FBI Director, James Comey, to make statement today

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Answer this, why now? We been hearing this for two years. Why is it wrapping up a few day before thr dnc?

So they could pick another nominee who wasn't indicted, if necessary.

[MDM4AU 336]

Answer this, why now? We been hearing this for two years. Why is it wrapping up a few day before thr dnc?

So they could pick another nominee who wasn't indicted, if necessary.

This. The FBI was fully aware of the implications of this investigation.

[alexava 6,973]

Answer this, why now? We been hearing this for two years. Why is it wrapping up a few day before thr dnc?

So they could pick another nominee who wasn't indicted, if necessary.

for this reason i was actually hoping she was indicted, the superdelegates simply change to Bernie and it is a clean break. but the pressure to investigate this is what i believe even made it an investigation anyway. i think it could have happened just as thoroughly or more so 6 -12 months ago. was there pressure to drag it past the dnc by the republicans? possibly

[TitanTiger 20,511]

I don't think you were alone in that sentiment. I think Bernie supporters were almost as eager to see her indicted as Republicans were. And they are almost equally outraged that it didn't happen.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Interesting that Comey used " careless " & not reckless or some such. That has to be for legal reasons, I'll bet.

Yes, they mean different things. She was careless.

That's the soft spin on what she did. The act of using a private server shows intent on her part to deceive & conceal

Deceive and conceal what from whom?

We're talking Hillary here. The Clintons?

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Interesting that Comey used " careless " & not reckless or some such. That has to be for legal reasons, I'll bet.

Yes, they mean different things. She was careless.

That's the soft spin on what she did. The act of using a private server shows intent on her part to deceive & conceal

Deceive and conceal what from whom?

We're talking Hillary here. The Clintons?

As always, big on assertions, void of facts and reason.

[homersapien 11,453]

Interesting that Comey used " careless " & not reckless or some such. That has to be for legal reasons, I'll bet.

Yes, they mean different things. She was careless.

That's the soft spin on what she did. The act of using a private server shows intent on her part to deceive & conceal

Deceive and conceal what from whom?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-emails-whitewater_us_577c2f8ee4b0a629c1ab2517?section=

[TheBlueVue 177]

Answer this, why now? We been hearing this for two years. Why is it wrapping up a few day before thr dnc?

It had to wrap when it did up to neatly dovetail into a campaign trip to North Carolina aboard AF-1 with Obama. You know, in time for the "planned" victory lap. I think its fair to ask... who paid for that trip? Are the tax payers paying for Hillary's travel expenses, like it or not?

[TexasTiger 13,029]

Answer this, why now? We been hearing this for two years. Why is it wrapping up a few day before thr dnc?

It had to wrap when it did up to neatly dovetail into a campaign trip to North Carolina aboard AF-1 with Obama. You know, in time for the "planned" victory lap. I think its fair to ask... who paid for that trip? Are the tax payers paying for Hillary's travel expenses, like it or not?

Some victory...

[AURaptor 1,126]

Texas - they are corrupt, to their core. That's not up for debate. From Hillary being booted off the Nixon watergate case , to Bill being impeached... It's well documented. Stop with your childish partisan denial crap.

[alexava 6,973]

Answer this, why now? We been hearing this for two years. Why is it wrapping up a few day before thr dnc?

It had to wrap when it did up to neatly dovetail into a campaign trip to North Carolina aboard AF-1 with Obama. You know, in time for the "planned" victory lap. I think its fair to ask... who paid for that trip? Are the tax payers paying for Hillary's travel expenses, like it or not?

Some victory...

really

[homersapien 11,453]

Answer this, why now? We been hearing this for two years. Why is it wrapping up a few day before thr dnc?

It had to wrap when it did up to neatly dovetail into a campaign trip to North Carolina aboard AF-1 with Obama. You know, in time for the "planned" victory lap. I think its fair to ask... who paid for that trip? Are the tax payers paying for Hillary's travel expenses, like it or not?

Some victory...

Seriously. :-\

[Auctoritas 2,828]

Answer this, why now? We been hearing this for two years. Why is it wrapping up a few day before thr dnc?

It had to wrap when it did up to neatly dovetail into a campaign trip to North Carolina aboard AF-1 with Obama. You know, in time for the "planned" victory lap. I think its fair to ask... who paid for that trip? Are the tax payers paying for Hillary's travel expenses, like it or not?

