Third Party & Independents Archives

Hillary's Exoneration

(no words)

Posted by Roy Ellis at July 5, 2016 11:58 AM
Comments
Comment #405776

Here are Comey’s words:

there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

AND

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information

Some exoneration.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 5, 2016 12:13 PM
Comment #405777

FBI Directer, please do resign.

Do we want Hillary, as president, to be in charge of national security? Should she be granted a security clearance? Does she still retain a clearance?

Otherwise, we have the Corpocracy we deserve.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 5, 2016 12:17 PM
Comment #405778

The Democrats reflect Chicago way more than they reflect America.

Otherwise = = =

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 5, 2016 12:23 PM
Comment #405779

James Comey said :

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

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.

Clearly, none of these careless things HRC did are worth of criminal prosecution, but they are ordinarily career ending. Today, Clinton is not a federal employee so she cannot be fired. However, it is up to us voters whether she will be hired later this year. Personally, I think it’s time for this kind old grandma to retire.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 5, 2016 12:23 PM
Comment #405781

Comey’s comments come as no surprise as this has been nothing but yet another attempt to discredit Clinton as she runs for office, the boys who cried wolf so many times over the years have yet another non-scandal with which to raise suspicion.

Were Trump not the best you guys could put up for the office of president…….

Posted by: j2t2 at July 5, 2016 1:01 PM
Comment #405784

J2 I’m sorry but if the Obama Administration doesn’t send Ambassador Rice out five days later with these talking points then none of this ever happens:

“The currently available information suggests that the demonstrations in Benghazi were spontaneously inspired by the protests at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo and evolved into a direct assault against the U.S. diplomatic post in Benghazi and subsequently its annex.”

No one believed that BS or the contradictions that came shortly thereafter. HRC’s reckless adventure into secured IT or the Republicans trying to touch up a potential Presidential candidate notwithstanding, that was what started all of this.

Posted by: George in SC at July 5, 2016 2:17 PM
Comment #405786

Comey is a Republican who gave maximum contributions to McCain and Romney.

Two scandals die ignominiously in just a few days. But conservatives have been repeating lies about Benghazi and the e-mails that they are having a very difficult time dealing with this. I don’t feel sorry for them. They brought this on themselves.

They ignored eight commissions investigating Benghazi, most led by Republicans, and some very hostile to HRC.

Conservatives ignored repeated warnings that there was nothing illegal surrounding the e-mails. Now we have to put up with the hot salty tears of old white guys who had their feelings hurt.

Fast and Furious, the IRS ‘scandal’, Benghazi!!!, the e-mails- the false accusations never stop. Each time, there is no evidence laws were broken. Investigations result in nothing. Congressman Issa on the House Oversight Committee issued more subpoenas than all the previous chairmen combined and achieved precisely nothing.

But when you have a presidential candidate who keeps tweeting stuff that originated on white supremacy and Neo Nazi web sites, what else can you talk about? The issues?

What an absolute train wreck of a party. The GOP is a dumpster fire in progress. It just keeps getting worse.

Posted by: phx8 at July 5, 2016 5:40 PM
Comment #405787

phx8,

Here are Comey’s words:

For example, seven email chains concern matters that were classified at the top secret, special access program, at the time they were sent and received. Those chains involve Secretary Clinton both sending emails about those matters, and receiving emails about those matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

This is the first time we have a revelation that any of those emails were classified at the time of transmission. The fact that seven top secret email chains were sent to/from Clinton’s server speaks of severe incompetence on her part. While criminal prosecution is completely inappropriate, it is clear that this is no nothingbuger.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 5, 2016 5:46 PM
Comment #405788

Yawn.

Only a dedicated bureaucrat would care. Nothing was compromised, and no one was acting with evil intent, and the result was precisely nothing whatsoever.

Posted by: phx8 at July 5, 2016 5:55 PM
Comment #405789
Only a dedicated bureaucrat would care.

I don’t know about you, but I place a high value on rule of law and trustworthiness. The fact that HRC brazenly lied to the American public does not reflect well upon her. Likewise for her complete disregard of State Department policies and procedures. Anyone else in her position would undoubtedly lose his or her security clearance for the rest of his or her life.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 5, 2016 6:17 PM
Comment #405790

Complete hypocrisy here in the other Right Wing Column. It’s only bad if a Dem does it. The Rpblcns are exempt from observation and prosecution. Nothing will come of nothing. They should have read King Lear. They deserve Drumpf, but how about a third party column for the Greens and Libertarians?

Posted by: ohrealy at July 5, 2016 6:27 PM
Comment #405793

Here’s a blatant admission of a double standard being applied. Evidently Comey thinks we’re all stupid, also. I know phx8’s posts demonstrate that stupidity and acceptance of a double standard, but if the rest of the country does then Comey is right, we are stupid.

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.

This is fuckin’ bullshit.

phx8, anything you write has zero integrity at all. You and your leftist loons are so far in the tank for Hillbilly you can’t even read.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 5, 2016 6:56 PM
Comment #405794

WW,

Comey’s job is to investigate criminal wrongdoing. Administrative or security sanctions are the purview of the State Department. Of course, HRC is not currently a government employee so it is not possible to fire her or sanction her administratively.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 5, 2016 7:06 PM
Comment #405795


Where do you guys get your frontal lobotomies? If that self-righteous, liar gets into the White House I’ll need one.

If Comey got up there and said Hillbilly’s hubris replaced her common sense you all would still lick her boots.

What difference, at that point, does it make?

She’s not getting elected.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 5, 2016 7:30 PM
Comment #405797
… we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

Nothin’ to see here folks. If anyone got into her emails we can’t tell. We’re not incompetent, it’s just those hackers are so darn good!

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 5, 2016 7:59 PM
Comment #405798

If Hillbilly gets elected she will make history.

She will be the first president blackmailed by every 2bit hacker in the world.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 5, 2016 8:03 PM
Comment #405801

From my comment on June 30th, 405735:

Re conspiracies:

“The next one to die will be the e-mail issue. I have a feeling conservatives will take that one especially hard. Limbaugh, Hannity, FOX ‘News,’ and others have been pushing it and pushing it. Trump has declared Hillary had “an illegal server” and should “go to jail.” The entire conspiracy ignores the initial FBI declaration that the investigation never targeted Hillary Clinton in the first place.

… Other conspiracies abound among those on the right. Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, the death of Vince Foster, Fast and Furious, the IRS ‘scandal’ continue to fester among conservatives. The constant lack of results are always attributed to a cover-up. The inability to discover a cover-up is due to a cover-up of the cover-up. All evidence to the contrary, whether it comes from the judiciary, FBI, CIA, or the MSM, must be ignored because they are inevitably in on the cover-up too.”

Why is it I get these things right? Why does WW get them so wrong? It is simple, really. It depends on where one gets their information. Use good sources and, wonder of wonder, the world makes sense, and there is no need to resort to conspiracy theories. Use bad sources- Breitbart, FOX, Limbaugh, Hannity, World Net Daily- and everything keeps going wrong. One ‘scandal’ after another fails to have any substance. In just one week both Benghazi and the e-mail scandals died a hard death.

Posted by: phx8 at July 5, 2016 9:34 PM
Comment #405803

Like I said, can’t even read. Comey come out and said she is reckless. Extremely reckless.

Again, phx8 runs his mouth about his delusions. It must be so sad to be so fooled and have no idea.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 6, 2016 12:36 AM
Comment #405805

Again, all of this goes back to Benghazi and the request for her to turn over the emails. Comey said that they found “several thousand” work-related emails that she had not handed over to the State Department, and it’s easy to believe that HRC’s lawyers destroyed other work related emails as part of their purge. But we will never know.

That said, I believe what Comey did, by bashing HRC publicly then saying he didn’t have enough to charge her in a court of law, was a complete trampling of her civil right to due process. If I were her I would immediately dig up Hatfill V Ashcroft and seek an judgement against the Justice Department. He admitted he did not have enough evidence to arrest or indict her, so he used his position to as Director of the FBI to to indict her in the public square. If that happens to you or me our lives are ruined. Just because she does has public microphone doesn’t mean she shouldn’t be treated equally under the law.

Posted by: George in SC at July 6, 2016 8:14 AM
Comment #405806

“Whitewater, Filegate, Travelgate, the death of Vince Foster, Fast and Furious, the IRS ‘scandal’”

All investigated and dismissed under democrat administrations, co incidence ? don’t think so. Hillary should have been charged. Period, end of story, intent is not required when classified information is involved. Gross negligence is not an excuse. Anyone else would be looking at jail time.

Posted by: dbs at July 6, 2016 8:40 AM
Comment #405807

dbs,

HRC’s extreme carelessness did not reach the threshold of gross negligence. At least that was Comey’s conclusion. If you disagree, you must know something that Comey doesn’t or you are a fool.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 6, 2016 8:47 AM
Comment #405827

This column needs to renamed with something like “I am not an independent or third party advocate and would just like to say that Hillary is a bad person and that I really would like to be a Republican but I am to ashamed to admit to that after everything they have done and are doing” column. More appropriate?

Posted by: Speak4all at July 6, 2016 11:42 AM
Comment #405830

In my lifetime I have witnessed political thuggery trump the Constitution and rule of law.

We find once again confirmation that some are indeed above the law and can escape consequences of even the most serious dereliction of duty and acts of outrageous self interest at the expense of the public and national interest.

My Liberal, Socialist, and Commie pals are celebrating the heroic successful efforts of Hillary to overcome her shameful and possibly traitorous routine behavior as SecState.

I have long been aware that the Clinton’s are beneath contempt for their moral and public misbehavior. No selfish and hurtful act by either Clinton should surprise anyone. We can be certain that more will follow.

Those who are not totally brainwashed understand the peril to the nation of electing a self-admitted and publicly exposed liar, a careless self-promoting egomaniac, and a person who is capable of any misdeed to further her ambition.

The nation has endured lousy and incompetent presidents in the past and we will most likely survive this criminal, if elected, sitting in the Oval Office.

It is easily imagined that if Hillary becomes president she could follow her husband in being impeached.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 6, 2016 1:05 PM
Comment #405831

Does anyone not believe that if elected president, Hillary will employ methods to avoid public scrutiny of her public actions just as she successfully has done as SecState?

Hers will be the most secretive administration in our history. We might as well tear up the “freedom of information” rights we now enjoy.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 6, 2016 1:13 PM
Comment #405832

Royal, as the left proves on a daily basis, the only thing that matters to them is that she supports abortion, gay-marriage, getting rid of the 2nd Amendment and more government freebies.

Integrity and competence are not part of the equation.

Posted by: kctim at July 6, 2016 1:20 PM
Comment #405833

SSshhhhaaazzzzammmm! Hillary retains a security clearance and gets daily briefings same as the President.

The House Speaker wants Clapper to pull her clearance but that is just Corpocracy chatter.

Only way to pull her tickets is to defeat her in Nov.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 6, 2016 1:42 PM
Comment #405834
as the left proves on a daily basis, the only thing that matters to them is that she supports abortion, gay-marriage, getting rid of the 2nd Amendment and more government freebies.

Integrity and competence are not part of the equation.

If that is the case, then why have I written on this very site that I will not support Hillary Clinton this November?

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 6, 2016 2:36 PM
Comment #405835

That’s one side of your mouth talking, Warren Porter. Out the other side you’re saying she did nothing wrong and if we know something more than Comey we should speak up.

Why don’t you make some attempt to convince her shills here on WatchBlog not to vote for her either?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 6, 2016 4:02 PM
Comment #405836

HRC was not above the law. She acted within the law. She obeyed it. She was law abiding. That was the whole point of the investigation: to determine if any laws might have been broken. They were not.

There is so much bitterness among conservatives because so many of you bought into the bad information that was fed to you. Remember all those stories right before the first primaries about how the FBI was ready to indict? Remember the ones about how 150 agents were working on the case? It was all over the right wing blogosphere and FOX and elsewhere.

And it was all lies.

That is how you end up in such a bad place.

Conservatives, look at yourselves. Just look. There are calls for the investigation to be investigated. There are cries of conspiracy. Hillary Clinton is above the law! It is just pathetic. Grow up.

If you thought Hillary Clinton did something illegal, identify the news source and, for heaven’s sake, stop listening to it! Stop being so easily misled. It is really messing you up.

Now you have Donald Trump as the presumptive candidate. Possible VP picks are withdrawing from consideration because Trump is so bad.

I will miss Obama at the helm. He has done a great job. And like Obama, Hillary will make a good president too.

Posted by: phx8 at July 6, 2016 4:23 PM
Comment #405837

“If that is the case, then why have I written on this very site that I will not support Hillary Clinton this November?”

Believe it or not, Warren, I do not consider you to be the typical intolerant leftist. You accept facts, rather than ignore them.

A blind man can see the difference between what you write, and the hateful partisan nonsense Phx8 just flung.

Posted by: kctim at July 6, 2016 4:51 PM
Comment #405839
This column needs to renamed with something like “I am not an independent or third party advocate and would just like to say that Hillary is a bad person and that I really would like to be a Republican but I am to ashamed to admit to that after everything they have done and are doing” column. More appropriate?

I completely agree, Speak4all.

And it was all lies.
pdx8, you could repeat that after each of the usual suspects’ posts. They can’t learn from this or any experience. Some of us weren’t born yesterday, have functioning memories, and know what brainwashing looks like. Posted by: ohrealy at July 6, 2016 5:52 PM
Comment #405840

kctim,
“Nonsense”? What did I say that would qualify as “nonsense’?

Conservatives have been bombarded with a steady drumbeat of baseless accusations directed at Hillary Clinton, just as Obama was constantly attacked over Fast and Furious, the IRS ‘scandal,’ and so on. Benghazi!!! went through eight committees, most of them led by the GOP, and none found anything significant beyond what the first ones immediately determined years ago.

The truth about this e-mail fiasco has been in plain sight all along. The liberals were telling you the truth. The conservatives were lying. Sometimes one side really is right, and sometimes the other side really is wrong.

There are perfectly legitimate reasons to disagree with Hillary Clinton on the issues, and not vote for her if you so choose. But these attacks are not about issues. The attacks seek to undermine her credibility and convince people she is untrustworthy, above the law, and so on. The accusations are repeated over and over, and when the whole thing blows up and it turns out no laws were broken, conservatives talk about cover-ups and conspiracies and the need to investigate the investigation.

It is pathetic.

“In her articles on Hillary Clinton’s use of private email while secretary of state, Fox News chief intelligence correspondent Catherine Herridge has relied heavily on anonymous sources to push allegations that Clinton used her email inappropriately. But the facts have consistently undermined many claims Herridge has made in her reports, including the debunked assertion that 150 FBI agents were investigating Clinton’s private email server — a wildly exaggerated figure that The Washington Post also reported.


Experts Say No Evidence Clinton’s Private Email Use Was Illegal; Reporters Say Claims To Contrary Rely On Partisan Leaks

ABC News’ Dan Abrams: “There Doesn’t Seem To Be A Legitimate Basis For Any Sort Of Criminal Charge Against Her.” In a February 1 article, ABC News legal analyst Dan Abrams debunked media claims that Clinton will be indicted over her private server usage. Abrams added that “there is no evidence - not suppositions or partisan allegations but actual evidence - that Clinton knew that using a private email server was criminal or even improper at the time.” [Media Matters, 2/1/16]

Washington Post’s David Ignatius: “Is There A Crime Here? Almost Certainly Not.” National security experts and lawyers contacted by the Post’s David Ignatius confirmed that the supposed “‘scandal’ is overstated” and “not something a prosecutor would take to court.” The August 28 article noted that a former CIA general counsel who went on the record said, “‘It’s common’ that people end up using unclassified systems to transmit classified information.” [Media Matters, 8/28/15]

Newsweek’s Kurt Eichenwald: “The ‘Scandal’ About Clinton Using A Personal Email Account” Has Been “Perpetuated For Partisan Purposes.” Newsweek’s Eichenwald has been covering the story about Clinton’s use of private email since it broke and has consistently maintained that the “scandal” is a fiction. Eichenwald has warned that the story is not only a “nothing-burger,” but it is based on “reports spooned out by Republicans attempting to deceive or acting out of ignorance.” [Media Matters, 3/11/15; Media Matters, 2/8/16]”
http://mediamatters.org/research/2016/04/10/150-fbi-agents-fiasco-isnt-first-time-anonymous-sources-have-burned-foxs-herridge/209835

It goes on and on. This was no surprise. But a lot of conservatives have been led astray, and the results are very ugly.

ohrealy,
Yep. It really does look like they have been brainwashed.

