Hillary Clinton is Done: part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
16.5 said:
My world view is based on the fact that a marked email was sent to Hillary by Monica Hanley on Monday April 9, 2012.

Your world view is based on a claim that Hillary's lawyers did a key word search on emails in 2014.

Mine makes sense.... yours? Not at all.

Those are, as they say, the facts.
Click to expand...

Err, the fact is that Comey said that's what happened. I posted the quote above. Feel free to scroll back up and read it.
 
RobRoy said:
To be clear, you're saying that because the Republicans are threatening new action, you believe this will result in a perjury indictment, is that correct?
Click to expand...


I don't know how this will eventually play out. But there does now exist a "realistic possibility" that she may be indicted for perjury.

You game?
Click to expand...


Nope. Not when Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch are having private meetings about their "grandchildren."
 
Slings and Arrows said:
I don't know how this will eventually play out. But there does now exist a "realistic possibility" that she may be indicted for perjury.
Click to expand...

There certainly is every distinct possibility that probably maybe almost likely of the real existence of a total shot in the dark, hail mary, shot at the buzzer might occur. Almost.

On the other hand, there is the certainty that that the Republican political machine will make much hay and noise over this while they can, staying on the attack as long as possible, and milking this for every ounce, even after it's turned sour to keep eyes turned away from their candidate. I also predict, with almost absolute certainty (and would be willing to place money on this) that you'll continue to spout their party lines, without giving any consideration to other points of view. $20?

Nope. Not when Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch are having private meetings about their "grandchildren."
Click to expand...

Bwahahahahaha. Yes, that's the reason. ;)
 
Slings and Arrows;11375547[HILITE said:
]I don't know how this will eventually play out. But there does now exist a "realistic possibility" that she may be indicted for perjury.
[/HILITE]
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. In fact, the chances are 9,999,999,999 to 1 against. A mistaken recollection does NOT constitute perjury.
 
RobRoy said:
Err, the fact is that Comey said that's what happened. I posted the quote above. Feel free to scroll back up and read it.
Click to expand...

Are you really not getting this?

Your quote from Comey had to do with whether Hillary had turned over all work related emails, here is the lead in to your quote:

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.
Click to expand...

In another part of the statement he said:

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But 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.
Click to expand...

we are talking about the later issue.

There is nothing tricky here: this is really, really basic stuff
 
16.5 said:
Your quote from Comey had to do with whether Hillary had turned over all work related emails, here is the lead in to your quote:
Click to expand...

That's not all it had to do with. But based on interaction with you in the past, there's no point in parsing it out. Words that don't say what you want them to say seem to not exist for you even when it's really, really, very, very, damn, damn basic stuff.

Good luck!
 
Cleon said:
Oh yay, it looks like the Republicans have another "scandal" to investigate and re-investigate over and over and over again long past the point of viabiliaty, not to mention long past anyone who isn't a partisan hack giving a **** one way or the other.
Click to expand...

Guilty until proven Guilty. It's the Republican way.
 
RobRoy said:
That's not all it had to do with. But based on interaction with you in the past, there's no point in parsing it out. Words that don't say what you want them to say seem to not exist for you even when it's really, really, very, very, damn, damn basic stuff.

Good luck!
Click to expand...

I get it now, Hillary's lawyers she hired in 2014 were time travelers that went back to April of 2012 to tell her that the marked email she received was not marked.

Fantastic.
 
16.5 said:
I get it now, Hillary's lawyers she hired in 2014 were time travelers that went back to April of 2012 to tell her that the marked email she received was not marked.

Fantastic.
Click to expand...

Do we need a "Rule of Fantastic" too ? :confused:
 
16.5 said:
Are you really not getting this?

Your quote from Comey had to do with whether Hillary had turned over all work related emails, here is the lead in to your quote:



In another part of the statement he said:



we are talking about the later issue.

There is nothing tricky here: this is really, really basic stuff
Click to expand...
Yes.


On the "marked" documents: There were only THREE documents *marked* classified, (C) - lowest level.
and even those were not properly marked. What she always maintained: "marked classified."

Important testimony:

CARTWRIGHT: All right. You were asked about markings on a few documents. I have the manual here. Marking classified national security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little "c"s on them.

Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

COMEY: No.

CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document. Right?

COMEY: Correct.

CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little "c" in the text someplace?

COMEY: No. They were three e-mails. The "c" was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the e-mail or in the text.

CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what's not classified and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.

[11:55:00] CARTWRIGHT: All right. I thank you for your testimony, Director. I yield back.
 
Furthermore:

Some more good chewables --

CUMMINGS: I wanted to clear up some things. I want to make sure I understand exactly what you testified to on the issue of whether Secretary Clinton sent or received e-mails that were marked as classified.

On Tuesday you stated, and I quote, "only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings, and I emphasis bore markings, indicating the presence of classified information."

Republicans have pounced on this statement as evidence that Secretary Clinton lied. But today we learned some significant new facts and I hope the press listens to this. First you clarify that you were talking about only three e-mails out of 30 thousand. Your office is reviewed. Is that right?

COMEY: Three, yes.

CUMMINGS: Three out of 30 thousand, is that right?

COMEY: Yes at least 30 thousand.

CUMMINGS: At least 30 thousand. Second, you confirmed that these three e-mails were not properly marked as classified at the time based on Federal guidelines and manuals.They did not have a classification header; they did not list the original classifier, the agency, officer of origin, reason for classification, or date for declassification. Instead these e-mails included only a single quote see parenthesis, end parenthesis and then end of quotation mark for confidential on one paragraph lower down in the text, is that right?

COMEY: Correct.

CUMMINGS: Third, you testified that based on these facts it would have been a quote "reasonable inference for Secretary Clinton to" quote "immediately" end of quote conclude that these e-mails were not in fact classified. So that was also critical new information. But there's one more critical fact that these e-mails were not in fact, and that is this Director, and to the press these e-mails were not in fact classified.

The State Department explained to us yesterday -- they reported that these e-mails are not classified and that including the little C on these e-mails was a result of a human error. The bottom line is that those little Cs should not have been on those documents because they were not in fact classified.

When Representative Watson Coleman asked you a few minutes ago about this you testified that you had not been informed. And I understand that, I'm not beating up on you I promise you. But can you tell us why Director Comey -- because I want -- because republicans are pouncing saying the Secretary lied and I want to make sure we're clear on this. Can you tell us why Director Comey did you consult, and we're just curious, did you consult about these three e-mails out of the more than 30 thousand or did this just not come up? What happened there?

COMEY: Yes I'm not remembering for sure while I'm here. I'm highly confident we consulted with them and got their view on it. I don't know about what happened yesterday. Maybe their view has changed or they found things out that we didn't know. But I'm highly confident we consulted with them about it.

CUMMINGS: So this is solely different than what we understood yesterday. Today we learned that these e-mails were not in fact classified, they should not have been included in those -- they should not have included those straight (ph) markings. They were not properly marked as classified and the Director of the FBI believes it was reasonable for Secretary Clinton to assume that these documents were not classified.

...

CUMMINGS: Today 10s of thousands of Secretary Clinton's e-mails are probably available on the State Department's website. And our staff have been reviewing the e-mails that were retroactively determined to include classified information. Based on this review, it appears that these e-mails included more than one thousand individuals who sent or received the information that is not redacted as classified. Let me make that clear. About one thousand people sent or received the same information that was contained in Secretary Clinton's e-mails and retroactively classified. Were you aware of that?

COMEY: No, the number doesn't surprised me though.

CUMMINGS: Why not?

COMEY: Because this was -- they were doing the business of the State Department on this e-mail system, so I don't know how many thousands of people work in the State Department. But it doesn't surprise there'd be lots of people on these chains.

CUMMINGS: And would you agree that something needs to be done with regard to this classification stuff because classified things are classified then they're not classified, then they are retroactively classified. I mean does that go into your consideration when looking at a case like this?

COMEY: Yes I don't pay much attention to the up classified stuff because we're focused on intent. So if someone classifies it later, it's impossible that you formed intent around that because it wasn't classified at the time. I know that's a process -- I wasn't familiar with it before this investigation, but I don't spend a lot of time focused on it in the course of a criminal investigation.

CUMMINGS: I understand. We also reviewed who these people are and they include a host of very experienced career diplomats with many years of experience. So let me ask you this. When you received this referral from the Inspector General about Secretary Clinton's e-mails, did you also receive any referrals for any of the other one thousand people who sent and received those e-mails? Did you?

