WOW!! pos 45 states he's willing to testify under oath, if he is trying to prove his honesty. RYFT -"RELEASE YOUR FREAKING TAXES" first.
@ 6 months ago
Bell County, TX
waiting to hear his excuse for not.
@ 6 months ago
Chicago Loop, Chicago, IL
@ 6 months ago
Yorkville, New York, NY
Either Donald or James is lying. I wonder which one it could be.
@ 6 months ago
Lakeland, MN 55043, USA
Really! Dr. Evil i sense a little sarcasm in your statement. Orange face buffoon is a proven liar.
@ 6 months ago
Killeen, TX 76543, USA
Neither has shown themselves to be pillars of integrity
@ 6 months ago
Elmhurst, IL, USA
integrity: the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles
what did Comey do to make you cast doubt on his integrity?
New East Side, Chicago, IL
Ami are you talking about the James Comey that was fired, he the Mount Rushmore of intergity compared to known and proven liar in the oval office.
Tjaden, you're a smart guy, I think the fact that he was easily influenced to lie about the nature of the investigation into the criminal Hillary Clinton should say enough about his integrity
Villa Park, IL, USA
What did he lie about. He statement she was foolish for having a private sever, but hasn't broken any laws. I didn't like the bs stunt he pulled two week before the election. I can't questions his intergity because of it.
I bet you can't
Someone is a grandstanding showboat.
Pos 45 made the claim he would testify under oath for his supporters, he would last first question without lying. He is the poster child for dishonest grandstanding showboat.
bhaven - was that statement about her private server a lie or an opinion?
it was Comey opinion, because Secy Clinton didn't break any laws.
so I asked you for what lie he told, and you have me a statement of professional opinion he made...
and you know the only reason she want charged was because they couldn't prove intent, right?
Lynch was running political interference and that meeting with Bill forced his hand.
Sessions is involved in the Russia investigation.
neither AG could be trusted.
I'm confused why intent actually mattered though
It's like an added qualification to the statute that Comey added himself.
Not sure it isn't statutory. Intent is a requirement of many criminal laws. Sure makes things subjective, doesn't it? Juries full of idiots are easily swayed on that sort of thing, as you can imagine.
Simple theft, for example, requires intent. If you buy 5 candy bars and the checkout person charges you got only 1 but you didn't realize it, you haven't stolen anything by walking out of the store with 5 candy bars.
(for only 1)
On the other hand, if you decide to steal the candy bars, put them in your pocket, then change your mind before leaving the store and put them back, you have committed a theft, in the legal sense.
The crime of theft has two elements: asportation and intent. Both elements must be proven to constitute the crime.
Moving the candy bars with the intent to take them constitutes a crime in fact. So sometimes the legal outcome of a particular situation can be a bit...well, counterintuitive.
Speaking of elections, here's the alternative coverage of the recent UK election.
"We did not find evidence sufficient to establish that she knew she was sending classified information beyond a reasonable doubt to meet the intent standard"
BTW Bhaven, Comey never said she didn't break any laws.
His statement above implies that she did break the law. However, they couldn't prove that she knew she was breaking the laws, therefore no criminal charges. Hence the comments about her being extremely careless.
He didn't say she did either, if they had an ounce of proof she broken the law or released highly classified info. They would have brought charges.
did you miss his announcement?
he said exactly how many classified emails were on her private server.
what was missing was intent.
O'Hare, Chicago, IL
Basically they couldn't prosecute because there was a possibility that she was a complete numbskull
Confidential is a classification in the world of security. She not POTUS he done his job in preventing that from happening with that bogus new emails announcement in October.
“Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgement is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”
^evidence right there^
"Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before deciding whether to bring charges. There are obvious considerations like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also
consider the context of a person’s actions and how similar situations have been handled in the past."
@AMI - basically. And being a numbskull saved her from jail but lost her the presidency.
In case you forgot the quote, Bhaven:
"110 emails, in 52 email chains, have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received."
"Eight of those chains contained information that was ‘Top Secret’ at the time they were sent; 36 of those chains contained ‘Secret’ information at the time; eight contained ‘Confidential’ information at the time.”
Note that 42/52 of those chains were at security levels above "Confidential", so don't try to minimize it with "Confidential is a classification in the world of security"
"potential violations" in other words their the potential of no violations.
Have you handled U.S. government classified material, their always the potential. Not doing the proper procedures when locking a safe is a potential violations.
Keep trying. She was found to be storing classified information on an unsecured private server located in her basement. That's an undeniable fact. The only reason she wasn't charged was because she supposedly
Didn't know what she was doing.
She broke no law.
It wasn't unsecure, it just wasn't under the government security system.
not even 18 USC 1924?
Just like in the military, you can have a lock on a safe, but if it isn't a government issue series 10 lock by protocol it unsecure, even those there's a lock present. Just like her server it had a security system, just not the government.
