BS: Hillary's EMail - again

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 16 - 02:34 PM

So, arguing with you, I am covered in shit- THAT is what you are saying...

You are such a bigoted turd I wonder how even the liberals here can stand it.

You make Trump look like a fine, upstanding person, for all his lies, nastiness. and NY attitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Nov 16 - 01:58 PM

I note you have stopped denying the facts about your lies.


No, Bruce, I am simply following the old adage that "He who wrestles with a turd will be beshit".

Now, take tyour meds, and go back and re-read the factual info provided at Date: 01 Nov 16 - 10:01 AM instead of posting far-right-wing assholes' fantasy BS ad nauseum.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 16 - 01:48 PM

"Back to Topic A: commentators say Hillary's scandal is the worst since Watergate. Not so. Hillary's mess is far worse than Watergate. RN, the greatest peacemaker in the national history, is alleged to have attempted to obstruct justice one time. No conviction. Just allegations. Hillary and her pals actually destroyed 33,000 emails under federal subpoena, smashed her computers with hammers, used super tools to wipe clean her hard drive, lied about it repeatedly to the FBI — and mysteriously were friends with a lot of witnesses who turned up dead.

RN was a small time parking violator compared with Hillary's Al Capone."

http://spectator.org/thinking-about-hillary-at-the-watergate/

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 16 - 12:34 PM

I note you have stopped denying the facts about your lies.

About time you recognized that the documented proof out-weighs your lies.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Nov 16 - 12:23 PM

Take your meds, Beardie- you're right on the verge of one of your psychotic episodes. And its not just me that realizes it.

Now, back to reality & the points under discussion:

Nine days wonder indeed, Kevin - but the Republicruds specialize in those & you probably ain't seen nothin' yet with the Trumpists on the loose.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 16 - 12:16 PM

Reality, GregtrF?

Right- like YOU saying that I called someone a "Dirty Ni**er" because someone else said someone was "Black, and a Democrat".

Reality is that YOU are the only one here that reads "Black" as Ni**er"

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Nov 16 - 12:04 PM

I invoke the SRS rule- none of those posts are acceptable to me as factual.

No surprises there, Beardie - REALITY isn't acceptable to you as factual.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 16 - 11:13 AM

So, Stevie and McGrath,

What level of government clearance have you held?



GregtrF,

Sorry, I invoke the SRS rule- none of those posts are acceptable to me as factual.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 16 - 11:12 AM

Nine days wonder sure enough

But the election is on Nov 8.

Brilliant timing.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Nov 16 - 10:01 AM

Hey, Beardie! Never mind your fantasist idiot Johnson.

Educate yourself (aassuming that's remotely possible):

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/31/opinion/no-emailgate-is-not-worse-than-watergate.html

http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/29/politics/bernstein-its-not-watergate/

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/totally-absurd-watergate-prosecutor-slams-trump-claim-clinton-emails-are-bigger-than-watergate/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/10/30/trumps-bizarre-claim-that-the-clinton-email-controversy-is-bigger-than-watergate/

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Nov 16 - 09:46 AM

Its worse than "trivia" Kevin - folks like Beardie have a pathological need to bash the Clintons with made-up bullshit and fake "sacandals" at every possible opportunity; from Whitewater to Vince Foster to Benghazi and the thousand other idiocies they've come up with over the last quarter-century. Its a fantasy game they play for their own validation and amusement.

(And then they complain that the Clintons are "secretive"......)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 16 - 09:36 AM

Isn't Johnson the bloke who asked "what is a leppo?" ?

Trivia is trivia whatever fuss gets made about it.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 16 - 09:34 AM

The barking mad quoting the barking mad.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 16 - 09:27 AM

GregtrF,

I see you attack me and provide no facts as usual.
I have to presume from your support here, and the silence of more responsible liberals, that this is now approved debate practice by the Left.





In the News:

Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson: Clinton presidency 'may well end up in impeachment'

By Andrew Kaczynski, CNN

Updated 9:50 PM ET, Mon October 31, 2016



    "I think unquestionably if [Clinton] takes office she is going to be under criminal investigation," Johnson said.
    "This is Watergate kind of stuff," Johnson said.

(CNN)Libertarian presidential nominee Gary Johnson says he thinks Hillary Clinton could face impeachment over the continued FBI investigation into her private email server if she is elected president.
Johnson made the comment Saturday on KNUS radio in Colorado when asked about FBI Director James Comey's revelation on Friday that the bureau was pursuing an investigation into recently discovered emails belonging to longtime Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

What's next: FBI unlikely to conclude Clinton email review prior to election
"I think unquestionably if [Clinton] takes office she is going to be under criminal investigation, unquestionably this is going to be the nation's agenda for the entire time she is office and it may well end up in impeachment," Johnson said on "The Craig Silverman Show."
"This is Watergate kind of stuff," he continued. "This is really, really deep, real stuff and all you have to say, all you have to recognize is the FBI would not have done this -- this is not political, this is anything but political, because of the fact they dropped this investigation in July, saying, to clear the decks for the election. That was also clearly, I don't even want to call it a political move, as much as a move that would clear up the election, that people would feel like this was not overhanging. Well, now it's overhanging, and it's overhanging for a reason. There's so much smoke in the room that it will never, ever get ventilated over the next four years. Never."
Earlier in the interview Johnson said the FBI's late announcement of the discovery showed the gravity of the situation.
"Let me just point out the obvious: the FBI is not doing this lightly, they recognize just what a bombshell this is, especially having exonerated her in July," Johnson said. "To come back and say this with 11 days to go, knowing that there will be no resolution prior to election, but knowing if they don't release this, knowing how damnable all of this is, this is the horrible situation that the FBI has placed itself in it just points to the gravity of the situation."

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Greg F.
Date: 01 Nov 16 - 09:07 AM

Perhaps Beardie an explain it to you, Kevin. He's an expert at throwing violent tantrums over nothing - but then he's only 2 years old.

You should see hin hold his breath till he turns blue!

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 01 Nov 16 - 09:04 AM

And don't you just love the double standard! Jeb used a private server in office. Condoleezza and Colin Powell both used private servers to send classified information. Dubya used a private server whilst planning to lie about WMDs - and "lost" 22 million emails.


Well, beardie? 😂

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 16 - 08:10 AM

Why the hell does any of this actually matter? It's like getting all worked up about whether she's paid library fines.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's EMail - again
From: beardedbruce
Date: 01 Nov 16 - 07:48 AM

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

IT'S OVER"

No prosecutions of Nixon in Watergate- So you would agree with a declaration that he was innocent and should take no blame?





The investigation DID NOT find that she had done no wrong. On the contrary, it proved she had violated several laws. If she had been anyone else, she would have been prosecuted and convicted. But the present administration and the DOJ had control- and THEY did not want this to be a "nation of laws". Obviously, the people who agree with the present administration have a different set of standards than those who do not.
The statement issued was that the FBI would NOT PURSUE AN INDICTMENT. We also know that this was due to the meeting between slick willy and the DOJ head. New evidence is certainly admissible and the timing is the fault of the Clintons who withheld it for so long, in violation of court order.


After all, who is it that said "ALL the emails had been provided"?

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.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 10:28 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: 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 - 10:09 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.