Third Party & Independents Archives

FBI continues investigation of Clinton email servers

Last summer, James Comey testified to Congress that the FBI had completed its investigation into Hillary Clinton’s private email servers. Today, Congress received a letter stating that the recent emergence of new evidence means the investigation would continue**.

Apparently, the newly discovered emails were unearthed in connection with an unrelated investigation into Anthony Weiner's alleged sexual interactions with a minor residing in North Carolina. Presumably, Weiner and his wife possess emails with former Secretary Clinton that were not part of the original investigation. It remains to be seen whether or not there is evidence that Clinton intentionally dodged the subpoena that was issued to her last year.

Previous investigative work from the FBI indicates that Hillary Clinton instructed that her personal emails be deleted in December 2014. In actuality, Platte River Networks did not comply with that request until the end of March 2015, shortly after the subpoena was issued. Until now, we have taken Clinton and her lawyers at their word that none of the emails purged had any relevance to the Benghazi investigation. It is possible that Huma Abedin's emails might demonstrate otherwise, but that remains unproven. Only time will tell whether or not Hillary Clinton will remain exonerated or whether a violation of US laws is found. I remain committed to the integrity of the judicial process. James Comey has handled the matter admirably thus far, and I trust he will continue to do so. While there may not be a resolution of this matter before the election, I certainly hope additional information will be shared to the American people in order to best inform their votes.

**Technically, the investigation was never closed so this is not actually a "reopening" of a closed investigation.

Posted by Warren Porter at October 28, 2016 4:24 PM
Comments
Comment #409101

“While there may not be a resolution of this matter before the election, I certainly hope additional information will be shared to the American people in order to best inform their votes.”

I most emphatically agree Warren. The consequences of dealing with possible criminal matters after the election is frightening should Ms. Clinton win.

I find no Constitutional resolution should a president elect be criminally indicted. I welcome suggestions.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 28, 2016 5:15 PM
Comment #409102

Impeachment is always an option, but it would be terribly presumptuous to speculate about that at this point. My hunch is that whatever Comey finds on Huma Abedin’s device ends up being innocuous.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 28, 2016 5:19 PM
Comment #409103

Hmmm, my guess is that Comey is privy to more upcoming Wickyleak emails that would make him look even worse than he already does.

Posted by: Blaine at October 28, 2016 5:34 PM
Comment #409104

Welcome back Blaine! It is always great when you deign to entrust us with your infallible clairvoyance.

Remind me again, what does WikiLeaks have to do with this?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 28, 2016 5:41 PM
Comment #409105

“Impeachment is always an option…”

I believe impeachment is reserved for seated government officials…not a (something)-elect who is not yet sworn or seated.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 28, 2016 5:47 PM
Comment #409106

If substantive evidence warranting impeachment were obtained, the proper procedure would be to begin the impeachment process immediately after the President-elect is sworn in.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 28, 2016 5:50 PM
Comment #409107

Source please Warren on the impeachment process immediately after the President-elect is sworn in.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 28, 2016 6:01 PM
Comment #409108

It is possible for an elected official to be impeached for “high crimes and misdemeanors” committed prior to taking office, but highly unusual.

For example, the Trump University trial for fraud will start November 28th. He will also be tried for violating RICO statutes about the same time. The fraud charges were originally brought in 2013. These trials are unrelated to the one brought by the NY AG in Trump’s home state, which does not have a start date set. Trump’s deposition is currently both online and on video, and it does not look good for him. If he is found guilty- and there is a good chance of it- he would almost certainly face the possibility of being impeached if he were elected.

The crime was committed prior to 2013, the trial will start after the election November 8th, and a verdict could be reached either before or after the inauguration, which means it would be an absolute mess.

Posted by: phx8 at October 28, 2016 6:17 PM
Comment #409109

There really isn’t any precedent to work with, so essentially anything that doesn’t conflict with the text of the Constitution is fair game.

But… we are getting far too ahead of ourselves. I do not think Trump will win the election, so the Trump University matter will not result in an impeachment.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 28, 2016 7:12 PM
Comment #409110

“I do not think Trump will win the election”

Talk about clairvoyance… Or perhaps wishful thinking.

How many of the WickiLeaks emails have been the missing Hillary emails? So far…zero. Word is, next week is her missing emails.

Posted by: Blaine at October 28, 2016 7:46 PM
Comment #409111
Word is, next week is her missing emails.

Wishful thinking indeed.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 28, 2016 8:09 PM
Comment #409112

WP,
While I agree the chances of Trump winning are very small, there is always the outside chance of a disaster. My bigger concern would be if a foreign adversary, like Russia, launched another cyber attack on the day of the election. It would not take a great deal to throw the country into chaos. If the election were thrown to the Supreme Court, it could be even worse, since the current court is split 4-4. Trump has done everything possible to call the legitimacy of the election into question, claiming it is rigged, the polls are phony, the media is biased, and so on. In a recent survey over 40% of Trump supporters said they did not think HRC would be a legitimate president even if she won the election.

It is hard to overstate how much damage Trump is doing to this country. He has declared his opponent should not be allowed to run, and if he wins, he will appoint a Special Prosecutor to investigate her yet again, because ‘she should be in jail.’ Those horrifying crowds of supporters are still chanting “lock her up.” If Trump loses, he said he might refuse to concede.

Will Clinton win? Very likely. But just the possibility of that not happening today, when Comey’s announcement was released by the House about the e-mails, was enough to instantly tank the equity markets. They recovered quickly when it became apparent there is not much to this; nevertheless… An unexpected victory by Trump would drop the stock markets 15% overnight. The dollar would plunge over fears of a trade war, which Trump threatens when he calls for 35% tariffs. Bond investors would flee out of fear of a US default because Trump has already threatened to default on bonds and give investors “a haircut.” That would just be the beginning.

We’re not out of the woods yet.

But I like our chances.

Posted by: phx8 at October 28, 2016 8:15 PM
Comment #409113

BTW, lost in all the hoopla, the 3rd quarter GDP came in at 2.9%, and Consumer Confidence was the highest in 9 years.

Posted by: phx8 at October 28, 2016 10:48 PM
Comment #409116
The emails were not to or from Clinton, and contained information that appeared to be more of what agents had already uncovered
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-fbi-clinton-email-probe-20161028-story.html
To all:

This morning I sent a letter to Congress in connection with the Secretary Clinton email investigation. Yesterday, the investigative team briefed me on their recommendation with respect to seeking access to emails that have recently been found in an unrelated case. Because those emails appear to be pertinent to our investigation, I agreed that we should take appropriate steps to obtain and review them.

Of course, we don’t ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed. I also think it would be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don’t know the significance of this newly discovered collection of emails, I don’t want to create a misleading impression. In trying to strike that balance, in a brief letter and in the middle of an election season, there is significant risk of being misunderstood, but I wanted you to hear directly from me about it.

Jim Comey


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/28/read-the-letter-comey-sent-to-fbi-employees-explaining-his-controversial-decision-on-the-clinton-email-investigation/?utm_term=.4fcd6e74eda0

What the heck is going on?!?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 12:22 AM
Comment #409118

You have to wonder about the true motivation for re opening this investigation. Could it be they are not feeling as confident about the out of this election as they portray in the media ?

If Trump wins and a new attorney general re opens this investigation and actually attempts to get to the truth, could she then be indicted and face trial ? Who else could she bring down in order to save her own hide ?

I’d like to believe that this is being done for righteous reasons, but history makes that very difficult to believe. If she loses I predict an indictment, and a pardon. JMHO

Posted by: dbs at October 29, 2016 10:06 AM
Comment #409119

Warped, When the FBI is done investigating Huma and her husbands Laptop and other devices we will know. Now if there was classified info on her laptop that she shared with her husband, that brings up a whole can of worms for her and her boss.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 10:13 AM
Comment #409120

From the Onion:

Q: What does Trump risk by not conceding?

A: Fanning the flames of violence, delegitimizing the United States government, but most of all, missing out on a valuable life lesson.

Q: Does something like this have historical precedent?

A: Yes.

Q: In America?

A. Oh, God no!

Meanwhile, anonymous “sources” supposedly from the FBI have told various media outlets the e-mails did not come from or go to Hillary Clinton, and had nothing to do with her server. Those “sources” sure were quick to walk this thing back! Now we hear the Abedin/Weiner e-mails may be duplicates.

Absolutely ridiculous. Comey was out of line. The FBI never announces this sort of thing, and in the interests of transparency, he simultaneously threw a grenade into the Clinton campaign while utterly failing to be transparent after all. The fever swamp of conservative conspiracy theory exploded. Trump made the usual awful statements, like this:

“Hillary Clinton’s corruption is on a scale we have never seen before. We must not let her take her criminal scheme into the Oval Office.”

The Trump crowds repeatedly chanted “lock her up.”

Now GOP Senators like Cruz and McCain have suggested the GOP will never consent to any of HRC’s SCOTUS nominations, and the GOP head of the Oversight Committee will conduct endless investigations of something or other.

What a train wreck of a party, ever since the GOP primary. Will they turn this into a train wreck of a country too?


Posted by: phx8 at October 29, 2016 10:16 AM
Comment #409121

Now we have phx8 crying even before the facts come out. Typical lefty, doesn’t know the actual facts but comes to a conclusion.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 10:30 AM
Comment #409123

“Absolutely ridiculous. Comey was out of line. The FBI never announces this sort of thing, and in the interests of transparency, he simultaneously threw a grenade into the Clinton campaign while utterly failing to be transparent after all.”

This is hysterical, you guys didn’t feel that way when the investigation was closed. But don’t worry, shell never spend a day in prison. That petulant child in the white house will see to that. If she wins the investigation goes away. If she loses she will be indicted and then pardoned.

Posted by: dbs at October 29, 2016 12:24 PM
Comment #409124

warren

“I do not think Trump will win the election,”

If she can’t cheat, she’s done. The momentum, and enthusiasm is on his side. The polls are close. At least the legitimate ones are. Turn out this time favors republicans. Everything I can see points to him winning. It wasn’t that way with Romney. From what I’ve been hearing he is also winning more of the independents. This should be interesting for sure.

Posted by: dbs at October 29, 2016 12:31 PM
Comment #409125

Tim Kaine is saying that if democrats regain the senate they will suspend the 60 vote rule AGAIN to push her nominees through. Let’s hope the republicans will grow a pair and show them the same, should things line up in their favor. We will most certainly hear them wailing and crying about the tyrannous republicans shutting them out of the process.

Posted by: dbs at October 29, 2016 12:39 PM
Comment #409126

The inappropriate question to Trump, when the false polls showed a 12 point lead for Hillary, was would he concede an election before it took place. The real question is, will Hillary and the left concede an election now that the polls are even, and some even giving Trump a 2 point lead?

Comey was the best thing since sliced bread, when he was attempting to cover up Clinton’s illegalities, but how things change.

I personally believe Trump will win, based on the lack of excitement for Hillary, and the increase of excitement for Trump. Of course Trump has been correct in his assessment of the media being in the tank for Hillary. In that sense, it is a rigged system. How could the American people be so ignorant as to elect a totally corrupt couple as the Clintons?

Lastly, I would believe the left must be in complete meltdown over the fact they have believed their own lie, that Hillary has it all locked up, and that their world is crumbling before their own eyes.

Posted by: Blaine at October 29, 2016 1:02 PM
Comment #409127

KAP,
It is longstanding, decades long policy for the FBI not to comment on ongoing investigations, and to not give opinions once an investigation is completed. Comey should have said what every previous FBI Director said at the conclusion of the e-mail investigation: there will be no indictments. Period. Director Comey was advised of this precedent by both the AG and Assistant AG. He also was advised not to make such an announcement because it interferes with the election. He chose to ignore it and, completely on his own, declare the FBI is conducting another investigation.

Why was what he did so wrong?

He essentially said ‘here is a box. I don’t know what is in it. It might be totally irrelevant. It might be a duplicate. It might not. I have no idea. We will let you know what is in the box in a few months.’