Posted by: phx8 at July 6, 2016 6:41 PM
Comment #405841
a wildly exaggerated figure that The Washington Post also reported.
And they should be ashamed of themselves and apologize for repeating the words of the deceivers who continue to deceive and makes fools of people who don’t think of themselves as “La Gente Ignorante”. Posted by: ohrealy at July 6, 2016 6:58 PM
Comment #405844
The attacks seek to undermine her credibility and convince people she is untrustworthy

Come on! HRC has only herself to blame for demolishing her credibility. She stated that none of the emails transmitted through her server were classified at the time they were sent or received. Turns out, over 50 emails were classified at the time and seven of those were classified top secret. Although many were not marked as classified, a few of these emails were marked and the failure to heed those markings has been very deleterious to her reputation.

I do not want someone with such a lackadaisical attitude toward America’s secrets holding even the most basic of security clearances, let alone the super-sensitive presidential daily briefings she would receive as President.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 6, 2016 9:14 PM
Comment #405845

I have no idea what e-mails were classified, or why.

But I’ll take my chances with HRC. No information was compromised. No damage was done.

Imagine what a nightmare Trump will be with a security clearance. His campaign manager, Paul Manafort, worked as a lobbyist for Russian oligarchs, and in the past lobbied for Ferdinand Marcos, Mobutu Sese Seko, Siad Barre, and others. The guy is an absolute nightmare for anyone concerned about security. Knowing this- and if you didn’t know it before, you know now- can Trump be trusted with a clearance?

Posted by: phx8 at July 6, 2016 9:23 PM
Comment #405846
Why don’t you make some attempt to convince her shills here on WatchBlog not to vote for her either?

Have you not followed what I’ve been writing?

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 6, 2016 9:27 PM
Comment #405847

phx8,

Trump is 10x more unfit to be President as Clinton. However, that does not excuse her actions. The Libertarian Party has offered us a ticket of two former governors who had successful tenures in their respective states. William Weld in particular helped maintain Dukakis’ Massachusetts Miracle. These are the only men I can trust with our nation’s secrets.

No information was compromised. No damage was done.

You don’t know that. Indeed, Comey has said:

we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence … She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

Accessing the private server from foreign networks with dubious security is inexcusably reckless. Because it is likely that a foreign intrusion into the server would not leave any evidence, I refuse to accept the absence of evidence as evidence of absence in this regard.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 6, 2016 10:29 PM
Comment #405848

Why would Snake Head say that Hillbilly is using a private server because she doesn’t want everyone digging around in her business?

He told the truth months ago and the brainwashed leftists excused and ignored it.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 6, 2016 10:51 PM
Comment #405849

WP,
“No information was compromised. No damage was done.”

I will stand by that statement. It is always possible to assert something might have happened that we do not know about. I think Rumsfeld called those events ‘unknown unknowns.’ But it is absurd to blame HRC on that basis. One of the major goals of the investigation was to assess if anything had been compromised, and no one found any evidence that happened- at least, not that they are publicly announcing. Furthermore, servers are hacked all the time, even ones with high levels of security.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Posted by: phx8 at July 7, 2016 12:52 AM
Comment #405852

Are you still talking, phx8?

You should be asking questions, not spouting bias. You’ve been wrong more than you’ve been right on a variety of issues. You would best serve yourself by asking questions instead of insisting you know everything.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 7, 2016 9:04 AM
Comment #405853

Phx8,
Your attempts to diminish the seriousness of the situation, is nonsense. Your willingness to disregard absolute proof of wrong doing and outright lying, is nonsense. Your desperation to excuse her actions with silly word games, is nonsense.
The fact that you do this simply because of her politics, is nonsense.

Spar us your faux concerns about ‘baseless accusations.’ With your screams of racist, sexist, homophobe, war on women etc…. you guys have perfected the tactic.

We are discussing mishandling classified information and national security, not Fast and Furious, the IRS or Benghazi. Your desire to cloud the issue by lumping it in with other wrongs that you are willing to accept, speaks volumes though.

The truth about this e-mail fiasco has indeed been in plain sight all along and as the investigation has proven, it is not the liberals who were trying to cover up her actions, that were telling the truth.
It is a fact that she intentionally lied. It is a fact that classified information was stored on her unsecured personal server. It is a fact that classified information was deleted off her unsecured server during her ‘yoga and recipe’ purge.
It is an absolute fact that Hillary Clinton, who proclaims to be “certainly well-aware of the classification requirements,” did indeed mishandle classified materials in an “extremely careless” manner.

The only one undermining Hillary Clinton’s credibility and convincing them that she is untrustworthy, is Hillary Clinton herself.

Posted by: kctim at July 7, 2016 9:44 AM
Comment #405854

phx8, excellent points, all. It really is surprising to see so much disbelief from Republicans of the FBI’s recommendation of insufficient evidence of intent of wrong doing. There have been multiple attempts to convey this here on this blog but that doesn’t matter to the avowed conspiracy advocate, their stance now becomes “it is a coverup of a conspiracy that began as a coverup of a previous conspiracy that began as a coverup of something that they are just not sure of but are positive must have happened in only the manner they would like to portray. Evidence be damned.

Not sure what to expect from the house today in regards to the Comey questioning, except a continuation of the circus that was the Benghazi hearing. That was disastrous for the Republican led committee and made them look foolish and petty. I would like to hear Comey explain his reasoning in a thoughtful manner and then end with something like, “look congress critters, how about you do your job and I do mine. If you believe that there should have been charges then re-write the legislation to include the necessary statutes that would define the illegality of the act.”

But that would be actually an attempt at fixing the problem and we really know that is not their intent in this ridiculous witch hunt, complete with their crazy reasoning that goes something like, if she floats she’s a witch and if she drowns then she’s not one. Kooky bastards.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 7, 2016 9:47 AM
Comment #405855

Kissing phx8’s ass doesn’t make him right, Speak4all.

He’s been wrong before, he’s wrong now, he’ll be wrong in the future. Why? Because he’s a partisan hack. He won’t see past the Democratic party line and he will ignore the obvious. Why? Because he’s a partisan hack.

You’d do yourself a favor by not tying yourself to an obvious, led by the nose, partisan hack. Think for yourself. Phx8 is a lousy source of information.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 7, 2016 10:21 AM
Comment #405856

Don’t suppose you have any citations for your claims of being wrong, now do you? Let me decide who I support on this blog, if you please, and I will let you decide who you support (however misguided you may be).

Why not join me in calling for congress to use this opportunity to write the legislation necessary to define the desired statutes that could help to prevent this so called travesty of justice in the future, if that is the point? Because that is not what you and your political representatives are seeking. In fact if anything what you seek is the illegal action of a continuation of a denial of HRC’s civil right of due process, as George in SC pointed out earlier in this thread.

The pitiful protestations being promulgated by the likes of you on this blog are petty and viewed by any reasoning individual as performance protestation.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 7, 2016 10:38 AM
Comment #405857
I will stand by that statement. It is always possible to assert something might have happened that we do not know about. I think Rumsfeld called those events ‘unknown unknowns.’ But it is absurd to blame HRC on that basis. One of the major goals of the investigation was to assess if anything had been compromised, and no one found any evidence that happened- at least, not that they are publicly announcing. Furthermore, servers are hacked all the time, even ones with high levels of security.

To the contrary, Comey’s statement implies that this is a known unknown rather than an unknown unknown. I say this because Comey said, “we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence”. In other words, Comey says it is impossible to determine whether hostile actors gained access to HRC’s server. Unfortunately, it is far too easy for such individuals to cover their footprints and make the intrusion undetectable.

When she served SoS, HRC had an obligation to the American people to safeguard our secrets. Instead, she elevated her own personal petty concerns over those of the public writ large. I expect better from my public servants. Indeed, the fact that she used her Blackberry on visits to “sophisticated adversaries” (presumably Russia & China) is particularly damning. It reveals either profound hubris or profound ignorance, either of which are traits I do not want to see in our next President. Only incredible naivete would lead one to connect to the internet network of a foreign state in such a manner. With little doubt, these “sophisticated adversaries” would have attempted to install malware on the device and from there, it would be relatively simple to trace the path to the email server. And don’t even get me started on the compromised personal accounts hosted on commercial servers with which HRC regularly communicated with.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 7, 2016 10:44 AM
Comment #405858

“it is a coverup of a conspiracy that began as a coverup of a previous conspiracy that began as a coverup of something that they are just not sure of but are positive must have happened in only the manner they would like to portray. Evidence be damned….look congress critters, how about you do your job and I do mine. If you believe that there should have been charges then re-write the legislation to include the necessary statutes that would define the illegality of the act….But that would be actually an attempt at fixing the problem and we really know that is not their intent in this ridiculous witch hunt, complete with their crazy reasoning that goes something like, if she floats she’s a witch and if she drowns then she’s not one. Kooky bastards.”

