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?

--
Tekkie

On 7/5/2016 3:08 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?


Obviously the fix was in. Question is will voters recognize this?

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 2:25:04 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 7/5/2016 3:08 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?


Obviously the fix was in. Question is will voters recognize this?

Let's face it...the right will never be satisfied...so they'll spend more and more on the investigation. People will see *them* for what they're worth....and it will back-fire on them. Typical scenario...

Frank" "frank wrote:
On 7/5/2016 3:08 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?


Obviously the fix was in. Question is will voters recognize this?

Does it matter what voters think ... or even how they vote ? "The results
are what we tell you they are , that's all you need to know."
To Tekkie - I think it's time to clean the guns and check your ammo
supplies . Her subversion of the system is making it more and more likely
she'll claim a win no matter how the people vote . It's a sad day for
America when this happened , there is no justice .
--
Snag
And they wonder why
people are buying guns
in record numbers .

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 12:51:28 PM UTC-7, Terry Coombs spewed as thus:

Does it matter what voters think ... or even how they vote ? "The results
are what we tell you they are , that's all you need to know."
To Tekkie - I think it's time to clean the guns and check your ammo
supplies . Her subversion of the system is making it more and more likely
she'll claim a win no matter how the people vote . It's a sad day for
America when this happened , there is no justice .
--
Snag


And be sure to apply an extra thick layer of tinfoil on yur hat
STG

Shade Tree Guy wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 12:51:28 PM UTC-7, Terry Coombs spewed as
thus:

Does it matter what voters think ... or even how they vote ? "The
results are what we tell you they are , that's all you need to know."
To Tekkie - I think it's time to clean the guns and check your ammo
supplies . Her subversion of the system is making it more and more
likely she'll claim a win no matter how the people vote . It's a sad
day for America when this happened , there is no justice .
--
Snag


And be sure to apply an extra thick layer of tinfoil on yur hat
STG

need some kool-aid to wash down the turd that was just shoved down your
throat?

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 15:08:58 -0400, 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?

Did you watch the whole statement (~20 minutes). The TV shows are only
clipping out the pretty parts.
He said Hillary was "sloppy" and "careless" in the way she handled
highly sensitive material, including "top secret/special access only"
material. He also said if they did not detect malice, the normal
response was "administrative sanctions" (being fired and the assurance
that you would never have another security clearance for me and you).
Evidently the democrats think being sloppy and careless with our
national secrets is not a reason to preclude her as a presidential
candidate.
The second shoe to drop is going to be when the FOIA requests come in
for all of the undisclosed E-mails that they recovered that do not
involve confidential material but may indicate some questionable
collusion between foreign governments, CGI and state. I believe that
is the reason why she had that private server to begin with. Just the
fact that, even though the drives were formatted, they did not
understand the unused sectors were still there, shows this was a
"sloppy" operation from top to bottom. Things that should have been
gone, are still there.

On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 15:08:58 -0400, Tekkie® wrote:

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

What to think?

The Inspector General (OIG) hounded me for months. Two rookies wanted
to come to my home. Get your ass a warrant. I'll see you after
family leave.

These two clowns complained about coming to Las Vegas a second time.
Facing 20 to life --I destroyed the notion. "Have a nice
retirement.', they said.

I destroyed at least 100 pieces of government property. Property
Officer settled the paper.

posted for all of us...



On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 15:08:58 -0400, 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?

Did you watch the whole statement (~20 minutes). The TV shows are only
clipping out the pretty parts.
He said Hillary was "sloppy" and "careless" in the way she handled
highly sensitive material, including "top secret/special access only"
material. He also said if they did not detect malice, the normal
response was "administrative sanctions" (being fired and the assurance
that you would never have another security clearance for me and you).
Evidently the democrats think being sloppy and careless with our
national secrets is not a reason to preclude her as a presidential
candidate.
The second shoe to drop is going to be when the FOIA requests come in
for all of the undisclosed E-mails that they recovered that do not
involve confidential material but may indicate some questionable
collusion between foreign governments, CGI and state. I believe that
is the reason why she had that private server to begin with. Just the
fact that, even though the drives were formatted, they did not
understand the unused sectors were still there, shows this was a
"sloppy" operation from top to bottom. Things that should have been
gone, are still there.

