PDA

View Full Version : Fbi Director Comey says... Clinton Guilty of mishandling Classified Information



Daniel Noyes
07-05-2016, 05:14 PM
and he can not be sure that info was not compromised by foreign powers... Buuuuuuuuuuuutttt let's not press any charges... because it was a "mistake" and she is Hillary Clinton... the definition of
"Loose Cannon"

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mee72289e9f3458ebba938628a29838f4o1&pid=15.1&P=0&w=333&h=167

Willin'
07-05-2016, 05:18 PM
Odd, I just saw him saying on TV that no charges would be forthcoming. You're elation appears to be misplaced, Dan.

Daniel Noyes
07-05-2016, 05:19 PM
Now we'll just have to wait and see if the Justice Department and Loretta Lynch "Do the Right Thing"... wont we? wonder if they'll treat Clinton like every other Millitary Personel, Service Member found "accidentally" ;) mishandling classified info ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????

what do you all think.... Will Hillary get special treatment? different from US Service men?

Willin'
07-05-2016, 05:26 PM
You mean like the special treatment Condi Rice and Colin Powell got for the exact same scenario? Geeze, kid, give it a rest.

Daniel Noyes
07-05-2016, 05:28 PM
You mean like the special treatment Condi Rice and Colin Powell got for the exact same scenario? Geeze, kid, give it a rest.

Sorry too busy to respond in full at the moment... too bussy posting this all over Facebook! :).....................................


the definition of
"Loose Cannon"

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mee72289e9f3458ebba938628a29838f4o1&pid=15.1&P=0&w=333&h=167

what do you all think.... Will Hillary get special treatment? different from US Service men?

Phillip Allen
07-05-2016, 05:37 PM
the double standard thing is indefensible

Tom Montgomery
07-05-2016, 05:38 PM
I cannot tell you how much I am enjoying ya'll's disappointment. :D

satx78247
07-05-2016, 05:43 PM
Willin,

Are you REALLY foolish enough to relate what GEN Powell & Dr. Rice did to what "Hillary the LIAR" did/does?? = IF you are that blinded by your inbred prejudices, I simply pity, rather than condemn, you.

yours, satx

Paul Pless
07-05-2016, 05:47 PM
the double standard thing is indefensiblehey satx, here's your guy
phillip 'knew' hillary back in the day in arkansas too

Daniel Noyes
07-05-2016, 06:09 PM
I cannot tell you how much I am enjoying ya'll's disappointment. :D

No disappointment... and this is far from over, now to see if the compromised Justice Department (Loretta Lynch) takes the "advice" of the Democrat who heads the FBI... OHHHH John Oliver could make SOOOOOOOOOOO much Hay with this scandal, If only it were Republicans, but since it's Democrats the Propaganda Mouth Pieces will remain silent :D

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HS.285540682578&pid=15.1&P=0&w=347&h=181https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mee72289e9f3458ebba938628a29838f4o1&pid=15.1&P=0&w=333&h=167

what do you all think.... Will Hillary get special treatment? different from US Service men and women?

Tom Montgomery
07-05-2016, 06:16 PM
I wonder how much longer past November 8th you'll continue to hang out in the WBF Bilge, Daniel?

I mean, if it turns out you are wrong and all.

If Hillary Clinton wins I expect a number of drop outs.

jack grebe
07-05-2016, 06:35 PM
You mean like the special treatment Condi Rice and Colin Powell got for the exact same scenario? Geeze, kid, give it a rest.

It did cost Colin Powell his shot at the WH.

Tom Montgomery
07-05-2016, 06:42 PM
I would argue Colin Powell threw away any chance of being elected POTUS when he failed to stand up to President George W. Bush when he was Secretary of State.

But I do not think he was ever truly interested in the office. By all reports his wife wanted nothing to do with him running for POTUS.

Daniel Noyes
07-05-2016, 07:56 PM
I wonder how much longer past November 8th you'll continue to hang out in the WBF Bilge, Daniel?

I mean, if it turns out you are wrong and all.

If Hillary Clinton wins I expect a number of drop outs.

Hillary winning (unfortunately) has little to do with whether she is "Crooked" or not... She wont' be the first politician Democrats have KNOWINGLY voted into office... right?

http://readjack.files.wordpress.com/2010/10/richard-j-daley.jpg

Tom Montgomery
07-05-2016, 07:57 PM
So you're saying you intend to stick around The Bilge during the first term of the Hillary Clinton administration?

You do realize that if Hillary Clinton is elected POTUS a Democrat will have been POTUS for 20 of the last 28 years? And counting... over a quarter of a century.

Daniel Noyes
07-05-2016, 07:57 PM
It did cost Colin Powell his shot at the WH.

good point.

Chip-skiff
07-05-2016, 08:02 PM
My new thread rating system: I give it five wipes.

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/--dOaAjJtxiU/V3SeAbBmPUI/AAAAAAAAK00/fYhLfjU1GoIPs_IEdtSHkacU_rvDzj3jACCo/s191/merde.jpg

Daniel Noyes
07-05-2016, 08:04 PM
So you're saying you intend to stick around The Bilge during the first term of the Clinton administration?

If Hillary really turns out to be against NAFTA and TRANS PAC then I will stick around... but we all know she's just courting the Sanders vote, then to stab them in the back in favor of Wall Street and the Wealthiest 1 Percent!!!

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT8HnMj4FGJmVD6da1bAShk118340JSv F-Hlc8cs6W4NUxPlL3dDg https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTV8cBwBwMRy9QEyJFlNgytZYuWEM6R8 dokI1nhr56E5gP-Mok9HQ https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mee72289e9f3458ebba938628a29838f4o1&pid=15.1&P=0&w=333&h=167

Tom Montgomery
07-05-2016, 08:07 PM
Oh dear! Unlike Real Republicans (not RINOs), Democrats are willing to accept something less than perfect.

What spineless, unprincipled weaklings!

Boater14
07-05-2016, 08:10 PM
Colin Powell had a shot at the WH? That's just nuts.

Tom Montgomery
07-05-2016, 08:11 PM
Well... yeah....

But remember that they create their own reality.

Norman Bernstein
07-05-2016, 08:14 PM
Usually, it's the liberals and progressives who demonstrate copious amounts of angst when circumstances turn against them.... but I will confess to a heaping dose of schadenfreude at the freakout in evidence by Mr. Noize and others.

I certainly don't endorse what Hillary did, by running a private server which, for reasons which we DON'T know, managed to get some small amount of information on it that shouldn't have been there.

However, the Presidential stakes are VASTLY more important to the nation, no matter how disappointed one might be, in this particularly bad lapse of judgment. We've all got feet of clay, and there isn't a single President who didn't exhibit a lack of judgment either before taking office... or after taking office.

So, someone has to tell me:

Is this transgression, which occurred before being elected, worse than, for example, the Watergate burglary while Nixon WAS in office?

Is it a worse transgression than starting a useless war which killed 4000+ American soldiers, and cost $1 TRILLION bucks?

Guess what, folks.... the next President is going to make mistakes. Some of them might be pretty bad. I'd rank a global trade war as a sh|tload WORSE than what Hillary did.....

...and that's what I want to avoid.

Daniel Noyes
07-05-2016, 08:18 PM
Turn against them??? the Democrats "Crooked" Washington ways are on full display!!! how have things "turned against the "Never Hillary" bunch?

Hillary Lied to the American People if we can believe what the FBI director said today.

http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hillary-classified-email-department-of-state-secretary-of-state-scandal-620x435.jpg http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/03/Hillary-Clinton-email.jpg

Boatfix
07-05-2016, 08:24 PM
Must see.


https://youtu.be/rqcGtOmKgKI
Published on Jul 5, 2016
Within hours of the decision not to prosecute Hillary Clinton over her handling of classified emails, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani who worked as a federal prosecutor for many years also, said that any good prosecutor would easily have taken the Clinton case, and won in court.
But most interesting is that Giuliani says that the statute of limitations will not run out on this case – since it hasn’t been tried – and if Donald

Tom Montgomery
07-05-2016, 08:29 PM
i will confess to a heaping dose of schadenfreude at the freakout in evidence by mr. Noize and others.
OH YEAH! :d

Norman Bernstein
07-05-2016, 08:29 PM
Clinton didn't have to know she was breaking the law to be charged with the crime. Ignorance is no defense!!!!!!!!!

Your law school education came inside a box of Crackerjax?

Comey specifically stated that there was no evidence of intent. Lack of intent WOULD be a defense.

Lastly, look into James Comey's reputation... and review what he did when Cheney tried to coerce Ashcroft, as he lay critically ill in a hospital bed, to approve some thing he knew to be illegal.

If you're looking for a man with impeccable integrity in Washington, it would be James Comey.... and there is no freakin' way in HELL that he would have let his judgment be clouded by crass political considerations.... furthermore, he's a REPUBLICAN!

Tom Montgomery
07-05-2016, 08:30 PM
Well... yeah, Boatfix.

Just as Prez Obama or the next POTUS Hillary Clinton could push for the prosecution of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, et. al. for war crimes.

Fat chance, in other words. But by all means, dream on!

Daniel Noyes
07-05-2016, 08:34 PM
OH YEAH! :d

try and keep smiling... maybe it will all just GO AWAY?

https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ-04mXNYkn3Idgv9Rwvk-zFe5QmikLrXOo25AKJ29AgQXEw6uz :D there's a definite resemblance :)

Norman Bernstein
07-05-2016, 08:37 PM
No, it's not.

So you're saying that the director of the FBI is a liar?

TomF
07-05-2016, 08:39 PM
Sure, just as TLT mentioned that he's never trusted the FBI. Hard to trust the guy, however trustworthy, when he doesn't reinforce the preferred memes.

Phillip Allen
07-05-2016, 08:41 PM
Turn against them??? the Democrats "Crooked" Washington ways are on full display!!! how have things "turned against the "Never Hillary" bunch?

