Democrats & Liberals Archives

A Watchblog survey: Do you trust James Comey?

Let me know in the comments below whether or not you trust James Comey to come to an accurate and just resolution of the Hillary Clinton Email controversy.

Tell us whether you think Comey is as free and independent as he claims or whether you think he is in cahoots with Obama, Lynch and Clinton. Likewise, if you think he is dropping a bombshell onto Clinton's lap just because he is a Republican partisan hack, feel free to speak up.

Most importantly: Tell us whether you will accept his future conclusions as the truth, no matter what they may be.

Posted by Warren Porter at October 30, 2016 12:07 PM
Comments
Comment #409212

I will start by going on the record endorsing Comey’s integrity. I do not believe partisan politics impact his decision-making and I will trust any conclusion may reach.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 30, 2016 12:19 PM
Comment #409213

In the words of a former Speaker of the House, “Not just no, but hell no”!.

We think we found something that might have already been found and resolved but want to draw attention to it, seems very weak and borders on despicable. Circus and bread for all!

VOTE!

Posted by: Speak4all at October 30, 2016 12:25 PM
Comment #409214

The guy showed his true colors when he said she was incompetent and would not follow up with prosecution. Yet in the same breath said anyone else who did the same thing would certainly go to jail.

Comey was also involved in the Whitewater investigation.

Several people involved with the Whitewater corporation (including Clinton’s successor as governor) ultimately went to jail, but the Clintons never faced criminal prosecution.

Comey has long history of cases ending favorable to Clintons

So, to answer your question, the answer is “No”.

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 30, 2016 12:30 PM
Comment #409216
Yet in the same breath said anyone else who did the same thing would certainly go to jail.
May I have a citation for this claim?
Comey has long history of cases ending favorable to Clintons

So, if Comey was in the tank for Clinton, why did he send that letter to Jason Chaffetz and the rest on Friday? He could have easily kept quiet about the whole matter until after emails on Wiener’s computer were thoroughly investigated after the election.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 30, 2016 12:42 PM
Comment #409220

Skeptical not only of Comey, also the A.G. That meeting between her and WJC IMO was no accident.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 30, 2016 1:02 PM
Comment #409221

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 30, 2016 1:09 PM
Comment #409230

Warren…I have no idea whether Comey is a free and independent director of the FBI. How could I possibly know that?

I disagreed with his decision not to indict Clinton. The evidence was obvious to everyone but him apparently.

I applaud his decision to reopen the investigation and believe his statement outlining his reason to congress.

I have absolutely no trust at all for AG Lynch.

Corruption of government elected and appointed officials has, in my opinion, metastasized. Unless we find a way to curb these outrages, the country and we the people will be greatly harmed.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 30, 2016 1:57 PM
Comment #409233
To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

Exactly. “Security or administrative sanctions”, not jail time. If a low level bureaucrat did what HRC did, that person would be fired and have his or her security clearance revoked. It would effectively end that person’s career, but under no circumstance would it lead to criminal prosecution or incarceration.

Skeptical not only of Comey, also the A.G. That meeting between her and WJC IMO was no accident.
Comey has been in the driver’s seat the whole time. I am not asking about Loretta Lynch’s trustworthiness or credibility.
Corruption of government elected and appointed officials has, in my opinion, metastasized. Unless we find a way to curb these outrages, the country and we the people will be greatly harmed.
Is James Comey an example of the metastasization of corruption of which you speak? Posted by: Warren Porter at October 30, 2016 2:17 PM
Comment #409234

Warren asks if I believe Comey is corrupt.

It is too early to tell in my opinion. This investigation must play out before we can judge the actors by their actions.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 30, 2016 2:23 PM
Comment #409244

Warped, Skeptical is my answer just like what Royal said in his comment to early to tell. I brought up Lynch and the WJC meeting because she is Comey’s boss and I want to see if he gets pressured and answers like he did July 5th.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 30, 2016 3:27 PM
Comment #409245

Your turn, Warren Porter. Show me a link to the security and administrative sanctions imposed on Hillbilly?

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 30, 2016 3:32 PM
Comment #409246

So the director of the FBI sends a letter full of political implications, just prior to an election, directly to a repub in Congress with no knowledge of what was in a computer they have had in their possession for weeks. A computer that belongs to Weiner not Clinton or her aides.

Warren you ask if we trust Comey after this? Why because he has had a good career, did his job earlier on the same issue or both? We can not trust him when his blatant attempt to influence the election, using his position as director ofthe FBI, is a potentially criminal act in itself.

On October 28 2016, 11 days before a Presidential election, FBI Director James Comey sent a letter to members of Congress informing them of the discovery of a potentially new stash of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s emails, prior to those emails being reviewed. The letter was sent despite verbal guidance from the DOJ advising against it. Mr. Comey is currently the subject of a complaint[30][31] filed with the DOJ for his potential violation of the Hatch Act. [32]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatch_Act_of_1939

Posted by: j2t2 at October 30, 2016 3:43 PM
Comment #409247

I believe Comey is worthy of trust and acted in what he believed were the best interests of justice and the FBI as an organization.

But.

He made two big mistakes. First, he should have observed precedent, and not made a statement about the conclusion of the e-mail investigation this summer. He should have said ‘the FBI has concluded its investigation and there will be no indictments.’ Period. End of sentence. Instead, possibly in the interests of transparency, he interjected his own opinions. There were already swarms of conspiracy theories afoot, and he fanned the flames. Second, he should have observed precedent this time around too, as well as the advice of his bosses, and not made the announcement about Abedin’s e-mails. Once again, I think his motives were pure, but his decision making was atrocious. In the supposed interests of transparency he released a vague statement that may influence the election.
Trump immediately declared this “worse than Watergate” and made horrendous statements accusing HRC of corruption without any evidence. Crowds cheered “lock her up.” We are seeing a nightmarish authoritarian side of America emerging in all its ugliness, and Comey once again fanned the flames.

He was wildly out of line. He needs to walk it back and clarify what is happening. I do not think he is corrupt or untrustworthy, but he made two very big mistakes, and now he needs to walk it back and somehow extricate himself.

Posted by: phx8 at October 30, 2016 4:05 PM
Comment #409248

It isn’t like this hasn’t happened before Weinberger 1992 4 days before an election.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 30, 2016 4:10 PM
Comment #409250

KAP,
Interesting historical point, but not really comparable. Weinberger had already been indicted once over Iran-Contra and resigned for his part in breaking the law, selling arms to the Ayatollahs, and giving the profits to right wing goons in Nicaragua. Weinberger had already resigned for his part in the scandal. Because of the law breaking, a Special Prosecutor had been pursuing the case for some while.

Weinberger was later pardoned, along with the other Reaganites who committed crimes and violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution. He was pardoned by Bush #41 shortly before the end of his term.

There is not much doubt Bush #41 could have been pursued by the Special Prosecutor and impeached over Iran-Contra. Same for Reagan. For the good of the nation, Democrats chose not to pursue it.

Given how much was already known about Bush #41 and Weinberger and their roles in Iran-Contra, it is highly unlikely that had much influence on the election.

Posted by: phx8 at October 30, 2016 4:54 PM
Comment #409251

phx8, Yes he was indicted in June of that year but 4 days before the election, I forget what it was then, were no early voting and the Clinton’s applauding the FBI. So it has taken place before.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 30, 2016 5:02 PM
Comment #409252

by the way phx8 Hillary brought this all on herself.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 30, 2016 5:11 PM
Comment #409253

Walsh was not a part of the FBI. He was an independent Special Prosecutor, a Republican of impeccable credentials appointed by Reagan’s Republican AG, Edwin Meese. In the ongoing Iran-Contra Scandal Weinberger, among others, had already been indicted. The document implicated Bush #41, but was hardly an “October Surprise.” And there is no doubt Walsh had it in for the perpetrators of Iran-Contra.

Selling weapons to the Iranian Ayatollah’s and sending the profits to the Contras in blatant violation of the law does tend to raise some eyebrows.

The office of Special Prosecutor was independent, which was good, and because of its independence, also be not so good. The Office was badly abused by the GOP during the Clinton administration, and both sides agreed to rein it in significantly after Clinton’s second term.

Posted by: phx8 at October 30, 2016 5:17 PM
Comment #409254

The point is phx8, the Clinton’s loved it now that the shoe is on the other foot they hate it.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 30, 2016 5:47 PM
Comment #409256

So what happens first Comey resigns as director or Clinton is elected as president.

My bet is Comey is given the boot or resigns prior to election day.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 30, 2016 6:14 PM
Comment #409257

j2t2,
We have seen a deluge of “sources” clarifying what Director Comey meant. It is like nothing I’ve ever seen before. No one at the FBI is supposed to say anything about a matter like this, but the sheer volume of “sources” suggests that this is how they are trying to deal with this boondoggle. I do not think Comey will resign, despite his mistakes. More likely, he will get an overview of what the laptop actually contains ASAP, and then hold a press conference in the next day or two.

He really did make a mess of this.

Posted by: phx8 at October 30, 2016 6:27 PM
Comment #409258

And I think the Clinton campaign has one more big bomb to drop in Trump before the election.

Posted by: phx8 at October 30, 2016 6:28 PM
Comment #409261

I would like to think the man has a bit of integrity and will resign in lieu of facing charges for his foolishness. He has tarnished the FBI with his actions.

We have conservatives all over the country in a panic thinking Clinton is actually some type of criminal that will destroy the country if elected. Hell here on WB we have Royal posting 8 year old emails as proof of election rigging today. How much more can these guy take?


Then this guy Comey drops a faux bomb, the long awaited October surprise that has been hoped and prayed for by conservatives for months. Only it isn’t a bomb it is nothing but hot air, keeping the faux scandal alive true, but without substance.

The media had talked about nothing else for two days now and we find he has wasted out time. Despite the conservative line about the MSM BTW.

If he has an ounce of integrity he will resign. If not he should be up on charges.

Posted by: j2t2 at October 30, 2016 10:41 PM
Comment #409262

Sounds like someone is scared. Things aren’t going your way, j2t2?

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 30, 2016 11:32 PM
Comment #409263

Hillary brought this mess on her self.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 30, 2016 11:38 PM
Comment #409264

Comey is an honest man in a hard situation. Hillary did the wrong deeds. He has to report them. Imagine if had kept it under wraps until after the election.

Posted by: Christine & John at October 30, 2016 11:49 PM
Comment #409265

RF,

It is too early to tell in my opinion. This investigation must play out before we can judge the actors by their actions.
What information are you waiting for?

KAP,

she is Comey’s boss and I want to see if he gets pressured and answers like he did July 5th.

Apparently, Lynch and other DOJ officials advised Comey against sending that letter to Congress on Friday, but it was to no avail. How can you reconcile your belief that she pressured Comey in July with the fact that she was unable to pressure him in October?

WW,

Show me a link to the security and administrative sanctions imposed on Hillbilly

No problem:

QUESTION: Just following up on the internal review that you’ve reopened. Can you say anything more about what exactly the review is focusing on particularly?

MR KIRBY: Well, it’s going to focus on what we said it would focus on at the time when we first talked about it, and that was the degree to which email traffic was properly handled, sensitive – the degree to which email traffic was classified or sensitive at the time it was transmitted, the degree to which it was properly treated as such at the time it was transmitted. And that’s what we said back when – in January, when we had originally intended to start.

QUESTION: And I know you call it a review, this review has – as you said this week, it has the ability to determine possible infractions at the end of the day, whenever it completes.

MR KIRBY: It’s a review into these issues. As a result of information that the review uncovers, there could be outcomes, but the review is to actually determine the degree to which information was handled appropriately, not to determine specific outcomes. There are outcomes that could come from what we learn from the review.

QUESTION: I won’t ask about any of the officials who worked under Secretary Clinton per se, but about the secretary herself, there are some calls from the Hill about stripping her security clearance. Is that – as a former official, albeit the top official in the department, is that something that is even possible as the end of this review?

MR KIRBY: Well, again, without speaking to any individual or to – and certainly not to get ahead of this review, which is now just beginning, obviously, as I said before, the process can result in a variety of employment and/or security clearance outcomes from both current and former employees.

QUESTION: So when you say former employees, that – does that include the former Secretary of State, or is she not actually a former employee since she was essentially the employer?

