American Politics

[kkck]

Why does it matter whether people were aware of it or not? The server existed in defiance of the FOIA. The State Department itself made the content on that server classified retroactively, which means whatever correspondence are on there, they have no business being on a private server. What administration would keep a cabinet member that was under investigation by the FBI? Remember, Obama still had to worry about being reelected back when all of this happened.

And even if we completely discard this entire controversy altogether, what about the Clinton Foundation? That alone should have prevented her from ever being a serious candidate for Secretary of State, never mind the Presidency.

I'd say it matters if people in the obama administration new about it because to begin with the implication is that they were at least tolerating this, if not worst. Would the administration that was tolerating this have kicked hillary out if a different alternative was available? What administration would keep a cabinet member that was under investigation by the FBI? Well, what party would keep a candidate that was being investigated by the FBI or for committing fraud? To me it does not look like the obama administration would have been quick to dismiss her if there was a real chance of her simply not being charged with anything. Unless her being investigated would have implied her loosing her security clearance or something thus being literally unable to do her job. Personally I would argue that whether she is kicked out depends on how far away they are from the election. If there is enough time then they likely would have waited it out until the FBI made a move. Otherwise have her resign so as to not damage the party.

I am not saying this should be dismissed nor any other controversy for that matter. However the fact is that hillary won't be charged with anything and even if she was there is no guarantee she would be convicted. Even the FBI guy said other people would face administrative sanctions, which while disturbing, does not imply jail time (at least as far as I can tell, I am still not 100% sure that is the case). So.... are people supposed to treat her as if she was guilty anyways even though the most the FBI could do after investigating her for a year is a 15 minute rant calling her a dumbass (and then some)? I do agree the lack of transparency in the foundation should make her unelectable though. Of course, the issue here would be that this year she is being compared to trump who is, well, unelectable.

 

[M3J]

It could lessen the fatalities in mass shootings, assuming that the person committing these acts wouldn't have a means to obtain an assault rifle illegally.

Shooting are only one facet of terrorism, so I'm not sure why you went down this road in the first place...

It'd be more likely to lessen fatalities than not doing anything about it, I am well aware about being able to obtain guns illegally, but it might mean it'll take longer, and they're more likely to be caught somehow, as opposed to getting guns legally immediately.

Because shooting is the main facet of terrorism we face in this country, from the Charleston church shooting to abortion clinic shooting (I wonder if Sharkbait supports this heinous crime) to Orlando shooting. To deny it otherwise is very dopey and bad. Bombs are rarely used, and because they're illegal, most people who get caught get in trouble. It's harder to bomb anything than it is to shoot, apparently.

I'm not sure what's going on with chemical or biological weapons, but I'm thankful it seems nothing is going on as it has not made the news... as far as I know. So basically, guns remain the biggest problem, and more Americans, especially white or right wings, use guns to commit acts of terrorism... far more than Islamist terrorists committing dastardly acts in this great nation of ours.

Focusing on Islamist terrorists won't solve the violence that comes from mass shootings as more mass shootings are done by non-Muslims. Focusing on guns and gun control would be far more effective.

Wat? How can someone say there's not an islamic terrorist problem here? It's not we're living in Israel or something, but in the 3 years since the Boston marathon bombing, we've had the shootings in Garland, Texas, San Bernardino, and now in Orlando, all carried out by radical islamic terrorists. (and nearly all within the last year).

Again, I wasn't specifically talking about acts of terrorism here. It's clear that gun laws are a big issue when it comes to school shootings, the church shooting in Charleston, or the one in Colorado last year. Better gun laws would have an impact, but they wouldn't prevent islamic terrorism from occurring, at least...or someone like Timothy McVeigh, as an example.


I'm not talking about the exact same people, I'm talking about those dead-set on committing acts of terrorism. If they're motivated to take civilian lives in the name of their cause, having an assault rifle or not isn't the sole determining factor in them carrying it out. No AR-15s available to them? Fine, they'll be like the Tsarnaev brothers and make pressure cooker IEDs and use grenades or something.

What was the common factor? Guns. If these terrorists can get their hands on guns easily, what's to prevent more attacks like these? Orlando was likely one attack that had nothing to do with Islam and everything to do with hatred of homosexuals, if not anger. And as bad as the Garland attack was, it's not like it was unprovoked. If the Muslims don't want Mohammad to be drawn, then why can't these people respect their wishes? It's just as bad as atheists drawing a picture of Satan peeing on Jesus or God or something.

I'm sure they'd reduce Islamic terrorism from occurring, at the least, as well as terrorism from Americans, right wings, whites, and many others. Is this not what you want?

THat is true, but again, successful bombing is very rare because the terrorists or their equipment get caught most of the time. But how often have terrorists managed to bomb US successfully?

What up with trump asking foreign politicians for donations to his campaign? He is even asking leftwing politicians.... Does he not realize that other country's rightwing parties could easily be well more to the left than the democrat party? Not that he has only asked rightwing foreign parties....I cannot even begin with fathom what is going on in that campaign....

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 5, 2016, Original Post Date: Jul 5, 2016 ---

It seems like hillary just had a couple good weeks. The benghazi commission failed to bring up absolutely anything new regarding the whole thing (although I am not sure if I should be looking for a 10th report at this point) and the FBI said they will not recommend an indictment (and lynch said she would follow the FBI recommendation).

