CDZ There's something seriously wrong with a system...

[Rye Catcher]

Mea culpa: I reread your post, this time reading the entire post above, to which you were responding; I made a false claim that is was you attacking Pelosi.

​

.

I wouldn't really even say that what I stated was an attack on Speaker Pelosi at all.

It was more of an expectation and recognition of what she can most certainly use her position in Congress to attempt.
I was just willing to allow the Republican Congressional Leadership their ability to refuse to play.

Any attempt by you to turn that into the game ... Well that is you, not me.

.​

If it's to define as a game, it is my opinion that McCarthy&Co. and McConnell and his band of bitches are playing a zero sum game. The losers are, IMO, the American People.

 

[jc456]

It is very troubling that so many ignorant trumpanzees dominate this message board with BIG LIES and support trump and the current iteration of the Republican Party. If anyone doubts that the GOP has devolved into a right wing radical party they are seriously demented or so radical that they are not patriots and members of the idiot fringe.

just more whining over a group that disagrees with you and won't be complicit to nonsense. you hate that, that we don't align with your cult. Never will, none of us. you can whine for fking ever as you want. Won't change who we are. From a trmpanzee!!! whoa who, more insults please, cause basically that's all you got.

"Trumpanzee: an irrational and irritable assclownish beast that is completely immunized {hannitized magatized} to logic-or-reason, any-and-all negative facts-or-evidence concerning Trump, and remains a devout and mindless supporter of the buffoon."

Urban Dictionary: trumpanzee

an irrational and irritable assclownish beast that is completely immunized {hannitized magatized} to logic-or-reason, any-and-all negative facts-or-evidence concerning Trump, and remains a devout and mindless supporter of the buffoon.

www.urbandictionary.com

You posting only part of my post above and criticize "that's all you got" is clearly dishonest. For the reader I suggest you read my entire post, number 231, above.

For the record:

• I'm not a member of a clan
• I defined
  • Demagogue
  • Charlatan
  • Crook

All of these definitions describe Donald Trump, IMO.

My definition of demofk, all leftists who can’t stand opposition discussions! Liars who manufacture news stories from five words rather than publishing an entire statement, altering said statement to projecting their actual position, irritant, baby killers, kkk racists!

 

[jc456]

If it's to define as a game, it is my opinion that McCarthy&Co. and McConnell and his band of bitches are playing a zero sum game. The losers are, IMO, the American People

The thievery of the 2020 elections made the American people losers

 

[BlackSand]

If it's to define as a game, it is my opinion that McCarthy&Co. and McConnell and his band of bitches are playing a zero sum game. The losers are, IMO, the American People.

.

You don't need to define what you believe to be the game ... It is what it is.
The fact you feel the need to express it me, is just another shortcoming on your part.

You lost that battle when you first put word to page with me ...
Go back to the farm team ... You might actually get to play and have more fun there.

Nothing you have suggested supports the idea that Republicans are obligated to play games with the Democrats in Congress.
Nothing I have stated requires that you assume I support one over the other.

. ​

 

[Batcat]

Trump lost.

So Trump wanted to burn or blow the house down....

He convinced his minions, to enact his revenge... If democracy, voted him out, then he was going to destroy that democracy.

You ALL are just his helpers, so he doesn't have to get his precious little fingers, dirty.

YOU are being used and abused, but are so far in to supporting him as your savior from all the perceived liberal evil and deep state conspiracy, that you have to keep supporting him and his Big Lie, to save face....

It's a sad situation, but one that Trump, counts on.....

If the Trump supporters had really wanted to take over the Capitol Building they would have came armed to the teeth and accomplished that mission.

The “insurrection“ was simply a rowdy mob that got out of control. Mobs often do that. At least the Trump mob didn’t burn the Capitol building like The BLM and Antifa mobs did to many blocks in our cities.

View attachment 495007

Anyone who has watched and listened to trump understood that he incited the worst insurrection against our form of government since the Civil War.

I would call the BLM and Antifa rioters more of an insurrection then the mob in the Capitol.

If the January 6th fiasco was as serious as you suggest it would only seem logical that everybody involved would be facing long prison sentences.

Charged in Jan. 6 riot? Yes, but prison may be another story

More than 400 people have been charged with federal crimes in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. With new defendants still flooding into Washington's federal court, the Justice Department is under pressure to quickly resolve the least serious of cases. While defendants charged with crimes such...

news.yahoo.com

Time will tell if any of those end up in USP ADX Florence. Even the most vile and dangerous of the insurrectionists will have their rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Unlike those supporters of Donald Trump who rant together, "Lock her up" ignore her rights; those who sought to kill Speaker Pelosi and hand VP Pence will have their day in court.

Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified. She didn’t even lose her clearance until later. She treated the rules on classified information as just chickenshit by putting that info on an unauthorized and improperly secured server. I wonder if her negligence cost lives.

STATEMENT: "Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified."

RESPONSE: Post the highly classified information or admit you don't have it and lied.

Arriana McLymore
July 7, 2016

Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment.
The exchange grew heated at times, with comments like this one from Gowdy: "You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'"
Here's a full transcript of the exchange:
- ADVERTISEMENT -

Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?

Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.

Gowdy: It was not true?

Comey: That's what I said.

Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?

Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?

Comey: There was classified information emailed.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?

Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.

Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?

Comey: No.

Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

Comey: That is right?

Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.

You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether

They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.

This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.

So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.

Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'

Here's a transcript of Rep. Trey Gowdy grilling FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting Hillary Clinton.

finance.yahoo.com

###

Here is a link....

FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified

FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified “Reasonable Inference” for Clinton to Infer “Immediately” That Emails Were Not in Fact Classified On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey stated with respect to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails: “Only a very small...

oversight.house.gov

from your own link

“Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”

They were marked classified.

From my link....

First, Director Comey explained that he was talking about only three emails out of the 30,000 his office reviewed, or 1/100 of 1% of the emails.

Second, Director Comey explained that these three specific emails were not properly marked as classified pursuant to federal guidelines and manuals. They did not have a classification header, and they did not list the original classifier, the agency and office of origin, the reason for classification, or the date for declassification. Instead they included only a single “(c)” for “confidential” on one paragraph lower down in the text.

Finally, Director Comey explained that it would have been a “reasonable inference” for Secretary Clinton to “immediately” conclude that these emails were not in fact classified.

Here is the exchange between Director Comey and Rep. Matthew Cartwright:

Rep. Cartwright: Those three documents with the little “c”s on them, were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

Director Comey: No.

Rep. Cartwright: According to the manual, and I ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record, Mr. Chairman. According to the manual, if you’re going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document, right?

Director Comey: Correct.

Rep. Cartwright: Was there a header on the three documents that we’ve discussed today that had the little “c” in the text someplace?

Director Comey: No, there were three e-mails. The “c” was in the body in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.

Rep. Cartwright: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what’s not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

Director Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.

except, it says this in your link.

“Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”

classified was marked.

Right, that bore a small c, in a spot in the context of the email, but without the proper classified marking header, which indicates the date, time, agency and dept, and Agent signature who classified it, the little c in the context meant diddly squat without the classified header Marked Classified.

Comey was a prick to Hillary, to even bring it up.

If you want to ignore all the rules on classified information you would just edit a classified item to remove the headers and any stamps indicating the classification and print out a nice clean document. Then you could claim you had no idea the information was classified. Someone must have screwed up and left the confidential paragraph marking (c) on the page.

 

[Batcat]

Trump lost.

So Trump wanted to burn or blow the house down....

He convinced his minions, to enact his revenge... If democracy, voted him out, then he was going to destroy that democracy.

You ALL are just his helpers, so he doesn't have to get his precious little fingers, dirty.

