Development on Clinton Email Probe?

[Blackjack200]

You're skipping the "there is no classified material" part.
Also, from Comey's statement:

Oh yes, you're right. When she said "there is no classified material" she was clearly lying because classified material does in fact exist.

You're being obtuse. We all know what markings he's talking about. She went from: "No classified material" to "none classified at the time of sending" to "none marked classified." Comey said each of these statements is untrue.

An untrue statement is not a lie. If an ancient Egyptian said the world was flat, he made an untrue statement but did not lie. If a person states that they did not send classified data through a server, believing it to be the truth, a subsequent finding that classified data was sent through the server does not make that person a liar. This simple concept seems unable to penetrate your intense hatred for Clinton.

 

[OutHouse]

Project often?

People lie. It's part of our nature. That also leads us to believe that statements made in good faith that turn out to be untrue are also lies.

Whatever Hillary said or did wrt her email, it doesn't warrant indictment according to the evaluation of honest people who know the law a helluva lot better than either of us.

Faithful Clinton haters can go on about it all they want to keep on believing in their own set of lies. It won't change reality.

what lies or are you just trolling as usual?

 

[Knowing]

"From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received." - Comey, July 5, 2016

"But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it." - Comey, July 5, 2016

I'm still curious about the strange phenomena of the interbutts that stripped the classification caveats off of information owned by other agencies. In all of my years I've never seen bits on a wire misbehave in such a predictable way.

 

[blankslate]

Really? Do you think that will ever be true?

It's likely that Trump will self-implode with some stupid statement. Although he could stumble his way into into victory depending on how many people are fooled by his populist talk.

Senator Clinton probably has a statistically significant (79% if you believe Nate Silver, his miscalculation about Trump's nomination casts some shade on his record this cycle imo) better than even chance of winning... one can only hope that the TPP is changed enough that it is less damaging than it could be if it gets passed.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/06/tpp-isds-constitution/396389/


But TPP may get passed in the last few days of the President Obama's tenure like like Graham-Leach-Bliley was in the last days of President Clinton's

As for the e-mail issues. Senator Clinton's problems with it could have been avoided by just having a *.gov address

If the sides were flipped, and a republican former Secretary of State was running for president with questions about a private server and supposedly erased e-mails on a wiped drive hovering over their head.... I believe most everyone in this thread would be arguing the opposite side. /shrug


______________________

 

[werepossum]

Oh yes, you're right. When she said "there is no classified material" she was clearly lying because classified material does in fact exist.

An untrue statement is not a lie. If an ancient Egyptian said the world was flat, he made an untrue statement but did not lie. If a person states that they did not send classified data through a server, believing it to be the truth, a subsequent finding that classified data was sent through the server does not make that person a liar. This simple concept seems unable to penetrate your intense hatred for Clinton.

So . . . Comey told us that some of the classified documents that Mrs. Clinton sent were in fact labeled. I understand that you are accepting that she is too stupid to know what should be classified, but do you really want to propose that she is too stupid to read and understand a big red label?

 

[wetech]

Oh yes, you're right. When she said "there is no classified material" she was clearly lying because classified material does in fact exist.

"I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material. So I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material."

Yes, classified material existed on her server. Do you not understand that? Neither she nor I am talking about it existing in the general sense :\

An untrue statement is not a lie. If an ancient Egyptian said the world was flat, he made an untrue statement but did not lie. If a person states that they did not send classified data through a server, believing it to be the truth, a subsequent finding that classified data was sent through the server does not make that person a liar. This simple concept seems unable to penetrate your intense hatred for Clinton.

Emails classified as top secret were found. From her statement above, she knows the classification requirements. So she sees top secret info on her email, doesn't report it (as required), then conveniently forgets that she saw it; thus making her untrue statement not a lie.

 

[Exophase]

Looks like this is really boiling down to an argument of dishonesty vs gross incompetence and overconfidence.

