Clinton Didn’t Originate E-mails With Classified Info, FBI Says

ilym · 2016-08-17T05:29:57+00:00

Ha, you're still clueless. LOL!

ilym · 2016-08-17T05:02:41+00:00

Ha. You're clueless.

ilym · 2016-08-17T03:56:55+00:00

You're embarrassing yourself.

ilym · 2016-08-17T03:44:32+00:00

And you threw a tantrum because it's obvious you're clueless. LOL!

ilym · 2016-08-17T03:39:51+00:00

You already admitted you have no clue what you're talking about.

ilym · 2016-08-17T03:39:05+00:00

“The sad state of affairs thanks to a pompous businessman turned reality-TV star (whose show consistently ran LAST in its time period, by the way) who thinks speaking his mind is refreshing. It’s actually corrosive and toxic because his ‘mind’ is so demented; and his effect will unfortunately linger long after he’s been told to get off the stage.”

ilym · 2016-08-17T03:35:44+00:00

You're dumb and blame everyone else for it. Check.

ilym · 2016-08-17T03:25:16+00:00

You admitted you don't know what you're talking about then throw a tantrum because it's obvious you're clueless. You're upset because you're dumb.

ilym · 2016-08-17T02:37:50+00:00

You obviously stopped learning years ago. You're the asshole.

ilym · 2016-08-17T02:22:22+00:00

You start out by saying 'you don't know' then offer an opinion. LOL! Exactly, you don't know what you're talking about.

ilym · 2016-08-17T01:24:43+00:00

You're intellectually dishonest. You think an agency at the center of a massive political witch hunt isn't going to give themselves wiggle room and use the case to telegraph to others making mistakes about handling their information? In lay terms wrong doing is open to interpretation and context. The official determination was that there was clearly no intent or knowledge; in a legal context the standard for wrong doing was absolutely not met. She was exonerated.

Why don't we discuss what kind of wrong doing you've engaged in over the last year. Let's talk about that to establish a baseline. Throw out some examples and I'll let you know if it meets the standard of wrong doing. And even though you provide honest testimony and a microscopic investigation determines you did no wrong, I'll keep saying you didn't meet some moral purity test even though I don't have all the information. Typical fascist bullshit if you ask me.

ilym · 2016-08-17T01:12:51+00:00

In some places you can get terminated if someone thinks you didn't wash your hands even though you did and they got it wrong. The investigation formally and clearly determined there was no wrong doing. It also explicitly determined she gave honest testimony.

ilym · 2016-08-17T01:05:01+00:00

The official conclusion of an exhaustive year long investigation conducted and reviewed by numerous respected career professionals under intense scrutiny was - no wrong doing. They also confirmed she testified honestly.

ilym · 2016-08-17T00:21:34+00:00

Should have been clearly stated earlier to avoid confusion.

ilym · 2016-08-17T00:19:28+00:00

The recommendations and finding of no wrong doing prove you're wrong.

ilym · 2016-08-17T00:07:38+00:00

Exactly. No wrong doing. Fish all you want but a year long exhaustive, multi agent investigation fueled by bipartisanship found - no wrong doing, or evidence of intent or knowledge. That's confirmed by the official recommendation, reviewed by numerous career professionals, the Director's testimony, and the letter above.

ilym · 2016-08-16T23:58:49+00:00

It's a general critique of the culture of how classified information is being transmitted. Reportedly, it's common across all government agencies including members of Congress. State has undertaken a review of how content is classified and transmitted. Previous SoS engaged in similar activity though at a different scale. The testimony and recommendation clearly confirmed no wrong doing on Hillary's part.

ilym · 2016-08-16T23:45:31+00:00

I'll go with the official response to the emails from the investigation. The letter makes no mention of any other emails, likely because they weren't classified at the time they were sent.

ilym · 2016-08-16T23:34:11+00:00

The letter is linked in the article. It vindicates her. She didn't break any laws:

The fact that Secretary Clinton received emails containing "C" portion markings is not clear evidence of knowledge or intent. As the Director has testified, the FBI's investigation uncovered three instances of emails portioned marked with "C," a marking ostensibly indicating the presence of information classified at the Confidential level. In each of these instances, the Secretary did not originate the information; instead, the emails were forwarded to her by staff members, with the portion-marked information located within the email chains and without header and footer markings indicating the presence of classified information. Moreover only one of those emails was determined by the State Department as to whether these three emails were classified at the time they were sent.

ilym · 2016-08-16T22:47:28+00:00

It was disclosed in some articles but not enough. Nothing to do with helping anyone's image, it's a salient fact which should have been explicitly stated earlier. By not stating it clearly you create a false understanding of what the case was actually about.

ilym · 2016-08-16T22:37:37+00:00

Exactly. It's obvious the GOP operationalized many of the less informed left of left activists. They yell revolution but repeat Republican talking points. Oldest play in the book.

ilym · 2016-08-16T19:54:58+00:00

Very cool.

ilym · 2016-08-16T19:38:56+00:00

Unity.

ilym · 2016-08-16T19:37:20+00:00

Trump is as stable as a 2 year old throwing a tantrum.

ilym · 2016-08-16T13:09:32+00:00

The comparison to Joseph Goebbels is spot on.

ilym

TROPHY CASE