YOU are being used and abused, but are so far in to supporting him as your savior from all the perceived liberal evil and deep state conspiracy, that you have to keep supporting him and his Big Lie, to save face....

It's a sad situation, but one that Trump, counts on.....

If the Trump supporters had really wanted to take over the Capitol Building they would have came armed to the teeth and accomplished that mission.

The “insurrection“ was simply a rowdy mob that got out of control. Mobs often do that. At least the Trump mob didn’t burn the Capitol building like The BLM and Antifa mobs did to many blocks in our cities.

View attachment 495007

Anyone who has watched and listened to trump understood that he incited the worst insurrection against our form of government since the Civil War.

I would call the BLM and Antifa rioters more of an insurrection then the mob in the Capitol.

If the January 6th fiasco was as serious as you suggest it would only seem logical that everybody involved would be facing long prison sentences.

Charged in Jan. 6 riot? Yes, but prison may be another story

More than 400 people have been charged with federal crimes in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. With new defendants still flooding into Washington's federal court, the Justice Department is under pressure to quickly resolve the least serious of cases. While defendants charged with crimes such...

news.yahoo.com

Time will tell if any of those end up in USP ADX Florence. Even the most vile and dangerous of the insurrectionists will have their rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Unlike those supporters of Donald Trump who rant together, "Lock her up" ignore her rights; those who sought to kill Speaker Pelosi and hand VP Pence will have their day in court.

Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified. She didn’t even lose her clearance until later. She treated the rules on classified information as just chickenshit by putting that info on an unauthorized and improperly secured server. I wonder if her negligence cost lives.

STATEMENT: "Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified."

RESPONSE: Post the highly classified information or admit you don't have it and lied.

Arriana McLymore
July 7, 2016

Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment.
The exchange grew heated at times, with comments like this one from Gowdy: "You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'"
Here's a full transcript of the exchange:
- ADVERTISEMENT -

Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?

Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.

Gowdy: It was not true?

Comey: That's what I said.

Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?

Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?

Comey: There was classified information emailed.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?

Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.

Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?

Comey: No.

Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

Comey: That is right?

Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.

You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether

They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.

This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.

So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.

Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'

Here's a transcript of Rep. Trey Gowdy grilling FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting Hillary Clinton.

finance.yahoo.com

###

Here is a link....

FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified

FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified “Reasonable Inference” for Clinton to Infer “Immediately” That Emails Were Not in Fact Classified On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey stated with respect to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails: “Only a very small...

oversight.house.gov

from your own link

“Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”

They were marked classified.

From my link....

First, Director Comey explained that he was talking about only three emails out of the 30,000 his office reviewed, or 1/100 of 1% of the emails.

Second, Director Comey explained that these three specific emails were not properly marked as classified pursuant to federal guidelines and manuals. They did not have a classification header, and they did not list the original classifier, the agency and office of origin, the reason for classification, or the date for declassification. Instead they included only a single “(c)” for “confidential” on one paragraph lower down in the text.

Finally, Director Comey explained that it would have been a “reasonable inference” for Secretary Clinton to “immediately” conclude that these emails were not in fact classified.

Here is the exchange between Director Comey and Rep. Matthew Cartwright:

Rep. Cartwright: Those three documents with the little “c”s on them, were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

Director Comey: No.

Rep. Cartwright: According to the manual, and I ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record, Mr. Chairman. According to the manual, if you’re going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document, right?

Director Comey: Correct.

Rep. Cartwright: Was there a header on the three documents that we’ve discussed today that had the little “c” in the text someplace?

Director Comey: No, there were three e-mails. The “c” was in the body in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.

Rep. Cartwright: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what’s not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

Director Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.

except, it says this in your link.

“Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”

classified was marked.

Right, that bore a small c, in a spot in the context of the email, but without the proper classified marking header, which indicates the date, time, agency and dept, and Agent signature who classified it, the little c in the context meant diddly squat without the classified header Marked Classified.

