• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • 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!

FBI Recommends No Charges Against Hillary Clinton for Use of Personal [W:234, 1861]

Re: clinton walks

polgara said:
Greetings, bubba. :2wave:

So what we basically end up with is the two top dogs - Lynch and Comey - both backing off and taking no responsibility on what to do about Hillary! Interesting to witness political moves by experts, isn't it? :applaud
Click to expand...

I'm listening to Comey and I have to acknowledge he sounds sincere about his reasoning.
But I can't get past the fact that it's still a troubling precedent to set especially in such a notorious incident involving such a famous person in such an important position.
 
Re: clinton walks

Frank Apisa said:
Then why not use the original wording?
Click to expand...

I just told you why. Don't ask me the same question twice when I've already answered it.

Not even close!
Click to expand...

Only in your mind, my friend.

But the agony of da feet is tough to deal with...so work it out as best you can.
Click to expand...

That's great, buddy.
 
Re: clinton walks

bubbabgone said:
I'm listening to Comey and I have to acknowledge he sounds sincere about his reasoning.
But I can't get past the fact that it's still a troubling precedent to set especially in such a notorious incident involving such a famous person in such an important position.
Click to expand...

Did you hear Gowdy questions to Comey concerning intent and how prosecutors use the very actions in question to prove intent ?
 
Re: clinton walks

TheGoverness said:
I just told you why. Don't ask me the same question twice when I've already answered it.



Only in your mind, my friend.



That's great, buddy.
Click to expand...

Hey...no problem.

What are friends for?
 
Re: clinton walks

Fenton said:
Did you hear Gowdy questions to Comey concerning intent and how prosecutors use the very actions in question to prove intent ?
Click to expand...

Yeah I did.
It was clear that Comey's version of "intent" didn't allow arrival at an "intent" conclusion that way.
 
Re: clinton walks

bubbabgone said:
Yeah I did.
It was clear that Comey's version of "intent" didn't allow arrival at an "intent" conclusion that way.
Click to expand...


Comey wasn't the prosecutor, and this should have been passed onto at least a grand jury
 
Re: clinton walks

Fenton said:
Comey wasn't the prosecutor, and this should have been passed onto at least a grand jury
Click to expand...


EXACTLY.... deciding this case OVER a JURY is against the MAIN LAWS
 
Re: clinton walks

Mycroft said:
Actually, what Trump ends up saying 10 minutes later is that he never said what the liberal liars and spinners say that he said...and he's correct every time.

That's a whole lot different than what Obama does. He outright lies and then, when caught in the lie, tries to spin it that he didn't lie. Or Hillary (worse) who lies and when caught just keeps on lying.

Face it, imyoda...whatever bad stuff you might dredge out of thin air about Trump, it pales in comparison the the corrupt, lying actions of the Democrats. And they have been doing that stuff for decades. Trump truly is the lesser of evils.
Click to expand...

Let's get a few things straight before we continue......

Suggesting my opinions/findings/beliefs are based upon partisanship is nor so and an insult (as in calling me a liar)..........

To accuse a group you call ""liberals" are to a one liars is baseless, dehumanizing, and as biased a belief as one may delusional......

Having said that.......

Please do not sound as if you are confused.......the only person we speak of here is Trump........

not to be confused with President Obama nor HRC...... and not the Democratic party .......the only subject under consideration is Trump and his untruths

What you refer to as "bad things I drag up about Trump" are take from news reports from responsible and reliable news sources ( often more than one) and with links provided......

Few to none of these subjects posted has been on this Forum has been challenged as untrue

Given that - reported facts -going unchallenged.........

And reports from several fact checkers and of late major networks ...........

All indicate and report the a long list of lies, untruths, execrations and spin attributed to Trump.........

So much shocking it is beyond belief...........

And more so deplorable the number of folks........in spite of his dishonest.........still support him........

What I post is based upon provable facts.......

Where all you are relying on is an emotional beliefs in myths.........

BTW

For you to argue Trumps lies can be justified by saying "they did it too"

Is an open admission of Trump's dishonesty........

You best try and using something else than a self indicting both you and your argument
 
Re: clinton walks

Get over it, guys.

You've lost this one!
 
Re: clinton walks

TheGoverness said:
Well, apparently he said she was "not sophisticated enough" to understand what a classified marking looked like.

But that's basically the same thing.
Click to expand...

That wasn't in his official statement.

There was this though :

"While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government."

But you won't hear people complain the state department, only Hillary. I can guess why.
 
Re: clinton walks

coomy said not a reasonable prosecuter would take this to a jury to decide//////// that talk is NOT REASONABLE!!.. BECAUSE at the highest levels of power compared to lower power and issues.... the lower can escape from letting the jury to decide truth from false because of the lower value and lower harm ..... THIS is where Coomy shows he is HIDING this from a JURY to decide and this number 1 law of the land
 
Re: clinton walks

This just got worse.
It's looking like the FBI may not have even asked questions about the accuracy of her public statements as I proposed in #1776.
 
Re: clinton walks

Absentglare said:
He's saying that he can't prove that she knew what they meant.
Click to expand...

he is hiding this from a jury to decide //////////breaking the number 1 law of the land
 
Re: clinton walks

TheGoverness said:
Because it sounds a whole lot nicer than saying "she's too stupid".



Nope, it's basically the same thing, just different wording.
Click to expand...

It wasn't the same thing, at all. He is saying that he is not sure whether she was aware of what the marking meant or not.

If he had said ignorant, your position might be defensible. He said stupid, so it is not. Being stupid is considerably different than lacking specific knowledge.
 
Re: clinton walks

bubbabgone said:
This just got worse.
It's looking like the FBI may not have even asked questions about the accuracy of her public statements as I proposed in #1776.
Click to expand...

... Why would they ?
 
Re: clinton walks

Fenton said:
Baiting ...
Click to expand...

Only because you have actually lost this one; and don't you dare give anybody that spiel about 'the American people lost this'. The American people don't give a **** about this; you do because you're about as partisan and irrational as it gets when it comes to the word 'Clinton'.

I told you a long time ago that it wasn't going to lead anywhere. You refused to listen. Now you're trying to investigate the FBI for not coming up with the result you wanted.

You lost, learn when to give up.
 
Re: clinton walks

Hatuey said:
Only because you have actually lost this one; and don't you dare give anybody that spiel about 'the American people lost this'. The American people don't give a **** about this; you do because you're about as partisan and irrational as it gets when it comes to the word 'Clinton'.

I told you a long time ago that it wasn't going to lead anywhere. You refused to listen. Now you're trying to investigate the FBI for not coming up with the result you wanted.
Click to expand...

but you don't take good advice that living in here humped over a computer is a low logic decision because that is unhealthy and makes you out of balance... you have nearly 38K posts is this a horrible decision you are making or are you being paid to work non stop on forums to work an agenda?
 
Re: clinton walks

Absentglare said:
It wasn't the same thing, at all. He is saying that he is not sure whether she was aware of what the marking meant or not.

If he had said ignorant, your position might be defensible. He said stupid, so it is not. Being stupid is considerably different than lacking specific knowledge.
Click to expand...

Yes. The 3 "marked" classified (and not even classified correctly) emails that were found (0.001 of all her emails)

were made in error.



Daily Press Briefing - July 6, 2016

KIRBY: Generally speaking, there’s a standard process for developing call sheets for the secretary of state. Call sheets are often marked – it’s not untypical at all for them to be marked at the confidential level – prior to a decision by the secretary that he or she will make that call. Oftentimes, once it is clear that the secretary intends to make a call, the department will then consider the call sheet SBU, sensitive but unclassified, or unclassified altogether, and then mark it appropriately and prepare it for the secretary’s use in actually making the call. The classification of a call sheet therefore is not necessarily fixed in time, and staffers in the secretary’s office who are involved in preparing and finalizing these call sheets, they understand that. Given this context, it appears the markings in the documents raised in the media report were no longer necessary or appropriate at the time that they were sent as an actual email. So it appears that those --"

Some good stuff at the link that knocks it away.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom