On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 8:36:37 AM UTC-4, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 7/5/16 8:31 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:13:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:


I find it odd that The FBI boss recommended against prosecution since the way it's always worked is for law enforcement to investigate then give their findings to the prosecutor who makes the decision on whether or not to bring criminal charges. It works that way all the way down to the smallest county and city. Of course, unless it involves a member of the Commiecrat elite. They're better than me and thee and get special treatment when they're running The Executive Branch. ^_^

F
FWIW, Lynch had said (post tarmac discussion with Willy) that she was
recusing herself and would accept the FBI's suggestion.

Not exactly. She said she would accept the decision of the FBI, prosecutors
and supervisors. Later she backtracked on even that, hinting that she could
still get involved. But it's over at this point, at least for now. Comey
was the one guy that looked honest, with him gone, it's done.

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 8:39:27 AM UTC-4, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 7/6/16 6:39 AM, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 15:08:58 -0400
Tekkie® wrote:

Is the fix in?

Special laws for the protected class:

the FBI director detailed what he called €œextremely careless€� handling
of sensitive government emails, said the bureau could not be sure
Clintons server was not hacked and
***even added that government
employees who behaved similarly could expect to be sanctioned****

The most interesting thing is how the FBI director tiptoed around lying
to the FBI. What's sauce for the Martha Stewart should be sauce for the
Hilliary Clinton.

Who lied to the FBI and when?

On 7/6/16 8:39 AM, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 08:36:28 -0400
"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote:

On 7/5/16 8:31 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:13:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:


I find it odd that The FBI boss recommended against prosecution
since the way it's always worked is for law enforcement to
investigate then give their findings to the prosecutor who makes
the decision on whether or not to bring criminal charges. It works
that way all the way down to the smallest county and city. Of
course, unless it involves a member of the Commiecrat elite.
They're better than me and thee and get special treatment when
they're running The Executive Branch. ^_^

F
FWIW, Lynch had said (post tarmac discussion with Willy) that she was
recusing herself and would accept the FBI's suggestion.



You need to go read what she said...she never recused herself...

She said she would go with the FBI's recommendation. You may be right
technically, but functionally she did.

On 7/6/16 9:01 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 8:36:37 AM UTC-4, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 7/5/16 8:31 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:13:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:


I find it odd that The FBI boss recommended against prosecution since the way it's always worked is for law enforcement to investigate then give their findings to the prosecutor who makes the decision on whether or not to bring criminal charges. It works that way all the way down to the smallest county and city. Of course, unless it involves a member of the Commiecrat elite. They're better than me and thee and get special treatment when they're running The Executive Branch. ^_^

F
FWIW, Lynch had said (post tarmac discussion with Willy) that she was
recusing herself and would accept the FBI's suggestion.

Not exactly. She said she would accept the decision of the FBI, prosecutors
and supervisors. Later she backtracked on even that, hinting that she could
still get involved. But it's over at this point, at least for now. Comey
was the one guy that looked honest, with him gone, it's done.

As I mentioned she recused herself functionally when she said she'd take
the FBI's suggestions. Missed the part where she backtracked.

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 7:36:37 AM UTC-5, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 7/5/16 8:31 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:13:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:

I find it odd that The FBI boss recommended against prosecution since the way it's always worked is for law enforcement to investigate then give their findings to the prosecutor who makes the decision on whether or not to bring criminal charges. It works that way all the way down to the smallest county and city. Of course, unless it involves a member of the Commiecrat elite. They're better than me and thee and get special treatment when they're running The Executive Branch. ^_^

F
FWIW, Lynch had said (post tarmac discussion with Willy) that she was
recusing herself and would accept the FBI's suggestion.

Special Prosecutor anyone? ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Guilty Monster

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 10:30:22 -0400
"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote:

On 7/6/16 8:39 AM, burfordTjustice wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 08:36:28 -0400
"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote:

On 7/5/16 8:31 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:13:15 PM UTC-5,
wrote:


I find it odd that The FBI boss recommended against prosecution
since the way it's always worked is for law enforcement to
investigate then give their findings to the prosecutor who makes
the decision on whether or not to bring criminal charges. It works
that way all the way down to the smallest county and city. Of
course, unless it involves a member of the Commiecrat elite.
They're better than me and thee and get special treatment when
they're running The Executive Branch. ^_^

F
FWIW, Lynch had said (post tarmac discussion with Willy) that she
was recusing herself and would accept the FBI's suggestion.



