Clinton's classified email errors due to improper labeling, says Kaine

Credit really needs to be given to Rupert Murdoch and his global media empire’s puppet papers and TV stations for keeping this non-story on the front pages. Murdoch's used his wealth and journalistic wiles (learnt from Huxley in Brave New World, Hearst, PT Barnum, Goebbels, etal) to capture and stupefy an audience that actually believes the rants of his employees like Hannity and O'Reily.

Murdoch knows his true believing, media-silo-fied minions want easily understood memes. He then has these repeated ad infinitum in his various media knowing that other rightist media will pick up and echo whatever he says.

Onto another meme, ‘Release your tax info, Don’.

The media loves quoting one poll as though it's the only poll out there. They do this to make it sound like it's a close race but, in reality, Trump isn't as close to Clinton in the polls as one may think:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Fixed link from serendipitous' post: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html

Credit really needs to be given to Rupert Murdoch and his global media empire’s puppet papers and TV stations for keeping this non-story on the front pages.

Because Liberals object? 25 years ago, liberals probably would have gotten away with it. Believe when I tell you, I do NOT miss the old days of one-sided media.

Murdoch's used his wealth and journalistic wiles (learnt from Huxley in Brave New World, Hearst, PT Barnum, Goebbels, etal) to capture and stupefy an audience that actually believes the rants of his employees like Hannity and O'Reily.

As did George Soros for every far left progressive radical cause. By the way, How is Hollywood and Maddow doing these days?

Murdoch knows his true believing, media-silo-fied minions want easily understood memes. He then has these repeated ad infinitum in his various media knowing that other rightist media will pick up and echo whatever he says.

Kudos to Murdoch, but most of this is coming originally from the AP and they're not the conservative bunch, but nice try.

"Tim Kaine on Sunday defended Hillary Clinton against criticism over her handling of classified information as secretary of state, saying she was unaware of the sensitivity of some information she exchanged over email because it had been “improperly labeled.”

Sorry, Tim, that's not going to cut it.

"In July, the Federal Bureau of Investigation rebuked Clinton, the Democratic presidential nominee, for her use of a private email server during her tenure as secretary of state from 2009 to 2013, saying she was “extremely careless” in her handling of classified information."

She's a walking security risk.

The latest Reuters-Ipsos poll has Trump with a 1-point lead nationwide, 40 to 39, but she could still win California and the Electoral College if the election were held today. Unfortunately, the next batch of Wikileaks mails are coming, as are the debates... oh my... Thanks a lot Democrats, we could have had President Sanders.

The election has come down to this - do we want First Dude Bill, or First Lady Melania?

@Bass I do NOT miss the old days of one-sided media.

I'm confused. I have read you claim many times that the media is 97% (sometimes 98%) liberal biased. Does your above quote mean you welcome the way the current media is reporting, i.e. that you're pleased with more liberal journalism? I have noticed a softening (using a reactionary PC term) in your opinions about war and also that you're showing more concern for the non-white population. That's good to see.

I guess scrubbing your server with BleachBit isn't considered obstruction of justice.

Thanks a lot Democrats, we could have had President Sanders.

Oh, please. Don't sit there and pretend you ever supported or even entertained the idea that Sanders was the candidate you supported. No one buys for a second this sudden and convenient reinvention of yourself.

Just like no one buys for a second this newfound self-identification of longtime conservatives on this site as "independents" when it became clear Trump was going to be welcomed into the GOP with open arms.

LFR, I don't know if you read Kevin Drum - he writes for Mother Jones but is an economist so not particularly ideological - a real show-me-the-numbers guy with a great sense of humor. His take on the recent release of documents I thought was very logical, and logic tends to prevail in the long-term (by which time, of course, we'll all be dead). I recommend you follow his blog.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/14-excerpts-fbis-report-hillary-clintons-email

Strangerland

Thanks for the fixed link.

Yeah, THAT's it, it's someone ELSE'S fault....yeah, vote for ME.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/09/14-excerpts-fbis-report-hillary-clintons-email

Just right off the bat this guy gets at least the points incorrect re: Powell (Clinton did set up a server for her 2008 run, not after becoming SoS), and no. of devices : she has admitted in interviews to having as many as four devices at once (i phone, blackberrys and a couple mini pad/phone). If he seriously believes that everything was retained as required he must be the only one.

Just right off the bat, this guy got it right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOOfwN0iYxM

"Kudos to Murdoch"

The man whose tabloid shut down after it emerged they had hacked a murdered girl's mobile phone and then feigned senility in the hearing?

No wonder Trump is impressing with his trash talk. If people say "Kudos to Murdoch", Trump seems almost decent in comparison.

Laguna,

Thanks for the link. You're right. It was a pretty logical assessment of the issue and at the end of the day, Clinton was exonerated. One would think, "What else is there?"

. . . but then we get the following:

W4TKGS: Yeah, THAT's it, it's someone ELSE'S fault....yeah, vote for ME.

It's astonishing -- as are so very many things in this particularly presidential campaign -- that there are so many voters who believe the sheer power of belief is all it takes to shape and remold reality. The reality is that Clinton has been cleared of wrongdoing. But it's not the reality folks like W4TKGS and the usual suspects want to hear. To borrow from Normal McDonald, they seem to feel they can make Clinton guilty through sheer tyranny of will.

I have to wonder what is fundamentally wrong with people that would lead them to not only openly disparage the work of career FBI investigators, but to also effectively call FBI director James Comey either a corrupt liar or an incompetent fool. But then again, that's precisely what Trump did, to the delight of his most rabid supporters.

Bernie had it correct. Enough with the damned emails. Enough with Benghazi. Trump needs to man up and meet Clinton head-to-head on policy. Although pitting his 7 policy papers against Clinton's 38, that might not pan out too well for him.

And I think that's the entire point of this charade. How to hide the fact that he's an empty suit.

"I guess scrubbing your server with BleachBit isn't considered obstruction of justice"

Laws are for the peasants.

"Just right off the bat, this guy got it right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aOOfwN0iYxM" ( Bernie: "The American people are sick and tired of hearing about your damn emails" )

And that was way back during the primary debates - but it never ends - it gets worse and worse as more information comes to light. Here's one Youtuber's comment: "This is where he lost the nomination, and all the Bernouts are applauding him for doing it." Yes, this was Bernie's biggest mistake, he should have gone after her on this.

"Oh, please. Don't sit there and pretend you ever supported or even entertained the idea that Sanders was the candidate you supported."

If you go back through my posts far enough you'll see I did indeed support Sanders over Trump, just like a lot of present Trump supporters.

LFR, I haven't posted much recently because it'll be the same ol' merry-go-round until campaigns shift into high gear later this week and discussion turns to - gasp! - POLICY! That's really all that matters as far as I'm concerned. Prediction: Clinton will hammer Trump both on policy and on character while Trump will stick solely to his "lying Clinton" schtick.

No wonder Trump is the first GOP presidential candidate in two generations to be losing the white, college graduate vote.

What is she running on again ? Not on trust but faith in her competence, experience and judgment ?

Like Comey himself put it “Even if information is not marked ‘classified’ in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.”

"Bernie had it correct. Enough with the damned emails. Enough with Benghazi. Trump needs to man up and meet Clinton head-to-head on policy."

Bernie is a gent and a rare breed of politician - he actually gives a s###. That said, he did lose.

As was once said of another, if you gave Trump an enema, you could bury him in a matchbox. He has no choice other than to drag it into the sewer. He's peeped out a few times in this campaign and quickly dived back in. Remember his babble about the situation in Ukraine?