Trump is probably trying to get as much money as possible for his own needs, possibly using deceitful ways to make people think it's for his campaign. His supporters seem to support anything bad or shady while eschewing others for doing bad or shady.

Who do you want people to support? Theres many excellent candidates in the Republican party that can appeal to what we need in America, Marco Rubio, Bob Mcdonnell are excellent future leaders of America.

You're hilarious. Republicans nowadays being good candidates or good leaders of America is hilarious indeed.

Can't really think of a politician that'd actually be a good leader or a good candidate, except for two or three.

 

[xi0]

@xi0 I am saying islamic terrorism is not a problem over there because it has to be compared with domestic shootings.

First off, at no point was I talking about domestic terrorists/white nationalists, etc. So I don't know why "it has to be compared". This topic came up because I took issue with Milly minimizing the importance of islamic terrorism as an issue our country and the west faces. I object to his notion that government/national security focus is a 100% zero sum game, and that because less people have a chance of being effected by it, people shouldn't focus on it. People on the left consistently bring up other issues whenever islamic terrorism is brought up as if national security is single-minded or something. It's counterproductive and nonsensical.

We largely ignore the reasons why someone does a mass shooting or any random murders.
For example, dylan roof was not charged with terrorism, even tho he clearly functioned like the guys you talked about.
He read propaganda material in the internet and carried out an attack.

Who ignores what reasons? Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wasn't charged with "terrorism" either, he was charged with murder, destruction of property, and using a weapon of mass destruction. Not sure what your point is here. I was never saying that there was a large functional difference between someone like Dylann Roof or someone like Omar Muteen. The nature of their inspiration is another topic entirely though.

Focusing on Islamist terrorists won't solve the violence that comes from mass shootings as more mass shootings are done by non-Muslims.

Who exactly implied that it would?...

 

[M3J]

First off, at no point was I talking about domestic terrorists/white nationalists, etc. So I don't know why "it has to be compared". This topic came up because I took issue with Milly minimizing the importance of islamic terrorism as an issue our country and the west faces. I object to his notion that government/national security focus is a 100% zero sum game, and that because less people have a chance of being effected by it, people shouldn't focus on it. People on the left consistently bring up other issues whenever islamic terrorism is brought up as if national security is single-minded or something. It's counterproductive and nonsensical.


Who ignores what reasons? Dzhokhar Tsarnaev wasn't charged with "terrorism" either, he was charged with murder, destruction of property, and using a weapon of mass destruction. Not sure what your point is here. I was never saying that there was a large functional difference between someone like Dylann Roof or someone like Omar Muteen. The nature of their inspiration is another topic entirely though.


Who exactly implied that it would?...

1. Pretty sure if people didn't focus on terrorism, there'd be a lot more successful attacks, as I have mentioned. There is no reason for citizens to want to ban Muslims or be super vigilant, especially given there still have been fewer deaths by Islamist terrorism. How many acts of terrorism from Islamists have occurred on our soil? The country as a whole should be worried, but not so worried. It's the European countries that should be far more worried, especially given the proximity to the lands where refugees come from.

Why wasn't he charged with terrorism? The fuck? Meh, whatever, at least he's got the death sentence.

Trump, his supporters, gun lovers, and idiots.

 

[xi0]

1. Pretty sure if people didn't focus on terrorism, there'd be a lot more successful attacks, as I have mentioned. There is no reason for citizens to want to ban Muslims or be super vigilant, especially given there still have been fewer deaths by Islamist terrorism. How many acts of terrorism from Islamists have occurred on our soil? The country as a whole should be worried, but not so worried. It's the European countries that should be far more worried, especially given the proximity to the lands where refugees come from.

Why wasn't he charged with terrorism? The fuck? Meh, whatever, at least he's got the death sentence.

Trump, his supporters, gun lovers, and idiots.

I don't know why you keep applying statistics to this. Of course, many more things are statistically likelier to happen, but that doesn't render the issue nonexistent. And I'm not sitting here like I know the solution either, but minimizing a problem by juxtaposing other issues with it just comes across as excuse-making, by many on the left.

My feeling towards this is that Trump or whoever the fuck isn't wrong for broaching the topic, the problem is their "solutions" and the type of reactions they almost certainly evoke from the ignorant. But even so, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

 

[GrySun]

I doubt anybody's watching or cares to watch, but if anyone wants to see the live disciplinary congress asking the FBI director Comey questions about his judgement of the Clinton case, here's the link

Some really good questions have been asked, and it's quite interesting to see Comey's response to them.

edit: not sure why the news channel streaming this is screwing around lmao

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 7, 2016, Original Post Date: Jul 7, 2016 ---

oh shit the questioning is getting extreme

 

[kkck]

I doubt anybody's watching or cares to watch, but if anyone wants to see the live disciplinary congress asking the FBI director Comey questions about his judgement of the Clinton case, here's the link

Some really good questions have been asked, and it's quite interesting to see Comey's response to them.

edit: not sure why the news channel streaming this is screwing around lmao

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 7, 2016, Original Post Date: Jul 7, 2016 ---

oh shit the questioning is getting extreme

Any new insights? I can't really watch it now.... It is a bit weird to imagine the republicans, questioning one of their own, in such an extreme manner though. Well, perhaps not so weird if we consider how pissed of they are. Funny how a while back republicans were about comey's integrity but they grill him when he does something they dislike (not that I am in any form suggesting this is unique to republicans though).