Bhaven, the simple fact is that if any non Democrat was in the same position as Clinton, you would be insisting that they be brought to justice
There's nothing to be brought to justice for, so your statement is asinine. Since we are assume if a democrat POTUS would've done a 1/3 of crap pos 45 has done you would be asking your rep to draw an article for impeachment.
my computer is password protected.
can I store classified information on it?
that's a lazy argument...
check out 18 USC 1924 and get back to me B
a computer and a server are quite different. Your computer firewall is being established by a server. So that argument is also lazy, she commited no crime.
If her server was so vulnerable, why was the wikileak leaks from John Podesta computer?.
my computer is a server.
so is my raspberry pi.
I've run servers of various types for over a decade. I'm well aware what a server is.
Podesta got spearphished and gave up his password.
and it wasn't from his computer - it was a cloud based account.
anyways, check out 18 USC 1924 and get back to me.
So that means you're well aware, if you wanted too you can.
I'll use the Paul Ryan defense Secy Clinton was a rookie at being the Secretary of State.
No need wasn't a crime, you can quote 18 USC 1924 all you want. So the cloud server was hacked, but not Secy Clinton so called unsecured server in Mom & Pop' s basement. Hmm very interesting.
What is 18 USC 1924, bhaven?
Cloud server was never hacked. He gave away his password.
Sorry she didn't mishandled or give classified information to an authorized personal or entity. So what's the problem if John Podesta gave his pw away. Ami like the 46% that voted for pos 45.
You do know you just likened yourself to Trump voters
Yes, if you're admitting they were ignorant for voting pos 45.
"So what's the problem if John Podesta gave his pw away."
Do you really know that little about the specifics of both the FBI "matter" and Podesta leak?
"she didn't mishandled"
You gotta be fùcking kidding me. Did you even listen to Comey say anything about the case?
Yes, there isn't anything here to see folks, no crime, no charges.
Every crime violates the law, but not every violation of the law is a crime
"she didn't mishandled"
Yeah... I'm seeing a problem with that one that's completely unrelated to the topic.
Central Park, New York, NY
Was her server hacked? Not one time did Comey claims her so called unsecure server was compromised. The only reason he said she was careless, because she wasn't under the government system.
Unsecure is not synonymous with compromised.
So you're acknowledging she used a non-government system to store and transmit classified info.
That's the whole fricken point. Glad you're finally coming around.
It was secure, it was secured enough not to be hacked. No the fricken point is there wasn't any point. Just more bs accusations that turned up nothing.
Turned up nothing?
She stored classified information at her house.
Yeah ok but she didn't know that kinda thing wasn't allowed.
Hillary has looked pretty pathetic recently, she needs to do herself a favor and ride off into the sunset
Regarding Hillary's server issues, you can't make a credible case for intent. Being careless and stupid are hallmarks of our entire government in case no one has noticed. If being stupid was a crime, Capitol Hill would be empty.
Why Ami, Newt Gingrich has rode off, and he has sound pretty pathetic for long time.
I wish that were the case. He was sounding pathetic just yesterday after the shooting in Va.
Is he your Uncle?
Addison, IL, USA
I still don't understand why there's a need for intent, didn't the statute say just negligence?
(I just remembered this old article about it)
The espionage act mentioned gross negligence, not this one.
That's the law referenced in the article.
Hey maybe we'll have a woman in charge of investigating Trump... wonder what he'll rate her? Maybe a 6? https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/6/16/15821266/associate-attorney-general-rachel-brand-rosenstein-trump-russia-investigation
Ami you need a life vest swimming in the Denial River. If Newt were my Uncle, I would've told him to sit his unstable ass down. Accusing Robert Mueller of being in the deep state. Pos 45 is a disaster.
lol at "the Denial River"
I really don't think Hillary has learned one thing from the election. She seems to fancy herself the hero of the left, welcome back by us all with open arms as the person who should have been elected.
She still doesn't seem to understand that she herself is the cause of her own unpopularity. While that was certainly affected by Comey et al., her hubris prevents her from seeing some basic truths about herself.
For example: the American people are sick to fúcking death of the Clintons and their chummy, entitled attitude. I believe it's why Obama was nominated over Hillary in '08. Bill doesn't help either. Good POTUS, bad 1st dude material.
Hillary lost a very winnable election with that kinda attitude, awful strategy to go for a blowout popular vote-wise but not worry enough about electoral and of course with zero, zero charm compared with Bill.
She really should be exiled from the party at this point at least temporarily while they sort themselves out and concentrate on 2018 and 2020.
Agreed evil and Drew
According to Newt Gingrich the President technically can't obstruct justice, but he impeached President Clinton for that same offense over a bj in oval office.