COMEY: No.

CNN.com - Transcripts
 
Rare Truth said:
Furthermore:

Some more good chewables --
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, those "chewables" fall to the wayside when you review one of the actual emails, which explicitly states to Hillary that confidential talking points had not made it to the courier bag for classified communications, so she simply cut and pasted the text into an email including the classified marking that Hillary had promised us wasn't there.

Furthermore, the text was and is classified today, despite what Hillary's lead waterboy claimed.

Here is the actual email, who ya gonna believe the document or Elijah Cumming's spin?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/06/10/banda-email/

Hillary lied.
 
16.5 said:
Unfortunately, those "chewables" fall to the wayside when you review one of the actual emails, which explicitly states to Hillary that confidential talking points had not made it to the courier bag for classified communications, so she simply cut and pasted the text into an email including the classified marking that Hillary had promised us wasn't there.

Furthermore, the text was and is classified today, despite what Hillary's lead waterboy claimed.

Here is the actual email, who ya gonna believe the document or Elijah Cumming's spin?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/06/10/banda-email/

Hillary lied.
Click to expand...

Oh NONSENSE! This is such happy horse ****.

Hey, I hear the Republican Congress is now investigating Bill Clinton.

Rumor has it he failed to put the cap back on the toothpaste.
 
16.5 said:
Unfortunately, those "chewables" fall to the wayside when you review one of the actual emails, which explicitly states to Hillary that confidential talking points had not made it to the courier bag for classified communications, so she simply cut and pasted the text into an email including the classified marking that Hillary had promised us wasn't there.

Furthermore, the text was and is classified today, despite what Hillary's lead waterboy claimed.

Here is the actual email, who ya gonna believe the document or Elijah Cumming's spin?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/06/10/banda-email/

Hillary lied.
Click to expand...
Another swing and a miss.


FBI Director James Comey Testifies Hillary | Video | C-SPAN.org



CHAFFETZ: How did the Department of Justice, or how did the FBI view the incident in which Hillary Clinton instructed Jake Sullivan to take the markings off of a document that was to be sent to her?

COMEY: Yes, we looked at that pretty closely. There was some problem with their secure fax machine and there was an e-mail in which she says in substance, take the headers off of it and send it as a non- paper and as we've dug into that more deeply, we've come to learn that at least this one view of it that is reasonable, that a non-paper in State Department parlance (ph) means a document that contains things we could pass to another government. So essentially take out anything that's classified and send it to me.

Now it turned out that didn't happen, we actually found that the classified fax was then sent, but that's our best understanding of what that was about.

CHAFFETZ: So this was a classified fax?

COMEY: Correct.

CHAFFETZ: So Hillary Clinton sends to Jake Sullivan, Jake -- well let me go back, Jake Sullivan says they say they had issues sending secure fax, they're working on it. Hillary Clinton sends to Jake Sullivan, if they can't, turn into non-paper with no identifying heading and send non-secure. So you're telling me it's a classified piece of information, she's taking off the header and she's instructing them to send it in a non-secure format. Is that not intent?

COMEY: Well that actually caught my attention when I first saw it and what she explained to us in her interview was, and other witnesses too as well, is what she meant by that is make it into a non-classified document, that's what a non-paper is in their world, and send it to us because I don't need the classified stuff I just need the...

CHAFFETZ: Then why take off the heading if it's going to be turned into a non-classified document, why take off the heading?

COMEY: I assume because it would be non-classified anymore so you wouldn't have a classified header on it. Because what she said during her interview...

CHAFFETZ: Because she wanted to be technically correct, is that what you're saying, that you're...

COMEY: No, I think what she said during the interview is I was telling him in essence, send the unclassified document, take the header off, turn it into a non-paper, which is a term I had never heard before but I'm told by people I credit that in diplomatic circles something we can pass to another government...

CHAFFETZ: You are very generous in your accepting of that. Did any unclear individuals receive any classified information over Hillary Clinton's server?