 

[GrySun]

Any new insights? I can't really watch it now.... It is a bit weird to imagine the republicans, questioning one of their own, in such an extreme manner though. Well, perhaps not so weird if we consider how pissed of they are. Funny how a while back republicans were about comey's integrity but they grill him when he does something they dislike (not that I am in any form suggesting this is unique to republicans though).

Quite a lot has happened. I'm not sure if you can call it "new insights", but several people questioned Comey hard. Many aspects of Clinton's incompetence was established, and several things were brought up which highly questions Clinton's innocence and Comey's judgement. We got high likeliness that Clinton is guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice.. And that the FBI disregarded both things in this case completely. A lot was said and I'd have to write far too much to explain everything(I'm watching it for a few hours, quite fascinating), maybe you should look at a recording later. Comey was grilled hard many times, there was yelling and emotions..

Republicans questioned their own? Comey doesn't affiliate with republicans anymore as he said earlier, and there's both republicans and democrats asking questions(btw the democrats 90% of the time changed the topic and talked about their life or some unrelated crap and praised Comey, completely wasting everyones time. Meanwhile most republicans made great and useful questions about the case at hand. It's a fascinating contrast between republicans and democrats who were asking questions).

Not sure about the rest of what you said. In this stream Comey was getting grilled not for saying something they dislike but because he's obviously bullshitting several times, and they needed to ask him the hard questions for him to admit any wrongdoings of Clinton...

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 7, 2016, Original Post Date: Jul 7, 2016 ---

Interestingly, Clinton could be charged with perjury which can result in several years of prison. Doubt it will happen, but perjury is definitely there.

 

[xi0]

It's a fascinating contrast between republicans and democrats who were asking questions

Is it really all that fascinating? Each committee has both Democrat and Republican members, and clearly Democrats aren't going to want grill him in the same way republicans would.

 

[GrySun]

Is it really all that fascinating? Each committee has both Democrat and Republican members, and clearly Democrats aren't going to want grill him in the same way republicans would.

Oh really? I thought they were all there for the same reason. Regardless of their political affiliations, they are all comittee members are they not? Shouldn't they all be trying to clear everything. After all, there's a reason Comey was called before the comittee. The republicans are actively doing what they're all there for, the democrats are honestly just wasting time.

 

[M3J]

I don't know why you keep applying statistics to this. Of course, many more things are statistically likelier to happen, but that doesn't render the issue nonexistent. And I'm not sitting here like I know the solution either, but minimizing a problem by juxtaposing other issues with it just comes across as excuse-making, by many on the left.

My feeling towards this is that Trump or whoever the fuck isn't wrong for broaching the topic, the problem is their "solutions" and the type of reactions they almost certainly evoke from the ignorant. But even so, that doesn't mean there isn't a problem.

I never said the issue was nonexistent, and I even pointed out that citizens doing their part is one of the reasons why we're safe. But focusing on terrorism from Islamist won't get us anywhere, will it? If we were attacked as often as France is, then I'd say terrorism is a major issue, but right now we're in more danger from American citizens who own guns.

Quite a lot has happened. I'm not sure if you can call it "new insights", but several people questioned Comey hard. Many aspects of Clinton's incompetence was established, and several things were brought up which highly questions Clinton's innocence and Comey's judgement. We got high likeliness that Clinton is guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice.. And that the FBI disregarded both things in this case completely. A lot was said and I'd have to write far too much to explain everything(I'm watching it for a few hours, quite fascinating), maybe you should look at a recording later. Comey was grilled hard many times, there was yelling and emotions..

Republicans questioned their own? Comey doesn't affiliate with republicans anymore as he said earlier, and there's both republicans and democrats asking questions(btw the democrats 90% of the time changed the topic and talked about their life or some unrelated crap and praised Comey, completely wasting everyones time. Meanwhile most republicans made great and useful questions about the case at hand. It's a fascinating contrast between republicans and democrats who were asking questions).

Not sure about the rest of what you said. In this stream Comey was getting grilled not for saying something they dislike but because he's obviously bullshitting several times, and they needed to ask him the hard questions for him to admit any wrongdoings of Clinton...

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 7, 2016, Original Post Date: Jul 7, 2016 ---

Interestingly, Clinton could be charged with perjury which can result in several years of prison. Doubt it will happen, but perjury is definitely there.

Proof enough the democrat politicians are shitheads. THough I'm not sure why you're pointing out republicans talking about the case while democrats are dicking about. If it was a republican candidate or politician that Comey was being grilled on, republicans would do the same thing democrats are doing now, if not lying through their teeth.

 

[GrySun]

Proof enough the democrat politicians are shitheads. Though I'm not sure why you're pointing out republicans talking about the case while democrats are dicking about. If it was a republican candidate or politician that Comey was being grilled on, republicans would do the same thing democrats are doing now, if not lying through their teeth.

I dunno, just talking about what I've seen during the stream. This is the first time I've even watched a disciplinary comittee stream. Have you ever seen the case you described or are you just assuming? Watch a recording, democrats really were acting pathetically here.

 

[kkck]

Quite a lot has happened. I'm not sure if you can call it "new insights", but several people questioned Comey hard. Many aspects of Clinton's incompetence was established, and several things were brought up which highly questions Clinton's innocence and Comey's judgement. We got high likeliness that Clinton is guilty of perjury, obstruction of justice.. And that the FBI disregarded both things in this case completely. A lot was said and I'd have to write far too much to explain everything(I'm watching it for a few hours, quite fascinating), maybe you should look at a recording later. Comey was grilled hard many times, there was yelling and emotions..