Hillary Lied to the American People if we can believe what the FBI director said today.

http://legalinsurrection.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Hillary-classified-email-department-of-state-secretary-of-state-scandal-620x435.jpg http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/03/Hillary-Clinton-email.jpg

kinda puts here up there with Nixon, don't it? :)

Norman Bernstein
07-05-2016, 08:42 PM
He never said it was a defense.

He stated it was one of the reason not to recommend any further legal action. Intent DOES matter.

As for Rudy Giuliani, he's a right wing talking head who hasn't prosecuted a case in years.... not what I'd call a 'reference' for legal issues. James Comey is a man of integrity... and he's a Republican. Be careful before you smear the guy.

Norman Bernstein
07-05-2016, 08:44 PM
She deleted 30000+ emails-------should add on obstruction of justice charge also.

...and you know what was in those 30000+ emails, do ya? :):)

I just HAVE to laugh at this... right wingers 'inventing' all sorts of crimes for themselves.

Norman Bernstein
07-05-2016, 08:44 PM
Not if she is charged. Don't try to twist it, you're not good at it.

She's not going to be charged... and you're the one twisting it.

Phillip Allen
07-05-2016, 08:45 PM
She deleted 30000+ emails-------should add on obstruction of justice charge also.

the fix was in before she sinned

Daniel Noyes
07-05-2016, 08:46 PM
kinda puts here up there with Nixon, don't it? :)

Mabey Trumpy was right? "Crooked Hillary"... or is it just "Dumb Hillary" ??? either way her argument that she has better qualifications for the Job takes a BIG hit...

http://www.wnd.com/files/2016/03/Hillary-Clinton-email.jpg

Hilly is looking More and More like a "Loose Cannon"

TomF
07-05-2016, 08:46 PM
Sometimes the pot-stirring really gets old.

Boatfix
07-05-2016, 08:48 PM
More gravitas.



Statement on the FBI's Investigation of Secretary ClintonJuly 5, 2016|Speaker Ryan Press Office
WASHINGTON—House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) issued the following statement regarding the recommendation from FBI Director James Comey that former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton not be prosecuted for her "extremely careless" mishandling of classified information:
"While I respect the law enforcement professionals at the FBI, this announcement defies explanation. No one should be above the law. But based upon the director's own statement, it appears damage is being done to the rule of law. Declining to prosecute Secretary Clinton for recklessly mishandling and transmitting national security information will set a terrible precedent. The findings of this investigation also make clear that Secretary Clinton misled the American people when she was confronted with her criminal actions. While we need more information about how the Bureau came to this recommendation, the American people will reject this troubling pattern of dishonesty and poor judgment."

Norman Bernstein
07-05-2016, 08:52 PM
More gravitas.

Just more partisanship.

Do you believe that James Comey was NOT acting with integrity, when deciding not to recommend any prosecution?

TomF
07-05-2016, 08:54 PM
The facts are obvious.they sure are, and I'm not speaking about the FBI statement or emails or Benghazi or etc.

There, quite literally, is NOTHING which could happen respecting Clinton, or for that matter Obama, that would be greeted by some with anything besides snark, ridicule, disbelief, etc.

Dudes could be seen by thousands walking on water and you'd butch that they couldn't swim.

Phillip Allen
07-05-2016, 08:58 PM
Just more partisanship.

Do you believe that James Comey was NOT acting with integrity, when deciding not to recommend any prosecution?

I'm beginning to suspect that all you lefties came from Venezuela ...

Joe (SoCal)
07-05-2016, 08:59 PM
Bwaaaaaaa ha ha

Email issue dead, no violations, no charges, nothing's gonna happen.
Benghazi issue dead, no violations, no charges, nothing's gonna happen.

Say HELLO to your first woman POTUS for the next 4-8 years.


DEAL WITH IT !!!!! :D :D :D

Norman Bernstein
07-05-2016, 09:06 PM
Don't be ridiculous. I come here as the most politically neutral member of the Bilge....

:d:d:d

NONE of us are THAT stupid! :)

TomF
07-05-2016, 09:07 PM
Don't be ridiculous. I come here as the most politically neutral member of the Bilge and state the facts without partisanship or spin-----and don't you forget it.as fair and balanced as the folks you lifted your sig from. ;)

Boatfix
07-05-2016, 09:15 PM
Now look



http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Norman Bernstein http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=4939942#post4939942)
Just more partisanship.

Do you believe that James Comey was NOT acting with integrity, when deciding not to recommend any prosecution?


Comey very likely thought it was going to be difficult to get a conviction as this case had laid out and even more likely did not want to be a fulcrum of history in the election of 2016 by his recommending indictment. Considering the way such an indictment would affect the upcoming election and the unlikelihood of a convictions, it seems plausible that he did what he did. But he is wrong. Everybody should get the same treatment under our laws, even if you are running for president.

Boatfix
07-05-2016, 09:17 PM
Bwaaaaaaa ha ha

Email issue dead, no violations, no charges, nothing's gonna happen.
Benghazi issue dead, no violations, no charges, nothing's gonna happen.

Say HELLO to your first woman POTUS for the next 4-8 years.


DEAL WITH IT !!!!! :D :D :D

Why don't you read the FBI Director's statement and say that if your reading comprehension is capable.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pr...-e-mail-system (https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system)

Comey blew up all of Hillary's lies for the past couple of years. His statement clearly states multiple points that directly refute comments made in the past by Hillary. Thus, he blew up her whole fabricated mass of lies on her emails.

Norman Bernstein
07-05-2016, 09:21 PM
Why don't you read the FBI Director's statement and say that if your reading comprehension is capable. Comey blew up all of Hillary's lies for the past couple of years. His statement clearly states multiple points that directly refute comments made in the past by Hillary. Thus, he blew up her whole fabricated mass of lies on her emails.

So, you're praising him for his castigation of HRC... and then castigating HIM for not recommending indictment?

You might try making up your mind.

Norman Bernstein
07-05-2016, 09:22 PM
Comey very likely thought it was going to be difficult to get a conviction as this case had laid out and even more likely did not want to be a fulcrum of history in the election of 2016 by his recommending indictment. Considering the way such an indictment would affect the upcoming election and the unlikelihood of a convictions, it seems plausible that he did what he did.

It would only be plausible if he was a man without any personal integrity.

I don't believe that he is.

Boatfix
07-05-2016, 09:26 PM
So, you're praising him for his castigation of HRC... and then castigating HIM for not recommending indictment?

You might try making up your mind.


Most of the legal experts I have seen including Rudy Giuliana clearly state it was not his job to make any comments on indictment or to say any of the stuff he did concerning that. The most logical explanation is that he decided to say that because he saw some case histories where successful prosecution was tough but as per the law, Hillary broke the law as clear as a bell. Many legal sources are seriously attacking Comey's comments and statement on "not rising to the level for prosecution". He also did not have to say anything more than no recommendation to indict, however he added much that totally refuted Hillary's lies from the past about her emails. He trashed her entire smoke screen of lies on the email scandal.

Boatfix
07-05-2016, 09:29 PM
It would only be plausible if he was a man without any personal integrity.

I don't believe that he is.

Me either, but I think he made a mistake in reaching outside of his job description in making the comments as to what was worthwhile to prosecute or not. He obviously was very honest in laying out the evidence for the American people. His recommendations are another thing entirely. BTW, lots of past and present members of the FBI are commenting off the record to many news sources. Many of those folks that worked on this case are pissed off at what Comey did.

Osborne Russell
07-05-2016, 09:32 PM
... Buuuuuuuuuuuutttt let's not press any charges...

"Clinton guilty but no charges . . . "

Ding dong ! Anybody home?

Daniel Noyes
07-05-2016, 09:38 PM
Bwaaaaaaa ha ha

Email issue dead, no violations, no charges, nothing's gonna happen.
Benghazi issue dead, no violations, no charges, nothing's gonna happen.

Say HELLO to your first woman POTUS for the next 4-8 years.


DEAL WITH IT !!!!! :D :D :D

"Loose Cannon"

https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=HS.285540682578&pid=15.1&P=0&w=347&h=181https://tse3.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mee72289e9f3458ebba938628a29838f4o1&pid=15.1&P=0&w=333&h=167

Took the words right out of our mouths :)

Bwaaaaaaa ha ha
DEAL WITH IT !!!!!

Old Dryfoot
07-05-2016, 09:39 PM
^ He's a Republican too I hear. Shame that. It must be hard for him.

Keith Wilson
07-05-2016, 09:41 PM
Absolutely pathetic. These guys are certain that Ms. Clinton has done terrible, terrible things, and really ought to be in jail. But whenever she's investigated (all 374 times) , the wrongdoing either turns out to be trivial, or vanishes like mist at dawn - yet afterwards, they're still more convinced that Ms. Clinton has done terrible, terrible things. Nothing can shake their faith.


'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards.
''Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'
'Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.
'I won't!' said Alice.
Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved.

Daniel Noyes
07-05-2016, 09:42 PM
^ He's a Republican too I hear. Shame that. It must be hard for him.

is that what he said?... so was Hillary :)

Boatfix
07-05-2016, 09:42 PM
^ He's a Republican too I hear. Shame that. It must be hard for him.

I think he is a good public servant but guys like Roberts and Comey are wrong when incorporating "an element of the importance to the nation as a whole" and then twisting the definition of the law or constitution to make a "best outcome" despite the law or the constitution.

Daniel Noyes
07-05-2016, 09:44 PM
Absolutely pathetic. These guys are certain that Ms. Clinton has done terrible, terrible things, and really ought to be in jail. But whenever she's investigated (all 374 times) , the wrongdoing either turns out to be trivial, or vanishes like mist at dawn - yet afterwards, they're still more convinced that Ms. Clinton has done terrible, terrible things. Nothing can shake their faith.

Jail??? not necessarily But she has lied about Clasified Info to the American Public... Jail seems an over reaction.... but there has to be some middle ground between Jail and the Presidency... How about Private Citizen ! :)

#NEVERHILLARY

Boatfix
07-05-2016, 09:45 PM
Absolutely pathetic. These guys are certain that Ms. Clinton has done terrible, terrible things, and really ought to be in jail. But whenever she's investigated (all 374 times) , the wrongdoing either turns out to be trivial, or vanishes like mist at dawn - yet afterwards, they're still more convinced that Ms. Clinton has done terrible, terrible things. Nothing can shake their faith.

Hillary's cover up lies were all blown up by Director Comey's comments. He did not have to add all of that. I think he was pissed at having to say the evidence did not rise to the level of getting a conviction, and laid out more facts for the American people for them to make a fair and balanced decision as to what Hillary did and what she can get away with.

Keith Wilson
07-05-2016, 09:51 PM
Here are several more examples of how nothing can shake their faith. No evidence, no analysis, no facts - they know what they know.

Boatfix
07-05-2016, 09:52 PM
Here are several more examples of how nothing can shake their faith. No evidence, no analysis, no facts - they know what they know.

Here's a quote from the federal code:
"Whoever, being entrusted with … [national security documents] … through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody … Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."
“Gross negligence” in handling national security is a felony.

Keith Wilson
07-05-2016, 09:55 PM
No evidence, no analysis, no investigations, no facts can move you; you know what you know. She's a CRIMINAL, by God! http://forums.liveleak.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Phillip Allen
07-05-2016, 09:57 PM
are you guys still going on about Hillary Nixon?

Boatfix
07-05-2016, 09:59 PM
This explains all.

Ann Coulter ‏@AnnCoulter (https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter) 23m23 minutes ago (https://twitter.com/AnnCoulter/status/750503017883979776)
This is why it was a stupid story to cover obsessively. February Flashback: Coulter Says ‘Dems Don’t Indict Dems’ -



February Flashback: Ann Coulter Says ‘Democrats Don’t Indict Democrats’
290 (http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/facebook/offer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fbig-government%2F2016%2F07%2F05%2Ffebruary-flashback-ann-coulter-says-democrats-dont-indict-democrats%2F&pubid=ra-536db77a775cf072&text=February+Flashback%3A+Ann+Coulter+Says+%E2%80 %98Democrats+Don%E2%80%99t+Indict+Democrats%E2%80% 99)


0 (http://api.addthis.com/oexchange/0.8/forward/google_plusone_share/offer?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.breitbart.com%2Fbig-government%2F2016%2F07%2F05%2Ffebruary-flashback-ann-coulter-says-democrats-dont-indict-democrats%2F&pubid=ra-536db77a775cf072&text=February+Flashback%3A+Ann+Coulter+Says+%E2%80 %98Democrats+Don%E2%80%99t+Indict+Democrats%E2%80% 99)



http://media.breitbart.com/media/2016/07/Coulter-Getty-640x480-640x480.jpg

by MICHAEL PATRICK LEAHY (http://www.breitbart.com/author/michael-patrick-leahy/)5 Jul 2016170 (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/05/february-flashback-ann-coulter-says-democrats-dont-indict-democrats/#disqus_thread)

SIGN UP FOR OUR NEWSLETTER








In an exclusive interview back in February (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/03/exclusive-ann-coulter-says-democrat-obama-administration-will-not-indict-hillary-clinton/), best-selling author Ann Coulter told Breitbart News that the Obama administration would not indict Hillary Clinton over the national security scandal involving her use of an insecure private server for her emails while Secretary of State.Breitbart News interviewed Coulter at a Donald Trump rally held in Milford, New Hampshire on February 2.
“No, there’s not going to be an indictment,” Coulter told (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/03/exclusive-ann-coulter-says-democrat-obama-administration-will-not-indict-hillary-clinton/) Breitbart News at the time.
“Not going to happen, over,” the conservative pundit added.
“I haven’t been paying attention to her particular law breaking but I know Democrats,” Coulter said.
“Democrats do not indict Democrats,” she added.
“Maybe these will be famous last words, but it wasn’t that long ago that Senator Joe Lieberman was on the Senate floor denouncing Bill Clinton for more astonishing and open felonies than we’re talking about with Hillary and–whoa!—in the end, you couldn’t even get one United States Senator to vote to remove Bill Clinton after an impeachment,” Coulter noted (http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/03/exclusive-ann-coulter-says-democrat-obama-administration-will-not-indict-hillary-clinton/) at the Trump rally in New Hampshire five months ago.
On Tuesday, FBI Director James Comey said that upon the completion of that agency’s investigation of Clinton’s use of unsecure private servers for her emails during her tenure as Secretary of State from 2009 to 2013 he would be recommending that the Department of Justice not initiate criminal prosecution of her.
“No reasonable prosecutor would bring this case,” Comey said (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/05/fbi-recommends-no-charges-hillary-clinton-email-server/)
Just moments earlier, Comey declared (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/05/fbi-recommends-no-charges-hillary-clinton-email-server/) that Clinton and her staff while she served as Secretary of State had been “extremely careless” in setting up an unsecure private email server on which 110 emails had classified information.
Comey also stated (http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2016/07/05/fbi-recommends-no-charges-hillary-clinton-email-server/) it is “possible hostile actors gained access” to Clinton’s emails.
Comey, a Republican, was appointed as the Director of the FBI in 2013.
The matter now goes to Attorney General Loretta Lynch, a Democrat, who was nominated by President Obama in 2014 and confirmed by the Senate in a 56-43 vote in March 2015.
Lynch’s private meeting last week with former President Bill Clinton in her Department of Justice airplane on the tarmac in Phoenix generated enormous controversy and gave at the very least the public appearance of impropriety.
Both Lynch and former President Clinton denied that their private conversation touched on any matters relating to the possible criminal case against the former president’s wife.

TomF
07-05-2016, 10:46 PM
Ann nailed it again.who?

TomF
07-05-2016, 10:54 PM
No, who did Ann nail this time? And why should I care about her exploits? ;)

TomF
07-05-2016, 11:14 PM
Are you ever going to shut up today?

I was about to turn in, but am rethinking now. :D

Bobcat
07-06-2016, 12:10 AM
No evidence, no analysis, no investigations, no facts can move you; you know what you know. She's a CRIMINAL, by God! http://forums.liveleak.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

Yup: they just know it and the more they're proven wrong the stronger and louder they beat the drum.

Joe (SoCal)
07-06-2016, 12:32 AM
Prove it.

It will be proved on Nov 2nd.

TomF
07-06-2016, 09:04 AM
You've been ragging on ever since I first looked in, at a little past 7 this morning.

Did you lose your job?Took a day off, actually, and toodled about with the Daughter to test drive a bunch of cars - the job she's starting in September will require one. It gets kinda boring, waiting around.

You'll be pleased to know that at the end of the day she bought her first, and I'm gonna be in meetings for much of the day today. Thanks for your concern. ;)

mmd
07-06-2016, 09:20 AM
Keep shootin', Tom. If you can raise Donn to complaining about you personally, you must be doing something right. <grin>

Hwyl
07-06-2016, 09:23 AM
You've been ragging on ever since I first looked in, at a little past 7 this morning.

Did you lose your job?


Donn, to fit in with the other right wingers on this thread, you really ought to include a couple of speelling misttakes and some BOLD CAPITALS.

Durnik
07-06-2016, 11:29 AM
as fair and balanced as the folks you lifted your sig from. ;)

;-)

for posterity -



Don't be ridiculous. I come here as the most politically neutral member of the Bilge and state the facts without partisanship or spin-----and don't you forget it.



Fair and Balanced

Daniel Noyes
07-06-2016, 11:39 AM
No evidence, no analysis, no investigations, no facts can move you; you know what you know. She's a CRIMINAL, by God! http://forums.liveleak.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

there has to be some middle ground for Clinton that Republicans and Democrats... or at least Republicans and Independents can agree on, somewhere between Jail and the Presidency... How about Private Citizen ! :)

TomF
07-06-2016, 11:41 AM
there has to be some middle ground between Jail and the Presidency... How about Private Citizen ! :)Suggest it to Trump.

Daniel Noyes
07-06-2016, 11:48 AM
Oh Trumpy can't get enough of this stuff! no suggestion needed, he's going to get a fat head if his "predictions" keep coming true... this whole story including the Loretta Lynch/Bill Clinton private meeting plays right into Trumps "Crooked Hillary" moniker and makes Hillary look like the Washington insider, fat cat "wealthiest 1 percenter" that she truly is...

Phillip Allen
07-06-2016, 05:39 PM
17 minutes... 30,000 emails

Tom Montgomery
07-06-2016, 05:47 PM
Donn has a lot of freaking nerve to chide ANY Forumite for the frequency of their posting.

Donn was one of the most prolific of the Forum posters just a few years ago.

His post count as currently displayed (9,466) is stuff and nonsense. His actual post count is in the many tens of thousands. Rivaling Phillip Allen's post count as a matter of fact.
.

Paul Pless
07-06-2016, 05:58 PM
post count is overrated

Phillip Allen
07-06-2016, 05:59 PM
post count is overrated

:):)

Rum_Pirate
07-06-2016, 08:52 PM
Jail??? not necessarily But she has lied about Clasified Info to the American Public... Jail seems an over reaction.... but there has to be some middle ground between Jail and the Presidency... How about Private Citizen ! :)

#NEVERHILLARY


Do you recall


Martha Stewart reported to prison early Friday to begin serving a five-month sentence for lying about a stock sale, the federal Bureau of Prisons said. Stewart, 63, was convicted in March of lying to investigators about why she sold ImClone stock in December 2001, just before the stock price plunged.Oct 8, 2004

Canoeyawl
07-06-2016, 08:56 PM
Lying under oath can be a big problem.
lying to the public? Not so much

1. March 30: Trump claims MSNBC edited their released version of his interview with Chris Matthews in which Trump stumbled on abortion: “You really ought to hear the whole thing. I mean, this is a long convoluted question. This was a long discussion, and they just cut it out. And, frankly, it was extremely — it was really convoluted.” Nope; that was a lie.


