Posted on 09/05/2017 1:09:26 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Could I get wasabi with that pretzel?
Maybe they are also selling the Brooklyn Bridge as part of the buildup for this...
The gypsies borrowed them from the Secret Service while they weren’t being guarded well enough.
He lost me at “Hillary Clinton Did Not Lie About Her Emails”
This article obviously coming from a state where marijuana is legal. Eight states where marijuana legal. Seven voted Hillary. Only Alaska voted Trump.
A House panel grilled FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for an email server scandal. In the hearing, South Carolina Rep.
Trey Gowdy questioned Comey on the definition of intent and how Clinton could possibly evade punishment. ..."
Here’s a full transcript of the exchange:
_____________________________________________
Gowdy: Good morning, Director Comey.
Secretary Clinton said she never sent or received any classified information over her private e-mail, was that true?
Comey: Our investigation found that there was classified information sent.
Gowdy: It was not true?
Comey: That’s what I said.
Gowdy: OK. Well, I’m looking for a shorter answer so you and I are not here quite as long. Secretary Clinton said there was nothing marked classified on her e-mails sent or received. Was that true?
Comey: That’s not true. There were a small number of portion markings on I think three of the documents.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said “I did not e-mail any classified information to anyone on my e-mail there was no classified material.” That is true?
Comey: There was classified information emailed.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton used one device, was that true?
Comey: She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as Secretary of State.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said all work related emails were returned to the State Department. Was that true?
Comey: No. We found work related email, thousands, that were not returned.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work related emails from her personal account.
Comey: That’s a harder one to answer. We found traces of work related emails in — on devices or in space. Whether they were deleted or when a server was changed out something happened to them, there’s no doubt that the work related emails that were removed electronically from the email system.
Gowdy: Secretary Clinton said her lawyers read every one of the emails and were overly inclusive. Did her lawyers read the email content individually?
Comey: No.
Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I’m not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?
Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.
Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?
Comey: That is right[]
Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent?
In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.
You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether
They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.
Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You’re right. An average person does know not to do that.
This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn’t say that in ‘08 but says it now.
She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.
So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don’t know whether or not she was.
And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.
You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce ‘On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.’
It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you’re Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.
My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there’s no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn’t. There’s nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.
And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and 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. 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. With that I would yield back.
(the source of this transcript is closed captioning)
How come this isn’t under “humor” ?
I stayed absolutely quite for a few minutes to see if he caught what he just said.
Nope.. never got it
I stopped at: “As a former adviser to Hillary, I know from personal experience...”
There is no evidence she lied because Comey didn’t tape the. Interview and would not allow anyone to take notes. BULLSHIT.
Jesus. This is the same crap they were selling two years ago. LOCK HER ASS UP.
“In email, Hillary Clinton tells aide to send talking points ‘non-secure’”
None of this dishonest tripe explains why classified material was sent and received on a PRIVATE, UNSECURE server.
So, LOCK HER UP!
‘Only three — just three — of Hillary’s emails “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information.” “Bore markings” is not the same thing as “marked classified.” In his July 7 testimony before Congress, Comey said that those markings were simply a (c) symbol somewhere in the body of the email and nothing in the header or subject line. He further stated that they were improperly marked and that it was reasonable for Hillary to assume they were not classified. Additionally, two of those emails are now known to have been mismarked as a result of “human error.”’
(A) The amounts of unmarked-but-classified-info-containing emails were greater than the 110 stated by Comey. About 2,000 were retroactively classified.
(B) “Bore markings” IS the same as “marked”
(C) How did those marked-confidential emails and classified-info-containg emails jump the air gap from the classified side to the unclassified side? What scheme did she order?
The Dems are propping up Hillary like when she couldn’t walk to the van.
I actually hope she gets the nomination and that Obama and Pelosi will constantly campaign for her with the help of the Democrat Media. It would take the Democrat party down.
As far as her not lying about the emails. Were her lips moving?
Comey said “we” have no reason to believe she lied to the FBI .... Of course not. She hadn’t spoken to the FBI when he wrote that.
As an employee of the Dept of State, is she permitted to drastically alter or augment it’s IT networks’ structure the way she did? I think not.
Having handled classified material, up to the classification that Hillary mishandled, I know from personal experience that this is horse manure. Anyone even marginally competent would have known the classification of that material and that (C) as a paragraph marking means “Confidential”. This story is not even a clever lie.
It Wasn’t Comey’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – It Was Obama’s
National Review ^ | 09/02/2017 | Andrew C. McCarthy /FR Posted by For Your Children
The thing to understand, what has always been the most important thing to understand, is that Jim Comey was out in front, but he was not calling the shots. On the right, the commentariat is in full-throttle outrage over the revelation that former FBI Director Comey began drafting his statement exonerating Hillary Clinton in April 2016 – more than two months before he delivered the statement at his now famous July 5 press conference.
The news appears in a letter written to new FBI Director Christopher Wray by two senior Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham. Pundits and the Trump administration are shrieking because this indicates the decision to give the Democrats’ nominee a pass was clearly made long before the investigation was over, and even long before key witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed. It shows, they cry, that the fix was in! {..snip..} (Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
====================================
(HAT TIP WULI) Obama.....abetted by Comey & Lynch..... short-circuited a Hillary indictment, and because she was not indicted, she could not be pardoned by Obama (a move for which the Clintons probably paid Obama plenty). So completing the investigation means indicting her by the Trump DOJ--b/c she is not in double jeopardy.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.