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.
Luckily for me, your belief/disbelief has absolutely no impact on reality.
I got my interim TS back in '04 when I started working as a GS-9 server admin at the state NG headquarters. I then went to work for the public sector division of a software company and have been working in the DoD space almost exclusively since then. I was the lead architect on the largest network consolidation/migration project in history - the USAF consolidated everyone to a single domain: Active duty, Reserves, National Guard, civilians, contractors - it was nearly a million user objects.
I'm typing this from my desk that is currently located on MCB Quantico - where I have been working for nearly 3 years on the USMC network consolidation project.
Would what Comey did have landed some E-3 in a lot more trouble? Probably, yep. Comey's not some nobody junior enlisted service member or unknown .gov contractor, though. Rank hath its privileges....
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
You misunderstand - I'm parroting the claim I quoted, I'm not making the claim myself. Yes, the level of classification absolutely matters in regards to spillage. I think we've done this dance before....
Cool. Thanks for your service.
Yes, violated FBI policy, not law. You don't get criminal charges for violating policy. As I said - he was already fired, what more could they do? Re-hire him so they could fire him again?
I didn't miss it. In fact, I had already addressed it if you'd bothered to read the whole thread. I addressed it again above, for the lazy folks in the crowd.
You worry about the status of your clearance and I'll worry about mine. Deal?
You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to hooligan again.
The report explains which policies Comey violated and how he violated them. He also broke at least one federal law and one Executive Order. All we have are theories of why Barr chose not to prosecute.
I don't see them prosecuting a former FBI director for policy violations, these were not classified documents.
You misunderstand - I'm parroting the claim I quoted, I'm not making the claim myself. Yes, the level of classification absolutely matters in regards to spillage. I think we've done this dance before....
Fair enough...
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Cool. Thanks for your service.?
As well to you also.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Yes, violated FBI policy, not law. You don't get criminal charges for violating policy. As I said - he was already fired, what more could they do? Re-hire him so they could fire him again? ?
When he gave the memo's/notes out, he WAS in fact still an FBI employee....And you know as well as I do, that even though you are no longer an employee and no longer hold any clearance, does not give you the freedom to talk about what you did while having the clearance....You can be held accountable....
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
I didn't miss it. In fact, I had already addressed it if you'd bothered to read the whole thread. I addressed it again above, for the lazy folks in the crowd.?
Nice dig.....Not gonna read all the remarks....
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
You worry about the status of your clearance and I'll worry about mine. Deal?
Maybe you should learn to use the sarcasm button then, that way people won't think your actually being factual....
...When he gave the memo's/notes out, he WAS in fact still an FBI employee....And you know as well as I do, that even though you are no longer an employee and no longer hold any clearance, does not give you the freedom to talk about what you did while having the clearance....You can be held accountable....
Well, sure. However, by the time the IG got around to investigating, Trump had already fired him. So, my point stands.
Yes, he could be held accountable, but in this case being "held accountable" would amount to discipline handed out by the FBI. What more could they do to him, now that he's no longer an employee?
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
Nice dig.....Not gonna read all the remarks....
Sorry, the guy who makes multiple comments about how I shouldn't still have my clearance surrenders any moral high ground when it comes to personal digs.
Further, I don't see how not reading the entire thread is anything to be celebrated. As I said, it's lazy. Would you give any credence to someone who started the discussion with "Well, I'm relatively ignorant on the topic, but here's my opinion..."? I certainly wouldn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksnee
Maybe you should learn to use the sarcasm button then, that way people won't think your actually being factual....
I don't think I ever said you did claim that classified info was leaked.
However, you actually did make that claim:
What I wrote was correct. In the DOJ review of the memos, #s 2, 3, and 7 were deemed to contain classified information. Comey sent those memos to three people who had no authorization to have those documents.
I thought you are the poster who wrote that the memos only contained Comey's 'thoughts and musings' and asked how I knew how secretive the memos were. Anyone who read the report knows the memos were not merely 'thoughts and musings' and gave a good indication of how secretive some of the content was meant to be. Sorry if I confused you for someone else.
What I wrote was correct. In the DOJ review of the memos, #s 2, 3, and 7 were deemed to contain classified information. Comey sent those memos to three people who had no authorization to have those documents.
I thought you are the poster who wrote that the memos only contained Comey's 'thoughts and musings' and asked how I knew how secretive the memos were. Anyone who read the report knows the memos were not merely 'thoughts and musings' and gave a good indication of how secretive some of the content was meant to be. Sorry if I confused you for someone else.
He's shilling for Comey and the DNC, cheering on a dual (lack of) justice system.
What I wrote was correct. In the DOJ review of the memos, #s 2, 3, and 7 were deemed to contain classified information. Comey sent those memos to three people who had no authorization to have those documents.
Agreed. As I stated earlier, if he was some nobody contractor or some junior enlisted member, he might get into trouble for that. History has shown us, time and again, that simply doesn't happen to senior - in this case VERY senior - folks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzarama
I thought you are the poster who wrote that the memos only contained Comey's 'thoughts and musings' and asked how I knew how secretive the memos were. Anyone who read the report knows the memos were not merely 'thoughts and musings' and gave a good indication of how secretive some of the content was meant to be. Sorry if I confused you for someone else.
I assume you're talking about this post?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
...the investigation found "no evidence that Comey or his attorneys released any of the classified information contained in any of the Memos to members of the media"...
A tangent from the covert/overt discussion, but if none of it was classified, I couldn't care less what Comey or his attorney "leaked" regarding his personal thoughts and musings about.... well...... anything.
If so, I apologize for the imprecise language - I was referring to "leaked" specifically in the context of the quoted line from the report - "leaked" as in shared with the media. I think I now see where our disconnect was earlier in the thread.
Well, sure. However, by the time the IG got around to investigating, Trump had already fired him. So, my point stands.
If you violate policy, what going to happen to you? I'm not sure what AUP you signed, but mine clearly states that if I break policy, it can be disclosed to law enforcement authorities for prosecution violations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Yes, he could be held accountable, but in this case being "held accountable" would amount to discipline handed out by the FBI. What more could they do to him, now that he's no longer an employee?
I'm not sure what AUP you signed, but mine clearly states that if I break policy, it can be disclosed to law enforcement authorities for prosecution violations.
Again, it does not matter, what he did was while he was.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Sorry, the guy who makes multiple comments about how I shouldn't still have my clearance surrenders any moral high ground when it comes to personal digs.
Sorry, I misunderstood your sarcasm....as stated earlier, use the smilies to the left of where you type.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Further, I don't see how not reading the entire thread is anything to be celebrated. As I said, it's lazy. Would you give any credence to someone who started the discussion with "Well, I'm relatively ignorant on the topic, but here's my opinion..."? I certainly wouldn't.
I go back about 3 pages maybe 4 and maybe the first 2 pages...but that's it...don't like it, there is an ignore button..
And it happens all the time in gun threads...I have no clue what I'm talking about (from anti-gunners), but oh well.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by hooligan
Where was I being sarcastic or non-factual?
You said: "You misunderstand - I'm parroting the claim I quoted" that's called being sarcastic....
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.
