Ok, my apology isn’t accepted. Got it. I didn’t do a good job of boiling down several lengthy posts of yours to a few words on one particular point. You continue to insist that Comey believes that Clinton broke the letter of the law when he actually said no such thing. And there we are.
Yes, your nonpology is rejected. Could you point out which of my posts that was so lengthy that you had trouble with it? They all seem to be two or three short paragraphs outside of my first one on the subject that was only longish because I quoted a decent bit of Comey’s testimony.
Agree on all counts. Comey was put in a more awkward position by Lynch’s decision to semi-recuse herself, which was the result of her creating an appearance of impropriety. That’s part of why I think it’s hard to fault him for wanting to publicly explain things in July.
My secret hope is that Americans will remember how dysfunctional both the FBI and DOJ have been the next time the one of them says “Trust us, we’re experts…” when it comes to encryption or surveillance.
Said Comey? Lynch? Obama? Parker?
Had the impression that Obama picked him because of his (erstwhile) reputation as a straight-shooter and a non-partisan conservative. I know the Meeting on the Tarmac was supposed to be a Big Hairy Ass Deal, but sez who? She says it wasn’t improper, he says it wasn’t, who says it was? What actual evidence do they offer?
Mr President walks onto your plane, you are supposed to fend him off with a crucifix till he goes away? Would it be OK if Bill talks to Obama?
Shit, even Democrats can conspire better than that! So, OK, you got, you bring.
Said Lynch:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/07/02/us/politics/loretta-lynch-hillary-clinton-email-server.html
Richard Parker’s point wasn’t even remotely controversial.
So, you think he should accept her responsibility for being lied about? Because that’s what she said. To coin a phrase. And of course she wouldn’t do it again, can you blame her? Now, of course, if you don’t believe her and are sure that dark skulduggery was afoot, I suppose that is your privilege. But if she is telling the truth, then she bears no responsibilty, the people making shit up bear the responsibility.
I see no actual reason why Clinton’s conversation with her should be regarded with dark suspicion, absent any actual proof of anything at all! So, no, she didn’t create the appearance of impropriety, that shit was made up out of whole cloth! I suspect it might have involved people who expected political gain, but that’s just another of my wild ideas. Call it a hunch.
Unless, of course, you have some actual evidence? Tell you what, I’ll shut up and let you bring it. Please proceed.
PS: Why isn’t it possible that she “recused herself” because she thought he was the right man for the job? You know, the honest conservative who can be trusted. Probably won’t do that again, either.
I have no idea what you’re on about.
Is it your contention for example that top secret and higher documents reside on the internet? I’m telling you, this stuff has its own network. If you want to try and refute that, be my guest.
Hint: It isn’t connected to the internet. Ever. Never the twain shall meet. Satellite imagery, was discovered for just one example, or the higher classified documents. The public has it in their mind that this is “email scandal”; it is not per se. These were unsecured computer servers used outside government control, storing government documents that somehow were illegally removed from the secure network, aka jumped the “air gap” and ended up golly knows where, current estimates hacked by at least five (5) foreign governments. One hopes madam secretary wasn’t too inconvenienced, as we are told the “private email server” was a matter of convenience. Sure.
None of it is ever supposed to end up on a Yahoo! email account hosted on the internet, or thumbdrives, or somebodies husbands laptop. Period. Hope this helps.
(It’s all so absurd I still can’t believe this happened. These people implicated are complete morons, and it’s even more bizarre that anyone would try to make excuses for it.)
Literally everyone participating in this thread knows that classified information isn’t hooked up to the internet. Everyone who has heard of this story knows that classified information doesn’t belong on privately owned laptops.
I think the only issues with your posts are that you seem to be implying a conclusion that severa of us aren’t quite tracking. But more specifically, it sort of sounds like you think that the FBI discovered 650,000 classified emails.
That is incorrect.
Or maybe you are thinking that the FBI discovered 650,000 emails that relate to official State Department business.
That is also incorrect.
What the FBI discovered was 650,000 emails on a laptop, and to the best that anyone knows, the vast majority likely relate to Anthony Weiner, most likely a mix of persona and who knows maybe his own business/official communications over the last many years.
There’s also the high likelihood that some of those emails belong to his wife, but we have no idea at this point how many emails those consist of, how many may be purely personal in nature, or if some relate to official State Department business. We especially don’t know if any official emails on this laptop are already in the hands of the FBI from other means, such as if they were taken off the infamous server already, or have been found in state.gov archives. And way down the chain, there is no basis to conclude so far that there is any classified information on the laptop at all.
