BS: Hillary's EMail - again

Subject: BS: Hillary's EMail of DEATH & DEFEAT
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Oct 16 - 04:49 PM

Preliminary reports of the NYT , Clinton spokesman and the Trump Have their own foggy conclusions as to the emails FBI director Comey has referred to the Republican Congressional Investigators by way of a long letter "there may be links between Anthony Wiener sexting to underage girl emails and HILLARY Clinton. Wiener's wife was Hillary's adjunct at the State Dept so it may involve her, or it might not be pertinent or maybe it could be pertinent to the security of the USA..

Comey has been brow beaten by the Congressional investigators since July for not pinning felonious acts on Hillary.

Issuing a letter that says email may be pertinent,   
or not serves as a blank piece of paper republicans can wave like a flag for 9 days.

What we know for sure is this secret email did not come from Hillary And was never sent to Hillary.

I have a bunch of those here at home.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail of DEATH & DEFEAT
From: Donuel
Date: 28 Oct 16 - 05:17 PM

Some think the Republicans have succeeded in psychologically associating perverse internet sex acts of Wiener with Clinton.

Clinton -Wiener Clinton -Wiener

It was 16 years ago that Republicans wanted pics of Clinton's wiener.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail of DEATH & DEFEAT
From: Jeri
Date: 28 Oct 16 - 05:41 PM

They're looking a bit desperate, aren't they.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail of DEATH & DEFEAT
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 28 Oct 16 - 05:49 PM

Nine day wonder.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail of DEATH & DEFEAT
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 28 Oct 16 - 10:24 PM

The Clinton crew wants answers about what the emails are about as do the Trump folks. This is something that is unconscionable this close to an election - the story on NPR is that because it was part of a (previously closed) investigation he "had to" say something. But there is no information that the emails have ANYTHING to do with ANYTHING. They're just emails that are connected, via Wiener and his estranged wife, to Clinton.

A combination of cultural distaste for powerful women and a history of stalking by Scaife and Kenneth Starr et al has contributed to a totally unfair bias against Clinton. It has been perpetuated by a lot of GOP men for many years and if voters are gullible enough and don't do any reading into the cases behind the bogus charges against Hillary, then they need to pause and do their homework.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Janie
Date: 28 Oct 16 - 11:27 PM

Comey is simply carrying out his responsibilities as a servant of the public. He had choices. He chose to act consistently with being a non-partisan servant of the public.


http://www.newsweek.com/fbi-reviewing-more-clinton-emails-514825

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Mr Red
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 04:24 AM

'Scuse me folks but at this distance- the UK media have repeatedly pointed-out that the campaign is light on policy. And who do we blame for that?

In the grand scheme of things I would trade you one e-mail server with one bankrupcy and I'll throw in a sexual molestation for free. But 5? Each?

If Berlusconi is a joke, where is Trumpy on that scale?

Don't let up on the vigilance America, be afraid.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 04:48 AM

"The woman is a disaster" CP.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 06:15 AM

there are disasters and REAL FUCKING DISASTERS....

President Trump would of the latter variety.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 06:44 AM

The FBI had to do this. The Trump campaign is making all kinds of threats of election rigging and its post-poll consequences. This was going to come out and it's better for Clinton that it comes out now. There's still plenty of days for this to die down. And die down it should. Eminent US politicos of all colours have tried to control their emails via private servers since emails were invented. There may be differences in scale and content, but they're all at it, except for Trump of course, who's immune from this because he hasn't been in politics. Email is not a secure medium and they shouldn't be doing this, but they all do, hey bloody ho. A quick smacky botty then move on.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 06:45 AM

And, as a Brit, do allow me to apologise unreservedly for akenaton.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Donuel
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 07:03 AM

Comey is political toast

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 07:56 AM

Nobody seems interested in Trump's email. One shudders to think the kind of stuff it must contain.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 10:11 AM

From CNN:

The newly discovered emails are part of an investigation into Anthony Weiner, according to law enforcement sources. Weiner, the disgraced former congressman, recently separated from top Clinton aide Huma Abedin after a sexting incident.
The FBI and the New York Police Department have opened preliminary investigations of allegations that Weiner, a former New York Democratic congressman, exchanged sexually explicit text messages with a purportedly underage girl.
The emails in question were sent or received by Abedin, according to a law enforcement official. There were a "considerable number" of emails being reviewed from at least one device shared by Abedin and Weiner, the official said. A separate official described it as thousands of messages.
The FBI is looking at whether any of the newly discovered emails will have an impact on the now-closed investigation into Clinton's server. In his letter, Comey said he was not sure how long the additional review would take and said the FBI "cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant."

What I'm getting out of all this is that 1) Weiner is not only toxic, but contagious as well, and 2) The Trumpers are trying WAY too hard. Desperation.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 12:30 PM

I don't think the FBI would have reopened this enquiry over nothing, there must e something pretty important which had to be raised BEFORE the election to avoid riots after.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 01:02 PM

No, there "must" not be. Spoken like a true pathological Hillary-Hater and conspiracy theorist, Ake. Guilty until proven innoicent.

Give it a rest until them pesky things called FACTS and EVIDENCE are available.

Jesus wept.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 01:20 PM

Crucial point about all this, quoted from Wall Street Joirnal "They also haven't determined if the work emails in question are copies of messages already reviewed by the FBI"

In other words, for all anyone knows there is absolutely nothing of any significance in this development.

There are pretty likely to be riots after this election anyway, aken, from what I've read. Whatever happens.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 02:13 PM

Ake, it has NOT been re-opened.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 03:17 PM

This is turning out to be a GOP dirty trick pulled off by Comey. Shame on him, and I predict he'll be leaving his post sooner rather than later.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Bev and Jerry
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 03:46 PM

All we really know at this point is that the FBI has a big pile of emails from a laptop.

First, they have to look at all of them and determine which, if any, were sent to, or came from, Hillary.

Then they have to look at these and determine which, if any, were work related.

Then, they have to look at the work-related emails and see if any of them contain classified information.

Then, they have to look at the ones that contain classified information and see which, if any, are NOT duplicates of the ones they have already seen.

This will take months to accomplish and there's a good chance nothing actionable will be found.

But, it gives Trump something to lie about at least for the next nine days!

Bev and Jerry

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 04:33 PM

One thing is that apparently even if all the accusations and insinuations about those emails were perfectly valid, none of them would mean she'd done anything criminal. All that stuff about "Jail Hillary" are rubbish. There are no criminal laws involved in doing those kind of things.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Mrrzy
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 04:51 PM

let sleeping or dead horses or dogs lie unflogged...

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: akenaton
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 05:18 PM

We do not yet know how Mrs Clinton is involved in the latest controversy......It may or my not involve something outwith the server issue. We must wait to see if there is anything damaging to her standing as a candidate.......but it is not criminal to speculate.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 05:59 PM

even if all the accusations and insinuations about those emails were perfectly valid, none of them would mean she'd done anything criminal.

Abso-fuckin-loutely, Kevin. Why can't morons like Ake and the Trumpists ( almost sounds like a group, dunnit? )get their heads around this choice bit of reality?????

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Greg F.
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 06:17 PM

FBI Director James Comey was reportedly warned against notifying Congress about a batch of newly discovered emails with potential ties to Hillary Clinton's private server.

Before issuing the letter to Congress that sent shock waves through the Clinton campaign Friday, Comey consulted senior Justice Department officials who advised him of the DOJ's position "that we don't comment on an ongoing investigation. And we don't take steps that will be viewed as influencing an election."

"Director Comey understood our position," said one official, who spoke to the Post on the condition of anonymity. "It was conveyed to the FBI, and Comey made an independent decision to alert the Hill. He is operating independently of the Justice Department. And he knows it."

The practice of avoiding any activity that could be perceived as an attempt to influence the results of an election is a long-held Justice Department tradition that, the the New Yorker reported, became an official practice four years ago thanks to a memo from then-Attorney General Eric Holder.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/comey-sent-congress-letter-on-clinton-emails-despite-doj-warning-it-would-breach-policy-180013535.html

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 08:05 PM

Plot thickens. Maybe Comey could have some personal reason for being worried about a Clinton presidency. What's he been up to? As aken correctly, it's not criminal to speculate. (Any more than it is to use a private email server, even if some of the emails are classified documents you are entitled to access.)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Jeri
Date: 29 Oct 16 - 08:59 PM

I'm not sure I understand that last bit in parentheses. It's illegal to pass classified information in email. I've never seen any, "confidential" or above that wasn't marked "for eyes only" on the cover sheet.

Here's the thing, though: I've caught myself starting to email confidential stuff, or discuss it in non-secure locations because whatever-it-was had just been on CNN. Just because it's classified doesn't mean it isn't known to many people without clearances.

Flash back to Desert Storm. The start of it was classified. Talking to folks back home (in Indiana at the time), they knew it was starting. It had been on the news. Because folks sat and watched an enormous number of aircraft take off one night.

Still, unless something has changed, there's no such thing as a legal classified email.

