But her emails: Justice Department to review Clinton email case... again

You didn't answer my question. Instead, you posed a question back to me. That is not an answer. That is a dodge.

I'll ask you again:

Why are the words "Gross Negligence" included in the statute?

Why those SPECIFIC words?

 

Here's 4 cases (2 involving former Clinton appointees) where gross negligence was used by the DOJ in prosecuting those who revealed classified information.

http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/justice-department-prosecuted-4-cases-like-hillarys/

You're wrong. See above.

 

OK, I will see your wnd citation with a Media Matters citation (though it then cites recognizable sources if you are uncomfortable with Media Matters):

John M. Deutsch example:
https://www.mediamatters.org/resear...unk-false-comparison-of-hillary-clinto/205321

Probably can find similar examples disputing the WND piece...

 

Your article is laughable. Try again.

1.

Oh well, why didn't they just say so! Case closed! (HUGE eye roll).

2. The AP goes on to state:

Comey himself contradicts this in his own July 6,2016 statement:

3. Deutch Intentionally Created And Mishandled Classified Information, A Stark Contrast To Clinton's Approved Use Of Personal Email

False.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...hecking-hillary-clintons-claim-her-email-pra/

 

Not just False...Hugely, totally, unequivocally false. Nothing about Hillary's use of email this way was allowed. If you think it was allowed, please cite the evidence, and indicate allowed...by who.

What actually happened is that Hillary found out that Obama had a personal email server (I believe most Presidents have for a while, although it resides in the White House, not some random location outside of government), and said that's what she wanted. When told of all the security restrictions that would need to be placed around it, she declined...then went ahead and did it on her own anyway. So, really, I see two entities hugely at fault, here. Clinton, for doing it, and for whoever should have put a stop to it for not doing that.

Second, consider WHY Hillary did this. Not, as she claims, because she didn't want the inconvenience of carrying two devices. How many of you connect to both work and personal email from your phone? Do you somehow manage this despite its apparent impossibility, and without all the resources the SoS would have at her disposal to solve this apparently immense issue (which, btw, just involves configuring your phone to connect to 2 email sources...takes maybe 5 minutes). Look at Hillary's history. She has always been very protective of keeping prying eyes away from things she's doing. This goes back to the days of Clinton's Presidency. She didn't want to be subject to FIA requests, and government email would be. So, she set up a system outside of those bounds. Are you not concerned that not only that someone did this (and not just for SOME of her email, but for ALL of her email), but that they totally circumvented established procedures and protocols for doing so? In essence, she wanted to make sure that everything she every communicated was never subject to FIA requests...that it was totally hidden, the complete opposite of transparency. That doesn't concern you? If not...why not? Would you be so cavalier about it were it someone from the other party that did the same thing?

Now, given all this, and the utter failure of the FBI on this, and many other matters...does the FBI playing party politics not concern you? If not..why not? And would you be so cavalier about that were it leaning the other way?

Then, to hear the liberal talking heads trying to blame Trump for the ruination of democracy merely because he points these flaws out...yet being totally fine with the flaws themselves....is also very telling, and very scary. Essentially, this demonstrates, fairly incontrovertibly, that both the Justice Departments (DoJ/FBI), as well as the press, manipulate things towards a single party. Not much different than the role the KGB and party controlled media function in Russia. Is that really what you want? If so...why? And you really aware of the implications of this?

FWIW...yes, I would be against this if it were leaning the other way. It's flat out wrong, and very scary. Not because of the particular way it is leaning currently, but because of the implications of these institutions being behind the subversion of the way our government is supposed to function. If the FBI looks the other way for one party...who controls what that party is doing? What prevents them from doing things illegally?

 

Excellent post. The truth is starting to come out and it is truly scary.

 

Wow.... this conspiracy theory is crumbling. Embarrassing.

 

You know, you are right! Hillary should be investigated again. Go for it!

 

FWIW, this point I personally don't necessarily want Hillary investigated again. I would, however, like to see the investigation process investigated, as well as the various other complicities it seems the DoJ and FBI had.

Do you? If not...why not? Simply because you liked the outcome this time? What if next time you don't?

 

Because I don't have any issue with the FBI.

 

It's odd that a racist, mysoginist, ignorant piece of **** is in the White House trying to shut down an investigation into his activities that may well be treason and all you want to talk about is Hillary's emails. Why is that? The sanctity of the law?

Maybe it's just the torrent on wingnut press that is trying to create a false equivalency and a distraction? The GOP specialty.

Now, if you've got the time I want to show you a thread on Clinton Cash.

 

LOL treason? GTFOH. Seriously kid, it's like you are trying to get people to laugh at you. If there's ever evidence of Trump committing any serious crime, I'd be all for him being indicted on those charges. As of today, there's exactly 0 evidence that he's committed any crime.....but there's indisputable evidence that Hillary committed crimes and you don't want anything done about that.....so ya know, it kind of kills whatever credibility you might otherwise have on the issue.

 

IG report in 2016 found that Hillary violated the law

 

The problem with that tweet is that there isn't really hasn't been a case of corruption in the Comey/Obama/ FBI. So this person is presuming something that hasn't been shown by any evidence to even exist.

 

Ahhh, ok. So, are you simply ignorant of the various issues, or do you have no issues simply because they are in your favor CURRENTLY?

 

Didn't I post: "You know, you are right! Hillary should be investigated again. Go for it!" So... go for it. If you, trump, Gowdy, and all the rest of the trump defenders want to interview / investigate Strozk, Page, Comey, Mueller, Hoover, whoever... and can show reason, then go for it. Me... it looks like a huge effort to distract and discredit, but I'd rather have y'all exhaust all doubt than to continue this silly charade. So... knock yourself out.

But what has been already shown... no, I don't have any issue with the FBI. I don't even have an issue in what Comey announced just prior to the general election. You see, I support our law enforcement. And I want to ensure that country's elective process was not corrupted by trump, Russia, and any combination of. I also want to make sure the law enforcement and judicial processes that also protect me and my country have not been violated. I'd think ALL AMERICANs would also want this, regardless if they are "currently in my or anyone else's favor."

 

Those that dislike McCabe...

 

Interesting that trump's DOJ (which was very opposed to release of the Nunes memo) would have no say in its release...