Comey on Capitol Hill

[Quazimodo]

oh for petes sake the guy is obviously a scum bag. when you go belly up all the people you owe money lose it

Given a choice between a treasonous murderer and a business man who suffered failures during his career, which of the two will you choose? Do you identify with treasonous murderers or men who take risks and fail? Can I assume that you have never failed at anything? If you have failed, how many people did you hurt? Are you a scumbag, too?

 

[Unitedwestand13]

It's not about comey being a republican or a liberal. You're the only one mentioning. But, for your information, as you inquire, I find most republicans think Comey was being corrupted by money or threats or of the like. If you listen to his words though, and the things he says, he clearly points out that she is a liar and that, if you believe, she did break the law.

But Comey stated that there was not enough evidence to charge Clinton with gross negligence.

 

[katzgar]

Given a choice between a treasonous murderer and a business man who suffered failures during his career, which of the two will you choose? Do you identify with treasonous murderers or men who take risks and fail? Can I assume that you have never failed at anything? If you have failed, how many people did you hurt? Are you a scumbag, too?

there is no treasonous murderer you are making stuff up just to demonize

 

[Quazimodo]

there is no treasonous murderer you are making stuff up just to demonize[/QUOTE

Thank you for your assessment. Have a nice day.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

It's not about comey being a republican or a liberal. You're the only one mentioning. But, for your information, as you inquire, I find most republicans think Comey was being corrupted by money or threats or of the like. If you listen to his words though, and the things he says, he clearly points out that she is a liar and that, if you believe, she did break the law.

The only possibility the Republicans and conservatives aren't considering - at all - is that maybe, just maybe he might be telling the truth, that he might be giving true and factual testimony.

Ah, but such a possibility Must Never Be Considered - it says right there in the Book of Conservative Dogma: "Thou shalt never believe a Democratic or liberal politician, and any conservative who dares to defend a Democratic or liberal politician shall be reviled and cursed, and never again welcomed into the bliss of Conservative Dogmatic Freedom!"

 

[Thorgasm]

Did I read that Hillary was not put under oath by the FBI?

Okay, that was funny.

Google FBI oath. :lol:

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Ok - fair response. But what about her deleting so many emails before handing over the private server? Does that sound like someone who was clueless? I think the evidence pointed to her trying to erase the hard drive. I'll admit I'm not savvy with computers, but it would take a direct effort to actually erase a hard drive. Honestly, I wouldn't even know how to do it.

And, what about the evidence that she didn't know what was considered classified and not classified. How would you respond to the argument that "ignorance is no excuse for the law?" As a good example, if someone goes through an area with a concealed weapon (having a concealed permit) but they cross into a state or area that prohibits guns no matter what, is their ignorance an excuse for violating the laws? Where does ignorance actually become a legal defense in America?

And lastly, what would you say about her right to have future classified information? If she clearly is inept at handling it, is it in the best interest of the American people to trust her again? Or to trust her with the nuclear codes? It just seems to be a question that is fair and needs to be answered but not based on party - just on common sense.

First, listen to her side of the story:

"In going through the emails, there were over 60,000 in total, sent and received. About half were work-related and went to State Department, and about half were personal that were not in any way related to my work," Clinton said. "I had no reason to save them, but that was my decision because federal guidelines are clear ... For any government employee it is that government employees responsibility to determine what's personal and what's work related."

Clinton said she "chose not to keep" the messages and said she expected people would understand her need for "privacy."

"We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails and deliver them to the State Department," she said. "At the end, I chose not to keep my private, personal emails. Emails about planning Chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements. Condolence notes to friends, as well as yoga routines, family vacations: the other things you typically find in inboxes.

"No one wants their personal emails made public," she added, "and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy."

And then think on this: if she was trying to hide classified information by deleting emails, don't you think she would have deleted classified emails, and not turned them over to the FBI for them to find? Besides, she - or at least those who work for her - would have known that whatever work-related e-mails she deleted would not be gone forever...all it would take is for one person with whom she shared email correspondence to say, "Hey - here's the email she sent me, but it's not one of the ones handed over to the FBI!" And that would have been a demonstrable felony. So it only made sense to do as the FBI required and turn over all the work-related emails.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Yeah, I guess Comey's just another Republican (and originally a Bush appointee) that's "gone liberal". Funny how the moment that a Republican or a conservative says or does something against conservative dogma, well, ha-RUMPH, he's a traitor, a crook, a corrupted individual, a criminal, whatever...

...but when a Republican or conservative say something against conservative dogma, the one possibility that MUST NOT be considered is...maybe he was right!

I guess this is another Glenn Contrarian "hurray for my team" no content post....

 

[EMNofSeattle]

First, listen to her side of the story:

"In going through the emails, there were over 60,000 in total, sent and received. About half were work-related and went to State Department, and about half were personal that were not in any way related to my work," Clinton said. "I had no reason to save them, but that was my decision because federal guidelines are clear ... For any government employee it is that government employees responsibility to determine what's personal and what's work related."

Clinton said she "chose not to keep" the messages and said she expected people would understand her need for "privacy."

"We went through a thorough process to identify all of my work-related emails and deliver them to the State Department," she said. "At the end, I chose not to keep my private, personal emails. Emails about planning Chelsea's wedding or my mother's funeral arrangements. Condolence notes to friends, as well as yoga routines, family vacations: the other things you typically find in inboxes.

"No one wants their personal emails made public," she added, "and I think most people understand that and respect that privacy."

And then think on this: if she was trying to hide classified information by deleting emails, don't you think she would have deleted classified emails, and not turned them over to the FBI for them to find? Besides, she - or at least those who work for her - would have known that whatever work-related e-mails she deleted would not be gone forever...all it would take is for one person with whom she shared email correspondence to say, "Hey - here's the email she sent me, but it's not one of the ones handed over to the FBI!" And that would have been a demonstrable felony. So it only made sense to do as the FBI required and turn over all the work-related emails.

Her side of the story should've been "I put only work related email in my work related email address" this is the crux of the problem, she has bad judgment, I do not care about her "right to privacy" as a public official, I didn't force her to put her work emails on the Government server.

just like I send no personal emails on my school email server and do not do work business over my personal email. I have the proper email for both of those.
The Report Comey released clearly shows Hillary violated the law, he simply declined to recommend prosecution. He also clearly stated she was negligent and careless (his words) in operating the private server.
I get it you like Hillary, she could stand on 5th Avenue with Donald Trump shooting people and you'll vote for her, but this method of defense is silly

 

[ludin]

No, no she wasn't

Actually I. Some places she was and she lied under oath this came out at the hearing.

Which is still why everyone is so perplexed.
Comey hung himself out to dry for clinton and Obama.

He was a moron in this case and should have done his job and cleared the fbi of any politics.
He should have dumped this trash heap in the doj and then let them squirm.

Instead he committed what should be considered obstruction, collusion and more importantly corruption.

 

[MickeyW]

Okay, that was funny.

Google FBI oath. :lol:

What's even worse.....THERE IS NO TRANSCRIPT!

FBI didn’t record Clinton interview, did not administer sworn oath

Hillary Clinton did not swear an oath to tell the truth before meeting with the FBI for three and a half hours last weekend, and the interview was not recorded, FBI Director James Comey told House lawmakers on Thursday.

The lack of a sworn oath does not remove the possibility of criminal penalties against Clinton if she lied to the FBI, though he said he had “no basis to conclude” that she was untruthful.

“Still a crime to lie to us,” Comey told the House Oversight Committee.

FBI didn’t record Clinton interview, did not administer sworn oath | TheHill

 

[MickeyW]

Actually I. Some places she was and she lied under oath this came out at the hearing.

Which is still why everyone is so perplexed.
Comey hung himself out to dry for clinton and Obama.

He was a moron in this case and should have done his job and cleared the fbi of any politics.
He should have dumped this trash heap in the doj and then let them squirm.

Instead he committed what should be considered obstruction, collusion and more importantly corruption.

Fully agree.

Rush said "the fix is in".... days before the interview....Rush was right!

 

[Jetboogieman]

Turn it around Glen....if this had been Bush, or Trump.....the liberals would have gone ape**** over this FBI decision!

But have no fear, cause you're going ape**** for everyone at the moment.

This reaction from the right wing was expected, I mean, 8 years.

8 years of moaning, crying, whaling, gnashing of teeth, finger pointing, calls for impeachment, Supreme Court Cases, more crying, more moaning, more whaling about Obama and anyone associated with him... And finally.

Finally when even I thought they might have had something, it was all for naught... Eventually, eventually, maybe one day, ya'll might actually cool your damn jets and stop seeing a scandal in EVERYTHING.

 

[American]

I think that she made a stupid mistake concerning her e-mail server - but I've seen people in very senior positions make stupid mistakes, too, particularly when it comes to technology that wasn't even dreamt of when they were young. That doesn't mean that they were bad at their jobs, because their jobs were much complex than this or that one issue. It meant that they were not at the time as conversant with modern technology as they needed to be. The smart ones, once they get a clue about their level of ignorance and its consequences, either learn the new tech or - more often - depend on those they can trust to cover the issues having to do with that new tech.

Here's one example. When I was on the USS Abraham Lincoln, I found out from a junior enlisted that it was easy to break into the MS Outlook folders of just about anyone on board. I checked out what he said, and found that I could very easily break into the e-mail files even of the Intel Officer. Does this mean that our Intel Officer - who as a matter of course would have had access to above-top-secret info - was bad at his job? Of course not! It meant that he was not as conversant with the technology as he needed to be. To make a long story short, it got taken care of.

The failure of our Intel Officer to keep his files secure wasn't a matter of legality or ethics - it was a matter of training, of a lack of technical knowledge. Same thing with Hillary - her failure with the e-mail server wasn't a matter of legality or ethics, but of training, of a lack of technical knowledge. That is what is at the root of the FBI Director's decision.

She didn't install the server, she ordered it to be done. And no doubt someone told her it broke security regulations. And she probably told them to STFU or get kick out of their job and never work again. So they kowtowed to her demands and helped her break the law. Multitudes of people have complained about her bitchiness and harassing attitude for 30 years. No reason to believe otherwise.

 

[MickeyW]

But have no fear, cause you're going ape**** for everyone at the moment.

This reaction from the right wing was expected, I mean, 8 years.

8 years of moaning, crying, whaling, gnashing of teeth, finger pointing, calls for impeachment, Supreme Court Cases, more crying, more moaning, more whaling about Obama and anyone associated with him... And finally.

Finally when even I thought they might have had something, it was all for naught... Eventually, eventually, maybe one day, ya'll might actually cool your damn jets and stop seeing a scandal in EVERYTHING.

Comey has long history of cases ending favorable to Clintons
In Berger probe said 'we take issues of classified information very seriously'


In 2004, Comey, then serving as a deputy attorney general in the Justice Department, apparently limited the scope of the criminal investigation of Sandy Berger, which left out former Clinton administration officials who may have coordinated with Berger in his removal and destruction of classified records from the National Archives. The documents were relevant to accusations that the Clinton administration was negligent in the build-up to the 9/11 terrorist attack.

On Tuesday, Comey announced that despite evidence of “extreme negligence by Hillary Clinton and her top aides regarding the handling of classified information through a private email server, the FBI would not refer criminal charges to Attorney General Loretta Lynch and the Justice Department.

Curiously, Berger, Lynch and Cheryl Mills all worked as partners in the Washington law firm Hogan & Hartson, which prepared tax returns for the Clintons and did patent work for a software firm that played a role in the private email server Hillary Clinton used when she was secretary of state.

Comey has long history of cases ending favorable to Clintons

So you keep running interference for Clinton....we will watch.
They are now reopening the Benghazi investigation on her, for lying under oath about her emails!

This is one bitch that really needs to take a fall.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

She didn't install the server, she ordered it to be done. And no doubt someone told her it broke security regulations. And she probably told them to STFU or get kick out of their job and never work again. So they kowtowed to her demands and helped her break the law. Multitudes of people have complained about her bitchiness and harassing attitude for 30 years. No reason to believe otherwise.

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” George Bernard Shaw

I found the same thing in the Navy - often, it was the a**holes (or at least the good leaders who knew when and how to be a**holes when necessary) who got things done. Those who were reasonable, who tried to find win-win situations, not so much...which was how I found out that I wasn't a natural leader.

That said, in your post you're making a LOT of assumptions...and if there's one thing I've found, assumptions based on nothing more than gut feelings, past experiences, and confirmation bias (and your assumptions seem to be chock-full of all three of those factors) all too often tend to be flat wrong.

 

[American]

“The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” George Bernard Shaw

I found the same thing in the Navy - often, it was the a**holes (or at least the good leaders who knew when and how to be a**holes when necessary) who got things done. Those who were reasonable, who tried to find win-win situations, not so much...which was how I found out that I wasn't a natural leader.

That said, in your post you're making a LOT of assumptions...and if there's one thing I've found, assumptions based on nothing more than gut feelings, past experiences, and confirmation bias (and your assumptions seem to be chock-full of all three of those factors) all too often tend to be flat wrong.

Your Shaw quote is inappropriate and total bull****. This is classified data we're talking about, get ****ing clue for a change.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Your Shaw quote is inappropriate and total bull****. This is classified data we're talking about, get ****ing clue for a change.

And your previous comment was about her attitude and bearing, her actions overall. I respond to the scope of your previous comment.

But I get it: in accordance with Conservative Dogma, Thou Shalt NEVER consider that maybe, just maybe it isn't as terrible as the Right-Wing echo chamber tells you it is! Besides, when have they ever been wrong?

 

[American]

And your previous comment was about her attitude and bearing, her actions overall. I respond to the scope of your previous comment.

But I get it: in accordance with Conservative Dogma, Thou Shalt NEVER consider that maybe, just maybe it isn't as terrible as the Right-Wing echo chamber tells you it is! Besides, when have they ever been wrong?

Yeah, she's a ****ing bully (another thing liberals usually hate, except for Hillary of course), and that's the only way some security person would fall on their sword to help Clinton and not lose their job.

 

[Glen Contrarian]

Yeah, she's a ****ing bully (another thing liberals usually hate, except for Hillary of course), and that's the only way some security person would fall on their sword to help Clinton and not lose their job.

Yeah...funny how that "some security person" was a lifelong Republican who was an assistant AG appointed by Bush and had donated to both the McCain and Romney campaigns...

...but I guess in your eyes Comey's obviously just a liberal shill....

 

[American]

Yeah...funny how that "some security person" was a lifelong Republican who was an assistant AG appointed by Bush and had donated to both the McCain and Romney campaigns...

...but I guess in your eyes Comey's obviously just a liberal shill....

I don't care what he was, he's a weasel who let down the entire bureau. His agent should spit on him. He said what Lynch told him to say, so she wouldn't look like a fool with her "hand-off" BS after meeting with Clinton. In the end everyone knew Hillary would get off for politics. You need to go back and listen to everything he said.

 

[DarkWizard12]

The only possibility the Republicans and conservatives aren't considering - at all - is that maybe, just maybe he might be telling the truth, that he might be giving true and factual testimony.

That's the entire PROBLEM. He is trusted, and he did do his job in this case. So when 3/4 of the report is everything she did wrong, ALL the counts of classified information released, INCLUDING TOP SECRET, and his testinomy over and over says the negligance is treated the same as intentional in classified cases, but then decides no indictment, something is wrong.

Thankfully glen, IF and only IF you believe what he says, she lied and can be brought up on charges for that. Thanks to Trey Gowdy, she may finally be going to jail regardless. That is point that you can't argue.

 

[DarkWizard12]

For all you liberals still excusing her, i got this straight from comey. Try to "explain it away"

“This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”

 

[Skeptic Bob]

I was up late last night watching the entire 4 1/2 hour testimony. I am glad I did. The Director conducted himself extremely professionally and avoided the attempts by both sides to bait him. He stuck to the facts and he explained himself very well. I almost wished HE was running for President.

While I greatly dislike Hillary and am disgusted by how she handled this, the Director made a very compelling case for why she couldn't be prosecuted using decades of precedence. It was disappointing but I get it.

I think he is right. If they were to prosecute Clinton under the code regarding negligent handling it would be "celebrity hunting". Only one person in nearly 100 years has been charged under that code due to Constitutionality questions and even in that case wasn't convicted on that charge. I am one of the ones who on multiple occasions has said she should be charged under the negligence part of the code. But when a layman like me reads a law I am missing out on all the years of precedence that is just as important inside our system of law.

And while the Director made the case she wasn't prosecutable, he sure as hell wasn't going out of his way to paint her in a positive light. He either directly or indirectly called her sloppy, negligent, and technically unsophisticated on multiple occasions. To be honest, when I finished watching I had an even lower opinion of Hillary than I did before. Based on the testimony I in no way believe Hillary has the judgement needed to be President. Sure, Trump is even worse but that is a whole other story.

Some things in the testimony left me thinking this is far from over, though. First, it appears what Hillary told the FBI and what Hillary told Congress under oath may be different. While she wasn't under oath talking to the FBI it would still be illegal for her to lie to them during an investigation. And of course it would be illegal to lie to Congress while under oath. Congress will likely ask the FBI, if they haven't already, to investigate possible perjury charges against Hillary.

The other thing I found interesting was the only time the Director flat out refused to answer a question was when the Clinton Foundation was brought up. Seems obvious by his response that is being investigated.

So it ain't over.

 

[Skeptic Bob]

For all you liberals still excusing her, i got this straight from comey. Try to "explain it away"

“This is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.”

Yeah, he steered clear of election talk but it was pretty easy to connect the dots. He said if she was still a government employee she could face punishment from reprimand all the way up to termination. But she is no longer a government employee so it is out of his hands. Whether he intended it or not the clear implication was, "It is in the voters' hands."