- Comey made the point in his original statement that any "reasonable person in Clinton's position" would have (or should have) understood that the emails she was sending contained classified information.
- Comey made the point in his original statement that any "reasonable person in Clinton's position" would have (or should have) understood that her unauthorized server was not the place to have these correspondences.
- Comey made the point that despite the reasonable person argument he made, he could not bring a case against Clinton, because he could not prove that "she" knew she was sending classified information on an unauthorized system. According to Comey, she was not "sophisticated" enough to understand the classification system. I quote: “One of the things I’ve learned is that the secretary may not be as sophisticated as people would assume”
 |
But perhaps Comey is correct. After all, none of us spent the past several months, millions of dollars, and thousands of man hours investigating her behavior while at the State Department. I mean, if we are really being serious about her political life, doesn't it sort of make sense? Remember the joke that was Hillary care? Remember her accomplishments as Senator (of course not, there were none). Secretary of State? The Benghazi fiasco, the failed Libya policy, the disaster that was the Russian reset. How many times has she stepped right into giant piles of scandalized dog shit? She is, for all practical purposes, a political fuck up that rivals Gilligan from Gillian's Island.
Maybe she is not really the evil genius some fear she is. Maybe she just isn't sophisticated enough to understand things that someone in her position would (or should) understand. To quote Forrest Gump.... stupid is what stupid does...
26 comments:
id Hillary Clinton lie?
To the FBI? We have no basis to conclude she lied to the FBI.
Did Hillary Clinton lie under oath?
Not to the FBI. Not in a case we're working.
Do you agree with the claim that General Petraeus "got in trouble for far less"? Do you agree with that?
No, it's the reverse.
What do you mean by that?
His conduct, to me, illustrates the categories of behavior that mark the prosecutions that are actually brought. Clearly intentional conduct, knew what he was doing was a violation of the law, huge amount of information. Even if you couldn't prove he knew it, it raises the inference that he did it. An effort to obstruct justice. That combination of things makes it worthy of a prosecution.
If you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document. Right?
Correct.
Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little "C" in the text someplace?
No....There was no header on the email or the text.
So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what's classified and what's not classified and were following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
That would be a reasonable inference.
I understand why people are confused by the whole discussion. I get that. But you know what would be a double standard? If she were prosecuted for gross negligence.
Did you get any political interference from the White House?
None.
Did you get any political interference from the Hillary Clinton campaign?
None.
This last one is from Rep. John Micah of Florida, who spent most of his time laying out a full-blown conspiracy theory about collusion between Comey, Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, and Loretta Lynch about this investigation. Then he claims there's something "fishy" about the whole thing:
Tomorrow we'll go back to our districts and we have to explain to people, in a couple cafes where I see folks and have meetings. They're going to ask a lot of questions about what took place....One week ago, former president Clinton meets with the attorney general in Phoenix. The next Friday, last Friday, Mrs. Lynch, the AG, says she's going to defer to the FBI. On Saturday morning I saw the vans pull up....Then on Tuesday morning...you basically said you going to recommend not to prosecute. Correct? And then Tuesday we had President Obama and Secretary Clinton arrive in Charlotte at 2:00. Shortly thereafter we had the attorney general closing the case. This is rapid fire. I mean, my folks think there is something fishy about this. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but there are questions on how this came down.
I hope what you'll tell the folks in the cafe is, look me in the eye and listen to what I'm about to say. I did not coordinate that with anyone. The White House, the Department of Justice, nobody outside the FBI family had any idea what I was about to say. I say that under oath, I stand by that. There was no coordination. There was an insinuation in what you were saying. I don't mean to get strong in responding, but I want to make sure I was definitive about that.
Good points, Roger. I'm now going to put on your section of the blog a considerable amount of "spam" from electoral-vote.com, for Ch would delete it and I think it should be heard on the blog.
And by the way, the first article that I will put there, "Clinton's Email Server [scandal] Not Going Away" does not please me.
Too stupid to understand when a document is marked classified, too stupid to recognize information that is implicitly classified, too stupid to understand how to protect sensitive information.
I've been harping on Clinton's "I'm too stupid" defense for about a year, and here it is out in the open. Cited by the FBI, discussed in seeming seriousness by attorneys and analysts.
This has been a pattern for Hillary Clinton for literally decades, where people around here were prosecuted, jailed, took their own life in shame, people whose criminal actions invariably benefited Clinton, yet in each case Clinton was too stupid to realize what was going on. This isn't hyperbole, it is not opinion - these are the raw facts of why Clinton has not been indicted.
I have two questions for people still supporting Clinton for President.
First how difficult is it for you to believe that someone can be too stupid to understand the various criminal activities that she is associated with (indisputable fact), and yet smart enough to always personally benefit from that criminal activity?
Secondly, if it's easy enough for you to believe that she is just the serially unwitting associate of criminals, and too stupid to be trusted with sensitive information, how can someone that stupid be qualified to be President?
If you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document. '
And a cover sheet, and a bottom sheet, and markings front and back to which pages have classified info on them. Something CH seems to ignore.
The only thing that came out yesterday was the R's did nothing but grandstand and demand another round of investigations. Howdy Gowdy looked and sounded cheneyesque which was not very flattering on how he tried to show up comey. Oh well.
She's a Democrat. That's all that matters. Evidence the Dems at the committee hearing. They had no interest in questioning Hillary.
The only real enemy is the Republicans.
Jobs +267k for June. Unexpectedly. More bad news for R'a
I guess for someone as "unsophisticated" as Clinton, a document isn't really classified unless there is a cover letter with the word "Classified" on it. Probably in 30 point font, and some official seal?
For everyone else, that's beyond naive.
The Republicans should demand that a prosecutor looks at the evidence. 60% of the American public now thinks that Clinton should have been charged, so why would they not look into it? And secondly, the FBI director acknowledged that the FBI didn't even look into lying under oath to Congress, nor anything else other than her intentions and the scope of the damage, so that alleged crime hasn't even been investigated yet.
Opie - the FBI director explained it in words that even unsophisticated people like Clinton (and her supporters) would understand.
The classified markings do not matter.
As he stated, any reasonable person in her position would have (or should have) known that top secret information about special access programs would have been classified.
Just that she was not "sophisticated" enough to understand what any reasonable person would. Apparently, as WP eluded to. She would have only understood if there was 30 font CLASSIFIED in bold red across the top.
Here on Gilligan's island!
If you prefer James... I can just go ahead and delete "all" of your messages? Can do it from the admin in about 30 seconds.
Opie...
It would be obvious to anyone that Comey's public spanking of Hillary Clinton was bad news for her... as was the cop slaying at a BLM rally... a day after she sent out a bunch of tweets supporting Black Lives Matter.
Whether or not the killers were associated with BLM or the Black Panthers or whoever... it's not a good corner to be in right now with the bulk of the country.
The classified markings do not matter. "
I guess they make the markings are just added for fun, right, CH? The argument should have known there was something classified in the memo, but you presumed she read them and noted the small "c" as required? I am sure you read every word of every email you get.. LOL!! Again your comment just reinforces to me that you are completely clueless to the process and the requirements. Sorry CH, you continue to act out of politics instead of reason.
Opie...
It's not me who stated that Classification Markings do not matter. It was James Comey. It wasn't me who stated that any "reasonable person in Clinton's position" would have known they were classied... it was Jame Comey.
It was also James Comey who stated under oath in front of Congress:
“One of the things I’ve learned is that the secretary may not be as sophisticated as people would assume”
Of course, what does the director of the FBI know about classified information, compared to you?
I guess they make the markings are just added for fun, right, CH?
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
is there ever a moment in your pathetic existence where you are not in full-on dumb fuck mode?
she was the secretary of state, for chrissakes. it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that in that position, every single electronic communication either sent or received, should be treated as with the greatest care until it is later determined to not be classified.
in other words, the default mode for ALL communication is the highest level of secrecy until determined otherwise.
and pleading ignorance to that fact should disqualify anyone from seeking any public office. most especially the highest in the land.
What if Clinton really doesn't have the mental acuity to manage two email accounts, or to realize that some of the emails she receives contain classified information? What if she really thought you used a cloth to wipe a server? It's one thing if she's just super crooked but sharp enough to avoid indictment, but it's far worse if she really is stupid.