But I think it is an extremely safe assumption to make that when this is all over and thoroughly investigated, there will be far, far more emails about Weiner’s affairs and dalliances among those 650,000 emails than there will be classified information. The only real question is whether the number of emails with classified information is zero - which is quite possible - or a very very small fraction of the total. (And I’m not dismissing at all the gravity of finding any classified information on someone’s home computer!)
So, you do understand that we aren’t talking about 650,000 classified emails, right?
Just wanted to repeat the point that previous Secretary of State Colin Powell has openly admitted to conducting state business over his personal AOL account. The aggregate amount of fucks Republicans have given about this remains at or near zero, for some strange reason.
The part that is controversial of the claim was this:
WJ Clinton created that appearance, not her. It was minimally tone deaf of him if not out and out idiotic. But she did not create that circumstance and really had no control over it. She did have to deal with the appearance that it created in the most transparent and above board manner possible.
Meanwhile yeah, there are some number, possibly thousands, of e-mails on that laptop that appear to be Abedin’s. Some of those may be emails that went through Clinton’s server. Of those some may be personal subject emails that the FBI have not seen because they were among the number deleted. Some may be emails that were work-related that the FBI have already reviewed. Both of those mays are IMHO probable. Next is the less probable: some may be work-related emails that went through Clinton’s server that have not been reviewed. *The *question is if any of those do exist are any of any classification status and if any are would any be such that would change the determination previously made? Or if they exist do they comport with the evidence already found?
It’s arguable that Lynch had no choice but to accept Bill’s self invite but personally I think that’s absolving her a little too much. Regardless, I don’t think that was elucidator’s quibble since he asked “I know the Meeting on the Tarmac was supposed to be a Big Hairy Ass Deal, but sez who?”. Which is why I wasted my time pointing out that Lynch agreed it was a big enough deal to announce her semi-recusal.
That’s ridiculous. She’s the Attorney General of the United States. If someone wants to have an inappropriate meeting with her, she almost certainly has the opportunity to say “no” before it happens. And if not, then the first thing out of her mouth in person is, “I’m sorry Mr. President, but I don’t think meeting this way at this time is appropriate. Please leave my plane.”
And you know what’s even worse than that! That self-same scoundrel will probably point out again that you have no evidence that anything at all happened at that meeting. I mean, that’s just how that guy is!
But you know what you can do! Just bring that rock-solid evidence! You know, like he asked you to! Boy, that’ll really stick it to him!
I would like a cite that the e-mails contained secret satellite imagery. From my searches, even the Washington Times (!) only said that the e-mail contained information obtained through the use of spy satellites.
Your contention is that no top secret information could make it to the internet without people actively printing docs, scanning them, and attaching the scans to non-secure e-mails, as far as I can tell. Is that your contention?
My contention is that top secret information can make it to the internet much more easily. For example, Joe looks at top secret satellite images showing North Korea moving troops. Then, he e-mails his friend on his Yahoo! account saying, “Holy Smokes, Kim Jong Un is moving troops!” The newspaper rightly reports that top secret satellite information was shared over the open internet. Bad!
To be totally clear, I’m not saying Joe did the right thing sharing that top secret info over the non-secure internet. I’m saying that there’s many ways for secret info to make it to the internet without the kind of willful copying and scanning of documents you’re alleging.
You’re still not getting it. Yes, classified info isn’t supposed to be on non-classified networks, but it still happens quite frequently, since people sometimes discuss things by email that they shouldn’t. Usually it’s by accident, and in my 15 years of military active duty and civilian experience, I’ve personally seen controlled or classified info mishandled in this exact way dozens or even hundreds of times, and not a single time was anyone prosecuted for it.
Trying to visualize a Weiner From Space.
Now trying to erase that image…
elucidator:
Saying that someone created an appearance of impropriety is not an assertion that there is evidence of impropriety. It is asserting only that the circumstances reasonably raise questions about impropriety and therefore the circumstances themselves should be avoided, even when they are entirely innocuous. It is this high standard that many in the judicial system hold themselves to because of the importance of respect for the impartiality of the system. Most of the time, recusal because of the appearance of impropriety does not involve any actual impropriety. I believe there was nothing improper in the case of Lynch’s meeting, though of course there’s no way to know for sure (which is the whole point). But she recognized, correctly, that the meeting heightened concerns about the impartiality of her decision, and that these concerns were reason enough to defer to Comey.
The witness may step down, before he says anything that might damage my position. Here’s your hat…
She’s not kicking Bill Clinton out the plane! The message was sent when Bill got on the plane.
Huh?