Quote :

"Paul Ryan asking DNI to withhold briefings about national security issues that presidential candidates usually receive."

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 9:54 AM. Reason : ftfy]

7/7/2016 9:54:19 AM

comey getting ready to get grilled on cspan.

http://www.c-span.org/video/?412315-1/fbi-director-james-comey-testifies-hillary-clinton-email-probe

7/7/2016 10:04:50 AM

^^ I would be fine of neither of them got their hands on any information to be honest. Fuck us.

7/7/2016 10:18:38 AM

Quote :

"She doesn't need a security clearance to be President."

This is the funniest part. She's running for literally the only office she would be allowed to hold at this point. And winning.

7/7/2016 10:40:27 AM

Gowdy read several statements Clinton made under oath to Congress, Comey verified they were all lies.

Still no prosecution.

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 10:43 AM. Reason : a]

7/7/2016 10:43:39 AM

Quote :

"No, but she does receive intel briefs as a candidate of a major party."

...which neither Clinton nor Trump need a clearance for.

--------

An interview with someone who has conducted those briefs:

http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/trumpcast/2016/05/trusting_donald_trump_with_classified_information.html

^^^ Senators and Representatives don't need clearances either. They have clearance based on being elected and placed on committees that require access.

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 10:46 AM. Reason : ....]

7/7/2016 10:44:22 AM

Okay. So she can hold elected office but couldn't hold an appointed position.

7/7/2016 10:54:50 AM

yeah I was about to raise the BS flag on

Quote :

"She's running for literally the only office she would be allowed to hold at this point"

7/7/2016 10:59:29 AM

Quote :

"Did Hillary Clinton lie? The answer from Mr. Comey was good for Mrs. Clinton, the likely Democratic presidential nominee: “We have no basis to conclude that she lied to the F.B.I.” But when Mr. Chaffetz went further, asking whether Mrs. Clinton lied to Congress, Mr. Comey’s answer suggested that the story about her emails will continue. “Not to my knowledge,” he said. “I don’t think there’s been a referral from Congress.” “Do you need a referral?” Mr. Chaffetz said, appearing incredulous. “Sure do,” Mr. Comey said. “You’ll have one,” Mr. Chaffetz promised."

Here's a live transcript of the hearings:
http://www.nytimes.com/live/james-comey-testifies-before-congress/chaffetz-opens-hearing/

Seems like she told congress something different maybe than she told the FBI.

It's interesting that he basically says Petraeus was given special treatment, with not being charged with obstruction.

looks like most secret info was sent to her, but there was one Top Secret email she sent herself.

Quote :

"He said classified information was in “most circumstances” sent to her by her aides, but then he talked about one chain of emails that were classified as “top secret.” The State Department, at the insistence of the C.I.A., declined to release 22 emails in seven chains even in a redacted form. Mr. Comey previously said there were eight chains. According to intelligence and congressional officials, most of those, though not all, involve the C.I.A.’s secret drone strikes in Pakistan. For the first time, Mr. Comey made it clear that Mrs. Clinton had typed an email in one of those “top secret” chains. “In the one involving ‘top secret’ information, Secretary Clinton not only received but also sent emails that talked about the same subject,” Mr. Comey said"

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 11:42 AM. Reason : ]

7/7/2016 11:38:11 AM

lying to congress and the fact that she wiped the servers to obstruct the investigation sure looks bad

7/7/2016 11:42:30 AM

Where/what-about did she lie to congress exactly?

7/7/2016 11:49:35 AM

let's use more tax dollars to find out!!1

7/7/2016 11:52:59 AM

Benghazi hearings about her email server. She said she only used one device and no emails had classification markings on them

7/7/2016 11:53:04 AM

Quote :

"she wiped the servers to obstruct the investigation"

Also she wiped servers? Did know she had that type of IT knowledge

Seriously though, what was the timeline and how can you show any intent?

If the issue was as clear as you're purporting with your post here then that's all we'd be hearing about

7/7/2016 11:54:20 AM

What are some other things that congress has investigated in the past on this scale (or on Ben Ghazi scale)? Like what was the last one? Blowjobs in Oval Office? Iran-Contra? Were those the last two?

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 12:06 PM. Reason : Ben did some bad things]

7/7/2016 12:05:57 PM

yes she wiped the servers after they printed out the work related emails, tho thousands were not included we found out later

7/7/2016 12:08:30 PM

That one biased GA students blog post had a good timeline summary

7/7/2016 12:29:08 PM

and a ridiculous title

again, if there was any evidence of obstruction of justice that would directly refute this:

Quote :

"In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here"

and I'm sure I would have heard these GOP attack dogs talking about NOTHING except said evidence this morning, which isn't happening

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 12:44 PM. Reason : I guess it's too bad they didn't call that law student to testify]

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 12:45 PM. Reason : but according to beatsunc the evidence is clear as day ]

7/7/2016 12:41:38 PM

Hey we still have the Clinton Foundation investigation and the Judicial Watch suit to blueball us

7/7/2016 1:01:07 PM

^^how is this not "intentional and willful mishandling of classified information"?

7/7/2016 1:03:58 PM

^or efforts to obstruct justice

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 1:06 PM. Reason : u]

7/7/2016 1:05:46 PM

i don't think there is evidence that clinton directed anyone to delete emails

7/7/2016 1:07:31 PM

I think that the key term may be "clearly" intentional and willful mishandling of classified information. I could see how the burden of proof might be too high for a prosecutor to seek indictment.

7/7/2016 1:13:43 PM

^^i dont think her team would do it without consulting her first. maybe they had discussed it years earlier and knew that she would want them to. looks bad that they wiped servers tho

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 1:14 PM. Reason : s]

7/7/2016 1:14:24 PM

^^ how is this not clearly mishandling information?

7/7/2016 1:18:00 PM

Sorry, perhaps "clearly" isn't the only key term; "clearly intentional and willful" are all key terms.

7/7/2016 1:25:38 PM

nm

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 1:26 PM. Reason : ^]

7/7/2016 1:26:03 PM

^^i'm still not sure how this doesn't meet that. clinton was trained on how to handle sensitive information and i believe that her aides were as well. they were trained to not do the things they were doing, so how is this not intentional and willful?

7/7/2016 1:44:11 PM

Quote :

"how is this not "[clearly] intentional and willful mishandling of classified information"?"

Have you not been listening to Comey's remarks? He's addressed this a number of times.

Quote :

"how is this not clearly mishandling information?"

It clearly is. But you left off the bolded stuff above in your question

Quote :

"i don't think there is evidence that clinton directed anyone to delete emails"

Clearly, as I laid out above.

7/7/2016 1:51:27 PM

Twice a year I get told that if I violate these rules, I could face criminal charges. It doesn't specify "if I unintentionally violate these rules"

Shit, there I go commenting in this thread again.

7/7/2016 1:51:42 PM

i did not see where comey provided an explanation that clinton did not have clear intentional and willful mishandling only that he said she didn't.

(additionally, 18 USC 793(f) doesn't even require basic intent)

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 2:00 PM. Reason : she had both intent and willful mishandling]

7/7/2016 1:59:10 PM

I don't think that her hosting the server at her own residence is sufficient evidence to prove that she intentionally and willfully mishandled classified information.

Her hosting the server at her own residence may have actually made it more difficult to prove that she intentionally and willfully mishandled classified information.

For example, if an individual removes classified information from a facility, then it's fairly easy to discern intent.

However, perhaps Hillary Clinton's hosted server provides her with plausible deniability that she ever intended to receive classified information unsecurely.

I agree, though, that it would seem that sending an email with classified information would remove any plausible deniability that she may have had.

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 2:04 PM. Reason : ]

7/7/2016 2:02:50 PM

this guy got totally grilled

didn't require her to swear under oath

didn't talk with the investigators who questioned her

didn't think a person who is an OCA would understand portion markings of classified information

7/7/2016 2:03:11 PM

^^ she was trained on how to handle this information, so how could she have not known?

7/7/2016 2:04:18 PM

Quote :

"let's use more tax dollars to find out!!"

you're damn right we'll use tax dollars to find out if a former US Senator and Secretary of State (John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, James Monroe, John Quincy Adams, Martin Van Buren, Daniel Webster, John Calhoun, James Buchanan, William Jennings Bryan, George C. Marshall, John Foster Dulles, Colin Powell to name a few), who aspires to the nation's highest office lied to the people of this country (which we know she did from the USD IG report and the FBI investigation), and the peoples' representatives, who offer a clear and equal check to the executive branch of the country, and risked the leaking of information that merits the highest levels of classification

if you don't think that is worth taxpayers dollars, you are an idiot

7/7/2016 2:11:00 PM

Quote :

"I don't think that her hosting the server at her own residence is sufficient evidence to prove that she intentionally and willfully mishandled classified information."

the decision to host a server at her residence is a decision of intent

the moment she saw that the emails were classified (higher than UNCLAS) and decided NOT to delete them/alert the USD SSO, but rather reply or forward them, is a decision of intent

7/7/2016 2:14:00 PM

Quote :

"the decision to host a server at her residence is a decision of intent"

Quote :

"the moment she saw that the emails were classified (higher than UNCLAS) and decided NOT to delete them/alert the USD SSO, but rather reply or forward them, is a decision of intent"

Damn you and beatsunc should grab that law student guy and go testify. Sounds like the three of you have this shit locked up.

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 2:21 PM. Reason : But yeah if her sysadmin people in charge of the server didn't have clearance that seems fucked up]

7/7/2016 2:18:52 PM

Justin Cooper did not have a security clearance of even training on how to keep the server secure

their cloud backup also did not have clearance and was not aware they were backing up any classified or sensitive information

7/7/2016 2:25:36 PM

^^
didn't she switch the whole thing over to Platte River Networks?

^
yeah so a private organization had access

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 2:31 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2016 2:31:10 PM

surprising no one, guccifer lied about hacking the server.

7/7/2016 2:31:52 PM

we don't know that at all, it is still the most likely way he got the clinton doodles

7/7/2016 2:33:20 PM

actually we do. you just choose to hear what you want to hear

http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/guccifer-clinton-server-hack-lie/

http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/07/07/comey-hacker-guccifer-lied-about-accessing-clintons-emails

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 2:37 PM. Reason : video]

7/7/2016 2:35:41 PM

plus its hard to tell if a server has been hacked in the past IF YOU WIPE IT

7/7/2016 2:36:56 PM

Quote :

"plus its hard to tell if a server has been hacked in the past IF YOU WIPE IT"

Except we're 5 or 6 whatever hours into this hearing, and you're the the only one talking about that.

7/7/2016 2:38:21 PM

the director of the FBI testified to congress that guccifer admitted lying about hacking while being interviewed by the FBI.

but believe whatever the fuck you want to believe

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 2:39 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2016 2:38:59 PM

Comey said there wouldn't be evidence left if a sophisticated hacker had intruded. So while there is no evidence of a hack, it doesn't mean it wasn't hacked. It was clearly vulnerable.

Note I'm not talking about Guccifer. Dude just guessed Blumenthals password

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 2:42 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2016 2:41:32 PM

like I said, believe whatever the fuck you want.

there is zero evidence of any intrusion.

I don't have proof you raped and murdered 5 hookers in tampa last August. please prove to me that you didn't.

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 2:44 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2016 2:43:11 PM

It's a fact that the server was vulnerable in numerous ways. Whether or not it was hacked is unknown.

7/7/2016 2:45:24 PM

those hookers lead a vulnerable life. whether or not you raped and murdered them is unknown.

[Edited on July 7, 2016 at 2:46 PM. Reason : .]

7/7/2016 2:46:39 PM

You're okay with the possibility that other countries might have blackmail material on the future POTUS?

7/7/2016 2:47:57 PM