You need to go read what she said...she never recused herself...

She said she would go with the FBI's recommendation. You may be right
technically, but functionally she did.


She even back tracked on the general statement.

Like the rest in the administration she lies.

She was never going to leave to chance hillary getting
an indictment

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 9:51:03 AM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 7:36:37 AM UTC-5, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 7/5/16 8:31 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:13:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:

I find it odd that The FBI boss recommended against prosecution since the way it's always worked is for law enforcement to investigate then give their findings to the prosecutor who makes the decision on whether or not to bring criminal charges. It works that way all the way down to the smallest county and city. Of course, unless it involves a member of the Commiecrat elite. They're better than me and thee and get special treatment when they're running The Executive Branch. ^_^

F
FWIW, Lynch had said (post tarmac discussion with Willy) that she was
recusing herself and would accept the FBI's suggestion.

Special Prosecutor anyone? ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Guilty Monster

Maybe you could "dig-up" Robert Bork?

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 05:59:51 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

And negligence is all that it takes for it to be a felony. Comey laid out
the excellent case they had, then proceeded to say no prosecutor would ever
prosecute this. Already Rudy Giuliani had come forth saying he would have.
He said they even had proof of intent, that criminals never come out and say
they intended to do something, but intent was obvious there from all the
actions over 4 years.

Comey's job was to prepare an Information of Probable Cause or not,
based on evidence and send it to the AG for presentation to a Grand
Jury via prosecutors.

Hillary operates to deceive. I am woman!

Espionage doesn't require "intent" just neglect?

T posted for all of us...



On 07/05/2016 12:08 PM, Tekkie® wrote:

I don't know if this has been posted before...

Is the fix in?

What about other people that got prosecuted for the same thing?

What to think?



It takes my breath away.

I have had security clearance before. If I had pulled 1/1000 of
what she pulled, my bones would still be in jail 500 years from
today.

I can not believe what has happened to my beloved country that I put
its uniform on and placed my life on the line to protect.

I have to stop thinking about this and listen to some much as
I am having trouble breathing if I think about it.

+1 on that... If people only knew.

--
Tekkie

Oren posted for all of us...



Comey's job was to prepare an Information of Probable Cause or not,
based on evidence and send it to the AG for presentation to a Grand
Jury via prosecutors.

Hillary operates to deceive. I am woman!

Espionage doesn't require "intent" just neglect?


She was the head of the State Dept. Part of her job was to know the rules
and guidelines. She was given training and forms to sign. She was given
continuing advice as how to proceed. From Comeys mouth comes the phrase
"neglect". I thought it was going to be background on the FBI recommendation
to to the DOJ; until the last few minutes. I agree with Oren that Comey
should not have made the statement not to indict. Not his job. He was once a
prosecutor but not now. The DOJ should be making the decision. I bet there
are probably a few career people in both the FBI and DOJ that are ****ed. I
guess we have wait to see what the rumble from the jungle is.

If she cannot handle the State Dept. job then how can she possibly handle
being the leader of the free world? It requires at least 100 different
iterations of what she did at State. If she was in private business she
would have been canned. Her performance was awful and never improved.

I wonder who has the pictures...

--
Tekkie

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 14:56:47 -0400, Tekkie® wrote:

She was the head of the State Dept. Part of her job was to know the rules
and guidelines. She was given training and forms to sign. She was given
continuing advice as how to proceed. From Comeys mouth comes the phrase
"neglect". I thought it was going to be background on the FBI recommendation
to to the DOJ; until the last few minutes. I agree with Oren that Comey
should not have made the statement not to indict. Not his job. He was once a
prosecutor but not now. The DOJ should be making the decision. I bet there
are probably a few career people in both the FBI and DOJ that are ****ed. I
guess we have wait to see what the rumble from the jungle is.

If she cannot handle the State Dept. job then how can she possibly handle
being the leader of the free world? It requires at least 100 different
iterations of what she did at State. If she was in private business she
would have been canned. Her performance was awful and never improved.

I wonder who has the pictures...

The normal response, as Comey stated, is "administrative sanction".
That is that you lose your security clearance, you get moved to a job
that does not require handling sensitive material, if you are not
fired outright (hard to do in civil service) and you will never get a
clearance again.
Why is anyone considering giving this woman a job that involves the
most sensitive material in the country?

On 07/06/2016 12:18 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 14:56:47 -0400, Tekkie® wrote:

She was the head of the State Dept. Part of her job was to know the rules
and guidelines. She was given training and forms to sign. She was given
continuing advice as how to proceed. From Comeys mouth comes the phrase
"neglect". I thought it was going to be background on the FBI recommendation
to to the DOJ; until the last few minutes. I agree with Oren that Comey
should not have made the statement not to indict. Not his job. He was once a
prosecutor but not now. The DOJ should be making the decision. I bet there
are probably a few career people in both the FBI and DOJ that are ****ed. I
guess we have wait to see what the rumble from the jungle is.

If she cannot handle the State Dept. job then how can she possibly handle
being the leader of the free world? It requires at least 100 different
iterations of what she did at State. If she was in private business she
would have been canned. Her performance was awful and never improved.

I wonder who has the pictures...

The normal response, as Comey stated, is "administrative sanction".
That is that you lose your security clearance, you get moved to a job
that does not require handling sensitive material, if you are not
fired outright (hard to do in civil service) and you will never get a
clearance again.
Why is anyone considering giving this woman a job that involves the
most sensitive material in the country?


Uh. I handled classified. An oops or a goof would
have got me and Article 15 (a military "administrative sanction").

Had I pulled what she pulled, I would still be in prison.

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 1:06:46 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 05:59:51 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

And negligence is all that it takes for it to be a felony. Comey laid out
the excellent case they had, then proceeded to say no prosecutor would ever
prosecute this. Already Rudy Giuliani had come forth saying he would have.
He said they even had proof of intent, that criminals never come out and say
they intended to do something, but intent was obvious there from all the
actions over 4 years.

Comey's job was to prepare an Information of Probable Cause or not,
based on evidence and send it to the AG for presentation to a Grand
Jury via prosecutors.

Hillary operates to deceive. I am woman!

Espionage doesn't require "intent" just neglect?

18 USC §793.


(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer€”
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.



What Comey describes was beyond gross negligence, he showed she knew what
was going on and intended to let in continue. That's intent.

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 3:18:55 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 14:56:47 -0400, Tekkie® wrote:

She was the head of the State Dept. Part of her job was to know the rules
and guidelines. She was given training and forms to sign. She was given
continuing advice as how to proceed. From Comeys mouth comes the phrase
"neglect". I thought it was going to be background on the FBI recommendation
to to the DOJ; until the last few minutes. I agree with Oren that Comey
should not have made the statement not to indict. Not his job. He was once a
prosecutor but not now. The DOJ should be making the decision. I bet there
are probably a few career people in both the FBI and DOJ that are ****ed.. I
guess we have wait to see what the rumble from the jungle is.

If she cannot handle the State Dept. job then how can she possibly handle
being the leader of the free world? It requires at least 100 different
iterations of what she did at State. If she was in private business she
would have been canned. Her performance was awful and never improved.

I wonder who has the pictures...

The normal response, as Comey stated, is "administrative sanction".

And in the case of John Deutsch, former CIA director, they proceeded with
charges. His offense was just taking classified info home to work with
on his computer. They also charged and convicted a naval reservist who
did nothing more than take home a thumb drive with classified info on it.
What Hillary did was put together and preside over a whole system where
classified info was sent all over the place for 4 years.



That is that you lose your security clearance, you get moved to a job
that does not require handling sensitive material, if you are not
fired outright (hard to do in civil service) and you will never get a
clearance again.
Why is anyone considering giving this woman a job that involves the
most sensitive material in the country?

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 10:33:13 AM UTC-4, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 7/6/16 9:01 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 8:36:37 AM UTC-4, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 7/5/16 8:31 PM, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:13:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:


I find it odd that The FBI boss recommended against prosecution since the way it's always worked is for law enforcement to investigate then give their findings to the prosecutor who makes the decision on whether or not to bring criminal charges. It works that way all the way down to the smallest county and city. Of course, unless it involves a member of the Commiecrat elite. They're better than me and thee and get special treatment when they're running The Executive Branch. ^_^

F
FWIW, Lynch had said (post tarmac discussion with Willy) that she was
recusing herself and would accept the FBI's suggestion.

Not exactly. She said she would accept the decision of the FBI, prosecutors
and supervisors. Later she backtracked on even that, hinting that she could
still get involved. But it's over at this point, at least for now. Comey
was the one guy that looked honest, with him gone, it's done.

As I mentioned she recused herself functionally when she said she'd take
the FBI's suggestions. Missed the part where she backtracked.

Again, you also missed that she did not say just FBI would make the call.
She said FBI, prosecutors, supervisors, and investigators would make the
call. The prosecutors and supervisors are in DOJ and we don't even know
who they are. Investigators, IDK what she even means there, as I would
think all the investigators are in FBI. So, theoretically those DOJ people
could come forward tomorrow and say we want to proceed, but it won't happen..
Something is also very wrong here with the process, because clearly those
prosecutors should have been involved, but it looks like they were bypassed..
Again, I smell a rat. It's as if the DOJ just punted on the whole thing,
like maybe those prosecutors would have had a hard time not prosecuting,
so they came up with the Lynch/Bill meeting as a way to get DOJ out of the
whole thing period. Very, very strange.

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:32:16 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

What Comey describes was beyond gross negligence, he showed she knew what
was going on and intended to let in continue. That's intent.

What we now have is the federal government calling her a lying bitch,
publicly documented.

Oren posted for all of us...



On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:32:16 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

What Comey describes was beyond gross negligence, he showed she knew what
was going on and intended to let in continue. That's intent.

What we now have is the federal government calling her a lying bitch,
publicly documented.

But the Klintons are impervious to it.

--
Tekkie

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:32:16 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 1:06:46 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 05:59:51 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

And negligence is all that it takes for it to be a felony. Comey laid out
the excellent case they had, then proceeded to say no prosecutor would ever
prosecute this. Already Rudy Giuliani had come forth saying he would have.
He said they even had proof of intent, that criminals never come out and say
they intended to do something, but intent was obvious there from all the
actions over 4 years.

Comey's job was to prepare an Information of Probable Cause or not,
based on evidence and send it to the AG for presentation to a Grand
Jury via prosecutors.

Hillary operates to deceive. I am woman!

Espionage doesn't require "intent" just neglect?

18 USC §793.


(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be
removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,
and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer€”
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.



What Comey describes was beyond gross negligence, he showed she knew what
was going on and intended to let in continue. That's intent.

As fun as it would be, Comey is right. This is not a crime but it
should preclude someone from having the "football"

On 7/6/2016 3:18 PM, wrote:

The normal response, as Comey stated, is "administrative sanction".
That is that you lose your security clearance, you get moved to a job
that does not require handling sensitive material, if you are not
fired outright (hard to do in civil service) and you will never get a
clearance again.
Why is anyone considering giving this woman a job that involves the
most sensitive material in the country?


Now, if we can only answer your question, we'd
better understand politics.

In NYS, there is a radio station 1040 AM, and
a radio host named Shannon Joy broadcasts. She
mentioned the concept of prosecuting Dems as
being like Charlie Brown and the football. Get
the Reps all outraged and hollering to "do some
thing" and get the hopes up. Eventually, all
the yelling results in zero results. Slick
Willie and the perjury and selling info to the
Chinese charges. Now, Hillary! and the email
scandal. And, results in zero results.

And, yes, I am commenting on politics on a home
repair group.

--
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote in message

stuff snipped

FWIW, Lynch had said (post tarmac discussion with Willy) that she was
recusing herself and would accept the FBI's suggestion.

Now let's see if the "reliable sources" quoted here a while back were right
and there's a revolt in the rank and file of the FBI. Somehow I *really*
doubt it. As for indicting her for setting up her own server, I just can't
see Hillary partitioning a server drive array or loading an OS. Despite the
comparisons, this wasn't like Petraeus' screw-up. He had clear intent and
committed some very direct (and illegal) actions trying to conceal them by
using a "drafts" folder communication system. About as dumb as actor Robert
Blake thinking his phone calling card calls couldn't be traced.

Here, an aide of Hillary's (who should have known better) set up the
physical server and if he didn't get busted (he got immunity, IIRC) then
likely no one would. Even with immunity they seemed unable to get him to
flip on Hillary. It's almost as if the R's are trying to prove she's immune
from harm. Not the kind of image you want to build for the leader of the
other team.

They're dragging Comey before a committee to find out why he didn't come up
with the answer they wanted. Should be a laugh because he's smarter and
faster on his feet than most of them put together. I suspect they'll impugn
his integrity and he will bite their hands off, rhetorically and Hillary
will benefit from Republican back-biting once again.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Comey

Comey is a registered Republican who donated to U.S. Senator John McCain's
campaign in the 2008 presidential election and to Governor Mitt Romney's
campaign in the 2012 presidential election.

I am sure the faithful will continue to flog this as they flogged Benghazi
to no discernable avail. Well, it does feed into Hillary's claims of being
persecuted. The Benghazi committee came up mostly dry.

I wonder if the people who pledged to abide by Comey's decision will keep
their word? (-: When you compare this case to the as yet unindicted
Snowden leaks, it's a pretty trivial issue that makes at least some people
think the R's are primarily interested in witch-hunting as a means to retain
power.

They should remember that The Donald's got more witches to hunt than Hillary
and by November the voters of the United States of Amnesia won't remember
much beyond the last week's headlines. I suspect there will be a big
increase in female voter registration and voting and it won't be good for
the R's. Historically witches were mostly female so the spectacle of
witch-hunting affects women in a visceral way. Heckuva a job, Trey Gowdy.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...125_story.html

--
Bobby G.

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 6:53:55 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 13:32:16 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Wednesday, July 6, 2016 at 1:06:46 PM UTC-4, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 05:59:51 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

And negligence is all that it takes for it to be a felony. Comey laid out
the excellent case they had, then proceeded to say no prosecutor would ever
prosecute this. Already Rudy Giuliani had come forth saying he would have.
He said they even had proof of intent, that criminals never come out and say
they intended to do something, but intent was obvious there from all the
actions over 4 years.

Comey's job was to prepare an Information of Probable Cause or not,
based on evidence and send it to the AG for presentation to a Grand
Jury via prosecutors.

Hillary operates to deceive. I am woman!

Espionage doesn't require "intent" just neglect?

18 USC §793.


(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be
removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed,
and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer€”
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.



What Comey describes was beyond gross negligence, he showed she knew what
was going on and intended to let in continue. That's intent.

As fun as it would be, Comey is right. This is not a crime but it
should preclude someone from having the "football"

Then why was it a crime when former CIA director Deutsch did nothing more
than bring home classified documents and put them on his home PC? Why was
it a crime and conviction when naval reservist Brian Nishimura was prosecuted
and convicted a year ago for simply taking a thumb drive home with classified
info on it?

On Thursday, July 7, 2016 at 8:43:33 AM UTC-4, Robert Green wrote:
"Kurt V. Ullman" wrote in message

stuff snipped

FWIW, Lynch had said (post tarmac discussion with Willy) that she was
recusing herself and would accept the FBI's suggestion.

Now let's see if the "reliable sources" quoted here a while back were right
and there's a revolt in the rank and file of the FBI. Somehow I *really*
doubt it. As for indicting her for setting up her own server, I just can't
see Hillary partitioning a server drive array or loading an OS. Despite the
comparisons, this wasn't like Petraeus' screw-up. He had clear intent and
committed some very direct (and illegal) actions trying to conceal them by
using a "drafts" folder communication system. About as dumb as actor Robert
Blake thinking his phone calling card calls couldn't be traced.


Petraeus isn't the comparison, though one of the counts he was charged
with was removing classified info and bringing it home, you're right
that he did more. The correct comparison is with former CIA director
Deutsch or naval reservist Bryan Nishimura. Deutsch just brought home
classified info and put it on his home computer. Prosecutors charged
him and he had a plea deal worked out when Bill Clinton pardoned him.
Nishimura was convicted about a year ago.


Here, an aide of Hillary's (who should have known better) set up the
physical server and if he didn't get busted (he got immunity, IIRC) then
likely no one would.

There is no reason Pagliano would necessarily be guilty of a crime.
The main issue here was classified info and he wouldn't know what
Hillary and her other minions would put top secret info on it.



Even with immunity they seemed unable to get him to
flip on Hillary.

IDK on what basis you conclude that. Comey laid out the whole case
of the crimes committed by Hillary and then said, never mind, we're
not going to prosecute.



It's almost as if the R's are trying to prove she's immune
from harm. Not the kind of image you want to build for the leader of the
other team.


It's very clear by now the rules are different for the Clintons.
From perjury to handling of classified info involving national security,
to public corruption. Look at that Russian uranium deal for example.



They're dragging Comey before a committee to find out why he didn't come up
with the answer they wanted. Should be a laugh because he's smarter and
faster on his feet than most of them put together. I suspect they'll impugn
his integrity and he will bite their hands off, rhetorically and Hillary
will benefit from Republican back-biting once again.


There are plenty of legitimate questions that deserve answers. Explaining
how Hillary is different than Deutsch and Nishimura. Explaining how he
said several times that what Hillary did was "extremely careless" and why
extreme carelessness with what was put through an email system that was
put together at your specific request,
never approved, deliberately kept hidden, for four years is different
from gross negligence, which is all that is required to make it a crime.