• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Comey on Capitol Hill

MickeyW

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 10, 2015
Messages
14,012
Reaction score
3,439
Location
Southern Oregon
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton's statements and explanations about her email server to the House Benghazi Committee last October were not true, as evidenced by the bureau's investigation into whether she mishandled classified information.

"And my real fear is this, this is what [Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)] touched upon, this double tracked justice system rightly or wrong hey perceived this country, that if you are a private in the Army and you email yourself classified information, you will be kicked out but if you are Hillary Clinton and you seek a promotion to commander-in-chief, you will not be," Gowdy concluded. "So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand, why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be."

Comey challenges truthfulness of Clinton's email defenses - POLITICO
 
Did I read that Hillary was not put under oath by the FBI?
 
FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton's statements and explanations about her email server to the House Benghazi Committee last October were not true, as evidenced by the bureau's investigation into whether she mishandled classified information.

"And my real fear is this, this is what [Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)] touched upon, this double tracked justice system rightly or wrong hey perceived this country, that if you are a private in the Army and you email yourself classified information, you will be kicked out but if you are Hillary Clinton and you seek a promotion to commander-in-chief, you will not be," Gowdy concluded. "So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand, why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be."

Comey challenges truthfulness of Clinton's email defenses - POLITICO

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!
 
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!

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

I think it's wrong, I think she's guilty of a multitude of incompetence....and the bottom line here....She Does Not Deserve to be President!....never has!

Anyone who supports her ......is a pathetic sheeple.
 
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'm just wondering - Do you feel she did anything wrong? Forget Liberal vs. Conservative - is there anything that you can admit to with regards to this entire event that you feel she did illegally or unethically?
 
FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton's statements and explanations about her email server to the House Benghazi Committee last October were not true, as evidenced by the bureau's investigation into whether she mishandled classified information.

"And my real fear is this, this is what [Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)] touched upon, this double tracked justice system rightly or wrong hey perceived this country, that if you are a private in the Army and you email yourself classified information, you will be kicked out but if you are Hillary Clinton and you seek a promotion to commander-in-chief, you will not be," Gowdy concluded. "So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand, why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be."

Comey challenges truthfulness of Clinton's email defenses - POLITICO

Would she be liable for lying under oath during the Benghazi hearings? I wonder why they wouldn't charge her in that respect?
 
Turn it around Glen....if this had been Bush, or Trump.....the liberals would have gone ape**** over this FBI decision!

I think it's wrong, I think she's guilty of a multitude of incompetence....and the bottom line here....She Does Not Deserve to be President!....never has!

Anyone who supports her ......is a pathetic sheeple.
True

Then do not vote for her.

Most people say the same thing about those that support Trump.
 
Turn it around Glen....if this had been Bush, or Trump.....the liberals would have gone ape**** over this FBI decision!

I think it's wrong, I think she's guilty of a multitude of incompetence....and the bottom line here....She Does Not Deserve to be President!....never has!

Anyone who supports her ......is a pathetic sheeple.

Look Mick, when you got Bush Jr., Rumsfeld and Cheney walking around free as a bird, all faith is lost as far as holding our elected officials accountable anymore.

That ship done sailed a long time ago.
 
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 don't see that in Mickeys post. Who said that? You? This really is not a partisan issue. National security is bi- partisan. This about breaking and being above the law, not about what Comey thinks Clinton thought at the time she did it.
 
I'm just wondering - Do you feel she did anything wrong? Forget Liberal vs. Conservative - is there anything that you can admit to with regards to this entire event that you feel she did illegally or unethically?

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.
 
Would she be liable for lying under oath during the Benghazi hearings? I wonder why they wouldn't charge her in that respect?

The fix is in....

True

Then do not vote for her.

Most people say the same thing about those that support Trump.

I wouldn't vote for her if she was the only candidate available.

Look Mick, when you got Bush Jr., Rumsfeld and Cheney walking around free as a bird, all faith is lost as far as holding our elected officials accountable anymore.

That ship done sailed a long time ago.

