On Now: Comey Hearing to Senate Oversight Committee

[TheOldSchool]

Comey just said there were THOUSANDS of new Clinton emails including some from her first three months as Sec. of State that Huma had forwarded to Weiner's laptop... but they said it didn't change the finding of "intent" in order to go through prosecuting her.

Never in my lifetime have I heard an FBI Director publicly lay out a case for 13 felony counts and then say she didn't intend to! Does anyone seriously think that kind of defense would work for any of us?

Trump and Sessions could charge her any time. But they won't. Remember, Trump instructed you dumb fucking rubes not to care about it anymore now that it served its purpose for the election.

 

[Lewdog]

I found his contortions on how alleged "Legitimate" US journalists are different from WikiLeak rather amusing. They just push out intelligence without regard to concerns but journalists always call us first to let us know and to work with us.

But it is different. Journalists in the U.S. can't release leaked information that would put American lives at risk or they would be charged for it... that's why when they get information they talk to the FBI first before they print it. WikiLeaks just dumps all information without regard to what might happen from it.

 

[Rexx Taylor]

im wathing stuart smalley now,,,why hasnt he asked how the Russians were able to tamper with the ballots yet,,,his only concern is how much money Trump invested in Russian Vodka stock.

Comey said earlier that there is evidence that Russia has attempted to change vote numbers in other countries and that he feels they will try to do it in the future in the U.S.

wouldnt u think that with so many video/hidden video cameras in the USA, that by now we would have footage of the russians messin with the ballots and chads?

 

[NYcarbineer]

im wathing stuart smalley now,,,why hasnt he asked how the Russians were able to tamper with the ballots yet,,,his only concern is how much money Trump invested in Russian Vodka stock.

Comey said earlier that there is evidence that Russia has attempted to change vote numbers in other countries and that he feels they will try to do it in the future in the U.S.

wouldnt u think that with so many video/hidden video cameras in the USA, that by now we would have footage of the russians messin with the ballots and chads?

Your clue deficit is approaching critical.

 

[Lewdog]

im wathing stuart smalley now,,,why hasnt he asked how the Russians were able to tamper with the ballots yet,,,his only concern is how much money Trump invested in Russian Vodka stock.

Comey said earlier that there is evidence that Russia has attempted to change vote numbers in other countries and that he feels they will try to do it in the future in the U.S.

wouldnt u think that with so many video/hidden video cameras in the USA, that by now we would have footage of the russians messin with the ballots and chads?

That's not what he meant and you know that...


Something very interesting though, Comey just admitted that he offered to come forward about the Russia investigation in August, and that Obama turned him down and they didn't say anything until October. Obama may have fucked Hillary.

 

[NYcarbineer]

with Hillary, she actually believes that Putin and his army changed the minds of up to 20 Million voters of who were in love with Hillary, then all of a sudden, they all fell in love with Trump,,,right?

People like you were certain at the time that the Russians and wikileaks were bringing Hillary down.

When did you decide to flip flop?

 

[Darkwind]

I found his contortions on how alleged "Legitimate" US journalists are different from WikiLeak rather amusing. They just push out intelligence without regard to concerns but journalists always call us first to let us know and to work with us.

But it is different. Journalists in the U.S. can't release leaked information that would put American lives at risk or they would be charged for it... that's why when they get information they talk to the FBI first before they print it. WikiLeaks just dumps all information without regard to what might happen from it.

He just testified that they would not be charged with is as they operate under a standard that allows the media to seek out and publish classified information. What he failed to do (and all of this was his opinion btw) was to factor in the motivation of each entity.

Both will publish classified information to influence the electorate of the USA. That is the real issue here.

They will say that the UK Guardian has a right to their opinion and to publish information. The UK Guardian won't hesitate to publish classified information under the guise that information serves the public and transparency. They will say the same thing about any foreign media outlet EXCEPT those that release information that harms those they support. This is found all across the spectrum.

Right this very moment, US journalists are working feverishly to influence the American electorate in favor of the Democrats. Yet we hear no outrage about that.

 

[NYcarbineer]

im watching,, maybe someone needs to ask,,,,,if Russia tampered with the election in Trumps favor, then how come Hillary got more votes?

Since she needed even more votes, maybe those the Russian tampering peeled off were the difference.

 

[Lewdog]

I found his contortions on how alleged "Legitimate" US journalists are different from WikiLeak rather amusing. They just push out intelligence without regard to concerns but journalists always call us first to let us know and to work with us.

But it is different. Journalists in the U.S. can't release leaked information that would put American lives at risk or they would be charged for it... that's why when they get information they talk to the FBI first before they print it. WikiLeaks just dumps all information without regard to what might happen from it.

He just testified that they would not be charged with is as they operate under a standard that allows the media to seek out and publish classified information. What he failed to do (and all of this was his opinion btw) was to factor in the motivation of each entity.

Both will publish classified information to influence the electorate of the USA. That is the real issue here.

They will say that the UK Guardian has a right to their opinion and to publish information. The UK Guardian won't hesitate to publish classified information under the guise that information serves the public and transparency. They will say the same thing about any foreign media outlet EXCEPT those that release information that harms those they support. This is found all across the spectrum.

Right this very moment, US journalists are working feverishly to influence the American electorate in favor of the Democrats. Yet we hear no outrage about that.

That wasn't the point of what he said... he was speaking more about the fact of putting lives at risk and hurting the government.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So many have conveniently forgotten how ecstatic the Trumpbots around here were when the wikileaks revelations broke;

they gleefully assumed that would be Hillary's downfall.

NOW, they can't stop insisting that couldn't have had any effect on the election.

too funny and thoroughly unsurprising.

 

[Darkwind]

I found his contortions on how alleged "Legitimate" US journalists are different from WikiLeak rather amusing. They just push out intelligence without regard to concerns but journalists always call us first to let us know and to work with us.

But it is different. Journalists in the U.S. can't release leaked information that would put American lives at risk or they would be charged for it... that's why when they get information they talk to the FBI first before they print it. WikiLeaks just dumps all information without regard to what might happen from it.

He just testified that they would not be charged with is as they operate under a standard that allows the media to seek out and publish classified information. What he failed to do (and all of this was his opinion btw) was to factor in the motivation of each entity.

Both will publish classified information to influence the electorate of the USA. That is the real issue here.

They will say that the UK Guardian has a right to their opinion and to publish information. The UK Guardian won't hesitate to publish classified information under the guise that information serves the public and transparency. They will say the same thing about any foreign media outlet EXCEPT those that release information that harms those they support. This is found all across the spectrum.

Right this very moment, US journalists are working feverishly to influence the American electorate in favor of the Democrats. Yet we hear no outrage about that.

That wasn't the point of what he said... he was speaking more about the fact of putting lives at risk and hurting the government.

Yes, and he was clear that this was only his opinion. However, I know of no media outlet that would hesitate to publish information that puts lives at risk or hurt the government if it gives them a scoop on the competitors. In essence, I do no believe that the US media would hesitate to release classified information that would harm lives or the government if it similarly harmed a Republican no matter what office they held.

That is why I do not make any distinction between the media (of any country including this one) and wikileaks.

 

[Lewdog]

I found his contortions on how alleged "Legitimate" US journalists are different from WikiLeak rather amusing. They just push out intelligence without regard to concerns but journalists always call us first to let us know and to work with us.

But it is different. Journalists in the U.S. can't release leaked information that would put American lives at risk or they would be charged for it... that's why when they get information they talk to the FBI first before they print it. WikiLeaks just dumps all information without regard to what might happen from it.

He just testified that they would not be charged with is as they operate under a standard that allows the media to seek out and publish classified information. What he failed to do (and all of this was his opinion btw) was to factor in the motivation of each entity.

Both will publish classified information to influence the electorate of the USA. That is the real issue here.

They will say that the UK Guardian has a right to their opinion and to publish information. The UK Guardian won't hesitate to publish classified information under the guise that information serves the public and transparency. They will say the same thing about any foreign media outlet EXCEPT those that release information that harms those they support. This is found all across the spectrum.

Right this very moment, US journalists are working feverishly to influence the American electorate in favor of the Democrats. Yet we hear no outrage about that.

That wasn't the point of what he said... he was speaking more about the fact of putting lives at risk and hurting the government.

Yes, and he was clear that this was only his opinion. However, I know of no media outlet that would hesitate to publish information that puts lives at risk or hurt the government if it gives them a scoop on the competitors. In essence, I do no believe that the US media would hesitate to release classified information that would harm lives or the government if it similarly harmed a Republican no matter what office they held.

That is why I do not make any distinction between the media (of any country including this one) and wikileaks.

Please show where the U.S. media has released information like WikiLeaks has that has put American lives at risk. The last time I remember them doing it, they gave up the name of a field agent... and the shit hit the fan over it.

 

[Iceweasel]

Comey just said that he believed information released by WikiLeaks put American lives at risk and that the FBI is investigating them but could not talk about charges for Assange yet...

Is that why the DNC informant got whacked?

...again, WikiLeaks admitted they got their information from Gucifer, not Seth Rich.

That's right. Seth got whacked before he could send it to them. Maybe they hire Guccifer 2.0.

 

[Lewdog]

Comey just said that he believed information released by WikiLeaks put American lives at risk and that the FBI is investigating them but could not talk about charges for Assange yet...

Is that why the DNC informant got whacked?

...again, WikiLeaks admitted they got their information from Gucifer, not Seth Rich.

That's right. Seth got whacked before he could send it to them. Maybe they hire Guccifer 2.0.

That's a large leap to make... and is counter to what has been said from the people involved.

 

[Darkwind]

I found his contortions on how alleged "Legitimate" US journalists are different from WikiLeak rather amusing. They just push out intelligence without regard to concerns but journalists always call us first to let us know and to work with us.

But it is different. Journalists in the U.S. can't release leaked information that would put American lives at risk or they would be charged for it... that's why when they get information they talk to the FBI first before they print it. WikiLeaks just dumps all information without regard to what might happen from it.

He just testified that they would not be charged with is as they operate under a standard that allows the media to seek out and publish classified information. What he failed to do (and all of this was his opinion btw) was to factor in the motivation of each entity.

Both will publish classified information to influence the electorate of the USA. That is the real issue here.

They will say that the UK Guardian has a right to their opinion and to publish information. The UK Guardian won't hesitate to publish classified information under the guise that information serves the public and transparency. They will say the same thing about any foreign media outlet EXCEPT those that release information that harms those they support. This is found all across the spectrum.

Right this very moment, US journalists are working feverishly to influence the American electorate in favor of the Democrats. Yet we hear no outrage about that.

That wasn't the point of what he said... he was speaking more about the fact of putting lives at risk and hurting the government.

Yes, and he was clear that this was only his opinion. However, I know of no media outlet that would hesitate to publish information that puts lives at risk or hurt the government if it gives them a scoop on the competitors. In essence, I do no believe that the US media would hesitate to release classified information that would harm lives or the government if it similarly harmed a Republican no matter what office they held.

That is why I do not make any distinction between the media (of any country including this one) and wikileaks.

Please show where the U.S. media has released information like WikiLeaks has that has put American lives at risk. The last time I remember them doing it, they gave up the name of a field agent... and the shit hit the fan over it.

That is not what I said. I said they would not hesitate. They have in the past, release classified information that was questionable with regard to harming the US government or putting lives in jeopardy. I have no links but going on memory. My point was that the media hates anyone not in agreement with their world view (particularly Republicans) and would not hesitate to do what they accuse the Russians of doing in order to harm those they disagree with.

 

[Lewdog]

But it is different. Journalists in the U.S. can't release leaked information that would put American lives at risk or they would be charged for it... that's why when they get information they talk to the FBI first before they print it. WikiLeaks just dumps all information without regard to what might happen from it.

He just testified that they would not be charged with is as they operate under a standard that allows the media to seek out and publish classified information. What he failed to do (and all of this was his opinion btw) was to factor in the motivation of each entity.

Both will publish classified information to influence the electorate of the USA. That is the real issue here.

They will say that the UK Guardian has a right to their opinion and to publish information. The UK Guardian won't hesitate to publish classified information under the guise that information serves the public and transparency. They will say the same thing about any foreign media outlet EXCEPT those that release information that harms those they support. This is found all across the spectrum.

Right this very moment, US journalists are working feverishly to influence the American electorate in favor of the Democrats. Yet we hear no outrage about that.

That wasn't the point of what he said... he was speaking more about the fact of putting lives at risk and hurting the government.