Yes, I watched the whole thing. I want to see what the "special" agents
leak. I find it really aggravating that they spent all this time and
resources to this conclusion. And announce a couple days after interviewing
the subject. Why even bother to interview her?

I guess we'll have three more days of shouting and screaming or glad-handing
on the news. Christ I'm tired of the elections and the BS.

--
Tekkie

ChairMan wrote:
Shade Tree Guy wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 12:51:28 PM UTC-7, Terry Coombs spewed as
thus:

Does it matter what voters think ... or even how they vote ? "The
results are what we tell you they are , that's all you need to
know." To Tekkie - I think it's time to clean the guns and check
your ammo supplies . Her subversion of the system is making it more
and more likely she'll claim a win no matter how the people vote .
It's a sad day for America when this happened , there is no justice
. --
Snag


And be sure to apply an extra thick layer of tinfoil on yur hat
STG

need some *MORE* kool-aid to wash down the turd that was just shoved
down
your throat?


Fixed that for ya - he's apparently already had some kool-aid .
--
Snag

On 7/5/2016 3:36 PM, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 2:25:04 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 7/5/2016 3:08 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?


Obviously the fix was in. Question is will voters recognize this?

Let's face it...the right will never be satisfied...so they'll spend more and more on the investigation. People will see *them* for what they're worth...and it will back-fire on them. Typical scenario...


You are totally blind to all of the Clinton's lawbreaking and their
party's supporting it.

If you find yourself suffering in the end, the blame is yours.

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 5:40:27 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 7/5/2016 3:36 PM, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 2:25:04 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 7/5/2016 3:08 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?


Obviously the fix was in. Question is will voters recognize this?

Let's face it...the right will never be satisfied...so they'll spend more and more on the investigation. People will see *them* for what they're worth...and it will back-fire on them. Typical scenario...


You are totally blind to all of the Clinton's lawbreaking and their
party's supporting it.

If you find yourself suffering in the end, the blame is yours.

So you're saying they bought the FBI? Things are too transparent these days....this is not Chicago's Al Capone era. Ground yourself in logic...not rhetoric...

Terry Coombs wrote:
ChairMan wrote:
Shade Tree Guy wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 12:51:28 PM UTC-7, Terry Coombs spewed
as thus:

Does it matter what voters think ... or even how they vote ? "The
results are what we tell you they are , that's all you need to
know." To Tekkie - I think it's time to clean the guns and check
your ammo supplies . Her subversion of the system is making it more
and more likely she'll claim a win no matter how the people vote .
It's a sad day for America when this happened , there is no justice
. --
Snag


And be sure to apply an extra thick layer of tinfoil on yur hat
STG

need some *MORE* kool-aid to wash down the turd that was just
shoved down
your throat?


Fixed that for ya - he's apparently already had some kool-aid .

tanks : )

wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 15:08:58 -0400, 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?

Did you watch the whole statement (~20 minutes). The TV shows are only
clipping out the pretty parts.
He said Hillary was "sloppy" and "careless" in the way she handled
highly sensitive material, including "top secret/special access only"
material. He also said if they did not detect malice, the normal
response was "administrative sanctions" (being fired and the assurance
that you would never have another security clearance for me and you).
Evidently the democrats think being sloppy and careless with our
national secrets is not a reason to preclude her as a presidential
candidate.
The second shoe to drop is going to be when the FOIA requests come in
for all of the undisclosed E-mails that they recovered that do not
involve confidential material but may indicate some questionable
collusion between foreign governments, CGI and state. I believe that
is the reason why she had that private server to begin with. Just the
fact that, even though the drives were formatted, they did not
understand the unused sectors were still there, shows this was a
"sloppy" operation from top to bottom. Things that should have been
gone, are still there.

the DOJ has already said that they won't release under FOIA until after the
election.
Isn't that special?

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:13:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 15:08:58 -0400, 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?