Sadly true, but I never give up.

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.

I don't believe that for a second! I think she knew full well, everything that she was doing! She is no dummy, she's a cunning, treacherous, Crook...and a consummate Liar!

She's not incompetent...she's a Crook of the First Order and never should hold another public office and her security clearances should be pulled!!

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

I think it's wrong, I think she's guilty of a multitude of incompetence....and the bottom line here....She Does Not Deserve to be President!....never has!

Anyone who supports her ......is a pathetic sheeple.

And anyone who supports "declare bankruptcy donald" is a braindead moron.
 
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!

Project much?
 
I don't believe that for a second! I think she knew full well, everything that she was doing! She is no dummy, she's a cunning, treacherous, Crook...and a consummate Liar!

She's not incompetent...she's a Crook of the First Order and never should hold another public office and her security clearances should be pulled!!

Trump for President!

Ha ha ha! Don't you know? We in the Vast Left Wing Conspiracy have secretly bugged your phones, bugged your e-mails, made copies of the key to your gun locker...we've got all your account numbers, and we're all in black helicopters hovering just over that ridge in the distance, just waiting till Das Fuhrer Hillary take office so we can expose all conservatives to the gay ray and then we'll make you all Muslims - yes, you'll all be Gay Muslims! And if you're good, you might be able to lead the Liberace Battalion in our all-powerful Lavender Hijab Corps!

But at least you'd be able to smile a bit more watching "Le Cage Aux Folles"....
 
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.

what a complete load of hogwash.
why? because she knew exactly what she was doing.

she was informed multiple times by the IT department that what she was doing was
violating the law and she did it anyway.

so no ignorance of the law is not an excuse or justification for breaking the law.

she is ignorant that is for sure. she has proven that she is not fit to handle or secure classified data.
she should have her top secret clearance revoked and no longer valid or allowed to be renewed.

that would pretty much disqualify her from being president.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
 
I wouldn't vote for her if she was the only candidate available.




Trump for President!
I already knew you were not going to vote for her or any other Democrat. Oh wait you support the Democrat Trump. My bad :lamo
 
Did I read that Hillary was not put under oath by the FBI?

And... There was no recording made or transcripts. In other words, there is no public record that the interview ever happened.

She just gets slimier and slimier. To borrow Comey's word, how can any "reasonable" person vote for that fly bait.
 
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!

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.
 
Declaring financial bankruptcy is legal and can be made right through various remedies. Moral indignation about financial bankruptcy is perverse and pathological.

Ethical and moral bankruptcy are forever. There is no remediation. Murder is a crime punishable by death. Hillary Clinton killed Americans. She should pay. To support Hillary Clinton is to admit that you are ethically and morally bankrupt.
 
Look Mick, when you got Bush Jr., Rumsfeld and Cheney walking around free as a bird, all faith is lost as far as holding our elected officials accountable anymore.

That ship done sailed a long time ago.

Why is it that every time a a liberal gets in trouble, they just point fingers at George Bush? Stop with the excuses. Most republicans don't even like bush anymore and have gotten past that era.
 
FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton's statements and explanations about her email server to the House Benghazi Committee last October were not true, as evidenced by the bureau's investigation into whether she mishandled classified information.

"And my real fear is this, this is what [Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)] touched upon, this double tracked justice system rightly or wrong hey perceived this country, that if you are a private in the Army and you email yourself classified information, you will be kicked out but if you are Hillary Clinton and you seek a promotion to commander-in-chief, you will not be," Gowdy concluded. "So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand, why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be."

Comey challenges truthfulness of Clinton's email defenses - POLITICO


you need to watch his testimony, your comments indicate you did not
 
Declaring financial bankruptcy is legal and can be made right through various remedies. Moral indignation about financial bankruptcy is perverse and pathological.

Ethical and moral bankruptcy are forever. There is no remediation. Murder is a crime punishable by death. Hillary Clinton killed Americans. She should pay. To support Hillary Clinton is to admit that you are ethically and morally bankrupt.


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