Yes, and he was clear that this was only his opinion. However, I know of no media outlet that would hesitate to publish information that puts lives at risk or hurt the government if it gives them a scoop on the competitors. In essence, I do no believe that the US media would hesitate to release classified information that would harm lives or the government if it similarly harmed a Republican no matter what office they held.

That is why I do not make any distinction between the media (of any country including this one) and wikileaks.

Please show where the U.S. media has released information like WikiLeaks has that has put American lives at risk. The last time I remember them doing it, they gave up the name of a field agent... and the shit hit the fan over it.

That is not what I said. I said they would not hesitate. They have in the past, release classified information that was questionable with regard to harming the US government or putting lives in jeopardy. I have no links but going on memory. My point was that the media hates anyone not in agreement with their world view (particularly Republicans) and would not hesitate to do what they accuse the Russians of doing in order to harm those they disagree with.

But that same media reported all the stuff about Hillary's servers and emails... and Benghazi... and Lynch's meeting with Bill on the plane... plenty of stuff that was not favorable for her.

 

[Lewdog]

Comey just admitted he is under investigation for his acts of handling the Clinton email and server investigation...

 

[Darkwind]

He just testified that they would not be charged with is as they operate under a standard that allows the media to seek out and publish classified information. What he failed to do (and all of this was his opinion btw) was to factor in the motivation of each entity.

Both will publish classified information to influence the electorate of the USA. That is the real issue here.

They will say that the UK Guardian has a right to their opinion and to publish information. The UK Guardian won't hesitate to publish classified information under the guise that information serves the public and transparency. They will say the same thing about any foreign media outlet EXCEPT those that release information that harms those they support. This is found all across the spectrum.

Right this very moment, US journalists are working feverishly to influence the American electorate in favor of the Democrats. Yet we hear no outrage about that.

That wasn't the point of what he said... he was speaking more about the fact of putting lives at risk and hurting the government.

Yes, and he was clear that this was only his opinion. However, I know of no media outlet that would hesitate to publish information that puts lives at risk or hurt the government if it gives them a scoop on the competitors. In essence, I do no believe that the US media would hesitate to release classified information that would harm lives or the government if it similarly harmed a Republican no matter what office they held.

That is why I do not make any distinction between the media (of any country including this one) and wikileaks.

Please show where the U.S. media has released information like WikiLeaks has that has put American lives at risk. The last time I remember them doing it, they gave up the name of a field agent... and the shit hit the fan over it.

That is not what I said. I said they would not hesitate. They have in the past, release classified information that was questionable with regard to harming the US government or putting lives in jeopardy. I have no links but going on memory. My point was that the media hates anyone not in agreement with their world view (particularly Republicans) and would not hesitate to do what they accuse the Russians of doing in order to harm those they disagree with.

But that same media reported all the stuff about Hillary's servers and emails... and Benghazi... and Lynch's meeting with Bill on the plane... plenty of stuff that was not favorable for her.

They were forced to report that stuff or be left behind. There was a time for about a week when the ONLY people reporting on Benghazi, the servers, and a host of other issues was when the outcry was so large they could not ignore it.

You cannot really believe that the media ignores massive amounts of information and intentionally underreports, minimize reports on information damaging to the Democrats.

Have you noticed that the number of casualties reported by the media went unreported under Obama? Or whenever some moral issue comes up with a member of congress they neverr state they are a Demcorat but only by their title, whereas it would be stated right up front it was a Republican congressperson so that the whole world knew it.

It all adds up. Sorry, but harm to the US government or the lives of operatives would take a back seat if the media had an opportunity to take down a repbublican.

Do you doubt they would not hesistate if the could use it to take down Trump?

 

[Iceweasel]

Comey just said that he believed information released by WikiLeaks put American lives at risk and that the FBI is investigating them but could not talk about charges for Assange yet...

Is that why the DNC informant got whacked?

...again, WikiLeaks admitted they got their information from Gucifer, not Seth Rich.

That's right. Seth got whacked before he could send it to them. Maybe they hire Guccifer 2.0.

That's a large leap to make... and is counter to what has been said from the people involved.

How so? You think it was a coincidence? Never heard anyone rule out murder for whistleblowing. How would they know?

 

[Iceweasel]

Comey just admitted he is under investigation for his acts of handling the Clinton email and server investigation...

What do you mean "admitted"? The only thing he's guilty of is not recommending charges.