Did you watch the whole statement (~20 minutes). The TV shows are only
clipping out the pretty parts.
He said Hillary was "sloppy" and "careless" in the way she handled
highly sensitive material, including "top secret/special access only"
material. He also said if they did not detect malice, the normal
response was "administrative sanctions" (being fired and the assurance
that you would never have another security clearance for me and you).
Evidently the democrats think being sloppy and careless with our
national secrets is not a reason to preclude her as a presidential
candidate.
The second shoe to drop is going to be when the FOIA requests come in
for all of the undisclosed E-mails that they recovered that do not
involve confidential material but may indicate some questionable
collusion between foreign governments, CGI and state. I believe that
is the reason why she had that private server to begin with. Just the
fact that, even though the drives were formatted, they did not
understand the unused sectors were still there, shows this was a
"sloppy" operation from top to bottom. Things that should have been
gone, are still there.

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. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Elite Monster

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 7:31:06 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:13:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 15:08:58 -0400, 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?

Did you watch the whole statement (~20 minutes). The TV shows are only
clipping out the pretty parts.
He said Hillary was "sloppy" and "careless" in the way she handled
highly sensitive material, including "top secret/special access only"
material. He also said if they did not detect malice, the normal
response was "administrative sanctions" (being fired and the assurance
that you would never have another security clearance for me and you).
Evidently the democrats think being sloppy and careless with our
national secrets is not a reason to preclude her as a presidential
candidate.
The second shoe to drop is going to be when the FOIA requests come in
for all of the undisclosed E-mails that they recovered that do not
involve confidential material but may indicate some questionable
collusion between foreign governments, CGI and state. I believe that
is the reason why she had that private server to begin with. Just the
fact that, even though the drives were formatted, they did not
understand the unused sectors were still there, shows this was a
"sloppy" operation from top to bottom. Things that should have been
gone, are still there.

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. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Elite Monster

You're blowing smoke up your ass...the NRA has more underhanded influence than ANY individual, faction, or the Koch brothers! FBI said she was "extremely careless"...but of course that's not enough because she can beat Trump.

Frank" "frank "frank wrote:
On 7/5/2016 3:36 PM, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 2:25:04 PM UTC-5, Frank
wrote:
On 7/5/2016 3:08 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?


Obviously the fix was in. Question is will voters
recognize this?

Let's face it...the right will never be satisfied...so
they'll spend
more and more on the investigation. People will see
*them* for what
they're worth...and it will back-fire on them. Typical
scenario...

You are totally blind to all of the Clinton's lawbreaking
and their
party's supporting it.

If you find yourself suffering in the end, the blame is
yours.

+ 100

for **** sake the ****in dems are still bitching about
bridgegate

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.

On 07/05/2016 12:36 PM, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 2:25:04 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 7/5/2016 3:08 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?


Obviously the fix was in. Question is will voters recognize this?

Let's face it...the right will never be satisfied...so they'll spend more and more on the investigation. People will see *them* for what they're worth...and it will back-fire on them. Typical scenario...


So, one law for the Left Wing Elites and one law for the rest of us?

On 07/05/2016 02:51 PM, Tekkie® wrote:
Yes, I watched the whole thing. I want to see what the "special" agents
leak. I find it really aggravating that they spent all this time and
resources to this conclusion. And announce a couple days after interviewing
the subject. Why even bother to interview her?

Find out what she had to offer?

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 7:54:00 PM UTC-5, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 7:31:06 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:13:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 15:08:58 -0400, 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?

Did you watch the whole statement (~20 minutes). The TV shows are only
clipping out the pretty parts.
He said Hillary was "sloppy" and "careless" in the way she handled
highly sensitive material, including "top secret/special access only"
material. He also said if they did not detect malice, the normal
response was "administrative sanctions" (being fired and the assurance
that you would never have another security clearance for me and you).
Evidently the democrats think being sloppy and careless with our
national secrets is not a reason to preclude her as a presidential
candidate.
The second shoe to drop is going to be when the FOIA requests come in
for all of the undisclosed E-mails that they recovered that do not
involve confidential material but may indicate some questionable
collusion between foreign governments, CGI and state. I believe that
is the reason why she had that private server to begin with. Just the
fact that, even though the drives were formatted, they did not
understand the unused sectors were still there, shows this was a
"sloppy" operation from top to bottom. Things that should have been
gone, are still there.

