Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This latest report concluded there was "no persuasive evidence of systemic, deliberate mishandling of classified information."
She was investigated to death AND exonerated , cleared of any wrong doing.It does not need to be deliberate to be against the law.
The fact she may not have meant to do it is meaningless.
When I was in charge of classified Docs while in the Marine Corps if I had mistakenly left some out I would have been making big rocks into little rocks at Leavenworth. Why do these people not get held to the same standard?
She was investigated to death AND exonerated , cleared of any wrong doing.
End of story.
She was investigated to death AND exonerated , cleared of any wrong doing.
End of story.
OJ and Hilary are two different cases.So was OJ, yet most of us still think he was guilty.
Bottom line, people like Hillary have a different justice system than the rest of us.
She lost because Comey got involved, erroneously, on the last days of election. And fools believed it. There were many other factors like Russia influencing the election via tweeter, Facebook, etc so that Hilary would be seen as non electable.And then lost to the second worse candidate in the history of the country because people understood how corrupt that entire process was.
And then lost to the second worse candidate in the history of the country because people understood how corrupt that entire process was.
you're backing up Trump's lies?
The retired air force officer took them deliberately. Like Trump.
She lost because Comey got involved, erroneously, on the last days of election. And fools believed it. There were many other factors like Russia influencing the election via tweeter, Facebook, etc so that Hilary would be seen as non electable.
That is not happening again.
By whom? Show the evidence.It's been known for years how corrupt Hillary was.
RUSSIA, RUSSIA, RUSSIA, LOL.
OJ and Hilary are two different cases.
Shame on you for trying to equate them.
Grassley, a Republican, started the investigation on Hilary in 2016. He dug as far as he could to make her guilty. She was not.
So, what kind of justice did Republican Grassley fail to force down Hilary Clinton when it was proven that she was not guilty of deliberate mishandling?
People know that OJ was guilty. Especially as he never had anyone look for the "actual killer" His lawyers were good during the criminal trial. He did not get away with the Civil trial.
Extremists like so many of you insist in having a country where only extremism works for you, but mainly for people who do not share the same views as you.
Gratefully the Justice System is not in your hands.
Or Hillary?
By whom? Show the evidence.
The Republicans endlessly attacking the Clintons during his presidency and coming up with nothing. And even after they left the WH.
Or when she became candidate.
Show the beef, because it is missing from that Conspiracy Theory Market.
The Republicans endlessly attacking the Clintons during his presidency and coming up with nothing.
Most likely less.Did he have more or less documents than Biden or Pence?
The retired air force officer took them deliberately. Like Trump.
[Russia was proven to have had a hand in the 2016 election. But keep LYING about it.]Clinton wasn't disbarred over nothing.
No one yelling "RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA" has any standing calling out conspiracy theories.
www.forbes.com
[Russia was proven to have had a hand in the 2016 election. But keep LYING about it.]
A GOP-led Senate panel released a report Tuesday that details extensive contacts between Trump campaign advisers and Russian intelligence in 2016.
LEILA FADEL, HOST:
Today we got perhaps the most detailed look yet at Russia's efforts to influence the presidential race four years ago. The Senate Intelligence Committee has released the final report from its bipartisan investigation into Moscow's interference in the 2016 U.S. election. NPR justice correspondent Ryan Lucas has been sifting through the document - nearly a thousand pages of it - and joins us now. Hey, Ryan.
RYAN LUCAS, BYLINE: Hey, Leila.
FADEL: So this report from the Senate Intelligence Committee has been in the works for a long time - might explain that thousand pages. What's the takeaway?
LUCAS: Well, there's a lot in this report. The committee spent more than three years working on it, investigating Russia's interference, as you said, in the 2016 election. They reviewed more than a million documents, documents that were provided by U.S. spy agencies as well as documents that were provided by witnesses. They also interviewed witnesses - hundreds of them, including a lot of familiar names - Donald Trump Jr., former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort but also former Obama administration officials.
And all of that digging has gone into this report, and the committee concludes that Russia conducted a sophisticated and aggressive campaign to influence the U.S. election to help Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton and that folks on Team Trump were more than happy to accept help from the Russians. But what's really important about that conclusion is that it is a bipartisan one. It is endorsed by both Democrats and Republicans.
FADEL: Now, that sounds a lot like what Special Counsel Robert Mueller determined in his report last year as well.
LUCAS: Right. This report is, to a large extent, something that reaches the same conclusion that Mueller did on the question of Russia's interference. And the committee didn't draw a conclusion on whether the Trump campaign conspired or colluded with Russia. What the committee did instead was lay out the facts that they found and then kind of leave it to the reader to make up their own mind. Some committee Republicans, in an annex to the report, declared that there was no evidence that the Trump campaign colluded. Democratic members, in contrast, called Russia's actions and the Trump team's openness to them, quote, "one of the single most grave counterintelligence threats in modern American history." So there was a bit of a bipartisan divide on that matter.
FADEL: So what's new in this? What can the public actually take away that's new from this report?
LUCAS: So the report documents the extensive connections between folks in the Trump campaign and Russia, some of which we already knew. But it goes into greater depth, most notably probably on Paul Manafort. The report calls Manafort a, quote, "grave counterintelligence threat." It notes that Manafort had access to sensitive information and that he was willing to share it with people who had ties to Russian intelligence. Crucially, the report says that includes one of Manafort's closest aides, a man by the name of Konstantin Kilimnik who the committee says is a Russian intelligence officer. The report says that Manafort secretly shared internal campaign information with Kilimnik. It also says that Manafort and Kilimnik began in 2016 to push the false line, the falsity that it was Ukraine and not Russia that interfered in the U.S. election, which, of course, was to Russia's advantage.
FADEL: So let's shift for a second. WikiLeaks' decision to publish Democratic emails hacked by Russia played a big role in the 2016 campaign. What does the report say about that?
LUCAS: There are a couple of interesting things on the WikiLeaks question. One, the committee concludes that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered the operation to hack Democratic computers and leak the stolen materials and that WikiLeaks likely knew that it was assisting a Russian influence operation when it published those. The committee also concludes that the Trump campaign tried to take advantage of Russia's hacking operation by trying to play up the stolen Democratic emails.
One line that stuck out to me, though, was the committee said it had information suggesting that Manafort's aide Konstantin Kilimnik, who I talked about, may have been connected to Russia's hack-and-leak operation. There are three big blocks of text after the committee says that in its report that are blocked out, so we don't know what that information is actually based on.
(full article online)
