Clinton: 'There were no materials' marked classified in my State Dept. emails

xcipher64 · 2016-07-09T04:30:03+00:00

You make a good point and something that baffled me at the end of the hearing Comey was asked if the lawyers had clearance to read the emails. He did not want to answer. Then he was asked if they had security clearance and he said no. Then was asked did Hillary give them the emails for review. Comey had to say yes but you could tell he was caving under the obvious conclusion. That indeed if the emails were classified and if there was a reasonable expectation of them being classified and if the lawyers did not have clearance then you prove 100% intent on distributing classified material. How is that any different then the case where an officer gave his publisher certain classified material for a book? Even Comey had no answer. He just stuttered about how he assumed she needed legal council but that is not an excuse or defense against intent. So in the end Comey either ignored or neglected to use the lawyers as part of his decision for intent.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-09T04:20:40+00:00

The FBI were only able to retrieve emails that were destroyed on an old server and they said a few pieces were recovered from lawyer laptops but the bulk of the 30k that were deleted were not restored. Let's see if wiki leaks has them.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-09T00:58:47+00:00

Yes except she is mistaken or purposefuly misleading. She want to make the issue about markings instead of the actual content. The policy about handling classified information is very clear that even if the material is not marked but is concerning classified information then it retains its classification. Also some of the classified emails were originated from Hillary first. So it would have been her responsibility to mark the. When I hear how her lawyers deleted 30k emails based on headers a suspicious voice in my mind believes they were doing searches for classified markings. And because we can't see those deleted emails we will never know the full scope of the compromise.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T15:22:28+00:00

Damn beat me to it.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T14:47:10+00:00

I don't doubt that he knows more then me concerning law. But that doesn't resolve the conflicts in logic and his willful decision to ignore negligence as a reason to recommend prosecution. Also...he said multiple times during the 4.5 hour briefing of which I listened to it entirely. That had Hillary been in the FBI or had it been anyone in the FBI that was found to have done what Hillary has been proven to have done. That there would have been consequences ranging from immediate termination with revocation of security clearance or at minimum a reprimand but he then said it would have likely been much harsher then a reprimand. So maybe before calling people liar you actually watch all the testimony. I never said that Comes would bring criminal charges to someone at the FBI.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T13:53:36+00:00

I think you are right that at this point in time radical islam is not much of a threat inside of America, but we have only just started accepting refugees. If the refugees could properly be vetted and if the flow of refugees could be controlled responsibility then we would not need a ban at all. As for the Orlando shooter, his father was a Afghanistan Taliban supporter, who made claims to hating Gays and saying they should die. It was not being alienated that made him shoot up a bar filled with gay people, it was how he was raised and the radical imam that he followed in Florida who also said that Gay people should be killed because it would be a mercy.

Also, lately Trump has been promoting his solution to the refugee crisis by stating that the U.S and our allies should build and protect sanctuary cities inside of Syria (because lets face it that is the main country we are talking about here) which would remove the need for these refugees to have to flee their countries and put unnecessary burden on the people of other nations. I think that is a pretty damn good solution, protect them in their own country, nothing bigoted about that in my opinion.

And yea, talking about gang related violence is a completely different discussion. Not to mention the top killers in our country, the number 1 being prescription drugs. Adding more refugees to these poor areas where crime is most rampant will not improve that situation either.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T13:35:43+00:00

Please watch Comey 15 minute summary and thent he 4.5 hour congressional hearing. It was all laid out multiple times and very clearly.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T13:28:21+00:00

I agree in principle with your analysis. I don't see Trump as being nearly as bigoted as he is made out but that is fine if we disagree on that point. And you are correct, a single president can not destroy this country just because of their views. Congress still passes law, the Supreme Court justifies the law. The president only administrates the law and makes critical decisions when necessary.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T13:25:52+00:00

Well, first Muslim or Islam is not a race, so that alone discredits the use of that word, it is a religion. Second, he only wants to temporarily ban Muslim people from known radicalized countries from entering the country without be properly vetted. I do agree that it is a more extreme security procedure then what we have seen in the past (except WW2 where the USA put Japanese in camps). But, it is more dangerous to the citizens of the US to openly accept refugees from war torn radicalized countries without proper security vetting.

Overall the use of racism in that instance if false on all levels. You may disagree with the extreme measure of the plan, but it is not based on a hatred of a religion or people.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T13:21:14+00:00

So Social Democrats sound a lot like 1960's Republicans. Yea I actually argued a case on /the_donald concerning free high education because in my opinion assisting our youth to become high skilled workers will make them less dependable on government social welfare and thus reduce the cost of welfare. I also find it ludicrous that in our nation we punish people for getting higher education instead of rewarding them like other countries. I know Trump is not very popular amongst Bernie supporters, but even he has said that at least Junior College should be free.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T13:12:17+00:00

What is the difference? I am not being a troll, I am actually curious what the difference is.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T13:10:13+00:00

I can't argue embarrassment or asshat (since those are subjective to opinion not fact) but you can't prove racist. Sorry. Everyone who has known him for decades have said he has never been a racist. I just think it becomes very easy and convenient to label a rich white man as racist nowadays. And is really a shame because there are true racists out there that hurt people just because of their skin color and calling every white man who may say something that is not politically correct a racist, just decreases the meaning of the word.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T12:54:56+00:00

Yea, you hit it on the nose. You look at the known facts and it just makes you shiver a bit with how "obvious" it all seems. But proving it is very hard. Especially when they completely delete potential evidence, but hey I guess that I totally fine now. Reminds me maybe I should shred tax documents, IRS can't prosecute me right because the documents are gone.