They rely on the support of people who are ignorant of history, including the last decade, year, month, week, and day. They did it in the 1950s, relying on the assumption that their target audience had never heard of Titus Oates when they tried to do the exact same thing as him, only 300 years later.

Posted by: ohrealy at July 7, 2016 10:45 AM
Comment #405859

Wake up Hillary haters, as a Republican attempts to explain this to you.

From the article as stated by Director Comey:
“So when I look at the facts, I see evidence of great carelessness, but I do not see evidence that is sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton or those with whom she was corresponding, both talked about classified information on email and knew when they did it, they were doing something that was against the law,” he continued. “So given that assessment of the facts, my understanding of the law, my conclusion was and remains no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case.”

WP, give it up and realize that you are flogging a dead horse. It is defined above for you but you insist on holding Hillary to a higher standard of Super Powers that she should have known that the classification would be retro fitted to a higher classification then when it was disseminated at first. You have gone off the deep end on this one and are rapidly losing credibility of your argument, as explained by Director Comey, not I or Hillary supporters but Director Comey.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 7, 2016 11:34 AM
Comment #405860
e. It is defined above for you but you insist on holding Hillary to a higher standard of Super Powers that she should have known that the classification would be retro fitted to a higher classification then when it was disseminated at first.

You are confused. I hold HRC blameless for the 1000 retroactively classified emails. However, there are 52 email chains that contained content that was classified at the time of transmission. Some of those were even marked as such. That is no nothingburger.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 7, 2016 11:59 AM
Comment #405861

Then realize what you propose, and push for legislation that would define the act of illegality that you believe was committed, or at least make that the thrust of your argument. I do not admonish you for your personal stance on Hillary Clinton’s electable position, that is yours and I respect your decision however to continue to purport that this was something she should have known was illegal and had intent to cover that up, is non sequitur. I can understand your personal judgement of her should be separate from that but you do not present it in that manner. This position only contributes to the confusion regarding her candidacy and that is what it seems you are attempting to make evident in your argument. I would much prefer to read why you think the Johnson/Weld ticket holds promise rather than your already well known dislike of Hillary Clinton. Again that would be my preference and you can continue making yours, albeit somewhat less believable as this discussion wears on.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 7, 2016 12:15 PM
Comment #405862
to continue to purport that this was something she should have known was illegal and had intent to cover that up, is non sequitur

Clinton violated policies, but never broke the law. She deserves retirement in Chappaqua, not a prison cell. If an ordinary govt employee did what HRC did, there would have been administrative penalties which probably would result in termination. HRC is not currently a govt employee so she cannot be hired, but without a doubt we the people have a duty not to hire her in November.

I am not yet fully committed to the Johnson Weld ticket. After the national conventions have finalized the tickets, I will write an essay with my endorsement.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 7, 2016 12:40 PM
Comment #405863

WP,
Most people know very little about servers and how tech works, and HRC is probably one of those people. She said things that were wrong, but I doubt she was lying. No one from the FBI is accusing her of intentionally misleading investigators- just the opposite- they stated she was cooperative and provided the materials as she became aware of them.

As for the possibility that something happened, if there is no “direct evidence” it means there is no “direct evidence.”

kctim,
Hillary Clinton did not commit any crimes. She cooperated. She provided all the material requested. At no point did the FBI suggest she was attempting to obstruct the investigation or mislead them. It has been investigated and now it is done.

And what we have seen with the e-mail controversy is the same thing we have seen in countless other fake scandals: baseless accusations by conservatives, nothing resulting due the lack of any evidence (hence the word ‘baseless’), protests of a cover-up, declarations Obama or Hillary or whoever is ‘above the law,’ even when the person has been proven to be law abiding and acting within the law, and finally, declarations that the cover-up has been covered up.

It really is ridiculous.

Posted by: phx8 at July 7, 2016 12:42 PM
Comment #405864
Most people know very little about servers and how tech works

Incompetence is not a trait I want in a President.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 7, 2016 12:57 PM
Comment #405865

Director Comey:
“There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation.”

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

“we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”

Hillary Clinton:
“I’m certainly well-aware of the classification requirements…”

Which is it guys? Are you excusing her ignorance? Or are you saying she was not ‘well-aware of the classification requirements’ and are questioning her integrity?

“110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received.”

No ‘Super Powers” needed. Those were not “retro fitted to a higher classification then when it was disseminated at first.”

Posted by: kctim at July 7, 2016 1:01 PM
Comment #405866

This isn’t Comey’s first attempt to use his position to discredit Hillary.

From the linked article:
In 1996, after months of work, Comey came to some damning conclusions: Hillary Clinton was personally involved in mishandling documents and had ordered others to block investigators as they pursued their case. Worse, her behavior fit into a pattern of concealment: she and her husband had tried to hide their roles in two other matters under investigation by law enforcement. Taken together, the interference by White House officials, which included destruction of documents, amounted to “far more than just aggressive lawyering or political naiveté,” Comey and his fellow investigators concluded. It constituted “a highly improper pattern of deliberate misconduct.”

As always there is more than meets the eye with politics. Although Comey wasn’t able to deliver the Republican’s wet dream of charging Hillary Clinton, it would see that he has been down the road of chastisement against her mishandling documents prior to all of this. I tire of this ridiculous witch hunt and those that would attempt to fuel the fire.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 7, 2016 1:03 PM
Comment #405867

Phx8,

Definition of crime
: an illegal act for which someone can be punished by the government
: activity that is against the law : illegal acts in general
: an act that is foolish or wrong

Mishandling classified material is a punishable offense.
Mishandling classified material is against the law.
Mishandling classified material is foolish, wrong and very serious.

Comey states Hillary mishandled classified information.
Comey states it was against the law.

“So when I look at the facts, I see evidence of great carelessness, but I do not see evidence that is sufficient to establish that Secretary Clinton or those with whom she was corresponding, both talked about classified information on email and knew when they did it, they were doing something that was against the law,”

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

It is fact, not some baseless accusation, that Hillary mishandled classified material in an “extremely careless” manner.

Stop looking for others to blame and just accept the facts.

Posted by: kctim at July 7, 2016 1:58 PM
Comment #405868

“Stop looking for others to blame and just accept the facts.”

The facts are that Hillary Clinton will not be charged for the method she used to handle classified material. That is a fact. That you disagree with that is something you should take up with your elected representatives and demand the legislation be written to define how this could be avoided looking forward. Nothing you can type or believe can deny the “fact” that no charges will be filed against her. Your contention that there should be charges is yours to make and uphold however please keep your contentions in the realm of reality and not your fevered imaginative perceived lawlessness.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 7, 2016 2:16 PM
Comment #405869

kctim,

“MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I have the manual here, marking national classified security information. And I don’t think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little c’s on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

JAMES COMEY: No. […]

MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you’re going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?

JAMES COMEY: Correct.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we’ve discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?

JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what’s classified and what’s not classified and we’re following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.”

That is from today’s testimony.

Look, Comey said there was no crime, nothing to prosecute, the investigation is over.

WP,
Most people are not technologically competent. Virtually no one considers that a prerequisite for the White House. And apparently the State Department server was breached three times, but no one breached HRC’s server, although there were attempts. Interesting.


Posted by: phx8 at July 7, 2016 2:28 PM
Comment #405870

phx8,

Comey’s conversation with Cartwright does not abrogate the fact that 52 email chains contained classified information. Even though the information was unmarked, Clinton had a duty to protect it. She failed that obligation.

Most people are not technologically competent. Virtually no one considers that a prerequisite for the White House. And apparently the State Department server was breached three times, but no one breached HRC’s server, although there were attempts. Interesting.


Nobody here knows whether HRC’s server was breached. You cannot confidently assert “no one breached HRC’s server”. While I don’t demand top notch technical expertise in my Presidents, I do demand that they consult with people who are experts and that they comply to those recommendations.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 7, 2016 2:40 PM
Comment #405871

Phx8,

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

So now you want us to believe that Hillary is such an ‘expert’ about what’s classified and what’s not classified when it comes to finding a ‘c’ in the header, and disregarding the ‘c’ in the body, in the text. But, as SoS, not expert enough to know that the subject matter is classified?

Do you seriously think that helps your point in any way?

You guys were wrong when you tried to compare her private server to the private accounts of past officials.
Then you guys were wrong when you claimed all she kept on her personal server was silly stuff on weddings, yoga and recipes.
Then you guys were wrong when you denied there was classified material on her private server.
Then you guys were wrong when you claimed it wasn’t really classified because it was classified after she accessed it.
And now, in your quest to absolve her of any wrongdoing whatsoever, you are stooping to being deliberately obtuse.