And Comey needs a new job.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: EBarnacle
Date: 30 Oct 16 - 12:08 AM

Ho Hum

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/10/28/1587987/-No-re-opened-email-investigation-the-emails-looked-at-aren-t-even-from-Hillary-s-personal-server?detail=email&link_id=6&can_id=6dbb0d648a18c2e1e0d3956013de91dc&source=email-why-fbi-director-james-comey-did-the-wrong-thing-again-2&email_referrer=why-fbi-director-james-comey-did-the-wrong-thing-again-2&email_subject=why-fbi-director-james-comey-did-the-wrong-thing-again

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Oct 16 - 03:35 AM

From "Bringing it all Back Home".....RZ

"You must leave now
Take what you need you think will last
But whatever you wish to keep
You better grab it fast


Yonder stands your orphan with his gun
Crying like a fire in the sun
Look out, the saints are coming through
And it's all over now, baby blue"

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: The Sandman
Date: 30 Oct 16 - 04:57 AM

What does Bob mean crying like a fire in the sun, another example of Dylans unclear lyrics?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: akenaton
Date: 30 Oct 16 - 06:51 AM

Who knows Good Soldier, I just thought it fitted in rather well with current US politics.

The crying orphan being the "deplorables" and Baby Blue is....oh you work it out :0)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Oct 16 - 10:20 AM

Something about Comey is starting to stink mightily:

***

FBI still does not have warrant to review new Abedin emails linked to Clinton probe
Michael Isikoff, Chief Investigative Correspondent
October 29, 2016

When FBI Director James Comey wrote his bombshell letter to Congress on Friday about newly discovered emails that were potentially "pertinent" to the investigation into Hillary Clinton's private email server, agents had not been able to review any of the material, because the bureau had not yet gotten a search warrant to read them, three government officials who have been briefed on the probe told Yahoo News.

At the time Comey wrote the letter, "he had no idea what was in the content of the emails," one of the officials said.As of Saturday night, the FBI was still in talks with the Justice Department about obtaining a warrant that would allow agency officials to read any of the newly discovered Abedin emails, and therefore was still in the dark about whether they include any classified material that the bureau has not already seen.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Airymouse
Date: 30 Oct 16 - 11:42 AM

Can someone answer a question for me? I assume that the FBI had to obtain a subpoena in order to look at the newly discovered e-mails. I also assume that the request for this subpoena was granted immediately, presumably on Friday, shortly after Comey sent his letter to Congress. Are my assumptions correct?
I have complete trust in the integrity of both the FBI and the Dep't of Justice, but I think both have shown bad judgement: Comey should not have made any comment about HRC's e-mails when he announced his decision not to recommend indictment and Lynch should not have met with Bill Clinton, before Comey made his decision and in apologizing for her error she should not have made a sweeping promise to keep the public apprised of any new developments. These two mistakes have left Comey between Scylla and Charybdis.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 16 - 02:10 PM

I'm not sure I understand that last bit in parentheses. It's illegal to pass classified information in email. I've never seen any, "confidential" or above that wasn't marked "for eyes only" on the cover sheet.

Well, it's your legal system not mine, jeri, but I'm pretty certain that if you check up you'll find it's not actually a criminal offence. It might get you disciplined as an employee, or even sacked, but you couldn't be jailed for it, as I understand.

Not everything you are not supposed to do is a criminal offence.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Greg F.
Date: 30 Oct 16 - 04:25 PM

Not everything you are not supposed to do is a criminal offence.

Or Trump would have been in jail long since.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Oct 16 - 10:09 AM

"What happens next we do not know. What we do know already is this. While serving in one of the most senior positions in the United States Government, Hillary Clinton was at a minimum, grossly negligent in the handling of classified information and when confronted with this practice, acted immediately to destroy information and prevent a full, fair and complete investigation of any damage to national security.

Anyone else who did such things in the government would long ago have been tried, convicted and sent to jail. "

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/presidential-campaign/303499-hillarys-emails-matter-a-retired-cia-officer


As an AISSR at the Secret level, I would have been jailed for a minimum of 10 years for what HRC has STATED that she did, much less for an admitted conspiracy tor violate the FOIA. INTENT has NEVER been a requirement.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Mr Red
Date: 31 Oct 16 - 10:17 AM

Maybe when he looses the election, he will be!

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Oct 16 - 10:28 AM

McGrath of Harlow,

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798



The LAW, regardless of what HRC and others here may think, or have stated as "fact".



