• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

FBI recommends no charges against Mrs Clinton: let the accusations begin. Will this help or hurt HRC?

I think what he said is republicans shouldn't be in the FBI either
 
RavenSky said:
Will Wiley said:
The point is you don't have any choice ATM it's one or the other. But as a matter of interest what is the evidence that Trump is corrupt?

He is a dick, sure, but corrupt?
Click to expand...
corrupt.

Look at his business dealings. That man is by far the most corrupt person we have ever had this close to our presidency.
Click to expand...

At least in modern times. There used to be a lot more corruption when we didn't have the mass media spreading it far and wide.
 
Don't know how credible this is yet, but former Representative Ellen Tauscher is saying that at least two of the emails that FBI Director Comey said were part of the 110 deemed classified were not, in fact, classified. If true, this calls into question what was actually classified when. As I noted yesterday, per Director Comey, the FBI enlisted hundreds of government agencies to determine which emails were contemporaneously classified (not classified after the fact). Out of nearly 4,000 emails, they only came up with 110, only 52 email chains. And if now some of those turn out to have not been contemporaneously classified???

The deeper and harder Republicans demand everyone digs into this story, the less and less of a "story" there is. But they certainly manage to cover HRC with soot from the smoke they generate
 
Loren Pechtel said:
KeepTalking said:
If they knew about it.

That is where security through obscurity comes into play. Every foreign state knew that the State Department server existed, but how many knew about Hillary's email server? The server was entirely secure against those who did not know it existed. That is what the concept of security through obscurity is all about. Do you understand this concept? If so, great, apply it to this situation, and you will see that from this perspective, her email server could be seen as more secure than the State Department's. That's all I was trying to get across, and it doesn't even mean that it was necessarily more secure, just that it is possible that it was because of that obscurity.
Click to expand...

If she was in their country and accessed it without using a VPN they would know (assuming they were spying on her connection--something that would be expected in a hostile country) there was something there and a simple check would show it to be an e-mail server. This is why such stuff should be left to the professionals--but the professionals wouldn't do their job of providing a reasonable system so she made do.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
And the Republican congressional posturing and public lynching of one of their own (FBI Director Comey) has begun :rolleyes:

So far, zero actual questions for Director Comey... just pompous speechifying
 
What is interesting is that Director Comey seems to be making a point of separating general State Department email correspondence and the 110 alleged classified emails. It sounds like there was nothing whatsoever wrong with having the private server, only that it should not be used for classified information (which then goes back to the exact nature and knowledge of those 110 emails).

Also per FBI Director Comey, HRC did not break any laws. He was very clear that he was not stating 'difficult to prosecute' but that she did not break any laws.
 
Director Comey mentioned that the emails marked "classified" were "portion markings"

Maybe some of you who have had direct experience with classified information can clarify, but it seems like "portion markings" are a first step in marking a document, and are contained within the body of the document - not in the subject header or at the top of the document.

So going back to the fact that there was an average of two emails per exchange of this classified information - and I am assuming the documents were likely attachments? - I have to go back to the idea that as soon as the information was recognized as potentially classified, the conversation was taken to secure channels.

I still think that she would have been better off using the State Department email system, if for no other reason than it would have been easier to not have to switch systems for classified information and because it would have covered her ass IF there had been a security breach, but I'm still not seeing a big issue.

Just a lot of Republican posturing and bloviating.

Have to laugh at Ms. Maloney's line of questioning, though - she's quoting Donald Trump's conspiracy theories about Director Comey and the FBI. She's basically showing how absurd this "hearing" is.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
repoman said:
What she ACTUALLY was doing was avoiding scrutiny and accountability to FOIA.
Click to expand...

What she was actually doing is trying to get things done despite the crappy system provided for the task.
Click to expand...

It seems like if you want to act the apologist you should at least parrot one of her own excuses. There are many evolving excuses to choose from so I'm not sure why you struggle so much to match one of hers.
 
RavenSky said:
Also per FBI Director Comey, HRC did not break any laws. He was very clear that he was not stating 'difficult to prosecute' but that she did not break any laws.
Click to expand...
Can you quote Comey saying that? What I heard is that while she did violate the law, they could not prove she intended to violate it. Which is bullshit, you do not trip and set up a server accidentally.

It also means that Hillary lied when she said she did not send or receive classified emails. If she is so careless ("extremely careless") when SecState, why should she be entrusted with the responsibility to be POTUS?
II6xMX.jpg

This is what superdelegates are actually for. They still have a chance to do the right thing and deny her the nomination.
 
RavenSky said:
What is interesting is that Director Comey seems to be making a point of separating general State Department email correspondence and the 110 alleged classified emails. It sounds like there was nothing whatsoever wrong with having the private server, only that it should not be used for classified information (which then goes back to the exact nature and knowledge of those 110 emails).

Also per FBI Director Comey, HRC did not break any laws. He was very clear that he was not stating 'difficult to prosecute' but that she did not break any laws.
Click to expand...

Then he's contradicting himself.

we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information
Click to expand...

there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information
Click to expand...
 
RavenSky said:
Don't know how credible this is yet, but former Representative Ellen Tauscher is saying
Click to expand...
Tauscher has been a Hillary surrogate since 2008. She has been a Hillary emailgate apologist for a while. She is not exactly the most unbiased source.
 
RavenSky said:
So going back to the fact that there was an average of two emails per exchange of this classified information - and I am assuming the documents were likely attachments? - I have to go back to the idea that as soon as the information was recognized as potentially classified, the conversation was taken to secure channels.
Click to expand...

I believe Comey just testified that there were not classified attachments in the emails. It was conversations about classified subjects.
 
Let's see...FBI investigates...no charges...republican congress summons FBI to ask about why no charges...

What a surprise.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom