Has this blog become The Smoking Gun? OTOH, what's next before Martial Law is declared? Heinrich Himmler for FBI Director?
This might be a good thing not just in this case but others. I'm tired of assertions of wrongdoing being made and circulated around the media followed by the "no smoke without fire" effect on the American people. Let's have some court cases and perhaps some real evidence put out under oath with a chance for rebuttle under oath.
Do you suppose we might even see Condoleeza Rice in court defending her lies to the American people pre-Iraq war?
Oh the irony
Good. There are few offences as serious as a senior member of a country's government causing data breaches of classified material through her deliberate actions and she should have been prosecuted.
If I did what Clinton did, I would lose my job and would probably end up in gaol.
"If I did what Clinton did, I would lose my job and would probably end up in gaol."
I'd hope they had evidence in your case, as opposed to nothing in hers.
I find it more interesting that he lied about a big part of the email "scandal".
Perhaps Comey’s most surprising revelation was that Huma Abedin — Weiner’s wife and a top Clinton deputy — had made “a regular practice” of forwarding “hundreds and thousands” of Clinton messages to her husband, “some of which contain classified information.” Comey testified that Abedin had done this so that the disgraced former congressman could print them out for her boss. (Weiner’s laptop was seized after he came under criminal investigation for sex crimes, following a media report about his online relationship with a teenager.)
In fact, that wasn't the case at all.
the FBI acknowledged that only a “small number” of more than 49,000 “potential relevant” emails found on Weiner’s laptop had been forwarded from Clinton deputy Huma Abedin to Weiner, her husband, not hundreds or thousands as Comey had stated.
The FBI said just two of those messages contained classified information.
Clinton had multiple problems, but the email "scandal" isn't one of them.
They had the evidence. As Comey explained, the reason for not prosecuting was lack of intent to reveal classified information. This is not needed for prosecution, but it looks like Comey was trying to avoid being accused of interfering in the election. So he changed the law, then laid out the facts at the same time so the people could render judgement.
Pretty galling to fire him for releasing info critical of Hillary.
I find it absolutely fascinating that the Trump supporters commenting here are totally unable to see what is happening here. Politics blinds, stupefies.
"turned out not to be the case"? Not if you look at the wording like a weasel:
" the FBI acknowledged that only a “small number” of more than 49,000 “potential relevant” emails"
49000 emails is "hundreds or thousands of emails", and emails were sent from Hilary to Weiner (if by a circuitous route), and some of them were classified (maybe not at the time).
Comey probably thought that having ignored him about Flynne "A pox on both their houses" and decided to over-egg the pudding. After all, if all the evidence were quashed by Obama "because they were classified", there's bugger all, apart from un-classifying them, of proving Comey was not being accurate or clear.
What trumpalo is doing, however, is exactly what a stalinist comminist group would do. Indeed, cold-war-era communism is exaclty what a corporation is, with the CEO being Stalin and the BoD the Politburo.. Take a look yourself. The similarities are striking.
My my my! You all step around this like something is wrong. Just a few weeks back, Dems were calling for Comey to resign or be fired. Some Republicans were calling for him to be fired. Now Trump does it and it is treated like a crime. Trump is doing what he said he would do...drain the DC swamp! Restoring faith in the FBI is needed. Anti-Trump rhetoric from the left sounds like you are whining again.
The violation of rules regarding personal emails is a violation. Whether it is one classified email or 1,000 doesn't matter. She violated the trust of the American people. There are workshops for these things and he is not a novice since her husband was President. She was guilty of putting the country at risk. She deleted emails completely when she wasn't supposed to do it! This contributed to a verdict by vote of the American people causing her to lose the election.
We could talk about Bill's meeting and more, but why bother.
Everyone on here hates Trump. So much disrespect for the office of President.
So just get over it! Trump won! Quit whining! Dems wanted Comey gone. Now they get their wish and they make it out to be a Russian-Trump conspiracy. SMH at you all?
"Just a few weeks back, Dems were calling for Comey to resign or be fired."
They asked he resign. That's entirely within his remit to resign. He even admitted he was in the wrong, merely choosing HOW wrong to be.
But it isn't a sackable offence and Trump has no right to do so.
But, again, with the double standards from the RWNJs. THEY get to scream "LOCK HER UP! LOCK HER UP!", but if any democrat does the same to Orange-u-tan, you complain about it.
IF you thought it was bad, why did you do it?
IF you thought it was admissable, why do you complain now?
IF you thought it hypocritical, why the hypocrisy yourselves?
Trump lost the vote. Get over it. There are no 3 million illegal Hilary voters, only a few score illegal trumping voters. Your guy is shit. Get over it. Having won, he's having to live up to the promises, whereas he'd hoped to be in the FAR better position of "sit on the sidelines and complain the other side were 'doing it wrong'".
And he, along with the entire Republican party were NOT ready for this. At all. They cannot govern. Only complain about those who do and pretend they'd be better.
"The violation of rules regarding personal emails is a violation."
It is not a sackable offence. It's not even prosecutable per se, only egregious cases.
Indeed it was done by both sides and Hilary got advice from Cheney on how to set it up. Where were the lock 'em up crowd then?
Hell, where were they when Shrub deleted, what, 20,000 emails that were under specific instructions to hand over to an investigation? That's an offence even if the emails were 100% innocent.
Where were you then?
Then you complain about hypocrisy...
Lastly, many on the left criticised Hilary for it. The media lambasted her for it. They made a big song and dance about it.
Where are the complains about the right doing it? Where was Fox when Rs did it? Who in the rightwing are complaining about the collusion with russia? There was plenty from both left and right when Bill was in scandal. When Obama pre-negotiation-compromised, the left complained about him and still do. Where on the right are the complaints about Trump?
The left DO complain about "their side". they aren't authoritarian. The right DON'T complain about "their side". They ARE authoritarian.
Comey's lie about emails concerned his statement that Clinton's aide had forwarded huge numbers of emails to her husband -- the FBI released a statement specifically saying that didn't happen.
The concerning thing here is that we are now learning that Trump asked Sessions, who had taken himself out of the Russia investigation, to manufacture a reason for firing Comey.
She did forward huge numbers of e-mails to her husband's laptop. The lie is that only a small number were for printing. The large number of e-mails that Comey referred was when she sent a backup. How do you think 655,000 e-mails got there?
No, the lie was that they were lots of emails that were classified. Which wasn't said, but implied by the fact of the statement the claim was in answer to.
And never cleared up.
Hilary can send 200 billion emails to her husband's laptop, if it has the disk space. Not a crime.
And, no, they weren't a backup. What do you think "cc" means? Ever get sent an email "FYI"?
"Everyone on here hates Trump. So much disrespect for the office of President. "
Uh, for most, the hate for trumpaloon is BECAUSE of the *respect* they have for the office of president.
It doesn't matter how many emails contained classified information, all it takes is one.
The fact is that Clinton did far more than just "break rules". She put classified information on a system that was of a far lower classification.
So while she wasn't overtly conspiring with Moscow to assist a Russian intelligence scheme, she made deliberate actions which greatly assisted Russian intelligence.
Where *I* work, if I put classified documents on an unclassified network, my security clearance would be cancelled, I would be fired, and the AFP would be asked to investigate with a view to prosecuting me.
Clinton's behaviour was of a far, far lower standard than needs to be the minimum standard for any public servant.
And Greg's "if you criticise Clinton, you are a Trump supporter" is the kind of manichean shallow-thinking that Fox News relies on.
Your asinine "if I did... I'd get ..." Bullshit is tiresome Craig.
She breached security. This is absolutely clear.
Maybe - never clearly shown.
Also not relevant to the consequences of Trump's latest actions.
"It doesn’t matter how many emails contained classified information,"
Yes it does. There's no "zero tolerance" policy. If you want one, lobby to get one. There isn't one now, though.
"She breached security. This is absolutely clear."
No, that is not absilutely clear. For a start, every Sec of State has done the same before. It's standard practice. Secondly, there's nothing to say they were classified at the time of being on the unsecured service. Third, unless egregious, this is just a warning offence.
What is clear is that you want it to be clear. So get the law changed.
IMO it should be absolutely illegal. But, and this is likely where it will never be made illegal, it would have to be fairly and evenly applied. So leaks of security even from the POTUS would be similarly jail term sackable offences, piercing the immunity of the position,and not absolvable by being a non-salaried non-government "advisory" position.
Hillary was a bad candidate for her policy stance, not because of her email server.
Stop lumping them together to make a convenient (if illicit) target)
"And Greg’s “if you criticise Clinton, you are a Trump supporter” "
And was that said? No. Was that implied? Well YOU had to put the implication in it, because, by definition, implication is not in the text.
So ask if that was what was implied.