Yes, Donald Trump, the FBI Can Vet 650,000 Emails in Eight Days

originally posted by: Cygnis
Yup, we looked through 650,000 emails, didn't find the any incriminating words..

Just conversations about pizza, spirit cooking, and other weird things that we have no clue about.

In fact, it kind'a read like a weird facebook exchange, but it's Clinton and her people.. So there was no direct intent, so it's all good. Nothing to see here, have a nice day..

Fun things about search filters, they're not intuitive..

If you look for "book" it will only show you things referring to "book", not "a large volume of pages", or "manual" or "written texts".

Yes my friend and as trivial as some may consider your points they are the sort of things folks would use, in the case of eyeball and intuitive digestion not being used, to fool a dumb machine if not a human. Pizza could mean anything but these drink the c.a. Clinton lovers sorts will demand face value on that.

Document Disclosure for Examination for Discovery in Legal cases is done electronically almost exclusively now. Presuming the FBI had set parameters they were searching, a thorough search of 650,000 documents - especially emails - is not extraordinary in any way and easily done.

Having a backroom of smelly Juniors pouring over boxes of documents just isnt done anymore.

Nah, I think the whole thing was a set up. First the announcement 11 days before the election when they had the information weeks before, then a second 'no prosecution' decision a couple of days before. Smother the wikileaks stories and give Clinton a boost before the vote.

Probably haven't even looked all the emails or done and serious investigation.

Comey actually managed to piss off both parties. Hillary more. She is going deal with him harshly if elected. Probably the most hated man in America. Shamed himslef and the FBI. 3 of his field offices wanted to investigate the foundation. They were told to STFU.

originally posted by: UKTruth
Nah, I think the whole thing was a set up. First the announcement 11 days before the election when they had the information weeks before, then a second 'no prosecution' decision a couple of days before. Smother the wikileaks stories and give Clinton a boost before the vote.

Probably haven't even looked all the emails or done and serious investigation.

He never mentioned Huma. Not one word. Dude is a joke.

a reply to: Cygnis

Just goes to show that law, and justice are illusions for only the slaves of the country.

Slave being anyone not in the inner circle.

Just like all the other illusions. Control and to keep people in line, while the ones at the top run rampant and do as they please.

encore......encore.........

I'm with you. I can't see these politicians and the string pullers taking their hands off the steering wheel, nor opening up the purse to give the US worker a raise, they haven't had one since 1975.

No the FBI can't vet 650,000 emails in even 30 days.

The FBI has to contact another agency I believe the NSA or SD to get classifications for each emails because the FBI themselves can't determine classification of the emails.

That's what the propaganda article doesn't tell you.

a reply to: seasonal

Forget about your theory for a moment. I want you to write a post saying:

"Hillary is not corrupted".

Come on, say it.

a reply to: xstealth

Were there 650,000 emails to and from Clintons email server? Because that's what is/was under investigation. As Comey plainly stated in his Oct. 28 letter.

BTW, where did that 650,000 number come from in the first place?

a reply to: Phage

Comey said Hillary basically committed the crimes, but she did not have 'intent'.

In other words:

I sure hope this is just all show to make the FBI appear like they are doing their job.

I mean, some terrorist sending seemingly benign messages over email about cooking and yoga...

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Phage

Comey said Hillary basically committed the crimes, but she did not have 'intent'.

Regarding the law he was referring to, there is no crime without intent.

originally posted by: Phage

originally posted by: GodEmperor
a reply to: Phage

Comey said Hillary basically committed the crimes, but she did not have 'intent'.

Regarding the law he was referring to, there is no crime without intent.

The law does not require intent, it just has not been prosecuted for a long time without intent.

a reply to: UKTruth

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

www.law.cornell.edu...

That is what Comey was talking about.

COMEY WASTED HIS TIME EVEN LOOKING!

Why?

Because he has already confirmed that Hillary had classified e-mails on her home computer/server. But he gave her a pass because she didn't mentally comprehend right vs wrong on the issue.

SO.. If the FBI had found NEW classified E-mails on Weiner's computer, "WHAT DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE!?!"

a reply to: carewemust

I guess you didn't read his Oct. 28 letter.

a reply to: Phage

There is no intent necessary with gross negligence, however the very existence of a private server proves intent.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: UKTruth

Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—

www.law.cornell.edu...

That is what Comey was talking about.

Already read it 100 times. No intent required. Also more than code 798 in play here.

a reply to: GodEmperor

There is no intent necessary with gross negligence, however the very existence of a private server proves intent.

The statute makes no mention of negligence.
Intent to supply classified information to unauthorized people? No.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: GodEmperor

There is no intent necessary with gross negligence, however the very existence of a private server proves intent.

The statute makes no mention of negligence.
Intent to supply classified information to unauthorized people? No.

That is because you have not looked at all the relevant statutes.
Try 793 for starters, but there are others too in play.

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, 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.