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. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Elite Monster

You're blowing smoke up your ass...the NRA has more underhanded influence than ANY individual, faction, or the Koch brothers! FBI said she was "extremely careless"...but of course that's not enough because she can beat Trump.

Geez! You've really lost it now Booby V. I've no idea what you're babbling about. I made no mention of The NRA, Koch brothers or Trump in my post. You should really seek help from a mental health care professional or take the meds you're already supposed to be taking. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Concerned Monster

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 9:58:08 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 7:54:00 PM UTC-5, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 7:31:06 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:13:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 15:08:58 -0400, 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?

Did you watch the whole statement (~20 minutes). The TV shows are only
clipping out the pretty parts.
He said Hillary was "sloppy" and "careless" in the way she handled
highly sensitive material, including "top secret/special access only"
material. He also said if they did not detect malice, the normal
response was "administrative sanctions" (being fired and the assurance
that you would never have another security clearance for me and you).
Evidently the democrats think being sloppy and careless with our
national secrets is not a reason to preclude her as a presidential
candidate.
The second shoe to drop is going to be when the FOIA requests come in
for all of the undisclosed E-mails that they recovered that do not
involve confidential material but may indicate some questionable
collusion between foreign governments, CGI and state. I believe that
is the reason why she had that private server to begin with. Just the
fact that, even though the drives were formatted, they did not
understand the unused sectors were still there, shows this was a
"sloppy" operation from top to bottom. Things that should have been
gone, are still there.

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. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Elite Monster

You're blowing smoke up your ass...the NRA has more underhanded influence than ANY individual, faction, or the Koch brothers! FBI said she was "extremely careless"...but of course that's not enough because she can beat Trump.

Geez! You've really lost it now Booby V. I've no idea what you're babbling about. I made no mention of The NRA, Koch brothers or Trump in my post. You should really seek help from a mental health care professional or take the meds you're already supposed to be taking. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Concerned Monster

Right on point, as per usual...you're the mental/physical retard here. You wouldn't know what to do with the truth...if you were starring it in the face. Next you will bring up the Nazi card...you abhorrent piece of quivering ****!

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 8:49:07 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
On 07/05/2016 12:36 PM, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 2:25:04 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 7/5/2016 3:08 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?


Obviously the fix was in. Question is will voters recognize this?

Let's face it...the right will never be satisfied...so they'll spend more and more on the investigation. People will see *them* for what they're worth...and it will back-fire on them. Typical scenario...


So, one law for the Left Wing Elites and one law for the rest of us?

Extremely damning, but no penalties recommended...so the voters decide if they think they can trust her.

1. "Extremely careless"
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
2. "Should have known"
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
3. "Especially concerning"
"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail."
4. "Still obligated to protect it"
"Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."
5. "Generally lacking"
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that is found elsewhere in the government.
6. "Hostile actors"
"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."
7. "Sophisticated adversaries"
"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:08:25 PM UTC-5, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 9:58:08 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 7:54:00 PM UTC-5, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 7:31:06 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:13:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 15:08:58 -0400, 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?

Did you watch the whole statement (~20 minutes). The TV shows are only
clipping out the pretty parts.
He said Hillary was "sloppy" and "careless" in the way she handled
highly sensitive material, including "top secret/special access only"
material. He also said if they did not detect malice, the normal
response was "administrative sanctions" (being fired and the assurance
that you would never have another security clearance for me and you).
Evidently the democrats think being sloppy and careless with our
national secrets is not a reason to preclude her as a presidential
candidate.
The second shoe to drop is going to be when the FOIA requests come in
for all of the undisclosed E-mails that they recovered that do not
involve confidential material but may indicate some questionable
collusion between foreign governments, CGI and state. I believe that
is the reason why she had that private server to begin with. Just the
fact that, even though the drives were formatted, they did not
understand the unused sectors were still there, shows this was a
"sloppy" operation from top to bottom. Things that should have been
gone, are still there.