Actually, campaign finance rules say she has to pay for a big portion of it - not sure of the exact amount or wording in the rule, I am at work and will look around for it when I get home. But, no, not on the taxpayer dime, at least not entirely, and (assuming the amount is paid back) entirely within the law. Within taste and rightness? YMMV.

[AuburnNTexas 7,174]

http://www.latimes.c...snap-story.html

I can say without question that if anyone I've ever known with a security clearance would have exposed classified or even sensitive unclassified info in such a reckless manner, they would be fired and stripped of their clearance immediately. Criminal charge not withstanding, she's getting away virtually scot-free with something that no regular person would.

Perhaps. But most folks on the right are clamoring she broke the law and it's a sham. I hate having to defend her, but the grossly irrational response, which is constant, of folks on the right to anything a Democrat does is disturbing. There is zero objectivity anymore, which is why we are so dysfunctional.

Forget indictment why didn't they remove her security clearance which is an automatic action for any other person who did this. If you or I were working for the Government and did this in addition to having security clearance removed you would not be allowed to work for the government again in any capacity. Without security clearance you shouldn't be allowed to be President.

[AuburnNTexas 7,174]

A good summation:

Several people have reached out asking for my thoughts on Hillary and her personal server.

Here they are:

1. Director Comey is a Republican. He has given money to Republican presidential candidates in the last two elections. I do not think this has anything to do with partisan impropriety.

2. Director Comey, in stating that other people could be punished for doing the same thing Hillary did, was not saying Hillary was guilty of a crime. He was stating that she was careless with national security and should be punished administratively (I.e. Fired or clearance revoked). The problem with doing so is that she no longer works there.

She’s applied to the American people for a promotion, and the American public is very likely going to affirm it cares little for her recklessness or her boldface lying after it considers the alternative (a reckless boldface liar).

If we believe (and I do) that compromising national security–even negligently–is something no president should have on their resume before being elected, we will refuse to vote for her.

3. If you read any article about the laws Hillary allegedly broke and the article doesn’t mention Gorin v. United States, ignore the article. The FBI didn’t rewrite the law for Hillary. The court did in 1941.

In Gorin, the Supreme Court examined the Espionage Act and determined that it required “Scienter”. Essentially, a person has to have bad intent with their actions. In this instance, the hurdle is probably demonstrating that Hillary intended for other countries to steal from her servers.

Few attorneys that I’ve spoken with have felt anything exists to tackle this hurdle. I thought there was a Hail Mary chance the FBI would view setting up a private server (in a bathroom) to circumvent department surveillance and public accountability as a fulfillment of the scienter requirement. It seems to me that act had general bad intent, just not specific with regard to national security. I will restate, I think bringing a case based on those facts would have been crafty, but unlikely to succeed.

4. Most of the American people feel they don’t have a choice in this election. We can chose a narcissistic liar that believes the law only applies to little people or a narcissistic liar that believes the law only applies to little people.

It’s clear that for those who believe character matters in high office, neither Trump or Hillary will suffice.

I’ll be casting my “protest ballot” in November.

5. Don’t buy into doomsday political talk.

This is not the end of America or the United States. Neither liberty nor justice have died.

The American people will persevere and prevail as we have done for 240 years.

http://www.patheos.c...retty-well.html

Basically you are correct. One area that you are wrong is as a Presidential Candidate she is still given Security briefings as is Trump. To get those briefings you do have to have a security clearance. The FBI based on her actions could have removed her security clearance. With that step they basically would have said she is not qualified to be President and the Democratic Party would have had to punt and find a replacement. I believe it would have found a way to Draft Biden if not Bernie would have won by default. Politically I don't agree with either but I could easily vote for Biden and not as easily vote for Bernie as while I don't agree with them I do think both are honorable

[TitanTiger 20,511]

Basically you are correct. One area that you are wrong is as a Presidential Candidate she is still given Security briefings as is Trump. To get those briefings you do have to have a security clearance. The FBI based on her actions could have removed her security clearance. With that step they basically would have said she is not qualified to be President and the Democratic Party would have had to punt and find a replacement. I believe it would have found a way to Draft Biden if not Bernie would have won by default. Politically I don't agree with either but I could easily vote for Biden and not as easily vote for Bernie as while I don't agree with them I do think both are honorable

How am I wrong? I never said her clearance had been revoked.

[AURaptor 1,126]

More on the word usage by Comey regarding Hillary. Mr President used the exact same phraseology as Comey, months before the FBI presser on July 5th.

“And I haven’t been sorting through each and every aspect of this. Here’s what I know: Hillary Clinton was an outstanding Secretary of State. She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy.’ Mr. Wallace pressed further on the jeopardy angle, and Mr. Obama responded again: ‘'I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America’s national security. Now what I’ve also said is that — and she has acknowledged — that there’s a carelessness, in terms of managing emails…''

- Obama on Chris Wallace, FOX News, April 10th , 2016 -

So Obama AND Hillary are saying, 3 months before the Comey presser, that her actions weren't intentional, and that she was nothing more than careless.

Folks, anyone paying attention knows that Hillary and her cohorts use words SPECIFICALLY, with intent and meaning. Remember " that depends on what the definition of IS is " ? Hillary at first said she neither sent nor received any top secret e-mails on her private server ( of course, that's the only server she HAD, but never mind ) She then shifted her claim to no e-mails MARKED as top secret. Both lies, but never mind that. She intentionally added the ' marked ' in a legalize contortion to get out of having lied, but it didn't work. It didn't need to work, because the fix was in. With any normal situation, where the rule of law is enforced, she'd be found guilty of a felony. Or several.

But not here. Not in our banana republic.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

More on the word usage by Comey regarding Hillary. Mr President used the exact same phraseology as Comey, months before the FBI presser on July 5th.

“And I haven’t been sorting through each and every aspect of this. Here’s what I know: Hillary Clinton was an outstanding Secretary of State. She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy.’ Mr. Wallace pressed further on the jeopardy angle, and Mr. Obama responded again: ‘'I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized America’s national security. Now what I’ve also said is that — and she has acknowledged — that there’s a carelessness, in terms of managing emails…''

- Obama on Chris Wallace, FOX News, April 10th , 2016 -

So Obama AND Hillary are saying, 3 months before the Comey presser, that her actions weren't intentional, and that she was nothing more than careless.

Folks, anyone paying attention knows that Hillary and her cohorts use words SPECIFICALLY, with intent and meaning. Remember " that depends on what the definition of IS is " ? Hillary at first said she neither sent nor received any top secret e-mails on her private server ( of course, that's the only server she HAD, but never mind ) She then shifted her claim to no e-mails MARKED as top secret. Both lies, but never mind that. She intentionally added the ' marked ' in a legalize contortion to get out of having lied, but it didn't work. It didn't need to work, because the fix was in. With any normal situation, where the rule of law is enforced, she'd be found guilty of a felony. Or several.

But not here. Not in our banana republic.

Careless is the right word. No surprise, no mystery.

[AURaptor 1,126]

It's the right word because it carries less legal liability for Hillary ( and Obama ) and it was scripted by the administration for Comey to say, months in advance.

So, yeah, for a nice neat transition from one corrupt admin to another, they needed to use ' careless ', and lessen the political damage.

A more apt word would be incompetent. Or even reckless. Certainly anyone w/ Hillary's " expertise " , as first lady, senator, and then SecState, would know better, SHOULD know better , but she chose to use an unsecured, private and unauthorized e-mail server.

[TexasTiger 13,029]

So Republican Comey slams HRC because the thing was rigged?

[AURaptor 1,126]

So Republican Comey slams HRC because the thing was rigged?

Slams ? Hardly

Bureaucrat Comey did what he was told to do.

[Grumps 3,704]

Didn't Loretta Lynch recently say that she was going to accept the recommendation of the career prosecutors as to whether or not to indict Hillary? So today she decided instead to take the recommendation of an FBI investigator? Is the investigator also a lawyer who is well-versed in prosecuting cases such as this?

[alexava 6,973]

Didn't Loretta Lynch recently say that she was going to accept the recommendation of the career prosecutors as to whether or not to indict Hillary? So today she decided instead to take the recommendation of an FBI investigator? Is the investigator also a lawyer who is well-versed in prosecuting cases such as this?

yes

[TexasTiger 13,029]

So Republican Comey slams HRC because the thing was rigged?

Slams ? Hardly

Bureaucrat Comey did what he was told to do.

You are clueless.

[AURaptor 1,126]

So Republican Comey slams HRC because the thing was rigged?

Slams ? Hardly

Bureaucrat Comey did what he was told to do.

You are clueless.

Many with law degrees share my view...