We both served in the USAF, we both know she did wrong and we both know she should be held accountable for her actions.

Posted by: kctim at July 7, 2016 3:05 PM
Comment #405872

phx8 wrote; “The attacks seek to undermine her (Hillary) credibility and convince people she is untrustworthy…”

Best joke I have read all week…thanks phx. Who isn’t convinced after hearing the damning report by the FBI.

She is a liar, incompetent to handle the nations secrets, untrustworthy and paranoid about having her actions reviewed by the public as they are so despicable.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 7, 2016 3:06 PM
Comment #405873

Comey testified before the House on live television this morning. His answers blew up the last vestiges of conservative conspiracy theories surrounding this issue. According to the FBI Director, between 15 and 20 FBI analysts and prosecutors unanimously agreed not to indict because there was no crime. There was no mishandling, she told the truth, she did not lie, she was not evasive. How many ways can Comey put this?

In a rather humorous line of question, one Congressman detailed dozens of hacks into government and private agencies (the FBI, IRS, Post Office, and many more) as a result of direct evidence. There was no direct evidence Clinton’s servers were hacked.

Read the transcript if you didn’t see the testimony.

Posted by: phx8 at July 7, 2016 3:26 PM
Comment #405874

Rep. Trey Gowdy questioning FBI Director Comey confirmed three big lies told by Hillary regarding her questionable emails when serving as SecState.

http://americanactionnews.com/articles/gowdy-nails-fbi-director-on-hillary-emails

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 7, 2016 3:30 PM
Comment #405875

phx8, unfortunately we are attempting to discuss a subject that those that disagree with us are not interested in reading about, listening to or hearing anything that doesn’t conform to their predetermined understanding of the subject.

Just can’t get over how so many big strong strapping men are quaking in their knees in front of this grandmother. She really does convince me that she is the right person for the job not only because she is feared so much by such uninformed people but also because of her experience as First Lady of the State of Arkansas, First Lady of the USA, Senator from New York and Secretary of State for the USA. That we have such uninformed and inexperienced commenters disavowing her credentials and calling her character into question only points out that she is feared because she is unwavering in her defense of her political ambitions, and I support her or as I have said earlier “I’m with her”.

Looks like the front runner for the lead position in the UK is also a woman. Imagine that for a moment. The political leaders of two of the most influential countries in the world would be in the hands of WOMEN!! I am fairly certain that I will be voting for Hillary come this November much to the chagrin of the uninformed.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 7, 2016 3:38 PM
Comment #405876

I enjoy reading comments by my Liberal, Socialist and Commie pals defending Hillary’s misdeeds by condemning Trump.

The FBI report on Hillary’s email scandal is convincing and damning. She is an admitted liar and now is called such by the head of a government agency.

What government agency has examined Trump for the misdeeds ascribed to him by my Leftie Pals?

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 7, 2016 3:39 PM
Comment #405877

“Looks like the front runner for the lead position in the UK is also a woman. Imagine that for a moment.”

Idiot!

No imagination necessary as I recall the fantastic job Margaret Thatcher did as PM of the UK and Golda Meir did as PM of Israel.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 7, 2016 3:43 PM
Comment #405878
phx8, unfortunately we are attempting to discuss a subject that those that disagree with us are not interested in reading about, listening to or hearing anything that doesn’t conform to their predetermined understanding of the subject.

Understanding? You’re being too understanding Speak4all. They’re getting to be more and more like barking dogs. Post something. Dogs bark. Post something else. More dogs bark. They heard the other ones and are joining in. This is what happens when the media becomes part of a political process. Weak-minded people see talking heads on their idiot box, and think that the talking head is the voice of God. They think it speaks to them from a burning bush: Hillary is bad. She is a woman. Women should be silent and ask their husbands what to do, but not Hillary. Her husband is SATAN.

Posted by: ohrealy at July 7, 2016 4:22 PM
Comment #405879

Please inform us about Hillary, God and Satan ohrealy.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 7, 2016 4:24 PM
Comment #405880

ohrealy, I always try to reach an understanding for my own personal benefit if nothing else. Although some of the comments don’t lend themselves well to garnering an understanding due to the disjointed and illogical conclusions reached, I still attempt to understand the why and how. Unfortunately your description of how that happens, while maybe accurately describing how that could happen, does not encourage me to attempt an understanding when based in such obvious prejudicial and less than intelligent opinions however an understanding is necessary if that is our goal.

RF, different people, different times and one of the countries is not the same but since you concede that they did a fantastic job, we’ll put you down as a “YES” vote for Hillary then. Thank you for your support.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 7, 2016 4:35 PM
Comment #405881

It’s no wonder there are only 7 of us left here on WatchBlog when you have to endure the ramblings of the 2 most prominent commenters who make their point by insulting the intelligence of the rest of us.

They accuse us of not reading yet refuse to acknowledge the words of Comey. They defend Hillbilly while ignoring proof she lied to congress. They ignore her lies because they have the same contempt for congress Hillbilly has and think we’re stupid. They refuse to take a step back and see how foolish they look trying to defend this person.

It’s a shame WatchBlog has become a haven for the ignorant and the ignorant are chastising the rest of us for not seeing things their way.

The rest of us know Hillbilly is the best they can come up with. I don’t see Hillbilly stickers or signs in anyone’s front yard or on the bumpers of cars. She is a lost cause and the only thing keeping her afloat is the media and the lies and the ignorance of her supporters.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 7, 2016 4:43 PM
Comment #405882

S4A & phx8,

Just this week, we received confirmation from Comey that HRC’s server contained 52 email chains that were considered classified at the time of transmission. This is a direct contradiction of Clinton’s earlier public statements including sworn statements in front of Congress. This is a bombshell despite the right wing media’s erroneous fixation on the legality of Clinton’s server. While there is no evidence that Clinton broke the law, what she did was hugely unethical. I don’t know if she will be investigated for perjury, but nobody should be as dismissive on this issue as you are.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 7, 2016 4:52 PM
Comment #405883

WW,

Don’t be so smug. You’ve been at the forefront of ignorant WatchBlog comments with all the conspiracies you’ve peddled here over the years supported by nothing other than wacky right wing blogs.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 7, 2016 4:54 PM
Comment #405884

WW, if you are looking for support for Hillary Clinton you do not need to look very far and you better get ready to start seeing a lot more of it. Watched her rally with Senator Warren last week and then the rally with President Obama this week. What a pleasure witnessing our party leaders rally around the presumptive nominee. Stay tuned for much more of that at the convention and afterwards. Your head will be spinning.

Read about Trump’s meeting with Senators today. Flake (R) AZ introduced himself as the other senator from Arizona, the one that was not captured. Let’s just say it didn’t go well. In fact I’m surprised Trump wasn’t ridden out of town on a rail given his campaign’s inability to help the down ticket this year. Trumps meeting with Senators didn’t go well. And these guys are on his side???

Posted by: Speak4all at July 7, 2016 4:59 PM
Comment #405885

Remind me of them, Warren Porter. I’ll admit when I’m wrong and have in the past. Unlike phx8 and Speak4all, I’ll do my best to get to the truth.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 7, 2016 4:59 PM
Comment #405886

WP, as dismissive as Comey was regarding the same question? I watched that part today and his pronouncement was that his job was to review the evidence presented and not use former public statements to conduct the assessment. The only ones that should be dismissed are those that cast aspersions without the charges being brought. To each his own.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 7, 2016 5:04 PM
Comment #405887

Weary, they wouldn’t be Lefties if they didn’t ascribe to your description of them above.

One does wonder what they perceive as a benefit to them, their posterity, or the nation by their historically non-progressive nuevo-liberal support for another lying, morally conflicted, extremely careless, paranoid Clinton.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 7, 2016 5:05 PM
Comment #405888

Speak4all, is that the only way you can get support for your criminal? You have to put words into people’s mouths to be able to claim you are the better?

That’s a sick way to debate someone, Speak4all. It makes you look like a buffoon.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 7, 2016 5:05 PM
Comment #405889

You know, Royal Flush? I’d like to get to the problem, that being an excessive federal government, but you can’t get past the partisan vitriol. It’s frustrating that all you hear is it’s the other party’s fault, that the Democratic’s only fault is they let the Republicans destroy the country. It’s tedious to listen to, but someone has to keep tabs. Otherwise, pretty soon they will be the only ones with guns and the people they disagree with will be more than wrong.

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 7, 2016 5:11 PM
Comment #405890

WW, just some mild chiding to RF, he’ll get over it. You on the other hand remind me of that individual that they talk about in RF’s part of the country, “He couldn’t pour piss out of a boot even if the instructions were written on the bottom”. Again just some mild chiding, hope you can handle that.

Support for Hillary will be taken to new summits after the convention, I am even holding out hope that we will get Bernie to say more than, “We really need to make sure Trump doesn’t get elected”. C’mon man, let us feel the Bern. I think he’ll come around after the convention or maybe even during. I’m with her.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 7, 2016 5:26 PM
Comment #405891

The Obama/Clinton *uckfest in Charlotte Tuesday was nauseating. Imagine a sitting president calling Hillary the most qualified candidate for president ever. This just after the nation’s Top Cop scolded her repeatedly for lying and gross carelessness in her duties.

Hell, Obama applauded Comey’s criticisms of Hillary as virtues.

But wait, Obama’s absolutely correct. Since lying, unconstitutional and illegal acts, paranoia and pandering are what Obama endorses, she fits right in the same moldy mold.

She is the most fit person on the planet to lift Obama’s flag of hate for anyone and anything not in agreement with them.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 7, 2016 5:36 PM
Comment #405892

WW,

Remind me of them, Warren Porter. I’ll admit when I’m wrong and have in the past. Unlike phx8 and Speak4all, I’ll do my best to get to the truth.

Haha, your behavior in relation to the whole Benghazi nothingburger tells quite a different story. You are nothing other than a conservative hack.

S4A,

his job was to review the evidence presented and not use former public statements to conduct the assessment

Yes, it is not Comey’s job to review HRC’s public statements. That job belongs to us. However, the evidence he has presented this week has exposed her as blatant liar.

Support for Hillary will be taken to new summits after the convention

Unfortunately, you are probably right. Trump is such an unfathomably unsuitable candidate that an ethically compromised woman is going to beat him in a landslide.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 7, 2016 5:37 PM
Comment #405894

WW, “sticks and stones may break my bones” and all that.

At this point Hillary is more akin to being so much dry toast than to being president.

WP and likeminded folks will help to put Hillary and Bill out to pasture.

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 7, 2016 5:44 PM
Comment #405895

WP, while I respect your opinion I will stay say respectfully, “I’m with her”.

Looking forward to your posting regarding Johnson/Weld. Haven’t heard much about them yet. I have heard that they may garner enough support to be included in the debate (10%?) but Jill Stein probably will not make that cut.

Speaking of the debates, that is going to be some prime time viewing entertainment. Debate Schedule

Posted by: Speak4all at July 7, 2016 5:49 PM
Comment #405896

FBI Director Comey wrote the following regarding the Hillary email scandal and his scathing report which fell short of a referral of criminal charges.

“The broader question is one for a democracy to answer, not for me.”

This is exactly what Warren has been writing and I am inclined to agree.

It is possible to have criminal activity without enough evidence to prosecute. This is what I expect in our Democratic Republic. Comey revealed his feeling of disgust for the actions of Hillary and provided evidence of repeated lying.

It is now up to us, the American electorate, to determine if we will tolerate such a person as the leader of our country.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 7, 2016 5:53 PM
Comment #405897

“The facts are that Hillary Clinton will not be charged for the method she used to handle classified material.”

That does not excuse or justify her mishandling of classified material, Speaks. OJ wasn’t charged for what he did either.

“That you disagree with that is something you should take up with your elected representatives and demand the legislation be written to define how this could be avoided looking forward.”

18 U.S. Code § 793

“Nothing you can type or believe can deny the “fact” that no charges will be filed against her.”

That’s good, because I have made no such claim.

“Your contention that there should be charges is yours to make and uphold”

Actually, my contention is that she should just be held accountable for her actions. From the evidence so far, charges of treason, selling secrets or whatever else is out there, are not warranted. A formal admonishment would suffice.

“however please keep your contentions in the realm of reality and not your fevered imaginative perceived lawlessness.”

I have been quoting Comey, Hillary and Merriam Webster, Speaks. That you do not consider that to be ‘in the realm of reality’ explains your refusal to actually address the issue being discussed.

She is guilty of mishandling classified material, Speaks. If you, Phx8 or Ohrealy can prove that to be wrong, please do so.

Posted by: kctim at July 7, 2016 5:56 PM
Comment #405898

S4A,

I am not offended that you continue to support her, but you should at least acknowledge that HRC lied to the American people about the nature of her server in Chappaqua. Given her previous experience with the GOP, she should have known better than to brazenly lie like that.

Roy,

WP and likeminded folks will help to put Hillary and Bill out to pasture.

Sorry to break the bad news, but HRC is going to be the 45th President. Trump is an unconscionably terrible candidate and the other parties simply don’t have the resources to compete with Hillary.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 7, 2016 5:58 PM
Comment #405899

kctim,

OJ wasn’t charged for what he did either.

Sorry to nitpick, but OJ was charged for murder, but he was acquitted.

A formal admonishment would suffice.
HRC is no longer a Federal employee so admonishment can only be accomplished in November when Americans go to the polls.

RF,

It is possible to have criminal activity without enough evidence to prosecute.

I would not characterize Clinton’s behavior as criminal because she did not break any US laws. However, her actions were clearly unethical and that alone disqualifies her from any future job requiring a security clearance such as the US Presidency.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 7, 2016 6:15 PM
Comment #405900

kctim,
The phrase “guilty of mishandling classified material” implies crime. HRC is guilty of precisely nothing.

If you think mishandling classified material is a reason not to vote for her, then so be it. Once again, I would point out that no classified material was compromised, nothing leaked, and no harm done. None whatsoever.

As for whether she lied, the FBI has already categorically stated that she did not lie, attempt to mislead, or conceal any material from them. Some of HRC’s statements about servers were incorrect or wrong, but I do not think she was intentionally lying or attempting to mislead or conceal anything.

Speaks is right. “… HRC is going to be the 45th President. Trump is an unconscionably terrible candidate and the other parties simply don’t have the resources to compete with Hillary.” Part of the reason the GOP has such a horrible presidential candidate is because they have invested all their energy into pursuing conspiracies and fake scandals like this. When is the last time you heard a Republican stand up and really invest some energy for something positive?

Chasing scandals is not positive. Building a wall is not positive. Trump gave a speech yesterday that was bizarre. I saw it. A lot of people noted the strangeness of it. He ranted and rambled and went on about Chuck Todd, of all people, and barely talked about HRC and the e-mails, other than to say something ridiculous comparing what happened with General Petraeus to Hillary Clinton. He spoke at length about the anti-Semitic tweet and how it was not anti-Semitic, ignoring the fact it came from a white supremacist in the place.

Conservatives have gone down a bad path, and we are seeing the results. The exoneration of Hillary Clinton- again- is just the latest manifestation. The GOP is a dumpster fire.

Posted by: phx8 at July 7, 2016 6:19 PM
Comment #405901
If you think mishandling classified material is a reason not to vote for her, then so be it. Once again, I would point out that no classified material was compromised, nothing leaked, and no harm done. None whatsoever.

Whether or not any of the mishandled information fell into the wrong hands is not knowable by anyone here. In the words of Rumsfeld, it is a “known unknown”. Just because the FBI has no evidence that hostile incursions occurred, does not imply that no such breaches occurred.

As for whether she lied, the FBI has already categorically stated that she did not lie, attempt to mislead, or conceal any material from them. Some of HRC’s statements about servers were incorrect or wrong, but I do not think she was intentionally lying or attempting to mislead or conceal anything.
It will be interesting if/when more details are released such as the FD-302 form. So far, it seems that Hillary Clinton was telling different stories to the FBI and the American public.

Regarding the GOP, we are witnessing a “boy who cried wolf” situation before our very eyes. So much ink has been split regarding non-scandalous “controversies” that by the time a genuinely disturbing event transpires we dismiss it has nothing but partisan noise.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 7, 2016 6:30 PM
Comment #405902

I must point out phx8 is still talking.

Why is he still talking? Why are his posts still considered credible?

He’s a hack, beholden to the Democratic party!

Can we at least try to allow WatchBlog to regain some resemblance of reality?


Please?


Posted by: Weary Willie at July 7, 2016 8:09 PM
Comment #405903

Look back on the history of WatchBlog entries and you will see phx8 has commented on every post on every column!

phx8 is dominating this blog. He’s been wrong more than he’s been right!

We shouldn’t let that happen.

He has been wrong on issue after issue, yet he dominates comments submitted on WatchBlog!

Hasn’t he something else to do? Or is he being paid to spout his bias?

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 7, 2016 8:16 PM
Comment #405910

O’riley has lost his kool on FOX. He said Schumer was a coward for not working to pass ‘Kate’s law’. Also, broke bad on Reid for the same reason.

I tend to believe that folks will continue to espouse partisan jive until they get in the ballot box. I know Bernie said he ‘couldn’t give a damn’ about Hillary’s emails but when he gets in the voting box he may have a change of heart.

Posted by: roy ellis at July 7, 2016 9:06 PM
Comment #405911

roy ellis, do you know what “Kate’s law” is? Can you link to the text of the law?

Why should we give any consideration to a law that is:

a catch phrase

unknown to anyone not involved

something we must look up to understand

just another feel good law

?

What is Kate’s law?

Do you know, verbatem, what Kate’s law will do?

Answer the question with facts, roy ellis, not, if we had another party..

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 7, 2016 9:16 PM
Comment #405913

WW,

Kate’s law has been a pet issue of Trump’s for about a year. It forces municipalities to tell ICE about illegal immigrants who commit non-felonious offences. So-called “sanctuary cities” oppose the law because it means illegal immigrants will not trust the police when they are witnesses to a crime. At least this is what I can recall from memory.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 7, 2016 11:53 PM
Comment #405916

Warren,

“Sorry to nitpick, but OJ was charged for murder, but he was acquitted.”

Yeah, it was incorrect to say he wasn’t charged. I definitely could have worded the comparison better.
Thank you for the correction.

“HRC is no longer a Federal employee so admonishment can only be accomplished in November when Americans go to the polls.”

I understand where you are going with this line of thought, but her actions while a Federal employee are still open to government review and disciplinary action.
Of course such disciplinary action would most likely result in her losing future access to classified material and I believe this is why people like Ohrealy, Speaks and Phx8 refuse to accept and admit that she did any wrong.

Posted by: kctim at July 8, 2016 9:02 AM
Comment #405917
I understand where you are going with this line of thought, but her actions while a Federal employee are still open to government review and disciplinary action. Of course such disciplinary action would most likely result in her losing future access to classified material and I believe this is why people like Ohrealy, Speaks and Phx8 refuse to accept and admit that she did any wrong.

I assume you must be satisfied with the recent announcement from John Kirby. We’ll have to wait and see whether Jake Sullivan, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills or Hillary Clinton can retain their security clearances.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 8, 2016 9:39 AM
Comment #405919

Phx8,

The phrase “guilty of mishandling classified material” implies that an individual did not obey the proper rules and regulations while handling classified material.
Director Comey has confirmed that HRC is guilty of doing just that.

That our nation was lucky that her negligence and actions did not lead to classified material being compromised, is irrelevant.

She lied in her statements to the public. Classified material was found in what was not turned over as requested.

It is proven that HRC intentionally lied throughout the course of this issue and I have previously stated that I believe she did it for CYA.

“Speaks is right. “… HRC is going to be the 45th President.”

I still agree with you guys on that and I believe it will be a landslide.

Hillary mishandled classified material. That is not a conspiracy theory. That is not a fake scandal. It is fact.

Posted by: kctim at July 8, 2016 10:00 AM
Comment #405922

Mischaracterizing Hillary Clinton and her supporters as believing there was no wrong doing committed by her is false(she readily admits it was wrong to use a personal email server and wishes she did not do that) and will not get the people who use that mischaraterization what they want. There was nothing determined to be illegal or committed with intent of illegality. This is what those that would mischaracterize really want and now they know that they will not receive that vindication. That will not deter them but some of us can find solace in the fact that their mischaracterization is a feeble attempt to portray themselves with some semblance of vindication. Most of us though would like to determine how this country can be better protected and served by valuable patriots, leaders and regular citizens by understanding the protocols necessary to keep safe our secrets and those that are entrusted with them. Vindication be damned, we want results.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 8, 2016 10:27 AM
Comment #405924

S4A,

This begs the question: Why should we entrust someone guilty of such wrongdoing with the Presidency of the United States? Trump may be far worse in other regards, but there are plenty of other parties running candidates. Heck, Clinton isn’t even officially the Democratic nominee yet. Why isn’t there a movement to replace her with a more competent candidate?

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 8, 2016 10:45 AM
Comment #405925

8 years as First Lady, 8 years as a Senator and on the Armed Services committee, and the 4 years as S. of S. All those years surrounded with classifieds material and she uses an unsecured server in the basement of her home, and liberals give her a pass.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 8, 2016 10:46 AM
Comment #405926

I agree warped, she needs to withdraw from the campaign and the DNC replace her.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at July 8, 2016 10:50 AM
Comment #405927

Because there is an adequate amount of people who don’t hold the opinions that you do regarding this characterization. From someone who has held clearances beginning with Confidential, then Secret, then Top Secret believe me when I tell you that there is always a fundamental danger of knowingly or unknowingly divulging the secrets we are and have been entrusted with. To lump one of us in with the calls for “guilty” when no obvious guilt of illegality can be found just denigrates the rest of us that stand keeping the secrets we have been entrusted with and refuse to believe that ordinary people can sit in judgement without understanding the severity of those secrets being divulged or the protocols necessary to help us protect them. We seek the best way forward to insure the secrecy necessary to keep us safe but not at the expense of the patriots we endow with these secrets who have not been deemed as divulging that secrecy with illegal intent.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 8, 2016 10:56 AM
Comment #405928
Can we at least try to allow WatchBlog to regain some resemblance of reality?

Such inanity day after day week after week , the conservatives cannot run on issues. The constant barrage of hypocrisy is overwhelming, when the GWB administration
lost” 20 million emails it was no big deal. When the previous SoS’s did the same thing as Hilary it was no big deal but all of a sudden it is an issue to divert attention away from the agenda of conservatives.

Desperation on the right has caused the usually shrill myths misinformation half truths and outright lies of the conservatives to become ever more desperate as they attack Hillary. Hell if Bill is any indication she will be as much or more conservative/globalist/corporatist than Trump.

Real issues need to be dealt with conservatives challenge your leaders to put them on the table. Income inequality continues to lead us into has been status. Run on the issues for crying out loud. Stop the sniveling and driveling and run on issues.

Face facts you are putting your best up against her in Trump and either you guy deserves to be president or he doesn’t. Do you want to continue to slide into fascism with Trump if so tell the world you do.

Bemoaning Clinton seems to be the only game you guys have, doesn’t that ring any bells in your head? Isn’t there a point in time you wise up and challenge your leaders or quit allowing them to lead you?

Posted by: j2t2 at July 8, 2016 11:21 AM
Comment #405931
To lump one of us in with the calls for “guilty” when no obvious guilt of illegality can be found just denigrates the rest of us that stand keeping the secrets we have been entrusted with and refuse to believe that ordinary people can sit in judgement without understanding the severity of those secrets being divulged or the protocols necessary to help us protect them. We seek the best way forward to insure the secrecy necessary to keep us safe but not at the expense of the patriots we endow with these secrets who have not been deemed as divulging that secrecy with illegal intent.

It’s already a settled matter that Hillary Clinton’s actions were not severe enough to break the law, so lumping me in with those claiming she should be in prison is nothing but a deflection from the matters that I am raising.

Avoiding indictment is a laughably low standard to hold a candidate for President. Shouldn’t we expect more from our leaders? When you worked with classified information, what would be your reaction if you discovered a subordinate had mishandled documents in the manner HRC did? I understand that criminal prosecution would be out of the question, but surely there would be administrative or security sanctions including the termination of security clearances and the loss of one’s job?

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 8, 2016 11:34 AM
Comment #405934

I lump you in with those that would characterize me and the rest of the patriots who have been designated with the ability to hold secrets and clearances that are required to keep us safe and have not illegally used that either with intent or malice to knowingly cause harm. I am uncertain that I can continue this discussion as you seem so adamant in your calls for Hillary Clinton to suffer some indignation that she hasn’t already experienced.

I cannot relate any of my experiences with regards to classified information but I am damn sure I wouldn’t turn to anonymous blog entries calling for one of my own to be dealt with in any circumstance. That is what is happening here and you contribute to that. Again that is your prerogative along with others. I will not contribute to that disarray.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 8, 2016 11:47 AM
Comment #405935

Quote from Politico: “”Senate Republicans’ bid to toughen immigration laws ended almost as quickly as it began Tuesday, as Democrats swiftly blocked a measure that would crack down on cities that decline to cooperate with federal immigration officials.

[…]

The legislation from Vitter would cut off key federal law enforcement grants to localities that are deemed sanctuary cities, which are localities that decline to cooperate with immigration officials because of constitutional concerns. Vitter’s legislation would also implement a five-year mandatory minimum prison sentence for some immigrants who tried to return here after being deported, such as immigrants with an aggravated felony on their record or those who had already been convicted twice of illegally re-entering the country. [Politico, 10/20/15]”“

Kate was killed by an illegal immigrant who had been deported 5 times. Months before her murder the feds wanted him but San Francisco, being a sanctuary city, would not cooperate with them.

O’reilly put a big effort into pushing Kate’s law which was defeated by dems a couple of days ago.

Understandable, as the dems power structure lies with the care and feeding of different minority groups; latino, black, poor and jobless, those wanting free stuff and so on - - -

Posted by: roy ellis at July 8, 2016 11:54 AM
Comment #405936
I lump you in with those that would characterize me and the rest of the patriots who have been designated with the ability to hold secrets and clearances that are required to keep us safe and have not illegally used that either with intent or malice to knowingly cause harm. I am uncertain that I can continue this discussion as you seem so adamant in your calls for Hillary Clinton to suffer some indignation that she hasn’t already experienced.

I cannot relate any of my experiences with regards to classified information but I am damn sure I wouldn’t turn to anonymous blog entries calling for one of my own to be dealt with in any circumstance. That is what is happening here and you contribute to that. Again that is your prerogative along with others. I will not contribute to that disarray.

S4A,
You aren’t making any sense. I do not insist that HRC “suffer some indication that she hasn’t already experienced”. All I want is that she be treated the same as anyone else would have. For months, I have defended her against the onslaught of GOP propaganda insisting that she be in jail or worse. Throughout all that, I have stuck by her despite my personal discomfort with her candidacy.

If Comey’s statements this week hadn’t revealed that 52 email chains on her server contained classified information in them, then I would continue to have dismissed this whole hoopla as a nothingburger. The 1000 retroactively classified emails were a distraction, but I feel that these 52 are concerning enough to warrant attention.

Honestly, I don’t think it is really important as to whether or not HRC has a security clearance between now and November. For the moment, she is not entrusted with any authority. However, come January, that will change. I know there are a whole range of issues on which we agree that HRC would best support, but is it really worth sacrificing the sanctity of our intelligence infrastructure? Surely there are other Democratic politicians who could do the job nearly as well as she.

I don’t buy the argument that she is more experienced than the many successful Democratic governors across the land. Sure, her resume has a lot of bullet points, but what has she actually done or more importantly what has she learned? Has she been able to apply her experience to make better decisions? Time and time again, she comes up short. Her tenure as First Lady did not alert her to the dubious benefits of invading Iraq in 2003. Her time as a Senator did not teach her to treat confidential documents with care and respect when she served as Secretary of State. I’m willing to forgive a mistake here and there, but HRC’s career has been riddled with hapless error after hapless error. In many ways, she suffers from the same arrogance that plagues Trump and that is not a quality I want in our next President.

At this point, all we can do is wait for the SoS IG to complete the review of Jake Sullivan, Huma Abedin, Cheryl Mills and Hillary Clinton. However, even if the IG does not recommend that any of them lose their security clearance, I think the whole matter ought to convince anyone with half a brain that Clinton is not fit to be President.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 8, 2016 12:17 PM
Comment #405937

Your half brain depiction of this is somewhat of the problem. I have benefited from experiences that I seem unable to relate that allows me to not jump to righteous indignation that you find so simple. Again that is your prerogative but since we must disagree please attempt to allow my opinion to not be denigrated with your attempts to depict my contentions as something someone with only a “half a brain” would use. I will attempt to afford you the same courtesy. Your typical demeanor on this blog has been sullied by this adamant requirement of some retribution Hillary Clinton needs to suffer, I will chalk that up to your strong convictions rather than what I could suspect as some misguided righteous indignation. As well as others here.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 8, 2016 12:32 PM
Comment #405938

Ok, I retract my accusatory language about half brains. I am genuinely interested in learning what I am missing when it comes to this situation. I am admittedly young and naive on these matters.

I hope my comments have not indicated some insistence that Hillary Clinton needs to suffer. I thought I made it clear that I think retirement in Chappaqua rather than incarceration in a prison was the proper place for her. Retirement in Chappaqua is hardly “suffering”.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 8, 2016 1:04 PM
Comment #405940

Warren writes; “…I think the whole matter ought to convince anyone with half a brain that Clinton is not fit to be President.”

Well said Warren. I fear there are many “half-brained” voters however.

Warren also wrote; “Retirement in Chappaqua is hardly “suffering”.”

Agreed. However the possibility of Bill and Hillary losing their huge speaking fees would be Insufferable.

Posted by: Royal Flush at July 8, 2016 1:58 PM
Comment #405943

Retirement in Chappaqua is not what Hillary Clinton is aspiring to. She has aspirations of being the 45th President of these United States of America. While we can disagree whether or not she is qualified to accede to that position or is deserving of the ability to even attempt that, neither of us should be able to control her aspirations to do so, that would be less than what this country promises to everyone. Her qualifications and abilities will be either deemed worthy or not but that would be a decision that over 100 million voters will make, if she is allowed that opportunity.

I consider you neither young or naive although I respect your contention that you can consider that. You have displayed with other comments that neither youth or naivete can be the only deciding factor when commenting in a contentious debate, others here exhibit the opposite. I can only tell you that the inadequacy of my ability to explain my contentions should not be received with impatience on your part of not understanding why I make the contentions that I do. I can only quote Kahlil Gibran a well known Lebanese American author and poet, “We choose our joys and sorrows long before we experience them”. While that may seem cryptic it is the best I can offer.

Posted by: Speak4all at July 8, 2016 2:19 PM
Comment #405944

I believe a large number of the voting public will feels much as Warren as to whether HRC is presidential material.

I’d sure like to know what the staff employees around Hillary know as to how she was able to set up a private commo system, who helped her, how the deal was sold to the staffers and how Hillary interacted with them as to the legal/security aspects of her server/emails.

But, alas, that’s politics as they say.

I’d like to know if any of the DOS emails were passed to the Clinton Foundation. Can any DOS emails be found on Clinton Foundation computers? Lot’s of questions that we know we will never get answers too as they are in the ‘political realm’.

Otherwise - - -

Posted by: Roy Ellis at July 8, 2016 2:24 PM
Comment #405949

Although I am flattered to be considered a paid Democratic operative, that is not the case. Maybe I should look into it.

The Clinton Foundation is a charity. It does good works. A conspiracy theory about how a charity with an excellent reputation could somehow be bad will never get off the ground. Keep trying.

One of Trump’s sons broke the law by soliciting members of foreign governments for campaign donations. Basically, he spammed every member of the British Parliament, as well as many people from other countries. It was a stupid thing to do, and the assumption is that he acted out of pure ignorance.

And lest anyone forgets, Donald Trump’s first fraud trial begins 11/28. He will be making court appearances between now and then. Another civil case and the State of New York suit being brought by the NY AG do not have set dates.

Have fun with that.

Posted by: phx8 at July 8, 2016 10:31 PM
Comment #405950

S4A,

Sorry if you mistook my writings to imply that HRC should be stricken from the ballot. Like many Americans, she fulfills the Constitutional qualifications to be President (35 years old, natural born citizen, etc). When I say she is unqualified, I mean she is not qualified to earn my vote and hopefully not qualified to earn anyone else’s vote.

That said, I am a registered Democrat and as such I feel I deserve to express my opinion that our party should not nominate this woman. Obviously she still has the support and goodwill of a majority of party members, but in my mind, this is almost unconscionable. Surely, us Democrats value traits such as integrity and competence over ideology and anything else.

The only reason she has such a prominent position in the party is due to her experience as First Lady, Senator and Secretary of State. However, all that experience has taught her virtually nothing and she continues to plod around making the mistakes of a neophyte as we saw when she decided to use the server in the first place. However, my desire for the DNC to nominate someone else is not because of an inner desire to watch HRC suffer, but rather it is born out of the conviction that many of the Democrats who have served as governor in the past decade would be a far more superior candidate than the ethically troubled Clinton.

Posted by: Warren Porter at July 8, 2016 10:32 PM
Comment #405951
Surely, us Democrats value traits such as integrity and competence over ideology and anything else.

Now, That’s funny!

Posted by: Weary Willie at July 8, 2016 11:13 PM
Post a comment