COMEY: Did any uncleared (ph) people receive classified information? I don't think any of the correspondents on the classified e-mails were uncleared people. These were all people with clearances working, doing State Department business, on the unclassed (ph) system."

so...as Comey says, he investigated it pretty thoroughly, and it isn't at all what the RW bloggers and Fox's and other *uhOh* media had been screaming about for months.


Also, just a reminder -- As Head of State, she has the ultimate authority to classify or declassify items originating in State. Those items originated in State.

It was noted in other places about what happened with these headers, but you'll have to read through the transcripts yourself:

CNN.com - Transcripts

CNN.com - Transcripts

CNN.com - Transcripts
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
well, that is the kind of deep analysis we have come to expect from Hillary fans around here lately.
Click to expand...

You don't analyze. You attack and twist the facts. You repeat over and over and over debunked horse manure. It's a Gish Gallop of innuendo, fabications, and exaggerated nonsense.

There is no reasonableness in your remarks. All you're really interested in is the hanging. The evidence is meaningless. That's why you ignore the content of the rebuttals.
 
16.5 said:
Unfortunately, those "chewables" fall to the wayside when you review one of the actual emails, which explicitly states to Hillary that confidential talking points had not made it to the courier bag for classified communications, so she simply cut and pasted the text into an email including the classified marking that Hillary had promised us wasn't there.

Furthermore, the text was and is classified today, despite what Hillary's lead waterboy claimed.

Here is the actual email, who ya gonna believe the document or Elijah Cumming's spin?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/06/10/banda-email/

Hillary lied.
Click to expand...


Your "proof" the text is classified is your own extrapolation about a courier bag, and a month old link?

:dl:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/06/n...d-classified-emails-found-on-hillarys-server/

Comey appeared to reference emailed “call sheets” from that Clinton was sent by one of her aides, Monica Hanley.

One of those documents, which was reported by Fox News last month, was marked with a (C), denoting that the information was classified as confidential. The New York Times reported on Wednesday that Clinton was sent another call sheet marked as confidential.

In a daily press briefing, Kirby addressed the classified call sheets, but attributed the existence of the markings to “human error.”

“It appears the markings in the documents raised in the media report were no longer necessary or appropriate at the time they were sent as an email,” he said. Kirby went on to blame whomever created the call sheet on the State Department’s unclassified email system.
“Those confidential markings should have been removed by the individual who was transmitting them on the unclassified side,” he said, adding that the State Department is aware of two instances in which Clinton was sent emails marked classified.

That also explains why there were no classified headers and footers, as required

ETA: better link:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/hillary-clinton-classified-emails-error-225194
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
Say, now there is something upon which we agree!

Did you look at the actual email yet?

This one: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/06/10/banda-email/

Take your time.
Click to expand...

I read it. It was 3 emails in over 30,000. It was a mistake. You don't make mistakes? The point isn't that a mistake didn't take place. The point is, was it criminal? NO. Does overlooking this constitute perjury? NO. Is it evidence of corruption? NO. Is it or better yet should this be an "indictable offense" I don't think so and neither does the FBI director.

This is political smear and not much else.
 
TheL8Elvis said:
Did you look at the actual article correcting you yet?

This one: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/07/hillary-clinton-classified-emails-error-225194

Take your time.
Click to expand...

It seems you have the wrong article because the one you linked says:

The paragraph marked confidential in the 2012 Malawi call sheet was released by State in January of this year. However, a section of the email just below that does not appear to be considered classified now, but was withheld under a FOIA exemption for internal U.S. government deliberations. Another section just below that was classified "Confidential" diplomatic information at the time of release this year. Both of those chunks were withheld in their entirety.
Click to expand...

Huh, it was "marked" but "marked in error" and isn't "classified" but is specificically marked as "classified" and is redacted with an unclassify date of 4/7/2027.

Do you think that Kirby thought that people would be dumb enough to take his *********** word for it and not look at the actual document that shows what a liar he is?

Take your time.
 
16.5 said:
It seems you have the wrong article because the one you linked says:

Huh, it was "marked" but "marked in error" and isn't "classified" but is specificically marked as "classified" and is redacted with an unclassify date of 4/7/2027.

Do you think that Kirby thought that people would be dumb enough to take his *********** word for it and not look at the actual document that shows what a liar he is?

Take your time.
Click to expand...

:dl:

enjoy your cherry picking.
 
