This Legal Hole Could Be Bad News For Clinton Email Case Review

[Common]

Key Department of Justice (DOJ) officials may escape being interviewed in DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s review of the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a home-brew email server to do official government business.
Inspectors General only have authority to compel current government employees to comply with interview requests under the Inspector General Act (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode05a/usc_sup_05_5_10_sq2.html), so they are unable to force testimony from officials like Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Assistant Attorney General for Legislative Affairs Peter Kadzik once they leave office along with President Barack Obama, potentially leaving Horowitz to deal with gaping holes in his review.
“Once they’re gone, the IG has no jurisdiction over them,” former U.S. Attorney Joe DiGenova told The Daily Caller News Foundation Investigative Group.
Horowitz announced Thursday he is investigating whether DOJ and the FBI broke federal policy in handling the Clinton email investigation in the months leading up to the presidential election.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/13/this-legal-hole-could-be-bad-news-for-clinton-email-case-review/

[hanger4]

Kind a makes the whole OIG investigation rather pointless.

[Common]

Kind a makes the whole OIG investigation rather pointless.
The protect themselves

[stjames1_53]

The protect themselves

and that's why Trump needs to drain the swamp............it's full of nasty vile critters

[midcan5]

Kinda interesting as Hillary did nothing illegal or criminal and yet the right wing propaganda machine, with help from Russian and other hackers used every word to mean something diabolical. Language has suffered greatly since the rise of the paid for propaganda machinery. Why were Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell not investigated by Jason Chaffetz? You know you are in the land of partisan baloney when nothing is described it is rather assumed. And what the heck is breaking federal policy? Meaningless words that only some hear in their trined mind.


I recently read 'The Making of Donald Trump' by David Cay Johnston and started 'The Plot to Hack America: How Putin’s Cyberspies and WikiLeaks Tried to Steal the 2016 Election' by Malcolm Nance. Both give some insight to the man and to the hacking.

Gotta drop, stuff below. http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/12/19/the-curious-world-of-donald-trumps-private-russian-connections/

Hacking and whatnot

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-38610402


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38612066

[MMC]

Kinda interesting as Hillary did nothing illegal or criminal and yet the right wing propaganda machine, with help from Russian and other hackers used every word to mean something diabolical. Language has suffered greatly since the rise of the paid for propaganda machinery. Why were Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell not investigated by Jason Chaffetz? You know you are in the land of partisan baloney when nothing is described it is rather assumed. And what the heck is breaking federal policy? Meaningless words that only some hear in their trined mind.


I recently read 'The Making of Donald Trump' by David Cay Johnston and started 'The Plot to Hack America: How Putin’s Cyberspies and WikiLeaks Tried to Steal the 2016 Election' by Malcolm Nance. Both give some insight to the man and to the hacking.

Gotta drop, stuff below. http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/12/19/the-curious-world-of-donald-trumps-private-russian-connections/

Hacking and whatnot

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-38610402


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38612066

Try again.....Comey already validated that her people were breached. He also admitted Hillary clicked on a Bait link. Moreover she refused to cooperate with the State Dept OIG as did her people. They also lied to the FBI.

Committing perjury and Obstructing investigations in any way. Is Illegal.


Now we know to much reality can be hard for the leftness to handle. But that doesn't mean the truth is to be ignored.

[Peter1469]

Kind a makes the whole OIG investigation rather pointless.

This is nothing new. Inspectors General can't interview civilians (unless they agree). If the IG talks to Comey and the agents / lawyers who conducted the investigation he may find how horribly done the investigation was and may find that the FBI indeed has enough information to recommend to the AG that the case go forward to a grand jury.

Someone in the FBI or DoJ was leaking info to the Clintons.

[MMC]

This is nothing new. Inspectors General can't interview civilians (unless they agree). If the IG talks to Comey and the agents / lawyers who conducted the investigation he may find how horribly done the investigation was and may find that the FBI indeed has enough information to recommend to the AG that the case go forward to a grand jury.

Someone in the FBI or DoJ was leaking info to the Clintons.

Peter Kadzik assistant AG.....is where the focus should be.

[Crepitus]

BS. Comey is clearly a Republican hack, operating solely at their control. I bet there isn't enough to warrant investigation much less indictment.