So, have her handlers told her yet what to say now that black people are shooting cops in apparent retaliation for cops shooting black people? Trump issued a surprisingly classy statement and did so quickly. I understand Clinton will give a speech sometime this evening or something like that.
Indy - as of this morning, her twitter account and website was littered with support for Black Lives Matters and mourning for African American families.
Then something popped up on her twitter account a couple of hours ago. She now also mourns for the officers.
Is it wrong for me to question the political thinking of leaving up tweets regarding black lives matters, when it's still possible that some of their leadership was involved in (at the very least) providing the information to the killers?
Again... we certainly don't know that, and I wouldn't expect that to be true. But there are some realities that point to this being an inside job (as in someone familiar with the timing and route, etc).
Ummm... The rally was planned to end at Dealey Plaza, where there were a number of speeches given. That was no secret.
I do not believe any coordination with the BLM organization and the Dallas shooting. I could be wrong, or there could be some person within BLM that helped set it up, but the sheer strategical idiocy of the attack from an organizational viewpoint leaves me skeptical.
No one wants to take a swing at my two questions?
Anonymous wphamilton said...
No one wants to take a swing at my two questions?
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
well wp, i'm of the opinion that her supporters are willing to accept her - flaws and all - to retain political power.
is she galactically stupid? of course she is. but she's the candidate, and the one who promises to keep the free shit rolling.
once a person comes to grips with the fact that the democrats are nothing more than a criminal enterprise masquerading as a political party everything falls into place.
ironically, the net result of any action taken by a democrat is usually a handful of unintended consequences. and comey giving her a pass for political expedience is no exception. now defense attorney's have at their disposal the 'clinton defense.'
WASHINGTON
The FBI recommendation not to prosecute Hillary Clinton and her staff on charges of mishandling classified information will give those accused of flouting national security rules a new line of defense even as it highlights a dual standard in how senior government officials are treated, several experts said Wednesday.
FBI Director James Comey recommended Tuesday that no charges be filed against Clinton or her team for their handling of classified information while she was secretary of state, even though she was “extremely careless” in using a private email address and servers. Attorney General Loretta Lynch announced Wednesday that she agreed with Comey’s assessment.
Lawyers who specialize in representing government and military officials who’ve had security clearances revoked said Comey’s recommendation offered them a new tactic in seeking to rehabilitate their clients, especially if Clinton is elected president in November.
“I intend to use the Hillary defense,” said Sean M. Bigley, a lawyer whose firm handles dozens of cases a year involving national security clearances. “I really question how any agency can say someone is a security risk if the president of the United States did something similar.”
He added, “We’ve had people lose 20-year careers for doing less than what she did.”
Mark F. Riley, a former military intelligence officer who became a lawyer defending those accused of national security violations, said he, too, would invoke the Clinton recommendation.
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article88042162.html#storylink=cpy
simply brilliant. by letting queenie off the hook, we have now created an atmosphere where the mishandling of classified material can occur with no legal repercussion.
national security can now be perpetually put at risk, and there is no penalty for those who do so.
It would be obvious to anyone that Comey's public spanking of Hillary Clinton was bad news for her
No one implied that, only your insistence that documents were marked and that all classified materials were implicitly known. Something you say easily, but highly speculative pressuring all the mail was read. Sorry CH, your slip is still showing.
Over a hundred secret and top secret. When Clinton declared that NO classified information was ever sent or received, she was lying. Still is.
And, classified markings are obvious. I understand the reluctance to admit that a stupid person has scammed you. I wouldn't want to admit it either. But face it: the woman is stupid.
Maureen Dowd, of all people, really lays into Her Inevitableness in her latest column.
Still Dowd will vote for her.
And, classified markings are obvious."
If it was properly marked and transmitted. A "C" in the text is only interesting since headers, footers, front page and back pages were all missing. BTW, Dowd has been pounding the Clintons for years and her column was not extraordinary by any means.
Missing because someone stripped them out, when illegally transferring them to insecure email.
Stop trying to defend it opie. It's impossible. The best case you can make is that Clinton and her team simply didn't care and escaped justice by pretending to be too stupid to know better.
Post a Comment