Hillary Clinton

and bcc, I'm not even close to being sorry. I know I'm right, and I know you're wrong.

His 'opinion' was based on a year long investigation by the FBI.

You reject that? You also reject the Intel IGs findings?

I leave it up to those reading this to judge how ridiculous it is and invite anyone who agrees with you to so state.

drummerboy said:

and bcc, I'm not even close to being sorry. I know I'm right, and I know you're wrong.

You know Hillary didn't lie about the e-mails. Good luck with that.

BCC said:

drummerboy said:

and bcc, I'm not even close to being sorry. I know I'm right, and I know you're wrong.

You know Hillary didn't lie about the e-mails. Good luck with that.

CBS news presented tapes of Hillary lying,   saying that there was no classified materials in any of the 

e mails.   The FBI said there was.

author said:

BCC said:

drummerboy said:

and bcc, I'm not even close to being sorry. I know I'm right, and I know you're wrong.

You know Hillary didn't lie about the e-mails. Good luck with that.

CBS news presented tapes of Hillary lying,   saying that there was no classified materials in any of the 

e mails.   The FBI said there was.

Out of a gazillion emails, the FBI found a very small number containing classified information.  So, I suppose HRC should have said, "To the best of my knowledge ...".

This, of course, is why you have to lawyer up when talking to the police or FBI.

If Martha Stewart had lawyered up from the git go, she would never had gone to jail for perjury.

This is from the transcript Ridski posted.

'During
an extended exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Comey affirmed that
the FBI's investigation found information marked classified on her
server even after Clinton had said that she had neither sent nor
received any items marked classified.
"That is not true," Comey said. "There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents."
Asked
whether Clinton's testimony that she did not email "any classified
material to anyone on my email" and "there is no classified material"
was true, Comey responded, "No, there was classified material emailed."
"Secretary
Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?" Gowdy asked, to which
Comey answered, "She used multiple devices during the four years of her
term as secretary of state."
Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department.
"No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned," Comey said.
"Secretary
Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work-related emails
from her personal account. Was that true?" Gowdy asked.
"That's a
harder one to answer," Comey responded. "We found traces of work-related
emails in, on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or
whether when a server changed out something happened to them, there is
no doubt that the work-related emails that were removed electronically
from the email system."
Gowdy asked whether Clintons' lawyers read every one of her emails as she had said. Comey replied, "No."

Is there really any question that she lied and lied about important issues.

Did she also not lie according to the IG?

BCC said:

This is from the transcript Ridski posted.



Is there really any question that she lied and lied about important issues.

I think this is mostly bull***** and smoke.  If you asked the president of my business unit detailed questions about the company email operations, I would imagine she would be wrong in many cases,  I could then say she lied.

tjohn said:

BCC said:

This is from the transcript Ridski posted.



Is there really any question that she lied and lied about important issues.

I think this is mostly bull***** and smoke.  If you asked the president of my business unit detailed questions about the company email operations, I would imagine she would be wrong in many cases,  I could then say she lied.

If you asked your President this, about something she had done:

Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department.
"No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned," Comey said.

would she not know the answer? 

20 or more top secret emails were on those e-mails not returned.

BCC said:

tjohn said:

If you asked your President this, about something she had done:

Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department.
"No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned," Comey said.

would she not know the answer?

Probably not.

tjohn said:

BCC said:

tjohn said:

If you asked your President this, about something she had done:

Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department.
"No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned," Comey said.

would she not know the answer?

Probably not.

She wouldn't know that she had not returned thousands of e-mails some containing top secret and above information and would say she had? 

You need a new President.

BCC said:

She wouldn't know that she had not returned thousands of e-mails some containing top secret and above information and would say she had? 

You need a new President.

She would assume that this was taken care of by one of her reports while she was attending to her important responsibilities.

BCC said:

This is from the transcript Ridski posted.


'During
an extended exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Comey affirmed that
the FBI's investigation found information marked classified on her
server even after Clinton had said that she had neither sent nor
received any items marked classified.
"That is not true," Comey said. "There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents."
Asked
whether Clinton's testimony that she did not email "any classified
material to anyone on my email" and "there is no classified material"
was true, Comey responded, "No, there was classified material emailed."
"Secretary
Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?" Gowdy asked, to which
Comey answered, "She used multiple devices during the four years of her
term as secretary of state."
Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department.
"No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned," Comey said.
"Secretary
Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work-related emails
from her personal account. Was that true?" Gowdy asked.
"That's a
harder one to answer," Comey responded. "We found traces of work-related
emails in, on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or
whether when a server changed out something happened to them, there is
no doubt that the work-related emails that were removed electronically
from the email system."
Gowdy asked whether Clintons' lawyers read every one of her emails as she had said. Comey replied, "No."


Is there really any question that she lied and lied about important issues.

To be clear, that's not a transcript I posted, that's an article quoting selected parts of the hearing.

tjohn said:

BCC said:

She wouldn't know that she had not returned thousands of e-mails some containing top secret and above information and would say she had? 

You need a new President.

She would assume that this was taken care of by one of her reports while she was attending to her important responsibilities.

Protecting your companies trade secrets is not one of your President's major responsibilities?

Is your President also extremely careless about handling this information?

ridski said:

BCC said:

This is from the transcript Ridski posted.


'During
an extended exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Comey affirmed that
the FBI's investigation found information marked classified on her
server even after Clinton had said that she had neither sent nor
received any items marked classified.
"That is not true," Comey said. "There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents."
Asked
whether Clinton's testimony that she did not email "any classified
material to anyone on my email" and "there is no classified material"
was true, Comey responded, "No, there was classified material emailed."
"Secretary
Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?" Gowdy asked, to which
Comey answered, "She used multiple devices during the four years of her
term as secretary of state."
Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department.
"No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned," Comey said.
"Secretary
Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work-related emails
from her personal account. Was that true?" Gowdy asked.
"That's a
harder one to answer," Comey responded. "We found traces of work-related
emails in, on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or
whether when a server changed out something happened to them, there is
no doubt that the work-related emails that were removed electronically
from the email system."
Gowdy asked whether Clintons' lawyers read every one of her emails as she had said. Comey replied, "No."


Is there really any question that she lied and lied about important issues.

To be clear, that's not a transcript I posted, that's an article quoting selected parts of the hearing.

Is it accurate or slanted?

BCC said:

tjohn said:

BCC said:

She wouldn't know that she had not returned thousands of e-mails some containing top secret and above information and would say she had? 

You need a new President.

She would assume that this was taken care of by one of her reports while she was attending to her important responsibilities.

Protecting your companies trade secrets is not one of your President's major responsibilities?

Is your President also extremely careless about handling this information?

Not at all. But she has a reasonable expectation that her employees take care of this sort of thing.

tjohn said:

BCC said:

tjohn said:

BCC said:

She wouldn't know that she had not returned thousands of e-mails some containing top secret and above information and would say she had? 

You need a new President.

She would assume that this was taken care of by one of her reports while she was attending to her important responsibilities.

Protecting your companies trade secrets is not one of your President's major responsibilities?

Is your President also extremely careless about handling this information?

Not at all. But she has a reasonable expectation that her employees take care of this sort of thing.

She had them on a server she wasn't supposed to be using, had them two years after they were supposed to be returned, and she didn't know they were there?

She was the one who put them there. 

If your President who is supposed to protect your trade secrets was so extremely careless did this, would she still be President?

DaveSchmidt said:

GL2 said:

How hapless and low in the standings do my Yanks have to get before we show them some kindness?  "> 

Can you say Horace Clarke?

My hunch has been that you and, say, hankzona were more or less born into your condition. That's a little different.

True. As a kid, I actually saw The Mick hit one. Mets were the new kids in town. Can you say Elio Chacon?  

This e mail business as far as the general public is concerned will fade into obscurity 

However the man with the orange hair and out sized ego will not allow that to happen

I have my own suspicions of how things transpired............but I am a single voter

in a state that will go overwhelmingly to Hillary

It is the nation she will have to convince of her innocence 

"For lack of a nail."......

author said:

This e mail business as far as the general public is concerned will fade into obscurity 

However the man with the orange hair and out sized ego will not allow that to happen

You are guaranteed to be right.

What is of more concern is the fact that there is the threat that there will be a constant drip, drip, of emails embarrassing Clinton and a possible October surprise - the claim that there is an e-mail which would put her in jail. 

The GOP will continue to hammer away at her but it probably will have less and less impact - unless there really is that drip,drip, and IF there is that October surprise it's going to create one hell of a situation.

BCC said:

What is of more concern is the fact that there is the threat that there will be a constant drip, drip, of emails embarrassing Clinton and a possible October surprise - the claim that there is an e-mail which would put her in jail. 

The GOP will continue to hammer away at her but it probably will have less and less impact - unless there really is that drip,drip, and IF there is that October surprise it's going to create one hell of a situation.

All you can do is keep hoping.

BCC said:

What is of more concern is the fact that there is the threat that there will be a constant drip, drip, of emails embarrassing Clinton and a possible October surprise - the claim that there is an e-mail which would put her in jail. 

The GOP will continue to hammer away at her but it probably will have less and less impact - unless there really is that drip,drip, and IF there is that October surprise it's going to create one hell of a situation.

Every election I hear about the possibility of an October surprise, yet I've never seen one.

dave23 said:

BCC said:

What is of more concern is the fact that there is the threat that there will be a constant drip, drip, of emails embarrassing Clinton and a possible October surprise - the claim that there is an e-mail which would put her in jail. 

The GOP will continue to hammer away at her but it probably will have less and less impact - unless there really is that drip,drip, and IF there is that October surprise it's going to create one hell of a situation.

Every election I hear about the possibility of an October surprise, yet I've never seen one.

Assange hates the Clintons and if he can hurt them he will. I doubt the timing of the last drop was an accident. As to the rest, obviously it remains to be seen. 

I didn't member one so I checked it. Much to my surprise this came up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_surprise

It's hard to credit the idea that there's an email that will get Clinton indicted. Wikileaks (via Russian intelligence, as best we can tell) got DNC emails, and it looks like Russian intelligence has also hacked other Democratic party organizations (including the DCCC and the Clinton campaign), but while I'm sure there's plenty of potentially embarrassing material there, it's hard to imagine anything blatantly illegal. At a stretch, maybe questions around fundraising, but that's about all I can think of, and even then it seems unlikely any sort of smoking gun getting Clinton personally in trouble would be there.

As an aside, Russia isn't exactly putting themselves in the good graces of the most likely next US administration, are they? They're making a pretty big bet on Trump, which anyone in Atlantic City can tell you is probably not the smartest move.

ETA - per this NY mag article, it looks like there's even confusion as to whether wikileaks ever claimed to have an email that could get Clinton indicted.

Makes me wonder what the hack of Clinton's system retrieved. Would it also include donations made to the Clinton campaign?

Are all those who donated at risk? Their data sitting on some Russian servers?

Will the Russians sell or give the list to Trump? To be his enemies list? Shades of Richard Nixon.

author said:

I sort of like my politicians to tell me the truth.  

That puts you in a distinct minority. The most successful and popular Presidents in my lifetime were Reagan who had great difficulty separating fact from fiction and Bill Clinton who... well we all know.

BG9 said:

Makes me wonder what the hack of Clinton's system retrieved. 

Wait - was a hack confirmed?  I thought it was only something Trump was wishing for.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/politics/clinton-campaign-hacked-russians.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

PVW said:

It's hard to credit the idea that there's an email that will get Clinton indicted. Wikileaks (via Russian intelligence, as best we can tell) got DNC emails, and it looks like Russian intelligence has also hacked other Democratic party organizations (including the DCCC and the Clinton campaign), but while I'm sure there's plenty of potentially embarrassing material there, it's hard to imagine anything blatantly illegal. At a stretch, maybe questions around fundraising, but that's about all I can think of, and even then it seems unlikely any sort of smoking gun getting Clinton personally in trouble would be there.

As an aside, Russia isn't exactly putting themselves in the good graces of the most likely next US administration, are they? They're making a pretty big bet on Trump, which anyone in Atlantic City can tell you is probably not the smartest move.

ETA - per this NY mag article, it looks like there's even confusion as to whether wikileaks ever claimed to have an email that could get Clinton indicted.

There is indeed confusion as to what he said and what he meant, which is why I put a big IF regarding a possible October surprise. However this is a personal vendetta, he hates the Clintons, and if he has any damaging e-mails he will post them at a time most likely to hurt her. We will find out in the near future.

As to Russian relations, they made their feelings known when she pressed the 'Reset button'. Currently they plan to hold naval exercises with the Chinese in the China Sea, an area where we are confronting the Chinese.