John Nolte...the truth about Comey's testimony...

[Old Rocks]

Comey has a reputation that he is a straight up fellow, follows the law, no matter who it involves. His reputation for truthfulness far exceeds that of the fat senile old orange clown.

7 whoppers from President Trump's first 100 days in office

Seven whoppers from Trump’s first 100 days

Report: Trump made 488 false or misleading claims in his first 100 days in office

Report: Trump made 488 false or misleading claims in his first 100 days in office
A Washington Post analysis looked at just how often Trump gets things wrong.

Here are 100 Lies and False Statements From Trump’s First 100 Days

Here are 100 Lies and False Statements From Trump’s First 100 Days
A new era in American politics. And a new challenge for citizens and journalists.

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

John Nolte breaks down exactly how vile a person james comey is....

The Endless List of Sins Committed By J. Edgar Comey

1. Comey Covered Up Loretta Lynch's Cover Up

Until it could make him look like The Last Honest Man In DC, Comey withheld the fact from the public, and the necessary authorities, that President Barry's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, ordered him to cover up an investigation of Hillary Clinton by using the word "matter."

But wait, it gets impossibly worse…

2. Comey Participated In Loretta Lynch's Cover Up

Comey did it. Comey used the word "matter." He participated in the cover up. But only when dipping Lynch in the grease would make him look bipartisan, did he bother to inform anyone. Speaking of informing the public…

3. Comey Lied About Trump NOT Being Under Investigation

Comey watched for months as Democrats and the national media relentlessly lied 24/7 about President Trump being under investigation over the Russia Hoax. Comey not only sat there and let this faux fury go on and on and on and on, Comey also sat on the truth that the entire Russian collusion story was a lie. Comey knew that no one in authority was investigating Trump (and therefore the whole collusion thing was a manufactured media hoax) and so, in order to blackmail the president into keeping his job, he refused to tell the American people the truth. You see, it works like this…

When the public is led to believe a certain man is investigating the president, this is the man with the safest job in DC. Therefore, Comey needed to keep this illusion alive, not just as a means to remain director of the FBI, but the overall leverage it gave him over a sitting president.


During his Thursday testimony Comey said, "I was worried very much of being in kind of a — kind of a J. Edgar Hoover-type situation." No, he wasn't. Because we now know that through a breathtaking lie of omission, that is precisely what he did.

Not telling the American pubic the truth about their own president, especially after you have gone on national television to dramatically announce that the FBI is investigating the ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, is an astonishing lie, an unethical and un-American lie of omission.

To begin with, one of the primary jobs of law enforcement is to protect the presumption of innocence.

If someone, not just the president, is not under investigation, it is your ethical and constitutional duty to not allow an investigation that does not exist to damage that person's reputation. To do otherwise is the stuff of banana republics.

Explain this. How is not adhering to a request from the attorney general to change the word "investigation" into "matter". Something that is an attempt to downplay a narrative, in any way bad?

If it is not an investigation then a grand jury can't be summoned and no subpoenas can be issued. It's, also, clearly political interference in an ongoing investigation.

- Comey didn't grant lynch's request.

He absolutely did so.

And referring to a cat as dog doesn't make it go woef. You can provide me with legal text supporting your statement that the change of reference would preclude it being treated and prosecuted as a criminal investigation?

The reason for the "sideways" comment must have been Giacalone's realization that DOJ and FBI senior management had decided that the investigation would not work in tandem with a federal grand jury. That is nearly fatal to any government criminal case. In criminal cases, the FBI and the DOJ cannot issue subpoenas for testimony or for tangible things; only grand juries can.

Giacalone knew that without a grand jury, the FBI would be toothless, as it would have no subpoena power. He also knew that without a grand jury, the FBI would have a hard time persuading any federal judge to issue search warrants. A judge would perceive the need for search warrants to be not acute in such a case because to a judge, the absence of a grand jury can only mean a case is "sideways" and not a serious investigation.


What Happened to the FBI?, by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

 

[Call Sign Chaos]

The only time he followed his principals....is when it was protecting democrats, and when it hurt republican Presidents....


He was consistent when he didn't adhere to her request.

He did.....

He was consistent when he didn't adhere to Republican pressure to prosecute Hillary.

Everyone thought she would be the next President...he protected her since he listed all of the felonies she committed, and then didn't go forward...

The guy is an asshole....

Selecting those parts of history that fit in your narrative don't suit you.
In Sunday Letter, FBI Director Comey Tells Congress: 'We Have Not Changed Our Conclusions' on Clinton Investigation
The letter is in there. It clearly says investigation not matter. dated now 6. So no, he didn't adhere to Lynch's request.
He said no prosecutor would take the case. Facts proved him right. Even now no prosecutor is trying to charge her. As to your assertion he ONLY protects Democrats. That letter just before the election screwed Democrats. But of course that doesn't fit your narrative..

Let's see what do we know to be the facts. One that James Comey himself was a prosecutor and therefore all that BS he was trying to pass off during the hearing acting like aw shucks he didn't know this or that was utterly ridiculous. Two: NO ONE except he and the corrupt left are pushing the narrative prosecutors would have nothing to charge Hillary with. I mean it really is insulting how stupid these government officials think the average American must be. To anyone paying even the slightest attention, Hillary has been nothing but an obvious career criminal who among a long list of other crimes has a serious body count in her background of highly suspicious deaths.

And even if all of her past crimes were left hidden and just the present was taken into consideration, she wouldn't fair any better in a court where actual justice is served. At the very least she's committed perjury and obstruction of justice when she deleted 33,000 emails and smashed 13 blackberries which are both felonies. But the mother lode and most serious felony of all was when she was in clear violation of the Espionage Act after passing top secret information over a wide open email server which if convicted could carry the DEATH PENALTY for treason. And that doesn't even take into account the probability that she was involved in yet another homicide which was that of Seth Rich who was the 27 year old DNC staffer that was murdered who just coincidentally happened to be the one that was leaking to Wiki Leaks Hillary was hellbent on locating. Call me crazy but I think she found him.

So what narrative were you referring to again?

Wow there's so much utter bullshit in this post it's hard to get started. Let's study your facts.
- I already tried to explain the difference between knowing and thinking. The fact that he was a prosecutor makes him particularly aware of the difference. Nothing hurts somebodies credibility more then having to come back to a previous statement and say " I had that wrong", any lawyer worth his salt would use that one slip up to invalidate the entire testimony.
-You have a REPUBLICAN,HOUSE,SENATE,PRESIDENT,ATTORNEY GENERAL, the FBI doesn't prosecute the justice department does. Comey can say," nobody will prosecute this", but it's the justice department that ultimately prosecutes. The fact that nobodies besides a few house members mentions it anymore, is a testimony that confirms Comey's statements.
-She didn't destroy anything. Some guy who administered her server did.

Ya it's called conspiracy to destroy evidence. One doesn't have to personally pull a trigger to be culpable of murder.

Comey investigated it but he couldn't determine intent. And her server was not something open to the public. It was a PRIVATE, as in not public server. Should she have done it? No of course not. Did she do it with nefarious intent? I have yet to seem proof of that. Btw Trump still uses his personal phone. He had a meeting over a North Korean missile launch amongst the guests of Mar O Lago, and he GAVE Russia code word level intel. Why is it so bad wen Clinton does it but not when Trump does it??
- As to Seth Rich, it's a story even FOX had to retract and if you use it is being FACTUAL says all I need to know about your integrity.

Trump has final say on classified ratings Clinton had no authority to have a private server or to share classified intel with friendly reporters with no security clearance which she did.

Fact check: Trump’s claim Clinton destroyed emails after getting a subpoena from Congress
THE FACT CHECKER | Trump is technically correct on the timeline, but Clinton’s staff had requested the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena, according to the FBI’s August 2016 report. Moreover, there’s no evidence Clinton deleted the emails in anticipation of the subpoena, and FBI director James B. Comey has said his agency’s investigation found no evidence that any work-related emails were “intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”
-So you are right one hasn't pull the trigger to be culpable in murder. But one has to have the intention of murdering someone to be culpable of murder. No intention was ever established.
- So to you it's not the action of having or sharing, classified information on non secure servers/devices that's an issue, but rather if you are allowed to do so that's an issue?

Bullshit, emails were being destroyed AFTER the preservation order was issued:


the preservation request from the Committee on Benghazi." In his first interview with the FBI, the staffer told agents that "he did not recall seeing the preservation request referenced in the March 9, 2015 e-mail." But then, in the May 3 follow-up interview, the staffer "indicated that, at the time he made the deletions in March 2015, he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's e-mail date on the [Platte River Networks] server." The staffer also told the FBI he did not consult any colleagues, company legal counsel or anyone else "regarding the meaning of the preservation request."

According to the FBI, the Platte River Networks staff had a conference call with Kendall and Mills on March 31. By then, the deleting was done. What did they talk about? The FBI report says Platte River's attorney advised the staffer "not to comment on the conversation with Kendall based upon the assertion of attorney-client privilege."

There's no doubt that Clinton intended to destroy her email archives after choosing which ones to send to the State Department. That's what Mills' December 2014 directive was apparently intended to do. Given that the Benghazi investigation was well under way and there had been multiple document requests and production agreements, the effect of Mills' directive, had it been carried out at the time she sent it, would have been to destroy the evidence that had not been handed over to the State Department before anyone knew to ask for it. But apparently the Platte River Networks staffer's carelessness led to the emails not being destroyed in December 2014, remaining in existence until March 2015, when their existence was publicly disclosed and another subpoena issued for them. Then they were destroyed.

It's clear Clinton did not turn over all her work-related emails to the State Department on Dec. 5, 2014, as she claimed on many occasions. The FBI said it recovered "17,448 unique work-related and personal e-mails" that Clinton had not turned over. Of those, at least 30 were said to contain references to Benghazi and thus would have been responsive to the various congressional requests and subpoenas going back to Sept. 20, 2012


From FBI fragments, a question: Did Team Clinton destroy evidence under subpoena?

 

[forkup]

John Nolte breaks down exactly how vile a person james comey is....

The Endless List of Sins Committed By J. Edgar Comey

1. Comey Covered Up Loretta Lynch's Cover Up

Until it could make him look like The Last Honest Man In DC, Comey withheld the fact from the public, and the necessary authorities, that President Barry's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, ordered him to cover up an investigation of Hillary Clinton by using the word "matter."

But wait, it gets impossibly worse…

2. Comey Participated In Loretta Lynch's Cover Up

Comey did it. Comey used the word "matter." He participated in the cover up. But only when dipping Lynch in the grease would make him look bipartisan, did he bother to inform anyone. Speaking of informing the public…

3. Comey Lied About Trump NOT Being Under Investigation

Comey watched for months as Democrats and the national media relentlessly lied 24/7 about President Trump being under investigation over the Russia Hoax. Comey not only sat there and let this faux fury go on and on and on and on, Comey also sat on the truth that the entire Russian collusion story was a lie. Comey knew that no one in authority was investigating Trump (and therefore the whole collusion thing was a manufactured media hoax) and so, in order to blackmail the president into keeping his job, he refused to tell the American people the truth. You see, it works like this…

When the public is led to believe a certain man is investigating the president, this is the man with the safest job in DC. Therefore, Comey needed to keep this illusion alive, not just as a means to remain director of the FBI, but the overall leverage it gave him over a sitting president.


During his Thursday testimony Comey said, "I was worried very much of being in kind of a — kind of a J. Edgar Hoover-type situation." No, he wasn't. Because we now know that through a breathtaking lie of omission, that is precisely what he did.

Not telling the American pubic the truth about their own president, especially after you have gone on national television to dramatically announce that the FBI is investigating the ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, is an astonishing lie, an unethical and un-American lie of omission.

To begin with, one of the primary jobs of law enforcement is to protect the presumption of innocence.

If someone, not just the president, is not under investigation, it is your ethical and constitutional duty to not allow an investigation that does not exist to damage that person's reputation. To do otherwise is the stuff of banana republics.

Explain this. How is not adhering to a request from the attorney general to change the word "investigation" into "matter". Something that is an attempt to downplay a narrative, in any way bad?

If it is not an investigation then a grand jury can't be summoned and no subpoenas can be issued. It's, also, clearly political interference in an ongoing investigation.

- Comey didn't grant lynch's request.

He absolutely did so.

And referring to a cat as dog doesn't make it go woef. You can provide me with legal text supporting your statement that the change of reference would preclude it being treated and prosecuted as a criminal investigation?

The reason for the "sideways" comment must have been Giacalone's realization that DOJ and FBI senior management had decided that the investigation would not work in tandem with a federal grand jury. That is nearly fatal to any government criminal case. In criminal cases, the FBI and the DOJ cannot issue subpoenas for testimony or for tangible things; only grand juries can.

Giacalone knew that without a grand jury, the FBI would be toothless, as it would have no subpoena power. He also knew that without a grand jury, the FBI would have a hard time persuading any federal judge to issue search warrants. A judge would perceive the need for search warrants to be not acute in such a case because to a judge, the absence of a grand jury can only mean a case is "sideways" and not a serious investigation.


What Happened to the FBI?, by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

Here is comey's statement (letter included) siting investigative steps, unrelated criminal investigation, investigative team. Nov 6. no mention of the email matter
Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System — FBI this is his july statement. Calls it an investigation.

In Sunday Letter, FBI Director Comey Tells Congress: 'We Have Not Changed Our Conclusions' on Clinton Investigation

I'm sure you made a point, just not what I asked. I asked you to come up with legal language that makes the connection between calling it a matter and it all of a sudden not being an investigation anymore?
And you didn't answer my question, pretty important to know what your position is.
- So to you it's not the action of having or sharing, classified information on non secure servers/devices that's an issue, but rather if you are allowed to do so that's an issue?

 

[forkup]

Selecting those parts of history that fit in your narrative don't suit you.
In Sunday Letter, FBI Director Comey Tells Congress: 'We Have Not Changed Our Conclusions' on Clinton Investigation
The letter is in there. It clearly says investigation not matter. dated now 6. So no, he didn't adhere to Lynch's request.
He said no prosecutor would take the case. Facts proved him right. Even now no prosecutor is trying to charge her. As to your assertion he ONLY protects Democrats. That letter just before the election screwed Democrats. But of course that doesn't fit your narrative..

Let's see what do we know to be the facts. One that James Comey himself was a prosecutor and therefore all that BS he was trying to pass off during the hearing acting like aw shucks he didn't know this or that was utterly ridiculous. Two: NO ONE except he and the corrupt left are pushing the narrative prosecutors would have nothing to charge Hillary with. I mean it really is insulting how stupid these government officials think the average American must be. To anyone paying even the slightest attention, Hillary has been nothing but an obvious career criminal who among a long list of other crimes has a serious body count in her background of highly suspicious deaths.

And even if all of her past crimes were left hidden and just the present was taken into consideration, she wouldn't fair any better in a court where actual justice is served. At the very least she's committed perjury and obstruction of justice when she deleted 33,000 emails and smashed 13 blackberries which are both felonies. But the mother lode and most serious felony of all was when she was in clear violation of the Espionage Act after passing top secret information over a wide open email server which if convicted could carry the DEATH PENALTY for treason. And that doesn't even take into account the probability that she was involved in yet another homicide which was that of Seth Rich who was the 27 year old DNC staffer that was murdered who just coincidentally happened to be the one that was leaking to Wiki Leaks Hillary was hellbent on locating. Call me crazy but I think she found him.

So what narrative were you referring to again?

Wow there's so much utter bullshit in this post it's hard to get started. Let's study your facts.
- I already tried to explain the difference between knowing and thinking. The fact that he was a prosecutor makes him particularly aware of the difference. Nothing hurts somebodies credibility more then having to come back to a previous statement and say " I had that wrong", any lawyer worth his salt would use that one slip up to invalidate the entire testimony.
-You have a REPUBLICAN,HOUSE,SENATE,PRESIDENT,ATTORNEY GENERAL, the FBI doesn't prosecute the justice department does. Comey can say," nobody will prosecute this", but it's the justice department that ultimately prosecutes. The fact that nobodies besides a few house members mentions it anymore, is a testimony that confirms Comey's statements.
-She didn't destroy anything. Some guy who administered her server did.

Ya it's called conspiracy to destroy evidence. One doesn't have to personally pull a trigger to be culpable of murder.

Comey investigated it but he couldn't determine intent. And her server was not something open to the public. It was a PRIVATE, as in not public server. Should she have done it? No of course not. Did she do it with nefarious intent? I have yet to seem proof of that. Btw Trump still uses his personal phone. He had a meeting over a North Korean missile launch amongst the guests of Mar O Lago, and he GAVE Russia code word level intel. Why is it so bad wen Clinton does it but not when Trump does it??
- As to Seth Rich, it's a story even FOX had to retract and if you use it is being FACTUAL says all I need to know about your integrity.

Trump has final say on classified ratings Clinton had no authority to have a private server or to share classified intel with friendly reporters with no security clearance which she did.

