I served 9 years in the intelligence community doing air threat analysis, OPINTEL, collection management, CI/HUMINT, and community strategic planning. If the FBI ever learned I used my personal email exclusively, run through my personal server, and found 51 classifed messages with 8 of them TS/SCI & SAP...I would be in jail. You name any other person they would be in jail. If I plead ignorance or argued that my stupidity really didn't hurt anyone - I would be in jail. 1 or 2 unmarked message that inadvertently contained secret or confidential material that wasn't sanitized completely I can understand...51* and 8 TS/SCI???!!! How is that not grossly negligent? Moreover, there is no way I'd have a job as any kind of professional with an FBI investigation on my record, much less a year long one that dealt with national security violations. The law does not apply to these people. *Edit: 110
Hillary and her ilk control the NSA, FBI, Justice Department and the Courts. We are a banana republic. Damn, Im considering Trump in hopes of his incompetence blowing the whole thing up.... nah, still voting libertarian. Im with Joe, time for Texas to Brexit and leave this republic to the bananas. If we're going to live in a corrupt state, we might as well have fellow texans in charge of the corruption. They would be better than Trump or Hillary.
Lynch stated she will accept any recommendation handed to her. She said that knowing what the decision is. Comey stated that she was just "careless." Careless is against the law when it comes to top secret and classified material. I sure hope Trump wins and does another "inquiry" with his own FBI head apainst Hillary. It's not double jeopardy when she wasn't charged. Has there ever been someone more guilty of a crime with all the evidence against her and was just dismissed? OJ was guilty as hell with a ton of evidence and he had less evidence against him than she does. Please Trump win and go after her. She's escaped the law long enough.
This wasn't going to effect the election anyway. They'd have drug the start of the trial out until well after November. The Clinton's money and insider contacts would have won in the end. Besides, Hillary voters would have voted for her even if it meant running the country from a jail cell. The average American wasn't even paying attention. One guy told me last week that she'd "already been cleared". Either he'd been talking to Loretta Lynch or knew absolutely nothing about it.
You should be more scared of having certain people in this country who prove themselves to be above the law.
"A nation can survive its fools... but it cannot survive treason from within. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear." - Cicero 42 B.C. I guess this family it truly above the law. I keep thinking "surely this time", but I'm always wrong. I would feel the same no matter the party. Unbelievable.
Than civil war? I'd argue your statement has been true since the founding of our country. How much time did Tricky Dick spend in jail? How about Oliver North (hint: 1200 hours of community service)? None of these situations warrant calling for secession. Power is inherently corrupting, regardless of who controls the power. That is unavoidable though. The most we can do is try to hold them accountable.
Joe's just talking out of frustration. When Joe actually does something criminal like Hillary has done over and over give me a call.
The Democrat Party as a whole is above the law. The Clintons are just their model scenario. When Comey said, "no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case" he meant reasonable as in "I would rather not die in an unexplained plane crash." Nobody should be surprised, the Clintons have NEVER had to obey the rule of law. Make mine Texit, please.
Do you think power corruption at the State level is any less? I'd wager it simply doesn't get the limelight as much, but it's there and probably in a much more impactful way to most of us.
After watching Comey's presentation it struck me there was a dual purpose. The first purpose was to impress on the public that the investigation was authentic, professional, and comprehensive. (It did leave this impression even though emails and evidence surrounding the Clinton Foundation was not discussed; only the State Dept email procedures). The main idea is to convince the public that the FBI is on the up and up and not touched by corruption. The second objective was to provide an out for the Justice Department which most everyone believes is corrupt. By stating he didn't think charges were warranted - something he really didn't need to say as his job was merely to investigate and hand over evidence - Comey allowed the Justice Department to get off the hook. Well schemed. The US is a banana republic.
Our society cannot survive when the government does not enforce the rule of law. That press conference was designed theater. Comey should resign.
If you blew 10x over the BAL, but swore you thought you were within the legal limit, does that mean our justice system sees you as extremely careless but not grossly negligent/criminal? I guess that also means you're "The Most Qualified Ever!" Comey also disected and slammed every defense Clinton used to defend her actions. Man...it must be good being a Clinton.
This may have put me in the "anyone but Hillary" camp. I had kicked around not voting before, but after this, I just can't see going along in any way with something that's going to allow this person to achieve the presidency. It's not a surprise, but to see the FBI let her off the hook by saying "but it doesn't look like she meant to do it" is just nauseating. And I'm actually not sure how we get to the conclusion that she didn't mean to do any of this - it all seemed pretty intentional to me.
Actually, depending on what network or news organization you read, we didn't "know" any of that. It was basically the accepted narrative, and the administration was never forced to correct it.
I took the "intentional" motive as related to taking information from the regular "secure" routes within the State Dept. and intentionally putting it on her servers. There is an extreme amount of evidence that HRC's cabal tried hard to keep top secret communication off her servers. Clearly, they failed miserably based on the 110 email containing classified or higher (8 were top secret) information. With that said, HRC was a ******* idiot. Any IT administrator should have said "WTF???" at her request.
She told Sullivan to remove classified heading and send nonsecure when the secure fax wasn't working. Her excuse that "not all parts in a memo are classified and those parts can be sent nonsecure" doesn't pass the common sense test (aka the legal test for everyone else). If you could have sent parts of that memo unsecured, the directive to remove the identifying markings makes no sense at all. While still not kosher by most standards, a senior officer could exercise some privilege by asking their subordinate to sanitize classified documents down to the specific abbreviated talking points she wanted and then sending. But all she directed Sullivan to do was to remove the classified marking. That is not how sanitation works. And after finding all this classified material on your home server, the ICIG will never buy the afterthefact "this is what I meant for him to do when I sent him this email" - not in 1,000 years. Comey essentially agrees...that's what so despicable about this whole thing. In conjunction with the fact that 51* emails classified were sent, 8 TS/SCI, with thousands more retroactively classified due to her failure to properly classify and use the correct markings on the information in the first place, the excuse that she didn't know what she was doing was in contravention of classified material law is absurd. You just don't "accidentally" transmit a TS/SCI message to a non-secure account - MUCH LESS 8 - without thinking about what you are doing. Really, the fact she had 8 messages instead of the 50 or so SECRET/CONFIDENTIAL messages is pretty incriminating statistically. Because if she truly thought what she was doing was "above board," random statical sampling from the message traffic a SoS uses and transmits on a daily basis would likely generate 1:1 TS/SCI:SECRET ratio of violations vs the 1:4 in Clinton's server. Did Comey let her off because Clinton, a Yale Law grad, was too incompetent in e-mail and classified material protocol to even have the competence to be negligent? *Edit: 110
Nice to see you admit this SH, but you're putting it mildly because it should read "the rules for the Clintonistas are different from everyone else."
Not a lawyer but as a layman it was sure interesting to hear Comey say no 'clear evidence' because makes me think the evidence was there just not of an easily provable nature.
With Petraus, knowledge of the law and intent were clear. He was prosecuted, but as a national hero not to the fullest extent of the law. Hillary, in this instance, can play stupid and intent is hard to prove. Kinda hard to make that jibe "with most qualified nominee ever" but her handlers will try to make the case: "Pretty smart, learned some lessons about benefits of transparency through this humbling experience and we contend not so nutty and dangerous as the guy she's running against." You want some "honesty?" How about a discount coupon for A Full Life: Relections at 90" by Jimmy Carter? If you don't need authenticity with your honesty, we can go over some Parson Weems myths, starting with George Washington and the cherry tree.