2. March 29: Trump lies that Wisconsin’s effective unemployment rate is 20%, saying, ""What? Is it 20 percent? Effective or regular? I mean just -- effective unemployment rate, 20 percent. Hey, this is out of the big book." According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, The U-3 official unemployment rate in Wisconsin was 4.6 percent in 2015; Wisconsin’s U-6 rate for 2015 was 8.3 percent.


3. March 29: Told Sean Hannity, “You know, I look at what’s happening in Wisconsin with the numbers, the job numbers, the trade numbers, how it’s a stagnant economy, how they owe $2.2 billion in terms of their budget.” As Factcheck.org reported, Wisconsin’s general fund is currently projected to have a positive balance when its current two-year budget cycle ends next year, according to an analysis by nonpartisan budget experts.


4. March 29: Trump alleged that when Michelle Fields "found out that there was a security camera, and that they had her on tape, all of a sudden that story changed." Absolutely untrue.


5. March 29: Trump said the Secret Service was worried about Fields, alleging, "She went through the Secret Service, she had a pen in her hand, which Service Service is not liking because they don't know what it is, whether it's a little bomb…” As Katie Pavlich of Townhall noted, “All reporters at campaign events, like regular attendees, go through Secret Service security before being allowed into a venue. The security is thorough, with a back check, wanding and a metal detector walk through. Fields wasn't carrying a knife, she was carrying a pen and if the Secret Service thought it was dangerous, they would have taken it from her at the security checkpoint before entering the room.”


6. March 27: Trump claims Cruz bought the rights to the ad featuring a nude Melania Trump: Debunked.


7. March 26: Trump lies, "There’s a tremendous tax that we pay when we (American businesses) go into China, whereas when China sells to us there’s no tax." China’s tariffs are higher than those imposed by the United States, but the Chinese exporters are taxed when they sell in the United States.


8. March 23: Trump accuses Cruz of coordinating with Super PAC in its ad featuring a nude Melania Trump. Tweeting, “Lyin' Ted Cruz denied that he had anything to do with the G.Q. model photo post of Melania. That's why we call him Lyin' Ted!” Debunked.


9. March 21: Trump lies, "Out of 67 counties (in Florida), I won 66, which is unprecedented. It's never happened before." Nope. In 2004, John Kerry won all 67 counties for the Democrats; in 2000, Al Gore won all 67 for the Democrats and. George W. Bush won all 67 for Republicans. In 1996, Bob Dole took 66 of 67 counties for the GOP primary and the 67th was a tie between Dole and Pat Buchanan in Washington County.


10. March 19: Trump said the 2016 federal omnibus spending bill "funds illegal immigrants coming in and through your border, right through Phoenix." Nope. The omnibus bill does not fund undocumented immigrants "coming in and through" the border; it funds the very agency tasked with keeping undocumented immigrants out, U.S. Customs and Border Protection.


11. March 17: Trump on Fox News denied that he ever accused President George W. Bush of lying about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. “I didn’t say lie. I said he may have lied.” That’s false. Trump said in a February that Bush “lied.”


12. March 13: Trump states that the man who rushed the stage in Dayton, Ohio, "had chatter about ISIS, or with ISIS" in his social media posts. Trump was fooled by a hoax video; the claim is ludicrous.


13. March 11: Lying about Cruz’s count of the states he had had won: “Wasn’t that funny last night when Cruz said, ‘I’m the only one that can beat Donald Trump. I have demonstrated that I can beat him. I won five states.’” Cruz correctly stated he won eight states, not five.


14. March 10: Trump, the expert economist: "GDP was zero essentially for the last two quarters." GDP grew at an annual rate of 1 percent in the fourth quarter of 2015, and 2 percent in the third quarter, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis.


15. March 10: Trump claims Michelle Fields made up the story about being grabbed by Corey Lewandowski, blustering, "This was, in my opinion, made up. Everybody said nothing happened. Perhaps she made the story up. I think that's what happened."


16. March 9: “Eight weeks ago, they signed a budget that is so bad. It funds ISIS.” As POLITICO noted, “The omnibus spending bill, passed in December, is not strictly a budget, and it’s not clear what part of it Trump thinks gives money to ISIS.”


17. March 8: Trump brags that the Trump winery is the “largest winery on the East Coast.” "That’s not correct," said Michael Kaiser, spokesman for the National Association of American Wineries. Wine industry analysts calculate a winery’s size by the volume of wine produced. Trump Winery is not even the largest in Virginia. The top producers in the state are the Williamsburg Winery and Chateau Morrisette in Floyd County. In terms of sheer size in acreage, both the Wagner Vineyards Estate Winery in the Finger Lakes region of New York and Pindar Vineyards on New York’s Long Island are larger.

Canoeyawl
07-06-2016, 08:57 PM
18. March 8: On Trump-branded water and Mitt Romney: “He talked about the water company. Well, there’s the water company. I mean, we sell water.” Well …




19. March 8: “Upstate New York I poll higher than anybody ever.” Hillary Clinton would slaughter Trump 56 percent to 33 percent in upstate New York, according to a Siena College poll.


20. March 8: Trump: “Trump steaks, where are the steaks? Do we have the steaks? We have Trump steaks.” Once sold briefly by The Sharper Image, the company’s website reads, “Unfortunately, Trump Steaks are no longer available, but their legacy endures.


21. March 8: Lying about how much was spent in one week against him: “So many horrible, horrible things said about me in one week. $38 million worth of horrible lies.” According to The Tracking Firm, every Republican dollar spent by Trump’s opponents on TV and radio from March 1 through 7 amounted to $10.57 million, and not all of it was directed against Trump.


22. March 8: Trump held up a magazine, claiming it was Trump magazine: "This comes out and it's called The Jewel of Palm Beach and it all goes to all of my clubs. I have had it for many years. It's the magazine. It's great. Anybody want one?" Trump Magazine folded in 2009.


23. March 7: Lying about his popularity after the Paris attacks: “After Paris, all of a sudden it started changing. We started getting polls in. And everybody liked Trump from the standpoint of ISIS, from the standpoint of the military. Less than 42% of respondents in a Washington Post-ABC poll said Trump was the best candidate to best handle the threat of terrorism.


24. March 7: “You have Japan, where the cars come in by the hundreds of thousands, they pour off the boats. ... [W]e send them like nothing. We send them nothing, by comparison, nothing.” The United States exported $62 billion worth of goods to Japan last year.


25. March 7: “I’ve spent the least money and I’m by far number 1. So I’ve spent the least.” As of Jan. 31, Trump’s campaign had spent $23.9 million, more than John Kasich’s campaign, which has spent $7.2 million, or $19.5 million if you include outside groups supporting him.


26. March 7: Trump says you don’t see “Made in the USA” anymore. As POLITICO reported: “The U.S. Economics and Statistics Administra’ in 2014 that found that U.S. manufacturers sold $4.4 trillion of goods that classify as ‘Made in the U.S.A.’”


27. March 7: “I’m self-funding my campaign. I’m not taking money. ... I’m not taking. I spent a lot of money. I don’t take.” As of Jan. 31, his campaign had accepted $7.5 million from donors not named Donald J. Trump.


28. March 7: Boasting he had spent $30 million on his campaign: “I’m already in for $30 million cash.” According to POLITICO, “As of then he had only contributed $250,318, plus the loan of $17.5 million.


29. March 7: “I think I have $50 million of negative ads against me in Florida. $50 million. Somebody said $50 million.” As of March 11, outside groups had spent $15 million in Florida.


30. March 3: Trump claims the wives of the 9/11 hijackers "knew exactly what was happening" and returned to Saudi Arabia two days before the attacks to watch their husbands on television flying the planes. The 9/11 Commission report stated that none of the hijackers had a wife, girlfriend or family member in the United States during the days or months leading up to the hijackings.


31. February 28: Trump claims that the New York Times can write a false story without being sued, snapping, “I think it's very unfair when the New York Times can write a story that they know is false, that they virtually told me they know it's false, and I say, why don't you pull the story, and they say, we're not going to do that, because they can't basically be sued.” the unanimous 1964 U.S. Supreme Court decision in New York Times vs. Sullivan states that the First Amendment does not protect statements made with "actual malice.”


32. February 29, after his Nevada win: Trump brags that he is “number one with Hispanics.” Except 93 percent of the Latinos in Nevada did not support Trump. A Washington Post-Univision poll in February found that 80% of registered Hispanic voters viewed Trump unfavorably.


33. February 28: "We (Trump University) have an ‘A’ from the Better Business Bureau." In reality, BBB received multiple consumer complaints about Trump university, which sank to a D-minus in 2010. The reason Trump University rose to an A in July 2014 was that as the company looked to be closing after 2013, no new complaints were reported. Complaints over three years old automatically rolled off of the business review, according to BBB policy. Further, Trump University was never been a BBB-accredited business. When debate moderators were given a document by the Trump campaign, it could not have been an actual Better Business Bureau accreditation notice for Trump University.


34. February 28, with Chris Wallace: Trump claimed that “many of” the university’s instructors were “handpicked” by him. That’s not true. In a 2012 deposition, a top executive for Trump University said that “none of our instructors” was picked by Trump himself.


35. February 28, with Wallace: Trump said that “98 percent of the people that took the courses … thought they were terrific.” A class-action lawsuit against Trump alleges that the surveys were not anonymous and were filled out during or immediately after sessions when participants were still expecting to receive future benefits from the program.


36. February 28: “I don’t know anything about David Duke,” to Jake Tapper. Trump not only has mentioned Duke in the past but actually repudiated him during a Bloomberg interview in August 2015. Fifteen years ago, when Trump was considering running for president as a Reform Party candidate, he named Duke a cause for concern. “Well, you’ve got David Duke just joined — a big racist, a problem. I mean, this is not exactly the people you want in your party,” he said.