Comey was a prick to Hillary, to even bring it up.

A Navy sailor spent a year in prison for far less than what that bitch did.

Her little private server was hacked and everything she had on it is in the hands of our enemies.

Why else do you think xiden and Co. bend over backwards to help China and Russia over the interests of the American people.

What worries me is if our enemies were able to discover some of our agents and people who help us from the information on her computer. If so they may be rotting in prison or dead while Hillary walked away scot-free.

Hillary also was extremely careless with her phones. Hillary and members of her staff would take phones into safe rooms called SCIFs which violates protocol and may transmit every word said in the SCIF. She also carried her unencrypted phone around foreign nations which likely means her server was hacked by at least five nations.

The real story behind Hillary's reckless failure to protect classified information

I reviewed the FBI’s report on Mrs. Clinton through my lens as an attorney representing American service members, intelligence personnel, and diplomats accused of similar misconduct.

www.foxnews.com

Breaking the SCIF phones

What all phones should look like after a SCIF visit. If you’ve never heard of a SCIF before this past week, you probably don’t work in government. SCIFs are Sensitive Compartmented Info…

datechguyblog.com

 

[sartre play]

Hillary is a private citizen now, And no one ever said she was a perfect person. 11 investigations, and one 11 hour interrogation found no Criminal intent. What I find criminal is the 100% lie that she was part of a pedophile gang molesting children in the basement of a pizza place that had NO basement. And because of this lie that many of you passed on to others, a man with a wife & two children is in jail & not with his family. Because he was dumb enough to believe the Lie & went there to save the Children. these out right Lies and blown up half truths put out in the name of winning politically, are Killing us.

 

[Colin norris]

...that lets the party responsible for an attempted coup block investigation into the attempted coup. They need to be removed. Every single one that supported this and continues to should be removed for cause, they've violated their oaths to the constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution states that no elected official "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution]"

We need to apply that vigorously and get rid of these anti American types who want to do away with democracy in favor of authoritarian rule.


They know it, too. That's why they blocked the commission.

Well, it's up to the electorate. It's up to the Democrats to get out the vote.

This is a pretty ugly time in our history, and there's no guarantee we'll get out of it intact.

Are the Democrats providing a strong enough alternative to end this madness? We'll see soon enough.

The democrats did get out to vote and they threw trump under a bus.
You can hardly doubt they didn't stand by their convictions.
The coup was Republican backed and you guys cheered anticipating success.
The military should have drilled the lot of them, no questions asked. You guys will wear that episode in history like a crown of thorns. What a bitter nasty piece of shit you guys are.

It is very troubling that so many ignorant trumpanzees dominate this message board with BIG LIES and support trump and the current iteration of the Republican Party. If anyone doubts that the GOP has devolved into a right wing radical party they are seriously demented or so radical that they are not patriots and members of the idiot fringe.

Three points:

1. The Election of 2020 was not stolen.

2, The efforts to steal the 2022 and beyond is in effect as I write this.

Republican election audit fever 'unsustainable' for U.S. democracy, experts warn

"We truly are in uncharted waters," one expert said, calling the efforts more than six months after the 2020 election "unsustainable" for U.S. democracy.

www.yahoo.com

3. Democracy in America is under attack by faux patriots; such as the dozen and so who posted above who continue to worship trump; rational people know trump is a demagogue* and a charlatan** as well as a crook***

*Demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people rather than by using rational argument; rhetorically exploit (an issue) for political purposes in a way calculated to appeal to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people.

**Charlatan: a person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill; a fraud.

***Crook: a person who is dishonest or a criminal.

It always puzzles me how they bellow about the democrats being fascist. Trump was the first president who openly showed fascist tendencies but they interpreted it some type of ability to stop democrats forever. They were manipulated by that tyrant and the people made the decision for them.
He played on their fears and threw some racism in, always a good combination to win over low IQ voters.
He predicted he would basically perform miracles and they soaked it up like a sponge. The epitome of a tyrants MO and potential victims.

Yet, it was republicans who voted trump out. There's no doubt about it but they focus on those pillaging hordes of communist democrats who did it. Not yet will they accept the devil is within their own party.

Then there's the loopy nut job who said the riot in the capitol was only people walking through and talking selfies as justification for not accepting he was backing terrorists. You can't make this up. Its like trump magically vaccinated them with a delusion drug.

 

[Crepitus]

So yes, it was indeed a coup attempt.

let me know when your opinion becomes fact

You missed it, it was back on January sixth.

 

[jc456]

So yes, it was indeed a coup attempt.

let me know when your opinion becomes fact

You missed it, it was back on January sixth.

What was?

 

[Crepitus]

...that lets the party responsible for an attempted coup block investigation into the attempted coup. They need to be removed. Every single one that supported this and continues to should be removed for cause, they've violated their oaths to the constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution states that no elected official "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution]"

We need to apply that vigorously and get rid of these anti American types who want to do away with democracy in favor of authoritarian rule.


They know it, too. That's why they blocked the commission.

.

It would be easier if you just said Speaker of the House Pelosi, cannot attempt to use authoritarian rule, to make Republicans play games with her.

.​

What has that got to do with republicans trying to hide from their crimes?

 

[jc456]

...that lets the party responsible for an attempted coup block investigation into the attempted coup. They need to be removed. Every single one that supported this and continues to should be removed for cause, they've violated their oaths to the constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution states that no elected official "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution]"

We need to apply that vigorously and get rid of these anti American types who want to do away with democracy in favor of authoritarian rule.


They know it, too. That's why they blocked the commission.

.

It would be easier if you just said Speaker of the House Pelosi, cannot attempt to use authoritarian rule, to make Republicans play games with her.

.​

What has that got to do with republicans trying to hide from their crimes?

Everything

 

[BlackSand]

What has that got to do with republicans trying to hide from their crimes?

.

It just points out the flaw in your narrative, where your desire or intentions may exceed any actual requirement or need to entertain further.

.​

 

[jc456]

...that lets the party responsible for an attempted coup block investigation into the attempted coup. They need to be removed. Every single one that supported this and continues to should be removed for cause, they've violated their oaths to the constitution.

Section 3 of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution states that no elected official "shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the Constitution]"

We need to apply that vigorously and get rid of these anti American types who want to do away with democracy in favor of authoritarian rule.


They know it, too. That's why they blocked the commission.

.

It would be easier if you just said Speaker of the House Pelosi, cannot attempt to use authoritarian rule, to make Republicans play games with her.

.​

What has that got to do with republicans trying to hide from their crimes?

Those are? Turrets

 

[Care4all]

Trump lost.

So Trump wanted to burn or blow the house down....

He convinced his minions, to enact his revenge... If democracy, voted him out, then he was going to destroy that democracy.

You ALL are just his helpers, so he doesn't have to get his precious little fingers, dirty.

YOU are being used and abused, but are so far in to supporting him as your savior from all the perceived liberal evil and deep state conspiracy, that you have to keep supporting him and his Big Lie, to save face....

It's a sad situation, but one that Trump, counts on.....

If the Trump supporters had really wanted to take over the Capitol Building they would have came armed to the teeth and accomplished that mission.

The “insurrection“ was simply a rowdy mob that got out of control. Mobs often do that. At least the Trump mob didn’t burn the Capitol building like The BLM and Antifa mobs did to many blocks in our cities.

View attachment 495007

Anyone who has watched and listened to trump understood that he incited the worst insurrection against our form of government since the Civil War.

I would call the BLM and Antifa rioters more of an insurrection then the mob in the Capitol.

