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...

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...

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 12:36 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 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 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 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.

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?

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 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.

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

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 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.

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.

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 8:54:00 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.

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?

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 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 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 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 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 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?

"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 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.

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 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 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.

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.

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

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