37. February 25, on Trump University: “I’ve won most of the lawsuits.” Not true, as The Washington Post has noted.


38. February 25 debate: Lying about his support for national health care. Cruz says, “Donald, true or false, you’ve said the government should pay for everyone’s health care.” Trump: “That’s false.” Cruz: “But you’ve never stood on this debate stage and says it works great in Canada and Scotland and we should do it here?” Trump’s response? “No, I did not. No I did not.” Trump told 60 Minutes’ Scott Pelley in September 2015 that he’d “take care of everybody” and that the government would pay for it. In the first Republican debate of the election season, Trump stated, “As far as single payer, it works in Canada. It works incredibly well in Scotland.”

Canoeyawl
07-06-2016, 08:58 PM
39. February 25 debate: Trump accused Cruz of lying regarding his support for toppling Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, saying, “He said I was in favor in Libya. I never discussed that subject. I was in favor of Libya? We would be so much better off if Gaddafi would be in charge right now.” Buzzfeed published a 2011 video of Trump in which he called to get rid of Gaddafi.


40. February 23: Trump says he won the youth vote in Nevada. Not true.


41. February 21: Trump said a “recent poll” showed 25 percent of blacks support him in a hypothetical race against Hillary Clinton. That “recent poll” was from September., Fox News, Feb. 15-17: 10 percent. USA Today/Suffolk, Feb. 11-15: 7 percent. Quinnipiac University, Feb. 10-15: 12 percent; Morning Consult: Feb. 3-7: 11 percent. Public Policy Polling, Feb. 2-3: 4 percent. Quinnipiac University, Feb. 2-4: 4 percent to 12 percent.


42. February: Trump calls Cruz a liar for running an ad accusing Trump of letting the federal government stay in charge of the state lands they own and not return them to the states. Of course, Cruz was telling the truth, as you see here.


43. Trump claims he “lost hundreds of friends” on 9/11. That lie may have been the most cynical one; as The Daily Beast reported, “If he has hundreds of friends, he should be able to tell us about them,” said a Port Authority police officer who never talks about how many comrades he lost. “If he can tell us about the hundreds of friends he lost, who they were, what kind of person they were, I might have some respect for him.”


44. February 13; "I'm the only one on this stage that said, ‘Do not go into Iraq. Do not attack Iraq.’” There is no known public record of Trump taking a clear stance against the war before it began.


45. February 7: "If we competitively bid drugs in the United States, we can save as much as $300 billion a year.” As the Washington Post pointed out,“Total spending in Medicare Part D (prescription drugs) in 2014 was $78 billion. So Trump, in effect, is claiming to save $300 billion a year on a $78 billion program. That’s like turning water into wine."


46. February 5: Donald Trump claimed that the loan rates Ted Cruz received during his 2012 Senate run were “lower than you could get, lower than anybody could get.” Evidence shows the interest rates Cruz reported were attainable at the time.


47. February 2: Trump lies about the crowd size at an event in Arkansas, claiming, 'So we broke the record, and I asked the fire marshal, 'Please come up because nobody's going to believe me. Please come up'” He later tweeted, 'THANK YOU to everyone in Little Rock, Arkansas tonight! A record crowd of 12K.” But the Daily Mail reported: But the Barton Arena has just 7,150 seats, according to the fair's website, and room for another 3,045 in floor seating, for a total of 10,195. While Trump's fans were standing, not sitting, the floor was less than one-half full and some sections of seats remained mostly empty – suggesting the crowd was perhaps half of what was announced from the stage.”


48. January 31: Trump tweeted: “‪@bobvanderplaats asked me to do an event. The people holding the event called me to say he wanted $100,000 for himself.Phony ‪@foxandfriends.” The Des Moines Register's chief political reporter Jennifer Jacobs contacted the group to whom Trump spoke, who confirmed that Vander Plaats was correct in replying to Trump that Trump himself was paid $100,000 to speak at Iowa's Land Investment Expo, directly contradicting Trump’s claim.


49. January 28: On the morning of the Fox News/Google debate which Trump boycotted, he retweeted a bogus graphic showing Fox News host Megyn Kelly posing with Saudi Prince Alwaleed Bin Talal and his sister. The image is fake.


50. January 22: Trump releases ad saying Cruz is pro-amnesty Ironically, Cruz is not pro-amnesty, as Jeff Sessions has testified, but Trump has been:






51. Taped January 16: Trump denied saying that Americans detained by Iran would “never” be released during the Obama administration. In September, Trump said that “frankly they’re never going to come back with this group.”


52. Also taped January 16: Trump claimed “all of the latest polls have me No. 1 in Iowa.” The Des Moines Register/Bloomberg Politics Iowa Poll released Jan. 13 showed him behind Ted Cruz by three points.


53. January 15: "We’re losing now over $500 billion a year in terms of imbalance with China." The 2014 trade deficit totaled $343 billion.


54. January 15 GOP debate: Trump denied ever telling the New York Times he had called for a 45% tariff on Chinese goods. He lied.


55. January 15: Trump said the terrorist attacks in Paris last year happened despite the city having "the strictest no-gun policy of any city anywhere in the world." In France, private gun ownership, while heavily regulated, is permitted. France has the twelfth most guns per capita in the world.


56. December 18, on Morning Joe: “Our country is falling apart, frankly. Our infrastructure is a disaster. Our bridges are falling down. Sixty-one percent of our bridges are in danger.” As of 2014, according to the agency, about 61,000 of the country’s 611,000 bridges were rated as "structurally deficient," which works out to 10 percent.


57. December 2: Claimed he had predicted Osama bin Laden’s ascension in his book The America We Deserve, blustering, "I said in that book that we better be careful with this guy named Osama bin Laden. I mean I really study this stuff … And now people are seeing that, they’re saying, “You know, Trump predicted Osama bin Laden.” The America We Deserve makes one reference to bin Laden. It doesn’t write “we better be careful with this guy named Osama bin Laden,” or that the U.S. “better take him out.” All Trump wrote was this: “One day we’re told that a shadowy figure with no fixed address named Osama bin-Laden is public enemy number one, and U.S. jetfighters lay waste to his camp in Afghanistan. He escapes back under some rock, and a few news cycles later it’s on to a new enemy and new crisis.”


58. November 23: Trump claimed 81 percent of murdered white people are killed by black people. The truth? 84 percent of murdered white people are murdered by other white people. Trump cited the “Crime Statistics Bureau—San Francisco,” which doesn’t exist except in the mind of a white supremacist on Twitter.


59. November 21: Trump: “Hey, I watched when the World Trade Center came tumbling down. And I watched in Jersey City, New Jersey, where thousands and thousands of people were cheering as that building was coming down.” There is no evidence to support that claim.


60. November 14: Trump: "Our president wants to take in 250,000 from Syria." Nope, more like 10,000.


61. November 9, on Putin. This one was hilarious. Trump: “I got to know him very well because we were both on 60 Minutes … We were stablemates, and we did very well that night.” The two men were interviewed separately in different countries thousands of miles apart.


62. October 31: Trump claimed that John Oliver's program "Last Week Tonight" had invited him to appear on the show "four or five times." Oliver’s response? "Who's he trying to impress with that lie?"

Canoeyawl
07-06-2016, 08:59 PM
63. October 26: The lie of omitting all the details of his financial rise, only stating, “My father gave me a small loan of $1 million.” Fred Trump — along with the Hyatt hotel chain — jointly guaranteed a $70 million construction loan from Manufacturers Hanover bank, “each assuming a 50 percent share of the obligation and each committing itself to complete the project should Donald be unable to finish it,” according to Trump: The Deals and the Downfall.


64. October 25, tweeted: “Word is that Ford Motor, because of my constant badgering at packed events, is going to cancel their deal to go to Mexico and stay in U.S.” One problem: Ford made that decision four years ago. The company stated, “We decided to move the F-650 and F-750 medium-duty trucks to Ohio Assembly in 2011, long before any candidates announced their intention to run for U.S. president.”


65. October 4: Trump: “You know that was a gun-free zone in Oregon where they had no guns allowed, no nothing. So the only one that had the gun was the bad guy, and everybody was sitting there and there was nothing they could do. Not a thing they could do.” Rebecca Redell, UCC’s vice president and chief financial officer: The student misconduct policy regarding firearms does not apply to students with a valid concealed weapons permit. There is a general prohibition against the possession of weapons on campus that would apply to College patrons, but this, similarly would not apply to those with valid concealed weapon permits pursuant to Oregon law


66. September 30: “The state of Florida had sanctuary cities while Jeb Bush was governor. Nobody said anything.” According to a report from the Congressional Research Service issued in August 2006, when Bush was governor, there were 32 cities and counties nationwide that had “sanctuary policies.” None of those on the list is in Florida.


67. September 29: Trump op-ed on his tax plan in WSJ: “With moderate growth, this plan will be revenue-neutral.”said his tax plan is revenue neutral. The pro-business Tax Foundation estimated the Trump plan would reduce revenues to the Treasury by more than $10 trillion over 10 years, even assuming his plan would create economic growth.


68. September 16: "Just the other day, 2 years old, 2½ years old, a child, a beautiful child went to have the vaccine, and came back, and a week later got a tremendous fever, got very, very sick, now is autistic." There is no evidence a link exists between recommended vaccines and autism


69. September 16: Trump said Mexico doesn’t have a birthright citizenship policy. It does.


70. September 16: Trump lies that he didn’t want casino gambling in Florida during the GOP debate. Jeb Bush: “The one guy that had some special interest that I know of — that tried to get me my views on something, that was generous and gave me money — was Donald Trump. He wanted casino gambling in Florida." Trump: "Totally false." In the late 1990s, Trump tried to build a multimillion-dollar casino with the Seminole Tribe of Florida, according to CNN.


71. August 25: Trump said at a press conference that under Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker the state is “borrowing to a point that nobody thought possible.” The rate of borrowing has slowed under Walker. It was 5.8 percent over his first four years in office compared with 31 percent over the previous four-year period.


72. August 6, GOP debate: Megyn Kelly: “You’ve called women you don’t like fat pigs, dogs, slobs and disgusting animals. Your Twitter account …” Trump: “Only Rosie O’Donnell.” Not true.


73. July 19, on John McCain: “He's done nothing to help the vets. And I will tell you, they are living in hell." McCain has a long record of supporting veterans' issues in Congress. He was instrumental in a landmark law approved last year to overhaul the scandal-plagued Department of Veterans Affairs. McCain worked with the chairman of the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, independent Bernie Sanders of Vermont, as well as Rep. Jeff Miller, R-Fla., chairman of the House veterans panel, to help win passage of the law, which aims to alleviate long delays veterans faced in getting medical care.


74. July 1: “I write a book called The Art of the Deal, the No. 1 selling business book of all time, at least I think, but I’m pretty sure it is.” Not even close. "Trump is full of B.S.," said Jeffrey Pfeffer, a professor of business management at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business. "The best selling/most important business books would have to be In Search of Excellence by (Thomas) Peters and (Robert) Waterman that started the genre, Built to Last by Jim Collins, The One Minute Manager by Ken Blanchard and The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People by Stephen Covey."


75. July 1: Trump described an audience of 15,000 people in Phoenix; the city fire department said capacity for the North Ballroom was 4,200 people. The doors were closed at 4,169 attendees, said Phoenix Fire Department spokeswoman Shelly Jamison.


76. Mid-July: Trump’s campaign says he’s worth $10 billion; Forbes, which has been tracking his finances for more than 30 years, estimates that his net worth is closer to $4.1 billion, less than half of Trump's figure.


77. June 15 announcement speech: "The last quarter, it was just announced, our gross domestic product … was below zero. Who ever heard of this? It's never below zero.” That is ridiculous, as shown clearly here.


78. June 15, on ISIS: “They've become rich. I'm in competition with them. They just built a hotel in Syria. Can you believe this? They built a hotel." Nope. ISIS took over a hotel.


79. June 15: Trump: “Even our nuclear arsenal doesn't work.” "Over and over, the nuclear weapons laboratories, the Air Force, the Navy, and the Secretary of Defense have certified that the nuclear arsenal does work," said Matthew Bunn, a nuclear specialist at the Harvard Kennedy School.


80. Trump boasted to Larry King that he got paid $1 million for a speech. King: “For the Learning Annex.” Trump: “Yes, that's true. It's actually more than that.” Nope. $400,000.


81. As The New York Times reported: Trump lied even about nursery rhyme-themed tiles in his daughter’s room being made by a young Walt Disney.


82. Numerous celebrities who have played with Trump assert that he cheats at golf.


83. Trump lies about his debt level; as National Review has pointed out: “Was Trump actually $9 billion in debt in the 1990s, as he said in two of his books? No. The New York Times reported that Trump later declared the claim a “mistake”: “I don’t know how it got there.”

Canoeyawl
07-06-2016, 09:01 PM
84. Trump lied about how he avoided the draft for Vietnam, claiming he got a high draft number. Not only did he get four deferments in college, but draft numbers were not even used until December, 1969, a full year after he received his final deferment, a medical one in September 1968. Trump’s campaign later claimed he couldn’t go because of bone spurs.


85. Trump has consistently lied that he is beating Hillary Clinton in polls.


86. Trump has lied that he has won the debates in every poll.


87. Trump lied that Cruz stole the Iowa caucuses from him.


88. Trump lied about Cruz stealing delegates from him in Louisiana. As Aaron Bandler of The Daily Wire pointed out, “Trump is indirectly accusing Cruz of cheating here, but Cruz didn't cheat – he just knows the rules better than Trump. These rules that Trump has been complaining about have actually benefited him.”


89. Trump accused Cruz of coordinating with a Super-PAC for Cruz’s huge win in Wisconsin: Trump released a statement reading, "Not only was he propelled by the anti-Trump Super PAC’s spending countless millions of dollars on false advertising against Mr. Trump, but he was coordinating `with his own Super PAC’s (which is illegal) who totally control him.” As Bandler of The Daily Wire noted: “The Trump camp's supposed evidence of this is that Cruz appeared at campaign events that were put on by the Keep the Promise Super PAC. But this is not a violation of federal law, as the The Washington Post explains:


A close reading of FEC regulations reveals that campaigns can do more than just publicly signal their needs to independent groups, a practice that flourished in the 2014 midterms. Operatives on both sides can talk to one another directly, as long as they do not discuss candidate strategy. According to an FEC rule, an independent group also can confer with a campaign until this fall about “issue ads” featuring a candidate. Some election-law lawyers think that a super PAC could share its entire paid media plan, as long as the candidate’s team does not respond.


90. Claims he has given $102 million to charity. He has not released records to prove that assertion, but he has been reckoned the least charitable billionaire in the United States by a TSG review of his foundation’s Internal Revenue Service returns.


91. Trump lied that he could not get enough American workers to staff all the seasonal jobs his resort required during the busy season. When confronted with the fact that he had staffed a wrecking crew with undocumented Polish workers, Trump admitted he had lied.


92. After Marco Rubio brought up the size of Trump’s hands, Trump flailed that no one had ever mentioned the size of the hands before. That was a lie, as ABC reported:


Nearly 30 years ago, Graydon Carter, the editor of Vanity Fair magazine, described Trump in Spy magazine as a “short-fingered vulgarian.” In an editor’s letter in "Vanity Fair" last November, Carter said that he wrote the Sky magazine comment in 1988 "just to drive him a little bit crazy." And according to Carter, it still does.


"Like so many bullies, Trump has skin of gossamer," Carter wrote in November.


"To this day, I receive the occasional envelope from Trump. There is always a photo of him—generally a tear sheet from a magazine. On all of them he has circled his hand in gold Sharpie in a valiant effort to highlight the length of his fingers," Carter wrote. "I almost feel sorry for the poor fellow because, to me, the fingers still look abnormally stubby." "The most recent offering arrived earlier this year, before his decision to go after the Republican presidential nomination," Carter continued. "Like the other packages, this one included a circled hand and the words, also written in gold Sharpie: 'See, not so short!' I sent the picture back by return mail with a note attached, saying, 'Actually, quite short.'"


93. Trump repeated a lie his campaign made up about former Senator Tom Coburn, saying Coburn said of Cruz, “without a doubt, one of the most dishonest people in DC.” Coburn was furious, saying, “It’s an absolute fabrication. I’ve never said that, period.”


94. Trump bleated, “I'm the only one on this stage that said, ‘Do not go into Iraq. Do not attack Iraq.’... Nobody else on this stage said that. And I said it loud and strong. And I was in the private sector. I wasn't a politician, fortunately. But I said it, and I said it loud and clear, ‘You'll destabilize the Middle East.’” Absolutely false, as shown here.


95. Trump: “I will totally protect Israel.” But then again, “Let me be sort of a neutral guy. I don’t want to say whose fault it is. I don’t think it helps.”


96. Trump says that the Bible is his favorite book. But he can’t even quote a verse from it. When he was asked to name his favorite verse, he declined. Some favorite book.


97. Trump said: “I will endorse the 2016 Republican presidential nominee regardless of who it is. I further pledge that I will not seek to run as an independent or write-in candidate nor will I seek or accept the nomination for president of any other party.” But Trump told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos he would consider it months ago.


98. One of the great ones: Trump: “Nobody respects women more than I do.” Tell that to all the women he has insulted.


99. Trump brags about his relationship with God, but as Kevin Williamson of National Review cogently points out, Trump explicitly rejects the fundamentals of Christianity, i.e. man’s fallen state and his need for reconciliation with God. When asked about that, Trump made it clear that he doesn’t believe he needs to be forgiven for anything, that he just needs to — in his words — “drink my little wine and have my little cracker.” As Trump put it, “Why do I have to ask for forgiveness if you’re not making mistakes?”


100. Trump has boasted that he is a conservative, but then tweeted, “Remember, it was the Republican Party, with the help of conservatives, that made so many promises to their base, but didn’t keep them.” For a comprehensive list of why Trump is not a conservative, see here.
http://www.dailywire.com/news/4834/trumps-101-lies-hank-berrien

Osborne Russell
07-06-2016, 09:06 PM
|:) Yoich !

Ninety nine bottles of beer on the wall, ninety-nine bottles of beer . . . take one down, pass it around, ninety eight bottles of beer on the wall.

Rum_Pirate
07-06-2016, 09:12 PM
Saw this



FBI Rewrites Federal Law to Let Hillary Off the Hook
by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY July 5, 2016 12:45 PM
@ANDREWCMCCARTHY
There is no way of getting around this: According to Director James Comey (disclosure: a former colleague and longtime friend of mine), Hillary Clinton checked every box required for a felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18): With lawful access to highly classified information she acted with gross negligence in removing and causing it to be removed it from its proper place of custody, and she transmitted it and caused it to be transmitted to others not authorized to have it, in patent violation of her trust.

Director Comey even conceded that former Secretary Clinton was “extremely careless” and strongly suggested that her recklessness very likely led to communications (her own and those she corresponded with) being intercepted by foreign intelligence services.
Yet, Director Comey recommended against prosecution of the law violations he clearly found on the ground that there was no intent to harm the United States. GET FREE EXCLUSIVE NR CONTENT In essence, in order to give Mrs. Clinton a pass, the FBI rewrote the statute, inserting an intent element that Congress did not require.
The added intent element, moreover, makes no sense: The point of having a statute that criminalizes gross negligence is to underscore that government officials have a special obligation to safeguard national defense secrets; when they fail to carry out that obligation due to gross negligence, they are guilty of serious wrongdoing.
The lack of intent to harm our country is irrelevant.
People never intend the bad things that happen due to gross negligence.
I would point out, moreover, that there are other statutes that criminalize unlawfully removing and transmitting highly classified information with intent to harm the United States. Being not guilty (and, indeed, not even accused) of Offense B does not absolve a person of guilt on Offense A, which she has committed.