Republicans questioned their own? Comey doesn't affiliate with republicans anymore as he said earlier, and there's both republicans and democrats asking questions(btw the democrats 90% of the time changed the topic and talked about their life or some unrelated crap and praised Comey, completely wasting everyones time. Meanwhile most republicans made great and useful questions about the case at hand. It's a fascinating contrast between republicans and democrats who were asking questions).

Not sure about the rest of what you said. In this stream Comey was getting grilled not for saying something they dislike but because he's obviously bullshitting several times, and they needed to ask him the hard questions for him to admit any wrongdoings of Clinton...

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 7, 2016, Original Post Date: Jul 7, 2016 ---

Interestingly, Clinton could be charged with perjury which can result in several years of prison. Doubt it will happen, but perjury is definitely there.

How did it get to hillary being likely guilty of perjury or obstruction? Comey has not said hillary is innocent or anything of the sort. His point so far has been that other people under similar circumstances have not been prosecuted and that even if he recommend to prosecute the charges would be incredibly hard to prove. Wouldn't this fall into more of the same? She could easily say "I didn't know that was classified" or something...

He said that? The most I have heard was that the investigation was carried in a non partisan way and whatnot but other than that I have not heard of such a thing.

Has he denied clinton wrongdoings? I thought his point was that even if charged with anything it would be almost impossible to prosecute. Which is distinctly different from denying wrongdoings... His other point was that in the past other people had not been charged and the ones charged had criminal intent which in hillary's case would be incredibly hard to prove. Is this not the case?

 

[GrySun]

How did it get to hillary being likely guilty of perjury or obstruction?

How do you mean "how it got to it"? You know why Comey was even called before the disciplinary committee. They of course asked several questions about the FBI's recent-ish interview with Clinton and about the things she said, the things the FBI all did in their 1 year of investigation, Comey's reasoning behind claiming Clinton shouldn't be prosecuted etc. One guy asked Comey about one of her answers(don't remember about what it was), and they found out that she told the FBI a different answer than what she said under oath. He was asked if the FBI cared that she lied in court, but he said they didn't since it "wasn't connected to their case"... which is silly.

The obstruction of justice was about her behavior and total refusal to cooperate with the FBI, something Comey didn't admit at first and had to be dragged out of him with some questions. But again the FBI didn't see themselves very obstructed by her. I think, maybe the obstruction part was about something else, I don't remember that part clearly.

Comey has not said hillary is innocent or anything of the sort. His point so far has been that other people under similar circumstances have not been prosecuted and that even if he recommend to prosecute the charges would be incredibly hard to prove. Wouldn't this fall into more of the same? She could easily say "I didn't know that was classified" or something...

Oh he was thoroughly asked about his reasoning here, and Comey lost hard in the talks. Several committee members were brutal. For one, there have definitely been comparable cases and people were jailed, fined etc. for way less. And even if it was the first case of it's kind, leaving it unpunished because of it would set a very bad precedent. Incredibly hard to prove...what? It's proven that she had classified documents and that she mishandled them. That is a heavy offense and such a person has no business running America at all. Oh she did say that. You know, classified documents have a distinguishable "C" on them which lets the person know they are classified. Clinton has to have known it, since you undergo a training about it all when you are given such a high authorization and security clearance. But when Comey was asked he said that Clinton responded with "she didn't know".
Now here comes in the major point of logic used by Comey to say "Clinton won't and can't be indicted", which most committee members disagreed with and which is why they called him. For Comey it's important that "ill intent" has to be proven or she can't be prosecuted. Now, I'd recommend you to look at some recordings since several committee members debated and crushed him on that point. Bottom line: you don't need ill intent to be punished for breaking the law. This applies to basically every law there is, and it is in no way any excuse to free yourself from the punishment.
Oh and before you try and argue with all this above.. These aren't my thoughts, I'm just telling you what I've heard on the stream. It's much more understandable when you see the whole thing.
Comey tried to dodge questions and do a lot of mental gymnastics with every hard question, but he got rekt hard several times. My favorite was when the clinton foundation was brought up and Comey was asked about it, but he said "I'm not going to answer that question"..... That's the only question he outright denied to answer.

He said that? The most I have heard was that the investigation was carried in a non partisan way and whatnot but other than that I have not heard of such a thing.

Pretty sure he said it. You can look it up, should find some credible sources on it. Was rather recent too I think so maybe that's why you didn't hear about it.

Has he denied clinton wrongdoings? I thought his point was that even if charged with anything it would be almost impossible to prosecute. Which is distinctly different from denying wrongdoings... His other point was that in the past other people had not been charged and the ones charged had criminal intent which in hillary's case would be incredibly hard to prove. Is this not the case?

He is entirely on Clinton's side here, which is quite worrying considering it's the FBI director. It gets incredibly apparent after just a few minutes of listening to his answers. Well he defines it as "since she didn't know(even though she must have known it), she isn't at fault". I believe they said that there have also been several cases without criminal intent but that went punished. Btw I see you're supporting Clinton, but for someone to get a training on security measures and handling classified information claiming stupidity is obvious bullshit. And even if it was true, it just shows more how heavily incapable she is(which was also established in the committee...).

Oh and I remember that another thing became clear. Clinton gave classified information, which she knew was classified, to her workers who aren't authorized and don't have the needed security clearance in order to be allowed those files. That is a very grave offense itself, and the committee chairman even had to raise his tone in order to get Comey to finally admit it, saying "yes" in a very low sad voice.. So yeah, she gave classified information to people without security clearance, that's bad.

--- Double Post Merged, Jul 8, 2016, Original Post Date: Jul 8, 2016 ---

If you want to view the whole thing, it's 4 hours long, here.

Otherwise, someone will maybe make a compilation of the most significant parts over the next few days, not sure tho. Here's one of the fun parts:

Rep. Meadows R-NC: "On Feb. 4th 2016 Clinton said I never sent or received any classified material, they are retro-actively classified... you said there are indeed hundreds of chains that are classified. Those two statements, both can't be true. "

Comey: "It's not accurate to say..."

M: "Either you statement is not true, or hers isn't true"

C: "I can definitely speak to my statement, which is true"

M: "So the American people will have to judge whether what she said was true"

M: "Dir Comey, come on, and I understand the importance of those markings. You're suggesting she had no idea what a classified marking would be?"

C: "No, the question was whether..."

M: "So she's not sophisticated enough to understand such a statement?"

C: "I think it's possible she didn't understand what a 'C' meant."

M: "That's hard for me and the American people to believe. Wouldn't a reasonable person ... understand that?"

M: "That last quote came on Oct. 22nd 2015 under sworn testimony in the Benghazi committee."

M: "In the last portion of this, in your 3 1/2 hour interview on Saturday, did she contradict some of statements in private?"

C: "I haven't gotten through that to parse it."

M: "Can you do that and get back to the committee?"

Here's a rather good textual representation with times of some good parts I've found. Beware, it's kinda long. Then again it's still faster to read than watching 4+ hours, although watching it feels much better.

• 10:07am – Committee Chairman Jason (R) tearing Comey apart in his opening speech. Has Comey set a precedent for future cases where a failure to find criminal intent is equal to innocence?
  
  
• 10:13am – Representative Cummings (D): "In a sense, you are on trial." Comey getting thrown under the bus. Cummings seems to disagree with this inquiry taking place.

"I would not be surprised if Republicans set up a new committee to spend $7mil+ to investigate why the FBI did not indict Hillary." - Cummings, 10:16am

"There is a percieved gap between the things you said on Tuesday and your recommendation. In this critical moment, I beg you to fill the gap. When the gap is not filled by you, it will be filled by others." - Cummings, 10:17am

• 10:19am – Committee Chairman says he'll open a case to reinvestigate General Petraeus.
  
  
• 10:20am – James Comey swearing in his testimony before speaking.

"We don't want to put people in jail unless they knew they were doing something they shouldn't do." - Comey, 10:22am

• 10:26am – Was the server authorized or unauthorized?

Comey hesitates. "It was unauthorized to send classified information."

10:27am – Did Hillary lie? Do you need a referral to investigate Hillary's perjury under oath?

Comey says yes. "You'll have it within a few hours." – Chaffetz, 10:27am

• 10:28am – Would the FBI hire Hillary Clinton? Comey says he doesn't do hypotheticals.
  
  
• 10:31am – Do you really believe there should be no consequence for Hillary?
  
  
• 10:32am – Cummings mentions Petraeus. "If she isn't indicted, then the Democrats are protecting her. Look at General Petraeus." Cummings asks Comey to talk about Petraeus' case. Comey mentions Petraeus lying to investigators and how that's obstruction of justice – cue future question about Hillary's obstruction of justice.
  
  
• 10:37am – Clinton said there was nothing classified sent. Was that true? Comey says no.
  
  
• 10:38am – Trey Gowdy (R) asks series of true/false questions comparing Clinton's statements to Comey. Comey's answer conflicts with all of them.

"In the interest of time, I'm not going to go through any more false statements. False exculpatory statements are used for what?" - Gowdy, 10:38am

"For criminal prosecution" - Comey, 10:39am

• 10:41am – "You say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You and I both know intent is inherently difficult to prove." Gowdy concludes, "You mentioned there is no precedent of criminal prosecution. There is nothing to keep a future SoS or POTUS from this exact same thing."
  
  
• 10:43am – Gowdy asks Comey to help the average person understand why Clinton is treated differently.
  
  
• 10:44am – Maloney (D) asks if Comey's investigation was steeped in political bias. "No."
  
  
• 10:46am – Maloney asks if Comey planned the announcement timing to coincide with Obama/Clinton campaigning together. Comey says it was on his own doing.
  
  
• 10:49am – Jim Jordan (R) asks about 'the context of a person's actions'. Tell us what consider the context means.

"I did not mean to consider political context." – Comey, 10:51am

• 10:51am – Jim Jordan mentions that Clinton lawyers decided to filter which emails the FBI got to see. They deleted all emails which did not get sent to the FBI. "That sounds like a fancy way of saying that they hid the evidence. That seems to me to provide context here. Did Secretary Clinton know her legal team deleted those emails?" Comey says he doesn't think so.

"Do you see how someone could view the context of what she did – she owned it and controlled it, and then when they got caught, they scrubbed their devices – do you see how someone could interpret that?" – Jordan, 10:53am

• 10:54am – Eleanor Norton (D), another Democrat, discusses the bipartisanship of this hearing and why they often don't accomplish anything. This inquiry seems to alternate Republicans throwing savage questions at Comey with Democrats discussing why Republicans are being unfair.
  