Hillary really would have been better off just turning over everything she had to the investigators and making a public statement that they will qualify what is or isn't present. Rather than making definitive claims that she doesn't really have certainty on that would then blow up in her face.

 

[Blackjack200]

So . . . Comey told us that some of the classified documents that Mrs. Clinton sent were in fact labeled. I understand that you are accepting that she is too stupid to know what should be classified, but do you really want to propose that she is too stupid to read and understand a big red label?

Comey didn't say there were big red labels on them, he said they were "marked". He gave no indication of how they were marked. And this further illustrates why an investigator has no business giving a press conference like that, and if the hats were reversed conservatives would be screaming bloody murder.

There is simply no plausible reason that she would have deliberately sent a few classified emails through the server, unless she didn't want them to be discoverable. If that was the case, why didn't she delete them? If Comey had found that Clinton had sent classified emails through the server, and the content of those emails had suggested that she was trying to conceal them by sending them through the server, that's a slam dunk for an indictment.

Clinton either didn't deliberately classified information through the server, or Comey is lying. He said "careless", not "deliberate".

 

[Exophase]

There is simply no plausible reason that she would have deliberately sent a few classified emails through the server, unless she didn't want them to be discoverable.

Or because it was more convenient?

You know, her excuse for everything so far?

Like how there was that e-mail chain where she couldn't get a secure phone line working so she told the other party to just call her on the unsecured line.

The idea that anyone would ever be reviewing her e-mails could have been the furthest thing from her mind. She may well have never even been under the conception that she'd have to turn over the contents of her servers.

 

[Knowing]

Major Jason Brezler notified the Marine Corps that he had sent a classified briefing via commercial email as a warning to fellow Marines about a corrupt police chief. 3 Marines were killed by the chief's servant 17 days later. Brezler was prosecuted.

Clearly honesty is not the best policy, so why wouldn't you go with the ignorance defense?

 

[Jhhnn]

should be more than that when Comey stood in front of the nation and said she was guilty.

Of what, exactly, other than careless handling of information?

It's not lie she outed a CIA operative for political revenge or invaded another country on the basis of lies.

Perspective is what Righties lack.

 

[fskimospy]

Major Jason Brezler notified the Marine Corps that he had sent a classified briefing via commercial email as a warning to fellow Marines about a corrupt police chief. 3 Marines were killed by the chief's servant 17 days later. Brezler was prosecuted.

Clearly honesty is not the best policy, so why wouldn't you go with the ignorance defense?

Brezler knowingly and purposefully disseminated classified information. This is not at all the same thing.

While it certainly seems like what he did was in the best interests of his troops and I think he should be pardoned, trying to equate his actions to Clinton's is once again highly deceptive.

It is very difficult to take the statements of conservatives seriously about this when you so frequently attempt to deceive people. Sometimes honesty is the best policy. You should try it!

 

[theeedude]

A Republican McCain and Romney supporting FBI director with an unimpeachable record of independence, has looked into all these allegations and found nothing criminal. Must be a big conspiracy, amirite?

 

[werepossum]

Comey didn't say there were big red labels on them, he said they were "marked". He gave no indication of how they were marked. And this further illustrates why an investigator has no business giving a press conference like that, and if the hats were reversed conservatives would be screaming bloody murder.

There is simply no plausible reason that she would have deliberately sent a few classified emails through the server, unless she didn't want them to be discoverable. If that was the case, why didn't she delete them? If Comey had found that Clinton had sent classified emails through the server, and the content of those emails had suggested that she was trying to conceal them by sending them through the server, that's a slam dunk for an indictment.

Clinton either didn't deliberately classified information through the server, or Comey is lying. He said "careless", not "deliberate".

lol So you're assuming they were marked in some mysterious way that Comey can read, but Mrs. Clinton, the smartest, most wondrous woman in the world, cannot read? That seems a bit sexist.

The emails might have been deleted. Comey recovered thousands which were work-related but had been deleted. He excused that by saying that the lawyers employed for Mrs. Clinton used parsing software rather than actually reading the emails as Mrs. Clinton promised.

