July 5, 201610 yr Most of their commentators sound like a deer in the headlights. Imagine how most of them were feeling, Comey came on talking tough about Clinton for nearly 15 minutes and then BOOM no charges. LOL I think everyone that works at Fox News aged 10 years today. :lol2:
July 5, 201610 yr Author I turned over to CNN because I was tired of Fox and CNN is pretty critical of Comey too, at least that is how I read it.
July 6, 201610 yr I thought the cnn pundits were harder on HRC then I expected, but I think that was mainly for show. They were all just excited that there was no charges. And thank God, this got them to stop talking about the star of David tweet from the Trump camp. That was beginning to get stupid quick.
July 6, 201610 yr I turned over to CNN because I was tired of Fox and CNN is pretty critical of Comey too, at least that is how I read it. Comey outlined a very strong criminal case quite well today. So CNN is upset with him. He just topped it off with 'intent' / 'intention' verbiage and punted it back to the AG. FBI — Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail 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 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information,... (She said there were no classified emails. Contempt?) ... The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. ... With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. ... Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department. (note - it is federal law that all emails must be archived and users must ensure they are and paper copies are to be maintained.) The lawyers doing the sorting (note here - sorting seems to be a term for removing) for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server. It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery. (obstruction of justice, destroying of evidence?) Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting (deleting actually) effort. (He does not say there was 'no misconduct', but there was 'no intentional misconduct'. Another way to say this same thing is - 'there was misconduct, the misconduct was not intentional.') ... And so on. So Comey laid out a strong case for legal action. After saying its not 'reasonable' to pursue prosecution he makes the perplexing but tell statement: To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. What does this mean? Especially the last sentence. The next paragraph adds no context to that last sentence.
July 6, 201610 yr Comey outlined a very strong criminal case quite well today. So CNN is upset with him. He just topped it off with 'intent' / 'intention' verbiage and punted it back to the AG. FBI — Statement by FBI Director James B. Comey on the Investigation of Secretary Hillary Clinton’s Use of a Personal E-Mail System From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail 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 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information,... (She said there were no classified emails. Contempt?) ... The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. ... With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. ... Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department. (note - it is federal law that all emails must be archived and users must ensure they are and paper copies are to be maintained.) The lawyers doing the sorting (note here - sorting seems to be a term for removing) for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server. It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery. (obstruction of justice, destroying of evidence?) Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting (deleting actually) effort. (He does not say there was 'no misconduct', but there was 'no intentional misconduct'. Another way to say this same thing is - 'there was misconduct, the misconduct was not intentional.') ... And so on. So Comey laid out a strong case for legal action. After saying its not 'reasonable' to pursue prosecution he makes the perplexing but tell statement: To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. What does this mean? Especially the last sentence. The next paragraph adds no context to that last sentence. The last statement means if your last name isn't Clinton you won't get a pass.
July 6, 201610 yr The last statement means if your last name isn't Clinton you won't get a pass. That statement alone is utterly amazing in content. I agree with another poster as its a sad day in the USA when the law does not apply to certain people.
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.