MR KIRBY: I’m not going to speculate any more. Again, the process could result in a variety of employment and/or security clearance outcomes for current and former employees.

Source.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 31, 2016 12:20 AM
Comment #409269

That’s a non-answer on your part, Warren Porter.

When did Hillbilly receive security and administrative sanctions?

How can she be receiving security briefings if she’s been sanctioned?

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 31, 2016 8:49 AM
Comment #409270

Warped, WJC meets Lynch in Arizona and has a private discussion for 1/2 hr. talking about grandkids which is suspicious and unethical to be talking to the spouse of a person under investigation by the department you are the head of. Then a few days later Comey comes out with his July 5th we won’t prosecute, which anyone else would have been indicted and prosecuted for the same thing Hillary did. So you can’t tell me there wasn’t some kind of hanky panky going on in the justice department. Now more has been uncovered and we will see, especially if the state.gov and Hillary’s server signatures were found on Wiener’s and Huma’s Laptop which is what triggered the reopening from what I heard on news reports early this morning.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 31, 2016 9:10 AM
Comment #409271

WW,

Presidential candidates don’t need security clearances to receive briefings (nor does the President). I do not know the status of the State Department’s internal review of Clinton’s security privileges. I presume it is still ongoing. Given the facts at hand, I find it hard to believe Clinton won’t be subject to revocation of her security clearance.

KAP,

WJC meets Lynch in Arizona and has a private discussion for 1/2 hr. talking about grandkids which is suspicious and unethical to be talking to the spouse of a person under investigation by the department you are the head of.

OK, the meeting on the plane may or may not have affected Lynch. But Comey wasn’t on that plane. How do you implicate him? He’s demonstrated that he is quite independent from Lynch’s advice.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 31, 2016 9:46 AM
Comment #409272

Warped, NEWS FLASH Lynch is Comey’s BOSS.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 31, 2016 10:00 AM
Comment #409273

KAP,
NEWS FLASH, Lynch advised Comey not to send that letter about the e-mails and he did it anyway. Some conspiracy theories die hard. That one has no chance. Maybe you should revisit Benghazi!!! That CT kept going for over a year and through many a House and Senate Committees.

Meanwhile, demands are out there for Director Comey to release what he knows about Trump’s connections with Russia. That may be the last bombshell.

Then again, coke and whores will get ya’ every time. There are stories about parties given for old men and young girls at Trump Tower.

Posted by: phx8 at October 31, 2016 10:15 AM
Comment #409274

phx8, I really don’t give a RATS A** what Comey or the CIA, NSA or Kremlin brings out on either of the 2 A**HOLES I didn’t vote for either. Like I said in an earlier post Hillary brought this on her self. She has no one to blame but her self. People like you though would blame Bush for all this mess, but hey that’s the Liberal/progressive way it’s never their fault.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 31, 2016 10:24 AM
Comment #409275

I learned something this morning - - an elected official, by law, is given access to classified material. No background investigation required. Because the person is elected to a position by the people they are assumed vetted by the people.

Seems kinda dumb, Anthony Weiner and so on - - - but that’s how it works.

Same for the intelligence briefings given to candidates. They are given the classified briefings because they are candidates for the high office. No vetting necessary. Hillary can’t be denied access.

Again, sounds kinda dumb.

Posted by: roy ellis at October 31, 2016 10:58 AM
Comment #409276

Investigation-wise he’s pulled no punches. Politics wise, he’s naive about this GOP crowd and just how little they care about facts and nuance.

I mean, they didn’t even have a warrant until this weekend, yet Republicans were insisting they knew the contents were explosive, else, why reopen it?

Truth is, Comey was under a lot of political pressure from the right, and he buckled. That’s the thing. The GOP will force a thing with a screaming amount of political pressure, But then act like it’s all organic, like we didn’t have to go through years of tedious fishing expeditions just to get to an accusation.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2016 11:26 AM
Comment #409277

Comey had the smelly end of the stick no matter how he played it. I would answer the question of trust as saying that I trust Comey is doing what he thinks is right for the FBI. He is a lawyer so his thinking is probably on the lines of what’s best for the FBI and let others advocate for their own interests and organizations. I do think he has put the FBI ahead of himself and in that regard I give him respect.

Posted by: George in SC at October 31, 2016 11:26 AM
Comment #409278

Royal Flush-
My problem is that you guys act like you’re intimately familiar with the evidence, when often times that’s the furthest thing from the truth. There are tons of accusations you’re making that are contradicted by the information that Comey revealed.

I mean, you guys are saying the investigation was reopened when at best it was a review without even the warrant necessary to begin. You jump to the conclusion you want to jump to, and then go into siege mode.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2016 11:29 AM
Comment #409282

You jump to the conclusion you want to jump to, and then go into siege mode.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 31, 2016 11:29 AM

hmmm…odd comment by Daugherty considering I wrote;

“It is too early to tell in my opinion. This investigation must play out before we can judge the actors by their actions.”

Warren asks; “What information are you waiting for?”

Simple, information found as a result of the investigation.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 31, 2016 1:55 PM
Comment #409283

Hope my Leftie Buddies can follow the logic…

In examining Weiner’s computer for evidence concerning his activities, emails were discovered that investigators believed might be relevant to the investigation of Ms. Clinton’s emails as SoS.

A warrant was necessary to examine these emails as they were not included in the warrant for the investigation of Weiner.

The FBI concluded that since it would be examining these new emails, congress should be made aware of their actions.

A warrant has been issued. The emails will be examined.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 31, 2016 2:08 PM
Comment #409288

Wildly out of line? Walk it back? Clarify what is happening?

All Comey said was that an investigation found what appears to be pertinent information and that he agreed with the investigative team that further investigation was needed.

Hillary has brought all of this upon herself.

Posted by: kctim at October 31, 2016 5:03 PM
Comment #409291

I wonder if any of this would have come to light if Trump hadn’t stuck to it and brought it all out into the open.

This is why I support Trump. He’s cleaning out from under the rug. We all know that’s where this and the rest of Hillbilly’s ills (no pun intended) would end up if she got elected. At least it will get an airing with Trump at the helm.

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 31, 2016 7:30 PM
Comment #409296

I appreciate everyone sharing their opinion. It appears most people fall in three groups:

1. There are people like me who recognize that Comey was dealt a tough hand and he did what he did out of good faith. These people have witnessed the honorable manner in which Comey has conducted himself thus far, and assume that partisan politics have not influenced his decision-making.

2. There are partisans who judge Comey’s integrity on the basis of whether or not he makes decisions that assist their preferred political candidate.

I welcome any corrections if I am wrong, but it seems C&J, George in SC, myself fall in the first category. WW, RF, KAP, jt2t and S4A fall in the second. Phx8 managed to somehow straddle the two categories and neither SD nor kctim have responded directly to my request for comment.

Royal Flush,

Simple, information found as a result of the investigation.

Shouldn’t one’s opinion of Comey’s integrity be independent of the conclusions he reaches and the information he finds? After all, the question at hand is one of trust. Trust, by its very nature, is a something that manifests precisely when information is lacking. Cartesian doubt aside, we don’t need trust to believe facts we know are right. There’s hardly any trust needed to believe that Abraham Lincoln is dead and that Barack Obama is President of the United States. On the other hand, trust is absolutely necessary when facts are not known. When one’s spouse is alone with another person, one must trust that he or she remains faithful to his or her wedding vows even though one never knows for sure what transpires.

Building upon my conversations with KAP and WW, I have two more questions for everyone:

1. Is Comey’s disregard of Lynch’s advice regarding Friday’s letter to Congress indicative of his independence from her?

2. Do people agree with James Comey’s statement last July that any underling caught doing what HRC did would face “administrative or security sanctions”, but that criminal prosecution or incarceration were inappropriate?

3. If Clinton had her security clearance permanently revoked and was permanently blackballed from future employment in the US government bureaucracy, but she did not face criminal prosecution or jail time, would you agree with the outcome?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 31, 2016 10:36 PM
Comment #409297

Yeah, Weary, Trump is all for shining a light on Hillary. But, not so interested in shining that light on his own tax returns. If he is such a great business man and such a philanthropist, you would think that he would be proud to make them available to the public just as every other presidential candidate has in modern times. Hiding something? Embarrassed by something?

Posted by: Rich at October 31, 2016 10:43 PM
Comment #409298

With all this Republican angst over Hillary’s emails, you would think that her actions were an extraordinary deviation from executive branch practice.

Except that the George W. Bush executive Whitehouse staff (including the Chief of Staff) not only lost 22 million emails, didn’t preserve or archive emails as required, but also used a private server supplied by, of all organizations, the Republican National Committee. A large number of those emails were eventually recovered but not all. Nobody was charged or disciplined.

So, put it in perspective.

Posted by: Rich at October 31, 2016 11:06 PM
Comment #409299

Warren Porter, you are correct to put me in the second column, but for the wrong reason. I did not base my decision on whether it would benefit Trump or because it backs up my political point of view.

I based my opinion on what he said when he decided Hillbilly wasn’t going to be treated like anyone else who did what she did. The double standard was blatant. Having gone further back into his history with Hillbilly investigations I concluded it was more of the same. Under the rug it will go.

The heat is on and I think it’s a foregone conclusion that Donald Trump will be our next president. Comey, perhaps, sees the same writing on the wall and knows he should be on the up and up from now on.

Hillbilly has no cloths.

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 31, 2016 11:11 PM
Comment #409300

That’s a lot of huff, Rich? Where’s the puff?

Is a server owned by the Republican National Committee a private server?

Were the 2 million missing emails supposed to be on the Republican National Committee’s server?

Were they recovered from the RNC server?

What were the contents of the large number of emails recovered?

Is it still Bush’s fault?


Posted by: Weary Willie at October 31, 2016 11:28 PM
Comment #409301

That’s funny, Warren Porter?

You divide us into, what you say are three groups, then you name only two.

Then you say you want to ask two more questions, then ask three?

:D

You made my eyebrows chuckle!

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 31, 2016 11:31 PM
Comment #409302

It’s always a pleasure.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 1, 2016 12:20 AM
Comment #409303

Weary,

The server used by the GW Bush Whitehouse was a private server owned by the Republican National Committee. It was not a government server and a large number of emails were not archived as required. After a suit, many but not all of the emails were recovered by a computer forensic team. The exact number forever lost and the number recovered has not been revealed. Ditto for the content.

Posted by: Rich at November 1, 2016 12:24 AM
Comment #409304

Kinda like so many jobs saved, right?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 1, 2016 1:25 AM
Comment #409305

Warped, 1 About time Comey grew a pair. 2. No, We see what happened to a Sailor who did less then Hillary 3. Agree with the 1st part but she should serve jail time.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 1, 2016 8:30 AM
Comment #409307

Warren,
Comey is part of government and that always means: trust, but verify.

As far as accepting his future conclusions, he gets the same benefit of doubt I give everybody else. I am not privy to all the information he has and I will trust his judgement until given reason not to.

1. IMO, no. It is a sign of him doing some CYA.

2. No. Any underling caught taking classified information off a secure server and then passing and storing it on an unsecure personal server, would be subject to review and proper punishment.

3. The main priority is protecting our classified information. If her punishment is in line with how earlier cases were handled, I have no problem agreeing with the outcome.

Posted by: kctim at November 1, 2016 9:46 AM
Comment #409311

Page A 21 N.Y. Times “FBI finds NO clear connection between Russia and Trump”

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 1, 2016 11:19 AM
Comment #409314

Warren writes; “Shouldn’t one’s opinion of Comey’s integrity be independent of the conclusions he reaches and the information he finds?”

Ah, Yes, judge by what folks say rather than by what folks do. That’s served the Left well over the years. They say all the right things to keep their base voting for them and then do nothing to change their plight.

I refuse to base my opinion of Comey’s integrity based upon his words only.

For decades the Democrats have had the almost exclusive vote of our black citizens. Have they lifted most of them from poverty? Have they greatly increased their educational performance? Have they encouraged families to stay together with a mom and dad?

Now, we know that a federal judge was sufficiently convinced of Comey’s integrity in presenting his reasoning, that a warrant was issued. That’s a good sign.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2016 3:01 PM
Comment #409315

Warren likes polling the group.