Fact check: Trump’s claim Clinton destroyed emails after getting a subpoena from Congress
THE FACT CHECKER | Trump is technically correct on the timeline, but Clinton’s staff had requested the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena, according to the FBI’s August 2016 report. Moreover, there’s no evidence Clinton deleted the emails in anticipation of the subpoena, and FBI director James B. Comey has said his agency’s investigation found no evidence that any work-related emails were “intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”
-So you are right one hasn't pull the trigger to be culpable in murder. But one has to have the intention of murdering someone to be culpable of murder. No intention was ever established.
- So to you it's not the action of having or sharing, classified information on non secure servers/devices that's an issue, but rather if you are allowed to do so that's an issue?

Bullshit, emails were being destroyed AFTER the preservation order was issued:


the preservation request from the Committee on Benghazi." In his first interview with the FBI, the staffer told agents that "he did not recall seeing the preservation request referenced in the March 9, 2015 e-mail." But then, in the May 3 follow-up interview, the staffer "indicated that, at the time he made the deletions in March 2015, he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's e-mail date on the [Platte River Networks] server." The staffer also told the FBI he did not consult any colleagues, company legal counsel or anyone else "regarding the meaning of the preservation request."

According to the FBI, the Platte River Networks staff had a conference call with Kendall and Mills on March 31. By then, the deleting was done. What did they talk about? The FBI report says Platte River's attorney advised the staffer "not to comment on the conversation with Kendall based upon the assertion of attorney-client privilege."

There's no doubt that Clinton intended to destroy her email archives after choosing which ones to send to the State Department. That's what Mills' December 2014 directive was apparently intended to do. Given that the Benghazi investigation was well under way and there had been multiple document requests and production agreements, the effect of Mills' directive, had it been carried out at the time she sent it, would have been to destroy the evidence that had not been handed over to the State Department before anyone knew to ask for it. But apparently the Platte River Networks staffer's carelessness led to the emails not being destroyed in December 2014, remaining in existence until March 2015, when their existence was publicly disclosed and another subpoena issued for them. Then they were destroyed.

It's clear Clinton did not turn over all her work-related emails to the State Department on Dec. 5, 2014, as she claimed on many occasions. The FBI said it recovered "17,448 unique work-related and personal e-mails" that Clinton had not turned over. Of those, at least 30 were said to contain references to Benghazi and thus would have been responsive to the various congressional requests and subpoenas going back to Sept. 20, 2012


From FBI fragments, a question: Did Team Clinton destroy evidence under subpoena?

Just read your article. You know what struck me? There's a lot of allegedlies, supposedlies, there's no "we know" to be found. I'll give you my thoughts on it. First of deleting a mailbox isn't weird, we all done it. I think as secretary of state the sheer volume of e-mails received is staggering enough to make it necessary. So you get subpoenaed; but some of the relevant mail you consider already deleted, after all, you've hired a company to keep track of those kinds of things. But the company you hired hasn't done it so all of a sudden the question comes up did you break the law. Technically yes,but it wasn't intentional nor done with the goal of dodging anything. How do we know this, and remember the relevant pieces have been shown to the BIPARTISAN intelligence committee? About half of those e-mails have been recovered. None of those held anything that was particularly important to the Benghazi investigation. Otherwise Republicans on the committee would have been screaming murder. It's precisely the nature of the recovered deleted emails that lets Comey draw his conclusions about intent.

 

[2aguy]

Let's see what do we know to be the facts. One that James Comey himself was a prosecutor and therefore all that BS he was trying to pass off during the hearing acting like aw shucks he didn't know this or that was utterly ridiculous. Two: NO ONE except he and the corrupt left are pushing the narrative prosecutors would have nothing to charge Hillary with. I mean it really is insulting how stupid these government officials think the average American must be. To anyone paying even the slightest attention, Hillary has been nothing but an obvious career criminal who among a long list of other crimes has a serious body count in her background of highly suspicious deaths.

And even if all of her past crimes were left hidden and just the present was taken into consideration, she wouldn't fair any better in a court where actual justice is served. At the very least she's committed perjury and obstruction of justice when she deleted 33,000 emails and smashed 13 blackberries which are both felonies. But the mother lode and most serious felony of all was when she was in clear violation of the Espionage Act after passing top secret information over a wide open email server which if convicted could carry the DEATH PENALTY for treason. And that doesn't even take into account the probability that she was involved in yet another homicide which was that of Seth Rich who was the 27 year old DNC staffer that was murdered who just coincidentally happened to be the one that was leaking to Wiki Leaks Hillary was hellbent on locating. Call me crazy but I think she found him.

So what narrative were you referring to again?

Wow there's so much utter bullshit in this post it's hard to get started. Let's study your facts.
- I already tried to explain the difference between knowing and thinking. The fact that he was a prosecutor makes him particularly aware of the difference. Nothing hurts somebodies credibility more then having to come back to a previous statement and say " I had that wrong", any lawyer worth his salt would use that one slip up to invalidate the entire testimony.
-You have a REPUBLICAN,HOUSE,SENATE,PRESIDENT,ATTORNEY GENERAL, the FBI doesn't prosecute the justice department does. Comey can say," nobody will prosecute this", but it's the justice department that ultimately prosecutes. The fact that nobodies besides a few house members mentions it anymore, is a testimony that confirms Comey's statements.
-She didn't destroy anything. Some guy who administered her server did.

Ya it's called conspiracy to destroy evidence. One doesn't have to personally pull a trigger to be culpable of murder.

Comey investigated it but he couldn't determine intent. And her server was not something open to the public. It was a PRIVATE, as in not public server. Should she have done it? No of course not. Did she do it with nefarious intent? I have yet to seem proof of that. Btw Trump still uses his personal phone. He had a meeting over a North Korean missile launch amongst the guests of Mar O Lago, and he GAVE Russia code word level intel. Why is it so bad wen Clinton does it but not when Trump does it??
- As to Seth Rich, it's a story even FOX had to retract and if you use it is being FACTUAL says all I need to know about your integrity.

Trump has final say on classified ratings Clinton had no authority to have a private server or to share classified intel with friendly reporters with no security clearance which she did.

Fact check: Trump’s claim Clinton destroyed emails after getting a subpoena from Congress
THE FACT CHECKER | Trump is technically correct on the timeline, but Clinton’s staff had requested the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena, according to the FBI’s August 2016 report. Moreover, there’s no evidence Clinton deleted the emails in anticipation of the subpoena, and FBI director James B. Comey has said his agency’s investigation found no evidence that any work-related emails were “intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”
-So you are right one hasn't pull the trigger to be culpable in murder. But one has to have the intention of murdering someone to be culpable of murder. No intention was ever established.
- So to you it's not the action of having or sharing, classified information on non secure servers/devices that's an issue, but rather if you are allowed to do so that's an issue?

Bullshit, emails were being destroyed AFTER the preservation order was issued:


the preservation request from the Committee on Benghazi." In his first interview with the FBI, the staffer told agents that "he did not recall seeing the preservation request referenced in the March 9, 2015 e-mail." But then, in the May 3 follow-up interview, the staffer "indicated that, at the time he made the deletions in March 2015, he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's e-mail date on the [Platte River Networks] server." The staffer also told the FBI he did not consult any colleagues, company legal counsel or anyone else "regarding the meaning of the preservation request."

According to the FBI, the Platte River Networks staff had a conference call with Kendall and Mills on March 31. By then, the deleting was done. What did they talk about? The FBI report says Platte River's attorney advised the staffer "not to comment on the conversation with Kendall based upon the assertion of attorney-client privilege."

There's no doubt that Clinton intended to destroy her email archives after choosing which ones to send to the State Department. That's what Mills' December 2014 directive was apparently intended to do. Given that the Benghazi investigation was well under way and there had been multiple document requests and production agreements, the effect of Mills' directive, had it been carried out at the time she sent it, would have been to destroy the evidence that had not been handed over to the State Department before anyone knew to ask for it. But apparently the Platte River Networks staffer's carelessness led to the emails not being destroyed in December 2014, remaining in existence until March 2015, when their existence was publicly disclosed and another subpoena issued for them. Then they were destroyed.

It's clear Clinton did not turn over all her work-related emails to the State Department on Dec. 5, 2014, as she claimed on many occasions. The FBI said it recovered "17,448 unique work-related and personal e-mails" that Clinton had not turned over. Of those, at least 30 were said to contain references to Benghazi and thus would have been responsive to the various congressional requests and subpoenas going back to Sept. 20, 2012


From FBI fragments, a question: Did Team Clinton destroy evidence under subpoena?

