that. Was she charged with something?
Yeah, we understand you slaves don't understand. Truly we do. Suffice to say if she were a repub and had done half of the shit she has done you would be demanding that repubs head on a pike, so you're nothing more than your garden variety dumbass political hack.
No, it’s perfectly understood that you and other desperate rightwing partisan hacks will contrive and attempt to propagate any ridiculous lie in an effort to win an election you’re destined to lose.His only fiasco was in not recommending an indictment in the first place. Thinking people KNOW she committed a crime. If she loses the election it will be because those people have had enough of her bullshit.
What "crime" is that?
"Thinking people" is an interesting phrase, since already today I've read several references here to yesterday's Comey statement as a "scandal". When I press on what this "scandal" is ---- nobody can articulate it. Best answer I got was that "Hillary may have had info on her computer".
No shit. EVERYBODY has info on their computer. But that's not the issue, and they're not interested in what the issue actually is -- they're interested in selling the idea of "scandal", with no basis, hoping nobody will question them.
That's why I'm here.
>> The disclosure by the Federal Bureau of Investigation late on Friday, October 28 that it had discovered potential new evidence in its inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s handling of her personal email when she was Secretary of State has virtually nothing to do with any actions taken by the Democratic nominee, according to government records and an official with knowledge of the investigation, who spoke to Newsweek on condition of anonymity.
.... This new evidence relates to how Abedin managed her emails. She maintained four email accounts—an unclassified State Department account, another on the clintonemail.com domain and a third on Yahoo. The fourth was linked to her husband’s account; she used it to support his activities when he was running for Congress, investigative records show. Abedin, who did not know Clinton used a private server for her emails, told the bureau in an April interview that she used the account on the clintonemail.com domain only for issues related to the Secretary’s personal affairs, such as communicating with her friends. For work-related records, Abedin primarily used the email account provided to her by the State Department.
Because Clinton preferred to read documents on paper rather than on a screen, emails and other files were often printed out and provided to her either at her office or home, where they were delivered in a diplomatic pouch by a security agent. Abedin, like many State Department officials, found the government network technology to be cumbersome, and she had great trouble printing documents there, investigative records show. As a result, she sometimes transferred emails from her unclassified State Department account to either her Yahoo account or her account on Clinton’s server, and printed the emails from there. It is not clear whether she ever transferred official emails to the account she used for her husband’s campaign.
Abedin would use this procedure for printing documents when she received emails she believed Clinton needed to see and when the Secretary forwarded emails to her for printing. Abedin told the FBI she would often print these emails without reading them. Abedin printed a large number of emails this way, in part because, investigative records show, other staff members considered her Clinton’s “gatekeeper” and often sent Abedin electronic communications they wanted the Secretary to see.
This procedure for printing documents, the government official says, appears to be how the newly discovered emails ended up on the laptop shared by Abedin and her husband. It is unclear whether any of those documents were downloaded onto the laptop off of her personal email accounts or were saved on an external storage device, such as a flash drive, and then transferred to the shared computer. There is also evidence that the laptop was used to send emails from Abedin to Clinton; however, none of those emails are the ones being examined by the FBI. Moreover, unless she was told by Abedin in every instance, Clinton could not have known what device her aide was using to transmit electronic information to her.
If the FBI determines that any of the documents that ended up on the shared device were classified, Abedin could be deemed to have mishandled them. In order to prove that was a criminal offense, however, investigators would have to establish that Abedin had intended to disclose the contents of those classified documents, or that she knew she was mishandling that information.
If the documents were not classified, no crime was committed. <<
Meaning, by Huma Abedin.
>> His decision to immediately reveal this discovery was not a partisan act, although it was a horribly mishandled one. Arguably, he had to issue his letter because of previous statements he had made to Congress. In September, he testified that the bureau had completed its review of the evidence in the case and found no crimes had been committed. With the discovery of the information on the laptop shared by Weiner and Abedin, that sworn statement was no longer true, and there was new evidence that needed to be examined. As a result, Comey felt he was obligated to inform the committees as quickly as possible that his previous statement was now incorrect.
.... In a communication to bureau employees, Comey described his letter to Congress as an attempt to thread a needle – amend his testimony while not disclosing details of an ongoing investigation. The combination, however, created a circumstance where politicians are filling in the blanks, creating a storyline of corruption that was not justified by the evidence developed by the bureau. Making it worse, the communication to the bureau employees is far more detailed than what Comey issued to Congress.