How many folks here believe Hillary Clinton has integrity?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2016 3:30 PM
Comment #409316

Not a fair question, Royal.
Facts have already shown that Hillary Clinton has no integrity at all.

Posted by: kctim at November 1, 2016 3:40 PM
Comment #409317

Absolutely 0 integrity, Royal.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 1, 2016 3:48 PM
Comment #409318

Also Royal, I believe she would sell out her own daughter to get what she wanted.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 1, 2016 3:49 PM
Comment #409319

You’re right kctim.

Honesty is giving your word. Integrity is keeping it.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2016 3:50 PM
Comment #409320

As a teenager I often trusted my Pals with secrets about my girlfriends and such.

My trust was usually rewarded with betrayal as my Pals had no integrity.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2016 3:54 PM
Comment #409323
Ah, Yes, judge by what folks say rather than by what folks do. That’s served the Left well over the years. They say all the right things to keep their base voting for them and then do nothing to change their plight.

I refuse to base my opinion of Comey’s integrity based upon his words only.

I never instructed anyone to judge based on “words only”. I am asking you to judge James Comey based on his past actions and behavior.

kctim,

Comey is part of government and that always means: trust, but verify.

While I do not share your cynicism, I understand why you express it. Too many government officials have betrayed Americans’ trust in the past.

Any underling caught taking classified information off a secure server and then passing and storing it on an unsecure personal server, would be subject to review and proper punishment.

By “review and proper punishment” are we talking about criminal prosecution or are we talking about “administrative and security sanctions”.

KAP,

Saucier actions were far more dangerous than what Clinton did. Taking photographs of classified regions of submarines is not in his job description. He had no excuse for what he did and he admitted that he knew it was wrong . It was easy to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Saucier knew that those parts of the USS Alexandria were classified.

On the other hand, talking about US Foreign Policy was the very core of Secretary Clinton’s job. And that includes discussions that may be classified. There is no evidence indicating beyond reasonable doubt that Clinton knew (or that a reasonable person should have known) that the information in her server was classified at the time.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 1, 2016 5:38 PM
Comment #409324
he decided Hillbilly wasn’t going to be treated like anyone else who did what she did. The double standard was blatant.

WW,

Is Comey lying when he says that a different person caught in similar circumstances would face “administrative or security sanctions”, but not face criminal prosecution?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 1, 2016 5:41 PM
Comment #409325

Comey, in sworn congressional testimony, confirmed that Clinton lied. One can not and should not trust liars nor elect them to any public office.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2016 5:48 PM
Comment #409329

Warped, You are full of C**P. There is a difference between pictures that are taken in a restricted area and having TOP SECRET material on an unsecured server. Warped you are showing that you know nothing about handling classified material. What Hillary had on that home brew server was far worse then what that sailor took pictures of that even our enemies have basicly the same thing on their Subs so please, please tell me where the damage would be. If he took pictures of blue prints now that would be a different story, but talking pictures of something that practically every Navy in the world has already the punishment does NOT FIT THE CRIME. LOCK HER UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 1, 2016 6:33 PM
Comment #409330

By the way Warped, You can go to your local library and get books and videos that will take you for a tour of a Nuc. Sub.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 1, 2016 6:36 PM
Comment #409331
Comey, in sworn congressional testimony, confirmed that Clinton lied. One can not and should not trust liars nor elect them to any public office.

Precisely why I will be casting a ballot for Gary Johnson on Tuesday. James Comey essentially said that someone in HRC’s position would have her clearance suspended and her career ended. Due to the nature of how things work, it is our responsibility as voters to implement the recommended administrative and security sanctions against Mrs. Clinton.

KAP,

You have not even attempted to establish a basis by which Saucier could claim that he could reasonably believe it was permissible to take those photographs.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 1, 2016 6:59 PM
Comment #409332

Warped, I told you in another thread that what he did was wrong, even though there are documentaries that show the same thing that is on those pictures he took. He disobeyed a standing order that photos on the inside of ships is a no no. The worst he should have gotten for those pictures is a reduction in rank and a general discharge.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 1, 2016 7:08 PM
Comment #409334
He disobeyed a standing order that photos on the inside of ships is a no no

Was there a standing order (or its civilian equivalent) telling Hillary Clinton that the existence of CIA drone strikes in Yemen & Pakistan was top secret?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 1, 2016 7:34 PM
Comment #409335

Since I believe, as stated above, “Honesty is giving your word. Integrity is keeping it”; how many of the Republican candidates in the primary pledged to support the nominee but don’t have the integrity to do so?

I’ll start with Jeb Bush, a man with little integrity.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2016 7:45 PM
Comment #409336

Warped, Just like that sailor, who by the way was the same rate and rank I was while in the Navy, Hillary after 26 years in government as first lady of Arkansas and the U.S. plus being a Senator and serving on various committees and Sec. of State, BOTH should have known the rules. Warped quit being an A** it makes you look stupid.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 1, 2016 7:48 PM
Comment #409337

By the way Warped you can google “Engine Room on a Nuc. Sub” and see hundreds of images and photos.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 1, 2016 7:52 PM
Comment #409338

How does 30 of public service give someone the clairvoyance to know that the CIA drone program was classified?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 1, 2016 7:53 PM
Comment #409339

Saucier was given a clear, unambiguous order that stated that those parts of the sub were off-limits. Hillary never received the equivalent.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 1, 2016 7:54 PM
Comment #409340

Rich, I abhor favoritism of any form or kind. Those who hold high elected public office should be held to even higher standards that those of us who elect them.

High Office or High military ranking carries greater responsibility than for the average man or woman. Betrayal of our trust is worthy of being tarred and feathered, and public ridicule and banishment.

Betray or lie to me once and you’ll never have another change.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 1, 2016 7:56 PM
Comment #409341

By the way Warped, So are those sailors pictures for everyone and his brother to see.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 1, 2016 7:57 PM
Comment #409342

R. F. I agree.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 1, 2016 7:59 PM
Comment #409343

Warped, The sailor DISOBEYED an order, period. Hillary has 26+ years government service. If she didn’t know after that long what was considered classified or unclassified she has no business even running for POTUS.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 1, 2016 8:05 PM
Comment #409344
If she didn’t know after that long what was considered classified or unclassified she has no business even running for POTUS
In general, Hillary definitely knows what is and isn’t classified. However, in one specific case, she made a reasonable decision that something wasn’t classified and it turns out that it was classified despite the lack of classification markings and the fact that anyone with half a brain knows the CIA is using drones to assassinate people in Yemen & Pakistan. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 1, 2016 8:24 PM
Comment #409346

Warped, Exactly anyone with half a brain knows we use Drones also anyone with half a brain in Hillary’s position would know that the target and when that target will be hit is CLASSIFIED.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 1, 2016 8:37 PM
Comment #409347
the target and when that target will be hit is CLASSIFIED.

But that’s not what is in those emails. The emails are classified top secret merely because they mention the program’s existence.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 1, 2016 8:54 PM
Comment #409348

Warped, Everybody and their brother knows about the Drones so explain to me how they can be Top Secret if everybody knows we use them. Time, Date, weapon and target those would be considered Top Secret. IMO you are confused, the program itself can’t be classified as long as everyone knows about it.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 1, 2016 9:03 PM
Comment #409349

Warped, By the way if those e mails are Top Secret how do you know what is in them. Maybe the FBI need to look at your computer???

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 1, 2016 9:11 PM
Comment #409351

Hillary Clinton is more honest and has more integrity than her accusers, that is for sure.

Objective measurements support this. HRC has been accused by the right wing for decades, yet not once has she ever been indicted, never mind tried and convicted. Fact checkers consistently show she is one of the most honest politicians out there. Among the 21 or so presidential candidates for the 2016 campaign, a compilation showed she rated as the second most honest one (after Kasich).

Is she perfect? No. Is she very good? Yes. And she is far more honest and has far more integrity than her attackers.

Posted by: phx8 at November 1, 2016 9:51 PM
Comment #409352

“Hillary Clinton is more honest and has more integrity than her accusers, that’s for sure” phx8 send me some of that stuff you are smoking because you can’t be sober and say that. Hillary Clinton is more honest LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 1, 2016 9:56 PM
Comment #409353
Everybody and their brother knows about the Drones so explain to me how they can be Top Secret if everybody knows we use them
Excellent point. Now we see how a reasonable, competent Secretary of State could have erroneously considered those emails to be unclassified.
the program itself can’t be classified as long as everyone knows about it.

And yet it is. I know you are surprised by this revelation, Hillary was too when she learned this after submitting her emails over to the proper authorities for review.

if those e mails are Top Secret how do you know what is in them. Maybe the FBI need to look at your computer???

Put down the Breitbart and pick up a newspaper. The MSM has been reporting on the content of the emails for over a year. Numerous times, anonymous intelligence officials have told journalists that the “Top Secret” emails are classified as such because they confirm the existence of the CIA’s drone program.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 2, 2016 12:12 AM
Comment #409355

Warren,

“By “review and proper punishment” are we talking about criminal prosecution or are we talking about “administrative and security sanctions”.”

Depends on the severity of the crime.
I’ve seen people receive a LOR for simply walking a few feet away from the classified material under their control.
I’ve seen people lose their job for forgetting to lock and secure a cabinet containing classified material.
I’ve seen people reprimanded, lose their job and stripped of their clearance for the improper destruction of classified material.
I’ve seen people reprimanded, lose their job, stripped of their clearance and prosecuted for removing classified information from a secure area without permission.

Never seen anybody knowingly remove classified material from a secure area, knowingly transfer it through unsecured channels, knowingly delete it to avoid transparency and lie to CYA, but I have a feeling that vague admonishment probably isn’t the proper punishment.

Posted by: kctim at November 2, 2016 10:04 AM
Comment #409356

Warped, Drone programs are not classified, Their mission is meaning, TARGET, WHEN, AND WHERE they are to hit.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 2, 2016 10:39 AM
Comment #409358

Warped, Other examples of things we know about, ICBM’s we know we have them but do not know their TARGET, B. M. Subs, we know we have them but don’t know their where abouts or TARGETS. Even surface ships we know we have them but do not know their CAPABILITIES.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 2, 2016 11:01 AM
Comment #409359

Well I see we have our self-proclaimed “experts” on classified material spouting their nonsense once again. Fortunately their misconceived and misinformed opinions mean squat and should be perceived as just more of the same ridiculous unfounded hairbrained ideas as all of their other accusations they attempt to foist upon us.

Hillary Clinton has been dealing with these falsities for most of her public life. I say again, no formal charges, no formal indictments, no administrative sanctions, nothing nada zip. You guys get old going on and on about how you perceive this should be handled. Listen to the real experts just once and understand that there is nothing to validate your phony concerns. Or better still wake up a week from today and pay attention to what the majority of voters believe.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 2, 2016 12:59 PM
Comment #409360
Drone programs are not classified

Yes, they are. The CIA drone program’s existence is TOP SECRET. This is done to placate the governments in Yemen and Pakistan who prefer to lie to their citizens and deny the existence American incursions on their sovereignty. Yemen and Pakistan pretend that the drone strikes are their own handiwork, and the US assists them with the fabrication.

See Here:

At the center of that argument, the officials said, is a “top secret” program of the Central Intelligence Agency that is anything but secret. It is the agency’s long effort to track and kill suspected terrorists overseas with armed drones, which has been the subject of international debates, numerous newspaper articles, television programs and entire books.

kctim,
I’ll address your comment later.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 2, 2016 1:43 PM
Comment #409362

Speaks and phx8 must be smoking the same stuff.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 2, 2016 1:48 PM
Comment #409363

True KAP, but Phx8 just seems like a desperate partisan, not a clueless sheep.

Posted by: kctim at November 2, 2016 2:09 PM
Comment #409365

KAP,
You are proving our point for us. All you know are all those accusations about HRC over the years- accusations that never turn out to be true. You impugn her honor and integrity, yet you can not name an objective measurement to do so. Instead, you rely on the repetition of accusations, as if telling lies often enough eventually makes them true.

I cited fact checkers and her clean record. She has released her tax returns for literally decades. We all know exactly how she made money, to the penny. The Clinton Foundation is one of the most transparent in the world. You- yes, YOU- can see every donor and how much they gave on a spread sheet.

She was investigated by the FBI over her e-mails and they found nothing to prosecute. Nothing.

Meanwhile, you have embarrassed yourself in the past by chasing the Benghazi!!! conspiracy. You deny the science behind Global Warming.

Time to pony up. Time to cite facts, not unproven accusations, just like I did.

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2016 2:13 PM
Comment #409366

phx8, You and speaks are true partisans. No matter if your candidate lies, cheats, and God only knows what else you would support them. As far as Benghazi goes if you want to believe what was said and a video was the cause and global warming science works both ways depending on which side gets the most funds from the government and which party is in charge. And as kctim said your desperate your queen is having a serious melt down.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 2, 2016 2:28 PM
Comment #409368

Funny how conservatives have the audacity to speak about integrity during this election cycle. They seem to be allergic to facts. Where they use to spout myths misinformation half truths and outright lies they now shout them. Trump has no integrity, all he has is the ability to manipulate many good people. Look at the responses in this thread from conservatives when confronted with facts… denial,denial denial.

Trump voters would rather not believe he is going to court for the rape of a 13 year old girl. If it were you or I we would be in jail awaiting trial. To think he has convinced so many people he is the better choice than Clinton is amazing, amazing but wrongheaded. He may be in the court room the day of swearing in our next president.

http://www.snopes.com/2016/06/23/donald-trump-rape-lawsuit/

http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-trump-university-20161021-snap-story.html

Posted by: j2t2 at November 2, 2016 2:37 PM
Comment #409367

Hey, just wait a damn minute…this can’t possibly be true.

Poll: Trump Tied With Clinton on Returning Support From Women

Strengthened by burgeoning support from women, Donald Trump is tied with Hillary Clinton with less than a week before the election, according to the latest IBD/TIPP poll released Wednesday.

http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/Poll-Trump-Tied-Clinton/2016/11/02/id/756578/?ns_mail_uid=5919126&ns_mail_job=1694461_11022016&s=al&dkt_nbr=qmyhktrr


Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2016 2:37 PM
Comment #409369

j2, When you present facts from grocery store tabloids or N.Y. Times as well as L. A. times which are lib/progressive, biased it is hard to take you seriously.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 2, 2016 2:43 PM
Comment #409370

The right wing clowns that profess self endowed knowledge regarding the handling of classified material can never be incorrect, in their estimation. Those of us who have gained the clearances necessary to protect our country’s secrets understand why they attempt to espouse their faux concerns in expressing their opinions, it seems fun to them, those of us who have actually carried the burden of state secrets understand the enormity and scope of the classification process and would never attempt to diminish the work so many have dedicated their lives to. These clowns, in a small way, diminish us all by their stupidity, but mostly they diminish themselves.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 2, 2016 2:46 PM
Comment #409371

Hmm…from j2’s link to snopes we read; “As of now, all of the information about this lawsuit comes solely from the complaint filed by “Katie Johnson,” and no one has as yet located, identified, or interviewed her.”

The article states that the same suit filed earlier in California was dismissed by a Federal Judge.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2016 2:50 PM
Comment #409372

speaks, Yes those of us who handled classified material know that if we mishandle classified material will be punished and we do not have a clowinish attitude that you have toward it.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 2, 2016 2:53 PM
Comment #409373

Her honor and integrity?

She claimed that she carried only one device and only it was used to access her personal server. Comey confirmed that she carried multiple devices. She lied.
She claimed that she handed over all work related emails that were subpoenaed. Comey confirmed that she deleted work related emails that had been subpoenaed. She lied.
She claimed that there was no classified material ever on her server. Comey confirmed that classified material was found on her server. She lied.
Comey also confirmed that classified material was part of the ‘non work related’ emails that Hillary had deleted. She lied.

She accepts donations from countries that treat women as second class citizens and that persecutes gays, but holds in contempt her fellow Americans who simply disagree with her on abortion and gay-marriage.

That does not warrant any respect, and it definitely is not the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles.

Those are not simple accusations, Phx8, they are facts.

Posted by: kctim at November 2, 2016 3:11 PM
Comment #409374

I had no need for security clearance during my service in the US Army. I find it interesting to read the parsing by the Left on what is, and is not, a violation of our National Security.

Are the laws and regulations that govern secrets too difficult and/or confusing for the average person reading them to understand? If so, how do they obtain a clearance?

Are we expecting too much from people in protecting secrets in their possession?

Are secrets only SECRETS if the one conveying them agrees?

Are laws and rules governing National security objective or subjective?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2016 3:17 PM
Comment #409375

kctim, your outline of Hillary’s “honor and integrity” was on point and succinct.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2016 3:21 PM
Comment #409376

kctim,
In that case, it should be very easy for you to copy and paste from a transcript. Please show me where Comey said ‘she lied.’

You won’t. Because you can’t. You know it and I know it.

“We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.”
James Comey, Director of the FBI

Like I said, Hillary Clinton has far more integrity and is far more honorable than her accusers.

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2016 3:24 PM
Comment #409377

R. F., I carried a Secret clearance while serving aboard a Air Craft Carrier. There were spaces I needed to go into that had classified material to do repairs.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 2, 2016 3:26 PM
Comment #409378

phx8, During Gowdy’s questioning of Comey he had asked questions on her server and his answers were that there was classified material on it, she lied. There were other questions where Comey said basicly that Hillary lied.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 2, 2016 3:31 PM
Comment #409379

“In that case, it should be very easy for you to copy and paste from a transcript. Please show me where Comey said ‘she lied.’”

Many thanks to our Leftie Pal phx8 for showing, once again, how this works.

Comey didn’t say “she lied”. He was asked if “she lied” and he answered “YES”.

My poor brain challenged buddies on the Left can’t (more likely won’t) understand.

Remember Billy Boy saying under oath that he “didn’t have s*x with that women”. He merely defined s*x to suit himself. Liberals love it.

We understand. In politics, Liberals are moral cripples.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2016 3:31 PM
Comment #409380

J2,
Funny how you STILL use Trump to try and deflect away from Hillary.
Even funnier that you blindly repeat unproven accusations in the same post you criticize ‘many good people’ who are being manipulated.

KAP,
If sheeps really understood ‘the enormity and scope of the classification process’ he would know that ‘the work so many have dedicated their lives to’ has no bearing on the issue.
Don’t go down that hole man.

Posted by: kctim at November 2, 2016 3:36 PM
Comment #409381

kctim. Will do.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 2, 2016 3:39 PM
Comment #409382

Phx8,

“Please show me where Comey said ‘she lied.’”

Did I say Comey said ‘she lied?’ Or did I say that he confirmed her lies?

KAP and Royal provided you with the facts, thanks guys, but I am more than happy to go over it with you again if you so wish.

Royal,

I carried a Top Secret clearance and I find all this leftist parsing to be based totally on political BS and lacking any integrity whatsoever.

Posted by: kctim at November 2, 2016 3:49 PM
Comment #409383

lol.

Neither of you can copy and paste the quote to make the case.

It should be easy. Just copy the transcript, and paste it into the WB comment. Easy Peasy. But you won’t. Because you can’t.

Sometimes HRC has been wrong. She is not perfect. But my statement stands and neither of you can disprove it with anything other than the usual unproved accusations..

Hillary Clinton has more honor and integrity than her accusers.

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2016 3:54 PM
Comment #409384

phx8 confirms that the Democratic party has come down to win an election at all cost. It doesn’t matter if the candidate is a pathological lier, mishandled classified material and God only knows what else. If this is what liberalism is GOD HELP US if Hillary wins.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 2, 2016 4:03 PM
Comment #409385

Phx8, how about a link so as to save some space?

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/rep-trey-gowdy-rips-into-fbi-director-james-comey-on-hillary-clintons-intent.html

Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?

Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.

Clinton said one thing. Comey confirmed the opposite was true.
Whether it was a deliberate intent to deceive, or a simple intentional untruth, the fact is that she lied.

Your desperation is reaching new levels my friend. Sad, just downright sad.

Posted by: kctim at November 2, 2016 4:07 PM
Comment #409386

Poor phx…denial is his forte as it must be to support Ms. Clinton.

I suppose my Hillary lackey Pal phx8 is aware of five ongoing FBI investigations of the Clinton Criminal Foundation (and massage parlor).

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2016 4:07 PM
Comment #409387

phx8, Did you not see the Gowdy, Comey questioning? Maybe you should get some real news instead of the grocery store tabloids.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 2, 2016 4:08 PM
Comment #409388

Lefties still hail Obama for his stalwart achievement of getting his signature legislation passed by congress using threats and bribes and without a single Republican vote.

The Left owns Obamacare, lip-lock, laughing-stock, and bent barrel.

Missy Hillary campaigns on fixing and expanding this horrendous, budget busting, marvel of legislative manure.

Hooray for The Hillary…

Democrats’ 5 Lamest Excuses For Obamacare’s 22% Premium Hike

“2017 isn’t the first year to see Obamacare rate hikes. The most profound hikes took place in 2014, Obamacare’s first year, when the health law’s thicket of insurance regulations drove up the cost of coverage by an average of 49%. Premiums for Obamacare “silver” plans went up by 7 and 11% in 2015 and 2016, according to McKinsey & Co. Add onto that the reported 22% increase in 2017, and you have a cumulative increase of 116%: more than double the pre-Obamacare rate.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/10/27/the-5-lamest-excuses-for-obamacares-22-premium-hike/#7a299d566189

phx8 and his Leftie Pals have already used all five of the excuses highlighted in the article. Perhaps they can conjure up a few more.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2016 4:19 PM
Comment #409389

And one last time: show me where Comey said she lied.

If that is true, it should be very easy. Just copy and paste. Stop twisting and gyrating. Just do it. If you can.

But you can’t. Because Comey never, ever said that.

Like I said, Hillary Clinton is more honorable and has more integrity than her accusers.

By the way, Gowdy revealed the name of a CIA agent to the public during that investigation. What should be his punishment?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/10/trey-gowdy-release-cia-source-name-benghazi-committee-214919

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2016 4:21 PM
Comment #409390

“And one last time:”

You have been saying that forever phx8. You’re beaten on the issue, fold your moth-eaten tent and slither away.

Please try and keep some respect for yourself.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2016 4:26 PM
Comment #409391

From phx8 politico link…”Gowdy’s aides blamed the State Department for the disclosure, and the agency acknowledged Monday a “human error” led to a failure to delete a name from the email in question.”

Gawd…what a loser my Pal x8 is getting to be.

How about Gowdy for AG?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2016 4:38 PM
Comment #409392

Gowdy’s “aides” released it, not State. They can blame whoever they want. State should have made the original redaction, but Gowdy’s people published it. They should have known! They should have known!

My point is this: there is no question there was “human error” in that particular case. No one believes Gowdy intended to reveal the name of a CIA agent with malice aforethought. No one believes that.

Now, why do we hold Hillary Clinton to one standard, but Gowdy and his aides to another?

And my original point stands. But the three of you are so caught up in right wing mythology about Hillary Clinton being a liar, yet you can not to do something as simple as showing where Comey said ‘she lied.’

Because he never said that.

Posted by: phx8 at November 2, 2016 5:03 PM
Comment #409393

More embarrassment for my Leftie Pal x8. He can’t even understand a quote from the very link he provided.

Has the State Department taken the responsibility for Clinton’s numerous misuse of classified material? It took responsibility for the Gowdy release.

Do all of you recall the stuff stolen from the American public when the Clinton’s slithered from the White House after Billy’s term ended? Everyone knew what kind of people the Clinton’s were then…nasty, grabbing, narcissistic, thieves. They were common crooks with uncommon access to the vault.

The discovery and outcry from those investigating these thieves resulted in the Clinton’s having to give back their ill-gotten gains.

One can hope that some day these despicable degenerates will be forced to relinquish their freedom in recompense for their savage acts of pillage.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2016 5:15 PM
Comment #409394

Ah, Phx8, having to stoop to using the “It depends upon what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is, word games eh?
Maybe you are just fishing for some good ole plausible deniability?
LOL!

Face it man, you are flailing around like this simply because a lie is an intentional untruth and you can’t have people believing her dishonesty was intentional.

Comey: That’s not true.
Hmmmmm? Since you are so concerned that Comey didn’t specifically use the word ‘lie,’ I wonder what we should use for ‘not true?’ Well, if something is not true then it is false, so I guess we could use that.

False: not real or genuine: not true or accurate; especially: deliberately untrue: done or said to fool or deceive someone

Doesn’t quite have much zing though, does it. I wonder what word we could use in place of false?

Synonyms on Thesaurus.com
1. mistaken, incorrect, wrong, untrue. 2. untruthful, lying, mendacious. 3. insincere, hypocritical, disingenuous, disloyal, unfaithful, inconstant, perfidious, traitorous.


Posted by: kctim at November 2, 2016 5:19 PM
Comment #409395

Get into some real news phx8 and quit getting it from grocery store tabloids.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 2, 2016 5:21 PM
Comment #409396

RF, kctim and KAP have all been caught in lies here on WB. We know that they haven’t a bit of integrity when they are attempting to use falsehoods to obscure their partisanship. For them to attempt to lie about whether or not somone told a lie is reminiscent of a 3 stooges episode. Very silly fellows.

I believe RF never had a clearance and I am very happy about that, KAP was cleared to clean the head and kctim,no way, he couldn’t get past the part where you honor your commitment to your country. All we have ever heard about his hatred and animosity towards it.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 2, 2016 5:42 PM
Comment #409397

What despicable comments from Speaks concerning the honorable military service kctim, KAP, and I performed for our country.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2016 5:48 PM
Comment #409398

I hope I am joined by others in my demand for an apology by Speaks. I ask the editor of Watchblog to censor Speak’s comments until such time that he does apologize.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2016 5:53 PM
Comment #409399

Royal, just goes to show how low the Democrat party has gone lower then Whale Dung.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 2, 2016 5:53 PM
Comment #409400

I join you in that demand Royal.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 2, 2016 5:55 PM
Comment #409401

Thank You Rich. No one who has served our military should have that service ridiculed.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 2, 2016 6:00 PM
Comment #409404
Depends on the severity of the crime. I’ve seen people receive a LOR for simply walking a few feet away from the classified material under their control. I’ve seen people lose their job for forgetting to lock and secure a cabinet containing classified material. I’ve seen people reprimanded, lose their job and stripped of their clearance for the improper destruction of classified material. I’ve seen people reprimanded, lose their job, stripped of their clearance and prosecuted for removing classified information from a secure area without permission.

kctim, I am glad to see that you understand that not every example of mishandling of classified information merits criminal prosecution or imprisonment. Sometimes, administrative or security sanctions are enough.

Never seen anybody knowingly remove classified material from a secure area, knowingly transfer it through unsecured channels, knowingly delete it to avoid transparency and lie to CYA,

Boy am I glad that Hillary Clinton did none of those things. The classified information found on her server are not the result of removing classified materials from a secure area. She didn’t know the emails going through her system were classified. And lastly, she and her lawyers made every reasonable effort to make sure only personal emails were deleted. In the words of James Comey, “I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.”

Face it man, you are flailing around like this simply because a lie is an intentional untruth and you can’t have people believing her dishonesty was intentional.

Did Comey say that Hillary’s untrue statements were made intentionally?

S4A & Phx8,

It is sad watching our conservative friends go into full tilt as they lie and obfuscate. Some of them are even willing to sacrifice James Comey at the altar of their religion of anti-Clinton hatred. Comey handed them a gift last summer when he essentially said Clinton lacked the judgement or sophistication to be President.

RF,
For the time being, I am not going to censor anyone here. Ever since David Remer departed, enforcement of the Rules For Participation has been quite lax and I am not going to change that today. Please remember, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 2, 2016 8:31 PM
Comment #409405
Hey, just wait a damn minute…this can’t possibly be true.

You are right Royal it is from Newsmax after all.

The article states that the same suit filed earlier in California was dismissed by a Federal Judge.

Yes it does and it also says the lawsuit was dismissed because of paperwork issues Royal.

“the lawsuit filed in California on 26 April 2016 was dismissed over technical filing errors (the address listed in court documents was a foreclosed home that has been vacant since its owner died), with the plaintiff failing in her attempt to avoid incurring the cost of the litigation “

Hmm…from j2’s link to snopes we read; “As of now, all of the information about this lawsuit comes solely from the complaint filed by “Katie Johnson,” and no one has as yet located, identified, or interviewed her.”

Yeah kinda strange Royal getting information right from the horses mouth instead of filtered through the conservative media.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 3, 2016 1:55 AM
Comment #409408

Doesn’t Donald Trump own those tabloids?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 3, 2016 9:11 AM
Comment #409411

Speaks,
I offer you the same I have offered J2 and anybody else: Point out the lie - Provide the facts, not opinions, that prove it to be a lie - and show everybody that you are correct.

Not as easy as your typical nonsensical cheerleading and childish personal insults, but at least you would finally be bringing something intelligent to the table.

Posted by: kctim at November 3, 2016 9:31 AM
Comment #409412

RF, KAP well the big bad tough guys that impugn a woman’s 30 years of public service with such glee and merriment with unfounded accusations somehow become sniveling little boys demanding someone come to their rescue? You two are just like the molester in chief that you admire so much, blowhards.

Kct, your proclivity to cite your experiences in order to validate the need to keep your victimization PD intact is apparent to anyone who has read your comments. You are so oppressed by liberal left wing ideas that you find it possible to blame them for all of the problems you have rather than accept that your lifestyle choices are what really cause you so much pain. To you it’s always someone else’s fault that you don’t have what you want. Oh yeah, and poor people getting free stuff!

Posted by: Speak4all at November 3, 2016 10:08 AM
Comment #409413

Warren,
The classified material was on a secure server, it was removed and placed on an unsecure server.

Hillary was SoS and by her own admission she was well aware of classification requirements and she took it very seriously. She either lied about that or she lied about knowing classified material was on her server.

And lastly, Hillary deleted 30+ thousand emails claiming they were all personal. At least half of those were found to be work related and some were even found to be classified.
Simple result of a haphazard keyword search? Her previous actions to CYA say otherwise.

We have been over this, Warren. Your partisan side leads you to believe that a SoS should not reasonably know what is, is not, or might be, classified. That, despite her claims of being well aware of classification requirements, it was nothing more than poor judgement.
The trail she has left behind proves otherwise so I disagree.

Posted by: kctim at November 3, 2016 10:38 AM
Comment #409414

Speaks, Insults, again? Just goes to show how childish the Democrats have become. The FBI wouldn’t be investigating unless there was something. Hillary has a track record of lying, she was fired from the Watergate investigation for lying, so UNFOUNDED is a far stretch.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 3, 2016 10:53 AM
Comment #409415

Speaks,
I rarely mention my military service, and when I do it is in relation to the topic being discussed.

By their nature, liberal left wing policies are oppressive to those of us who strongly support the founding principles of this country.
IF you paid more attention at what is actually being said, instead of simply lashing out at those who dare disagree with you, you would notice that I primarily comment on how liberal policies have a negative impact on our country, not on myself personally.

I have no problems due to my ‘lifestyle choices,’ and those choices have cause me no pain whatsoever. I live a very simple, sensible and satisfying life. Other than the individual freedoms we ALL have lost, I have everything I want.

As far as blaming or being upset at poor people getting free stuff, that is nothing more than extreme left-wing hyperbole. My argument is not or ever has been about that, but is instead based on the fact that for government to accomplish that task, it must first strip away freedom of choice and take under the threat of punishment from government.

With all that said though, your reply is nothing but your personal opinions of someone who simply disagree’s with you, not any factual proof of lying.

Posted by: kctim at November 3, 2016 11:19 AM
Comment #409416

KAP you constantly use all caps in response to someone’s reasoned argument followed by language filled with *** and scurilous remarks and LOL’s and !!!!. And then accuse me of insults? Yeah sure, in KAPWorld.

Kct, I know you would like to think you are some sort of conscience of our country but you only come off as a malcontent that blames someone else about what you don’t like about our country. Just once it would be nice to see a compliment to our country but not that convoluted interpretation of our constitution that says kct is right and 240 years of governance is wrong. Look phx8 proved that you lied when you said Comey stated that Hillary Clinton lied. He proved that an artful attorney put words into his mouth to which he answered yes. In a court of law that would have been over ruled as heresay. Point proven.

WP, the question shouldn’t be whether Comey is a man of integrity, there have been many men in history that have displayed integrity but have made many aggregious mistakes. The FBI has leaks like a seive, more and more each day. I would rather focus on his competency to run the highest law enforcement organization in our country. On that trait he seems to fall woefully short.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 3, 2016 12:33 PM
Comment #409417
The classified material was on a secure server, it was removed and placed on an unsecure server.

Please cite your source for this statement.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 3, 2016 12:44 PM
Comment #409419

Speaks,
Stop thinking that you know what is “really” being said, and accept what is actually being said.
You take this way too personal and way too serious.

I no more think that I am some sort of ‘conscience of our country’ than I think quoting facts will actually change anybody’s mind on here.

There is plenty that I could compliment our country on, but this is a political site to discuss politics, and the constant leftward movement of our government makes compliments from those who support founding principles, rare.

“Look phx8 proved that you lied when you said Comey stated that Hillary Clinton lied.”

The problem is that I didn’t say “Comey stated that Hillary Clinton lied.”

She claimed that she carried only one device
Comey confirmed that she carried multiple devices.
She lied

Clinton said one thing - Comey confirmed that that was not the truth.
What’s it called when someone does not tell the truth?

Phx8 intentionally ignored the point and chose to instead focus on trying to convince people that it is not a lie to knowingly tell people something that is not true.

A much more respectable and appreciated reply, Speaks. Thanks.
But you will have to find something better before you can say ‘point proven.’

Posted by: kctim at November 3, 2016 1:19 PM
Comment #409420
She claimed that she carried only one device Comey confirmed that she carried multiple devices. She lied
Please cite Comey telling us she habitually carried multiple devices simultaneously. Posted by: Warren Porter at November 3, 2016 1:47 PM
Comment #409421

Kct, got it and as usual you are beyond accepting that your contention is above any repraisal. Hillary Clinton has admitted that she made mistakes, unlike yourself she admits to errors. This doesn’t enter into your idea that you are infallible in your zeal to pillory her. Seems to me that she has proven herself to be human, you on the other hand are unable to accept her apology and just want to beat a dead horse. Look I’ll accept that you might be attempting to only point out that you are merely highlighting inconsistencies in her statements if you can admit you could be wrong. I am certain I could be wrong and I am just looking to make that determination without all of the partisanship. Since I have already voted for her I can patiently wait for an outcome and then, if she is elected, judge her on her performance.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 3, 2016 1:58 PM
Comment #409422

Warped, I really don’t think she carried multiple devices but I do think he meant she used multiple devices but not at the same time.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 3, 2016 2:00 PM
Comment #409423

KAP,

I do think he meant she used multiple devices but not at the same time.

What did Hillary mean, when she said:

First, when I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.

Looking back, it would’ve been better if I’d simply used a second email account and carried a second phone, but at the time, this didn’t seem like an issue.
Posted by: Warren Porter at November 3, 2016 2:30 PM
Comment #409424

Please remember, people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
Posted by: Warren Porter at November 2, 2016 8:31 PM

OK, suit yourself Mr. Porter. I don’t believe I have ever read a post on Watchblog that ridiculed anyone’s military service before the post in question.

Are you suggesting that such unconscionable conduct is beyond your ability to censure, or beyond your ability to comprehend?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 3, 2016 2:37 PM
Comment #409425

Warped, The question is, How many of that one Device did she have? How many cell phones have you owned Warped?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 3, 2016 2:41 PM
Comment #409426

Also Warped, I don’t think it’s uncommon for a person to have a Cell phone or I phone and a Laptop while traveling and even a Blackberry.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 3, 2016 2:50 PM
Comment #409427

RF,

I am not going to selectively enforce the rule just because military veterans happen to be a target and ignore the dozens of other instances when the rules have been flaunted. I do not have the time to parse and moderate anything but the most unambiguous of violations.

