Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Just a few quotes from the statement from the FBI Director.

 

 

Unbelievable.

'No reasonable prosecutor' would ever charge Hillary. You, me? Sure, but Hillary, no way.

Quote:The part about not being criminally so has more to do with her position as a high level politician than anything else IMO. But I agree with the findings. Comey is well known to be honest, so unless he has turned a different way this is probably what happened. However, if she had been some lower level assistant, she would have been fired and lost security clearance long ago.

Secretary Clinton is currently not employed by the federal government, so she can't have her clearance revoked as punishment.  I don't honestly know if any of the staff that put the server together are either, but if they are, then there should be some kind of reprimand to make sure this doesn't happen again.  There will certainly be a contingent that will say that she should never been given a clearance again, and is thus disqualified from holding federal public office.  It's a discussion worth having, and I'm sure we're going to have it.

 

Comey went through great pains to explain just HOW dumb this particular mistake was, and did so before he explained that he didn't believe a prosecutor could win the case.  I honestly believe he did that not to build suspense in the political theater, but so the cameras wouldn't cut away early and lose his message.

 

We're gonna hear Comey's words a lot in the coming months.

Quote:I completely disagree about Snowden. He didn't leak info to sabotage, he leaked info because he wanted to change what were widespread abuses of power by homeland security. He had tried to go through the proper channels and was ignored. He was trying to help, not sabatoge and he is very much a good example of how someone who is NOT an elite is treated.

 

Although I pretty much agree with the rest of your post, if Hilliary did what Snowden did, the media would call her a hero. And if Snowden did what Hillary did, he would be in jail.

I understand there is a "hero" camp for Snowden, and a "traitor" camp for Snowden.

 

I respect your opinion, but I'm in the "traitor" camp.  Accordingly, I also disagree with your last point about what would happen if Hillary did what Snowden did, and vice versa.

Quote:Secretary Clinton is currently not employed by the federal government, so she can't have her clearance revoked as punishment.  I don't honestly know if any of the staff that put the server together are either, but if they are, then there should be some kind of reprimand to make sure this doesn't happen again.  There will certainly be a contingent that will say that she should never been given a clearance again, and is thus disqualified from holding federal public office.  It's a discussion worth having, and I'm sure we're going to have it.

 

Comey went through great pains to explain just HOW dumb this particular mistake was, and did so before he explained that he didn't believe a prosecutor could win the case
.  I honestly believe he did that not to build suspense in the political theater, but so the cameras wouldn't cut away early and lose his message.

 

We're gonna hear Comey's words a lot in the coming months.

Not really what he said. He said that a reasonable prosecutor wouldn't prosecute. But we all know that prosecutors are only 'reasonable' if you are an elite, otherwise they are pretty dogged when people screw up. Its a double standard for sure.

Quote:*Shrug*

 

I'll take the decision of the FBI director, who has sworn an oath to defend the constitution of the United States of America, over the partisan operatives at National Review.

 

That opinion is that no reasonable prosecutor would take this case based on the evidence uncovered, which, by the way, was not revealed to you, me, or National Review.

 

jj, there's plenty of meat out there for you and the other right wingers to gnaw on.  The director laid out a scathing criticism of the actions of the State Department, and those critiques are now going to be used by Republicans for the next 4 months.  What I won't believe, or accept, is that Comey is acting under partisan principles or is incompetent because he made a decision that you and others that endorse your agenda don't like - for your own partisan reasons.

 

You'll take it?  Why would you need to "take" anyone's word but your own?  You can read the statutes just as clearly as Comey can.  The facts of this case did not change and are widely known.  There were hundreds of violations of these statutes.  This has been known for months.  The only question was, does the law apply to Hillary Clinton?  Now we have the answer. 

they could not find a case of similar circumstances, so no precedent.

 

they could not find a case where the Secretary of State with the name Hillary stored classified info on a private hacked server. impossible to press charges.  

Quote:I understand there is a "hero" camp for Snowden, and a "traitor" camp for Snowden.

 

I respect your opinion, but I'm in the "traitor" camp.  Accordingly, I also disagree with your last point about what would happen if Hillary did what Snowden did, and vice versa.