“There is a significant risk of being misunderstood,” Comey told the bureau employees in the communication, explaining why he was so vague in his letter to Congress. “It would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression.”
... The truth is much less explosive. There is no indication the emails in question were withheld by Clinton during the investigation, the law enforcement official told Newsweek, nor does the discovery suggest she did anything illegal. Also, none of the emails were to or from Clinton, the official said. Moreover, despite the widespread claims in the media that this development had prompted the FBI to “reopen” of the case, it did not; such investigations are never actually closed, and it is common for law enforcement to discover new information that needs to be examined.<< Newsweek
There's the context the "scandal" mongers didn't bother to read.
Anybody who reads a headline and then just stops there is a complete idiot.
If it weren't you I would swear the poster was playing stupid. Her crimes are deleting 30,000 emails to hide them from a subpoena. That is Felony Obstruction of Justice. She also violated the National Archives Act. A Gross Misdemeanor. She used a private, non secured server for her SOS emails. A FELONY. I can go on but stupid people, like you, simply can't understand the obvious.
I haven't been following that. Was she charged with something?
Yeah, we understand you slaves don't understand. Truly we do. Suffice to say if she were a repub and had done half of the shit she has done you would be demanding that repubs head on a pike, so you're nothing more than your garden variety dumbass political hack.
Character assassination in no way reduces the released information or its relevance. It is telling that virtually no one on the left is willing to address what has been released while they are actively trying to establish and degenerate its source.Comes original presser said Hillary's a criminal, but the FBI didn't think there was any intent on her part.
Riiight
Been drinking tonight Frank, "Comes original presser" ..."Riight" - are those keys a little hard to find tonight, huh Frank?
Fredo, Comey laid out Hillary's criminal activity, he was very clear that she broke the law in mishandling classified information then excused it by saying her criminal activity lacked intent
Mens rea Frank, it is the philosophy of the law of our land. All things considered, a vote for Trump is a vote for bigotry, hate and fascism and will drive the final nail into the coffin for democracy in America, if enough voters cast their vote in his favor.
Nothing in the released e-mails suggest anything evil in the mind of HRC; Trump's spoken record suggests the camps the right wing always claimed were created by FEMA - under President Obama's orders - would become a reality; Trump cannot tolerate dissent or criticism, he attacks Journalists, women and those who competed against him for the nomination. He is unstable and dangerous in the opinion of many life long Republicans, many Independents and most Democrats.
One source, Wikileaks, with an obvious effort to harm HRC and influence our elections, has released e-mails which may or may not be accurate, a source run by a man hiding from the law considered a person of interest in a rape:
"WikiLeaks founder Assange has been holed up at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for the last four years to avoid extradition to Sweden, where prosecutors want to question him about 2010 allegations that he raped a female WikiLeaks volunteer.
Lust does not cause a man to rape, rape is a means of exercising power and control over the victim. Since it is unlikely Assange can terrorize women while in a self imposed exile, what better way for him to take care of his needs than to attempt to prevent HRC from having the power of the presidency, of the most powerful nation in the world?
Comes original presser said Hillary's a criminal, but the FBI didn't think there was any intent on her part.
Riiight
Been drinking tonight Frank, "Comes original presser" ..."Riight" - are those keys a little hard to find tonight, huh Frank?
Fredo, Comey laid out Hillary's criminal activity, he was very clear that she broke the law in mishandling classified information then excused it by saying her criminal activity lacked intent
Mens rea Frank, it is the philosophy of the law of our land. All things considered, a vote for Trump is a vote for bigotry, hate and fascism and will drive the final nail into the coffin for democracy in America, if enough voters cast their vote in his favor.
Nothing in the released e-mails suggest anything evil in the mind of HRC; Trump's spoken record suggests the camps the right wing always claimed were created by FEMA - under President Obama's orders - would become a reality; Trump cannot tolerate dissent or criticism, he attacks Journalists, women and those who competed against him for the nomination. He is unstable and dangerous in the opinion of many life long Republicans, many Independents and most Democrats.
One source, Wikileaks, with an obvious effort to harm HRC and influence our elections, has released e-mails which may or may not be accurate, a source run by a man hiding from the law considered a person of interest in a rape:
"WikiLeaks founder Assange has been holed up at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for the last four years to avoid extradition to Sweden, where prosecutors want to question him about 2010 allegations that he raped a female WikiLeaks volunteer.
Lust does not cause a man to rape, rape is a means of exercising power and control over the victim. Since it is unlikely Assange can terrorize women while in a self imposed exile, what better way for him to take care of his needs than to attempt to prevent HRC from having the power of the presidency, of the most powerful nation in the world?
All of Grizz aside, and that is a lot of bs to push aside, can anybody show me that she is the target of the probe?
I don't think they can.
And the backlash against the Trumpies will be yuuuuuge.
In your opinion, yes.Comes original presser said Hillary's a criminal, but the FBI didn't think there was any intent on her part.
Riiight
Been drinking tonight Frank, "Comes original presser" ..."Riight" - are those keys a little hard to find tonight, huh Frank?
Fredo, Comey laid out Hillary's criminal activity, he was very clear that she broke the law in mishandling classified information then excused it by saying her criminal activity lacked intent
Mens rea Frank, it is the philosophy of the law of our land. All things considered, a vote for Trump is a vote for bigotry, hate and fascism and will drive the final nail into the coffin for democracy in America, if enough voters cast their vote in his favor.
Nothing in the released e-mails suggest anything evil in the mind of HRC; Trump's spoken record suggests the camps the right wing always claimed were created by FEMA - under President Obama's orders - would become a reality; Trump cannot tolerate dissent or criticism, he attacks Journalists, women and those who competed against him for the nomination. He is unstable and dangerous in the opinion of many life long Republicans, many Independents and most Democrats.
One source, Wikileaks, with an obvious effort to harm HRC and influence our elections, has released e-mails which may or may not be accurate, a source run by a man hiding from the law considered a person of interest in a rape:
"WikiLeaks founder Assange has been holed up at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for the last four years to avoid extradition to Sweden, where prosecutors want to question him about 2010 allegations that he raped a female WikiLeaks volunteer.
Lust does not cause a man to rape, rape is a means of exercising power and control over the victim. Since it is unlikely Assange can terrorize women while in a self imposed exile, what better way for him to take care of his needs than to attempt to prevent HRC from having the power of the presidency, of the most powerful nation in the world?
Hillary has demonstrated mens rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime) in no less than the following ways:
That's a consciousness of guilt and fully demonstrates she knew exactly what she was doing in hiding her criminal activity
- maintained her private email server so the emails would not be available to the entity that employed her,
- Failed to comply with an order to turn order files sought in conjunction with an investigation
- physically destroyed 4 servers and her cell phones
- used software to wipe the servers clean and the emails unreadable
lolDo we really want a director of the FBI engaged in a partisan political matter? His initial comments went way beyond the scope of the investigation; after finding no crime had been done, he then engaged in character assassination of HRC. In fact, it is my opinion that Comey went far beyone misfeasance and is guilty of a crime, the abuse of power, i.e. malfeasance.
We clearly don't want a director of the FBI who is a partisan hack, and who would engage in such reckless, irresponsible behavior because he's trying to influence the election to the disadvantage of Clinton.Do we really want a director of the FBI engaged in a partisan political matter? His initial comments went way beyond the scope of the investigation; after finding no crime had been done, he then engaged in character assassination of HRC. In fact, it is my opinion that Comey went far beyone misfeasance and is guilty of a crime, the abuse of power, i.e. malfeasance.
In your opinion, yes.Comes original presser said Hillary's a criminal, but the FBI didn't think there was any intent on her part.
Riiight
Been drinking tonight Frank, "Comes original presser" ..."Riight" - are those keys a little hard to find tonight, huh Frank?
Fredo, Comey laid out Hillary's criminal activity, he was very clear that she broke the law in mishandling classified information then excused it by saying her criminal activity lacked intent
Mens rea Frank, it is the philosophy of the law of our land. All things considered, a vote for Trump is a vote for bigotry, hate and fascism and will drive the final nail into the coffin for democracy in America, if enough voters cast their vote in his favor.
Nothing in the released e-mails suggest anything evil in the mind of HRC; Trump's spoken record suggests the camps the right wing always claimed were created by FEMA - under President Obama's orders - would become a reality; Trump cannot tolerate dissent or criticism, he attacks Journalists, women and those who competed against him for the nomination. He is unstable and dangerous in the opinion of many life long Republicans, many Independents and most Democrats.
One source, Wikileaks, with an obvious effort to harm HRC and influence our elections, has released e-mails which may or may not be accurate, a source run by a man hiding from the law considered a person of interest in a rape:
"WikiLeaks founder Assange has been holed up at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for the last four years to avoid extradition to Sweden, where prosecutors want to question him about 2010 allegations that he raped a female WikiLeaks volunteer.
Lust does not cause a man to rape, rape is a means of exercising power and control over the victim. Since it is unlikely Assange can terrorize women while in a self imposed exile, what better way for him to take care of his needs than to attempt to prevent HRC from having the power of the presidency, of the most powerful nation in the world?
Hillary has demonstrated mens rea (the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime) in no less than the following ways:
That's a consciousness of guilt and fully demonstrates she knew exactly what she was doing in hiding her criminal activity
- maintained her private email server so the emails would not be available to the entity that employed her,
- Failed to comply with an order to turn order files sought in conjunction with an investigation
- physically destroyed 4 servers and her cell phones
- used software to wipe the servers clean and the emails unreadable
In facts, no.
What "crime" is that?
"Thinking people" is an interesting phrase, since already today I've read several references here to yesterday's Comey statement as a "scandal". When I press on what this "scandal" is ---- nobody can articulate it. Best answer I got was that "Hillary may have had info on her computer".
No shit. EVERYBODY has info on their computer. But that's not the issue, and they're not interested in what the issue actually is -- they're interested in selling the idea of "scandal", with no basis, hoping nobody will question them.
That's why I'm here.
>> The disclosure by the Federal Bureau of Investigation late on Friday, October 28 that it had discovered potential new evidence in its inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s handling of her personal email when she was Secretary of State has virtually nothing to do with any actions taken by the Democratic nominee, according to government records and an official with knowledge of the investigation, who spoke to Newsweek on condition of anonymity.
.... This new evidence relates to how Abedin managed her emails. She maintained four email accounts—an unclassified State Department account, another on the clintonemail.com domain and a third on Yahoo. The fourth was linked to her husband’s account; she used it to support his activities when he was running for Congress, investigative records show. Abedin, who did not know Clinton used a private server for her emails, told the bureau in an April interview that she used the account on the clintonemail.com domain only for issues related to the Secretary’s personal affairs, such as communicating with her friends. For work-related records, Abedin primarily used the email account provided to her by the State Department.
Because Clinton preferred to read documents on paper rather than on a screen, emails and other files were often printed out and provided to her either at her office or home, where they were delivered in a diplomatic pouch by a security agent. Abedin, like many State Department officials, found the government network technology to be cumbersome, and she had great trouble printing documents there, investigative records show. As a result, she sometimes transferred emails from her unclassified State Department account to either her Yahoo account or her account on Clinton’s server, and printed the emails from there. It is not clear whether she ever transferred official emails to the account she used for her husband’s campaign.
Abedin would use this procedure for printing documents when she received emails she believed Clinton needed to see and when the Secretary forwarded emails to her for printing. Abedin told the FBI she would often print these emails without reading them. Abedin printed a large number of emails this way, in part because, investigative records show, other staff members considered her Clinton’s “gatekeeper” and often sent Abedin electronic communications they wanted the Secretary to see.
This procedure for printing documents, the government official says, appears to be how the newly discovered emails ended up on the laptop shared by Abedin and her husband. It is unclear whether any of those documents were downloaded onto the laptop off of her personal email accounts or were saved on an external storage device, such as a flash drive, and then transferred to the shared computer. There is also evidence that the laptop was used to send emails from Abedin to Clinton; however, none of those emails are the ones being examined by the FBI. Moreover, unless she was told by Abedin in every instance, Clinton could not have known what device her aide was using to transmit electronic information to her.
If the FBI determines that any of the documents that ended up on the shared device were classified, Abedin could be deemed to have mishandled them. In order to prove that was a criminal offense, however, investigators would have to establish that Abedin had intended to disclose the contents of those classified documents, or that she knew she was mishandling that information.
If the documents were not classified, no crime was committed. <<
Meaning, by Huma Abedin.