Brezler knowingly and purposefully disseminated classified information. This is not at all the same thing.

While it certainly seems like what he did was in the best interests of his troops and I think he should be pardoned, trying to equate his actions to Clinton's is once again highly deceptive.

It is very difficult to take the statements of conservatives seriously about this when you so frequently attempt to deceive people. Sometimes honesty is the best policy. You should try it!

So when Mrs. Clinton gave to her lawyer information she absolutely positively knew was classified at that time, your assumption is that either she didn't know she was giving it to him or that she unintentionally gave it to him? Perhaps she was sleep-walking? Maybe she was carrying around that thumb drive for safe-keeping when she tripped and and it flew into her lawyer's safe with such force that the door slammed shut behind it? Yeah, obviously you're the perfect choice to lecture people about honesty.

 

[Knowing]

Brezler knowingly and purposefully disseminated classified information. This is not at all the same thing.

While it certainly seems like what he did was in the best interests of his troops and I think he should be pardoned, trying to equate his actions to Clinton's is once again highly deceptive.

It is very difficult to take the statements of conservatives seriously about this when you so frequently attempt to deceive people. Sometimes honesty is the best policy. You should try it!

Brezler was trying to save lives, if the Corps had heeded his warning he would have saved three. Brezler reported his own spillage of classified information. Clinton was seeking convenience and her defense is ignorance of classification markings and classification requirements and she denied that any classified information was present.

You are correct, it would be deceptive to attempt to equate the actions of these two individuals. That's why I made no attempt to equate them until you brought it up. The fact of the matter is that one of them acted consciously in the best interests of the nation and the corps and was punished for it and the other is lazy, ignorant, and displays terrible judgement.

 

[fskimospy]

Brezler was trying to save lives, if the Corps had heeded his warning he would have saved three. Brezler reported his own spillage of classified information. Clinton was seeking convenience and her defense is ignorance of classification markings and classification requirements and she denied that any classified information was present.

You are correct, it would be deceptive to attempt to equate the actions of these two individuals. That's why I made no attempt to equate them until you brought it up. The fact of the matter is that one of them acted consciously in the best interests of the nation and the corps and was punished for it and the other is lazy, ignorant, and displays terrible judgement.

Well if you were not attempting to equate the two then what should we take from this information in your opinion?

 

[Knowing]

Well if you were not attempting to equate the two then what should we take from this information in your opinion?

Context, or whatever you'd like to strawman.

 

[emperus]

What is the prevailing conspiracy theory now? Watched Morning Joe this Am and just got a jumble of disparate rants. From the best I can gather the theory goes something like this. Lynch knew Comey was going to recommend no indictment so she purposefully met with Clinton so she could recuse herself and let Comey make the decision. So Lynch should be removed because she should have been the one making the decision? Comey also informed Obama that he would announce he wasn't indicting Clinton on Tues, thus ruining his planned rally with Clinton. Is that right? Or did I miss something? It's hard thinking with a tin foil hat on.

Also, someone please explain to me how calling Comey to the House to explain his decision isn't an attempt to bully the FBI or force an outcome that the Republicans want. Isn't that worse than anything Bill Clinton did?

 

[OutHouse]

Comey didn't say there were big red labels on them, he said they were "marked". He gave no indication of how they were marked

so in other words they were marked? is that what you are saying?

 

[fskimospy]

Context, or whatever you'd like to strawman.

How do you think this context informs the discussion?

 

[buckshot24]

What is the prevailing conspiracy theory now? Watched Morning Joe this Am and just got a jumble of disparate rants. From the best I can gather the theory goes something like this. Lynch knew Comey was going to recommend no indictment so she purposefully met with Clinton so she could recuse herself and let Comey make the decision. So Lynch should be removed because she should have been the one making the decision? Comey also informed Obama that he would announce he wasn't indicting Clinton on Tues, thus ruining his planned rally with Clinton. Is that right? Or did I miss something? It's hard thinking with a tin foil hat on.

Also, someone please explain to me how calling Comey to the House to explain his decision isn't an attempt to bully the FBI or force an outcome that the Republicans want. Isn't that worse than anything Bill Clinton did?

Irrelevant, your candidate clearly was incompetent at the least and criminally negligent at the worst. There was evidence of law breaking but Comey didn't recommend prosecution. Not exactly a ringing endorsement.

Government oversight isn't bullying. Nobody expects him to reverse his decision I'm sure.

Oh and Hillary's lies have been exposed.

 

[Starbuck1975]

What is the prevailing conspiracy theory now? Watched Morning Joe this Am and just got a jumble of disparate rants. From the best I can gather the theory goes something like this. Lynch knew Comey was going to recommend no indictment so she purposefully met with Clinton so she could recuse herself and let Comey make the decision. So Lynch should be removed because she should have been the one making the decision? Comey also informed Obama that he would announce he wasn't indicting Clinton on Tues, thus ruining his planned rally with Clinton. Is that right? Or did I miss something? It's hard thinking with a tin foil hat on.

Also, someone please explain to me how calling Comey to the House to explain his decision isn't an attempt to bully the FBI or force an outcome that the Republicans want. Isn't that worse than anything Bill Clinton did?

It's speculative but not unreasonable. The FBI had enough evidence to demonstrate negligence but perhaps not enough to cross the threshold of criminal intent. How do you balance that fine line where a reprimand is clearly in order but perhaps indictment is a stretch?

It turned into a big game of "not it".

The Lynch-Clinton meeting happened either because Lynch wanted to take herself out of play OR Clinton sought to mitigate her as a wild card.

As for Comey, I believe he does need to clarify his thought process under oath. In his mind what is the threshold for gross negligence independent of intent?

 

[fskimospy]

lol So you're assuming they were marked in some mysterious way that Comey can read, but Mrs. Clinton, the smartest, most wondrous woman in the world, cannot read? That seems a bit sexist.

The emails might have been deleted. Comey recovered thousands which were work-related but had been deleted. He excused that by saying that the lawyers employed for Mrs. Clinton used parsing software rather than actually reading the emails as Mrs. Clinton promised.


So when Mrs. Clinton gave to her lawyer information she absolutely positively knew was classified at that time, your assumption is that either she didn't know she was giving it to him or that she unintentionally gave it to him? Perhaps she was sleep-walking? Maybe she was carrying around that thumb drive for safe-keeping when she tripped and and it flew into her lawyer's safe with such force that the door slammed shut behind it? Yeah, obviously you're the perfect choice to lecture people about honesty.

Wait are you saying it was illegal for her to give that information to her lawyer who was specifically provided with security clearances so that he could handle it and stored it in a safe that was provided by the state department for that express purpose?

http://www.law.com/sites/articles/2...nce-email-safeguards/?slreturn=20160606144425

This is exhibit A for the sort of nonsense you've been peddling since the beginning about this. Either you're nearly entirely ignorant of what you have repeatedly claimed to be so sure about or you're being deliberately deceptive. So again yes, some honesty would be heartily welcomed.

 

[boomerang]

Oh and Hillary's lies have been exposed.

And in some instances at the level of perjury.

 

[Blackjack200]

lol So you're assuming they were marked in some mysterious way that Comey can read, but Mrs. Clinton, the smartest, most wondrous woman in the world, cannot read? That seems a bit sexist.

No, I'm not assuming that at all, but that's now the second consecutive time that you're putting words in someone's mouth. If Comey's original statement was so damning, why the need to add the fictional bit about big red labels, other than to make the emails seem more conspicuous? Comey didn't say they were "clearly and obviously" marked, and give then extraordinary amount of editorializing he did on the issue, I think it's safe to assume that if the emails had been so conspicuously marked, he would have said as much.

I'm not saying that Clinton couldn't have known, or even that she shouldn't have seen it. I'm only saying that it wasn't intentional. Which is essentially the same thing Comey is saying when he says "careless" etc.