Something for Conservatives

[iiandyiiii]

@Clothahump

Sigh. It’s not “some guy”. It was the director of the FBI in his report.

This is factually false. The FBI director did not report any felonies by HRC. This is public information that is extremely easy to find. From where did you get this false information that the FBI director reported that HRC committed felonies? You should re-evaluate your sources if they get such easy-to-obtain information wrong.

[El_Kabong]

@iiandyiiii

This is factually false. The FBI director did not report any felonies by HRC. This is public information that is extremely easy to find. From where did you get this false information that the FBI director reported that HRC committed felonies? You should re-evaluate your sources if they get such easy-to-obtain information wrong.

And while you (Clothahump) are at it, please explain exactly how you come to the conclusion that the FBI declined to prosecute these non-existent felonies simply “because she’s the ghodess Hillary”. In your tiny little mind, how does that even work?

The FBI declined to prosecute because there was nothing deemed prosecutable. Deal with it.

[Jackmannii]

@El_Kabong

The FBI declined to prosecute

…which I’m pretty sure the agency isn’t allowed to do, that being the Justice Dept.'s job.

If the FBI has attained prosecutorial powers, it is truly Midnight in Amerika. :eek:

[El_Kabong]

@Jackmannii

…which I’m pretty sure the agency isn’t allowed to do, that being the Justice Dept.'s job.

If the FBI has attained prosecutorial powers, it is truly Midnight in Amerika. :eek:

Well, you got me there. :embarrassed:

[Clothahump]

@El_Kabong

And while you (Clothahump) are at it, please explain exactly how you come to the conclusion that the FBI declined to prosecute these non-existent felonies simply “because she’s the ghodess Hillary”. In your tiny little mind, how does that even work?

The FBI declined to prosecute because there was nothing deemed prosecutable. Deal with it.

Please explain how the FBI issued a report detailing over 100 felonies committed, then declined to take it any further? They had the proof. It was VERY prosecutable and it should have been turned over to the U. S. Attorney. But it wasn’t and probably never will be.

[running_coach]

@Clothahump

Please explain how the FBI issued a report detailing over 100 felonies committed, then declined to take it any further? They had the proof. It was VERY prosecutable and it should have been turned over to the U. S. Attorney. But it wasn’t and probably never will be.

Link and relevant quote?

[Morgenstern]

@Clothahump

Please explain how the FBI issued a report detailing over 100 felonies committed, then declined to take it any further? They had the proof. It was VERY prosecutable and it should have been turned over to the U. S. Attorney. But it wasn’t and probably never will be.

I imagine this will really piss you off when we’re posting in the upcoming “Now that trump has been impeached” thread. You’ll still be whining about Hillary’s felony record or lack thereof.

[running_coach]

@Clothahump

Please explain how the FBI issued a report detailing over 100 felonies committed, then declined to take it any further? They had the proof. It was VERY prosecutable and it should have been turned over to the U. S. Attorney. But it wasn’t and probably never will be.

Since we seem to know about it, then the U. S. Attorney would know. What stopped them?

[iiandyiiii]

@Clothahump

Please explain how the FBI issued a report detailing over 100 felonies committed, then declined to take it any further? They had the proof. It was VERY prosecutable and it should have been turned over to the U. S. Attorney. But it wasn’t and probably never will be.

Factually false. The FBI did not report any felonies by HRC.

[running_coach]

@iiandyiiii

Factually false. The FBI did not report any felonies by HRC.

You know he’s never going to provide a cite or try to defend it.

[QuickSilver]

@running_coach

You know he’s never going to provide a cite or try to defend it.

In retrospect, I think it’s laudable that iiandyiiii is being civil and patient with the fucking imbecile. The information and facts he’s providing is useful for anyone else who might be reading along and is inclined to agree with C’hump, but isn’t so far gone that he/she is immune to evaluating actual facts & reason.

[iiandyiiii]

@running_coach

You know he’s never going to provide a cite or try to defend it.

