How do they remotely hope to prove perjury? Clinton testified she didn’t knowingly send classified materials.
Comey explained today that the obscure © classified marking was probably unfamiliar to Clinton. That’s more than enough to indicate Clinton testified truthfully. She didn’t know those were classified documents.
Perjury requires a deliberate lie doesn’t it?
Gee willikers, that MUST be it!
Oh, its all there, the presumption, the assumption, then the headlong leap into speculation. A Republican syllogism.
You’d think they’d learned from trying to pin perjury on Bill in the grand impeachment. But no.
Be funny if they got their wish and somehow hounded Hillary out of the race. So, then, the Dems shrug and nominate Joe Biden. Lizzy Warren. Shit, way Trump is going, they could run Jane Fonda and win.
And she comes with a baked-in nickname!
I am against anything that delays, impedes or otherwise threatens the existence of S3 of Grace and Frankie.
What kind of system uses obscure markings and doesn’t make sure their highest level people know what they mean?
Seriously… does somebody in the field know?
To quote Evil Economist from here:
Also - no connection to Clinton or the State Department but I work a lot with the execs in my organization and it’s surprising how clueless they can sometimes be with regard to things they consider “admin”. (Not that my particular folks are clueless about security markings - ours are much more overt - but there’s a lot of basic stuff they don’t consider because they have “people to deal with that for them”. )
Not so much obscure but easily lost in a block of text.
As I understand it, you can have a long email of normal stuff except for one paragraph that is preceded by (ts) to indicate that paragraph is classified Top Secret. However, “Top Secret” is supposed to be in the header/subject line in the email.
Without the header warning, the small indicator could be missed if the reader is tired or doing a quick skim.
I’m curious – at this point, how do you even claim that you’re not using the power of Congress for a partisan political witch hunt? it almost seems as though this would run afoul of some regulations about using government resources to harm the candidate of another party. I think a Congressional investigation into this Congressional investigation is in order.
There is a Mexican expression that goes “A la mejor chimolera se le va un chile entero”. ‘A whole chili can be missed be the best chili pickers’. And in this case the chili plant was often picked with little light. I think perspective was also something the FBI took into account. What was found was very little in comparison to many more messages that were properly taken care of.
Also considered was how the classified threads found were not as important as assumed and that there is some controversy about how secret the remaining ones were, and that the attachments were not resent in the back and forth.
“reckless, stupid and full of hubris”= Pretty much describes Trump.
Hilary begged for a secure Blackberry from the NSA but was refused.
Both her GOP predecessors did the same thing with their emails. Her main congressional accuser has been caught doing the same thing.
So, Hubris I’ll grant, but not reckless or stupid.
Then they’ll have to shoot you.
Her predecessors didn’t do the same thing but I’m tired of fighting that bullshit.
The context of the post you quoted was whether Clinton would get good talking points out of the Comey hearing/questioning. Did you pick any good ones out? “Extremely careless”, “should have known better”, “quite unsophisticated” is what I remember from his “defense” of Clinton. Maybe I missed the zinger that Mrs Clinton would like to append to “Well, as Director Comey told Congress…”?
“…he couldn’t prove that she was guilty of a crime”. That’ll do.
Not exactly a “Hope and Change” slogan but I guess beggars can’t be choosers.
Well, there are many good talking points indeed; in general, like in this artcle, one can conclude that the Republicans could had concentrated on enumerating the mistatements made by Clinton, but Republicans could not stop scoring many own goals.
On that, I defer to your experience and expertise.
But will that stop them from continuing to claim that she lied? Of course not. What care they for facts?!?
(Great National Memo piece–thanks.)