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. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Elite Monster

You're blowing smoke up your ass...the NRA has more underhanded influence than ANY individual, faction, or the Koch brothers! FBI said she was "extremely careless"...but of course that's not enough because she can beat Trump.

Geez! You've really lost it now Booby V. I've no idea what you're babbling about. I made no mention of The NRA, Koch brothers or Trump in my post. You should really seek help from a mental health care professional or take the meds you're already supposed to be taking. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Concerned Monster

Right on point, as per usual...you're the mental/physical retard here. You wouldn't know what to do with the truth...if you were starring it in the face. Next you will bring up the Nazi card...you abhorrent piece of quivering ****!

Booby V., get some help. I really mean it because I'm concerned you may hurt yourself. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Compassionate Monster

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:48:05 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:08:25 PM UTC-5, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 9:58:08 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 7:54:00 PM UTC-5, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 7:31:06 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:13:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 15:08:58 -0400, 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?

Did you watch the whole statement (~20 minutes). The TV shows are only
clipping out the pretty parts.
He said Hillary was "sloppy" and "careless" in the way she handled
highly sensitive material, including "top secret/special access only"
material. He also said if they did not detect malice, the normal
response was "administrative sanctions" (being fired and the assurance
that you would never have another security clearance for me and you).
Evidently the democrats think being sloppy and careless with our
national secrets is not a reason to preclude her as a presidential
candidate.
The second shoe to drop is going to be when the FOIA requests come in
for all of the undisclosed E-mails that they recovered that do not
involve confidential material but may indicate some questionable
collusion between foreign governments, CGI and state. I believe that
is the reason why she had that private server to begin with. Just the
fact that, even though the drives were formatted, they did not
understand the unused sectors were still there, shows this was a
"sloppy" operation from top to bottom. Things that should have been
gone, are still there.

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. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Elite Monster

You're blowing smoke up your ass...the NRA has more underhanded influence than ANY individual, faction, or the Koch brothers! FBI said she was "extremely careless"...but of course that's not enough because she can beat Trump.

Geez! You've really lost it now Booby V. I've no idea what you're babbling about. I made no mention of The NRA, Koch brothers or Trump in my post. You should really seek help from a mental health care professional or take the meds you're already supposed to be taking. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Concerned Monster

Right on point, as per usual...you're the mental/physical retard here. You wouldn't know what to do with the truth...if you were starring it in the face. Next you will bring up the Nazi card...you abhorrent piece of quivering ****!

Booby V., get some help. I really mean it because I'm concerned you may hurt yourself. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Compassionate Monster

Oh yes, you're such a concerned and compassionate soul...look-out, someone might take you for a bleeding-heart liberal!

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:54:13 PM UTC-5, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:48:05 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 10:08:25 PM UTC-5, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 9:58:08 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 7:54:00 PM UTC-5, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 7:31:06 PM UTC-5, Uncle Monster wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 3:13:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 15:08:58 -0400, 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?

Did you watch the whole statement (~20 minutes). The TV shows are only
clipping out the pretty parts.
He said Hillary was "sloppy" and "careless" in the way she handled
highly sensitive material, including "top secret/special access only"
material. He also said if they did not detect malice, the normal
response was "administrative sanctions" (being fired and the assurance
that you would never have another security clearance for me and you).
Evidently the democrats think being sloppy and careless with our
national secrets is not a reason to preclude her as a presidential
candidate.
The second shoe to drop is going to be when the FOIA requests come in
for all of the undisclosed E-mails that they recovered that do not
involve confidential material but may indicate some questionable
collusion between foreign governments, CGI and state. I believe that
is the reason why she had that private server to begin with. Just the
fact that, even though the drives were formatted, they did not
understand the unused sectors were still there, shows this was a
"sloppy" operation from top to bottom. Things that should have been
gone, are still there.

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. ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Elite Monster

You're blowing smoke up your ass...the NRA has more underhanded influence than ANY individual, faction, or the Koch brothers! FBI said she was "extremely careless"...but of course that's not enough because she can beat Trump.

Geez! You've really lost it now Booby V. I've no idea what you're babbling about. I made no mention of The NRA, Koch brothers or Trump in my post. You should really seek help from a mental health care professional or take the meds you're already supposed to be taking. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Concerned Monster

Right on point, as per usual...you're the mental/physical retard here.. You wouldn't know what to do with the truth...if you were starring it in the face. Next you will bring up the Nazi card...you abhorrent piece of quivering ****!

Booby V., get some help. I really mean it because I'm concerned you may hurt yourself. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Compassionate Monster

Oh yes, you're such a concerned and compassionate soul...look-out, someone might take you for a bleeding-heart liberal!

No Booby V., I'm just a concerned human being. You have some weird idea that I must hate you and be your enemy because I disagree with you. "Liberalism is a mental disorder." Dr.Michael Savage. o_O

[8~{} Uncle Human Monster

On 07/05/2016 08:34 PM, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 8:49:07 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
On 07/05/2016 12:36 PM, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 2:25:04 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 7/5/2016 3:08 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?


Obviously the fix was in. Question is will voters recognize this?

Let's face it...the right will never be satisfied...so they'll spend more and more on the investigation. People will see *them* for what they're worth...and it will back-fire on them. Typical scenario...


So, one law for the Left Wing Elites and one law for the rest of us?

Extremely damning, but no penalties recommended...so the voters decide if they think they can trust her.

1. "Extremely careless"
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
2. "Should have known"
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
3. "Especially concerning"
"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail."
4. "Still obligated to protect it"
"Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."
5. "Generally lacking"
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that is found elsewhere in the government.
6. "Hostile actors"
"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."
7. "Sophisticated adversaries"
"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."



1/1000 and my bones would be in prison for the next 500 years.

I did my duty and protected our classified information. Everyone
around me did too.

I wonder how many of our sources she got killed. It is no wonder
why our allied won't share information with us anymore!

That unholy hoodlum!

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?



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

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 11:29:07 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
On 07/05/2016 08:34 PM, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 8:49:07 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
On 07/05/2016 12:36 PM, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 2:25:04 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 7/5/2016 3:08 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?


Obviously the fix was in. Question is will voters recognize this?

Let's face it...the right will never be satisfied...so they'll spend more and more on the investigation. People will see *them* for what they're worth...and it will back-fire on them. Typical scenario...


So, one law for the Left Wing Elites and one law for the rest of us?

Extremely damning, but no penalties recommended...so the voters decide if they think they can trust her.

1. "Extremely careless"
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
snip

1/1000 and my bones would be in prison for the next 500 years.

I did my duty and protected our classified information. Everyone
around me did too.

I wonder how many of our sources she got killed. It is no wonder
why our allied won't share information with us anymore!

That unholy hoodlum!

Did you have something to add...you did mention those exaggerations before?

On 07/05/2016 09:50 PM, bob_villain wrote:
Did you have something to add...you did mention those exaggerations before?

Not sure what you mean.

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****

On 2016-07-06, burfordTjustice wrote:
***even added that government
employees who behaved similarly could expect to be sanctioned****

The Clintons have a history of being above the law. (Bill Clinton's
perjuring himself under oath with no punishment is a well-known
example.)

For that matter you can be certain that anyone who has the dreaded,
satanic "R" next to their name rather than the sainted "D" would have
long ago been rotting in prison for the same malfeasance.

Rules are for the little people and for those ignorant fools who oppose
the Workers' Paradise, not for the Democrat elite. Their great Work is
too important to be interrupted by such petty considerations.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.

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.

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...

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 11:34:29 PM UTC-4, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 8:49:07 PM UTC-5, T wrote:
On 07/05/2016 12:36 PM, bob_villain wrote:
On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 2:25:04 PM UTC-5, Frank wrote:
On 7/5/2016 3:08 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?


Obviously the fix was in. Question is will voters recognize this?

Let's face it...the right will never be satisfied...so they'll spend more and more on the investigation. People will see *them* for what they're worth...and it will back-fire on them. Typical scenario...