[MMC]

BS. Comey is clearly a Republican hack, operating solely at their control. I bet there isn't enough to warrant investigation much less indictment.
Oh really.....is that why he has always let her off the Hook. All because he is under Repubs Control.. :rollseyes:

[Crepitus]

Oh really.....is that why he has always let her off the Hook. All because he is under Repubs Control.. :rollseyes:

They never had enough to actually indict her, it served their purposes simply to keep the manufactured scandal in the public eye. Like the wiener laptop thing that yielded absolutely nothing but another news cycle just days before the election.

[MMC]

They never had enough to actually indict her, it served their purposes simply to keep the manufactured scandal in the public eye. Like the wiener laptop thing that yielded absolutely nothing but another news cycle just days before the election.

Oh wait, you just called him a Republican hack under Repubs control. Yet Comey let Hillary off time and time again going back to her and Bilbos time in Arkansas.

Before many of these Repubs were in Office. Imagine that. :laugh:

[Crepitus]

Oh wait, you just called him a Republican hack under Repubs control. Yet Comey let Hillary off time and time again going back to her and Bilbos time in Arkansas.

Before many of these Repubs were in Office. Imagine that. :laugh:

And? Maybe he works for the highest bidder? Maybe he just doesn't like her now?

Maybe the russians got some film of him too.

[MMC]

And? Maybe he works for the highest bidder? Maybe he just doesn't like her now?

Maybe the russians got some film of him too.

And if he was under Repubs control.....then there would be an indictment, Right? Oh, so now he works for the Highest bidder and yet still lets her off the hook.

So just who would that be that would pay him to not indict?


We can talk to John Podesta her Campaign Chairman. He has real close ties to the Russians. Even owns stock in one of their companies.

[Crepitus]

And if he was under Repubs control.....then there would be an indictment, Right? Oh, so now he works for the Highest bidder and yet still lets her off the hook.

So just who would that be that would pay him to not indict?


We can talk to John Podesta her Campaign Chairman. He has real close ties to the Russians. Even owns stock in one of their companies.

Can't indict without evidence. Can leak shit and make sure the scandal stays in the news though.

[MMC]

Can't indict without evidence. Can leak shit and make sure the scandal stays in the news though.

Well they do have her for Perjury....its why, Chaffetz is going ahead with his Investigation. Then they can show that the FBI assessed her people gave up breaches and they do now know she clicked on a bait link. As well as was warned which she denied, after it was shown she was warned. They don't need anymore evidence than that to proceed.

[Common Sense]

Well they do have her for Perjury....its why, Chaffetz is going ahead with his Investigation. Then they can show that the FBI assessed her people gave up breaches and they do now know she clicked on a bait link. As well as was warned which she denied, after it was shown she was warned. They don't need anymore evidence than that to proceed.

You read that in the Times of Mexico? ;)

[MMC]

You read that in the Times of Mexico? ;)

Did you figure out why many Americans complain about the MS Media......yet? :kiss:

[Common Sense]

Did you figure out why many Americans complain about the MS Media......yet? :kiss:

I figured out why some partisans will fall for virtually anything...

[MMC]

I figured out why some partisans will fall for virtually anything...

Did you.....so when will you explain why you only fall for those leftwing rags or when the left gives you the gospel with the MS media.

[Common Sense]

Lol...

[decedent]

Kinda interesting as Hillary did nothing illegal or criminal ...

Or even harmful.


But the truth won't stop them from trying. Hate is a wonderful motivator.

[MMC]

Lol...
Nervous laughter is a physical reaction to stress, tension, confusion, or anxiety. Neuroscientist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran) states .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_laughter

http://politirant.com/Smileys/oldrant/book1.gif

[Common Sense]

Nervous laughter is a physical reaction to stress, tension, confusion, or anxiety. Neuroscientist Vilayanur S. Ramachandran (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilayanur_S._Ramachandran) states .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nervous_laughter

http://politirant.com/Smileys/oldrant/book1.gif
I'm not nervous...I'm laughing at you.

[MMC]

I'm not nervous...I'm laughing at you.

Try looking in the mirror.....then you will really have something to laugh at. As laughing at another pointing out what you do, really isn't a laughing matter.

[hanger4]

Or even harmful.


But the truth won't stop them from trying. Hate is a wonderful motivator.

"Or even harmful."

You don't know if nothing harmful occurred decedent

We've been through this several times, do you need to read Comey's words again ??

[MMC]

Oh my.....major butt hurt-itis taking place with Democrats. Still looking to blame anything and anyone, other than Hillary and themselves.




Democrats Confront F.B.I. Chief at Closed-Door Intelligence Briefing.....