I am not suggesting he is a hero, just that he reported widespread abuse and suffered dearly for it. He showed how the government was violating the rights of the people. Unfortunately for him, most of the population didn't understand what he was saying, and those who did, half of them didn't care. And now hes a traitor? Because he pointed out a government agency breaking our laws and constitution? I guess every whistleblower and rights activist is a traitor too, like that Peter Buxtun (tuskegee syphillis experiment)?

 

Snowden isn't even the first time someone has whistlebolown against the NSA (Perry Fellwock https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_Fellwock). Ironically they passed a law after Fellwock did it outlawing the NSA from spying on us. Which, of course, they are still doing. The only difference is Snowden did it 40 years later, and people are more complacent now, and willing to accept false narratives like 'Snowden is a traitor.' For shame.

One has to wonder what Obama/Clinton HAD on the FBI Director

Quote: 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="jagibelieve" data-cid="768713" data-time="1467748635">
<div>
Whether or not she was preoccupied with other parts of her job is irrelevant.  It wasn't just her, it was her staff as well.  Why did the IT person that set up her server take the 5th?  Could it be because he knew what he was doing was wrong?  Could it be because he would have to reveal being directed (ordered) to do so came directly from Clinton?

 

That's just speculation on my part, but it certainly seems to fit.

 

Maybe he took the 5th because his lawyer told him to.  I've been told to do whatever the lawyer tells me to when in his or her domain, regardless of what I want to do.


 

 

Manning didn't really "compromise" SIPRNet or any other secure network.  He had access to it because he was cleared to be on it.  That's different from "hacking" it.

 

So Manning would only been able to leak what he had access to on SPIRNet?

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

As I said regarding your first comment in red, I am only speculating.  It's not fact, but it's a very definite possibility.  Why would his lawyer tell him to plead the 5th?  The only reason is because his honest lawful truth under oath would be "self incriminating".  It would lead to the potential fact that he knew what he was doing was wrong, and would probably reveal the "why" he was doing it as being ordered by Clinton.  Again, this is just speculation on my part, not fact.

 

Regarding your second part in red.  Manning had access not only to SIPRNet, but also other networks/areas that contain(ed) classified data.  What he leaked probably came from multiple sources.

Quote:You'll take it?  Why would you need to "take" anyone's word but your own?  You can read the statutes just as clearly as Comey can.  The facts of this case did not change and are widely known.  There were hundreds of violations of these statutes.  This has been known for months.  The only question was, does the law apply to Hillary Clinton?  Now we have the answer. 

Take the word of the guy who actually SAW the emails over what I make up in my head about what was on the server?

 

Yeah, I'll take it.  Comey knows the facts, you and I don't.  You obviously don't trust him, I do.

Quote:Secretary Clinton is currently not employed by the federal government, so she can't have her clearance revoked as punishment.  I don't honestly know if any of the staff that put the server together are either, but if they are, then there should be some kind of reprimand to make sure this doesn't happen again.  There will certainly be a contingent that will say that she should never been given a clearance again, and is thus disqualified from holding federal public office.  It's a discussion worth having, and I'm sure we're going to have it.

 

Comey went through great pains to explain just HOW dumb this particular mistake was, and did so before he explained that he didn't believe a prosecutor could win the case.  I honestly believe he did that not to build suspense in the political theater, but so the cameras wouldn't cut away early and lose his message.

 

We're gonna hear Comey's words a lot in the coming months.

 

Oh yes she can, and quite frankly at this point, it should be suspended.  Once an employee leaves whether it's a military employee or a civilian employee, their clearance is not revoked, but it's "on file".

 

If there is anything going on with that person be it an investigation or otherwise, that clearance should be at the VERY minimum flagged and should be suspended.

doesn't every government official use an email server in their basement that has no security? seems like standard protocol to me. nothing weird at all about that.

Consider this – General David Petraeus was FIRED for much less.

Quote:One has to wonder what Obama/Clinton HAD on the FBI Director

I think the more accurate question is to ask what they offered his boss, the Attorney General? 

Quote:Take the word of the guy who actually SAW the emails over what I make up in my head about what was on the server?

 

Yeah, I'll take it.  Comey knows the facts, you and I don't.  You obviously don't trust him, I do.

 

If we're going to simply take the words of Comey, let's do exactly that. 

 

USA Today doesn't spin this like it's a Clinton victory.  Quite the opposite actually.  Other than the decision not to bring charges, they deemed the report damning.  Whether she is coated in the same Teflon her husband was remains to be seen.  I don't think she is, and that people have made it clear they don't trust her.  This is only going to exacerbate that, in my opinion.

 

Here, a former Assistant US Attorney for the fifth district of NY, Andrew McCarthy, outlines the law and how Comey basically rewrote it to give Hillary a pass on facing charges.

Quote:I understand there is a "hero" camp for Snowden, and a "traitor" camp for Snowden.

 

I respect your opinion, but I'm in the "traitor" camp.  Accordingly, I also disagree with your last point about what would happen if Hillary did what Snowden did, and vice versa.

 

In what way is Edward Snowden a traitor?  He uncovered and revealed illegal activity being done by his Government and effectively changed laws with other actually being enforced.  He did all that and it cost him his life as he knows it.  There aren't many here who would be willing to do the right thing knowing they would also be viewed as a criminal.  

Quote:If we're going to simply take the words of Comey, let's do exactly that. 

 

USA Today doesn't spin this like it's a Clinton victory.  Quite the opposite actually.  Other than the decision not to bring charges, they deemed the report damning.  Whether she is coated in the same Teflon her husband was remains to be seen.  I don't think she is, and that people have made it clear they don't trust her.  This is only going to exacerbate that, in my opinion.

 

Here, a former Assistant US Attorney for the fifth district of NY, Andrew McCarthy, outlines the law and how Comey basically rewrote it to give Hillary a pass on facing charges.

 

The left is going to have to try really hard to spin this away.

 

While the inappropriate "recommendation" of the FBI Director was flat out wrong, what is more damaging to the Hillary campaign is the truth that came out.  I'm sure that the "justice" department (Loretta Lynch) is going to come out and say that they follow the FBI's "recommendation" and won't bring Hillary up on charges, despite the evidence out there.

 

The timeline and events leading up to this is unreal.  It's pretty much corruption center stage.

 

A situation like this is pretty much enough for me, someone who is "anti-Trump" to cast a vote for whoever runs against her, even if I don't like the candidate (Trump).  I suspect that many independent voters probably feel the same way.  I personally would question anyone's mindset if at this point, they think that Hillary Clinton should be President.

Quote:In what way is Edward Snowden a traitor?  He uncovered and revealed illegal activity being done by his Government and effectively changed laws with other actually being enforced.  He did all that and it cost him his life as he knows it.  There aren't many here who would be willing to do the right thing knowing they would also be viewed as a criminal.  

 

Wrong thread, different topic.

 

I know that a liberal tactic is to try to deflect and change a conversation to draw attention away from it.  It ain't happening here.

Quote:The left is going to have to try really hard to spin this away.

 

While the inappropriate "recommendation" of the FBI Director was flat out wrong, what is more damaging to the Hillary campaign is the truth that came out.  I'm sure that the "justice" department (Loretta Lynch) is going to come out and say that they follow the FBI's "recommendation" and won't bring Hillary up on charges, despite the evidence out there.

 

The timeline and events leading up to this is unreal.  It's pretty much corruption center stage.

 

A situation like this is pretty much enough for me, someone who is "anti-Trump" to cast a vote for whoever runs against her, even if I don't like the candidate (Trump).  I suspect that many independent voters probably feel the same way.  I personally would question anyone's mindset if at this point, they think that Hillary Clinton should be President.

Agreed. Unfortunately, most don't have a clue or even care that she's corrupt. They care about what she's promising them, and 4 years from now, they won't care a bit that she didn't deliver on squat because she'll tell them it's not her fault. It's what they do. She's doing a C&P from the Obama playbook. Unfortunately, she tends to read the entire thing from a TelePrompTer, including the sighs.

Quote:Agreed. Unfortunately, most don't have a clue or even care that she's corrupt. They care about what she's promising them, and 4 years from now, they won't care a bit that she didn't deliver on squat because she'll tell them it's not her fault. It's what they do. She's doing a C&P from the Obama playbook. Unfortunately, she tends to read the entire thing from a TelePrompTer, including the sighs.

 

True to a point.  The only voters that she has right now are some of the "give me stuff" leftists, the militant women's rights "activists" and the hard core democrats.  There are plenty of the "give me stuff" leftists (Bernie Sanders supporters) that are equally outraged about this.  I don't see a whole lot of support behind her regarding this whole thing.