Just read your article. You know what struck me? There's a lot of allegedlies, supposedlies, there's no "we know" to be found. I'll give you my thoughts on it. First of deleting a mailbox isn't weird, we all done it. I think as secretary of state the sheer volume of e-mails received is staggering enough to make it necessary. So you get subpoenaed; but some of the relevant mail you consider already deleted, after all, you've hired a company to keep track of those kinds of things. But the company you hired hasn't done it so all of a sudden the question comes up did you break the law. Technically yes,but it wasn't intentional nor done with the goal of dodging anything. How do we know this, and remember the relevant pieces have been shown to the BIPARTISAN intelligence committee? About half of those e-mails have been recovered. None of those held anything that was particularly important to the Benghazi investigation. Otherwise Republicans on the committee would have been screaming murder. It's precisely the nature of the recovered deleted emails that lets Comey draw his conclusions about intent.

First of deleting a mailbox isn't weird, we all done it.

Wrong.....we all haven't done it......she was Secretary of State..that server was government property since she conducted government business on it and those emails generated as Secretary of State are not her private emails...and she destroyed them with a high tech program......do you destroy your emails with a high tech program?

Since when is the destruction of evidence under investigation not a crime? And how do you know what the emails uncovered contained...they were destroyed.....after having been put on an illegal, secret server......

Intent is not part of any law when it comes to the protection of government documents...he made that up........and all of the activity .......destroying the servers, smashing the 13 cell phones and black berries and the destruction of 30,000 emails is activity that shows intent to hide a crime........comey is an asshole, who worked to protect democrats at all stages........

 

[Stratford57]

Comey has been the only top person from former administration whom Trump decided to keep and who turned to be a Trojan horse in his administration.

I'm not sure why Trump decided to keep that weasel, but it must have cost him a lot of gray hair. He should have known better: decent people didn't work for such a piece of sh*t like Obama.

 

[Just_Saying]

Wow there's so much utter bullshit in this post it's hard to get started. Let's study your facts.
- I already tried to explain the difference between knowing and thinking. The fact that he was a prosecutor makes him particularly aware of the difference. Nothing hurts somebodies credibility more then having to come back to a previous statement and say " I had that wrong", any lawyer worth his salt would use that one slip up to invalidate the entire testimony.
-You have a REPUBLICAN,HOUSE,SENATE,PRESIDENT,ATTORNEY GENERAL, the FBI doesn't prosecute the justice department does. Comey can say," nobody will prosecute this", but it's the justice department that ultimately prosecutes. The fact that nobodies besides a few house members mentions it anymore, is a testimony that confirms Comey's statements.
-She didn't destroy anything. Some guy who administered her server did.

Ya it's called conspiracy to destroy evidence. One doesn't have to personally pull a trigger to be culpable of murder.

Comey investigated it but he couldn't determine intent. And her server was not something open to the public. It was a PRIVATE, as in not public server. Should she have done it? No of course not. Did she do it with nefarious intent? I have yet to seem proof of that. Btw Trump still uses his personal phone. He had a meeting over a North Korean missile launch amongst the guests of Mar O Lago, and he GAVE Russia code word level intel. Why is it so bad wen Clinton does it but not when Trump does it??
- As to Seth Rich, it's a story even FOX had to retract and if you use it is being FACTUAL says all I need to know about your integrity.

Trump has final say on classified ratings Clinton had no authority to have a private server or to share classified intel with friendly reporters with no security clearance which she did.

Fact check: Trump’s claim Clinton destroyed emails after getting a subpoena from Congress
THE FACT CHECKER | Trump is technically correct on the timeline, but Clinton’s staff had requested the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena, according to the FBI’s August 2016 report. Moreover, there’s no evidence Clinton deleted the emails in anticipation of the subpoena, and FBI director James B. Comey has said his agency’s investigation found no evidence that any work-related emails were “intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”
-So you are right one hasn't pull the trigger to be culpable in murder. But one has to have the intention of murdering someone to be culpable of murder. No intention was ever established.
- So to you it's not the action of having or sharing, classified information on non secure servers/devices that's an issue, but rather if you are allowed to do so that's an issue?

Bullshit, emails were being destroyed AFTER the preservation order was issued:


the preservation request from the Committee on Benghazi." In his first interview with the FBI, the staffer told agents that "he did not recall seeing the preservation request referenced in the March 9, 2015 e-mail." But then, in the May 3 follow-up interview, the staffer "indicated that, at the time he made the deletions in March 2015, he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's e-mail date on the [Platte River Networks] server." The staffer also told the FBI he did not consult any colleagues, company legal counsel or anyone else "regarding the meaning of the preservation request."

According to the FBI, the Platte River Networks staff had a conference call with Kendall and Mills on March 31. By then, the deleting was done. What did they talk about? The FBI report says Platte River's attorney advised the staffer "not to comment on the conversation with Kendall based upon the assertion of attorney-client privilege."

There's no doubt that Clinton intended to destroy her email archives after choosing which ones to send to the State Department. That's what Mills' December 2014 directive was apparently intended to do. Given that the Benghazi investigation was well under way and there had been multiple document requests and production agreements, the effect of Mills' directive, had it been carried out at the time she sent it, would have been to destroy the evidence that had not been handed over to the State Department before anyone knew to ask for it. But apparently the Platte River Networks staffer's carelessness led to the emails not being destroyed in December 2014, remaining in existence until March 2015, when their existence was publicly disclosed and another subpoena issued for them. Then they were destroyed.

It's clear Clinton did not turn over all her work-related emails to the State Department on Dec. 5, 2014, as she claimed on many occasions. The FBI said it recovered "17,448 unique work-related and personal e-mails" that Clinton had not turned over. Of those, at least 30 were said to contain references to Benghazi and thus would have been responsive to the various congressional requests and subpoenas going back to Sept. 20, 2012


From FBI fragments, a question: Did Team Clinton destroy evidence under subpoena?

Just read your article. You know what struck me? There's a lot of allegedlies, supposedlies, there's no "we know" to be found. I'll give you my thoughts on it. First of deleting a mailbox isn't weird, we all done it. I think as secretary of state the sheer volume of e-mails received is staggering enough to make it necessary. So you get subpoenaed; but some of the relevant mail you consider already deleted, after all, you've hired a company to keep track of those kinds of things. But the company you hired hasn't done it so all of a sudden the question comes up did you break the law. Technically yes,but it wasn't intentional nor done with the goal of dodging anything. How do we know this, and remember the relevant pieces have been shown to the BIPARTISAN intelligence committee? About half of those e-mails have been recovered. None of those held anything that was particularly important to the Benghazi investigation. Otherwise Republicans on the committee would have been screaming murder. It's precisely the nature of the recovered deleted emails that lets Comey draw his conclusions about intent.

First of deleting a mailbox isn't weird, we all done it.

Wrong.....we all haven't done it......she was Secretary of State..that server was government property since she conducted government business on it and those emails generated as Secretary of State are not her private emails...and she destroyed them with a high tech program......do you destroy your emails with a high tech program?

Since when is the destruction of evidence under investigation not a crime? And how do you know what the emails uncovered contained...they were destroyed.....after having been put on an illegal, secret server......

Intent is not part of any law when it comes to the protection of government documents...he made that up........and all of the activity .......destroying the servers, smashing the 13 cell phones and black berries and the destruction of 30,000 emails is activity that shows intent to hide a crime........comey is an asshole, who worked to protect democrats at all stages........

So many posts I'm not really sure which to address but here goes. This is to those who are wanting to give the extremely obvious corrupt Comey a pass saying the guy was basically just doing his job when in fact he was acting as the cover man for not only the Clinton's but the entire left.

First of all he covered Hillary Clinton's crimes regarding her email saga and even said she was guilty but that no prosecutor would ever take the case. As it turned out, he was right. He also covered for Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch who met on a plane just before Hillary was to testify before a committee regarding her emails. Did he investigate them and slap either of them with a subpoena though? Hell no, that matter was swept under the rug as well. Then another time Loretta Lynch told Comey to use the term "Matter" when referring to Hillary's email incident instead of "Investigation" which was obstruction of justice as he and Loretta were trying to cover for Hillary again.

Therefore even if all of Hillary's past history of crimes, the deletion of emails, smashed blackberries, Seth Rich's death, Benghazi and all other crimes were omitted, perjury at the very least could be used to put Hillary away for a while that is if anyone even bothered to try her that is. And they'd no doubt find a lot more if they actually did an investigation although I think we all know by now that won't happen either because she's obviously untouchable and above the law. And as far as Comey goes, remember it was his statement saying he didn't think she should be indicted that got her off the hook and therefore he obstructed justice. That decision was not his to make. But good luck with trying to indict him too.