That is so wrong. That is part of the reason why the FBI does not announcement it is investigating something. It ALWAYS says ‘no comment.’ Director Comey violated this, first when he gave his opinion about the investigation last summer, and again when he sent this letter to the House GOP members.

Comey said, gee, you know, this might be misconstrued and misunderstood, but I am going to do it anyway.

dbs,
No, the polls are not close. HRC is ahead by a lot, anyway you cut it, either looking at individual national polls, or better yet, at composites:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/2016-general-election-trump-vs-clinton

Furthermore, the state polls also reflect the fact that Hillary Clinton is ahead by a lot. You are going to get pounded November 8th. HRC will have a mandate, the Senate will flip, and the House might even go Democratic- a long shot, but possible. A lot of state legislatures and governors will flip too.

I would rather not see the Senate do away with the filibuster for SCOTUS nominees, but if people like Cruz and McCain simply refuse to allow anyone to be seated, then the rule needs to go. The problem is that what goes around, comes around. But there is no way the Democrats should stand idle while the GOP destroys the Judicial branch of government by refusing to seat justices.

Posted by: phx8 at October 29, 2016 1:05 PM
Comment #409128

phx8, but if it were Trump getting investigated it would have been fine in your eyes to re open if new evidence came up.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 1:11 PM
Comment #409129

KAP,
An FBI investigation is fine. Announcing an investigation is a really bad idea, as we are now seeing. There is a good reason they never do this.

Trump has already gone through the discovery phase for his fraud trial. The deposition is available for you to see, both written and on video. It is not pretty. The first fraud trial starts November 28th.

Posted by: phx8 at October 29, 2016 1:24 PM
Comment #409130

dbs,

We’ll find out in two weeks. But, I haven’t forgotten the lousy predictions from your brethren four years ago.

If Trump somehow wins, it would represent a massive unprecedented polling error. Neither the 1948 election nor the Brexit vote would even come close.

Lastly, remember that even if Trump wins North Carolina, Iowa, Florida, Nevada and Ohio, he still loses.
There are zero credible polls showing him with a lead in Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, Colorado, Virginia or anywhere else in Clinton’s clearest path to 270 electoral votes.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 1:28 PM
Comment #409132

phx8, I don’t care about Trump or Hillary I didn’t vote for either of those 2 A**HOLES. What I do care about is justice and it being fair to all people not just some as with the Hillary case. Comey sent a letter to congress that he was re opening the case because of new findings. Quit your crying if your girl is guilty don’t worry Obama will pardon her but she’ll never be president.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 1:34 PM
Comment #409133

As far as polling goes remember Carter vs Reaghan, we all know how that played out.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 1:36 PM
Comment #409134
He essentially said ‘here is a box. I don’t know what is in it. It might be totally irrelevant. It might be a duplicate. It might not. I have no idea. We will let you know what is in the box in a few months.’

That is so wrong. That is part of the reason why the FBI does not announcement it is investigating something. It ALWAYS says ‘no comment.’ Director Comey violated this, first when he gave his opinion about the investigation last summer, and again when he sent this letter to the House GOP members

Phx8,

Comey’s in a real fix. If the new evidence is incriminating (and that’s a big if), then it would be equally unethical to withhold that information from the American electorate until after the election. I think the route he chose is the least destructive one, provided that he quickly updates the American people.

But you are right. If yesterday’s statement is the last we hear from the FBI until after the election AND there’s nothing incriminating in Anthony Weiner’s computer, then the FBI will have completely violated the public’s trust.

In other news, Kurt Eichenwald has reports that Huma Abedin frequently printed out emailed documents on HRC’s behalf. If one of those documents turns out to be classified (and on the device recovered from Anthony Weiner), then we might end up in a situation whereby Huma Abedin is indicted while Hillary Clinton is exonerated.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 1:43 PM
Comment #409135

Warped, Do you really think Huma is going to take the fall for Hillary? Being she is Huma’s boss she is RESPONSIBLE for safeguarding classified material.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 1:56 PM
Comment #409136
remember Carter vs Reaghan, we all know how that played out.

Yes, the candidate who led the polls for months won the election.

