Nope. But I do know a bald-faced liar when I see one.Do you remember everything in the last thirty thousand emails you sent?
Monogrammed commemorative crying towels. They'll be a collector's item.
Nope. But I do know a bald-faced liar when I see one.
CLINTON: "I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material." News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: Actually, the FBI identified at least 113 emails that passed through Clinton's server and contained materials that were classified at the time they were sent, including some that were Top Secret and referred to a highly classified special access program, Comey said.
CLINTON: "I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified." NBC interview, July 2016.
THE FACTS: Clinton has separately clung to her rationale that there were no classification markings on her emails that would have warned her and others not to transmit the sensitive material. But the private system did, in fact, handle emails that bore markings indicating they contained classified information, Comey said.
He said the marked emails were "a very small number." But that's not the only standard for judging how officials handle sensitive material, he added. "Even if information is not marked classified in an email, participants who know, or should know, that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it."
CLINTON: "I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work related" to the State Department. News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: Not so, the FBI found.
Comey said that when his forensic team examined Clinton's server it found there were "several thousand work-related emails that were not in the group of 30,000" that had been returned by Clinton to the State Department.
CLINTON: "I thought it would be easier to carry just one device for my work and for personal emails instead of two." News conference, March 2015.
THE FACTS: This reasoning for using private email both for public business and private correspondence didn't hold up in the investigation. Clinton "used numerous mobile devices to view and send email" using her personal account, Comey said. He also said Clinton had used different servers.
Sorry, I guess the Clintons are calling lies "blueberries"
Here's a few blueberries for you from that fringe republican blog the API:
No classified emails-blueberry
Allowed by State-blueberry
Turned over all emails-blueberry
Used a single device-blueberry
Never breached-blueberry
Got enough to make a pie yet?
Oh no, the GOP is all out of shit to fling at Clinton.
"Madame President".
Get used to it.
Although I have plenty of unanswered questions, there's no crying here as I pretty much expected the outcome. Question. Does my pointing out her proven lies on this matter somehow threaten that little bubble you live in? I can't imagine the level of rationalization and self-deception one must endure to see the world as you do.
54% polled think she's guilty, hell of a way to start a presidency.
The FBI disagrees with you. When it comes to dealing with classified information, you are pretty much obligated to be very conscious of what information you expose or reveal. Between the IG report and FBI statement, we know she and her staff were negligent. However, the FBI also determined that said negligence did not exceed the threshold for prosecution.So if you swore you didn't post something on this forum, and I had a roomful of interns comb through all twelve thousand of your posts and found it, I could call you a bald faced liar?
Or could it be that maybe you're not Rain Man who remembers what you've done every day of your life?
I'd probably lean toward the latter.
This is what baffles me. His statement goes right up to the line of criminality. It neither condemns nor truly vindicates her, similar to the IG report. He simultaneously wiped his hands of the entire affair AND gave Congress just enough ammunition to call for hearings, which they inevitably will.Glad to see I'm not the only one who has an issue with Comey politicizing this like he did:
Comey takes heat for 'unprecedented' rebuke
The FBI director broke with convention by baring findings without charges.
By all means release your findings, but if you're not going to indict someone in court you shouldn't be indicting them for 15 minutes via press conference either.
She said every email was read, that only personal emails were deleted (lie, but I can believe it was unintentional and an honest mistake) and said none of the work-related emails were classified or had classified markings. A ridiculously easy keyword search would have revealed this was not true and any reasonably competent person of integrity would have done so before making such a bold and politically expedient statement. This women will lie, obfuscate and spin any and everything to make herself look good so she can get elected. Get real and stop deluding yourself.So if you swore you didn't post something on this forum, and I had a roomful of interns comb through all twelve thousand of your posts and found it, I could call you a bald faced liar?
Or could it be that maybe you're not Rain Man who remembers what you've done every day of your life?
I'd probably lean toward the latter.
Agreed, although moving seems to be a bit extreme.i don't want any of these candidates to be president
brb, moving to australia
The difference between extreme carelessness and gross negligence is who did it, period. Petraeus does it and it's gross negligence, Hillary does it and it's extreme carelessness.I checked the article, and they have a compelling question. It's what many Americans want to know.
Agreed, and well said.You had me right up until you said BC should get a pass on NAFTA -- nope, he must not get a pass on that and the many other things he did to hurt the middle class. And yes, Ross Perot WAS right and when you compare his pronouncements about those trade deals and the consequence of them to those that were pushing the deal, including BC, how can anyone, more than 20 years later, pretend the proponents of those deals were right.
And the big take away from what you said was that the D's are increasingly just as bad as the R's as far as fucking the middle class. What all too many miss here is that in addition to hurting the middle class we're hurting the nation as well. And, also terrible is that while these deals are hurting the middle class and our nation they are empowering the Chinese to be more abusive of there people and there neighbors. The wealthy that have benefited from these trade deals have hurt the middle class, the nation, and made the dictatorial regime in China the 2nd most powerful nation on the planet.
These terrible trade deals promoted by folks that call themselves "Free Traders" but are actually Free Traitors in my book.
Brian
Not a lie. Clinton claimed that she did not email classified material, not that no classified materials passed through the server.
For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters.
Not a lie. Clinton clearly believed this to be the case, and Comey provided no detail on what he meant when he said the email had "markings". Again, that a very small proportion of emails contained classified information, in the context of the volume of classified information the State Dept. works with, it's obvious that she was not using it for classified information, and legitimately believed no classified information was sent or received.
This is on Clinton, but we were not provided an example of emails that were not provided by Clinton, but that Comey later discovered. It's entirely possible that reasonable person would have considered them to be personal. What we no for sure is that the emails were not destroyed or "wiped", and they did not contain anything incriminating.
I don't think that convenience was the only reason Clinton was using the server, but this is just silly. I use "numerous devices" to send email from my gmail account and it's far more convenient than using my work email.
The rest of the lengthy page is similar. No lies. Sorry.
Rationalize much?People lie. It's part of our nature. That also leads us to believe that statements made in good faith that turn out to be untrue are also lies.
I'm talking about her lies Dr. Einstein, not whether or not an indictment was warranted. Is this really that fn hard for you to follow?Whatever Hillary said or did wrt her email, it doesn't warrant indictment according to the evaluation of honest people who know the law a helluva lot better than either of us.
You're obviously framing me as one of these "faithful Clinton haters". So tell me...what set of lies are those I believe in? Let's examine reality, shall we?Faithful Clinton haters can go on about it all they want to keep on believing in their own set of lies. It won't change reality.
This is what baffles me. His statement goes right up to the line of criminality. It neither condemns nor truly vindicates her, similar to the IG report. He simultaneously wiped his hands of the entire affair AND gave Congress just enough ammunition to call for hearings, which they inevitably will.
Assage, your move.
That generally extends to aides and appointments as well. Remembering Bill Clinton's first term, the FBI was having cows because many of their people could not pass a background check, yet were given access to classified information. If memory serves, at that time being a weed smoker or having participated in an anti-government rally or march were both reasons to be denied security clearance, which would have picked up virtually all the younger Democrats. (And probably most of the young Republicans if they answer honestly.)It would be impossible to strip the president or someone who became the president of their clearance as the president is the source of all clearances.
Absolutely everyone knows that Hillary's decision had everything to do with Hillary's perceived best interests and none of the system's details.
Comey clearly said apparent evidence of crimes was found. It's fine for us here to conclude that she committed crimes, but it would be improper for Comey to so conclude without trial. Unlike in public opinion, the government needs to be very circumspect in observing the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Nonetheless, Comey revealed that Mrs. Clinton did send (and receive) some messages which were in fact marked with the proper classification, as well as others which are inherently classified (due to nature) and many, many others which if she is qualified she should be able to recognize as classified information. The latter two categories one could mark up to incompetence or error - everyone makes mistakes - but not the documents clearly labeled.I didn't hear the FBI indicate crimes were committed. IF all the elements of a crime are not present or provable then I'd say the FBI recommendation was proper.
Who has the authority to determine the classification of an email? I'm somewhat aware of the owner's (State Dept.) system restriction for the sending an email that is classed as 'restricted'. The system will reject - or should do - an email attempt to a non restricted system... cell phone, etc. Perhaps someone else has more specifics on the email system at State than I do.
Man. There are a few grade A hyper-partisan jackasses on this forum but you seriously take the cake.
I suggest you stop following politics.
Oh no, the GOP is all out of shit to fling at Clinton.
"Madame President".
Get used to it.