"(a) Whoever knowingly and willfully communicates, furnishes, transmits, or otherwise makes available to an unauthorized person, or publishes, or uses in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States any classified information—
(1) concerning the nature, preparation, or use of any code, cipher, or cryptographic system of the United States or any foreign government; or
(2) concerning the design, construction, use, maintenance, or repair of any device, apparatus, or appliance used or prepared or planned for use by the United States or any foreign government for cryptographic or communication intelligence purposes; or
(3) concerning the communication intelligence activities of the United States or any foreign government; or
(4) obtained by the processes of communication intelligence from the communications of any foreign government, knowing the same to have been obtained by such processes—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both."

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Oct 16 - 10:33 AM

BERADIE! How ya doin'! Up to your usual BS & character assassination, I see. Or rather, promulgating Mr. Faddis' BS, lies and mis-statements of fact. Do remember he was instrumental in Bush's Iraq debacle and this is hardly the first time he has "stretched the truth". Do refer to his blog.

You and he, seem to be forgetting that there WAS "a full, fair and complete investigation of any damage to national security".

Now, would you perhaps care to spew about Benghazi?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Oct 16 - 10:35 AM

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title18/USCODE-2011-title18-app-classifie



Title 18 - CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE         Sections 1 - 6005.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 16 - 11:42 AM

Not acknowledging a law is a criminal offence in the states, bruce? I don't think I've ever "acknowledged" a law in my life. How does one go about doing that? Is it different from just not breaking it?

Reading through that convoluted legalese, I find it hard to imagine that any email Hillary Clinton would have been likely to send would actually have fallen within its scope. It definitely doesn't seem to say that just by virtue of containing something "confidential" would an email meet the requirements.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Oct 16 - 12:21 PM

When the NSA gives you some training as to how the US Government applies these statues, feel free to comment on this.

As for GregtrF, it is obvious that since he considers the published laws to be BS, he is bound to violate one, and be placed in jail.

VIOLATING a law is a criminal offense. Lack of acknowledgement of the law IS NOT A VALID EXCUSE, even for liberals.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Oct 16 - 12:33 PM

Not at all, Beardie - the law may be a ass, but its your idiotic spew & that of your pet clown Faddis, that's BS.

PS: HRC was not found guilty of any criminal offense. Or are you proposing, like Trump, extra-legal vigilante action-? Which is, by the way, ABSOLUTELY a criminal offence and may also be treason if perpetrated against a member of the U.S. government.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Oct 16 - 12:39 PM

you better never enter rhe US

Sorry to break your heart, Beardie. I was born here & have lived here all my 72 years.

By the way: You talkin ta me? YOU THREATENIN ME???

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: akenaton
Date: 31 Oct 16 - 01:03 PM

Come along chaps, no sense in falling out,the Carnival is almost over.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Jeri
Date: 31 Oct 16 - 06:16 PM

Hillary and classified email on her server: over and done with. No prosecutions.

IT'S OVER

The current mess has to do with email that wasn't sent to or from Clinton.
Of course, that's not likely to stimulate conservative haters, who at least have ceased beating that dead horse named "Benghazi".

Smacks of desperation, do it not?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 16 - 06:31 PM

Pretty evidently the stuff bruce quoted about what kind of confidential document could be covered by criminal sanctions only includes fairly closely defined kinds of confidential document. Conceivably I suppose a US Government might seek to interpret the rules to cover other stuff, but I can't imagine how that could stand up in law.

But of course, the US is the land of Guantanimo and waterboarding, so who knows? Especially in a Trump administration.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Greg F.
Date: 31 Oct 16 - 07:07 PM

And, but of course, Brucie lives in a universe in and of his own creation and always has. No facts need apply/intrude.

"Trump Administration"??? Jesus forfend. I'd have to move to Kosovo.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Airymouse
Date: 31 Oct 16 - 10:27 PM

There are some weird mistakes that led to the current mess. Firstly, Huma Abedin had to have had extremely poor judgement in choosing her husband. Next Bill Clinton had to wander onto the Attorney's General plane and she had to have the extremely poor judgement of chatting with him for thirty or forty minutes even though his wife was under criminal investigation. Then, instead of recusing herself after this encounter and appointing someone from the DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE to handle the matter, Lynch had to make the extremely poor decision of having Comey from the FBI have the final say.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 16 - 06:06 AM

Sorry, Jeri.

The admitted conspiracy to avoid the FOIA, which the mainstream press does not mention is a violation of law. Just because the present administartion and the DOJ are covering it up does not make it legal.

Or do you not think that the FOIA is a law in this country?




GregtrF,

So I have to go out and work for a Trump victory now, to put you in a more appropriate place?
YOU have NEVER presented ANY facts to contradict my statements and quotes.
So you are 72 and have not yet managed to learn to read for comprehension?

And I would NEVER shit you- YOU are my favorite turd.