  
• 10:57am – Norton still rambling. If she's asked a question, it's too convoluted for anyone to understand.

"The root of the problem is people using unclassified systems to conduct business that is classified." – Comey, 10:59am

• 11:00am – Desantis (R) ties the previous quote to how this impacts national security. "What consequences would affect someone in the FBI that defies these protocols?"
  
  
• 11:01am – Desantis: "Would you allow someone to work at the FBI if someone was extremely careless?" Comey skirts around the question.
  
  
• 11:01am – "Would extreme carelessness and mishandling information expose an individual to termination?" Comey says yes.
  
  
• 11:02am – Questions about the Blackberry and why mobile phones are vulnerable when overseas.
  
  
• 11:03am – Questions about who initiated top-secret conversations. Most convos were aide-started, Comey says, but one top secret conversation was started by Clinton.
  
  
• 11:03am – Desantis asks about the NDA.

"Was the reason she set up the private server to shield herself from the NDA and from the public?" – Desantis, 11:05am

Comey says he can't say for sure.

• 11:05am – "Isn't she an original classification authority?" Comey says yes. Desantis shakes his head and yields.
  
  
• 11:06am – Copy of Clinton's NDA is mentioned.
  
  
• 11:06am – Clay (D) up for bat. Can you guess his topic? Bipartisanship and how Republicans are bad!
  
  
• 11:06am – Clay: Did Secretary Clinton intentionally violate federal law?

"We didn't develop evidence of that." – Comey, 11:08am, not actually saying yes or no

• 11:08am – Clay asking about white genocide groups ... ?
  
  
• 11:10am – Clay lashing out at Trump for tweeting @WhiteGenocideTM. I thought we were talking about Clinton?
  
  
• 11:11am – Wyoming Representative Lummis (R) mentions Title 18, US Code 24 regarding possession of classification material and knowing removal of documents. How was Clinton an attorney, and SoS, and not been aware of this law?

"The gov't has to prove that we did it and that we knew were doing something that was unlawful." – Comey, 11:14am

Lummis fires back with a re-reading of Code 24 and how it's simply "the intent to retain materials in an unauthorized location."

• 11:15am – Comey sticks to his guns that people have to know they were breaking the law.
  
  
• 11:15am – Did Clinton's attorneys have security clearance? Comey says no.
  
  
• 11:16am – Lummis is on a roll! "They destroyed 30,000 emails."

We've now concluded, using Comey testimony and US Code 24, that Clinton's attorneys knowingly viewed and destroyed classified material without security clearance. If there was anything to gain from this investigation, this is the silver bullet.

• 11:18am – Democrat talks about Colin Powell.
  
  
• 11:22am – Mark Meadows (R): "I'm going to focus on the things that you said, not the conclusion that you drew." Proceeds to read Clinton testimony about whether classified material was on the server, and Comey's statement. "Both statements cannot be true."

"So she did not tell the truth during that presidential debate? ... Both statements cannot be true." – Meadows, 11:24am

Comey says his statement is true. Meadows concludes that Clinton's must not be true.

• 11:24am – Another comparison of statements, regarding portion markings of classified documents.

"Wouldn't a reasonable person – a former Senator, a SOS – know the importance of these markings?" – Meadows, 11:25am

Comey says yes, but "after this investigation, he's not so sure."

• 11:25am – Meadows: "So you're saying this former SoS is not sophisticated enough to understand this classified marking?"
  
  
• 11:26am – Meadows reveals that his 'reasonable person' quote comes from the Benghazi testimony under oath.
  
  
• 11:27am – Meadows: "Did she change her testimony with you last Saturday?" Comey says he hasn't done that analysis at this point but he'll get back to him.
  
  
• 11:28am – Another Democrat talking about how unfair this is.
  
  
• 11:33am – Cummings asks a few quick questions about markings.
  
  
• 11:33am – Nettles (R) asks about attorneys cleaning their devices in such a way to "occlude complete forensic recovery".

"Do you realize that great numbers of people felt that you presented such a strong case that they were shocked when you let her off?" – Nettles, 11:36am

"We went at this very hard to see if we could make a case." – Comey, 11:36am

"Do you feel that there's different standards for the Clintons?" – Nettles, 11:36am

"I've heard that a lot." – Comey, 11:36am

• 11:37am – Comey asked to explain gross negligence vs extreme carelessness.

"There's no way anybody at the DOJ will bring a case of gross negligence for the 2nd time in 100 years." – Comey, 11:39am

• 11:39am – Conley (D) asks if Comey is a Republican. "Not registered any longer."
  
  
• 11:41am – Democrat making fun of the use of the word 'exculpatory'.
  
  
• 11:42am – Did Hillary lie? "No basis for concluding that," Comey says.
  
  
• 11:42am – Was she evasive? "I don't think the agents assessed she was evasive," Comey says.
  
  
• 11:45am – "Who was protecting her?" Republican asks Comey. "Not much," Comey says. Important to know that the Republican speaking mentions himself as an ex-CIA officer knowledgable with classification types.

"What the fuck-all is wrong with you? How is this not a crime?" The Republican essentially asks.

• 11:46am – Comey reiterates that "there has to be evidence of criminal intent".

• 11:47am – GOP: "Did you take into consideration the impact that this has on precedence?" Comey says yes.
  
  
• 11:48am – Do you have a server in your basement? Comey says no. Does anyone in the FBI have one? Not likely.
  
  
• 11:49am – Do you think that pattern of behavior [continuing with the server] would continue? Do you think that there will be other govt officials with unauthorized servers in their basement? What are the ramnifications of that?
  
  
• 11:49am – Comey says there'll be reprimands for other people that do it.

• 11:55am – "Is this hearing unfair? Has it been unfair to you?" Comey says no.
  
  
• 11:58am – Discussing thresholds for intent as a requirement of mens rea.
  
  
• 11:59am – Did she know that she's receiving information on the servers at her location? Comey says yes. As SoS, she knows she's receiving classified material.

"She did, in fact, know she was receiving classified information on her server. I could not prove that beyond a reasonable doubt." – Comey, 12:01pm

• 12:04pm – Talking about records-keeping within the FBI.
  
  
• 12:07pm – Michigan representative asks, "What's your definition of extreme carelessness?"

"I intended it as a common sense term. Someone who should know better, someone who demonstrates a lack of care. So I think of that as real sloppiness." – Comey, 12:08pm

• 12:09pm – "So Sec. Clinton's statement that she never knowingly sent or received classified information is probably not true?"

"I don't want to comment on public statements." – Comey, 12:11pm

"She should have known not to send classified material. That is negligence. We can't act on the grounds of intent, which is criminal negligence." – Comey, 12:11pm

• 12:12pm – Questions about Comey's background in national security law.
  
  
• 12:14pm – Democrat trying to undermine the committee.
  
  
• 12:16pm – Starting to get dragged down by Democrats talking about Hamilton the musical.
  
  
• 12:18pm – Comey denies interviewing Clinton on Saturday. He had "five or six agents", and he didn't speak to all of them. She didn't testify under oath. There's no recording.
  
  
• 12:22pm – Comey wants to reiterate that his announcement was not fixed to coincide with Clinton/Obama.
  
  
• 12:24pm – Virgin Island rep is offended that GOPers are being mean to Comey.
  
  
• 12:29pm – Questions about Guccifer. "We were not able to conclude that they were successful." Did you interview Guccifer? "Yes."
  
  
• 12:30pm – If you had discovered hackers had gotten into Clinton's email, would that have changed your decision? "Unlikely."
  
  
• 12:31pm – Former attorney: "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." Speeding metaphor. "How can you say ignorance of the law is an excuse in Clinton's case?"
  
  
• 12:32pm – Why should any person follow the law if our leaders don't? "You showed that she broke the law but you couldn't prove it."
  
  
• 12:37pm – Questions about upclassification.
  
  
• 12:41pm – "There's nothing about this case that's ordinary... did Secretary Clinton comply with the department's policies and the Federal Records Act?" Comey said, "He doesn't think so."
  
  
• 12:42pm – There's a double standard of discipline. "You're not willing to say there should be discipline."
  
  
• 12:53pm – Doesn't it require intent to duplicate classification markings? Shouldn't someone down the chain be investigated if they clearly had intent? "Potentially," Comey says. Shouldn't there be?

 

[xi0]

Oh really? I thought they were all there for the same reason. Regardless of their political affiliations, they are all comittee members are they not? Shouldn't they all be trying to clear everything. After all, there's a reason Comey was called before the comittee. The republicans are actively doing what they're all there for, the democrats are honestly just wasting time.

It probably depends on what the hearing is about. The fact that it was streamed online and broadcasted on news channels gives an opportunity to these lesser-known congressmen to be loud and/or appeal to their base. It's an election year for them as well. 99% of the other committee hearings that are held aren't even paid attention to. It doesn't really make sense for a Democrat to grill the shit out of the person in charge of investigating their candidate.

If we were attacked as often as France is, then I'd say terrorism is a major issue, but right now we're in more danger from American citizens who own guns.

How much more often is France getting attacked compared to us? We've had 4 incidents involving Islamic terrorism since May 2015, France has had 5. Someone would be statistically more likely to be killed by an American with a gun, sure. But how does that have anything to do with whether Islamic terrorism is a major issue or not? I'm not really sure what you're even arguing about honestly. You see Trump and other elements on the right being "racist" or "Islamophobic", but nothing that is said by them invalidates whether what they're talking about is a major issue or not. It's the same with illegal immigration. He's said some abhorrent things about it, but it doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

 

[kkck]

I can't say i have seen the whole thing but at least on the bits i have seen and what i have read it really does not seem like he was pushed as much as you said. He basically stuck to what he already said through the whole thing. All the while saying in every plausible way hillary is an idiot ( which is awesome).

As for the perjury thing, that is already more bullshit filled than hillarys 9th benghazi probe. They could try to charge her with perjury but they would have to prove that hillary knowingly lied. Her defense is extremely easy: " i thought that was true when I said it". Honestly, we all know they won't be able to prove intent.

 

[GrySun]

It probably depends on what the hearing is about. The fact that it was streamed online and broadcasted on news channels gives an opportunity to these lesser-known congressmen to be loud and/or appeal to their base. It's an election year for them as well. 99% of the other committee hearings that are held aren't even paid attention to. It doesn't really make sense for a Democrat to grill the shit out of the person in charge of investigating their candidate.

Good point actually. That makes their actions understandable if nothing else.

 

[M3J]

I dunno, just talking about what I've seen during the stream. This is the first time I've even watched a disciplinary comittee stream. Have you ever seen the case you described or are you just assuming? Watch a recording, democrats really were acting pathetically here.

I didn't watch that, no. I'm assuming based on what you said.