America’s intelligence chiefs sat down with members of Congress behind closed doors on Friday for what they thought would be a straightforward briefing on Russian cyberattacks. What ensued instead was a confrontation Democrats have long sought with James B. Comey, the director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_bureau_of_investigation/index.html?inline=nyt-org).

Why, the House Democrats demanded to know, did Mr. Comey believe it was O.K. to make repeated disclosures during the campaign (https://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/29/us/politics/fbi-hillary-clinton-email.html) about the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails but to this day refuse to say if the F.B.I. is investigating links between the Trump campaign and Russia?


His answers did not prove very satisfying. Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, the minority leader, grew so frustrated that at one point she chastised Mr. Comey for being “condescending to members.”....snip~

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/us/politics/democrats-confront-james-comey-fbi-chief.html?_r=0


Why should the American People put up with Demos whine and bitchfest, why should the Repubs give into their bellyaching?

[MisterVeritis]

And? Maybe he works for the highest bidder? Maybe he just doesn't like her now?
Maybe the russians got some film of him too.
Do people still use film?

[AZ Jim]

There is not and never has been a "case". Dream on.

[MisterVeritis]

Key Department of Justice (DOJ) officials may escape being interviewed in DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s review of the FBI’s investigation of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s use of a home-brew email server to do official government business.

A Joint Select Committee can investigate. There are no restrictions.

[decedent]

"Or even harmful."

You don't know if nothing harmful occurred @decedent (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1267)

We've been through this several times, do you need to read Comey's words again ??

Hillary's email server was harmless. If you can prove her guilty then please do so. Until then, she's innocent.


Comey never once said that Hillary's email server was harmful. He said that it was "careless" and Hillary said she made a "mistake." Both of them are correct.

[Ethereal]

Hillary's email server was harmless. If you can prove her guilty then please do so. Until then, she's innocent.


Comey never once said that Hillary's email server was harmful. He said that it was "careless" and Hillary said she made a "mistake." Both of them are correct.
That's right. Keep apologizing for that murderous hag and her rapist husband.

[decedent]

That's right. Keep apologizing for that murderous hag and her rapist husband.

No that's funny.

[Ethereal]

No that's funny.
There's nothing funny about mindlessly supporting a woman who backed every war in the past fifteen years and whose fake husband is a serial rapist.

[Subdermal]

And? Maybe he works for the highest bidder? Maybe he just doesn't like her now?

Maybe the russians got some film of him too.
You invent whatever you need to in order to protect your rationalizations. Your comments in this thread are pathetic and baseless equivocations.

[valley ranch]

I saw a small Bumper Sticker yesterday, on the bumper of a big 4 wheel drive coming out of Stagecoach, Nevada it said: Monica Lewinskis exboyfriends wife for President

[hanger4]

Hillary's email server was harmless. If you can prove her guilty then please do so. Until then, she's innocent.


Comey never once said that Hillary's email server was harmful. He said that it was "careless" and Hillary said she made a "mistake." Both of them are correct.

HRC's server was not harmless.

Comey's presser;

"With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence."

Like you've been told on numerous occasions we don't know if her server was compromised or not.

[decedent]

There's nothing funny about mindlessly supporting a woman who backed every war in the past fifteen years and whose fake husband is a serial rapist.

No really. That's funny. Some people will believe anything.




HRC's server was not harmless.

Comey's presser;

"With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence."

Like you've been told on numerous occasions we don't know if her server was compromised or not.

Hillary's private email server was fully investigate and shown to have caused no harm at all.

[Peter1469]

Hillary's private email server was fully investigate and shown to have caused no harm at all.

That statement is 100% untrue.

[hanger4]

Hillary's private email server was fully investigate and shown to have caused no harm at all.

This is not true decedent, it is a lie and you know it.Comey's words have already been posted.

"But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence."

^^ Read and comprehend those words decedent

[AZ Jim]

There's nothing funny about mindlessly supporting a woman who backed every war in the past fifteen years and whose fake husband is a serial rapist.Pathetic response.

[decedent]

That statement is 100% untrue.

I'm sure you want -- perhaps need -- to believe that Hillary's private server caused harm, but it didn't. None. Nada. Zip.


This is not true decedent, it is a lie and you know it.Comey's words have already been posted.

"But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence."

^^ Read and comprehend those words decedent

Since you're so adamant, I'd ask you to show me the harm that Hillary's email server caused, but that would be cruel.

[Peter1469]

wow!

[Crepitus]

Do people still use film?

Russians might.

Budget cuts you know.

