Man Bobby running hard with the false equivalency narrative. Let's break this down - Hillary was being investigated for criminal negligence. Trump is being investigated for treasonous acts. In both cases, there is little evidence to the public RIGHT now that either is true. Bobby, absent the names, do you think those two crimes ought be prescribed the same punishment in a court of law?
Flat out not true. In Hillary's case, there's publicly available evidence proving that she broke the law but her political connections were enough to ensure they didn't prosecute. In Trump's case, they haven't released any evidence that he's guilty of anything other than liking well done steaks.
Cool, so you start with the premise that she's guilty (despite Comey clearing her). Glad to save my time, as it will be useless to spend it trying to change the fundamental premise that you are starting with.
It's not a sore subject at all. Clinton is not President for the same reason Gore didn't win in 2000. Democrat fatigue, a charismatic Republican, and an anomaly in which the electoral system trumped popular sentiment. In poll after poll, most have a favorable view of Clinton worldwide. In polls of Americans, the low point for Clinton was during the election period. Historically, she's had more positive than negative favorability ratings. They have graphs and charts illustrating this. Sanders may or may not have beaten Trump. Trump won on a wave of charisma, Democrat fatigue, and nationalism- but not always the good kind. Clinton won the popular vote. Trump won the Electoral College. It'd be like if the Golden State Warriors were declared the victors after the finals last year. Cleveland score more points. But GS had a higher 3 pt. percentage in that game, so GS is declared the winner. In basketball, they don't care where the points come from- 3 point, foul shots, etc. Points are points. Votes are votes. Isn't a point in basketball and a vote in the political process essentially the same? Trump winning the election due to the Electoral College is like a team winning the championship because they shot better from a certain area of the floor, a la the 3-point line or the foul line. Thankfully, sports is smarter than politics.
It's fine. Heck, we've got the President potentially tweeting out classified information and conducting classified meetings with the PM of Japan in an open tent, but let's just put that aside.
I watched quite a bit of Comey's testimony, but not all of it, and I have a question for those out there that I don't have on ignore (and obviously the OP is replying to one of the chumps - I don't waste my time with Bobby). The question? Did anyone directly ask Comey why, considering the subject matter of the hearing, he found it necessary to intervene in the election himself? The last time not long before the vote? And that it was very, very beneficial to Mr. Trump? Did anyone ask him, and if so, did he give a reply other than, "I can't discuss that, etc.?"
I start with what the evidence shows. I get that some people won't like that, because partisanship but that's not my problem. If you know the law, and you look at the now publicly available evidence then there's no other conclusion to come to.
Intel leaders express regret over Russian hacking response http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecu...express-regret-for-russian-hacking-at-hearing
And this "intelligent" man is in charge of the FBI? Your "regret" is a little late, Mr. Comey. I have yet to see an answer for why you, Mr. Comey, found it necessary to personally intervene late in the election campaign on behalf of Mr. Trump. Again, did anyone ask him directly why he did what he did in that regard? Comey owes the American people an answer, considering how close the election was. Even with the Russians actively trying to help Trump win, it wouldn't surprise me if the last comments by Comey were what finally sank Secretary Clinton's election bid.
Clinton was investigated by the FBI. She handled it far differently than Trump and his administration. She actually went before congress for hours and testified. She interviewed with the FBI and was generally cooperative with the investigation. Trump's administration has been combative and generally deceitful in regards to the investigation. However, the investigation is still relatively early, so there may be more chances for them to cooperation, and there is reason why Comey was reluctant to answer a lot of the specifics. Trump's claim about Obama tapping his phones at Trump tower has been shown false.
Pulling more **** out of your right-wing-echo-chamber ass. She did break departmental rules (and would have gotten a letter of reprimand in her personnel folder if she was still at State). She did not break the law since Comey (die hard Republican partisan hack) found that Clinton lacked the required criminal intent. Look it up or STFU. The truth is out there; it is just not up your ass.
You don't know what you are talking about kiddo. It's not "departmental rules" it's federal law that she broke. If you look the law up, you'll find that "criminal intent" is not required when breaking that specific law. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that "gross negligence" is the same as "criminal intent".....but it's cool, I'm sure no one told you that. Again, if you had ANY experience in a relevant field, you'd know better.....but go ahead and pimp out talking points. You just make yourself look like an ignorant fool.
Anyway, when you say that Hillary broke no law because Comey didn't suggest prosecution.....you do realize the flaw in that right? I mean, Comey never once said that she didn't break the law, he said that in his opinion no reasonable prosecutor would want to bring the charges. Given her political connections, he's probably right that many prosecutors wouldn't want to go against the Clinton machine....but that's not the same as her being innocent. There's absolute proof that she broke the law, it's not in question at all. When you say otherwise you merely show your ignorance and your political bias.
Why Intent, Not Gross Negligence, Is The Standard In Clinton Case The Espionage Act was left on the books, however, in the years after the war it was used only sparingly. When it was used, it was often controversial because it resulted in prosecutions that civil libertarians believed infringed on press freedom and the right to political protest. Perhaps the most famous of these cases is the prosecution of Daniel Ellsberg for leaking the Pentagon papers The courts too grew wary of the Espionage Act and as a result their readings of it narrowed the scope of the law and limited when it could be used. This helps provide context as to why James Comey insisted that intent was required to satisfy the requirement of 793(f). Even though the plain language of the statute reads “gross negligence,” the Supreme Court has essentially rewritten the statue to require intent to sustain a conviction. Now STFU.
That's simply not true. It hasn't been "essentially rewritten" by the SCOTUS, if it was, then the wording would have to change in the statute. Again, if you had ANY experience in a relevant field or ANY experience with classified information, you'd know better. Instead, you give me spin and partisan talking points.
Just so you know, I did read your propaganda article though. It's not an accurate representation of the law and it is talking almost exclusively about unrelated situations. Handing out fliers urging people to not register for the draft is in no way comparable to what Hillary did, neither is anything related to anti war speech. The naval officer example is a completely different argument as well, his argument is that he didn't know the information he mishandled was relating to the national defense.....Hillary can't make the claim that the information in her emails wasn't related to the national defense so that's not a relevant case either. I get that partisans REALLY want to go out of their way to make excuses for Hillary, but the truth of it is that she broke the law and got away with it due to her political connections. You're just going to have to accept that or live in ignorance. Your choice.
I love how Bobby believes he's an expert in clearances because of his enlisted job in reference to high level officials with completly different type of clearances. He is basically victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. He thinks he's an expert because of his low level experience.
