Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've been around for a while now. I've seen presidents go down and lies, deceit and corruption. But, I have NEVER EVER seen anything so blatant as to exonerate Hillary knowing what she's done. I have lost complete faith in our justice system. It's a free for all from this point forward. This is far from over.
I have absolutely no doubt she should be charged with racketeering.
YEP...and the thought she could be our PRESIDENT just blows my mind!
My 24 year old son and I were talking about it, and he said it feels like we are watching a movie, this CAN'T be really happening!
It is not a good day for Clinton. But Comey looks as if he is guilty. When showed a time line of Clinton meeting Lynch, Hillary being questioned by the FBI and Comey's decision of no indictment. Comey was so angered it reminded me of Bill Clinton when he said he did not lie about Monica Lewinsky.
Comey would not talk about the Clinton Foundation ,if the case ended or going forward. This looks bad. Too protective of the Clintons. There could be a nice bonus sitting in a foreign bank for Comey put there by the Clintons
Oh come on.
I have always thought HRC is a lying liar who lies - but I don't see how anyone could watch the hearing in it's entirety and still think that Comey was anything but an upstanding public servant.
As for the Clinton Foundation - he said he would not comment on whether or not there was an investigation. Which is the proper thing to do. (And methinks he actually DID confirm that there is an investigation by his answer.)
I've been around for a while now. I've seen presidents go down and lies, deceit and corruption. But, I have NEVER EVER seen anything so blatant as to exonerate Hillary knowing what she's done. I have lost complete faith in our justice system. It's a free for all from this point forward. This is far from over.
I have absolutely no doubt she should be charged with racketeering.
I remember the summer I spent 40+ years ago, when i spent every day stretched out on the living room floor watching the Watergate hearings. I remember the sense of pride I felt, watching our system of government working exactly as it was designed to do, almost 2 centuries after the Constitution was first conceived.
Today I watched the Comey hearings, and am filled with dread and sorrow that our system of government has so completely and permanently failed. We are lost.
There is four hours of his testimony but yes, he did say this as I watched it carefully. Would take a bit of time to find that exact exchange though. He said Condi - as that was the specific one asked about - did not do the same thing (only had private email on gov't server) and he thought it was appropriate to investigate Clinton because it was a different thing that Clinton did (e.g. private server).
I suspect Hillary believed using her husband ( Bill) server as past POTUS somehow made it safe. Then investigation into use of such ( while speculating) it could have been hacked..then progress to the FBI emails that were "Confidential" turned out to be inadvertent ( Comey unaware of that fact)..... Director Comey found no proof anyone actually accessed her server..but speculates about the possibility.
Det. Comey would have brought the hammer down on her IF there was evidence to prosecute..Nadda evidence...Fallback ..She was reckless is the only accusation in the end!
Question..How many Congress folks have ONLY Government Access? Then of course while out of USA in other hostile environments do they have safeguards. I would love to reflect on the actual security of any DC elected official as to their SECURE network...
Ohhhh wait multi thousands of hackers have accessed multi Government sites..acessing them to personal files of employees..Social Security # ..address..IP address..Phone numbers..etc etc.. So Security in Cyberspace is NEVER 100% protected...Yikes..Is Congress willing to investigate every Congressional member to get to the bottom of this?? NOPE!! Only the one's who "Politically" are deemed a threat PARTY WISE and POWER that could lessen their influence.
I actually watched over 80% of the Comey Hearing...I was impressed with him..and by watching the questions..and renditions prior to question..Watchers knew exactly which Party (R) and (D) they belonged to...If Comey's goal was to cause an already polarized electorate..He succeeded.
Historically..What GOP did to Bill Clinton ended up backfiring post Impeachment process..Just ask Newt Gingrich
Originally Posted by chadgates
I cannot watch at the moment, so I must asking
WHO exactly is bringing up Michael Brown, Donald Trump, or Police Brutality during an inquiry about the FBI's conclusions concerning their investigation of HRC?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chuckity
I believe it was Elijah Cummings & William Clay.
There were 4 - 2 men, 2 women. That's a pretty low number.
This is common - it's in every hearing I watch. It doesn't much matter what they subject is.
The same people leave the room they have read their statement. They are very Ideological & Agenda driver. It's sad.
The takeaway. Request from Congress to the FBI to determine if Clinton lied under oath.
Don't insult the FBI director.
I think there was only one Congressman who really was insulting to Dir. Comey and yeah, he bit back. Other than that, I think they all asked questions he expected and wanted to answer. Thought some of the soapbox bits by some of the Democrats was a bit much. Probably because they really didn't want to ask him any questions since his answers consistently made Hilary look bad.
Big takeaway - especially for clearance holders - the training we receive on the penalties for improper release of classified information is not accurate. Not even remotely according to Dir. Comey.
Hmm, no. He said several times the regular joe wouldn't be prosecuted either.
That being said, this is in contradiction to all training anyone holding a clearance receives. He said employees would only face firing and/or losing their clearance. This is disturbing because it means what everyone has thought all these years about what happens with improper spillage of classified information is not correct because the DOJ has a long standing unofficial policy of ignoring the gross negligence component of this statute.
FBI Comey is trying to clean it up..This is the law..
(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information— (1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
McCullough's testimony sure didn't help her any, either. It seemed to me he didn't even try to conceal how flabbergasted he is that she's getting away with this.
FBI Comey is trying to clean it up..This is the law..
<snip>
Comey is using her ignorance of this law that Hillary is not to be held accountable because it was just a mistake.
We know that the average Joe would be held to that law.
Actually he said that the DOJ has been using prosecutorial discretion to ignore the gross negligence component for over 50 years - if that was all being alleged (the negligence part). Now, whether they should have been doing that or not? Good question. Whether the law is strong enough or not? Good question. But he did say it was a decision based on discretion and longstanding discretion at that. I think that's why he wanted to testify and do it right away.
I don't know how I feel about it - this policy by the DOJ. I don't like it on first look. I agree with some of the questioning which is, then what is the recourse if the person has left gov't service like Hillary has. It begs an answer.
But I don't think this is a failing by Comey so much as either a failing by the DOJ policy or the law itself.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