I'm confused. I have read you claim many times that the media is 97% (sometimes 98%) liberal biased. Does your above quote mean you welcome the way the current media is reporting, i.e. that you're pleased with more liberal journalism? I have noticed a softening (using a reactionary PC term) in your opinions about war and also that you're showing more concern for the non-white population. That's good to see.

No, I'm saying, they're not fair at all especially when it comes to Hillary, but that's to be expected, I wouldn't expect any less from liberals.

It's astonishing -- as are so very many things in this particularly presidential campaign -- that there are so many voters who believe the sheer power of belief is all it takes to shape and remold reality. The reality is that Clinton has been cleared of wrongdoing.

No one and I mean NO ONE believed Hillary was innocent except for her supporters, let's just get that ou of the way.

But it's not the reality folks like W4TKGS and the usual suspects want to hear. To borrow from Normal McDonald, they seem to feel they can make Clinton guilty through sheer tyranny of will. No, she's doing that all by herself. Even a few weeks ago when she said, Colin Powell told her to get a private server, the man was pissed that she would drag his name into her lies. Hillary is doing a great job at making herself look guiltier than she already is.

I have to wonder what is fundamentally wrong with people that would lead them to not only openly disparage the work of career FBI investigators, but to also effectively call FBI director James Comey either a corrupt liar or an incompetent fool. But then again, that's precisely what Trump did, to the delight of his most rabid supporters.

Easy, Comey is also a Washington insider. Lynch was going to indicted Hillary after she was told by Bill to stand down and Comey didn't want to call the election either way and have the outcome on his conscious, I get it. But any other person would have served jail time or at least have their security clearance revoked.

Bernie had it correct. Enough with the damned emails. Enough with Benghazi. Trump needs to man up and meet Clinton head-to-head on policy. Although pitting his 7 policy papers against Clinton's 38, that might not pan out too well for him.

Yeah, but he was astounded when that Wikileaks cable showed that the DNP and Debbie Wasserman Schultz used every tactic to undermine and take Sanders out of the race. He seemed more than willing to know the details of that highly publicized info.

"Yeah, but he was astounded when that Wikileaks cable showed that the DNP and Debbie Wasserman Schultz used every tactic to undermine and take Sanders out of the race. He seemed more than willing to know the details of that highly publicized info."

But he didn't sink into a sewer spouting trash, hurling personal insults and starting Twitter fights.

And yes, Hillary e-mailsBeghaziunicornverseBernieJosefStalinByrdisthesameasDavidDukeROFL.

But he didn't sink into a sewer spouting trash, hurling personal insults and starting Twitter fights.

Nor has he wasted millions of millions of dollars or people's time on countless investigations that lead nowhere.

But he didn't sink into a sewer spouting trash, hurling personal insults and starting Twitter fights

No, but his supporters did, meaning in a cowardly White flag way or the cowards way, if you will, that's why most of his supporters will either stay home or vote for Stein. Sure, some will vote for Hillary, but as they do it kicking and screaming.

"Nor has he wasted millions of millions of dollars or people's time on countless investigations that lead nowhere."

And this is the man a non-partisan once compared to one of the worst butchers of the 20th century, Josef Stalin, while defending Trump's barrages of trash, racist-rousing and childish idiocy.

I dread to think what the partisans were saying.

But he didn't sink into a sewer spouting trash, hurling personal insults and starting Twitter fights

No, but his supporters did

So you are saying Trump spouting trash, hurling personal insults, and starting Twitter fights is ok because Sanders' supporters did it?

Is that the bar you think should be set for presidential candidates?

And this is the man a non-partisan once compared to one of the worst butchers of the 20th century, Josef Stalin, while defending Trump's barrages of trash, racist-rousing and childish idiocy.

I'm not defending him when he says something sensible, I never did.

"I'm not defending him when he says something sensible. I never did"

That's probably the best example of the mind of a Trump supporter I've come across yet.

That's probably the best example of the mind of a Trump supporter I've come across yet.