So, one law for the Left Wing Elites and one law for the rest of us?

Extremely damning, but no penalties recommended...so the voters decide if they think they can trust her.

1. "Extremely careless"
"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information."
2. "Should have known"
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
3. "Especially concerning"
"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail."
4. "Still obligated to protect it"
"Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."
5. "Generally lacking"
While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information that is found elsewhere in the government.
6. "Hostile actors"
"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton's use of a personal email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."
7. "Sophisticated adversaries"
"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton's personal email account."

It's the "no penalties recommended" part that's obviously the problem
Comey laid out the criminal case, then gave her a pass because she's a
Clinton and connected. Others were not, so they got prosecuted.

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 4:13:15 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 15:08:58 -0400, 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?

Did you watch the whole statement (~20 minutes). The TV shows are only
clipping out the pretty parts.
He said Hillary was "sloppy" and "careless" in the way she handled
highly sensitive material, including "top secret/special access only"
material. He also said if they did not detect malice, the normal
response was "administrative sanctions" (being fired and the assurance
that you would never have another security clearance for me and you).
Evidently the democrats think being sloppy and careless with our
national secrets is not a reason to preclude her as a presidential
candidate.
The second shoe to drop is going to be when the FOIA requests come in
for all of the undisclosed E-mails that they recovered that do not
involve confidential material but may indicate some questionable
collusion between foreign governments, CGI and state. I believe that
is the reason why she had that private server to begin with. Just the
fact that, even though the drives were formatted, they did not
understand the unused sectors were still there, shows this was a
"sloppy" operation from top to bottom. Things that should have been
gone, are still there.

That's where Comey lied. Others have been prosecuted where no malice,
no intentional harm was intended. John Deutsch, former CIA director
brought home classified info and put it on his home computer. He was
investigated, had a plea deal worked out with prosecutors, Bill Clinton
pardoned him. A naval reservist who was a careless pack rat took home
a thumb drive with classified info, never did anything more than that,
he was convicted.

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 4:51:47 PM UTC-4, Tekkie® wrote:
posted for all of us...



On Tue, 5 Jul 2016 15:08:58 -0400, 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?

Did you watch the whole statement (~20 minutes). The TV shows are only
clipping out the pretty parts.
He said Hillary was "sloppy" and "careless" in the way she handled
highly sensitive material, including "top secret/special access only"
material. He also said if they did not detect malice, the normal
response was "administrative sanctions" (being fired and the assurance
that you would never have another security clearance for me and you).
Evidently the democrats think being sloppy and careless with our
national secrets is not a reason to preclude her as a presidential
candidate.
The second shoe to drop is going to be when the FOIA requests come in
for all of the undisclosed E-mails that they recovered that do not
involve confidential material but may indicate some questionable
collusion between foreign governments, CGI and state. I believe that
is the reason why she had that private server to begin with. Just the
fact that, even though the drives were formatted, they did not
understand the unused sectors were still there, shows this was a
"sloppy" operation from top to bottom. Things that should have been
gone, are still there.

Yes, I watched the whole thing. I want to see what the "special" agents
leak. I find it really aggravating that they spent all this time and
resources to this conclusion. And announce a couple days after interviewing
the subject. Why even bother to interview her?

I guess we'll have three more days of shouting and screaming or glad-handing
on the news. Christ I'm tired of the elections and the BS.

--
Tekkie

Good questions. The law never required intent, just negligence. If the
standard they intended to use was that she had to distribute the classified
info to the Russians, intentionally give it away, etc, why even bother with
the investigation to begin with? No more respect for Comey or Lynch here.

On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 05:54:01 -0700 (PDT)
trader_4 wrote:

That's where Comey lied.

Did you email/phone/snail mail the FBI and
make the case he lied?

On Tuesday, July 5, 2016 at 8:54:00 PM UTC-4, bob_villain wrote:


You're blowing smoke up your ass...the NRA has more underhanded influence than ANY individual, faction, or the Koch brothers! FBI said she was "extremely careless"...but of course that's not enough because she can beat Trump.

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.