Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 07-07-2016, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Oregon
56 posts, read 48,808 times
Reputation: 59

Advertisements

Are they going to vote today?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-07-2016, 12:54 PM
 
5,444 posts, read 6,956,845 times
Reputation: 15147
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough View Post
For Pete's sake get off you high horse.

You act as if during the 40 UNINTERRUPTED YEARS the dems controlled the House that the NEVER held a hearing.

And of course you ignore the Valerie Plame fiasco.

Oh, we know, those DON'T count.
I don't think he(she) said they don't count. In today's politics, unfortunately, that is how our politicians act. Whether it is Dems or Repubs, they always focus on whatever scandal is relevant at the time to try and discredit the other candidate or whomever. Unfortunately, our current crop of politicians seem to be a bit worse. They don't focus on the actual problems of our country, they just focus on their own party and come up with plans on destroying the other party at whatever cost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2016, 12:54 PM
 
Location: Caverns measureless to man...
7,588 posts, read 6,597,026 times
Reputation: 17966
Quote:
Originally Posted by HeyJude514 View Post
Oh, don't fret. OF COURSE the Republican-led House is going to "investigate." And this "investigation" will last as long as Hillary is either a candidate for president, in which case it will last for the next four months; or wins and becomes president, in which case it will last for the next four, and potentially eight, years. In other words, it will last as long as is politically expedient. And if this one should come to a natural end, then never fret, they will find something else to "investigate."

Basically, as long as the Clintons live and breathe, the House Republicans will make sure they have some kind of ongoing "investigation" running at all time.
Well of course they'll find something else to investigate - because with the Clintons, there always is something else to investigate. This family is the Soprano family of American politics. They are career criminals.

I was a lifelong Democrat, and very active in the party for many years. In fact, I was a delegate at many at many Democratic state conventions. Several friends of mine were delegates to national conventions, but I never went, and one friend was a fairly high-ranking member of the DNC.

But I left the Democratic Party several years ago, and the Clintons are the main reason. The Clinton family was what it took for me to realize that the party was lost to the American people forever. I believe they are the most corrupt and thoroughly evil political family in modern American history. So yes, there probably will always be something for the Republicans to be investigating with regard to the Clintons, because the Clintons literally do not know how to be anything but criminals.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2016, 12:55 PM
 
9,725 posts, read 15,134,994 times
Reputation: 3346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taratova View Post
When asked the same question about prosecution he said the regular joe would be prosecuted.. putting Hillary's name on it , no prosecution and Comey insists there is no one above the law.

He said the standard moves when prosecuting Hillary but his words say different. He said he does not hold a different standard.. this just doesn't add up.
That's not what he said. He said a regular Joe would NOT be prosecuted.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2016, 12:56 PM
 
58,684 posts, read 27,030,609 times
Reputation: 14176
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
Sounds like Hilary's only interview with the FBI was the 4th of July weekend. He noted that not all work related emails were handed over. He didn't say Hilary said they were to the FBI. She said that to Congress. I would call that perjury and he told the committee all they need to do is recommend to the FBI to investigate that perjury claim and he would. Guarantee they will ask this of the FBI and I don't see how Clinton gets out of this. I've watched this hearing very, very carefully. I don't think Comey is lying. I think he is highlighting a weakness in the statute people didn't know about before this point. I also think he is absolutely making Clinton look horrible even though he doesn't think DOJ policy would allow him to prosecute her given the exact scope of this investigation.

In other words - stop trying to make Comey out to be the bad guy. He handed a gift to the Republicans politically and a method to finally prosecute Clinton (via the perjury angle).
I fond it amazing, after all the time the FBI investigated this they ONLY talked with her for 3 hours.

How is that possible?

They sure did NOT ask her many questions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2016, 12:57 PM
 
12,638 posts, read 8,923,105 times
Reputation: 7458
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post
That's not what he said. He said a regular Joe would NOT be prosecuted.
Yeah, that's what he said. The facts say otherwise. Many other people have been and will be prosecuted for doing far less than what Hillary Clinton did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2016, 12:58 PM
 
9,725 posts, read 15,134,994 times
Reputation: 3346
Quote:
Originally Posted by southbel View Post
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.
The black congressman pointed out that the one email that was marked with a (c) was seen by a thousand people. Would they fire or force 1,000 people to lose their clearance? I seriously doubt that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2016, 01:01 PM
 
9,725 posts, read 15,134,994 times
Reputation: 3346
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones View Post
Then why have people been prosecuted for pretty much the same thing like Patreus? What made his situation different? Hillary allowed several administrators have access to her email server which gives them unauthorized access to her emails without them having a security clearance? Isn't that what happened to the General? He shared sensitive info from a calendar with someone who was not authorized?
Petreus deliberately gave classified (marked classified) material to someone who had no clearance -- and he did this KNOWING that he was breaking the law.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2016, 01:02 PM
 
58,684 posts, read 27,030,609 times
Reputation: 14176
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dbones View Post
Comey is covering and lying himself. It's way too obvious. Nothing will happen with perjury at all, What happened to Bill when he perjured? Believe what you want.
Edit to add: If not turning over all your work related emails when asked to by the FBI but instead deleting them is not considered lying, I don't know what is then.
To be factual Bill perjured himself in a CIVIL case NOT to Congress.

The House passed Articles of Impeached on him but, the dems in the Senate did NOT.

Apples and oranges.

IF the House "refers" Hillary's lying statements before their committee Comey HAS to act.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2016, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Meggett, SC
11,011 posts, read 10,989,726 times
Reputation: 6191
Quote:
Originally Posted by UB50 View Post
The black congressman pointed out that the one email that was marked with a (c) was seen by a thousand people. Would they fire or force 1,000 people to lose their clearance? I seriously doubt that.
If those 1,000 people didn't report the spillage? Yes, they should lose their clearance. As it pertains to clearances and classified information, you have not only the duty to protect the information in your personal care but to report any spillage and/or improper release of classified information by others. To not do so if in violation and used to include punishment to include prosecution but based on today's testimony, it seems to be only loss of clearance and/or employment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top