FBI publishes notes on Clinton's use of private email

Yawn.

At this point what difference does it make?

Reuters: July 1, 2050: according to the 500th Benghazi committee report there is no fault and case will be closed.

In other news that day: Republican party advocate the opening of the 501st Benghazi committee to determine fault.

Dead squirrel beating.

At this point what difference does it make?

Interesting. Liberals don't care about Hillary's corrupted lies and Conservatives don't care about Trump's rhetoric and I'm not talking the crooked Washington elite. This is truly a very investing election cycle.

There's a world of difference between violating protocol and breaking laws.

There's a world of difference between violating protocol and breaking laws.

I'm sorry, I keep forgetting, Dems and liberals live by a different set of rules from the rest of us, my bad.

I'm sorry, I keep forgetting, Dems and liberals live by a different set of rules from the rest of us, my bad.

No, this is the same metric for everyone.

If you want to claim that we live in different worlds however, you may be somewhat right - do you notice that the only one who has had an FBI investigation into using a private email server, something done by people on both sides of the political fence, is a Democrat? I guess you're right, Republicans do live by a different set of rules than the rest of us. But you always give them a pass.

No, this is the same metric for everyone.

Actually, it is, despite what Dems and liberals think. Put in the context of right and wrong, from that perspective, it's all bad. Either way, this is not looking to great for Hillary, whether it leads to something or not.

@blacksabbath

Yawn or not, the facts are building up, her time is almost up.

The FBI identified three email chains, encompassing eight individual email exchanges to or from Clinton's personal email accounts, which contained at least one paragraph marked '(C),' a marking ostensibly indicating the presence of information classified at the CONFIDENTIAL level

Her reply

Clinton stated that she did not know what the '(C)' meant at the beginning of the paragraphs and speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.

If all her supporters can see this and still claim she's competent, then all is truly lost

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/hillary-clinton-said-she-didnt-184617576.html

Strangerland: If you want to claim that we live in different worlds however, you may be somewhat right - do you notice that the only one who has had an FBI investigation into using a private email server, something done by people on both sides of the political fence, is a Democrat?

Prosecute all of them, go ahead. None of them appear to have done as badly as Hillary did, and none are in the running for the election at the moment.

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-republicans-who-did-exactly-what-hillary-did

It is all out there somewhere...along with the 13 mobile devices of classified information that she lost and the archive that was 'accidentally' deleted after being subpoenaed.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/09/02/hillary-clinton-s-team-lost-a-laptop-full-of-her-emails-in-the-actual-mail.html?via=desktop&source=twitter

A laptop containing a copy, or “archive,” of the emails on Hillary Clinton’s private server was apparently lost—in the postal mail—according to an FBI report released Friday. Along with it, a thumb drive that also contained an archive of Clinton’s emails has been lost and is not in the FBI’s possession.

The Donald Trump campaign has already called for Clinton to be “locked up” for her carelessness handling sensitive information. The missing laptop and thumb drive raise a new possibility that Clinton’s emails could have been obtained by people for whom they weren’t intended. The FBI director has already said it’s possible Clinton’s email system could have been remotely accessed by foreign hackers.

Hillary Clinton told the FBI . . . .that she was unclear about a classification marking on official government documents -- article

Heh, Mrs. Bill Clinton admits she didn't know what she was doing as SoS, but she campaigns for president as the "best choice with the most experience".

Put in the context of right and wrong, from that perspective, it's all bad.

Really? So someone who got a speeding ticket should be disqualified from being president, because speeding is wrong? And should the media be dedicating as much time to someone who got a speeding ticket as they do to someone who is say, a pedophile? They are both wrong, right?

Prosecute all of them, go ahead.

For what? Nothing illegal was done. The FBI has said that directly.

Fact-checking Juan Williams on the Republican White House RNC server vs Hillary's servers:

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/juan-williams/media-reaction-george-w-bushs-email-controversy/

Why is everyone picking on Hillary Clinton -- they didn’t mind when President George W. Bush’s White House also used private email, pundit Juan Williams asked on Fox News Sunday. ... "When Karl was in trouble back in ‘07, (there was) no press coverage, just about zero press coverage of this issue," Williams said, noting that he found just one Washington Post editorial criticizing the private email use. ...

... (fact checking) ...

Williams’ statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. We rate it Mostly False.

Hey, it's Labor Day Weekend Friday! A perfect time to dump out incriminating documents.

Really? So someone who got a speeding ticket should be disqualified from being president, because speeding is wrong?

Presidents don't drive themselves, they have drivers.

And should the media be dedicating as much time to someone who got a speeding ticket as they do to someone who is say, a pedophile? They are both wrong, right?

Are they both presidential candidates? Bill was woman abuser, didn't disqualify him from the presidency.

Bill was woman abuser, didn't disqualify him from the presidency.

Moot point. These individuals are so scummy they can not fail to worm their way out of the scandals that have peppered their names. You only need to remain objective no matter so called political leanings.

Presidents don't drive themselves, they have drivers.

Really? How do they know who is going to be president when they're born, so that they can ensure that the person never drives themselves, and has a driver their entire life?

And now that I've dealt with your deflection of the issue, please answer the questions:

Really? So someone who [insert minor ticketable infraction here] should be disqualified from being president, because [insert minor ticketable infraction here] is wrong? And should the media be dedicating as much time to someone who [insert minor ticketable infraction here] as they do to someone who is say, a pedophile? They are both wrong, right?

40-plus years in politics and Mrs. Clinton's only accomplishments are renaming a post office and being embroiled in scandals. . . .

40-plus years in politics and Mrs. Clinton's only accomplishments are renaming a post office and being embroiled in scandals. . . .

I wouldn't even call that an accomplishment. The woman can't drive, can't from what it seems to recall basic events, I think there is something seriously wrong that's impeding her overall judgement, scandals is a Clinton attribute if you want to call it that.

I think there is something seriously wrong that's impeding her overall judgement

Yeah, sometimes I wonder at people's judgement. For example, I'd question the judgement of someone who thinks that some stupid transgressions someone made at an early age more strongly define the person than the 70 years they spent afterwards doing actions entirely counter to the stupid transgressions made at that early age.

Of course, then if I found out the person didn't in fact believe that the person was defined by their early transgressions, and was just using it as a political point to smear an entirely different person, I'd most definitely have to question not just the judgement, but even the integrity and ethics of said person. Personally, I think that someone who would smear the honor of a dead person who has proven themselves to be a good person is not someone to whom any credence should be given on any issue. They have shown themselves to be of a lower class of person, an unethical person, a person without any integrity.

It would be clear that the judgement of such a person could never be trusted, nor could their opinions on pretty much anything, since they have shown that they are beyond ethics and integrity when making judgements.

The person who is smeared is Hillay who decided to call out a former (maybe) racist as her mentor, the liberals don't have problem with it, when a man from the same vile organization declares his support for a presidential candidate and because there was no immediate response, the accusations started to fly that the man is a racist denouncing him right away. He sould have done it earlier, but he didn't. So it depends, liberals think Trump is a racist and conservatives feel like Hillary is a closet racist. It just on what you believe.

when a man from the same vile organization declares his support for a presidential candidate

Byrd - spent 70 years trying to rectify his mistakes. Honored by the NAACP

Duke - still a member of racist organizations, hated by minorities.

Quite the false equivalence you are giving credence to.

Someone who would try to equate the two could arguably be called unethical at the least, as using such a false equivalence at the cost of smearing a dead man's reputation for a political goal would definitely indicate one has a lack of integrity.

You wouldn't be trying to say that Byrd and Duke are the same, would you Bass?

Byrd - spent 70 years trying to rectify his mistakes. Honored by the NAACP

Trying? what garbage, if you are repentant of your past transgressions, nothing to try, you do it, that's it. If you have to try to tell yourself you are not a racist for wearing Whiate sheets and believe in string up people, you have a serious mental problem.

Duke - still a member of racist organizations, hated by minorities.

He doesn't think so. But, he too, is scum and has a few loose, No big difference between the two, except that Bryd was in Congress, so that makes him a deep Washington establishment politician as well as a racist.

Trying? what garbage, if you are repentant of your past transgressions, nothing to try, you do it, that's it.

Determining one has properly availed themselves of past transgressions is not something one can do themselves. Determination is made those against who the transgressions were made. Therefore one can only try to avail themselves of a transgression, they cannot 'do' or 'not do', as someone else decides whether it's 'done' or 'not done'. Seeing as the NAACP publicly mourned Byrd's passing, and they are the organization that represents those against who the transgressions were made, it has been conclusively determined that Byrd did actually repent for his transgressions.

As for Duke:

while David Duke is no longer a member of the Ku Klux Klan, he is still an active member of another white supremacist organization, NAAWP: the National Association for the Advancement of White People. Duke, a prominent Holocaust denier (although he describes himself as a "Holocaust exposer"), also has a more-than-passing interest in politics: the former member of the Louisiana House of Representatives has run for the U.S. Senate, governor of Louisiana, and President of the United States. Duke has spent his life founding and supporting various white nationalist and white supremacist groups, while Byrd, by contrast, spent the majority of his life publicly disavowing and repeatedly apologizing for hisearly KKK affiliation.

Link: http://www.snopes.com/clinton-byrd-photo-klan/

Now you just said:

No big difference between the two

So just to be clear you are saying that Byrd and Duke are the same, correct? That there is no big difference between the two? Correct? You are really putting that on record?

No big difference between the two,

If you're getting all macro, saying they're both white males from the south therefore no big difference, I take your point. But let's pretend you're a journalist assigned to write an objective article on each man's life and how their political beliefs evolved, would you really be able to say no big difference after doing the slightest bit of research? I'm going to assume as a journalist you'd take a fair and balanced approach; not the FOX kind of fair and balanced, rather an actual one.

It's really amusing to read liberals defend Hillary Clinton. They have to play with words and tip toe around obstacles of scandals. Really ridiculous at this point to try to defend Hillary Clinton.

If you're getting all macro, saying they're both white males from the south therefore no big difference, I take your point. But let's pretend you're a journalist assigned to write an objective article on each man's life and how their political beliefs evolved, would you really be able to say no big difference after doing the slightest bit of research?

Having family in the South, I try not to generalize, I met more racists in California than in the South, now, I'm not saying the South is utopia and they do have their share of racists, but at least they're direct and in your face, California, all smiles and knives, I ran into more people that were hateful so I'm not going to go down that road of generalizing Southerners as being nutty racists.

I'm going to assume as a journalist you'd take a fair and balanced approach; not the FOX kind of fair and balanced, rather an actual one.

Well, FOX is fair in that both sides get a fair shot a speaking, msnbc or CNN good luck trying to listen to anything conservatives or independents and libertarians have to say. But yes, I do believe in fairness.

https://foia.state.gov/searchapp/documents/hrc_ndas/1/doc_0c05833708/c05833708.pdf

-Hillary signed the classified materials agreement.

@Bass No big difference between the two (Byrd and Duke)

Could you please answer this question?

But let's pretend you're a journalist assigned to write an objective article on each man's life and how their political beliefs evolved, would you really be able to say no big difference after doing the slightest bit of research?

hillary blamed her concussion on the memory lapses.

http://europe.newsweek.com/hillary-clinton-concussion-fbi-report-495401?utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=yahoo_news&utm_campaign=rss&utm_content=/rss/yahoous/news&yptr=yahoo

I can't wait for her to do something really damning and blame that willy concussion again. Does this individual ever not rake responsibility for her actions?? How can anyone with sane mind still want to have this clearly imbalanced individual have one hand on the red button? How??

This is short but interesting: "Guy Benson on 'breathtaking' revelations in FBI report"

At this point how can anyone vote for Hillary? If you can't bring yourself to vote for Trump, then vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or whoever. Anyone but "Too Big For Prison" Clinton.

This is what we may be seeing in the WH in a few months!? Disgusting. What choices are there? This is the person that the world will look up to for world leadership!? Can she lead? She has an attitude. Power-Hungry. America, quo vadis?

At this point how can anyone vote for Hillary? If you can't bring yourself to vote for Trump, then vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or whoever. Anyone but "Too Big For Prison" Clinton.

We can turn this around as well. If you can't bring yourself to vote for Hillary, then vote for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson or whoever. Anyone but “Racist, bigmouth, no policy, fraudulent, etc " Trump.

@nadaku You're only affirming his point. She's flat out made a mockery of justice. Anyone else that would have done half of wat she did would be rotting in a small prison. Think about that.

Says who? You? Yes, she made mistakes, but who hasn't ? But people in glass ouses..... Trump university, Trump models, bankruptcies and on and on it goes. So maybe think twice before you post something like that again.

I thought the person in charge took responsibility for everything good and bad? Not with the Clintons - they take it for "good" and deflect it for "bad." That's leadership!

FBI is dumb as rocks if they believed that. Oh, wait, Comey did!

http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-fbis-clinton-file-1472856453

The FBI’s Clinton File

Vanishing digital devices, memory lapses and withheld emails.

... For example, Mrs. Clinton told the FBI that she “did not know” that the “(C)” marks on classified material meant classified and “speculated it was referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.” Yet in her famous—and last—press conference about the emails in March 2015 she said, “I’m certainly well aware of the classification requirements and did not send classified material.” To the public she claims to be a sharp professional who knows the score; to the FBI she presents herself as a clueless grandee who left the details to her minions. ...

“Racist, bigmouth, no policy, fraudulent, etc " Trump."

I'll give you bigmouth ( meaning he's not politically correct, which is what the vast majority of Americans want at this point ), but the rest is not true.

"Clinton said she was unfamiliar with the meaning of the letter “c’’ next to a paragraph and speculated that it might be “referencing paragraphs marked in alphabetical order.”

No. It's not a lowercase "c" but [C] which anyone who has ever had a security clearance knows that in messages it means Classified. Unless the person is a complete idiot thinning that every paragraph preceded by a parenthetical C indicates an alphabetical order in which there are no "A" "B" "D" "E", etc. Lies on top of lies, obfuscating a web of lies. The true idiots are those who believe her.