>> His decision to immediately reveal this discovery was not a partisan act, although it was a horribly mishandled one. Arguably, he had to issue his letter because of previous statements he had made to Congress. In September, he testified that the bureau had completed its review of the evidence in the case and found no crimes had been committed. With the discovery of the information on the laptop shared by Weiner and Abedin, that sworn statement was no longer true, and there was new evidence that needed to be examined. As a result, Comey felt he was obligated to inform the committees as quickly as possible that his previous statement was now incorrect.
.... In a communication to bureau employees, Comey described his letter to Congress as an attempt to thread a needle – amend his testimony while not disclosing details of an ongoing investigation. The combination, however, created a circumstance where politicians are filling in the blanks, creating a storyline of corruption that was not justified by the evidence developed by the bureau. Making it worse, the communication to the bureau employees is far more detailed than what Comey issued to Congress.
“There is a significant risk of being misunderstood,” Comey told the bureau employees in the communication, explaining why he was so vague in his letter to Congress. “It would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression.”
... The truth is much less explosive. There is no indication the emails in question were withheld by Clinton during the investigation, the law enforcement official told Newsweek, nor does the discovery suggest she did anything illegal. Also, none of the emails were to or from Clinton, the official said. Moreover, despite the widespread claims in the media that this development had prompted the FBI to “reopen” of the case, it did not; such investigations are never actually closed, and it is common for law enforcement to discover new information that needs to be examined.<< Newsweek
There's the context the "scandal" mongers didn't bother to read.
Anybody who reads a headline and then just stops there is a complete idiot.
If it weren't you I would swear the poster was playing stupid. Her crimes are deleting 30,000 emails to hide them from a subpoena. That is Felony Obstruction of Justice. She also violated the National Archives Act. A Gross Misdemeanor. She used a private, non secured server for her SOS emails. A FELONY. I can go on but stupid people, like you, simply can't understand the obvious.
That's fascinating. Why didn't you come forward with your proof during the investigation? I'm sure the investigators never thought to check any of those things, because they didn't think there was anything worth prosecuting.
Uhhhh, they already have the proof clown boy. Comey said they chose to ignore it. She's politically protected. Duh. Oh wait. You ARE stupid.
Comey said no reasonable prosecutor would pursue the case you dumb goober. Of course someone like you who thinks our own government is the enemy and for whom every crazy conspiracy theory is a loved conspiracy theory would have problems understanding that.
And I talked to the Attorney General of my State just this morning and he said, as have several Federal Prosecutors, that they would have leaped at the chance so comey is lying. Go figure, he has all sorts of connections to the clinton crime family foundation. They are all as thick as thieves. Which, not surprisingly, they are.
Do we really want a director of the FBI engaged in a partisan political matter? His initial comments went way beyond the scope of the investigation; after finding no crime had been done, he then engaged in character assassination of HRC. In fact, it is my opinion that Comey went far beyone misfeasance and is guilty of a crime, the abuse of power, i.e. malfeasance.
No, it’s perfectly understood that you and other desperate rightwing partisan hacks will contrive and attempt to propagate any ridiculous lie in an effort to win an election you’re destined to lose.What "crime" is that?
"Thinking people" is an interesting phrase, since already today I've read several references here to yesterday's Comey statement as a "scandal". When I press on what this "scandal" is ---- nobody can articulate it. Best answer I got was that "Hillary may have had info on her computer".
No shit. EVERYBODY has info on their computer. But that's not the issue, and they're not interested in what the issue actually is -- they're interested in selling the idea of "scandal", with no basis, hoping nobody will question them.
That's why I'm here.
>> The disclosure by the Federal Bureau of Investigation late on Friday, October 28 that it had discovered potential new evidence in its inquiry into Hillary Clinton’s handling of her personal email when she was Secretary of State has virtually nothing to do with any actions taken by the Democratic nominee, according to government records and an official with knowledge of the investigation, who spoke to Newsweek on condition of anonymity.
.... This new evidence relates to how Abedin managed her emails. She maintained four email accounts—an unclassified State Department account, another on the clintonemail.com domain and a third on Yahoo. The fourth was linked to her husband’s account; she used it to support his activities when he was running for Congress, investigative records show. Abedin, who did not know Clinton used a private server for her emails, told the bureau in an April interview that she used the account on the clintonemail.com domain only for issues related to the Secretary’s personal affairs, such as communicating with her friends. For work-related records, Abedin primarily used the email account provided to her by the State Department.
