FBI Director will be holding a Press Conference at 11AM EST today

a reply to: Gryphon66

You've been told multiple times, that 110 EMAILS WERE CLASSIFIED!!!!!

Can you please stop insulting other people's intelligence...

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Gryphon66

"I'd love to see Trump try to attack Clinton on any point"

You mean like how a potential commander in chief of the armed forces was completely negligent in the handling of classified information and possibly put war fighters lives at risk..

Those kinds of point?

Or maybe " I never sent or received any classified emails"

That kind of point?

Or maybe the whole other Secretaries did it oo so it was ok..

That kind of point?

Trump will destroy her in a debate.

Can you prove that? The FBI after a year of investigation stated clearly that they had no evidence that any classified or sensitive material was exposed.

So I'm glad to see you try to prove otherwise, from behind that keyboard battlement of yours. LOL.

Trump can barely make cogent sentences that don't revolve around "It's gonna be yuuuge" and "don't worry about it, you can trust me."

It's laughable, and also, off-topic.

You've misread what clinton said, she didn't say no classified info was exposed. She said she didn't send or receive, and she did, hundreds of times. But further the FBI did say it was exposed, but they couldn't be certain if it was compromised.

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Gryphon66

"I'd love to see Trump try to attack Clinton on any point"

You mean like how a potential commander in chief of the armed forces was completely negligent in the handling of classified information and possibly put war fighters lives at risk..

Those kinds of point?

Honestly Rick it's a reasonable bullet point for any Trump debate strategy, but the issue is he will immediately follow it up with a defense of the size of his Penis or interjecting a brief infomercial to buy Trump steaks..I wouldn't hold your breath that the American public is overly concerned with whether choosing a private server was careless with security protocol when weighed against the Niagara-Falls pace of Trumpisms and Scandal.

All politics aside, just being honest. It's only the 30% of the country that still wish they were proven correct that Obama was born in Kenya that care and they are already voting for Trump. Those in glass houses...

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

You're not "comparing" them when you say that they're nothing alike?

You may need to go back and review the "one of these things is not like the other" lessons from your early education.

The article you linked doesn't point out anything except that Clinton's emails have been raked over with the FBI comb.

General Powell's quote is "totally discredited" why? Because you say so? LOL I'm sure you know more about the nature of State emails then he does ... so yeah, I'm going to listen to you on that one. Not.

I was not incorrect by claiming that the supposed issue here is that Clinton used non-government email for State communications, and so did Condi Rice and Colin Powell.

Why would I say otherwise?

Because you were incorrect. They used non-government email for personal communications. Not all of their state communications.

Comey laid out her abuses, misuses, and negligence, and violations. But, he doesn't think they can get a criminal conviction, so he doesn't recommend prosecution.

Obama will probably give her a pardon. If she gets in the White House, we will, imo, have a criminal in high command and the international cabal of political thieves and thugs will continue hold power.

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: Gryphon66

You've been told multiple times, that 110 EMAILS WERE CLASSIFIED!!!!!

Can you please stop insulting other people's intelligence...

You need to practice reading comprehension...he said the FBI stated they had no evidence that any classified information was "exposed".

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: Gryphon66

You've been told multiple times, that 110 EMAILS WERE CLASSIFIED!!!!!

Can you please stop insulting other people's intelligence...

You need to practice reading comprehension...he said the FBI stated they had no evidence that any classified information was "exposed".

And you need to understand what the word exposed means. It was exposed. Was it compromised? They don't know.

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

You're not "comparing" them when you say that they're nothing alike?

You may need to go back and review the "one of these things is not like the other" lessons from your early education.

The article you linked doesn't point out anything except that Clinton's emails have been raked over with the FBI comb.

General Powell's quote is "totally discredited" why? Because you say so? LOL I'm sure you know more about the nature of State emails then he does ... so yeah, I'm going to listen to you on that one. Not.

I was not incorrect by claiming that the supposed issue here is that Clinton used non-government email for State communications, and so did Condi Rice and Colin Powell.

Why would I say otherwise?

Because you were incorrect. They used non-government email for personal communications. Not all of his state communications.

Powell “used personal email to communicate with American officials and ambassadors and foreign leaders.”

www.politico.com...

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Gryphon66

"I'd love to see Trump try to attack Clinton on any point"

You mean like how a potential commander in chief of the armed forces was completely negligent in the handling of classified information and possibly put war fighters lives at risk..

Those kinds of point?

Or maybe " I never sent or received any classified emails"

That kind of point?

Or maybe the whole other Secretaries did it oo so it was ok..

That kind of point?

Trump will destroy her in a debate.

Can you prove that? The FBI after a year of investigation stated clearly that they had no evidence that any classified or sensitive material was exposed.

So I'm glad to see you try to prove otherwise, from behind that keyboard battlement of yours. LOL.

Trump can barely make cogent sentences that don't revolve around "It's gonna be yuuuge" and "don't worry about it, you can trust me."

It's laughable, and also, off-topic.

You've misread what clinton said, she didn't say no classified info was exposed. She said she didn't send or receive, and she did, hundreds of times. But further the FBI did say it was exposed, but they couldn't be certain if it was compromised.

What Clinton said? Do you mean Director Comey?

You need to read again. Comey's statement didn't say that ANY information had been exposed or compromised ...

Here, I'll provide it to you:

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. 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.

Transcript of Comey Announcement 7/5/2016

It is possible that "hostile actors gained access" ... yes, that's possible. Hostile actors "gain access" all the time to government systems. For example:

The ongoing saga of successful foreign hack attacks on government databases continued Monday with news of another break-in allegedly perpetrated by China. Just days after the reported spear-phishing attack on the Pentagon’s joint staff email system, which exposed some 4,000 civilian and military employees and is believed to have been sponsored by Russia, anonymous government sources told NBC News that a separate set of Chinese hack attacks targeted the personal emails of “all top national security and trade officials”.

Chinese hack of US national security details revealed days after Russian hack

Who's head do you want to roll for that?

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

You're not "comparing" them when you say that they're nothing alike?

You may need to go back and review the "one of these things is not like the other" lessons from your early education.

The article you linked doesn't point out anything except that Clinton's emails have been raked over with the FBI comb.

General Powell's quote is "totally discredited" why? Because you say so? LOL I'm sure you know more about the nature of State emails then he does ... so yeah, I'm going to listen to you on that one. Not.

I was not incorrect by claiming that the supposed issue here is that Clinton used non-government email for State communications, and so did Condi Rice and Colin Powell.

Why would I say otherwise?

Because you were incorrect. They used non-government email for personal communications. Not all of their state communications.

I'm not wasting any more time on this. I've quoted Colin Powell.

If you doubt him, take it up with the General.

originally posted by: SteamyJeans


Clearly if she was guilty of anything the swift, just arm of the law would never let her just get away with it.

Nope. It just means that she is not the only guilty party. Probably isn't even the most guilty in the spider web of deceit and collusion. And so to charge her and take her to court, would probably reveal others who would rather remain unknown at this point in time.

When an obvious guilty person is let off, it's because there's more to the story than is being publicly told.

That's all.

Innocent, by association with the guilty.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: RickinVa
a reply to: Gryphon66

"I'd love to see Trump try to attack Clinton on any point"

You mean like how a potential commander in chief of the armed forces was completely negligent in the handling of classified information and possibly put war fighters lives at risk..

Those kinds of point?

Or maybe " I never sent or received any classified emails"

That kind of point?

Or maybe the whole other Secretaries did it oo so it was ok..

That kind of point?

Trump will destroy her in a debate.

Can you prove that? The FBI after a year of investigation stated clearly that they had no evidence that any classified or sensitive material was exposed.

So I'm glad to see you try to prove otherwise, from behind that keyboard battlement of yours. LOL.

Trump can barely make cogent sentences that don't revolve around "It's gonna be yuuuge" and "don't worry about it, you can trust me."

It's laughable, and also, off-topic.

You've misread what clinton said, she didn't say no classified info was exposed. She said she didn't send or receive, and she did, hundreds of times. But further the FBI did say it was exposed, but they couldn't be certain if it was compromised.

What Clinton said? Do you mean Director Comey?

You need to read again. Comey's statement didn't say that ANY information had been exposed or compromised ...

Here, I'll provide it to you:

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. 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.

Transcript of Comey Announcement 7/5/2016

It is possible that "hostile actors gained access" ... yes, that's possible. Hostile actors "gain access" all the time to government systems. For example:

The ongoing saga of successful foreign hack attacks on government databases continued Monday with news of another break-in allegedly perpetrated by China. Just days after the reported spear-phishing attack on the Pentagon’s joint staff email system, which exposed some 4,000 civilian and military employees and is believed to have been sponsored by Russia, anonymous government sources told NBC News that a separate set of Chinese hack attacks targeted the personal emails of “all top national security and trade officials”.

Chinese hack of US national security details revealed days after Russian hack

Who's head do you want to roll for that?

You understand the difference between exposed and compromised right? Was it hacked it would be compromised.

This is what I was talking about when I said it was exposed:
"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."

We'll never know if it was compromised unless some other country leaks it.

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: Gryphon66

You've been told multiple times, that 110 EMAILS WERE CLASSIFIED!!!!!

Can you please stop insulting other people's intelligence...

Oh my ... how to answer that one ...

First of all no one has told me (or has to tell me) that 110 emails were classified; I heard the Director's statement, and I take him at his word.

Second ... I'm not arguing that there weren't classified materials in Clinton's emails ... as I noted from Powell's quote above, things get technically "classified" that probably don't really need to be. But, that's not for me to say, I defer to him.

Third ... if my stating the facts with logic and evidence insults your intelligence, the issue is yours, not mine.

In a surprise announcement Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey delivered a stinging rebuke of Clinton's "extremely careless" handling of classified information on the private email server she used as secretary of state, delivering months worth of negative TV ad fodder to her political opponents.

But the tongue lashing was a relatively light sentence compared to what could have been: criminal prosecution

SHOULD have been.

Clinton skates because of POLITICS.

That's right people.

The RULE OF LAW is only for the little people.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: Gryphon66

You've been told multiple times, that 110 EMAILS WERE CLASSIFIED!!!!!

Can you please stop insulting other people's intelligence...

Oh my ... how to answer that one ...

First of all no one has told me (or has to tell me) that 110 emails were classified; I heard the Director's statement, and I take him at his word.

Second ... I'm not arguing that there weren't classified materials in Clinton's emails ... as I noted from Powell's quote above, things get technically "classified" that probably don't really need to be. But, that's not for me to say, I defer to him.

Third ... if my stating the facts with logic and evidence insults your intelligence, the issue is yours, not mine.

Quite the doublespeak. Do you take the director at his word?
"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. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails)."

Or do you continue towing the clinton line? you decide.

The fact is that she lied about sending and receiving classified info in every possible meaning of the phrase. The fact is that it was classified at the time and it was classified properly.

a reply to: Dfairlite

You can make up words with others, but I'm afraid it won't wash with me.

The only time that Director Comey used the word "exposed" in his presentation is here:

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.

He's not even talking about anything to do with Clinton per se, but in "looking back at our investigations" ie. their standard practice.

You really should find out what you're talking about, before you try to talk about it.

There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust. Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.

FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook

Hours after FBI Director James Comey blasted Hillary Clinton and her aides for their "extremely careless" handling of classified information, the State Department rejected Comey's conclusion that the agency had a "lax culture" surrounding the treatment of sensitive material.

State Dept. refuses to say whether Clinton, aides still have security clearance

a reply to: Dfairlite

"Doublespeak?" LOL. I see you're emptying the bag of random argumentative phrases now ...

I've been quoting Director Comey's words TO YOU (and you seem to have trouble understanding them.)

What have I said that contradicts Director Comey's statement that you provide? Quote me.

And if not, drop the blatant obfuscation tactics.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Dfairlite

You can make up words with others, but I'm afraid it won't wash with me.

The only time that Director Comey used the word "exposed" in his presentation is here:

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.

He's not even talking about anything to do with Clinton per se, but in "looking back at our investigations" ie. their standard practice.

You really should find out what you're talking about, before you try to talk about it.

You don't understand the meaning of the word exposed vs the word compromised, not my fault.