It is a common tactic of defense lawyers in criminal trials to set up a straw-man for the jury: a crime the defendant has not committed.
The idea is that by knocking down a crime the prosecution does not allege and cannot prove, the defense may confuse the jury into believing the defendant is not guilty of the crime charged.
Judges generally do not allow such sleight-of-hand because innocence on an uncharged crime is irrelevant to the consideration of the crimes that actually have been charged.
It seems to me that this is what the FBI has done today.
It has told the public that because Mrs. Clinton did not have intent to harm the United States we should not prosecute her on a felony that does not require proof of intent to harm the United States.
Meanwhile, although there may have been profound harm to national security caused by her grossly negligent mishandling of classified information, we’ve decided she shouldn’t be prosecuted for grossly negligent mishandling of classified information.

I think highly of Jim Comey personally and professionally, but this makes no sense to me.

Finally, I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI.
To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence?
The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security.
So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security?

If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437479/fbi-rewrites-federal-law-let-hillary-hook

Ian McColgin
07-06-2016, 09:22 PM
McCarthy's pseudo-legalistic claims might fool those who don't actually read the USC. Read for yourself:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

There are many items that are classified that have nothing to do with the military. Things held by State. Even things held by Interior and HUD, if you can imagine. Even DOE classified material fall under other laws than this. If you read shallow liars like McCarthy, you'll remain wrong.

Rum_Pirate
07-06-2016, 09:29 PM
McCarthy's pseudo-legalistic claims might fool those who don't actually read the USC. Read for yourself:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defence (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody (EG from the Government servers to her private server) or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

There are many items that are classified that have nothing to do with the military. Things held by State. Even things held by Interior and HUD, if you can imagine. Even DOE classified material fall under other laws than this. If you read shallow liars like McCarthy, you'll remain wrong.

I read it.

Rum_Pirate
07-06-2016, 10:47 PM
Ian, did I read it incorrectly?

Ian McColgin
07-06-2016, 10:56 PM
This part of the USC applies to people who work in the Defense Department, our military, or contractors. It does not apply to State, HUD, DoE or other departments that have other materials that are at various levels of secret. One of my cousins, retired from USN and now a DoD contractor, simply reviews masses of DoD paper to determine what can be declassified. He does not read State paper. Each department has it's own security laws and regulations.

This is the point McCarthy seems to have deliberately misled his readers on - that section of the USC is not available for Justice to use in prosecuting Clinton.

Rum_Pirate
07-06-2016, 11:10 PM
This part of the USC applies to people who work in the Defense Department, our military, or contractors. It does not apply to State, HUD, DoE or other departments that have other materials that are at various levels of secret. One of my cousins, retired from USN and now a DoD contractor, simply reviews masses of DoD paper to determine what can be declassified. He does not read State paper. Each department has it's own security laws and regulations.

This is the point McCarthy seems to have deliberately misled his readers on - that section of the USC is not available for Justice to use in prosecuting Clinton.


Oh, so I appear to have misread it, I was so sure that I read the first word 'Whoever' correctly. :rolleyes:



It appears to be entitled "18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defence information" and you quoted paragraph (f), felony violation of Section 793(f) of the federal penal code (Title 18)


Does the US Code only apply to "This part of the USC applies to people who work in the Defense Department, our military, or contractors." ?

Are you quite certain that "it does not apply to State, HUD, DoE or other departments that have other materials that are at various levels of secret" as I did not see any exemptions ?

Then again I am only a layman and not a lawyer or expert in that field.

skuthorp
07-06-2016, 11:23 PM
Observing this thread I was minded of this old argument, and thought it might be easier to resolve.
Quantum Gravity Treatment of the Angel Density Problem
by Anders Sandberg (http://www.nada.kth.se/%7Easa/anders.html)
SANS/NADA, Royal Institute of Technology (http://www.kth.se/index-eng.html), Stockholm, Sweden
[EDITOR'S NOTE: we apologize for the lack of clear formatting,in this web version, of the mathematical formulae.]Abstract
We derive upper bounds for the density of angels dancing on the point of a pin. It is dependent on the assumed mass of the angels, with a maximum number of 8.6766*10exp49 angels at the critical angel mass (3.8807*10exp-34 kg).
Ancient Question, Modern Physics
"How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" has been a major theological question since (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a4_132.html) the Middle Ages.[5]
According to Thomas Aquinas, it is impossible for two distinct causes to each be the immediate cause of one and the same thing. An angel is a good example of such a cause. Thus two angels cannot occupy the same space.[2] This can be seen as an early statement of the Pauli exclusion principle (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pauli.html). (The Pauli exclusion principle is a pillar of modern physics. It was first stated in the twentieth century, by Pauli.)
However, this does not place any upper bound on the density of angels in a small area, because the size r of angels remains undefined and could possibly be arbitrarily small. There have also been theological criticisms of any assumption of angels as complete causes.
Stating the Question Correctly
The basic issue is the maximal density of active angels in a small volume. It should be noted that the original formulation of the problem did not refer to the head of a pin (R�1 mm) but to the point of the pin. Therefore, the point, not the head, of the pin is the region that will be studied in this paper.
One of the first reported attempts at a quantum gravity treatment of the angel density problem that also included the correct end of the pin was made by Dr. Phil Schewe (http://www.nytimes.com/learning/students/scienceqa/archive/971111.html). He suggested that due to quantum gravity space is likely not infinitely divisible beyond the Planck length scale of 10exp-35 meters. Hence, assuming the point of the pin to be one Ångström across (the size of a scanning tunnelling microscope tip) this would produce a maximal number of angels on the order of 1050 since they would not have more places to fill.[1]
While this approach does produce an upper bound on the possible density of angels, it is based on the Thomist assumption of non-overlap.Since angels can be presumed to obey quantum rules when packed at quantum gravity densities, the uncertainty relation will cause their wave functions to overlap significantly even if there is a strong degeneracy pressure. If the non-overlap assumption is relaxed, this approach cannot derive an upper bound.
Quantum Gravitational (http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_home.html) Treatment
A stricter bound based on information physics can be derived that is not based on overlap assumptions, but merely the localisation of angelic information.
Assuming that each angel contains at least one bit of information (fallen / not fallen), and that the point of the pin is a sphere of diameter of an Ångström (R=10exp-10 m) and has a total mass of M=9.5*10exp-29 kilograms (equivalent to that of one iron atom), we can use the Bekenstein bound (http://citeseer.nj.nec.com/context/234827/0)[3] on information to calculate an upper bound on the angel density. In a system of diameter D and mass M, less than kDM distinguishable bits can exist, where k=2.57686*10exp43 bits/meter kg.[7] This gives us a bound of just 2.448*10exp5 angels, far below the Schewe bound.
Note that this does not take the mass of angels into account. A finite angel mass-energy would increase the possible information density significantly. If each angel has a mass m, then the Bekenstein bound gives us N<kD(M+Nm). Beyond mcrit>1/kD �3.8807*10exp-34 kg this produces an unbounded maximal angel density as each angel contributes enough mass-energy to allow the information of an extra angel to move in, and so on.
However, if angels have mass, then the point of the pin will collapse into a black hole if c2R/2G< Nm (here I ignore the mass of the iron atom at the tip).4 For angels of human weight (80 kg), we get a limit of 4.2089*10exp14 angels. The maximal mass of any angel amenable to dance on the pin is 3.3671*10exp16 kg; at this point there is only room for a single angel.
The picture that emerges is that, for low angel masses, the number is bounded by the Bekenstein bound, and increases hyperbolically as mcrit is approached. However, the black hole bound decreases and the two bounds cross at mmax=1/(4GkM/cexp2+kD), very slightly below mcrit. This corresponds to the maximal angel density of Nmax=8.6766*10exp49 angels (see figure).
http://www.improbable.com/airchives/paperair/volume7/v7i3/angels-7-3.gif

Maximum number of angels for a given mass. The allowed region is bounded from above by the line c2R/2G=Nm (gravitational collapse) and the curve N=kD(M+Nm) (information density) which has an asymptote for mcrit, and from below by N=0. The maximal number of angels occurs at the intersection of the gravitational bound and the asymptote at mcrit
Dance Dynamics
If the angels dance very quickly and in the same direction, then the angular momentum could lead to a situation like the extremal Kerr metric, where no event horizon forms (this could also be achieved by charging the angels).[4] Hence the number of dancing angels that can crowd together is likely much higher than the number of stationary angels.
However, at these speeds the friction caused by their interaction with the pin is likely to vaporise it or at least break it apart. Even for a modest speed of 1 m/s the total kinetic energy of Nmax angels of mass mcrit would be 1.682*10exp16 J. In the case of charged angels at relativistic densities, pair-creation in their vicinity would likely cause the charge to dissipate over time,6 and charge transfer to the pin would also likely induce electromechanical forces beyond any material tolerances.
The uncertainty relation also imposes a limitation on the dance. Since the uncertainty in position of the angels by assumption is less than the size of the point �x�R we find that the uncertainty in momentum must be �p�hbar/R, and this leads to a velocity uncertainty �v>hbar/Rm. If m= mcrit we get �v>> 8.6766*10exp59 m/s (>> c), which shows that:
(1) the angels must dance with speeds near the velocity of light in order to obey quantum mechanics;
(2) a full relativistic treatment is necessary; and
(3) that the precision of the dance must break down due to quantum effects.
This can be used to rule out certain types of dance due to their high precision requirements.

Rum_Pirate
07-06-2016, 11:56 PM
Ian, here is a link:

http://uscode.house.gov/about_code.xhtml

Does the US Code only apply to "This part of the USC applies to people who work in the Defense Department, our military, or contractors." or to ALL people?

Are you quite certain that "it does not apply to State, HUD, DoE or other departments that have other materials that are at various levels of secret" as I did not see any exemptions ?

Ian McColgin
07-07-2016, 12:19 AM
Parts of the USC apply in different ways to different people. For example, outing Valerie Plame could be argued to be revealing something about national defense but this part of the code was not used in the resulting prosecution because Plame was not DoD. It could have been used (I don't know if it was or not) in the cases of Petraeus and Manning. Black letter law is less than 0.05% of the law when you grab a snippet without the full context, as McCarthy's sloppy pseudo-legal nonsense did. Even with the whole law, the black letter is about 10% of the law and the rest is how it's ruled on and used.

If you read the FBI Director's statement, it's clear the FBI looked hard to find a criminal offense.

Rum_Pirate
07-07-2016, 12:40 AM
Parts of the USC apply in different ways to different people. For example, outing Valerie Plame could be argued to be revealing something about national defense but this part of the code was not used in the resulting prosecution because Plame was not DoD. It could have been used (I don't know if it was or not) in the cases of Petraeus and Manning. Black letter law is less than 0.05% of the law when you grab a snippet without the full context, as McCarthy's sloppy pseudo-legal nonsense did. Even with the whole law, the black letter is about 10% of the law and the rest is how it's ruled on and used.

If you read the FBI Director's statement, it's clear the FBI looked hard to find a criminal offense.


And here was I being so misguided as to think that the US Code applied to ALL citizens.

PS I still can't find any of the exemptions you state, it must be in the 90% of the law that is applied on whim and wind.

BTW you are the one that C&P'd the "snippet".



http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Ian McColgin http://forum.woodenboat.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=4941020#post4941020)
McCarthy's pseudo-legalistic claims might fool those who don't actually read the USC. Read for yourself:

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defence (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody(EG from the Government servers to her private server) or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.



There are many items that are classified that have nothing to do with the military. Things held by State. Even things held by Interior and HUD, if you can imagine. Even DOE classified material fall under other laws than this. If you read shallow liars like McCarthy, you'll remain wrong.
Whoever . . . having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, . . . note, or information, relating to the national defence (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody(EG from the Government servers to her private server).

I am looking forward to the explanation that will be given to the Oversight Committee tomorrow. Will it be cover-up spin?

Ian McColgin
07-07-2016, 12:45 AM
Well, Rum_Pirate, I guess you really understand the law more fully than the FBI's attorneys.

Rum_Pirate
07-07-2016, 12:47 AM
Well, Rum_Pirate, I guess you really understand the law more fully than the FBI's attorneys.

Not suggesting that I do, but even the FBI's attorneys are given instructions. |;)

Rum_Pirate
07-07-2016, 09:50 AM
Update

UPDATE: Via The Hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/286639-gop-calls-lynch-to-testify-on-clinton-probe), Attorney General Loretta Lynch has been asked to appear before the Oversight Committee next week:

Lynch is slated to testify before the House Judiciary Committee next Tuesday, the panel announced — her second testimony before the panel since becoming the nation's top law enforcement official last year.
Her testimony will come just days after Republicans have FBI Director James Comey testify on Capitol Hill regarding the FBI's decision, announced Tuesday, to not recommend criminal charges for Clinton over her use of a private email account and server while secretary of State.

Days after FBI Director James Comey announced that no criminal charges would be recommended to be brought forward against former Secretary of State Hilary Clinton over her email use, the House Oversight Committee would like to ask him a few questions relating to the agency’s investigation; Katie noted (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2016/07/06/come-called-to-testify-in-front-of-house-oversight-committee-n2188785) this development earlier today. The investigation into the former first lady’s email usage reached new fervor before the Fourth of July weekend when Bill Clinton met with Attorney General Loretta Lynch privately on her plane for 30 minutes in Phoenix. There were allegations that political interference was at play, as some sources said Clinton delayed (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/07/03/waitbill-clinton-did-what-to-ensure-he-would-run-into-attorney-general-loretta-lynch-n2187391)departure time in order to foster a run in with the attorney general (viaPolitico (http://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/house-oversight-chairman-comey-to-testify-thursday-225156)):

FBI Director James Comey will testify on Capitol Hill Thursday regarding the bureau's investigation of Hillary Clinton's email practices, part of a concerted GOP effort to keep the heat on Clinton heading into the party conventions and a long congressional recess.Comey will appear before the Oversight Committee at 10 a.m., House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) said on Wednesday morning. The hearing will be just two days after Comey's stunning repudiation of Clinton's "extremely careless" practice of using a private email server to send classified information during her tenure as secretary of State. Comey did not recommend charges be filed against her, stoking GOP outrage and propelling congressional leaders like Chaffetz to seek more information.
Chaffetz's Senate counterpart, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), demanded a written explanation of Comey's decision-making on Wednesday. And House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) said that Attorney General Loretta Lynch will testify next Tuesday before his panel about Clinton's email practices, as well as Bill Clinton's private meeting with Lynch in late June.
The flurry of action highlights the GOP's exasperation over Comey's decision not to recommend an indictment despite his harsh words for Clinton.
This is what Comey said (https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system) during his briefing yesterday:

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.[…]
Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).
None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.
That seems like gross negligence, which is a provision within federal law concerning handling of classified materials.
Pretty much everyone slammed both Clinton and Lynch for this rendezvous, labeling it as an inappropriate meeting. And many eyebrows were raised when Lynch said they mostly discussed grandchildren and golf for a half hour.
Cortney wrote on Saturday (http://townhall.com/tipsheet/cortneyobrien/2016/07/02/confirmed-hillary-interviewed-with-the-fbi-n2186840) that Clinton met with FBI officials for a three-and-a-half hour interview.
On Tuesday, Comey announced that while Clinton and her team were extremely careless regarding handling classified information, including 110 emails deemed classified on 52 separate email chains, among other things, they were not going to suggest she be charged.
In the fallout from the tarmac meeting, Lynch said she would follow whatever recommendations the FBI and the attorneys at the Department of Justice bring to her desk at the conclusion of this investigation.
This, coupled with Comey’s damning briefing to Clinton and her team’s abysmal culture regarding safeguarding sensitive information, has only intensified feelings from some that political influence was applied—and that Clinton has lied from day one since the beginning of this email fiasco .

John Smith
07-07-2016, 10:07 AM
How often have I posted that our problem is accepting lying for political gain as free speech. All of a sudden Hillary lies and everyone's upset.

bobbys
10-31-2016, 11:44 AM
your law school education came inside a box of crackerjax?

Comey specifically stated that there was no evidence of intent. Lack of intent would be a defense.

Lastly, look into james comey's reputation... And review what he did when cheney tried to coerce ashcroft, as he lay critically ill in a hospital bed, to approve some thing he knew to be illegal.

If you're looking for a man with impeccable integrity in washington, it would be james comey.... And there is no freakin' way in hell that he would have let his judgment be clouded by crass political considerations.... Furthermore, he's a republican!
.

Lol.

biga
10-31-2016, 11:47 AM
he's a political hack and a LOSER today though. :D

bobbys
10-31-2016, 11:51 AM
Norm sez he is a man with impeccable intergrity and would never do anything political...

Norm does not change his mind based on the political winds!

Dan McCosh
10-31-2016, 11:51 AM
Might note that the FBI has been investigating local officials in Metro Detroit for the last three years, in Democratic strongholds, and just released the info two weeks before the next election. Does seem a bit odd, at many levels. The officials were charged with taking bribes to take the low bid on municipal contracts.

bobbys
10-31-2016, 01:36 PM
Norm sez he is a man with impeccable intergrity and would never do anything political...

Norm does not change his mind based on the political winds!.

Well at least we all agree Comey has intergrity.

delecta
10-31-2016, 01:45 PM
.

Well at least we all agree Comey has intergrity.

Norm blows with the wind and has no interest in integrity, results for his candidate is all that counts. Anyone but Trump, kind of sad that it comes to that but being on the other side I can completely understand.

CK 17
10-31-2016, 02:03 PM
The White House position is comey is not trying to influence the election. Their staying out of it.

TomF
10-31-2016, 02:20 PM
When this story first broke the other day, I said that I thought Comey was trying to be as transparent as possible.

Last summer, he brought Republican ire onto himself by saying that he had found nothing which any reasonable prosecutor would bring to charges, and no evidence of the wilful concealment of any information - through deletion or otherwise.

Last week, he brought Democrat ire onto himself by acknowledging that he was reviewing new emails discovered in another investigation, which may have a bearing on Clinton issues from last July.

I think that in both cases, he was attempting to be impartial and honest to the extent that he can speak in specifics, and his statements were not at all an exhibit of partisanship. In my opinion, though, his comments about the emails found on the Wiener/Abedin laptop showed poor judgment, rather than impartial judgment. In particular because he knew of these emails (http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/30/politics/clinton-emails-fbi-abedin/) weeks ago, and his decision to make his very limited comments contravened policy for actions to take during an election season which were established years ago.

It is not partisan to conduct the investigations - would be a lapse and abdication if that had happened, actually. Comey is to be commended for doing this investigation, as honestly as he has tried to do, especially in such a fraught season.

I feel though that it was a lapse in judgment to depart from established policy developed to apply exactly to these type of situations, especially when the advice he received from the Department of Justice was to follow precedent and policy. If a statement was necessary at all, it needs to have been informed by some level of description of the content of the emails themselves. We as yet know nothing about whether these emails are new, are copies, are even relevant. We do know that the emails were not sent on that computer by Clinton.

I feel that Comey is in an unwinnable situation, but that he got there by attempting to model integrity.

Osborne Russell
10-31-2016, 02:56 PM
I feel that Comey is in an unwinnable situation, but that he got there by attempting to model integrity.

Integrity in the sense of fidelity to the nation's principles, which has nothing to do with him "winning".

Principles are things on behalf of which you lose what you might have won, whatever they may be.

TomF
10-31-2016, 03:01 PM
Principles are what you continue to hold even when they're inconvenient.

Michael D. Storey
10-31-2016, 06:24 PM
Now we'll just have to wait and see if the Justice Department and Loretta Lynch "Do the Right Thing"... wont we? wonder if they'll treat Clinton like every other Millitary Personel, Service Member found "accidentally" ;) mishandling classified info ?????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????

what do you all think.... Will Hillary get special treatment? different from US Service men?Special treatment would have been his announcement being delayed until after the election. And, the FBI does not determine Guilt. If it did it would be the Federal Bureau of Guilt Determination. So, how much are you makin up, here?