I wish I could thumbs-up that a lot more than once!

he writes for Mother Jones but is an economist so not particularly ideological

Being an economist does not exclude ideology. (In fact, most have ideologies, since the science of economics is dodgy at best.) And writing for Mother Jones essentially guarantees an ideology.

"I'm going to provide you with all the most interesting excerpts," he writes, which means that he will select those parts of the FBI report that support his position, and presumably ignore the others. Which is a safe bet, as very few people have the time or inclination to read the reports in their entirety.

That's probably the best example of the mind of a Trump supporter I've come across yet

What can I say? I was always taught to be honest. Now if Hillary and Obama were honest, we'd be a lot better off. But his departure is fast approaching (party time).

Now if Hillary and Obama were honest, we'd be a lot better off. But his departure is fast approaching (party time).

Will you still be partying if Hillary wins? Do you really hate Obama more than her?

This is just an attempt by the Clinton camp to try to make the email fiasco seem OK and "understandable." People shouldn't forget the mass deletion of emails occurred right after the Times story broke and after the preservation order by the Benghazi House Committee referred to as the "Oh..Sh.t" moment.

Being an economist does not exclude ideology.

Thumbs up on that, commanteer. It does mean, thought, that data must be analyzed and conclusions be based upon those conclusions. A vast majority of economists of any political persuasions will arrive at the same (or very similar) conclusions when presented with an identical data set (though there may be a marked difference in emphasis); their ideology comes into play when they recommend policy.

Kevin just noted that, even if Clinton had used an official State email account,

they're supposed to be used only for nonsensitive material. If you want to exchanged classified information, there's a separate State Department system. (Or you can do it in person, or over a secure phone or fax.)

This is what Clinton has been alluding to: She's in the loop on drone strikes, and her approval is required, so the idea that such a time-sensitive decision must wait for a fax is unreasonable - or at least she felt. (Word has it that most all of the so-called "classified" emails dealt with drone strikes). Kevin continues with his main point:

Bottom line: Whatever else you think of Clinton's reasons for using a personal server, she wasn't endangering classified material by using it. Everyone else was also using unsecure email, and they knew not to use it to send classified documents. However, what Clinton was doing was endangering proper storage and retention of her emails. Why did she do that? I'll have more about this tomorrow.

It is difficult to argue with his logic. Also, a sender must have a receiver, and as Kevin noted yesterday, there were only 13 at State communicating with her by email - meaning anything they'd sent (she never initiated mails) and anything received from her were automatically archived on their accounts. Loose ends could thus be quickly spotted - but there were none. Fundamentally, it's clear that State, along with most of the Federal government, clearly lags behind in computing and communications (they still use floppies to control nuclear missiles, f'chrissake!).

Sloppy? - Yes. Bad decision? - Obviously. Criminal? Well, please explain how.

Sorry, did you just say Benghazi?

Hopefully that dead horse you are beating will think you have some credibility, because you just lost any that you had among the sane world.

Benghazi. SMH.

There was a House Committee that grilled Clinton on the Benghazi issue. That committee ordered all Clinton State Department emails to be preserved. It was later learned that there was a mass deletion of emails from Clinton's private server after the order had been given. About the same time that the Times broke the story about Clinton's private server being used for official State business. I'm not saying there was or wasn't a Clinton Benghazi cover-up. Just stating the facts. Does the "sane world" dispute this?

Also, a sender must have a receiver, and as Kevin noted yesterday, there were only 13 at State communicating with her by email - meaning anything they'd sent (she never initiated mails) and anything received from her were automatically archived on their accounts.

Except that four of Clinton's top aides also used private email accounts for work related matters and then failed to archive them correctly, including Huma who actually had an account on the Clinton server. She should not be allowed anywhere in government. Sorry.

Will you still be partying if Hillary wins? Do you really hate Obama more than her?

To be honest with you, "IF" Hillary wins for my line of work, it would keep me busy, very busy, so in that sense-money wise, she's good for business and my pocket book. And with the mails coming and hopefully, they never let Benghazi and all the other lies she weaves fall from public eye until there are answers, no matter how long it takes.

Lizz, with criteria like that, all top Bush administration officials and half of that "deep bench" the GOP offered up last spring would be disqualified, and you know that. I agree that such practices should end, but for that to happen, government needs to catch up with the 21st century. "Willful disregard" and "malicious" are two adjectives that the FBI has deemed not applicable in this case, as have most non-partisans who simply want to get on with comparing policy.

Kevin also mentions that, when Powell cautioned Clinton on Blackberry use, Powell noted that he had deliberately avoided leaving any hard trail of the business he conducted in the same way (which would, ironically, likely have been construed as "willful disregard" if Clinton had followed his example), while she for the vast part did what was required by law - retain her official correspondence. That is why there are emails to turn over. Whatever happened to the correspondence Powell conducted on his private account? We'll never know.

Hopefully those emails washed from her server are still out there somewhere. Looks like the "sane world" does not dispute the facts. Very credible of you sane liberals.

Lizz, with criteria like that, all top Bush administration officials and half of that "deep bench" the GOP offered up last spring would be disqualified, and you know that. I agree that such practices should end, but for that to happen, government needs to catch up with the 21st century. "Willful disregard" and "malicious" are two adjectives that the FBI has deemed not applicable in this case, as have most non-partisans who simply want to get on with comparing policy.

Yeah, even Powell crushed that liberal farce.

There was a House Committee that grilled Clinton on the Benghazi issue.

I don't think that horse is as dead as it can be if you just beat it a little more. It will definitely become deader. Just keep on beating it!

Powell noted that he had deliberately avoided leaving any hard trail of the business he conducted in the same way (which would, ironically, likely have been construed as "willful disregard" if Clinton had followed his example), while she for the vast part did what was required by law - retain her official correspondence.

Wasn't Powell the first SoS to initiate a wall between secure government and private communication at the State Department ? Although it is irrelevant in any case since he was dealing with an entirely separate set of laws and circumstances, and hardly used email period, although I would maintain that AOL was very likely more secure than her private server. We also don't know how much wasn't retained, except that it was in the thousands, probably tens of thousands -- a despicable, pathological liar, thoroughly incompetent, or suffering significant mental deterioration, or all of the above.

Once again it is the House Committee that ordered all State emails to be preserved. Then expost facto the Clinton server was wiped clean which is an obstruction of justice. You're missing the point. I'm not concerned with what happened in Benghazi (that has been beaten to death). The violation and disregard of the House Committee order to preserve all emails is the problem when they were intentionally Bleachbit off the private server.

We also don't know how much wasn't retained, except that it was in the thousands, probably tens of thousands -- a despicable, pathological liar, thoroughly incompetent, or suffering significant mental deterioration, or all of the above.

Who, Powell? The one the GOP had tried to press into running for the presidency twice, in 2008 and 2012, only to be rebuffed both times? I'm surprised you'd say such a thing about him.

I don't think that horse is as dead as it can be if you just beat it a little more. It will definitely become deader. Just keep on beating it!

Doesn't seem like it. For once the MSM is doing its job finally.

Who, Powell? The one the GOP had tried to press into running for the presidency twice, in 2008 and 2012, only to be rebuffed both times? I'm surprised you'd say such a thing about him.

No, but Hillary laughably tried to pin her usual server lies on him and he fired back at her stupid lie.

Doesn't seem like it. For once the MSM is doing its job finally.

Millions of dollars have been wasted on Benghazi due to your MSM pushing the lies that something happened. And you think that they should waste more money on it?

So much for fiscal conservatism.

Comey is also a Washington insider. Lynch was going to indicted Hillary after she was told by Bill to stand down and Comey didn't want to call the election either way and have the outcome on his conscious, I get it.

Well you went from "the FBI can't be bullied so Hillary is finally screwed" to "the FBI is corrupt" in less than a minute, and the only thing that changed was the release of their report. I know that Clinton has been tried and convicted in the conservative media but in the real world it actually takes a judge to do that, and making up conspiracies with no evidence (from a journalist of 30 years, no less) isn't going to cut it.

But any other person would have served jail time or at least have their security clearance revoked.

Says you? Heh. The FBI said that they wouldn't press charges against anyone who did what Clinton did, yet the conservative media says the opposite, and once again Republicans choose to believe their media over judicial proceedings.

What's that smell? Has a Trump supporter just Benghazied again?

It seems to be condition stemming from a nervous problem. Don't worry. It's all in the head. Exercise might help.

Says you? Heh. The FBI said that they wouldn't press charges against anyone who did what Clinton did, yet the conservative media says the opposite, and once again Republicans choose to believe their media over judicial proceedings.

The smear campaign continues.

Now the left wingers on this site are attacking the first amendment as well as the second. Is there a Bill or Rights amendment that they like?

Now the left wingers on this site are attacking the first amendment as well as the second. Is there a Bill or Rights amendment that they like?

Alright, let's hear the Republican spin on this one. How exactly are we attacking the first amendment?

So much for fiscal conservatism.

I don't think you can put a price on catching a criminal.

Well you went from "the FBI can't be bullied so Hillary is finally screwed" to "the FBI is corrupt" in less than a minute,

Pretty much, it's a mixed salad bowl of corrupted....

and the only thing that changed was the release of their report. I know that Clinton has been tried and convicted in the conservative media but in the real world it actually takes a judge to do that, and making up conspiracies with no evidence (from a journalist of 30 years, no less) isn't going to cut it.

Conspiracies is what the Hillary supporters are calling it? Wow! The Uncornverse is strong within her clan.

Says you? Heh.

Says.....

http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-10-punished-less/

Yeah, the fix is in...sadly....

The FBI said that they wouldn't press charges against anyone who did what Clinton did, yet the conservative media says the opposite, and once again Republicans choose to believe their media over judicial proceedings.

So because since Lynch was told not to indict Hillary and put it all on Comey's shoulder, do you think in all seriousness that if he formally indicted her, the Democratic party would stand for it? The ONLY female and first, mind you! They Dems already made sure to take Sanders out of the picture. With all that, the man is going to indict this woman and for the rest of his life walk around with charging the first female presidential candidate?? Sit down for a moment and think this through deeply. There is no way he was going to have that rest on his shoulders and that's why he left it up to the voters and to a point, I get it. but still, the man lost all credibility on this case. But thank God the media has finally woken up to the constant lies and wriggle of HRC. I hope they don't let up and go for it as hard as they can for however long it takes.

Comey also acknowledged earlier in his press conference that it's a felony to "mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way." Which means as an employee of the FBI she would most likely have been fired, suspended, reprimanded, and lost her security clearance. But the American people should hire her to run the country ??? As the saying goes, "Who 's the bigger fool - the fool or the fool who follows him ?"

SuperLib: The FBI said that they wouldn't press charges against anyone who did what Clinton did,

When did they say that?

bass: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/hillary-clinton-email-10-punished-less/

By this point you should have the understanding that Clinton didn't knowingly steal or distribute secrets. I don't think that's ever been a point of contention between us. That being said, the very first example in your article is a guy stuffing classified documents into his suit. That shows intent, which is an entirely different type of case. You can read the FBI report where they specifically mention this.

What your link really does is show the conservative media intentionally blurring the lines between the very real differences in these cases. This type of planned ignorance is is just one example of why conservatives are so outraged and surprised that the FBI didn't do more. Had you read other sources, particularly ones that were more moderate and had people looking at all the real evidence, then you wouldn't have been surprised with the outcome. Now you're going to climb an uphill battle by presenting conspiracy theories to moderates, which doesn't make your party look good.

So because since Lynch was told not to indict Hillary and put it all on Comey's shoulder

But obviously there is no proof of this, right? Or else you would have included it. You are asking voters to choose between the results of an FBI investigation or your theory that has no supporting evidence. That alone should tell you that your success rate will be much lower outside of the bubble.

the man lost all credibility on this case.

In the mind of Republicans, of course he did. The conservative media convicted Clinton and the FBI didn't follow up with a real one. To people who believe Fox News over the FBI, he's probably being called a corrupt traitor.

SuperLib: By this point you should have the understanding that Clinton didn't knowingly steal or distribute secrets.

Based on what? Clinton's claim it wasn't done knowingly?

Moving classified info out of the classified information system is stealing!

Clinton claimed to the FBI that she thought the 'C' in classified or confidential emails meant a letter numbering paragraphs. So why didn't she ever notice the missing 'A' and 'B' paragraphs? And why didn't the FBI or the MSM question her on that? She really thought the paragraphs always started with 'C'? And you think she's bright enough to be elected president?

FBI didn't video or transcribe her interview sessions, let a witness (Cheryl Mills) attend Clinton's interviews serving as one of her lawyers, claimed head injury caused her to forget training on handling classified info and on records retention requirements (something she should have years of experience in), and told her staff to strip headers from classified documents and send as unclassified.

FBI's leadership under DOJ's leadership gave her a pass on all that.

http://spectator.org/all-the-lies-theyve-turned-us-into-a-rotting-banana-republic/

... Cheryl Mills, Clinton’s chief of staff at the State Department, had to have participated in sending classified material to Clinton on her private and unsecured “clintonemail.com” email system. Yet when the FBI questioned Clinton, Mills was permitted to attend as one of Clinton’s lawyers. That is not only unethical under the Bar’s unenforced ethics standards, but obviously a huge violation of the most elementary of FBI procedures that requires witnesses — and possible suspects — to be questioned separately in isolation from one another.

Clinton told the FBI that she relied on others’ judgment in sending her sensitive information on the unsecured email system. She also claimed that as a result of a head injury she didn’t recall key events such as being trained by the State Department on handing classified information or retaining records in accordance with federal law.

Clinton, as a U.S. senator, served on the Armed Services Committee from 2003 to 2009. She was a member of three subcommittees, including the Subcommittee on Emerging Threats and Capabilities. In that capacity, she would have been instructed on how to handle highly-classified information and a great deal of it would have passed through her hands. She would have had many occasions to handle it and to transmit it among her colleagues and staff and executive branch officials. Further training by the State Department would have been unnecessary for her to know how such information had to be protected against disclosure.

Clinton’s obvious lie was one of many she told the FBI. Let’s remember that on at least one occasion, she told her State Department staff to remove the classified markings on some material and send it “in the clear” on an unsecured channel — her private email system. ...

Bass,

So much for fiscal conservatism.

I don't think you can put a price on catching a criminal.

The cutsie platitude doesn't diminish the fact that Clinton's actions were found to be -- again in fact based on an impartial, professional investigation -- decidedly not criminal.

The absolute arrogance and titanic brass ones it takes for you to decide you know law better than James Comey and a team of career FBI agents.

You were wrong about Benghazi and you're wrong about the emails. How many more times do you have to be wrong for it to finally stick?

If you want to piss and moan about Clinton, then do so about her actual proposed policies and platforms. But this endless effort to manufacture scandal after scandal after scandal in lieu of reasoned and measured adult debate on actual'issues affecting the nation is pathetic and weak on so many levels.

As the saying goes, "Who 's the bigger fool - the fool or the fool who follows him ?"

Are you sure that as a Trump supporter, you really want to be making comments like that?

I don't think you can put a price on catching a criminal.

If there is anything Benghazi has shown us, it's that Republicans are willing to waste as much money as they need to in order run the smear campaign. Wasting taxes that is. While complaining about taxes.

