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.
None of the Damn Emails, to quote Bernie, were properly marked classified. Of the three that were at all - incorrectly - two were marked in error and did not contain any sensitive material. The last one is still being reviewed.
She did not send and receive emails marked classified, on her private account.
She's said this all along.
I dare the Republicans to investigate this further and try and prosecute her for perjury. It would appear she was not lying.
Watch his testimony again a few more times until you understand it. Based on what you've written above, you don't.
We understand it. You believe the law is not clear enough. You believe Comey. We believe that Hillary should have been indicted and let a prosecutor present the case.
Hillary is either a little old lady that is as smart as a rock or Hillary snowed the FBI and is smart as a fox.
You told me nothing. It stopped with Comey and his statement as follows.I don't believe there is reason to indict. The evidence is not there . No prosecutor would take the case.
Comey does not believe Hillary did anything illegal.Just careless.
Many e-mails were not recovered. They were scrubbed and completely
gone. What if Hillary passed along secrets for money. Very possible and she is the best actress and could have used that server with that very intention. Why did she wipe the e-mails off the server? Why??
It was her personal account, for all we know she was having an affair for gawd's sake.
Normal people are interviewed under oath. Normal people are subject to the grand jury. Normal people don't get interviewed for 3 hours on a Saturday by underlings, with no record whatsoever kept of the interview. Normal people aren't allowed to have their spouse chit-chat about their grandchildren with the person making the decision on an airport Tarmac.
When Comey claimed he treated her like anyone else, he lied.
So now you are an expert on FBI procedures, people are placed under oath in all investigations? The FBI recommends a Grand Jury, seriously? No records, according to you?
Who should have interviewed Clinton, who where the underlings?
They wanted Lynch off the case after the Tarmac incident and they got their wish, they trusted Comey until they didn't like the outcome so now there has to be reason.
I listened to the majority of the hearing at work and on the way home. It seems to me that the issue with Comey isn't his integrity as much as it is his courage.
I take him at his word that he and his colleagues at the FBI decided against prosecuting Hillary without some backroom deals taking place. I do think that while they investigated Hillary thoroughly, and there's likely some tangential investigation going on as a result of this issue, the FBI likely had no intentions on recommending charges being brought against her.
It struck me that Comey talks about the various laws at play here as though they're rules and not laws. Rules are in place mainly to keep order and address contingencies as a result of the human capacity for error. No running at the pool. Must wear your badge at all time. No visiting porn on your work computer. And so on. Rules are important because they're supposed to keep order. If you break a rule, it's possible you could cause disorder. If you break a rule but nothing negative comes as a result of it, those tasked with creating the rules may give you a pass because of it, or, if they determine you had no intent on breaking the rules, they may reprimand you depending on the egregiousness of your violation.
Laws are different. Laws not only exist to keep order but also reflect particular values of those who put them in place. The saying goes, "rules are made to be broken", not "laws are made to be broken". You're taught from a young age: if you break the law, you go to jail.
Prosecutors have discretion in applying the law, and intent absolutely plays a part in determining the punishment for breaking the law, but it doesn't usually change whether the law was, in fact, broken. So if you violate federal statute on the handling of classified documents, the fact that you didn't mean to act with gross negligence might mean you get a fine and probation as opposed to a prison sentence. It doesn't mean you get to skip your happy ass back home with no consequences whatsoever.
Comey seems to view the statutes Hillary broke as rules to be enforced by those the government has direct jurisdiction over, as opposed to the law, which should govern everyone accordingly.
The other thing is, he mentioned a few times that he wanted to be fair to Hillary and not prosecute as the result of a celebrity witch hunt. Hillary is due the same consideration under the law as anyone else as it pertains to the up-or-down question of whether she broke the law. Hillary is not due the same consideration as anyone else as it pertains to prosecutorial discretion given she was a high-ranking official who received and handled plenty of classified information. Because Comey wouldn't necessarily prosecute some lowly government clerk under the same law if there are other penalties in place doesn't mean Hillary's deserving of a pass. There is no "cut 'em some slack" clause in federal law, as far as I know.
I don't really have anything against Hillary as a person or candidate, but I think she got away with breaking the law and should not be elected President. I don't care which party you belong to, partisanship and homerism stops once you take the oath of office. You should be held accountable for your actions regardless which party you belong to and which party is in the position to do it. The hearing was annoying because the Republicans wanted to ask pertinent questions about Comey's decision-making process -- they were generally tough, but fair -- while Democrats wanted to complain about the fact that they were having a hearing, take shots at Trump, or talk about extraneous topics.
So now you are an expert on FBI procedures, people are placed under oath in all investigations? The FBI recommends a Grand Jury, seriously? No records, according to you?
Who should have interviewed Clinton, who where the underlings?
They wanted Lynch off the case after the Tarmac incident and they got their wish, they trusted Comey until they didn't like the outcome so now there has to be reason.
Even state professional disciplinary boards record their interviews. Are you that naive?
Some Democrats clearly didn't have their listening ears on while watching Comey. Listening is something you need to learn.
As we often see Democrats just like to talk over other people and I can imagine how they have been watching Comey if they even watched and listened to him at all.
Talking to others saying that Hilliary didn't do anything wrong while missing every word Comey uttered and now claiming Hilliary is more competent than any prior presidential candidate including Washington, Lincoln and Reagan.
Give me a break. She cant be trusted as she is on tape contradicting most things Comey said so that means lying and more deceiving and not sophisticated to do the job.
That means a huge F for failure on the job.
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.