Because Clinton preferred to read documents on paper rather than on a screen, emails and other files were often printed out and provided to her either at her office or home, where they were delivered in a diplomatic pouch by a security agent. Abedin, like many State Department officials, found the government network technology to be cumbersome, and she had great trouble printing documents there, investigative records show. As a result, she sometimes transferred emails from her unclassified State Department account to either her Yahoo account or her account on Clinton’s server, and printed the emails from there. It is not clear whether she ever transferred official emails to the account she used for her husband’s campaign.
Abedin would use this procedure for printing documents when she received emails she believed Clinton needed to see and when the Secretary forwarded emails to her for printing. Abedin told the FBI she would often print these emails without reading them. Abedin printed a large number of emails this way, in part because, investigative records show, other staff members considered her Clinton’s “gatekeeper” and often sent Abedin electronic communications they wanted the Secretary to see.
This procedure for printing documents, the government official says, appears to be how the newly discovered emails ended up on the laptop shared by Abedin and her husband. It is unclear whether any of those documents were downloaded onto the laptop off of her personal email accounts or were saved on an external storage device, such as a flash drive, and then transferred to the shared computer. There is also evidence that the laptop was used to send emails from Abedin to Clinton; however, none of those emails are the ones being examined by the FBI. Moreover, unless she was told by Abedin in every instance, Clinton could not have known what device her aide was using to transmit electronic information to her.
If the FBI determines that any of the documents that ended up on the shared device were classified, Abedin could be deemed to have mishandled them. In order to prove that was a criminal offense, however, investigators would have to establish that Abedin had intended to disclose the contents of those classified documents, or that she knew she was mishandling that information.
If the documents were not classified, no crime was committed. <<
Meaning, by Huma Abedin.
>> His decision to immediately reveal this discovery was not a partisan act, although it was a horribly mishandled one. Arguably, he had to issue his letter because of previous statements he had made to Congress. In September, he testified that the bureau had completed its review of the evidence in the case and found no crimes had been committed. With the discovery of the information on the laptop shared by Weiner and Abedin, that sworn statement was no longer true, and there was new evidence that needed to be examined. As a result, Comey felt he was obligated to inform the committees as quickly as possible that his previous statement was now incorrect.
.... In a communication to bureau employees, Comey described his letter to Congress as an attempt to thread a needle – amend his testimony while not disclosing details of an ongoing investigation. The combination, however, created a circumstance where politicians are filling in the blanks, creating a storyline of corruption that was not justified by the evidence developed by the bureau. Making it worse, the communication to the bureau employees is far more detailed than what Comey issued to Congress.
“There is a significant risk of being misunderstood,” Comey told the bureau employees in the communication, explaining why he was so vague in his letter to Congress. “It would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression.”
... The truth is much less explosive. There is no indication the emails in question were withheld by Clinton during the investigation, the law enforcement official told Newsweek, nor does the discovery suggest she did anything illegal. Also, none of the emails were to or from Clinton, the official said. Moreover, despite the widespread claims in the media that this development had prompted the FBI to “reopen” of the case, it did not; such investigations are never actually closed, and it is common for law enforcement to discover new information that needs to be examined.<< Newsweek
There's the context the "scandal" mongers didn't bother to read.
Anybody who reads a headline and then just stops there is a complete idiot.
If it weren't you I would swear the poster was playing stupid. Her crimes are deleting 30,000 emails to hide them from a subpoena. That is Felony Obstruction of Justice. She also violated the National Archives Act. A Gross Misdemeanor. She used a private, non secured server for her SOS emails. A FELONY. I can go on but stupid people, like you, simply can't understand the obvious.
I haven't been following that. Was she charged with something?
Yeah, we understand you slaves don't understand. Truly we do. Suffice to say if she were a repub and had done half of the shit she has done you would be demanding that repubs head on a pike, so you're nothing more than your garden variety dumbass political hack.
I'm a lefty dummy. However, unlike you I have a brain and when i see unethical behavior I call it out and demand it be corrected. You and your cohorts on the other hand don't. So long as it is your candidate they can do no wrong., Ignore all the mountains of evidence you will. But, we thinkers understand that the end of that road leads to a police state.