I like so many others am just disgusted that not only is Hillary, Comey, and Loretta not being charged with crimes but that the GOP are avoiding the situation like the plague. This could only mean one thing and that is they themselves are corrupt as well. Sure they pulled Hillary in front of a committee for show to appease America and then just let her go. No special prosecutor like they have on Trump ....HELL NO. Those three all get a pass. It's absolute bullsht and the American people should not stand for it.




Hillary Clinton admits she didn’t have permission to set up secret email

 

[forkup]

Wow there's so much utter bullshit in this post it's hard to get started. Let's study your facts.
- I already tried to explain the difference between knowing and thinking. The fact that he was a prosecutor makes him particularly aware of the difference. Nothing hurts somebodies credibility more then having to come back to a previous statement and say " I had that wrong", any lawyer worth his salt would use that one slip up to invalidate the entire testimony.
-You have a REPUBLICAN,HOUSE,SENATE,PRESIDENT,ATTORNEY GENERAL, the FBI doesn't prosecute the justice department does. Comey can say," nobody will prosecute this", but it's the justice department that ultimately prosecutes. The fact that nobodies besides a few house members mentions it anymore, is a testimony that confirms Comey's statements.
-She didn't destroy anything. Some guy who administered her server did.

Ya it's called conspiracy to destroy evidence. One doesn't have to personally pull a trigger to be culpable of murder.

Comey investigated it but he couldn't determine intent. And her server was not something open to the public. It was a PRIVATE, as in not public server. Should she have done it? No of course not. Did she do it with nefarious intent? I have yet to seem proof of that. Btw Trump still uses his personal phone. He had a meeting over a North Korean missile launch amongst the guests of Mar O Lago, and he GAVE Russia code word level intel. Why is it so bad wen Clinton does it but not when Trump does it??
- As to Seth Rich, it's a story even FOX had to retract and if you use it is being FACTUAL says all I need to know about your integrity.

Trump has final say on classified ratings Clinton had no authority to have a private server or to share classified intel with friendly reporters with no security clearance which she did.

Fact check: Trump’s claim Clinton destroyed emails after getting a subpoena from Congress
THE FACT CHECKER | Trump is technically correct on the timeline, but Clinton’s staff had requested the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena, according to the FBI’s August 2016 report. Moreover, there’s no evidence Clinton deleted the emails in anticipation of the subpoena, and FBI director James B. Comey has said his agency’s investigation found no evidence that any work-related emails were “intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”
-So you are right one hasn't pull the trigger to be culpable in murder. But one has to have the intention of murdering someone to be culpable of murder. No intention was ever established.
- So to you it's not the action of having or sharing, classified information on non secure servers/devices that's an issue, but rather if you are allowed to do so that's an issue?

Bullshit, emails were being destroyed AFTER the preservation order was issued:


the preservation request from the Committee on Benghazi." In his first interview with the FBI, the staffer told agents that "he did not recall seeing the preservation request referenced in the March 9, 2015 e-mail." But then, in the May 3 follow-up interview, the staffer "indicated that, at the time he made the deletions in March 2015, he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's e-mail date on the [Platte River Networks] server." The staffer also told the FBI he did not consult any colleagues, company legal counsel or anyone else "regarding the meaning of the preservation request."

According to the FBI, the Platte River Networks staff had a conference call with Kendall and Mills on March 31. By then, the deleting was done. What did they talk about? The FBI report says Platte River's attorney advised the staffer "not to comment on the conversation with Kendall based upon the assertion of attorney-client privilege."

There's no doubt that Clinton intended to destroy her email archives after choosing which ones to send to the State Department. That's what Mills' December 2014 directive was apparently intended to do. Given that the Benghazi investigation was well under way and there had been multiple document requests and production agreements, the effect of Mills' directive, had it been carried out at the time she sent it, would have been to destroy the evidence that had not been handed over to the State Department before anyone knew to ask for it. But apparently the Platte River Networks staffer's carelessness led to the emails not being destroyed in December 2014, remaining in existence until March 2015, when their existence was publicly disclosed and another subpoena issued for them. Then they were destroyed.

It's clear Clinton did not turn over all her work-related emails to the State Department on Dec. 5, 2014, as she claimed on many occasions. The FBI said it recovered "17,448 unique work-related and personal e-mails" that Clinton had not turned over. Of those, at least 30 were said to contain references to Benghazi and thus would have been responsive to the various congressional requests and subpoenas going back to Sept. 20, 2012


From FBI fragments, a question: Did Team Clinton destroy evidence under subpoena?

Just read your article. You know what struck me? There's a lot of allegedlies, supposedlies, there's no "we know" to be found. I'll give you my thoughts on it. First of deleting a mailbox isn't weird, we all done it. I think as secretary of state the sheer volume of e-mails received is staggering enough to make it necessary. So you get subpoenaed; but some of the relevant mail you consider already deleted, after all, you've hired a company to keep track of those kinds of things. But the company you hired hasn't done it so all of a sudden the question comes up did you break the law. Technically yes,but it wasn't intentional nor done with the goal of dodging anything. How do we know this, and remember the relevant pieces have been shown to the BIPARTISAN intelligence committee? About half of those e-mails have been recovered. None of those held anything that was particularly important to the Benghazi investigation. Otherwise Republicans on the committee would have been screaming murder. It's precisely the nature of the recovered deleted emails that lets Comey draw his conclusions about intent.

First of deleting a mailbox isn't weird, we all done it.

Wrong.....we all haven't done it......she was Secretary of State..that server was government property since she conducted government business on it and those emails generated as Secretary of State are not her private emails...and she destroyed them with a high tech program......do you destroy your emails with a high tech program?

Since when is the destruction of evidence under investigation not a crime? And how do you know what the emails uncovered contained...they were destroyed.....after having been put on an illegal, secret server......

Intent is not part of any law when it comes to the protection of government documents...he made that up........and all of the activity .......destroying the servers, smashing the 13 cell phones and black berries and the destruction of 30,000 emails is activity that shows intent to hide a crime........comey is an asshole, who worked to protect democrats at all stages........

Amazing how you just blow past anything you can't, or don't want to answer. No intent was established, Comey or for that matter, members of Congress who have read the recovered e-mails agree. I explained the reasoning. No One when everything is Republican is pursuing it. a cover up implies information was withheld. In the investigation all the information can be accessed by the justice department. Show me any case were being careless with classified information in peacetime has ever led to jail time. And again, and if you refuse to answer this basic question we are done.

- So to you it's not the action of having or sharing, classified information on non secure servers/devices that's an issue, but rather if you are allowed to do so that's an issue?

 

[Political Junky]

John Nolte breaks down exactly how vile a person james comey is....

The Endless List of Sins Committed By J. Edgar Comey

1. Comey Covered Up Loretta Lynch's Cover Up

Until it could make him look like The Last Honest Man In DC, Comey withheld the fact from the public, and the necessary authorities, that President Barry's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, ordered him to cover up an investigation of Hillary Clinton by using the word "matter."

But wait, it gets impossibly worse…

2. Comey Participated In Loretta Lynch's Cover Up

Comey did it. Comey used the word "matter." He participated in the cover up. But only when dipping Lynch in the grease would make him look bipartisan, did he bother to inform anyone. Speaking of informing the public…

3. Comey Lied About Trump NOT Being Under Investigation

Comey watched for months as Democrats and the national media relentlessly lied 24/7 about President Trump being under investigation over the Russia Hoax. Comey not only sat there and let this faux fury go on and on and on and on, Comey also sat on the truth that the entire Russian collusion story was a lie. Comey knew that no one in authority was investigating Trump (and therefore the whole collusion thing was a manufactured media hoax) and so, in order to blackmail the president into keeping his job, he refused to tell the American people the truth. You see, it works like this…

When the public is led to believe a certain man is investigating the president, this is the man with the safest job in DC. Therefore, Comey needed to keep this illusion alive, not just as a means to remain director of the FBI, but the overall leverage it gave him over a sitting president.


During his Thursday testimony Comey said, "I was worried very much of being in kind of a — kind of a J. Edgar Hoover-type situation." No, he wasn't. Because we now know that through a breathtaking lie of omission, that is precisely what he did.

Not telling the American pubic the truth about their own president, especially after you have gone on national television to dramatically announce that the FBI is investigating the ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, is an astonishing lie, an unethical and un-American lie of omission.

To begin with, one of the primary jobs of law enforcement is to protect the presumption of innocence.

If someone, not just the president, is not under investigation, it is your ethical and constitutional duty to not allow an investigation that does not exist to damage that person's reputation. To do otherwise is the stuff of banana republics.

Explain this. How is not adhering to a request from the attorney general to change the word "investigation" into "matter". Something that is an attempt to downplay a narrative, in any way bad? And why does he need to report this to the press I gather you would mean? Comey has been consistent in everything. He was consistent when he didn't adhere to her request. He was consistent when he didn't adhere to Republican pressure to prosecute Hillary. He was consistent when he released new information that conflicted with previous statements the moment he was made aware of it, thereby having a huge influence on the election. He's done nothing but try to be an honest representative of his department.

The only time he followed his principals....is when it was protecting democrats, and when it hurt republican Presidents....


He was consistent when he didn't adhere to her request.

He did.....

He was consistent when he didn't adhere to Republican pressure to prosecute Hillary.

Everyone thought she would be the next President...he protected her since he listed all of the felonies she committed, and then didn't go forward...

The guy is an asshole....

He's a republican.

 

[Political Junky]

The man is a national embarrassment.

Why yes, the fat senile old orange clown is just that.

Anyone know who Gorgeous George was? Trump brings him to mind.

gorgeous george photo - Google Search

 

[2aguy]

John Nolte breaks down exactly how vile a person james comey is....

The Endless List of Sins Committed By J. Edgar Comey

1. Comey Covered Up Loretta Lynch's Cover Up

Until it could make him look like The Last Honest Man In DC, Comey withheld the fact from the public, and the necessary authorities, that President Barry's Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, ordered him to cover up an investigation of Hillary Clinton by using the word "matter."

But wait, it gets impossibly worse…

2. Comey Participated In Loretta Lynch's Cover Up

Comey did it. Comey used the word "matter." He participated in the cover up. But only when dipping Lynch in the grease would make him look bipartisan, did he bother to inform anyone. Speaking of informing the public…

3. Comey Lied About Trump NOT Being Under Investigation

Comey watched for months as Democrats and the national media relentlessly lied 24/7 about President Trump being under investigation over the Russia Hoax. Comey not only sat there and let this faux fury go on and on and on and on, Comey also sat on the truth that the entire Russian collusion story was a lie. Comey knew that no one in authority was investigating Trump (and therefore the whole collusion thing was a manufactured media hoax) and so, in order to blackmail the president into keeping his job, he refused to tell the American people the truth. You see, it works like this…

When the public is led to believe a certain man is investigating the president, this is the man with the safest job in DC. Therefore, Comey needed to keep this illusion alive, not just as a means to remain director of the FBI, but the overall leverage it gave him over a sitting president.


During his Thursday testimony Comey said, "I was worried very much of being in kind of a — kind of a J. Edgar Hoover-type situation." No, he wasn't. Because we now know that through a breathtaking lie of omission, that is precisely what he did.

Not telling the American pubic the truth about their own president, especially after you have gone on national television to dramatically announce that the FBI is investigating the ties between the Trump campaign and Russia, is an astonishing lie, an unethical and un-American lie of omission.

To begin with, one of the primary jobs of law enforcement is to protect the presumption of innocence.

If someone, not just the president, is not under investigation, it is your ethical and constitutional duty to not allow an investigation that does not exist to damage that person's reputation. To do otherwise is the stuff of banana republics.

Explain this. How is not adhering to a request from the attorney general to change the word "investigation" into "matter". Something that is an attempt to downplay a narrative, in any way bad? And why does he need to report this to the press I gather you would mean? Comey has been consistent in everything. He was consistent when he didn't adhere to her request. He was consistent when he didn't adhere to Republican pressure to prosecute Hillary. He was consistent when he released new information that conflicted with previous statements the moment he was made aware of it, thereby having a huge influence on the election. He's done nothing but try to be an honest representative of his department.

The only time he followed his principals....is when it was protecting democrats, and when it hurt republican Presidents....


He was consistent when he didn't adhere to her request.

He did.....

He was consistent when he didn't adhere to Republican pressure to prosecute Hillary.

Everyone thought she would be the next President...he protected her since he listed all of the felonies she committed, and then didn't go forward...

The guy is an asshole....

He's a republican.

No.....you are behind in the news.....he said he was no longer a republican.

 

[2aguy]

Ya it's called conspiracy to destroy evidence. One doesn't have to personally pull a trigger to be culpable of murder.



Trump has final say on classified ratings Clinton had no authority to have a private server or to share classified intel with friendly reporters with no security clearance which she did.

Fact check: Trump’s claim Clinton destroyed emails after getting a subpoena from Congress
THE FACT CHECKER | Trump is technically correct on the timeline, but Clinton’s staff had requested the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena, according to the FBI’s August 2016 report. Moreover, there’s no evidence Clinton deleted the emails in anticipation of the subpoena, and FBI director James B. Comey has said his agency’s investigation found no evidence that any work-related emails were “intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”
-So you are right one hasn't pull the trigger to be culpable in murder. But one has to have the intention of murdering someone to be culpable of murder. No intention was ever established.
- So to you it's not the action of having or sharing, classified information on non secure servers/devices that's an issue, but rather if you are allowed to do so that's an issue?

Bullshit, emails were being destroyed AFTER the preservation order was issued:


the preservation request from the Committee on Benghazi." In his first interview with the FBI, the staffer told agents that "he did not recall seeing the preservation request referenced in the March 9, 2015 e-mail." But then, in the May 3 follow-up interview, the staffer "indicated that, at the time he made the deletions in March 2015, he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's e-mail date on the [Platte River Networks] server." The staffer also told the FBI he did not consult any colleagues, company legal counsel or anyone else "regarding the meaning of the preservation request."

According to the FBI, the Platte River Networks staff had a conference call with Kendall and Mills on March 31. By then, the deleting was done. What did they talk about? The FBI report says Platte River's attorney advised the staffer "not to comment on the conversation with Kendall based upon the assertion of attorney-client privilege."

There's no doubt that Clinton intended to destroy her email archives after choosing which ones to send to the State Department. That's what Mills' December 2014 directive was apparently intended to do. Given that the Benghazi investigation was well under way and there had been multiple document requests and production agreements, the effect of Mills' directive, had it been carried out at the time she sent it, would have been to destroy the evidence that had not been handed over to the State Department before anyone knew to ask for it. But apparently the Platte River Networks staffer's carelessness led to the emails not being destroyed in December 2014, remaining in existence until March 2015, when their existence was publicly disclosed and another subpoena issued for them. Then they were destroyed.

It's clear Clinton did not turn over all her work-related emails to the State Department on Dec. 5, 2014, as she claimed on many occasions. The FBI said it recovered "17,448 unique work-related and personal e-mails" that Clinton had not turned over. Of those, at least 30 were said to contain references to Benghazi and thus would have been responsive to the various congressional requests and subpoenas going back to Sept. 20, 2012


From FBI fragments, a question: Did Team Clinton destroy evidence under subpoena?

Just read your article. You know what struck me? There's a lot of allegedlies, supposedlies, there's no "we know" to be found. I'll give you my thoughts on it. First of deleting a mailbox isn't weird, we all done it. I think as secretary of state the sheer volume of e-mails received is staggering enough to make it necessary. So you get subpoenaed; but some of the relevant mail you consider already deleted, after all, you've hired a company to keep track of those kinds of things. But the company you hired hasn't done it so all of a sudden the question comes up did you break the law. Technically yes,but it wasn't intentional nor done with the goal of dodging anything. How do we know this, and remember the relevant pieces have been shown to the BIPARTISAN intelligence committee? About half of those e-mails have been recovered. None of those held anything that was particularly important to the Benghazi investigation. Otherwise Republicans on the committee would have been screaming murder. It's precisely the nature of the recovered deleted emails that lets Comey draw his conclusions about intent.

First of deleting a mailbox isn't weird, we all done it.

Wrong.....we all haven't done it......she was Secretary of State..that server was government property since she conducted government business on it and those emails generated as Secretary of State are not her private emails...and she destroyed them with a high tech program......do you destroy your emails with a high tech program?

Since when is the destruction of evidence under investigation not a crime? And how do you know what the emails uncovered contained...they were destroyed.....after having been put on an illegal, secret server......

Intent is not part of any law when it comes to the protection of government documents...he made that up........and all of the activity .......destroying the servers, smashing the 13 cell phones and black berries and the destruction of 30,000 emails is activity that shows intent to hide a crime........comey is an asshole, who worked to protect democrats at all stages........