16.5 said:
It seems you have the wrong article because the one you linked says:



Huh, it was "marked" but "marked in error" and isn't "classified" but is specificically marked as "classified" and is redacted with an unclassify date of 4/7/2027.

Do you think that Kirby thought that people would be dumb enough to take his *********** word for it and not look at the actual document that shows what a liar he is?

Take your time.
Click to expand...

Comey DIDN'T THINK SO.
Just a bunch of partisan trolls.
 
acbytesla said:
Comey DIDN'T THINK SO.
Just a bunch of partisan trolls.
Click to expand...

I think you are confusing Comey with Cummings.

Cummings and Kirby partisan trolls?

No they are not just trolls, they are in position to do real damage, like lie about the classified e-mail.

Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL — Reason: 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 04/07/2027
Thank Christ the big dog is here to show you their lies.
 
16.5 said:
I think you are confusing Comey with Cummings.

Cummings and Kirby partisan trolls?

No they are not just trolls, they are in position to do real damage, like lie about the classified e-mail.

Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL — Reason: 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 04/07/2027
Thank Christ the big dog is here to show you their lies.
Click to expand...

No I'm not. I said Comey and I meant Comey. And BTW, if a chihuahua thinks he's the big dog, that's likely to just be a delusion.
 
acbytesla said:
No I'm not. I said Comey and I meant Comey. And BTW, if a chihuahua thinks he's the big dog, that's likely to just be a delusion.
Click to expand...

'k.

Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL — Reason: 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 04/07/2027
 
16.5 said:
Lets see what else I can "cherry pick."

Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL — Reason: 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 04/07/2027

Oh dear... It seems like Kirby lied, but it is pro-Clinton lies so the "Skeptics" on "iSkep" will lap it up.

cool laughing dog, tho.

Here is the email at issue:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2016/06/10/banda-email/

Kirby lied, Hillary Lied.
Click to expand...

Yes, we all know when the choice is between admitting you are wrong or calling someone a liar, you opt for the latter.

Fantastic ! :thumbsup:
 
16.5 said:
'k.

Classified by DAS, A/GIS, DoS on 01/29/2016 — Class: CONFIDENTIAL — Reason: 1.4(D) — Declassify on: 04/07/2027
Click to expand...

YAWN.....zzzzzzzzzzzz.....zzzzzzz.

Where's that indictment you said was forthcoming?
 
I think it's prudent to remind our Republican fans that as of now only one candidate has a date in court and it ain't Clinton...
 
The Friday morning political talks shows consensus is that Hilary has a pretty bad week, but that Trump managed to totally screw up any hopes of turning it to political advantage with his antics.
 
Garrison said:
I think it's prudent to remind our Republican fans that as of now only one candidate has a date in court and it ain't Clinton...
Click to expand...

lolz, the folks at Judicial Watch just filed a motion to take her deposition.

Say, did Bill give back all that money he took from the for profit college he was involved in?

lol!
 
16.5 said:
lolz, the folks at Judicial Watch just filed a motion to take her deposition.

Say, did Bill give back all that money he took from the for profit college he was involved in?

lol!
Click to expand...

That's what Judicial Watch does. They've been conducting a witch hunt on Democrats for as long as I can remember. Did they pick a partisan right wing judge as usual to grant their motion?
 
acbytesla said:
Did they pick a partisan right wing judge as usual to grant their motion?
Click to expand...

:eye-poppi

is this for real?

Judicial Watch files their actions in the DC District Court, where the Judges are randomly assigned.

The motion is pending before U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

Tell you what, why don't you take a gander at who appointed him to the federal bench.

We'll wait.

/still waiting for response on your silly bet post too.
 
Last edited:
16.5 said:
:eye-poppi

is this for real?

Judicial Watch files their actions in the DC District Court, where the Judges are randomly assigned.

The motion is pending before U.S. District Court Judge Emmet G. Sullivan.

Tell you what, why don't you take a gander at who appointed him to the federal bench.

We'll wait.

/still waiting for response on your silly bet post too.
Click to expand...

So, my guess the petition won't be granted. Judge roulette didn't work.

And yes, I had you confused with Slings and Arrows.
 
Discuss Clinton, not each other. And be civil and polite while you discuss Clinton, please.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom