State Department reopens Clinton emails probe

[UK2K]

DEVELOPING: The State Department is reopening an internal investigation of possible mishandling of classified information by Hillary Clinton and top aides.

Spokesman John Kirby says the emails probe is restarting now that the Justice Department isn't pursuing a criminal prosecution. The State Department suspended its review in April to avoid interfering with the FBI's inquiry.

Kirby set no deadline for the investigation's completion.

Clinton was secretary of state until early 2013. Most of her top advisers left shortly thereafter.

But Kirby said this week former officials can still face "administrative sanctions." The most serious is loss of security clearances, which could complicate Clinton's naming of a national security team if she becomes president.



Paul Ryan asked that her clearance be revoked. While not a criminal investigation, there's zero doubt her clearance needs to be revoked given her 'extremely careless' handling of classified documents in the past.

Should be interesting. A president that can't sit in on presidential meetings.

[DonDadda59]

http://cdn4.gurl.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/goose-chase.gif

[TheMan]

Lol, another probe that'll go nowhere and we'll foot the bill.

I thought conservatives were against wasteful spending :confusedshrug:

[DonDadda59]

Lol, another probe that'll go nowhere and we'll foot the bill.

I thought conservatives were againat wasteful spending :confusedshrug:

They never learn :lol

Countless hearings, probes, investigations, impeachments, etc over a quarter of a century aimed at taking down the Clinton dynasty and what do they have to show for it besides bright red, sore asses?

And what happens in November once the wild goose chased becomes the wild goose chaser?

http://3fybkfrr10x3tgp41p45lr3a.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/goose.gif

[Patrick Chewing]

I think she's cooked already. She was already exposed today as an awful liar. She lied to the families of the Benghazi victims. She lies about income inequality. She lies all the time and I think it's finally caught up to her.


No sane person can vote for her, and thankfully the sane outnumber the insane.

[poido123]

I think she's cooked already. She was already exposed today as an awful liar. She lied to the families of the Benghazi victims. She lies about income inequality. She lies all the time and I think it's finally caught up to her.


No sane person can vote for her, and thankfully the sane outnumber the insane.


I hope so.


Clinton is evil. Trump is just an egotistic buffoon and a lot less harmless than this witch.

[DonDadda59]

I think she's cooked already. She was already exposed today as an awful liar. She lied to the families of the Benghazi victims. She lies about income inequality. She lies all the time and I think it's finally caught up to her.


No sane person can vote for her, and thankfully the sane outnumber the insane.

Latest polls have her up 9-11 points Nationally, up 30 points in California, winning in all the swing states, and with Grand Canyon size gaps in Black/Latio votes.

But other than that... Looking good for keeping you alive.

[Doomsday Dallas]

http://3fybkfrr10x3tgp41p45lr3a.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/goose.gif



:roll:


:applause:

[poido123]

Latest polls have her up 9-11 points Nationally, up 30 points in California, winning in all the swing states, and with Grand Canyon size gaps in Black/Latio votes.

But other than that... Looking good for keeping you alive.


:oldlol:


Those polls are bullshit and you will find out why when the election comes.

[Jameerthefear]

:oldlol:


Those polls are bullshit and you will find out why when the election comes.
why?

[TheMan]

:oldlol:


Those polls are bullshit and you will find out why when the election comes.
Here we go again :oldlol:

Didn't you morons not learn ANYTHING after Obama vs Romney :roll: :roll: :roll:

Again with ignoring the polls that don't favor your candidate because it turns out we wrong...oh wait :lol

[DonDadda59]

:oldlol:


Those polls are bullshit and you will find out why when the election comes.

Finally figured out Poido's real life persona.

http://a2.files.thedailybanter.com/image/upload/c_fit,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTM2NjQzNjIzMjQ2NzY3NzEx.jpg

Ready for Round 2, Karl (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TwuR0jCavk)? :lol

[poido123]

why?



They are left leaning polls distorted by many factors.