Amazing how you just blow past anything you can't, or don't want to answer. No intent was established, Comey or for that matter, members of Congress who have read the recovered e-mails agree. I explained the reasoning. No One when everything is Republican is pursuing it. a cover up implies information was withheld. In the investigation all the information can be accessed by the justice department. Show me any case were being careless with classified information in peacetime has ever led to jail time. And again, and if you refuse to answer this basic question we are done.

- So to you it's not the action of having or sharing, classified information on non secure servers/devices that's an issue, but rather if you are allowed to do so that's an issue?

"Intent" is not a requirement for mishandling federal documents, comey lied and made that up. Also, the actions of hilary establish intent........since everything she did acted to conceal whatever she was doing in those emails and on those servers.

 

[Just_Saying]

Comey has been the only top person from former administration whom Trump decided to keep and who turned to be a Trojan horse in his administration.

I'm not sure why Trump decided to keep that weasel, but it must have cost him a lot of gray hair. He should have known better: decent people didn't work for such a piece of sh*t like Obama.

Trump knew he was in a sticky situation. Since he was already being investigated by Comey, if he let him go day one, it would have appeared he was trying to obstruct the Russia probe investigation. Later I think Comey had become such a nuisance and Trump suspected him to be the leaker and therefore had no choice. No doubt his conversation asking if he would be loyal was meaning did he have to worry about him spying for the left and back stabbing him which anyone would want to know in that situation. But Comey being the louse he is, did it anyway and then got fired for it. And yeah you're right, the qualifications to work for Obama was zero integrity, can be bought, and would do whatever he says without question.

 

[2aguy]

Comey has been the only top person from former administration whom Trump decided to keep and who turned to be a Trojan horse in his administration.

I'm not sure why Trump decided to keep that weasel, but it must have cost him a lot of gray hair. He should have known better: decent people didn't work for such a piece of sh*t like Obama.

Trump knew he was in a sticky situation. Since he was already being investigated by Comey, if he let him go day one, it would have appeared he was trying to obstruct the Russia probe investigation. Later I think Comey had become such a nuisance and Trump suspected him to be the leaker and therefore had no choice. No doubt his conversation asking if he would be loyal was meaning did he have to worry about him spying for the left and back stabbing him which anyone would want to know in that situation. But Comey being the louse he is, did it anyway and then got fired for it. And yeah you're right, the qualifications to work for Obama was zero integrity, can be bought, and would do whatever he says without question.

Did you not hear the testimony......comey told Trump 3 times he wasn't under investigation.

 

[Just_Saying]

Ya it's called conspiracy to destroy evidence. One doesn't have to personally pull a trigger to be culpable of murder.



Trump has final say on classified ratings Clinton had no authority to have a private server or to share classified intel with friendly reporters with no security clearance which she did.

Fact check: Trump’s claim Clinton destroyed emails after getting a subpoena from Congress
THE FACT CHECKER | Trump is technically correct on the timeline, but Clinton’s staff had requested the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena, according to the FBI’s August 2016 report. Moreover, there’s no evidence Clinton deleted the emails in anticipation of the subpoena, and FBI director James B. Comey has said his agency’s investigation found no evidence that any work-related emails were “intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”
-So you are right one hasn't pull the trigger to be culpable in murder. But one has to have the intention of murdering someone to be culpable of murder. No intention was ever established.
- So to you it's not the action of having or sharing, classified information on non secure servers/devices that's an issue, but rather if you are allowed to do so that's an issue?

Bullshit, emails were being destroyed AFTER the preservation order was issued:


the preservation request from the Committee on Benghazi." In his first interview with the FBI, the staffer told agents that "he did not recall seeing the preservation request referenced in the March 9, 2015 e-mail." But then, in the May 3 follow-up interview, the staffer "indicated that, at the time he made the deletions in March 2015, he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's e-mail date on the [Platte River Networks] server." The staffer also told the FBI he did not consult any colleagues, company legal counsel or anyone else "regarding the meaning of the preservation request."

According to the FBI, the Platte River Networks staff had a conference call with Kendall and Mills on March 31. By then, the deleting was done. What did they talk about? The FBI report says Platte River's attorney advised the staffer "not to comment on the conversation with Kendall based upon the assertion of attorney-client privilege."

There's no doubt that Clinton intended to destroy her email archives after choosing which ones to send to the State Department. That's what Mills' December 2014 directive was apparently intended to do. Given that the Benghazi investigation was well under way and there had been multiple document requests and production agreements, the effect of Mills' directive, had it been carried out at the time she sent it, would have been to destroy the evidence that had not been handed over to the State Department before anyone knew to ask for it. But apparently the Platte River Networks staffer's carelessness led to the emails not being destroyed in December 2014, remaining in existence until March 2015, when their existence was publicly disclosed and another subpoena issued for them. Then they were destroyed.

It's clear Clinton did not turn over all her work-related emails to the State Department on Dec. 5, 2014, as she claimed on many occasions. The FBI said it recovered "17,448 unique work-related and personal e-mails" that Clinton had not turned over. Of those, at least 30 were said to contain references to Benghazi and thus would have been responsive to the various congressional requests and subpoenas going back to Sept. 20, 2012


From FBI fragments, a question: Did Team Clinton destroy evidence under subpoena?

Just read your article. You know what struck me? There's a lot of allegedlies, supposedlies, there's no "we know" to be found. I'll give you my thoughts on it. First of deleting a mailbox isn't weird, we all done it. I think as secretary of state the sheer volume of e-mails received is staggering enough to make it necessary. So you get subpoenaed; but some of the relevant mail you consider already deleted, after all, you've hired a company to keep track of those kinds of things. But the company you hired hasn't done it so all of a sudden the question comes up did you break the law. Technically yes,but it wasn't intentional nor done with the goal of dodging anything. How do we know this, and remember the relevant pieces have been shown to the BIPARTISAN intelligence committee? About half of those e-mails have been recovered. None of those held anything that was particularly important to the Benghazi investigation. Otherwise Republicans on the committee would have been screaming murder. It's precisely the nature of the recovered deleted emails that lets Comey draw his conclusions about intent.

First of deleting a mailbox isn't weird, we all done it.

Wrong.....we all haven't done it......she was Secretary of State..that server was government property since she conducted government business on it and those emails generated as Secretary of State are not her private emails...and she destroyed them with a high tech program......do you destroy your emails with a high tech program?

Since when is the destruction of evidence under investigation not a crime? And how do you know what the emails uncovered contained...they were destroyed.....after having been put on an illegal, secret server......

Intent is not part of any law when it comes to the protection of government documents...he made that up........and all of the activity .......destroying the servers, smashing the 13 cell phones and black berries and the destruction of 30,000 emails is activity that shows intent to hide a crime........comey is an asshole, who worked to protect democrats at all stages........

Amazing how you just blow past anything you can't, or don't want to answer. No intent was established, Comey or for that matter, members of Congress who have read the recovered e-mails agree. I explained the reasoning. No One when everything is Republican is pursuing it. a cover up implies information was withheld. In the investigation all the information can be accessed by the justice department. Show me any case were being careless with classified information in peacetime has ever led to jail time. And again, and if you refuse to answer this basic question we are done.

- So to you it's not the action of having or sharing, classified information on non secure servers/devices that's an issue, but rather if you are allowed to do so that's an issue?

And the real irony in all of this is that James Comey was the one who prosecuted Martha Stewart for lying about a stock deal.. PERJURY in other words. And even she who is a celebrity which everyone knows automatically entitles her to a lesser sentence, had to do some jail time. But her highness Hillary the corrupt, lied and lied and lied and got away with not only that but numerous other crimes as well which without a doubt also included multiple murders. I mean check out the body count in the Clinton's background, one of which was her ex law partner Vince Foster who was scheduled to testify against her in her Whitewater deal. Then ask yourself how many people you know who have died mysteriously or were murdered that had a direct connection to you?