[MisterVeritis]

Russians might.
Budget cuts you know.
Film is more expensive than digital.

[Crepitus]

Film is more expensive than digital.

Not if you've already got it and you have to buy a digital camera.

[MisterVeritis]

Not if you've already got it and you have to buy a digital camera.
Do you plan to reuse your film?

[hanger4]

I'm sure you want -- perhaps need -- to believe that Hillary's private server caused harm, but it didn't. None. Nada. Zip.



Since you're so adamant, I'd ask you to show me the harm that Hillary's email server caused, but that would be cruel.

Not cruel at all. I have no problems watching you move the goal posts.

You don't know if harm was or wasn't caused by Hillary's server.

"But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence."

Like I said, read and comprehend those words.

[valley ranch]

There are some who have greater love and loyalty the them that they have for each other.

6 Answers


https://qsf.ec.quoracdn.net/-3-images.new_grid.profile_pic_default_small.png902da 2b339fedf49.png (https://www.quora.com/profile/Jon-Mixon-1)

Jon Mixon (https://www.quora.com/profile/Jon-Mixon-1), Closely followed her career for the last 25+ years.Updated 23 Apr 2015 (https://www.quora.com/How-often-do-Bill-and-Hillary-Clinton-see-each-other/answer/Jon-Mixon-1)











Speculation: It seems very rarely. It's an open secret that since leaving the White House, the Clintons spend very little time together and have been living apart for the better part of a decade. With the exception of the time they spent together during Secretary Clinton's abortive 2008 presidential run, the Clintons have rarely even been photographed together.

While the two remain married and share business interests together, it's a virtual certainty that if Mrs. Clinton wasn't seeking an election bid in 2016, the couple would quietly divorce and move forward separately with their respective lives.

https://www.quora.com/How-often-do-Bill-and-Hillary-Clinton-see-each-other

Of course if this isn't true:

[Crepitus]

Do you plan to reuse your film?

Do you really have nothing better to do than nit pic everything I say?

If you need attention this badly get a cat or something.

[stjames1_53]

Do you really have nothing better to do than nit pic everything I say?

If you need attention this badly get a cat or something.

how's it feel?

[Crepitus]

how's it feel?

This from the guy who follows me everywhere and responds to nearly every post sometimes 2 or 3 times.

Lol

[MisterVeritis]

Do you really have nothing better to do than nit pic everything I say?
If you need attention this badly get a cat or something.
I have three cats. Most of the day they remain within 20 feet of me.

I seek clarification of your goofy answers. Most of the time you have no idea what you are saying.

[Tahuyaman]

Kinda interesting as Hillary did nothing illegal or criminal and yet the right wing propaganda machine, with help from Russian and other hackers used every word to mean something diabolical. Language has suffered greatly since the rise of the paid for propaganda machinery. Why were Condoleezza Rice and Colin Powell not investigated by Jason Chaffetz? You know you are in the land of partisan baloney when nothing is described it is rather assumed. And what the heck is breaking federal policy? Meaningless words that only some hear in their trined mind.


I recently read 'The Making of Donald Trump' by David Cay Johnston and started 'The Plot to Hack America: How Putin’s Cyberspies and WikiLeaks Tried to Steal the 2016 Election' by Malcolm Nance. Both give some insight to the man and to the hacking.

Gotta drop, stuff below. http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/12/19/the-curious-world-of-donald-trumps-private-russian-connections/

Hacking and whatnot

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-38610402


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-38612066


why do the left wingers insist that Mrs. Clinton did nothing illegal been when all the evidence proves beyond any shadow of a doubt she did?

[Crepitus]

I have three cats. Most of the day they remain within 20 feet of me.

I seek clarification of your goofy answers. Most of the time you have no idea what you are saying.

So that's a yes then.

[decedent]

Not cruel at all. I have no problems watching you move the goal posts.

You don't know if harm was or wasn't caused by Hillary's server.

"But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence."

Like I said, read and comprehend those words.

I'm not moving anything. You said that Hillary's email server caused harm. Back up your accusation.

[hanger4]

I'm not moving anything. You said that Hillary's email server caused harm. Back up your accusation.

Your reading comprehension is atrocious, I never said HRC's server caused harm. I said we don't know what harm if any.

"But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence."

I don't know how many times the above Comey quote has been posted for you, but you seem to be having a difficult time understanding.

[stjames1_53]

Your reading comprehension is atrocious, I never said HRC's server caused harm. I said we don't know what harm if any.

"But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence."

I don't know how many times the above Comey quote has been posted for you, but you seem to be having a difficult time understanding.
"But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence."
he read this, but saw, "Hillary is Jesus Reborn"
That is the very nature of the socialist democrat aka Communist

[resister]

Hillary's email server was harmless.Only if "harmless" means very unsecure to the point it was hacked and revealed very embarrassing dirt on DNC dirt that looked very bad, then sure, no harm done.

[Peter1469]

Your reading comprehension is atrocious, I never said HRC's server caused harm. I said we don't know what harm if any.

"But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence."

I don't know how many times the above Comey quote has been posted for you, but you seem to be having a difficult time understanding.
It is deliberate. Several members from the hard left are using it. I suggest not letting it get to you. Say your position once and move on. Don't let them distract you.

[Tahuyaman]

I'm not moving anything. You said that Hillary's email server caused harm. Back up your accusation.


I'm certainly not authorized to know what harm her illegal handling of classified material caused, but I do know that it was in fact a criminal act. Several people have been convicted and done prison time for doing the exact same thing.

[MMC]

I'm not moving anything. You said that Hillary's email server caused harm. Back up your accusation.

Explain, how it didn't cause harm as to a policy that was set in place for all to abide by?

[Ethereal]

No really. That's funny. Some people will believe anything.

My beliefs are based on evidence. Yours are based on a blind faith in government. See the difference?

[Ethereal]

Pathetic response.

The truth is never pathetic.

[Bethere]

I'm certainly not authorized to know what harm her illegal handling of classified material caused, but I do know that it was in fact a criminal act. Several people have been convicted and done prison time for doing the exact same thing.

Comey disagreed with you. He said plainly that there were no comparable cases where there was a prosecution. His people unanimously agreed.

That's the reality.

[Tahuyaman]

Comey disagreed with you. He said plainly that there were no comparable cases where there was a prosecution. His people unanimously agreed.

That's the reality.

Comey clearly explained her criminal conduct. If you want to continue to deny documented facts, you're free to do so.

[hanger4]

Comey disagreed with you. He said plainly that there were no comparable cases where there was a prosecution. His people unanimously agreed.

That's the reality.

There are four similar cases;

http://mobile.wnd.com/2016/07/justice-department-prosecuted-4-cases-like-hillarys/

[decedent]

Your reading comprehension is atrocious, I never said HRC's server caused harm. I said we don't know what harm if any.

"But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence."

I don't know how many times the above Comey quote has been posted for you, but you seem to be having a difficult time understanding.

You can't prove that Hillary's private email server caused any harm, yet you continue to make that claim. Are you a fake news writer too?

[decedent]

Only if "harmless" means very unsecure to the point it was hacked and revealed very embarrassing dirt on DNC dirt that looked very bad, then sure, no harm done.

That is completely false. No information was hacked from Hillary's private email server.

[stjames1_53]

That is completely false. No information was hacked from Hillary's private email server.

You claim her server wasn't hacked..................how so? Is this like the DNC server didn't get hacked? No evidence either way, right?
So, just how is it you know her server didn't get hacked? How did Wiki get those emails? Someone just handed them over?

[decedent]

You claim her server wasn't hacked..................how so? Is this like the DNC server didn't get hacked? No evidence either way, right?
So, just how is it you know her server didn't get hacked? How did Wiki get those emails? Someone just handed them over?

There's no evidence that Hillary's server was hacked. If you have any, please inform the FBI immediately.

[hanger4]

You can't prove that Hillary's private email server caused any harm, yet you continue to make that claim. Are you a fake news writer too?

I haven't made that claim and you know it. You decedent are a dishonest poster.

[hanger4]

That is completely false. No information was hacked from Hillary's private email server.

Again, you're a dishonest poster. You don't know that and you can't know that.

[Bethere]

Comey clearly explained her criminal conduct. If you want to continue to deny documented facts, you're free to do so.

"In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, " Comey said. "We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."

NOT ONE CASE.


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-comey.html?mtrref=www.nytimes.com&_r=0

[Peter1469]

"In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, " Comey said. "We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."

NOT ONE CASE.
He was referring specifically to proving the gross negligence element. I discussed it fully at the time.

[Bethere]

He was referring specifically to proving the gross negligence element. I discussed it fully at the time.

You were wrong at the time. You are wrong now.

"In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, " Comey said without mentioning gross negligence once.

[Peter1469]

You were wrong at the time. You are wrong now.

"In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, " Comey said without mentioning gross negligence once.

I mentioned that the day of the speech. He avoided using the phrase and replaced with other that has been used in decisions in place of gross negligence.

Are you trolling again? I am sure you recall all of this. Back under your bridge.

[Bethere]

I mentioned that the day of the speech. He avoided using the phrase and replaced with other that has been used in decisions in place of gross negligence.

Are you trolling again? I am sure you recall all of this. Back under your bridge.
You initiated contact with me. See post #75.

The record speaks for itself.

[Subdermal]

You initiated contact with me. See post #75.

The record speaks for itself.

Instigating a conversation with you is no excuse for you to troll back - and that's what the record shows.

[Bethere]

Instigating a conversation with you is no excuse for you to troll back - and that's what the record shows.

He asked me a question. I answered it.

[stjames1_53]

There's no evidence that Hillary's server was hacked. If you have any, please inform the FBI immediately.
well, if the Russian's didn't hack Hillary's server, WFT makes you think the DNC server was hacked by the Russians.....if they couldn't get past her super duper top secret tech guy?

[stjames1_53]

Instigating a conversation with you is no excuse for you to troll back - and that's what the record shows.
it's 2:27 he'll be back in his crib in about an hour or so....

[resister]

well, if the Russian's didn't hack Hillary's server, WFT makes you think the DNC server was hacked by the Russians.....if they couldn't get past her super duper top secret tech guy?Crickets, go figure, the double standards deafen the crickets.

[stjames1_53]

Crickets, go figure, the double standards deafen the crickets.

he's got all night to dream up his next troll

[Tahuyaman]

"In looking back at our investigations into the mishandling or removal of classified information, " Comey said. "We cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts."

NOT ONE CASE.


https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/06/us/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-email-comey.html?mtrref=www.nytimes.com&_r=0


He was referring specifically to proving the gross negligence element. I discussed it fully at the time.. Hacks see and hear what they want to see and hear.

[decedent]

Again, you're a dishonest poster. You don't know that and you can't know that.

I'm not the one who suggested Hillary Clinton's email server could have caused harm without offering any proof.


If you have no proof, you should stop suggesting it.

[decedent]

Again, you're a dishonest poster. You don't know that and you can't know that.

No information was obtained from Hillary Clinton's server from hacking. This is the simple truth.

[Peter1469]

No information was obtained from Hillary Clinton's server from hacking. This is the simple truth.

You should take Comey's job. He can't go as far as you did.

[resister]

No information was obtained from Hillary Clinton's server from hacking. This is the simple truth.I was kinda on board with your previous post, then you do the very same thing in your very next post.

[stjames1_53]

No information was obtained from Hillary Clinton's server from hacking. This is the simple truth.
again:
well, if the Russian's didn't hack Hillary's server, WFT makes you think the DNC server was hacked by the Russians.....if they couldn't get past her super duper top secret tech guy?

[hanger4]

No information was obtained from Hillary Clinton's server from hacking. This is the simple truth.

That is simply a lie.

"But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence."

[hanger4]

I'm not the one who suggested Hillary Clinton's email server could have caused harm without offering any proof.


If you have no proof, you should stop suggesting it.

I've posted the proof countless times;

"But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence."

You don't know if HRC's server was or wasn't compromised. Get your facts straight.

[decedent]

I was kinda on board with your previous post, then you do the very same thing in your very next post.

People are innocent until proven guilty. What Hillary did was wrong, but it wasn't illegal or even harmful.


Benghazi and the private server are the two issues that the GOP latched on to, which is interesting because there are worse things that she's done. I guess they thought the former issue could be milked with an emotional spin, and the latter could result in prosecution.



again:
well, if the Russian's didn't hack Hillary's server, WFT makes you think the DNC server was hacked by the Russians.....if they couldn't get past her super duper top secret tech guy?

TCP requests can be tracked... even coming from the darknet.


But the Russian hacking seems to have been more low-tech. It seems that Podesta was fished and the DNC had a mole.



That is simply a lie.

"But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence."

You're a slippery debator. A question is not a proposition.


But feel free to show us all the information that was obtained from Hillary's server.

[hanger4]

You're a slippery debator. A question is not a proposition.


But feel free to show us all the information that was obtained from Hillary's server.

Nothing slippery to it. You made a defacto statement, Hillary's server was not hacked. You don't know that, Comey doesn't know that.

You continue to push that narrative even though Comey said otherwise and it's been shown to you countless times. I never said her server was hacked, I said we don't know at this time whether it was or wasn't.