Election polls only sample a miniscule portion of the electorate.


Here's an article that explains it:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/16/politics-and-the-new-machine

A 2013 study—a poll—found that three out of four Americans suspect polls of bias. Presumably, there was far greater distrust among the people who refused to take the survey.


"Election pollsters sample only a minuscule portion of the electorate, not uncommonly something on the order of a couple of thousand people out of the more than two hundred million Americans who are eligible to vote. The promise of this work is that the sample is exquisitely representative. But the lower the response rate the harder and more expensive it becomes to realize that promise, which requires both calling many more people and trying to correct for “non-response bias” by giving greater weight to the answers of people from demographic groups that are less likely to respond."

"Not everyone uses the Internet, and, at the moment, the people who do, and who complete online surveys, are younger and leftier than people who don’t, while people who have landlines, and who answer the phone, are older and more conservative than people who don’t. Some pollsters, both here and around the world, rely on a combination of telephone and Internet polling; the trick is to figure out just the right mix. So far, it isn’t working. In Israel this March, polls failed to predict Benjamin Netanyahu’s victory. In May in the U.K., every major national poll failed to forecast the Conservative Party’s win."


So, you have non-answering bias factors and people who simply don't own a landline anymore.


How can you possibly get accurate results from polls when you have this many factors affecting the poll? And when you have a growing number of pollsters using the internet in their polls(which lean towards the LEFT), then how is that going to reflect the ACTUAL voter base?


Truth is, the Polls are very heavily in favour of the left or essentially the democrats because pollsters are now growing in number on the internet.


POLLING IN TODAY'S POLITICAL CLIMATE IS USED AS A BRAINWASHING TOOL TO CONVINCE THOSE THEY ARE BACKING A WINNER.

[TheMan]

Finally figured out Poido's real life persona.

http://a2.files.thedailybanter.com/image/upload/c_fit,cs_srgb,dpr_1.0,q_80,w_620/MTM2NjQzNjIzMjQ2NzY3NzEx.jpg

Ready for Round 2, Karl (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TwuR0jCavk)? :lol
It's like these dudes are total political noobs and don't understand US electoral elections. They have no grasp on how much minorities (among other voting blocs), get out the vote, ground game can affect who wins what states and what not.

TRUMP HAS NO SHOT :yaohappy:

[TheMan]

[QUOTE=poido123]They are left leaning polls distorted by many factors.


Election polls only sample a miniscule portion of the electorate.


Here's an article that explains it:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/16/politics-and-the-new-machine

A 2013 study

[poido123]

This dude has no clue :oldlol:


You got my answer.

How about providing your side of the argument or are you only capable of insults?


Exactly.

[nathanjizzle]

tell them to take their probe and shove it up their own ass.

[poido123]

tell them to take their probe and shove it up their own ass.



Well FBI Comey admitted that she did the wrong thing, HOWEVER won't prosecute her AT THIS TIME.


That certainly leaves it wide open for the state department to jump all over it.


If anything, if you believe in following the law at all, this is justice.


According to the law, the carelessness of her handling of classified information is an offense. Not the INTENT

[DonDadda59]

Well FBI Comey admitted that she did the wrong thing, HOWEVER won't prosecute her AT THIS TIME.


That certainly leaves it wide open for the state department to jump all over it.


If anything, if you believe in following the law at all, this is justice.


According to the law, the carelessness of her handling of classified information is an offense. Not the INTENT

http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma52qzVsRo1rvwttvo1_500.gif

[TheMan]

You got my answer.

How about providing your side of the argument or are you only capable of insults?


Exactly.
Here's my answer.

Nate Silver predicted 99 out of the last 100 state polls in the last 2 GEs...

I get my polling info from credible sources, not polls that skew towards the candidate I prefer just for wishful thinking (which is exactly what you're doing).

Forget national polls, look at the battleground states where the election will be won or lost.

Clinton on RCP averages is winning EVERY single battleground state right now.

There will have to be a monumental shift for Trump to win, a Clinton indictment would've been a great starting point. It didn't happen...

In a year where populist candidates are thriving, the fact that the Donald isn't even up in red leaning states, well, should raise red flags, pardon the redundancy.

All the signs are there for a Clinton landslide, Trump's huge unfavorables amongst many segments of the electorate, Obama's high favorabilities, Bill Clinton is still very popular with white blue collar workers, Bernie's supporters closing ranks etc.

It'll take a HUGE event to turn things around for Drumpf, him calling her a liar or insulting her in a debate ain't gonna do it. This isn't the GOP primaries anymore, this is the big leagues and the Clinton machine together with the Obama machine will roll the disunited GOP.

That's my answer...

:yaohappy:

[poido123]

http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma52qzVsRo1rvwttvo1_500.gif


Well I do.

Here are Comey

[TheMan]

Well I do.

Here are Comey’s findings, which demonstrate full violation of multiple provisions of federal law:

Hillary Clinton utilized multiple “different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain.” So she was lying when she said that she only set up the system so that she could use one handheld device.
Hillary transmitted classified information. Here’s Comey: “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, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were ‘up-classified’ to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.” So she lied that no classified information was received or sent.
Hillary did not hand over all her work emails to the State Department. At least three of those emails were classified “at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level.” Comey was kind here to Hillary – he said that there was no evidence that “any of the additional work-related emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.” Except, of course, that deleting such emails would be the entire purpose of having a private server.
Hillary’s lawyers didn’t read the emails they deleted – they just deleted stuff based on header information and search terms. “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,” Comey said. This would be destroying possibly classified material. And as Comey says, there may be a fair bit of data they never saw: “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.”
Comey admitted openly that Hillary’s team was “extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information….None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.”
Hillary knew that classified material was passing across her server; as Comey acknowledged, “even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”
Hillary’s server could have been hacked, and some of her emails were likely hacked in other people’s inboxes: “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. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.”
Old news, no one cares

Hillary Clinton will be the next US President

[Jameerthefear]

They are left leaning polls distorted by many factors.


Election polls only sample a miniscule portion of the electorate.


Here's an article that explains it:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/16/politics-and-the-new-machine

A 2013 study—a poll—found that three out of four Americans suspect polls of bias. Presumably, there was far greater distrust among the people who refused to take the survey.


"Election pollsters sample only a minuscule portion of the electorate, not uncommonly something on the order of a couple of thousand people out of the more than two hundred million Americans who are eligible to vote. The promise of this work is that the sample is exquisitely representative. But the lower the response rate the harder and more expensive it becomes to realize that promise, which requires both calling many more people and trying to correct for “non-response bias” by giving greater weight to the answers of people from demographic groups that are less likely to respond."

"Not everyone uses the Internet, and, at the moment, the people who do, and who complete online surveys, are younger and leftier than people who don’t, while people who have landlines, and who answer the phone, are older and more conservative than people who don’t. Some pollsters, both here and around the world, rely on a combination of telephone and Internet polling; the trick is to figure out just the right mix. So far, it isn’t working. In Israel this March, polls failed to predict Benjamin Netanyahu’s victory. In May in the U.K., every major national poll failed to forecast the Conservative Party’s win."


So, you have non-answering bias factors and people who simply don't own a landline anymore.


How can you possibly get accurate results from polls when you have this many factors affecting the poll? And when you have a growing number of pollsters using the internet in their polls(which lean towards the LEFT), then how is that going to reflect the ACTUAL voter base?


Truth is, the Polls are very heavily in favour of the left or essentially the democrats because pollsters are now growing in number on the internet.


POLLING IN TODAY'S POLITICAL CLIMATE IS USED AS A BRAINWASHING TOOL TO CONVINCE THOSE THEY ARE BACKING A WINNER.
that literally explains nothing

[Jameerthefear]

most pollsters don't poll from the internet either

[poido123]

Here's my answer.

Nate Silver predicted 99 out of the last 100 state polls in the last 2 GEs...

I get my polling sources from credible sources, not polls that skew towards the candidate I prefer just for wishful thinking (which is exactly what you're doing).

Forget national polls, look at the battleground states where the election will be won or lost.

Clinton on RCP averages is winning EVERY single battleground state right now.

There will have to be a monumental shift for Trump to win, a Clinton indictment would've been a great starting point. It didn't happen...

In a year where populist candidates are thriving, the fact that the Donald isn't even up in red leaning states, well, should raise red flags, pardon the redundancy.

All the signs are there for a Clinton landslide, Trump's huge unfavorables amongst many segments of the electorate, Obama's high favorabilities, Bill Clinton is still very popular with white blue collar workers, Bernie's supporters closing ranks etc.

It'll take a HUGE event to turn things around for Drumpf, him calling her a liar or insulting her in a debate ain't gonna do it. This isn't the GOP primaries anymore, this is the big leagues and the Clinton machine together with the Obama machine will roll the disunited GOP.

That's my answer...

:yaohappy:



Nate Silver has Trump at 22% chance to win the election as of right now. Says that the aftermath of the Clinton emails could change polls quite dramatically. but will wait and see.


22% chance is better than what you and others here make it out to be.


Trump has a lot of upside from here.

[DonDadda59]

[QUOTE=poido123]Well I do.

Here are Comey

[poido123]

most pollsters don't poll from the internet either



Note that I said 'growing number of internet' and less landline calls, which can also indicate the type of people the polls are coming from...

[Jameerthefear]

Note that I said 'growing number of internet' and less landline calls, which can also indicate the type of people the polls are coming from...
you're trying to make an apples to apples comparison. the article you linked for instance doesn't even mention U.S. polling results because for the most part and for the best pollsters it's actually pretty damn accurate. we can look actually look at the accuracy from certain pollsters and see how often their right/within their MOE. yeah garbage pollsters like ramussen suck but the best ones are right most of the time

[TheMan]

Nate Silver has Trump at 22% chance to win the election as of right now. Says that the aftermath of the Clinton emails could change polls quite dramatically. but will wait and see.


22% chance is better than what you and others here make it out to be.


Trump has a lot of upside from here.
Yeah well I suppose 22% is better than 0% but I like 78% better :cheers:

Let me ask you this question, who do you think is more prone to make a huge gaffe, loose lips Trump or career politician Hillary with all the weight of the Democratic Machine behind her?

Trump certainly had a great (and comical) run but he ain't winning, he's pissed off way too many segments of the electorate on his way to the GOP nomination. That'll come back to haunt him on November.

I'll be there to say "we told you so"...

[poido123]

Nice copy and paste job, homie. But boiled down...

"No charges are appropriate in this case."

"Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

-Based Comey

http://i.imgur.com/tso3KiR.gif

Keep chasing those wild geese. Stay Mad. :cheers:



Thankyou. You are the king of copy paste arguments, so you should know. :cheers:


Gowdy going to town on Comey

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/rep-trey-gowdy-rips-into-fbi-director-james-comey-on-hillary-clintons-intent.html

[DonDadda59]

you're trying to make an apples to apples comparison. the article you linked for instance doesn't even mention U.S. polling results because for the most part and for the best pollsters it's actually pretty damn accurate. we can look actually look at the accuracy from certain pollsters and see how often their right/within their MOE. yeah garbage pollsters like ramussen suck but the best ones are right most of the time

And like clockwork, they are the only pollsters in like the past 30 released polls who have Drumpf in the lead. :lol

The latest Reuters has Clinton up +11 and Pew has her up +9.

[Nick Young]

Yeah well I suppose 22% is better than 0% but I like 78% better :cheers:

Let me ask you this question, who do you think is more prone to make a huge gaffe, loose lips Trump or career politician Hillary with all the weight of the Democratic Machine behind her?

Trump certainly had a great (and comical) run but he ain't winning, he's pissed off way too many segments of the electorate on his way to the GOP nomination. That'll come back to haunt him on November.

I'll be there to say "we told you so"...
http://images.virgula.uol.com.br/2015/05/zt1X7uF.gif

[poido123]

you're trying to make an apples to apples comparison. the article you linked for instance doesn't even mention U.S. polling results because for the most part and for the best pollsters it's actually pretty damn accurate. we can look actually look at the accuracy from certain pollsters and see how often their right/within their MOE. yeah garbage pollsters like ramussen suck but the best ones are right most of the time



What are the best ones? I'll investigate

[TheMan]

http://images.virgula.uol.com.br/2015/05/zt1X7uF.gif
Nick hermano por favor, you only have months left at ISH, use it wisely :cheers:

So I may have fond memories of our conversations :bowdown:

[DonDadda59]

Thankyou. You are the king of copy paste arguments, so you should know. :cheers:


Gowdy going to town on Comey

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/07/rep-trey-gowdy-rips-into-fbi-director-james-comey-on-hillary-clintons-intent.html

The same Gowdy who just last week made an absolute fool of himself and the GOP conspiracy theorists (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/two-years-7-million-still-no-smoking-gun-on-clinton-and-benghazi/2016/06/28/603ffa60-3d67-11e6-80bc-d06711fd2125_story.html) when he announced they spent $7 million of tax payer money on the 307th Benghazi wild goose chase?

You mean to tell me that same dude now wants to embark on another costly and pointless dog chasing its own tail mission that will run up millions of dollars and countless hours of wasted time?

Shocking.

[Jameerthefear]

What are the best ones? I'll investigate
i like to use 538's polling grades

[FillJackson]

http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ma52qzVsRo1rvwttvo1_500.gif
Do you remember when Paul Ryan called for General Petraeus's security clearance to be revoked? What ever happened with that?

...


....


.........



.....................................

[FillJackson]

But boiled down...

"No charges are appropriate in this case."

"Our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

-Based Comey

It's literally ridiculous to use Comey as support for any criminal violation as he said over and over and over again today that no charges could be brought given the evidence that that wasn't the correct remedy. When other folks like Mukasey and Giuliani were quoted to him, he laughed and said these are friends of mine, but they don't know the facts and if they did I'm sure they wouldn't bring a charge either.

[FillJackson]

most pollsters don't poll from the internet either
Internet only polls have gotten a lot more accurate in the last 4 years. They have tweaked how they generate a sample.

[poido123]

i like to use 538's polling grades



Just looking at the 538 survey now...


So they base one section on cellphone data. Not landlines. Landlines are more an older generation thing right? So, we probably lose a bit of accuracy right there...


I notice a few of those polls are colleges and universities, which would tend to lean to the left.


NCPP/AAPOR/Roper Section. What's that? Media?

[Jameerthefear]

Internet only polls have gotten a lot more accurate in the last 4 years. They have tweaked how they generate a sample.
yeah that's true. really, polling in the United States in general is pretty good because so many polls are done and they can tweak their stuff for accuracy. as long as you're going with a good pollster that is.

[poido123]

It's literally ridiculous to use Comey as support for any criminal violation as he said over and over and over again today that no charges could be brought given the evidence that that wasn't the correct remedy. When other folks like Mukasey and Giuliani were quoted to him, he laughed and said these are friends of mine, but they don't know the facts and if they did I'm sure they wouldn't bring a charge either.


I'll ask you a question and I want an honest answer.


Do YOU believe that Hillary broke the law? Why/Why not?

[Jameerthefear]

Just looking at the 538 survey now...


So they base one section on cellphone data. Not landlines. Landlines are more an older generation thing right? So, we probably lose a bit of accuracy right there...


I notice a few of those polls are colleges and universities, which would tend to lean to the left.


NCPP/AAPOR/Roper Section. What's that? Media?
what are you looking at?
and universities conduct polls on random samples. not their students.

[poido123]

what are you looking at?
and universities conduct polls on random samples. not their students.

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/

[Jameerthefear]

http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/pollster-ratings/
it's live callers WITH cellphones. it includes landlines too
Roper/NCPP/AAPOR are national polling firms and data archives. the dot signifies whether the pollster is a member of one of those 3.
in their own words:
indicates that the polling firm was a member of the National Council on Public Polls (NCPP), a signatory to the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) Transparency Initiative or a contributor to the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research data archive as of May 27, 2016.

[poido123]

it's live callers WITH cellphones. it includes landlines too
Roper/NCPP/AAPOR are national polling firms and data archives. the dot signifies whether the pollster is a member of one of those 3.
in their own words:
indicates that the polling firm was a member of the National Council on Public Polls (NCPP), a signatory to the American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) Transparency Initiative or a contributor to the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research data archive as of May 27, 2016.


Fair enough.

So it includes landlines, which means it also includes the 40% nationwide that don't answer their landlines. But I do give credit to the polling accuracy a bit more than I had previously thought though.


The only other thing that makes polls skewed is the number of voters who actually turn up to vote and the motivation for potential voters who may not of previously voted or decided not to vote the previous year, to turn out and vote.


Those two factors cannot be accounted for, you can guess but polls can't accurately assess that.

[UK2K]

Lol, another probe that'll go nowhere and we'll foot the bill.

I thought conservatives were against wasteful spending :confusedshrug:
John Kerry heads the state Department, and he's a Democrat.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

[FillJackson]

John Kerry heads the state Department, and he's a Democrat.

You're barking up the wrong tree.
Wasn't he the head of the State Department when the case was referred to the FBI.

[oarabbus]

Wouldn't mind if they pressed criminal charges against her, no I would not. Disabling government security measures would be considered treason for anyone else.

[FillJackson]

Wouldn't mind if they pressed criminal charges against her, no I would not. Disabling government security measures would be considered treason for anyone else.
You should take a look FBI Chief Comey's testimony before the House today.

He said every single of the 15-20 FBI agents who worked the case recommended no charges? Why because the evidence didn't support it and no one in similar circumstances would be charged with a crime. He actually said to bring charges in this case against Hillary Clinton would be a double standard because it would never happen in the case of an average Joe.

There were no instances of disabling government security measures. What are you referring to? If it's the incident I'm thinking Comey addressed that directly and refuted it.

[oarabbus]

You should take a look FBI Chief Comey's testimony before the House today.

He said every single of the 15-20 FBI agents who worked the case recommended no charges? Why because the evidence didn't support it and no one in similar circumstances would be charged with a crime. He actually said to bring charges in this case against Hillary Clinton would be a double standard because it would never happen in the case of an average Joe.

There were no instances of disabling government security measures. What are you referring to? If it's the incident I'm thinking Comey addressed that directly and refuted it.


Referring to this (yes, cybersecurity measures are security measures, especially with the incredible number of hackers from China against our government servers):
http://nypost.com/2016/06/22/clinton-staff-disabled-security-of-private-email-server-report/


Politico's article states quite clearly that she did violate the law: http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/comey-clinton-classified-information-225245

[FillJackson]

Referring to this (yes, cybersecurity measures are security measures, especially with the incredible number of hackers from China against our government servers):
http://nypost.com/2016/06/22/clinton-staff-disabled-security-of-private-email-server-report/


Politico's article states quite clearly that she did violate the law: http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/comey-clinton-classified-information-225245

C'mon to both of those.

Actually watch the video of Comey.

I thought you were asking about the nonpaper incident.

[FillJackson]

This is from a guy who I follow on national security law, Benjamin Wittes. Read it just after posting above. It's from when Comey gave his statement not today.


And that said, it's very clearly not the sort of thing the Justice Department prosecutes either. For the last several months, people have been asking me what I thought the chances of an indictment were. I have said each time that there is no chance without evidence of bad faith action of some kind. People simply don't get indicted for accidental, non-malicious mishandling of classified material. I have followed leak cases for a very long time, both at the Washington Post and since starting Lawfare. I have never seen a criminal matter proceed without even an allegation of something more than mere mishandling of senstive information. Hillary Clinton is not above the law, but to indict her on these facts, she'd have to be significantly below the law.

Comey's recommendation in this regard is unambiguous: "our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

And this just made me laugh
Benjamin Wittes ‏@benjaminwittes Jul 6
From an anonymous friend of the Clintons: "Privacy is for her what sex was for him."

[Dresta]

POLLING IN TODAY'S POLITICAL CLIMATE IS USED AS A BRAINWASHING TOOL TO CONVINCE THOSE THEY ARE BACKING A WINNER.
Polling was consistent for Remain in the Brexit vote also. The cult of the pollster has never been a useful one, and has always been rather cheap.

[Dresta]

You should take a look FBI Chief Comey's testimony before the House today.

He said every single of the 15-20 FBI agents who worked the case recommended no charges? Why because the evidence didn't support it and no one in similar circumstances would be charged with a crime. He actually said to bring charges in this case against Hillary Clinton would be a double standard because it would never happen in the case of an average Joe.

There were no instances of disabling government security measures. What are you referring to? If it's the incident I'm thinking Comey addressed that directly and refuted it.
Well that's just disingenuous because no "average joe" could ever have access to such information in the first place.

And average joes are usually prosecuted for perjury, which is something of a Clinton motif.

[FillJackson]

Well that's just disingenuous because no "average joe" could ever have access to such information in the first place.


Millions of American hold security clearances.
https://www.govexec.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/042715e1.png

Top Secret clearance is probably about 40% of the numbers above.

Bradley Manning was a private-first class and had a Top Secret security clearance.

So it's not disingenuous, it's accurate. Manning was an average person with with access to top secret information.

[NumberSix]

Millions of American hold security clearances.
https://www.govexec.com/media/gbc/docs/pdfs_edit/042715e1.png

Top Secret clearance is probably about 40% of the numbers above.

Bradley Manning was a private-first class and had a Top Secret security clearance.

So it's not disingenuous, it's accurate. Manning was an average person with with access to top secret information.
There are different levels of security clearance. Hillary Clinton's emails had information that very few people have high enough clearance to see. Some of the information was so highly classified that FBI investigators and members of congressional committees couldn't even view them. You're a foolish person if you believe her lawyers had the necessary clearance to access such information. Yeah, I'm sure they had low level clearance, but you're just silly if you think they had the same level clearance as the Secretary of State.

[Nick Young]

Hillary is refusing to cooperate with the State Department's investigation:facepalm

[poido123]

Hillary is refusing to cooperate with the State Department's investigation:facepalm



Breaking the law again?


This ho making her own rules :oldlol:

[NumberSix]

Breaking the law again?


This ho making her own rules :oldlol:
That's sexist sexism that is sexist.

[poido123]

That's sexist sexism that is sexist.


absolutely. I'm a bigotislamophobicsexistxenophobicracist.

and every word that comes out of my mouth can be interpreted as offensive to a million different people.


No fcks given anymore.

[FillJackson]

There are different levels of security clearance. Hillary Clinton's emails had information that very few people have high enough clearance to see. Some of the information was so highly classified that FBI investigators and members of congressional committees couldn't even view them. You're a foolish person if you believe her lawyers had the necessary clearance to access such information. Yeah, I'm sure they had low level clearance, but you're just silly if you think they had the same level clearance as the Secretary of State.
Jesus, don't lecture someone who actually knows the ****ing facts. It looks pretty silly. I mentioned that David Kendall has a top secret security clearance. In fact, he has an active TS/SCI clearance allowing him to view what is sometimes called "above top secret" sensitive compartmented information. It requires a higher level of clearance investigation,

Not all members of congress have even have a Top Secret clearance, so yes, her lawyer had higher access than many member of congress.

More importantly we just learned from Comey, that not a single email that the FBI reviewed was marked as classifed.