And again, why would you expect them to come on strong and on the offensive against someone when it would hurt their party/Hillary?

It probably depends on what the hearing is about. The fact that it was streamed online and broadcasted on news channels gives an opportunity to these lesser-known congressmen to be loud and/or appeal to their base. It's an election year for them as well. 99% of the other committee hearings that are held aren't even paid attention to. It doesn't really make sense for a Democrat to grill the shit out of the person in charge of investigating their candidate.


How much more often is France getting attacked compared to us? We've had 4 incidents involving Islamic terrorism since May 2015, France has had 5. Someone would be statistically more likely to be killed by an American with a gun, sure. But how does that have anything to do with whether Islamic terrorism is a major issue or not? I'm not really sure what you're even arguing about honestly. You see Trump and other elements on the right being "racist" or "Islamophobic", but nothing that is said by them invalidates whether what they're talking about is a major issue or not. It's the same with illegal immigration. He's said some abhorrent things about it, but it doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

Four? And I'm not sure if the Orlando nightclub attack is an act of Islamic terrorism or if it's anti-homosexual terrorism. SOme sources say the terrorist went batshit crazy after seeing two guys kiss, but they also say he had an account or two on same-sex dating sites and frequented same sex clubs.

Saying stuff like boxing them in or monitoring them in is pretty bad, as well as focusing on them or solely on them. We can lower the chances of Islamic terrorism if we have better gun control law anyway.

 

[xi0]

Four? And I'm not sure if the Orlando nightclub attack is an act of Islamic terrorism or if it's anti-homosexual terrorism. SOme sources say the terrorist went batshit crazy after seeing two guys kiss, but they also say he had an account or two on same-sex dating sites and frequented same sex clubs.

Yes, 4. The shootings in Garland TX, Chattanooga TN, San Bernardino CA, and in Orlando FL. Two years prior to that we had the Boston Marathon bombing as well. Taking advantage of the lax gun laws in a lot of the south seems to be a new tactic with these guys, as planting bombs or martyring themselves is no longer necessarily in order to take lives or even create max casualties. It isn't like there's anything that's happened since 2013 to encourage gun violence over anything else, it's just a no-brainer tactic as weapons in these states are easily obtained. But even so, the only gun the Tsarnaev brothers had was a pistol, and they maimed/killed nearly 300 people, so I don't think the issue is as easily solved just by banning assault weapons either.

And why did he have intolerance towards homosexuals? He was under investigation by the FBI prior to all of this, and I think we all know it wasn't because he was anti-homosexual. The guy pledged allegiance to ISIL, and was associated with someone at his mosque who went on to be a suicide bomber in Syria. Do we really need to split hairs here?

Saying stuff like boxing them in or monitoring them in is pretty bad, as well as focusing on them or solely on them. We can lower the chances of Islamic terrorism if we have better gun control law anyway.

We could possibly see a reduction in crime period, but that doesn't address the actual issue. Not that "boxing them in" like what Cruz or Trump talked about fixes anything either.

 

[shionoro]

@xi0 Meh, i actually had written a rather long post to you but somehow it didnt get sent.
Anyway, then i will keep myself somewhat shorter:

Let me rephrase wha ti mean because i think we misunderstood each other:

I don't want to wash away the problem of islamic terrorism in the US by asking about mass shootings.
My point is that they are an inseperateable problem in the US. You cannot fight islamic terrorism in the US without fighting mass shootings, which quickly brings us to the weapon bans.

Islamic terrorists in the US work very differently from those in europe, which is the reason why even with a similar number of high profile shootings in france, the state of affairs when it comes to terrorism is very different in the US and france (or rather, whole of europe).

The only effective measure the US can take against islamic terror attacks are general measures against mass shootings, so focussing on the 'islamic' part about these mass shootings seems misleading at best.
You cannot completely shut down propaganda channels (unless you want to go the pakistan approach and ban youtube or twitter when you see fit), and you are pretty tough already when it comes to screenings and no fly lists.

Islamic terror in france, for example, is very different.
France has no problems with mass shootings. The only high profile attacks of this type were done by islamic terrorists and those had very close connections to the actual isis organization. they also have islamic ghettos and exceedingly many muslims who actually somewhat support isis or had sympathies for them
The yhave a thriving jihadi scene.
The same goes for belgium. The little belgium alone had almost doubled as many muslims going to war for isis than the US had, even if the US has more than 3 times the amount of muslims living in it.
The thing is that in those countries, the people who commit acts like that are not your run of the mill insane lone gunman (or a couple).
They are not disconnected, they are organized, they have a scene, they are reposnible for crime which was unheard of before in those regions and they have sympathies and hiding spaces among the muslim population.

This is all, fortunately, not true for the US. The US can combat islamic terror by just doing what it already does or should do against usual mass shooters.
While france has to think of all new measures to fight djihadism and to fight islamic propaganda which has a significant hold in their muslim population.
In that case, it is definitely appropiate to have a debate about islamic radicalism, it is necessary, because it IS a seperate problem which cannot be fought with measures against the general crime.

All in all, i find it dishonest if someone focusses on islamic terrorism in the US but ignores stricter gunlaws. You cannot combat one without the other (or other measures against general gun violence).
It would be, in my book, not dishonest if someone for example focusses on killings in the name of honour as part of radical islam (or rather radical mysogynist culture) while not talking about general domestic violence, because those types of crimes actually do function differently to some extent.