If the January 6th fiasco was as serious as you suggest it would only seem logical that everybody involved would be facing long prison sentences.

Charged in Jan. 6 riot? Yes, but prison may be another story

More than 400 people have been charged with federal crimes in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. With new defendants still flooding into Washington's federal court, the Justice Department is under pressure to quickly resolve the least serious of cases. While defendants charged with crimes such...

news.yahoo.com

Time will tell if any of those end up in USP ADX Florence. Even the most vile and dangerous of the insurrectionists will have their rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Unlike those supporters of Donald Trump who rant together, "Lock her up" ignore her rights; those who sought to kill Speaker Pelosi and hand VP Pence will have their day in court.

Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified. She didn’t even lose her clearance until later. She treated the rules on classified information as just chickenshit by putting that info on an unauthorized and improperly secured server. I wonder if her negligence cost lives.

STATEMENT: "Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified."

RESPONSE: Post the highly classified information or admit you don't have it and lied.

Arriana McLymore
July 7, 2016

Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment.
The exchange grew heated at times, with comments like this one from Gowdy: "You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'"
Here's a full transcript of the exchange:
- ADVERTISEMENT -

Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?

Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.

Gowdy: It was not true?

Comey: That's what I said.

Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?

Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?

Comey: There was classified information emailed.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?

Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.

Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?

Comey: No.

Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

Comey: That is right?

Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.

You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether

They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.

This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.

So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.

Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'

Here's a transcript of Rep. Trey Gowdy grilling FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting Hillary Clinton.

finance.yahoo.com

###

Here is a link....

FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified

FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified “Reasonable Inference” for Clinton to Infer “Immediately” That Emails Were Not in Fact Classified On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey stated with respect to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails: “Only a very small...

oversight.house.gov

from your own link

“Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”

They were marked classified.

From my link....

First, Director Comey explained that he was talking about only three emails out of the 30,000 his office reviewed, or 1/100 of 1% of the emails.

Second, Director Comey explained that these three specific emails were not properly marked as classified pursuant to federal guidelines and manuals. They did not have a classification header, and they did not list the original classifier, the agency and office of origin, the reason for classification, or the date for declassification. Instead they included only a single “(c)” for “confidential” on one paragraph lower down in the text.

Finally, Director Comey explained that it would have been a “reasonable inference” for Secretary Clinton to “immediately” conclude that these emails were not in fact classified.

Here is the exchange between Director Comey and Rep. Matthew Cartwright:

Rep. Cartwright: Those three documents with the little “c”s on them, were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

Director Comey: No.

Rep. Cartwright: According to the manual, and I ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record, Mr. Chairman. According to the manual, if you’re going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document, right?

Director Comey: Correct.

Rep. Cartwright: Was there a header on the three documents that we’ve discussed today that had the little “c” in the text someplace?

Director Comey: No, there were three e-mails. The “c” was in the body in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.

Rep. Cartwright: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what’s not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

Director Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.

except, it says this in your link.

“Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”

classified was marked.

Right, that bore a small c, in a spot in the context of the email, but without the proper classified marking header, which indicates the date, time, agency and dept, and Agent signature who classified it, the little c in the context meant diddly squat without the classified header Marked Classified.

Comey was a prick to Hillary, to even bring it up.

A Navy sailor spent a year in prison for far less than what that bitch did.

Her little private server was hacked and everything she had on it is in the hands of our enemies.

Why else do you think xiden and Co. bend over backwards to help China and Russia over the interests of the American people.

The Military has ALWAYS been under different laws and rules than civilians, especially with Military top secret.... It is, what it is....

And no, the military guy did not do less than Hillary.

Comey testified Hillary did LESS THAN Petraeus, with top secret info, and Petraeus was charged only with a misdemeanor. Less than a Petraeus misdemeanor...would be no charges, but a slap on the wrist....a reprimand.

 

[Crepitus]

What has that got to do with republicans trying to hide from their crimes?