Not a single one.

Thousands have been retroactively classified before being released to the public during a FOIA request. This is a standard State Department Practice but the media who did or didn't know better portrayed this as sinister when it was routine. Comey himself said he wasn't aware of this. I think part of it has to do with the fact the State Department has to classified entire documents by law. I believe the way it works is the CIA or other Intel agencies can redact portions of documents with classifying the whole document. By law the State Department cannot do this.

This process took place months after Clinton's lawyer separated her work emails from her personal emails.

If you understood that the issue with Clinton's email was about the broader State Department and longstanding problems with "spillage" that started way down the chain on State Department computers before it was sent to her you understood it was very, very unlikely she would be charged with any crimes regarding classified information. A lot of that depends on where you get your information. How many times were people claiming that Clinton or her aides where emailed classified documents and simply deleting the headers?

Then months later we find out the truth, not a single document was marked as classified and thus there were no headers at all to strip. It was amusing to see congressman ask this question, find out their entire premised was incorrect and then asked the question again louder.

[Nick Young]

No one is talking about Hilldawg's illegal email activity anymore, after the Dallas shooting, which they are now saying was a lone gunmen, despite it clearly being 3 gunmen working in tandem while it was going on last night.


How convenient for Hillary.

[Nick Young]

Jesus, don't lecture someone who actually knows the ****ing facts. It looks pretty silly. I mentioned that David Kendall has a top secret security clearance. In fact, he has an active TS/SCI clearance allowing him to view what is sometimes called "above top secret" sensitive compartmented information. It requires a higher level of clearance investigation,

Not all members of congress have even have a Top Secret clearance, so yes, her lawyer had higher access than many member of congress.

More importantly we just learned from Comey, that not a single email that the FBI reviewed was marked as classifed.

Not a single one.

Thousands have been retroactively classified before being released to the public during a FOIA request. This is a standard State Department Practice but the media who did or didn't know better portrayed this as sinister when it was routine. Comey himself said he wasn't aware of this. I think part of it has to do with the fact the State Department has to classified entire documents by law. I believe the way it works is the CIA or other Intel agencies can redact portions of documents with classifying the whole document. By law the State Department cannot do this.

This process took place months after Clinton's lawyer separated her work emails from her personal emails.

If you understood that the issue with Clinton's email was about the broader State Department and longstanding problems with "spillage" that started way down the chain on State Department computers before it was sent to her you understood it was very, very unlikely she would be charged with any crimes regarding classified information. A lot of that depends on where you get your information. How many times were people claiming that Clinton or her aides where emailed classified documents and simply deleting the headers?

Then months later we find out the truth, not a single document was marked as classified and thus there were no headers at all to strip. It was amusing to see congressman ask this question, find out their entire premised was incorrect and then asked the question again louder.
This man is a Shillary-paid social media intern:roll: :roll: :roll:

[NumberSix]

More importantly we just learned from Comey, that [B]not a single email that the FBI reviewed was marked as classifed.
Yeah, actually 3 were specifically marked classified with the "(C)" marking and others weren't because she had her people remove the classification markings before moving them to the unclassified server.

Comey is a fcuking retard. He was asked about the removal of the markings and said "it's my understanding that the language she used meant to remove all classified information" and then when asked if the classified information had actually been removed, he said it hadn't been.

This guy actually believes there's no intent in this chain of events...

1. Hillary has a server with all her emails just sitting there for years
2. Is asked to return all her emails to the government
3. deletes more than 30,000 emails (why the sudden rush to delete?)
4. has all her people wipe their personal devices
5. Claims none of those emails were work related
6. Large number of deleted emails are recovered by the FBI
7. THOUSANDS in fact ARE work relegated and many containing classified info
8. Hillary continues to lie publicly and under oath to congress about having classified info on her private server (she didn't know the FBI would PUBLICLY contradict that)

If that's not an intentional attempt to obstruct justice, I don't know what the hell is.