The Kennedy's were a crime family as well but they were like pre-schoolers compared to the Clinton's.
Clinton Body Count or Left-Wing Conspiracy? Three With Ties to DNC Mysteriously Die
Another Clinton Associate Found DEAD, Bill & Hillary's Body Count Increases! - The Political Insider
And also found this by a poster on the web who did some research on others who died that were connected to the Clinton's as well:

"So add a couple more to this list...1- James McDougal - Clintons convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack,
while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr's investigation.
2 - Mary Mahoney - A former White House intern was murdered July 1997
at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown .. The murder happened just after
she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.
3 - Vince Foster - Former White House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton
at Little Rock's Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head, ruled a suicide.
4 - Ron Brown - Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have
died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there
was a hole in the top of Brown's skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death
Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with
prosecutors. The rest of the people on the plane also died. A few days later the air Traffic
controller commited suicide.
5 - C. Victor Raiser, II - Raiser, a major player in the Clinton fund raising organization
died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
6 - Paul Tulley - Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel
room in Little Rock , September 1992. Described by Clinton as a "dear friend and trusted advisor".
7 - Ed Willey - Clinton fundraiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a
gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen
Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved
in several Clinton fund raising events.
8 - Jerry Parks - Head of Clinton's gubernatorial security team in Little Rock .. Gunned down in his
car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock Park's son said his father was building a dossier
on Clinton He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously
removed from his house.
9 - James Bunch - Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a "Black Book" of people
which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.
10 - James Wilson - Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported
to have ties to Whitewater..
11 - Kathy Ferguson - Ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994,
in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several
packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with
Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula
Jones.
12 - Bill Shelton - Arkansas State Trooper and fiancee of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide
ruling of his fiancee, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide
at the grave site of his fiancee.
13 - Gandy Baugh - Attorney for Clinton's friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a
tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.
14 - Florence Martin - Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal, Mena,
Arkansas, airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.
15 - Suzanne Coleman - Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General.
Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.
16 - Paula Grober - Clinton's speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992.
She died in a one car accident.
17 - Danny Casolaro - Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas Development
Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.
18 - Paul Wilcher - Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980
"October Surprise" was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993, in his Washington DC apartment.
Had delivered a report to Janet Reno 3 weeks before his death.
19 - Jon Parnell Walker - Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death
from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August 15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan
Guaranty scandal.
20 - Barbara Wise - Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang.
Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her
office at the Department of Commerce.
21 - Charles Meissner - Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security
clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.
22 - Dr. Stanley Heard - Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee
died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on
Clinton 's advisory council personally treated Clinton's mother, stepfather and brother.
23 - Barry Seal - Drug running TWA pilot out of Mena Arkansas, death was no accident.
24 - Johnny Lawhorn, Jr. - Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a
car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.
25 - Stanley Huggins - Investigated Madison Guaranty. His death was a purported suicide
and his report was never released.
26 - Hershell Friday - Attorney and Clinton fundraiser died March 1, 1994, when his plane exploded.
27 - Kevin Ives & Don Henry - Known as "The boys on the track" case. Reports say the boys may
have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial
report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the 2 boys had
been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony
could come before a Grand Jury.
THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
28 - Keith Coney - Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, 7/88.
29 - Keith McMaskle - Died, stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988
30 - Gregory Collins - Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
31 - Jeff Rhodes - He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.
3 2 - James Milan - Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to natural causes".
33 - Jordan Kettleson - Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.
34 - Richard Winters - A suspect in the Ives/Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.
THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD:
36 - Major William S. Barkley, Jr.
37 - Captain Scott J . Reynolds
38 - Sgt. Brian Hanley
39 - Sgt. Tim Sabel
40 - Major General William Robertson
41 - Col. William Densberger
42 - Col. Robert Kelly
43 - Spec. Gary Rhodes
44 - Steve Willis
45 - Robert Williams
46 - Conway LeBleu
47 - Todd McKeehan"

 

[2aguy]

Fact check: Trump’s claim Clinton destroyed emails after getting a subpoena from Congress
THE FACT CHECKER | Trump is technically correct on the timeline, but Clinton’s staff had requested the emails to be deleted months before the subpoena, according to the FBI’s August 2016 report. Moreover, there’s no evidence Clinton deleted the emails in anticipation of the subpoena, and FBI director James B. Comey has said his agency’s investigation found no evidence that any work-related emails were “intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”
-So you are right one hasn't pull the trigger to be culpable in murder. But one has to have the intention of murdering someone to be culpable of murder. No intention was ever established.
- So to you it's not the action of having or sharing, classified information on non secure servers/devices that's an issue, but rather if you are allowed to do so that's an issue?

Bullshit, emails were being destroyed AFTER the preservation order was issued:


the preservation request from the Committee on Benghazi." In his first interview with the FBI, the staffer told agents that "he did not recall seeing the preservation request referenced in the March 9, 2015 e-mail." But then, in the May 3 follow-up interview, the staffer "indicated that, at the time he made the deletions in March 2015, he was aware of the existence of the preservation request and the fact that it meant he should not disturb Clinton's e-mail date on the [Platte River Networks] server." The staffer also told the FBI he did not consult any colleagues, company legal counsel or anyone else "regarding the meaning of the preservation request."

According to the FBI, the Platte River Networks staff had a conference call with Kendall and Mills on March 31. By then, the deleting was done. What did they talk about? The FBI report says Platte River's attorney advised the staffer "not to comment on the conversation with Kendall based upon the assertion of attorney-client privilege."

There's no doubt that Clinton intended to destroy her email archives after choosing which ones to send to the State Department. That's what Mills' December 2014 directive was apparently intended to do. Given that the Benghazi investigation was well under way and there had been multiple document requests and production agreements, the effect of Mills' directive, had it been carried out at the time she sent it, would have been to destroy the evidence that had not been handed over to the State Department before anyone knew to ask for it. But apparently the Platte River Networks staffer's carelessness led to the emails not being destroyed in December 2014, remaining in existence until March 2015, when their existence was publicly disclosed and another subpoena issued for them. Then they were destroyed.

It's clear Clinton did not turn over all her work-related emails to the State Department on Dec. 5, 2014, as she claimed on many occasions. The FBI said it recovered "17,448 unique work-related and personal e-mails" that Clinton had not turned over. Of those, at least 30 were said to contain references to Benghazi and thus would have been responsive to the various congressional requests and subpoenas going back to Sept. 20, 2012


From FBI fragments, a question: Did Team Clinton destroy evidence under subpoena?

Just read your article. You know what struck me? There's a lot of allegedlies, supposedlies, there's no "we know" to be found. I'll give you my thoughts on it. First of deleting a mailbox isn't weird, we all done it. I think as secretary of state the sheer volume of e-mails received is staggering enough to make it necessary. So you get subpoenaed; but some of the relevant mail you consider already deleted, after all, you've hired a company to keep track of those kinds of things. But the company you hired hasn't done it so all of a sudden the question comes up did you break the law. Technically yes,but it wasn't intentional nor done with the goal of dodging anything. How do we know this, and remember the relevant pieces have been shown to the BIPARTISAN intelligence committee? About half of those e-mails have been recovered. None of those held anything that was particularly important to the Benghazi investigation. Otherwise Republicans on the committee would have been screaming murder. It's precisely the nature of the recovered deleted emails that lets Comey draw his conclusions about intent.

First of deleting a mailbox isn't weird, we all done it.

Wrong.....we all haven't done it......she was Secretary of State..that server was government property since she conducted government business on it and those emails generated as Secretary of State are not her private emails...and she destroyed them with a high tech program......do you destroy your emails with a high tech program?

Since when is the destruction of evidence under investigation not a crime? And how do you know what the emails uncovered contained...they were destroyed.....after having been put on an illegal, secret server......

Intent is not part of any law when it comes to the protection of government documents...he made that up........and all of the activity .......destroying the servers, smashing the 13 cell phones and black berries and the destruction of 30,000 emails is activity that shows intent to hide a crime........comey is an asshole, who worked to protect democrats at all stages........

Amazing how you just blow past anything you can't, or don't want to answer. No intent was established, Comey or for that matter, members of Congress who have read the recovered e-mails agree. I explained the reasoning. No One when everything is Republican is pursuing it. a cover up implies information was withheld. In the investigation all the information can be accessed by the justice department. Show me any case were being careless with classified information in peacetime has ever led to jail time. And again, and if you refuse to answer this basic question we are done.

- So to you it's not the action of having or sharing, classified information on non secure servers/devices that's an issue, but rather if you are allowed to do so that's an issue?

And the real irony in all of this is that James Comey was the one who prosecuted Martha Stewart for lying about a stock deal.. PERJURY in other words. And even she who is a celebrity which everyone knows automatically entitles her to a lesser sentence, had to do some jail time. But her highness Hillary the corrupt, lied and lied and lied and got away with not only that but numerous other crimes as well which without a doubt also included multiple murders. I mean check out the body count in the Clinton's background, one of which was her ex law partner Vince Foster who was scheduled to testify against her in her Whitewater deal. Then ask yourself how many people you know have died mysteriously or were murdered that had a direct connection to you?

The Kennedy's were a crime family as well but they were like pre-schoolers compared to the Clinton's.

Another Clinton Associate Found DEAD, Bill & Hillary's Body Count Increases! - The Political Insider

Have you seen the video of Trey Gowdy asking comey about hilary clinton and her emails....and in each reply comey has to make it clear that hilary actually lied in her testimony to congress and her public statements........