FBI papers reveal that Hillary Clinton did not mislead Congress, but was 'extremely careless'

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

Nope. There is no proof of intent.

Having an illegal private server shows intent. Everyone can see this. You are spinning and playing dumb in support of corruption because those who are corrupt are advancing an agenda you agree with. It's as simple as that.

a reply to: TheBulk

I'm not spinning anything. Those were Comey's words. I guess his words only matter when he says something you want to hear huh?

a reply to: UnBreakable

Then why are we having this conversation? It's really OT and irrelevant to the thread at hand anyways.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: UnBreakable

For one it isn't even a direct quote

Here is Comey's direct quote from the transcript.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences

www.politico.com...

enough of this "did not intend to" nonsense, that`s an excuse that a 6 year old can get away with using (i didn`t mean to pull the cats tail, mommy).
Hillary is an educated adult with no known obvious mental defects who wants to be the leader of the free world, I didn`t mean to, isn`t a good enough excuse for the things she has done. in fact it`s insulting to every educated adult in america that she is being allowed to use that excuse to avoid responsibility for her deliberate corrupt actions.

"sorry Mr. Putin I didn`t mean to launch those nukes"
"sorry america I didn`t mean to allow those terrorist to cross our open borders and detonate a dirty bomb in NYC"
" sorry american workers I didn`t mean to sign that trade deal that sent your jobs overseas"

if she really is that mentally incompetent that she habitually continues to do things against her will and against her intentions, then she isn`t competent enough to be President of the U.S.

I question the honesty and intelligence of anyone who truly believes that " i didn`t mean to" is a satisfactory excuse for a high level government official to use.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Aren't secretaries of state given training in how to handle classified information? It seems that "extreme carelessness" when it comes to national security is a sign of irresponsibility, while forgetting the training in handling classified information is a sign of incompetence.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Do you need an adult to tell you you're being lied to?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope
if you or I were extremely careless with classified information we would at least face a stiff fine, but more likely some jail time like that poor sailor is about to endure now.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Aren't secretaries of state given training in how to handle classified information?

Yes, they are.

However, Hillary Clinton Failed to Complete Security Training, Attend Breifings As Secretary of State

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Aren't secretaries of state given training in how to handle classified information? It seems that "extreme carelessness" when it comes to national security is a sign of irresponsibility, while forgetting the training in handling classified information is a sign of incompetence.

She signed the government form acknowledging that very fact.
You can see it here: The Washington Free Beacon pdf
Specifically Section #2 of the agreement....

originally posted by: Tardacus

I question the honesty and intelligence of anyone who truly believes that " i didn`t mean to" is a satisfactory excuse for a high level government official to use.

Her supporters all fit that mode. They can't even answer directly if she's trustworthy. But they impugn all Trump supporters and paint them with a broad brush.

Top Clinton Supporter Refuses Three Times to Say If Hillary’s Honest and Trustworthy
www.mediaite.com...

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: LesMisanthrope
if you or I were extremely careless with classified information we would at least face a stiff fine, but more likely some jail time like that poor sailor is about to endure now.

That's not necessarily true. If someone were to do the same thing Hillary had done they would have been subject to internal reprimand and consequences, unless, and this is very important, they were not still employed by the government agency.

That is a very important distinction that Comey made. The consequences of what they did is not prosecutable and is always handled internally.

But if you no longer work for a US agency, there are no consequences.

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheBulk

"Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" -Comey

"No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear. I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation — including people in government — but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation because we did our investigation the right way." -Comey

Source

Then at the end of all of that, Comey tells us that other people WOULD be prosecuted. You desperately want to ignore that fact.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: TheBulk

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: TheBulk

"Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case" -Comey

"No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear. I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation — including people in government — but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation because we did our investigation the right way." -Comey

Source

Then at the end of all of that, Comey tells us that other people WOULD be prosecuted. You desperately want to ignore that fact.

TheBulk

Then at the end of all of that, Comey tells us that other people WOULD be prosecuted. You desperately want to ignore that fact.

Where is that quote?

At about the 14:20 mark. In Comey's own words.

a reply to: Tardacus

I question the honesty and intelligence of anyone who truly believes that " i didn`t mean to" is a satisfactory excuse for a high level government official to use.

It's not a matter of belief. It's a matter of what you can prove.

a reply to: [post=21141258]introvert[/post

Special treatment isn't going to fly pardon or no..www.military.com...

originally posted by: uncommitted

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: Krazysh0t

We were already told by the FBI director that a corrupted, lying criminal was just extremely careless.

Even though it's proven that she knowingly lied to Congress and to the people of the USA.

A criminal by the very definition needs to be convicted of a crime. Using the term when the person hasn't been convicted of a crime (as people on ATS constantly did around Obama as well) isn't big, or clever, it's just rhetoric without any facts.

In the definition of "criminal" no where does it say anything about being convictes. Hence the phrase "convicted criminal." Try again.

originally posted by: cavtrooper7
a reply to: [post=21141258]introvert[/post

Special treatment isn't going to fly pardon or no..www.military.com...

Comey himself said that it would have been a double standard if they were to recommend indictment. 80% of cases similar to this are not taken to court unless some specific actions took place that prove intent.

Honestly, I don't know why we are still having to explain this to you guys.

a reply to: introvert

That's not true. I have had multiple friends with security clearances in the army and Air Force. If you even mess up your credit score or your wife moves out you lose your clearance, not only that, but if it's your doing you get demoted. This isn't some patty cake slap on the wrist in real life. Only in clintons case.

All this email/Congress issue will be moot come time when Assange decides to unleash his October surprise on Hillary. Her surrogates claims of transparency because she released the interview to Congress is bs anyway. First off, it wasn't Comey, but his underlings who did the interviewing. Plus there was no recording device but notes taken at her house on a Sat. morning. If she's that transparent, let's see the paid speeches to Wall St. transcripts.

originally posted by: avgguy
a reply to: introvert

That's not true. I have had multiple friends with security clearances in the army and Air Force. If you even mess up your credit score or your wife moves out you lose your clearance, not only that, but if it's your doing you get demoted. This isn't some patty cake slap on the wrist in real life. Only in clintons case.

You've proven my point. Such issues are handled internally. How can they "demote" her or take away her clearance when she is no longer with the State Department?