Clothahump is probably a fundamentally decent person, so I’m confident that if he just settles down, thinks about it reasonably, and tries to engage without any knee-jerk defensiveness or anger, he could be open to some new information.

C’mon, Mr. Hump… prove me right!

[k9bfriender]

@iiandyiiii

Clothahump is probably a fundamentally decent person, so I’m confident that if he just settles down, thinks about it reasonably, and tries to engage without any knee-jerk defensiveness or anger, he could be open to some new information.

C’mon, Mr. Hump… prove me right!

That’s the most optimistic thing I’ve heard so far this year.
(and that includes Sammy saying that we are all going to be immortal frozen cyborgs who love chocolate ice cream.)

[running_coach]

@k9bfriender

That’s the most optimistic thing I’ve heard so far this year.
(and that includes Sammy saying that we are all going to be immortal frozen cyborgs who love chocolate ice cream.)

One out of four ain’t bad.

[andros]

@running_coach

One out of four ain’t bad.

Wait, whi–

No. Don’t tell me. I’ll let it be a surprise.

[Clothahump]

@iiandyiiii

Factually false. The FBI did not report any felonies by HRC.

Sigh. From Comey’s report, highlighting and emphasis mine.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

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.

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

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. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

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.

This ain’t rocket surgery. He very clearly lays out the fact that gross negligence occurred, which is a felony, and it occurred 110 times, each one of which is a separate offense.

In addition, there is evidence that Comey’s report was changed. The term “grossly negligent” was originally used and was changed by Peter Strzok (who was later fired) to “extremely careless”. If that original wording had been left intact, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

[Morgenstern]

One trick pony just keeps beating his dead pony.

[SingleMalt]

@Clothahump

Sigh. From Comey’s report, highlighting and emphasis mine.

…

This ain’t rocket surgery. He very clearly lays out the fact that gross negligence occurred, which is a felony, and it occurred 110 times, each one of which is a separate offense.

In addition, there is evidence that Comey’s report was changed. The term “grossly negligent” was originally used and was changed by Peter Strzok (who was later fired) to “extremely careless”. If that original wording had been left intact, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

(My emphasis.)

Did you notice the word “whether” in the first paragraph you quoted? That was what they were looking for, not what they found.

Perhaps the words were changed to “extremely careless” to better reflect the findings accurately? How would you know one way or the other?

[Ravenman]

Funny how Clothahump leaves out Comey’s conclusion:

Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.

• Nobody has ever been prosecuted for what Clinton did.
• No reasonable prosecutor would bring charges.
• Similar acts by other individuals would trigger administrative sanctions.

I think there is a small fringe of people out there who claim Clinton did absolutely nothing wrong. I think the record is also clear that these sorts of actions, if done by other person, would be subject to something along the lines of a slap on the wrist, to stronger administrative sanctions, in some cases leading to the clearance being revoked. But not convicted of a felony, as the historical record shows.

So Comey clearly did not say that Clinton was guilty of a felony – he said she shouldn’t even be charged with a crime.

In addition, there is evidence that Comey’s report was changed. The term “grossly negligent” was originally used and was changed by Peter Strzok (who was later fired) to “extremely careless”. If that original wording had been left intact, we wouldn’t be having this discussion.

Sooooo… if not for this Strzok guy changing two words, you’re saying that Hillary Clinton would be in Federal prison today? Shit, didn’t Comey proofread his speech before he gave it?

[Hamlet]

@Clothahump

Sigh. From Comey’s report, highlighting and emphasis mine.

Of course the highlighting and emphasis are yours. Because, oddly enough, you left out stuff like: “that no charges are appropriate in this case”, and “Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.”

Or that the Justice Department declined to pursue charges.

Funny how that works.

Now, don’t misunderstand me. Clinton absolutely fucked up her handling of classified information. She was lax in security measures, and never should have done it. Bad Hillary.

But the long leap from making a clear mistake to engaging criminal activity is one that only rabid anti-Hillary people make. Maybe there will be more information forthcoming, or maybe the Justice Department under Trump will prosecute now, but until those things happen, you’re coming off like the crazy old man on the corner yelling about the Illuminati.