What I do care about is justice and it being fair to all people not just some as with the Hillary case. Comey sent a letter to congress that he was re opening the case because of new findings

Are you going to stop crying if Comey tells us that the investigation of Weiner’s computer doesn’t reveal anything incriminating against Clinton?

DBS,

I’m not seeing anything showing Trump ahead in VA, CO, PA, NH or anywhere else colored blue on the map I shared earlier. Try again.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 1:57 PM
Comment #409137
she is RESPONSIBLE for safeguarding classified material.

If Huma did something without Hillary’s permission and without telling Hillary about it, then that’s on Huma, not Hillary.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 2:09 PM
Comment #409138

Warped, Who’s crying? I know you and phx8 are as far as I’m concerned I’ll wait until the facts are presented. As I stated I could care less about either of the 2 A**HOLES from our major parties all I want is justice. It wasn’t truly served on July 5th, anyone else would have been indicted for what Hillary did and you know it.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 2:14 PM
Comment #409139

Warped, Hillary was Huma’s boss. Hillary is responsible for their actions PERIOD!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 2:16 PM
Comment #409140
anyone else would have been indicted for what Hillary did and you know it.

Sounds like someone came to a conclusion before they knew the facts.

Hillary was Huma’s boss. Hillary is responsible for their actions PERIOD!

So, if Huma killed a man on 5th avenue tomorrow, the murder would be Hillary’s fault?

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 2:47 PM
Comment #409141

Warped, Not a conclusion FACT!!!!!!!!!!!! Quit being stupid murder and classified material from state dept. are totally different.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 2:52 PM
Comment #409142
Not a conclusion FACT
You have no idea what Weiner’s emails contain. Stop the bullshit.
Quit being stupid murder and classified material from state dept. are totally different.

A crime is a crime, whether it be murder or espionage. When Dick Armitage leaked Valarie Plame’s secrets to Bob Novak, that wasn’t Colin Powell’s fault.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 3:03 PM
Comment #409143

Rich, there is a disturbing pattern emerging from Warren’s keyboard. When logic fails, he submits to silly obfuscation.

I vividly recall the beginnings of what is called “Watergate”. At that time we actually had investigative reporting from big media. The FBI didn’t break Nixon, responsible reporting did.

Today, we have Wikileaks doing big media’s job and those getting hammered are yelling foul.

I don’t believe we will know exactly what the FBI saw that caused them to reopen investigation of Hillary before the election. That may not be fair to Ms. Clinton; however, many things she has done are not “fair” to the nation.

Just as Watergate slowly evolved, I believe it will be the same with Hillary’s abuses. She may be elected; but she could also be impeached.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 29, 2016 3:20 PM
Comment #409144

Mark Felt wasn’t part of the KGB.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 3:26 PM
Comment #409145

Warped, Your right I don’t know what was on Weiner’s computer but I never said I did, but we do know Hillary had classified material on her server and that is what I was referring to. But if classified material is found on Weiner’s computer it had to get there some how and from someone and seeing how Huma worked for State????? To clarify Huma can go and murder someone and it would NOT be Hillary’s responsibility but if Huma mishandled classified material while working for State then it is Hillary’s responsibility.
R.F. Yes W.P. does get goofy when Democrats are involved.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 3:33 PM
Comment #409146

The law regarding nondisclosure of classified information says:

A party to the SF 312, SF 189, or SF 189-A may be liable for disclosing “classified information” only if he or she knows or reasonably should know that: (i) the marked or unmarked information is classified
(emphasis mine)

If there’s no evidence that a person “reasonably should know” then there is no basis for indictment.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 3:57 PM
Comment #409148

Warped, A person who is in the position of Sec. of State or POTUS or candidate for POTUS are those who REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW. You are arguing just for the sake of arguing. Hillary has been in government long enough to know the difference playing dumb is NO EXCUSE!!!!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 4:06 PM
Comment #409149

Comey says that a reasonable person would not necessarily have known the documents were classified. This is the basis for Hillary’s exoneration.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 4:20 PM
Comment #409150

Warped, Are you saying that the POTUS or Sec of State or any other cabinet position at that matter can play dumb? I can see you or me not knowing but high government people should REASONIBLY know.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 4:37 PM
Comment #409151

It’s possible for a reasonable person to believe a document isn’t classified without playing dumb. Especially if the document lacks classification marks and contains nothing that is not already in the public domain.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 5:00 PM
Comment #409152

Warped, But not as many as Hillary had on her server, quit playing dumb.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 5:22 PM
Comment #409153

Warren,

” I think the route he chose is the least destructive one, provided that he quickly updates the American people.”

Actually he chose the most destructive route. He just dropped a grenade down the shorts of democracy, and for no apparent reason. He doesn’t know what’s in the e-mails and won’t for quite a while. That leaves the dullards among us to speculate wildly about nothing.
Why bother to say anything until he actually knows what’s going on, because, oh, gee, that’s his job?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 29, 2016 5:34 PM
Comment #409154


” But not as many as Hillary had on her server, quit playing dumb.”

Hey Rich, how many e-mails did the Bush administration flush?

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 29, 2016 5:36 PM
Comment #409155

I trust that James Comey is capable of determining whether a reasonable person should have known the emails were classified. It would be highly presumptuous to second guess him.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 5:44 PM
Comment #409156

Hey Rocky, I don’t know and don’t care Hillary is running for POTUS not Bush or anyone from his admin.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 5:48 PM
Comment #409157

Warped, It’s highly presumptuous to think Hillary is that stupid.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 5:50 PM
Comment #409158
Why bother to say anything until he actually knows what’s going on, because, oh, gee, that’s his job?

It is also his job to be honest and transparent. He testified to Congress that the investigation was complete. Now, that is no longer the case. He had a legal obligation to amend his testimony which is precisely what he did.

Imagine how deleterious it would be if the FBI found something incriminating next week or worse, after the election. It would be truly scandalous for the FBI if they sat idly as Americans elected a criminal to the Presidency.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 5:51 PM
Comment #409160
to think Hillary is that stupid.

Whether or not a document would be considered classified by a “reasonable person” has nothing to do with the alleged stupidity of that person.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 6:00 PM
Comment #409161

Warped, As many classified documents found on her server and to claim that a REASONABLE PERSON could mistake them as not classified she would have to be either stupid or highly incompetent. Which is it???

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 6:07 PM
Comment #409163

Podesta and Hillary are calling for Comey to release the emails…really, do they really want them released, or is this just a whitewash because they know Comey CAN’T release them. Hillary has been telling us how transparent she is, and since Hillary already has the emails, why don’t she just release her copies.

Some have even gone so far as to say these new emails are duplicates, but according to the FBI, they have software that can determine if sent emails are duplicates. So these new emails are not duplicates, they are new. Evidently the leftist on WB have gotten their info on the emails from the same source as VP Biden.

Posted by: Blaine at October 29, 2016 6:13 PM
Comment #409164

Might I add, 10’s of thousands of new emails. The leftist have cried for months “emails, emails, nobody cares about the emails “. I wonder of Sanders wishes he had a do over on Hillary’s emails?

There’s definitely smoke here.

Posted by: Blaine at October 29, 2016 6:18 PM
Comment #409165

“I don’t know and don’t care Hillary is running for POTUS not Bush or anyone from his admin.”

Then you’re a freaking hypocrite.

Have a nice day.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at October 29, 2016 6:19 PM
Comment #409168

Rocky, After 7 1/2 years you still bring up Bush? Maybe we should petition the FBI to investigate his e mail practices, I’m sure Comey will jump at that idea. By the way I didn’t vote for Bush and I didn’t vote for either of the 2 A**HOLES from our major parties either.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 6:32 PM
Comment #409169

Rich, perhaps you recall Ms. Clinton actually blaming President Bush for our economic malaise in the third debate.

I was watching with my wife and some friends and none of us could believe our ears. This woman is horrible. she takes no blame for anything she has ever done politically.

HILLARY CLINTON is typical of the Leftist. They want to rule but don’t want to be responsible for their actions and consequences.

Posted by: Royal Flush at October 29, 2016 6:38 PM
Comment #409170

R. F., Exactly the left never wants to take responsibility for their STUPIDITY, they will blame someone else. Even after 7 1/2 years later Rocky comes up with a stupid comment about Bush’s e mails. I’m pretty sure if Rocky wants to check them the National Archives would be a good start.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 6:44 PM
Comment #409174
to claim that a REASONABLE PERSON could mistake them as not classified she would have to be either stupid or highly incompetent.
If a reasonable person could mistake them as unclassified, then that means she would have to be a “reasonable” person. Again, there is no reason to inject stupidity or competence into the equation. Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 6:55 PM
Comment #409177

Warped, so you are saying Hillary is NOT a reasonable person???

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 7:07 PM
Comment #409180

I am saying she is a reasonable person. After all, a “reasonable person” would have thought the information was unclassified.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 7:28 PM
Comment #409181

Warped, 26 years in government she should know the difference from Classified and Unclassified material. Granted screwing up on a few is REASONABLE but what she had on her server makes it difficult to grasp that she was Reasonable in her assessment of the material. Plus the fact that she played dumb does not help. “I did not send or receive classified material” then the question is how did it get on her server? Did you put it there Warped? Maybe it was Bush?

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 7:42 PM
Comment #409182

KAP,

I am not talking about a reasonable person making a few random mistakes. I am talking about the content of those particular messages being such that a reasonable person would make a systematic error in deciding how to treat ALL of them.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 7:51 PM
Comment #409184

Warped, Anyone who has as much experience as Hillary does in government would NOT make that big of a systematic mistake as I said a few yes but not all. She was Sec. of State third in line for the Presidency, that kind of mistake is INCOMPETENCE.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 8:32 PM
Comment #409185

Maybe someone could help me. Granted, I haven’t been on WB for a while; but the last time I was on here, Warren Porter was not supporting Hillary Clinton and now he supports, and defends her. While doing it in articles he has written in the independent column. Is he a leftist , who is trying to act like an independent; or is he an independent who is trying to convince everyone else to become a leftist?

After months of being absent; I see the same brain dead lefties on WB, making the same ignorant comments. But I was shocked to see that C&J are supporting Hillary for president. I guess my question about that would be, why is C&J still writing in the Republican/conservative column and not the liberal?

Posted by: Blaine at October 29, 2016 8:41 PM
Comment #409186
would NOT make that big of a systematic mistake as I said a few yes but not all

I don’t think you understand the difference between systematic and random error. A single systematic error would effect far more than a few emails.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 9:31 PM
Comment #409187

Warped, Then lets put it this way, Hillary’s systematic error was using a home brew server because that single mistake has come back to haunt her.

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 9:56 PM
Comment #409189

Yes, and it is a mistake for which she has apologized for. Still, I am not supporting her in November on account of the poor judgement she exercised in this whole matter.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 9:58 PM
Comment #409191

Warped, “Poor judgement” more like “Piss poor judgement”

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at October 29, 2016 10:13 PM
Comment #409193

Piss poor judgement is not a crime in of itself.

Posted by: Warren Porter at October 29, 2016 10:43 PM
Comment #409201

The snake head put it in perspective when he said Hillbilly used a private server because she didn’t want congress snooping in her business.

That’s intent and that makes it a crime, not bad judgement.

Posted by: Weary Willie at October 30, 2016 12:45 AM
Comment #409260

Hillary’s apology doesn’t mean crap. She only said the words because she was caught. If the woman had it to do over, she would do the same thing.

So why isn’t WP supporting Hillary…not because of bad judgment? Maybe because she’s a crook, or possibly because she’s a liar. If her lips are moving, she is lying. Yet WP, who cannot support her do unknown reasons, believes she’s telling the truth when she apologizes, even though she has been proven to be a habitual liar. Makes sense to me🤓🤓🤓

Posted by: Blaine at October 30, 2016 7:37 PM
Comment #409345

I think you have confused Hillary for her Republican opponent, Blaine. He is the one who cannot stop lying.

Posted by: Warren Porter at November 1, 2016 8:27 PM
Post a comment