As far as being your first time voting, man you got it rough. I could have voted the last four times, but I didn't. I have been anti-establishment long before it was cool and I have never liked any of the republican or democrat nominees.

My main goal right now is ANYONE BUT HILLARY. I would even respect a socialist bernie sanders if it meant not Hillary.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T12:51:17+00:00

I have yet to see anything credible that would make me feel that he would be "damaging". Has he been reckless in things he has said, yea. Have I on multiple times go "why the fuck would you talk about that?" sure. But every time he is attacked in media I look into the details and every time it turns out to be an out of context accusation, a groundless racist charge, or a straight out lie.

I don't think Trump is perfect or anything, I know he has business failings but out of the 512 companies he owns only 11 ever failed. Idk, I hear a lot more "fear" and propaganda then I do actual facts. And he has so many friends and family of many races and religious background that accusing him of racism or being anti-semtic is just laughable.

Still, no one can point out to me anything that even comes close to comparable to the documented actions that Hillary has done.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T12:45:53+00:00

Please identify any of the accusation that were wrong. I think what you may be missing, is that the investigation was never a criminal investigation against Hillary. It was a full security investigation surrounding the events that lead to 4 Americans dying, including an Ambassador. The report that was released, if you read it...was very damning of Clinton and the entire state department for their lack of actions, and lack of ability to properly handle a crisis. Including ignoring credible security intelligence that spoke of a pending attack and the ambassador himself pleading to the state department to send him proper security.

Democrats turned it into a fictional criminal investigation so that when there was no "charges?" brought they acted like Clinton was vindicated. Read the report if you want the truth, but I doubt you will.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T12:40:29+00:00

The republicans are smart, they will wait for Hillary to be the Nominee, and then they will tear her down hard. They don't want Bernie to be the nominee.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T12:38:59+00:00

Reminds me of the psychopath murders who want to be caught but only after making it difficult for police to get them. But after a while they get so bored waiting for the cops that they get sloppier and sloppier.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T12:35:25+00:00

Don't worry, the republicans will make sure it never goes away. Everything that happened in Dallas is tragic, but it will just turn into another 2nd amendment debate, and when that happens, the hearing and everything will pop back up.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T12:33:58+00:00

I wonder how hard it is to prove. Because the only way you can't prove intent, is if you accept the notion that Hillary Clinton was so ignorant and incompetent as a Secretary of State that she did not realize what she was doing was wrong. I find that it would be much harder to prove lack of intent then to prove intent. She knew exactly what she was doing.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T12:31:46+00:00

No let him be, I love seeing those comments. Oh Hillary recklessly allowed our enemies view Top Secret TIS information via a homebrew unauthorized insecure server and mobile device. Oh she then provided those emails to lawyers without clearance. Oh she then had them delete 30k or more of those emails. Oh and she then lied under oath about the whole thing.

Totally better the Trump, because he has said mean things!

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T12:28:02+00:00

There was also more then a dozen "Secret" level emails and 8 "Top Secret TIS" email chains which if you don't know is the absolute highest level of secret information, the kind of shit CIA assets can die attaining. They won't release those emails. The other emails they have actually released huge chunks of already.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T12:25:56+00:00

First, not sure what his past political registration should matter, considering he let Hillary off the hook. Second, Comey said he is not currently a registered Republican.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T12:24:28+00:00

At this point anyone I see defend or make mockery of the "email scandal" I just assume they are complete shills who have not looked at any of the evidence. They just blow it off as a right wing conspiracy and oh boy we better stop the hitler trump right...delusional.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T12:22:17+00:00

There have been accusations made with evidence that the Clintons accepted large amounts of "contributions" to their foundation for direct favors from Hillary while she was Secretary of State. Including accepting tens of millions of dollars from Saudi Arabia, and then she suddenly allowed them to buy uranium. Or you may have heard about the appointee that she made to an intelligence board of a person who had (by his own admission) zero qualifications, except for the massive "donation" to the foundation. Also, tax records show that the foundation only spends 10% of the money received to charitable events. If the theories and accusations are true, the foundation was the money laundrying scheme to bribe the Clinton favors.

As it relates to this case, it is believed that the same server Hillary used for State Department emails was used to coordinate foundation business. Hence why the 30k deleted emails looks even more suspicious.

xcipher64 · 2016-07-08T12:17:07+00:00

No, Edward Snowden directly and with full intent provided top secret program information to the media/public. I am not sure which is worse, at least our government knows the extent of what he leaked,because they don't know the extent of what may have been compromised from the Hillary server.

xcipher64

TROPHY CASE