KAP,

Answer my question. What did Hillary Clinton mean when she said what she said? Did she mean to say that she never replaced her Blackberry with a new one? Or did she mean to say that she only carried one Blackberry at a time?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 3, 2016 3:09 PM
Comment #409428

OK Warren. It is very clear where you stand; and what you stand for.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 3, 2016 3:13 PM
Comment #409429

Warped, 409422 comment answers your question.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 3, 2016 3:13 PM
Comment #409430

Fox News Bombshell: There Will Be an Indictment in Hillary Clinton Investigation! (VIDEO)

Read more: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/fox-news-bombshell-will-indictment-hillary-clinton-investigation-video/#ixzz4OyYZjVeV

OH…NO…it can’t be true. Surely Bret Baier is spinning fairy tales.

Sure hope my Leftie Pals don’t get discouraged and lower their flags to half-mast…at least those who fly the flag.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 3, 2016 3:31 PM
Comment #409431

Methinks Mr. Potter should switch to Iowa State University as he can then be assured that no one will verbally disagree with him or any Liberal.

Students can determine if “the speech is not “legitimate,” not “necessary,” or lacks a “constructive purpose.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/georgeleef/2016/11/02/a-public-university-makes-students-choose-between-their-first-amendment-rights-and-graduation/#3420b1ef6ff7

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 3, 2016 3:39 PM
Comment #409432

Speaks,
I have no problem admitting when I am wrong and have done so many times here on WatchBlog.
As far as accepting her apology, this is not a small incident where a simple apology can absolve one of wrongdoing.

Warren,
1. In the beginning, knowing she had more than one device, she tried to explain away her setting up and using a private unsecured server so she could ‘carry just one device’ in the name of convenience.
2. If multiple devices were used to access her unsecured server, it doesn’t matter if she carried them at the same time or not.

Posted by: kctim at November 3, 2016 3:54 PM
Comment #409433

RF, I did not insult your military service or anyone else’s. If you weren’t such a pompous fool it would be apparent that I merely pointed out that your contentions regarding classified information was not grounded in any personal experience, which you admitted. You regularly denigrate Hillary Clinton’s public service to her country, over 30 years I might add, and yet you expect me to observe that your scant 4-6 years of military service allows you that license. It doesn’t work that way. There were plenty of people that I served with that I am unable to show respect for. You could be included in those if all I knew about you is how you have spoken about our current Commander-in-Chief, which has been disgusting and does not display the honor of military service.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 3, 2016 4:05 PM
Comment #409435

Without using a name, there is one Leftie, Libbie, Loonie, Loser on WB that will no longer receive the courtesy of my responding to their comments.

Unlike this individual, I respect and honor every single person who has served in our nation’s military with honor. I will never disparage, dishonor, or ridicule these men and women.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 3, 2016 4:13 PM
Comment #409437

What about a chid molester or a rapist or any number of other criminals who have served? You have a very misguided moral sense that does not seem surprising given what you have previously expressed here.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 3, 2016 4:18 PM
Comment #409443

KAP,

409422 comment answers your question.

409422 addresses your interpretation of Comey’s comments. In 409423, I requested your interpretation of Hillary’s comments.

RF,

I will never disparage, dishonor, or ridicule these men and women.

Yet, you support and defend a man who does this repeatedly? And why should protecting veterans from disparagement take precedence over protecting other groups of people? For instance, many WatchBloggers (including you) have repeatedly exploited my youth as an opportunity to write terrible insults.

S4A,
I think it would be best to apologize to KAP for saying he was “cleared to clean the head”. That was not an accurate portrayal of his claimed duties.

kctim,

it doesn’t matter if she carried them at the same time or not.

Huh? It doesn’t matter? You are claiming that Hillary Clinton lied when she said, “I thought it would be easier to carry just one device” (emphasis mine). Of course, the veracity of her statement is going to hinge upon the number of devices she carried around.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 3, 2016 5:43 PM
Comment #409446

Sorry Warren…what part of “I will never disparage, dishonor, or ridicule these men and women.” is confusing to you; causing you to conflate my comment with anything related to Trump?

You also fail to comprehend the difference between supporting and honoring an individual for his/her military service as opposed to the person.

Warren, ask a Vet.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 3, 2016 5:55 PM
Comment #409447

So, everybody knew that she carried just one device because she isn’t tech savy, but what she meant was that she could only physically carry one at a time?

LOL! You had me going there for minute there with that nonsense.
Good one, Warren. You got me man.

Posted by: kctim at November 3, 2016 6:02 PM
Comment #409448

I just figured that a person who refuses to “disparage, dishonor, or ridicule these men and women” would have the self-dignity to refuse to support a political candidate who does likewise.

You also fail to comprehend the difference between supporting and honoring an individual for his/her military service as opposed to the person

Do you make this distinction when evaluating the military service of Chelsea Manning?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 3, 2016 6:07 PM
Comment #409449

Regarding your question on Manning Warren.

I wrote; “supporting and honoring an individual for his/her military service as opposed to the person.”

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 3, 2016 6:10 PM
Comment #409450

Warren Potter fails to see the ridicule of military service in this comment…”I believe RF never had a clearance and I am very happy about that,”

Let’s suppose Mr. Porter that I was KIA or MIA. Would you still believe this comment was not worthy of censure?

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 3, 2016 6:17 PM
Comment #409451

Warped, Hillary said she used 1 device but that doesn’t she didn’t own more then 1. I own 5 devices but only use 1 at a time and I’m sure you have more then 1 device. I think and IMO that is what Hillary meant by using 1 device. Thank you for you comment to s4a.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 3, 2016 6:58 PM
Comment #409453
Would you still believe this comment was not worthy of censure?

You do realize, it is possible for someone to unworthy of a security clearance despite risking his or her life to defend the country?

Let’s suppose Mr. Porter that I was KIA or MIA. Would you still believe this comment was not worthy of censure?
Would people change their opinion of Chelsea Manning if she were KIA or MIA? Now, I happen to have great admiration for your service and I thank you for that. However, I am not going to impose my opinion on someone else using Watchblog’s censorship tools.
Hillary said she used 1 device but that doesn’t (mean) she didn’t own more then 1

So, was Hillary lying when she made the statement?

I own 5 devices but only use 1 at a time and I’m sure you have more then 1 device

Back in 2009, I only owned one device. Comparing today’s technology to that from 7 years ago is like comparing apples & oranges.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 3, 2016 11:46 PM
Comment #409455

Warped, Back in 2009 you were still under mommy and Daddy’s control. We are talking about someone who can buy their own stuff.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 7:34 AM
Comment #409456

There will be no apology. It is because I was using “locker room talk”. Look when using “locker room talk” anyone can make snide remarks about each other or talk about grabbing women in private areas of their bodies or even disparage the Commander-in-Chief. Some here might be to young to understand that using “locker room talk” gives one license to use all manner of disgusting and demeaning innuendo but that’s only because they are so young that they don’t understand that using “locker room talk” suspends all of the rules of normal ways we treat each other and members of different genders.

Of course I am being facitious. But there will be no apology.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 4, 2016 7:48 AM
Comment #409457

Ooops meant to type “facetious”.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 4, 2016 8:30 AM
Comment #409459

“Comparing today’s technology to that from 7 years ago is like comparing apples & oranges.”

As is comparing today’s definitions and mannerisms to that from 10+ years ago.

KAP
They are desperate because they know they don’t have a leg to stand on. They simply cannot admit the truth, so they start twisting themselves in knots with word games, false comparisons, ridiculous assumptions, and personal attacks and insults. It’s what Hillary’s entire campaign has been based on.

Posted by: kctim at November 4, 2016 9:00 AM
Comment #409461

Yep KC, W. P. Likes to use those word games.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 9:14 AM
Comment #409462

So, let’s see where we stand:

kctim wrote:

Comey confirmed that she carried multiple devices.

Turns out, kctim is lying. Clinton never carried multiple devices simultaneously.

kctim wrote:

The classified material was on a secure server, it was removed and placed on an unsecure server.

Turns out, kctim is lying. Nothing was ever removed from a secure server.

So, are going to continue spinning lies or are you going to face the truth?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2016 9:21 AM
Comment #409463

Warped, Classified material was found on Hillary’s UNSECURED server, How did it get there? It had to be on a secure server first before it got to her’s.

Posted by: Rioch KAPitan at November 4, 2016 9:29 AM
Comment #409465
The information in the emails “was not obtained through a classified product, but is considered ‘per se’ classified” because it pertains to drones, the official added. The U.S. treats drone operations conducted by the CIA as classified, even though in a 2012 internet chat Presidential Barack Obama acknowledged U.S.-directed drone strikes in Pakistan.

The classified information originated within the server itself. The instant Hillary Clinton or her aides write an email that even mentions the drone program, the CIA considers it to be TOP SECRET.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2016 9:42 AM
Comment #409466

Warped, How can a server originate classified material? Doesn’t somebody have to put it there first? I never knew servers were that smart.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 9:47 AM
Comment #409467

My apologies for confusing you as I attempted to modify my comment a few seconds after posting it.

What part of “not obtained through a classified product” do you not understand? Obviously, it didn’t appear on the server spontaneously. A person typed a message and hit send, but nothing was transferred from a secure server.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2016 9:56 AM
Comment #409468

Well I see our right wing commenters are trying to use “locker room talk” to refute that they “lied”. You see using “locker room talk” allows you to suspend and deny evidence to the contrary of what you profess. Easy peasy, “locker room talk” it’s the newspeak of the right wing!

Posted by: Speak4all at November 4, 2016 10:00 AM
Comment #409469

O course someone had to type it Warped, You see we can both play your game.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 10:02 AM
Comment #409470

KAP,

So it was typed, not transferred from a secure server.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2016 10:06 AM
Comment #409472

Typed and sent through a secured server, Warped to an Unsecured sever which was Hillary’s property NOT government property that she should have been using as Secsta. Here we go again with the word games.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 10:14 AM
Comment #409473
Typed and sent through a secured server

Nope, no secure server is needed to create a classified email on Hillary’s unsecured server. All you need is a keyboard and some hands. I repeat my quote before, the information in the emails “was not obtained through a classified product”.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2016 10:23 AM
Comment #409474

Warped, It depends on who’s keyboard it originates on. Word games again?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 10:26 AM
Comment #409475
It depends on who’s keyboard it originates on.

It was keyboards owned by Jake Sullivan, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Hillary Clinton. It was their hands. These people created classified emails without removing anything from a secure server.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2016 10:42 AM
Comment #409476

Democratics are so used to saying what they believe is the truth and expecting everyone else to believe it as gospel. Warren Porter believes his truth and spends many comments insisting his version is the only truth.

In an old world media, where the information flows only one way, Warren Porter wouldn’t have to consistently defend his position. In the old days he would only have to say it once and everyone listening would have to accept it because it was the only scenario available.

Democratics also need to change the subject when they start losing an argument. This is demonstrated in Speak4all’s deflection about locker room talk. Again, they expect the one way flow of information to validate their position.

The internet has done as much damage to the Democratic party as their elite establishment has with their lies, hypocrisy, and double standards that are on full display now.


Posted by: Weary Willie at November 4, 2016 11:15 AM
Comment #409479
Warren Porter believes his truth and spends many comments insisting his version is the only truth.

If you are accusing me of being sincere with my convictions, I am guilty as charged.

If you want to demonstrate that what I write isn’t true, I suggest you go ahead and do that instead of writing polemics regarding “old media” that I could not care less about.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2016 11:20 AM
Comment #409480

Warped, Their own private keyboards or were they State Dept. keyboards?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 11:38 AM
Comment #409482

Why does that matter?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2016 11:57 AM
Comment #409483

WW,deflection? Not at all accurate, after all this “locker room talk” wording came directly from the mouth of your hero. The molester-in-chief, Donald Trump. Kinda sucks when the words of the guy you are backing comes back to bite you in the ass?

Posted by: Speak4all at November 4, 2016 12:04 PM
Comment #409485

Ah Warren, so now even you choose to go ugly. Too bad, you are usually the level headed one of the bunch. I will not join you there my friend, but instead will continue on a respectful course.

First, if all of the classified information found on Hillary’s unsecured server indeed originated from that or another unsecured server, then I was wrong to state that the classified information was removed from a secure server.
As I have never heard that claim being made before, I am not sure that is proof of intentionally stating something that is untrue. But hey, if that helps you play this silly little word game you guys are left with, have at it.

Second: I am curious though as to why Hillary, her staffers, or now whoever else may have created the emails, would bother putting a “C” in the parentheses in the body of an email, which is used to designate a specific paragraph as containing classified information”, if they didn’t know the information wasn’t classified in the first place?

Third: Still on the ‘simultaneously’ nonsense?

Clinton’s appearance last month in California’s Silicon Valley, when an interviewer asked her if she preferred Apple’s iPhone or a phone running Google’s Android platform.

“iPhone. OK, in full disclosure, and a BlackBerry,” Clinton said, adding: “I’m like two steps short of a hoarder. So I have an iPad, a mini iPad, an iPhone and a BlackBerry.”

Only somebody desperately grasping at straws would try to claim that means nothing because she isn’t physically carrying them all in her hand at the same time.

Oh, what’s that? You’re not saying that isn’t what you mean? What you are now trying to say is that she only took (CARRIED) one device whenever she went anywhere? Even when she has stated that she does indeed carry her IPad and IPod on the road with her?

http://www.cntraveler.com/stories/2012-08-30/hillary-clinton-interview-visionaries

We asked Secretary Clinton’s office what she always packs:

A small mesh bag filled with the basics: Sharpies, Advil, sunscreen. Converters to charge her BlackBerry and iPad anywhere in the world. Red pepper flakes and a mini bottle of Tabasco Sauce for adding spice to her meals.
What’s on your playlist when you travel?

I can’t even remember the last time I was able to listen to anything while on the road. I definitely need to make better use of my iPod.

You’re making yourself look as silly as the others, Warren.

Posted by: kctim at November 4, 2016 1:05 PM
Comment #409486
OH…NO…it can’t be true. Surely Bret Baier is spinning fairy tales. Sure hope my Leftie Pals don’t get discouraged and lower their flags to half-mast…at least those who fly the flag.

Once again Royal consider the source, we have an 90% chance this is just Faux news propaganda. You would have us believe Baier doesn’t spin fairy tales, but the fact is that is what his followers want, hence that is what they get. Trump will win, and then Trump will make all things better…..yep fairy tales for sure.

So is it hypocrisy when our conservative friends get all butt hurt over perceived insults to someone who has served in the military yet support Donald Trump. I mean he did the same to a medal of honor winner and a POW.

One of the constants as we listen to our conservative friends is their propensity to project onto others their feelings. As an example we are asked if we are worrying about the election because of the polls showing the race to be tightening up. In fact the worrying is on he right. Why else threaten violence?

Posted by: j2t2 at November 4, 2016 1:23 PM
Comment #409487

Exactly kc. W. P. and his word games are getting but not quite as bad as speaks BS.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 1:24 PM
Comment #409488

Baier walked that back last night J2.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 1:31 PM
Comment #409489

Kct, I find it interesting that you continue to focus on the minutae of Hillary Clinton’s emails. If she is elected this will all be like so much water under the bridge, if Donald Trump is elected ditto. Our country does not punish top secret cleared individuals for breaking protocols when it happens without intent, the protocols are revised to attempt to obviate the occurence from happening. Believe me when I tell you that any communication that is important to our country is only distributed encrypted and over a secure channel. This whole email nonsense is scoffed at by anyone who might have experience in how communications really works. Gamers, hackers and goofballs who think otherwise haven’t a clue.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 4, 2016 1:33 PM
Comment #409490

Ain’ going to bite me speaks, I didn’t vote for either of the 2 A**HOLES Hillary or Trump.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 1:34 PM
Comment #409491
so now even you choose to go ugly. Too bad, you are usually the level headed one of the bunch. I will not join you there my friend, but instead will continue on a respectful course.

I have tried my hardest to approach this issue with an open mind and I have received nothing but crass partisanship set upon impugning the credibility of an honest woman.

As I have never heard that claim being made before, I am not sure that is proof of intentionally stating something that is untrue.

I thought you said above that any untrue statement must be lie, no matter the intentions behind it? I guess you have realized how silly it was to have claimed that and I accept your retraction. So, it is false to say that Comey said Clinton lied.

I am curious though as to why Hillary, her staffers, or now whoever else may have created the emails, would bother putting a “C” in the parentheses in the body of an email, which is used to designate a specific paragraph as containing classified information”, if they didn’t know the information wasn’t classified in the first place?

The C’s did not conform to standard marking procedures and were placed erroneously in three emails containing unclassified information. So, the C’s are not evidence that Clinton knew (or should have known) that her server had classified information.

In the beginning, knowing she had more than one device,
So, Clinton had an Ipad in 2009? Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2016 1:49 PM
Comment #409492

kctim,

I apologize for writing in comment #409462 that Clinton never carried multiple devices simultaneously. I should have specified that I referred only to 2009 when she decided to use her server for work-related messages.

Remember, we are trying to judge the veracity of this statement:

“First, when I got to work as secretary of state, I opted for convenience to use my personal email account, which was allowed by the State Department, because I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for my personal emails instead of two.”

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2016 2:08 PM
Comment #409493

KAP, at this point it doesn’t matter, one of them will be our next President. I wouldn’t fault you or anyone else for who you voted for, what they do as President is on them. With that said I do believe it is important to vote and I hope you do or did.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 4, 2016 2:13 PM
Comment #409494

Speaks, Did.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 2:15 PM
Comment #409495

Good, you fulfilled your part in our representative driven experiment in democracy.

Look as one on old swabbie to another, starting out in the Navy we swabbed decks, cleaned heads, stood night watch in terrible weather and many other tasks. While these tasks might seem demeaning to the uninitiated I hope you hold the opinion today that these shared tasks were in no way meant to demean us but more to teach us the values of shared ownership when living in close quarters as a group, I know that was the lesson I learned. USS Wasp(CVS-18) 1966/67.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 4, 2016 2:54 PM
Comment #409496

Warren corrects by writing; “Turns out, kctim is lying. Clinton never carried multiple devices simultaneously.”

Good Grief people…doesn’t anyone understand the difference between “lying” and “mistaken”?

A cop stopped a guy for running a stop sign. The motorist complained…”I slowed down, what’s the difference”.

The officer queried; “Suppose I was beating you with my baton. Would you want me to stop, or just slow down?”

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 4, 2016 3:00 PM
Comment #409497

Royal Flush,

Excellent point. There is a difference between lying and being mistaken. Too bad you don’t make the distinction when evaluating Secretary Clinton.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2016 3:04 PM
Comment #409498

Speaks, USS Steinaker DD863 66-68, USS Francis Hammond DE 1067, 70-72, USS Vogelgesang DD 862 72-74 shore duty AMSU Little Creek, Va. 74-76 USS Bainbridge DLGN/CGN 25 76-78, USS AMERICA CV 66 78-79.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 3:12 PM
Comment #409499

I find it interesting that the FBI is spending some much time, manpower, and money in the investigation of Hillary Clinton “mistakes” Warren.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 4, 2016 3:14 PM
Comment #409500

Warped, It’s hard to believe Hillary only was mistaken since she started her career lying and was fired for it during the Watergate Investigation.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 3:15 PM
Comment #409502

KAP,

That’s not true.

RF

I find it interesting that the FBI is spending some much time, manpower, and money in the investigation of Hillary Clinton “mistakes” Warren.

The American people deserved to know whether Hillary’s actions were intentional or mistaken lapses of judgement.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2016 3:23 PM
Comment #409503

Warped, Your right she was fired because she wasn’t needed. BUT it also says that she was a liar and unethical. So I still say how can we believe she was mistaken when her career started out with lies and being unethical.

Posted by: Rich KAPPitan at November 4, 2016 3:38 PM
Comment #409504

LOL…thanks Warren, we now know the PC way to describe lying. Intentional lapse of judgement.

Progressives provide laughs on a regular basis.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 4, 2016 3:38 PM
Comment #409506

One of my favorite humorous books by Mark Twain.

On the Decay of the Art of Lying

“What chance has the ignorant, uncultivated liar against the educated expert? What chance have I against Mr. Per —— against a lawyer? Judicious lying is what the world needs. I sometimes think it were even better and safer not to lie at all than to lie injudiciously. An awkward, unscientific lie is often as ineffectual as the truth.”

http://grammar.about.com/od/60essays/a/lyingessay.htm

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 4, 2016 4:15 PM
Comment #409507

Wile I never believed that there could be any threat to our country through an email communication, I did take interest in how Mrs. Clinton would handle the issue. She exceeded my expectations and dealt with the commiserate range of problems. She admitted that mistakes were made, gave a plausible explanation of why the mistake was made, dealt with the ensuing leaks and cries for justice and showed confidence throughout the ordeal. More importantly, if she is elected President, this experience should compel her to take serious steps toward cyber security during her administration.

Posted by: Speak4all at November 4, 2016 4:21 PM
Comment #409508

According to CNN money, here’s is where the HUGE Obama ACA lie has led us. Ms. Hillary has promised to expand the lie if elected.

“A 30-year-old will pay an average of $311 a month for the lowest-level bronze plan for 2017, while a 60-year-old will pay an average of $744, according to a review by HealthPocket, which analyzes insurance plans. Both rose 21% from this year. And the average deductible on a bronze plan will top $6,000 next year for an individual and come in at nearly $12,400 for a family.

“The subsidized are insulated from market realities,” said Kev Coleman, head of research and data for HealthPocket. “For the unsubsidized, how attractive are these plans going to be?”

http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/04/news/economy/obamacare-affordable/index.html?iid=hp-toplead-dom

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 4, 2016 4:52 PM
Comment #409509

Warren,
Partisanship is part of the game. But when the evidence is stacked up as it is with Hillary, honesty and credibility deserve to be questioned, not dismissed as partisan rhetoric.
Are some using this as some kind of partisan victory? Yes, but that in no way negates the fact that over and over again throughout this investigation Hillary has said one thing and the opposite has been shown to be true.

“So, it is false to say that Comey said Clinton lied.”

But it is not false to say that Comey confirmed that what Clinton said was not true, over and over again, which is what I said in the first place.

“So, the C’s are not evidence that Clinton knew (or should have known) that her server had classified information.”

We’re discussing if the emails originated on a secure or unsecured server, so I guess we need to know where Hanley created the emails.

“we are trying to judge the veracity of this statement”

Then we need to know if work related emails were only found on one device, or multiple devices.

Posted by: kctim at November 4, 2016 5:07 PM
Comment #409510

Speaks,

“I find it interesting that you continue to focus on the minutae of Hillary Clinton’s emails.”

1. The military conditioned me to give classified information and protocol the respect it deserves.
2. I like transparency from my nations government.
3. I don’t like the word games our politicians play in order to skirt around wrong doing.
4. I enjoy contributing to WatchBlog.
5. I enjoy Warren’s posts.

Posted by: kctim at November 4, 2016 5:17 PM
Comment #409511

Many thanks for your service in the Navy Rich. From your post, I counted five ships and one shore duty in about thirteen years.

My brief two years as a draftee pales in comparison to your service. I worked in a Finance and Accounting office and was only responsible for Uncle Sam’s money, not his secrets.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 4, 2016 5:25 PM
Comment #409512
LOL…thanks Warren, we now know the PC way to describe lying. Intentional lapse of judgement.

Progressives provide laughs on a regular basis.

Silly me. I did not mean for the adjective “intentional” to describe the phrase “lapse of judgement”, but I now understand how one could read it that way. Anyway, I hope you enjoyed the laugh.

The original point is that an FBI investigation was necessary to determine if Hillary Clinton was lying or merely mistaken when handling these emails. Barring an unusual revelation from the emails found on Anthony Weiner’s computer, those investigations have confirmed that Hillary told the truth about her emails.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2016 5:34 PM
Comment #409513

Royal, All totaled I had 14 years, had some reserve time in there. I would of stayed but got married and Navy life and marriages don’t mix well so I had to choose between a bride and the Navy, Bride won.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 5:47 PM
Comment #409514
But it is not false to say that Comey confirmed that what Clinton said was not true, over and over again, which is what I said in the first place.

In Comment #409373, you said “she lied” and cited Comey. This was not a truthful thing to say.

We’re discussing if the emails originated on a secure or unsecured server, so I guess we need to know where Hanley created the emails.

The C’s were erroneously placed on an unclassified memo. Unclassified memos do not originate on secure classified systems.

Then we need to know if work related emails were only found on one device, or multiple devices.

Clinton’s statement does not claim that only one device was used from 2009 to 2013. Clinton only says she did not want to carry two blackberries around as that would have been inconvenient. In 2009, when the decision was made, Clinton had only one Blackberry. She did not acquire an Ipad until at least a year and a half later. While it may have been better in hindsight for Clinton to have revisited that decision when she acquired the Ipad in late 2010, that never happened and she never deviated from the system she set up in 2009.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2016 7:11 PM
Comment #409515

Warped, There you go playing the word game again. When someone says that they didn’t do such and such and later we find out that person did do such and such they said an untruth or lie. Saying something that is not true is a lie Warped, no matter how you do your play on words it was a lie. You can say she didn’t know but that would be BULLS**T to or a lie.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 7:32 PM
Comment #409516

Rich, it appears that Warren is determined to beat this pig’s ear into a silk purse.

It is clear in this world, and in all worlds, that Hillary Clinton is Truth Challenged.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 4, 2016 7:44 PM
Comment #409517

Royal, AMEN!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 7:46 PM
Comment #409518

God Bless Us All, I am going to the house and deep fry some breaded chicken livers along with french fries. Yum

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 4, 2016 7:49 PM
Comment #409519
Saying something that is not true is a lie

Is it a lie to say something one believes to be true, but only later learns is false? Did George Bush and his neoconservative friends lie when they said Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2016 8:12 PM
Comment #409520

Warped, There is a difference from a person who owns a non government server and doing government business through that server and saying “I” didn’t send or receive any classified material through that server, then a person getting bumb info from your intel. people. Please Warped tell us how after 26+ years in government and 3rd in line for POTUS for 4 years not knowing what is and is not classified and using an unsecured server to send and receive it.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 8:31 PM
Comment #409521
26+ years in government and 3rd in line for POTUS for 4 years not knowing what is and is not classified and using an unsecured server to send and receive it.

George Bush and his advisors had over a century of government experience between them. How can someone with that much experience not know the intel they were looking at was bumb?

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2016 8:36 PM
Comment #409522

Warped, There is no comparison between knowingly doing something you know is wrong and getting wrong intelligence from your intel. people. Your starting to sound like my 5 year old grandson from him I can accept the dumb stuff but from a grown man NO.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 8:49 PM
Comment #409523

KAP,

What you need to understand is that even the most experienced people sometimes make mistakes and that decades of training does not make a person clairvoyant. Bush & Co mistakenly believed intelligence built on a very shaky foundation. Clinton and her staff did not realize that the CIA would consider the barest mention of the drone program in Pakistan & Yemen as TOP SECRET. Hillary Clinton genuinely believed that her server did not contain classified information just as how Bush & Co genuinely believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2016 9:20 PM
Comment #409524

Warped, Like I said Hillary started her career on unethical behavior and lies. I can understand mistakes everybody makes them. You can’t tell me she didn’t know classified material was on that server. Like I said there is a difference in getting faulty information then knowingly doing something stupid, she knew but she is playing dumb and you are falling for it.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 9:34 PM
Comment #409525
You can’t tell me she didn’t know classified material was on that server.

You don’t have to take my word for it. James Comey said last July that he wouldn’t recommend prosecution because Hillary Clinton because she lacked criminal intent. I think this means he couldn’t prove that she knew the information was classified or that a reasonable person should have known that it was.

she is playing dumb and you are falling for it.

She doesn’t need to play dumb. Look at the thousands of emails that have been released. She’s a total ninkenpoop when it comes to technology. Comey testified to Congress that she lacked a sophisticated understanding of classification procedures.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 4, 2016 9:50 PM
Comment #409526

Warped believes he is doing a good job holding up the dems position. When a dem is confronted with a fact or the truth they inherently go into their practiced mode of denial, deception, lying, and diversion.

Warped. and other dems here know full well that when classified information passes from secure to insecure areas it is considered compromised. Period.

No intent, no knowledge, no nothing required to make one guilty.

You do the crime, you do the time.

Comey has given way more than enough information to disquality Hillary from holding any federal office in her lifetime.

More amazing than anything that has happened in this election cycle is that nearly half of a population would support someone for a high office that has willfully compromised national security on a mindboggling level.

Really, really troubling.

Posted by: roy ellis at November 4, 2016 9:53 PM
Comment #409527

Warped, Believe what you want. She played dumb and you fell for it hook, line and sinker. She’s not that much of a ninkenpoop that you think she is.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 4, 2016 10:01 PM
Comment #409532
She’s not that much of a ninkenpoop that you think she is.

Have you read her emails? She doesn’t know how to operate a fax machine.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 5, 2016 12:09 AM
Comment #409540

” When a dem is confronted with a fact or the truth they inherently go into their practiced mode of denial, deception, lying, and diversion. “

And when a Republican is asked a question they dance around, shuck and jive, and THEN change the subject.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at November 5, 2016 9:56 AM
Comment #409542

Conservatives, If you had real issues to run on you wouldn’t need to wallow in the hypocrisy of the faux email crisis. You let the former SoS slide because it was a repub administration and then you attack Clinton after the faux Benghazi scandal blows up in your collective faces. Then to have the audacity to talk about facts and truth!! Simply amazing y’all have been consistent in denial of truth and facts for so long, as you have subjected yourselves to Fox, Breitbart NewsMax and other propaganda outlets,you wouldn’t recognize facts and truth if they bit you on the a**.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 5, 2016 10:26 AM
Comment #409543
Comey has given way more than enough information to disquality Hillary from holding any federal office in her lifetime.

More amazing than anything that has happened in this election cycle is that nearly half of a population would support someone for a high office that has willfully compromised national security on a mindboggling level.

Roy you pick on the wrong half of the electorate,IMHO. The tainted information you refer to is the problem.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/05/why-we-should-all-fear-the-rot-inside-the-fbi.html?source=TDB&via=FB_Page

Posted by: j2t2 at November 5, 2016 12:24 PM
Comment #409546

“”To anger a conservative, tell him a lie!
To anger a liberal, tell him the truth!”

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2016 2:27 PM
Comment #409551

Since when is having “no intent” an excuse to avoid punishment?

I had no intent to do 70 in a 55 speed zone. Am I able to avoid punishment?

I had no intent to put a bullet in that person. Am I able to avoid punishment?

Scooter Libby didn’t have any intent to out a faux CIA agent, yet he went to jail. It wasn’t for outing a faux CIA agent, either. It was for telling a, so called, lie he never intended to tell. He didn’t even know who Plame was! He knew her by her husband’s name.

Why didn’t he get off with a “no intent” defense?

Posted by: Weary Willie at November 5, 2016 4:43 PM
Comment #409557

Warren wrote; “She’s not that much of a ninkenpoop that you think she is.”

The link was interesting Warren, but in my opinion Ms. Clinton zoomed past the “ninkenpoop” (endearing term for some) qualification long ago and landed on “despicable”.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2016 6:39 PM
Comment #409558

Exactly Royal Despicable would be more like it. Can’t be to much of a Ninkenpoop since she outsmarted W.B. lib/progressives.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 5, 2016 6:52 PM
Comment #409559

By the way Warren, growing up we spelled “Ninkenpoop” this way; “nincompoop”. Perhaps I need to upgrade my spelling.

Posted by: Royal Flush at November 5, 2016 7:00 PM
Comment #409561
“”To anger a conservative, tell him a lie!

That is exactly what the conservative media does Royal, and why you guys are so angry you threaten violence should Trump lose the election. As an example, if you blame Clinton for Benghazi and get angry you believe conservative lies.

To anger a liberal, tell him the truth!”

And liberals have a lot to be angry about as well Royal. When the truth is we spend more on the military than the next dozen or so nations we should be angry as our infrastructure erodes and we can’t afford to fix it.

When we hear conservatives complain about illegal immigrants not paying taxes but will vote for Trump as he boast of not paying taxes of course this truth makes us angry.

When we hear about the effort of conservatives in many states using voter suppression laws to win elections of course we get angry. The truth does make us angry Royal, we just deal with it differently than conservatives.

Posted by: j2t2 at November 5, 2016 10:58 PM
Comment #409562
Since when is having “no intent” an excuse to avoid punishment?

Since Gorin v. United States:

This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith. The sanctions apply only when scienter is established.
Posted by: Warren Porter at November 5, 2016 10:59 PM
Comment #409573

Why isn’t setting up and using a private server considered intent?


Posted by: Weary Willie at November 6, 2016 10:25 AM
Comment #409577

Because there is nothing illegal about using a private server to handle unclassified communication.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 6, 2016 11:53 AM
Comment #409591

Warped, I agree a private server used for private business is legal. But to do government business when you know Classified material will go through it is a NO NO and illegal.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 6, 2016 3:08 PM
Comment #409597
you know Classified material will go through it is a NO NO and illegal.

Yeah, but Clinton didn’t know the material going through the server was classified (as per Comey testifying that she lacked intent). Indeed, Clinton always used secure State Department SCIFs to handle sensitive classified information. Clinton always got her classified documents as a hard copy and never electronically. Perhaps due to the fact she never completed SCI training, Clinton and her subordinates accidentally created classified documents on her server.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 6, 2016 3:57 PM
Comment #409599

Warped, You have to be some kind of stupid to set up a server for both work and private material that will go through it and not know especially when Sec. of State, plus you have to be just as stupid and blind to defend that action.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 6, 2016 4:14 PM
Comment #409601

Warped and the rest of the lib/progressives don’t have to worry justice again was not served Hillary will not be indicted.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 6, 2016 4:26 PM
Comment #409603

Since when does it serve justice to indict an innocent person???

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 6, 2016 4:36 PM
Comment #409604

Warped, Since others who have do less and were punished.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 6, 2016 4:43 PM
Comment #409609

Saucier and others knew they possessed classified information. Hillary didn’t.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 6, 2016 5:24 PM
Comment #409610

Warped, 26+ years in government and you believe that BULLS**T? SMH, no wonder this country is going down the tubes.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 6, 2016 5:36 PM
Comment #409612

Warped, If she didn’t know what classified was as Sec. of State what makes you think she will as POTUS?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 6, 2016 5:47 PM
Comment #409614
what makes you think she will as POTUS

Absolutely nothing. This is why I plan to vote for her opponent on Tuesday.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 6, 2016 5:58 PM
Comment #409615

Warped, I hope what you say is true, you will vote for someone else.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 6, 2016 6:15 PM
Comment #409622

KAP,

Have you been paying attention to anything that I write? I endorsed Gary Johnson months ago and I remain committed to supporting him on Tuesday. Hillary does not have the proper judgement to be President. A quarter century of public service should teach a person not to commit the stupid mistakes like this.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 6, 2016 9:55 PM
Comment #409623

That said, Hillary is only disqualified once over. Donald Trump is disqualified 100 times more. If there were only two candidates on the ballot I’d definitely hold my nose and vote for her. Trump is in Putin’s pocket and I have zero faith in his ability to put America’s interests above Russia’s let alone keeping American secrets safe. The guy is so corrupt, he’d likely sell classified intelligence to Russia if he got the chance.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 6, 2016 9:58 PM
Comment #409627

Warped, the way you defend her tells people that you may be feeding people a line of bull.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 6, 2016 10:24 PM
Comment #409631

KAP,

If the objective truth I share sounds like bull, that says a lot more about you than it says about me.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 7, 2016 8:57 AM
Comment #409635

Warped, Your objective truth sounds more like Dem. talking points.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 7, 2016 9:51 AM
Comment #409637

KAP,

I dare you to find anything that I have plagiarized from somewhere else.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 7, 2016 10:30 AM
Comment #409639

Warped, Your defence of Hillary gives you away.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 7, 2016 11:13 AM
Comment #409640

Warped, I said sounds like I didn’t say it was.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at November 7, 2016 11:14 AM
Comment #409641

So, your partisanship is so great that any defense of Hillary is automatically dismissed as “talking points”? I guess that makes it easy to keep one from wandering off the GOP plantation.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 7, 2016 1:13 PM
Post a comment