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

a reply to: Gryphon66

Polls show that serving Democrats know of the liability
of endorsing her. She is after all the only
Secretary of State called "extremely careless"
by the director of the FBI.

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Gryphon66

Polls show that serving Democrats know of the liability
of endorsing her. She is after all the only
Secretary of State called "extremely careless"
by the director of the FBI.

She is also the only Presidential candidate that has been 'Officially' proven to have lied (multiple times) directly to the American people about jeopardizing their national security.

a reply to: olaru12

With their short attention spans; come November it will all be a hazy unimportant memory.

November? I give them to Friday, unless the media keeps it afloat. Otherwise it will be the next conjured up craze, TV show, celebrity scandal, or socially offended group, to keep them distracted, shaken, or stirred.

a reply to: tweetie

OK, this is what I was getting at with my question. Something about the private email servers thing was bothering me (meaning there had to be a hidden reason not being discussed) and I was thinking they were used to avoid detection by, possibly, the NSA, or some other spy group. I didn't think of Israeli Intelligence.

Gordon Duff of "Veteran's Today" has written that (paraphrasing) all Secretaries of State have used private email servers since email was born. He also states that 7 million State Dept. emails were stolen by Israeli Intelligence through Wikileaks so "who would be insane enough to use a State Dept. server?"

Is this one of those websites I'm not supposed to link to at ATS? I won't this time just in case. I have before. The article is new from today and I just caught it in my newsletter.

Edited to Add: I don't care for the wording/tone of most of the article Gordon has written this time and neither do most of the commenters but the first part is what is of interest to me, the part about using personal email servers being SOP.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
She is also the only Presidential candidate that has been 'Officially' proven to have lied (multiple times) directly to the American people about jeopardizing their national security.

Indeed. And it was her "State Department" that was "lax".

Which really points back to Benghazi.

And as Comey said, many people knew, and did nothing.

After careful consideration of the facts and revelations;
James Comey most likely knew he had one shot, and he took it.
He made his stand, and if she wins it will be his last stand.

No way in h e double ll would she allow him to serve under her
after he made these statements. It is on the public record forever.

And he did cast a shadow on BHO too.

a reply to: burntheships

I know how trump should handle this. PLay this at everything he goes to. then talk about it. then move onto the issues and contrast himself against this liar. Also the presidential debate. he needs to play it and contrast himself Vs her for his rebuttal. Just ignore her and act liek shes not even there.

a reply to: yuppa

I think there are some things to come that will be at play.

A few things ....Comey would know for sure if Loretta and Bill met
"by chance" or if they planned it.

He did not have to reveal the wrongdoings to America,
he could have simply passed on the indictment.

He went beyond mundane defense of HRC, he took his
criticisms of her to a level that really undermines the
very fabric of her being. And "her" State Department too. And BHO.

I'm not a campaign strategist, but think Trump could
would do well not to "rerun" anything in particular.

That has a way of grating on folks.

To be clear -


Hillary was not exonerated. Comey said she violated the law but there were recommending no charges. The Clinton foundation / public corruption investigation is ongoing. When media asked him about those investigations after the press conference he said he could not discuss them.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Me thinks we'll here more about her carelessness and ignorance. Lots of guilt but no one to actually bring the charges.

a reply to: yuppa

Already begun.
NEW TRUMP CAMPAIGN VIDEO:
www.facebook.com...

originally posted by: burntheships
a reply to: Gryphon66

Polls show that serving Democrats know of the liability
of endorsing her. She is after all the only
Secretary of State called "extremely careless"
by the director of the FBI.

Yet, the last two Secretaries of State would be called the same under the same criteria.

At least she didn't delete 22 million emails from a private server like the Bush White House.

Of course, those are Republicans, and therefore, can do no wrong.

/shrug

EDIT: PS, Gratz on banging the Benghazi drum at the same time! I hope Mr. Trump follows your lead.

originally posted by: Xcathdra
To be clear -


Hillary was not exonerated. Comey said she violated the law but there were recommending no charges. The Clinton foundation / public corruption investigation is ongoing. When media asked him about those investigations after the press conference he said he could not discuss them.

NO, that's actually not what he said about Clinton.

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

a reply to: tweetie

In two seconds earlier today, I was able to provide evidence that the Russians and the Chinese both hacked DOD email servers within days of each other.

The idea that the "official government channels" are somehow sacrosanct is simply ill-informed or insane.

Of course, those facts don't serve the drum-beating of the Bash-Hillary group ... but, nonetheless, the fact is that apparently, all email systems are about as secure as a rather public sieve.

Maybe they are going for more fish...

originally posted by: Gryphon66 ... but, nonetheless, the fact is that apparently, all email systems are about as secure as a rather public sieve.

Not really an accurate statement, secure vs non secure.
Thought this has been covered many times, know it has...

You choose to ignore it.
Dont bother replying please.

originally posted by: burntheships

originally posted by: Gryphon66 ... but, nonetheless, the fact is that apparently, all email systems are about as secure as a rather public sieve.

Not really an accurate statement, secure vs non secure.
Thought this has been covered many times, know it has...

You choose to ignore it.
Dont bother replying please.

What does that have to do with anything under discussion here?

Secure Government sites are hacked by "hostile actors" pretty much at will.

The argument that Clinton has made anything "less secure" in this scenario is blatant BS.

And, of note, don't respond to me if you don't want a response. It's petty and childish.

a reply to: Gryphon66
18 U.S.C. Section 793(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document. . .relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer, Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Absolutely fascinating.

Thanks.

a reply to: cavtrooper7

Like I was saying... Not exonerated.