.

It just points out the flaw in your narrative, where your desire or intentions may exceed any actual requirement or need to entertain further.

.​

So, nothing then?

No different from any of your other posts, I don't know why I even asked.

 

[Natural Citizen]

What “coup attempt”?

If I had to think on it, the most egregious coup attempt, which ended up being successful, is when the communists operating through the democratic party bypassed the state legislatures and laid the ground work for the states attorneys to change election laws.

That was clearly, patently and blatantly unconstitutional.

The fact that those republican legislative bodies sat back and allowed it to happen further compounds the matter and is highly reflective of just how blatant the false paradigm in American politics actually is. The party of one seems very confident that the American electorate isn't capable or even willing to put up any kind of relevant opposition. Though they do put on a half-decent act. I guess. Maybe. The people seem to eat it up anyway. I think it's rather obvious myself.

 

[BlackSand]

So, nothing then?

No different from any of your other posts, I don't know why I even asked.

.

There's a difference in "Nothing" and "Nothing That Suits Your Desires" ... Which was kind of the point in the first place.
I mean I implied with the first post, said it in the second post, and you still haven't figured it out.

.​

 

[jc456]

What has that got to do with republicans trying to hide from their crimes?

.

It just points out the flaw in your narrative, where your desire or intentions may exceed any actual requirement or need to entertain further.

.​

So, nothing then?

No different from any of your other posts, I don't know why I even asked.

Did you define the crimes?

 

[Batcat]

Trump lost.

So Trump wanted to burn or blow the house down....

He convinced his minions, to enact his revenge... If democracy, voted him out, then he was going to destroy that democracy.

You ALL are just his helpers, so he doesn't have to get his precious little fingers, dirty.

YOU are being used and abused, but are so far in to supporting him as your savior from all the perceived liberal evil and deep state conspiracy, that you have to keep supporting him and his Big Lie, to save face....

It's a sad situation, but one that Trump, counts on.....

If the Trump supporters had really wanted to take over the Capitol Building they would have came armed to the teeth and accomplished that mission.

The “insurrection“ was simply a rowdy mob that got out of control. Mobs often do that. At least the Trump mob didn’t burn the Capitol building like The BLM and Antifa mobs did to many blocks in our cities.

View attachment 495007

Anyone who has watched and listened to trump understood that he incited the worst insurrection against our form of government since the Civil War.

I would call the BLM and Antifa rioters more of an insurrection then the mob in the Capitol.

If the January 6th fiasco was as serious as you suggest it would only seem logical that everybody involved would be facing long prison sentences.

Charged in Jan. 6 riot? Yes, but prison may be another story

More than 400 people have been charged with federal crimes in the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol. With new defendants still flooding into Washington's federal court, the Justice Department is under pressure to quickly resolve the least serious of cases. While defendants charged with crimes such...

news.yahoo.com

Time will tell if any of those end up in USP ADX Florence. Even the most vile and dangerous of the insurrectionists will have their rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Unlike those supporters of Donald Trump who rant together, "Lock her up" ignore her rights; those who sought to kill Speaker Pelosi and hand VP Pence will have their day in court.

Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified. She didn’t even lose her clearance until later. She treated the rules on classified information as just chickenshit by putting that info on an unauthorized and improperly secured server. I wonder if her negligence cost lives.

STATEMENT: "Hillary negligently handled classified information some of which was extremely high classified."

RESPONSE: Post the highly classified information or admit you don't have it and lied.

Arriana McLymore
July 7, 2016

Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep. Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment.
The exchange grew heated at times, with comments like this one from Gowdy: "You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'"
Here's a full transcript of the exchange:
- ADVERTISEMENT -

Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey. Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?

Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.

Gowdy: It was not true?

Comey: That's what I said.

Gowdy: OK. Well, I'm looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?

Comey: That's not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said "I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material." That is true?

Comey: There was classified information emailed.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?

Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.

Comey: That's a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there's no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?

Comey: No.

Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

Comey: That is right?

Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.

You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether

They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.

This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.

So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.

Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'

Here's a transcript of Rep. Trey Gowdy grilling FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting Hillary Clinton.

finance.yahoo.com

###

Here is a link....

FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified

FBI Director Comey: Emails Were Not Properly Marked as Classified “Reasonable Inference” for Clinton to Infer “Immediately” That Emails Were Not in Fact Classified On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey stated with respect to former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s emails: “Only a very small...

oversight.house.gov

from your own link

“Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”

They were marked classified.

From my link....

First, Director Comey explained that he was talking about only three emails out of the 30,000 his office reviewed, or 1/100 of 1% of the emails.

Second, Director Comey explained that these three specific emails were not properly marked as classified pursuant to federal guidelines and manuals. They did not have a classification header, and they did not list the original classifier, the agency and office of origin, the reason for classification, or the date for declassification. Instead they included only a single “(c)” for “confidential” on one paragraph lower down in the text.

Finally, Director Comey explained that it would have been a “reasonable inference” for Secretary Clinton to “immediately” conclude that these emails were not in fact classified.

Here is the exchange between Director Comey and Rep. Matthew Cartwright:

Rep. Cartwright: Those three documents with the little “c”s on them, were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

Director Comey: No.

Rep. Cartwright: According to the manual, and I ask unanimous consent to enter this into the record, Mr. Chairman. According to the manual, if you’re going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document, right?

Director Comey: Correct.

Rep. Cartwright: Was there a header on the three documents that we’ve discussed today that had the little “c” in the text someplace?

Director Comey: No, there were three e-mails. The “c” was in the body in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.

Rep. Cartwright: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what’s not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

Director Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.

except, it says this in your link.

“Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.”

classified was marked.

Right, that bore a small c, in a spot in the context of the email, but without the proper classified marking header, which indicates the date, time, agency and dept, and Agent signature who classified it, the little c in the context meant diddly squat without the classified header Marked Classified.

Comey was a prick to Hillary, to even bring it up.

A Navy sailor spent a year in prison for far less than what that bitch did.

Her little private server was hacked and everything she had on it is in the hands of our enemies.

Why else do you think xiden and Co. bend over backwards to help China and Russia over the interests of the American people.

The Military has ALWAYS been under different laws and rules than civilians, especially with Military top secret.... It is, what it is....

And no, the military guy did not do less than Hillary.

Comey testified Hillary did LESS THAN Petraeus, with top secret info, and Petraeus was charged only with a misdemeanor. Less than a Petraeus misdemeanor...would be no charges, but a slap on the wrist....a reprimand.

When I was in the military we were told not to take pictures of the aircraft we worked on or we could end up in prison.

Comey did say Clinton did less than Petraeus largely because she lacked understanding of the rules involving classified information.

Comey said that the conduct of Petraeus, who pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge of handling classified information as CIA director, "illustrates the categories of behavior that mark prosecutions that are actually brought.

"Clearly intentional conduct. Knew what he was doing was violation of the law," Comey said of the difference between Clinton and Petraeus. "Huge amounts of information if you couldn't prove he knew, it raises the inference he did it, and effort to obstruct justice, that combination of things making it worthy of a prosecution. A misdemeanor prosecution but a prosecution nonetheless."

Therefore Coney argued Hillary was either too stupid to understand the rules of handling classified info or had never been told the rules.

15 most revealing moments from Comey's testimony on Clinton emails

Comey defends the FBI's decision to not recommend charges while saying some of Clinton's public statements were untrue.

www.politico.com

I know the Air Force taught airmen the rules on handling classifed information because I taught a class on the subject.

I find it hard to believe that Hillary was never taught anything on the subject when she at times handled the most highly classified information our government has. I find it more likely Hillary avoided any classes on security so she could claim she never had any training.