By this point you should have the understanding that Clinton didn't knowingly steal or distribute secrets.

You and every other Hillary supporter can believe that lie, the rest of the country doesn't and the polls show it.

What your link really does is show the conservative media intentionally blurring the lines between the very real differences in these cases.

Sorry, but it's not only the conservative media that is trying to get to the bottom of this, again, the Hillarybots can believe that mystical myth if they choose to.

The cutsie platitude doesn't diminish the fact that Clinton's actions were found to be -- again in fact based on an impartial, professional investigation -- decidedly not criminal. The absolute arrogance and titanic brass ones it takes for you to decide you know law better than James Comey and a team of career FBI agents.

I don't know more than Comey, but I do know and can smell BS a mile away. Listen, if everyone believed Hillary, her likability numbers wouldn't be this far in the abyss-period, but she has one of the worst untrustworthy numbers of a career presidential candidate EVER. But as I say, libs just want to believe whatever they want, but everyone else knows if what she did was done by anyone else, ANYONE else, they're career would be over.

You were wrong about Benghazi and you're wrong about the emails. How many more times do you have to be wrong for it to finally stick?

No, not wrong. I know the Clinton's for over 35 years and they always had problems with the truth, both of them. I believe the families, the men that tried to save the Ambassador and the Libyan PM. I just hope and pray, the media, the families and conservatives never give up on this whether she's president or not, retired or not or at the final moments of her last days. They should pursue the truth inexhaustibly. It's not about moaning, it's about justice for the families and I wouldn't care what party you belong to.

Listen, if everyone believed Hillary, her likability numbers wouldn't be this far in the abyss-period, but she has one of the worst untrustworthy numbers of a career presidential candidate EVER.

No thanks to horse-puckey inspired "investigations" spearheaded by folks in the GOP who, when they realized they could never win on the quality of their own candidates, opted for the tabloid approach to bringing down an opponent.

The relentless drumbeat of what a supposedly unlikeable, untrustworthy candidate is -- sans actual proof -- coupled with attacks on her health, her hair, her laugh, her choice of clothing, her decision to not divorce her husband -- DESPITE conservatives still passing around that old chestnut that they are the emodiment of the sanctity of marriage in America -- bears all the hallmarks of desperation giving way to a mean-spirited, almost pathological hatred of Clinton. This irrational hatred -- and it is irrational when you find yourselves continuously doing mental acrobatics to explain away the results of two federal investigations into Clinton that came up empty -- this irrational hatred ultimately speaks, I suspect, more to unaddressed self-loathing among conservatives than to any faults Clinton might have, real or imagined.

No thanks to horse-pucker inspired "investigations" spearheaded by folks in the GOP who, when they realized they could never win on the quality of their own candidates, opted for the tabloid approach to bringing down an opponent.

Hillary and Trump have only themselves to blame for their negatives. Even as a Trump supporter, I recognize the man has a lot of flaws that he should correct. Hillary supporters are just straight deniers and constantly run around with their fingers in their ears screaming "bra-bla-bla, I can't hear you!" It's time for all Hillary supporters to grow up, man up and realize what the rest of the country realizes and that is, the woman is extremely flawed and her lies are slowly catching up to her.

The relentless drumbeat of what a supposedly unlikeable, untrustworthy candidate is -- sans actual proof -- coupled with attacks on her health, her hair, her laugh, her choice of clothing, her decision to not divorce her husband -- DESPITE conservatives still passing around that old chestnut that they are the embodiment of the sanctity of marriage in America -- bears all the hallmarks of desperation giving way to a mean-spirited, almost pathological hatred of Clinton.

Not desperation, but the truth and I do appreciate you putting out all her flaws, if it's any consolidation, the woman does have a nice smile.

This irrational hatred -- and it is irrational when you find yourselves continuously doing mental acrobatics to explain away the results of two federal investigations into Clinton that came up empty -- this irrational hatred ultimately speaks, I suspect, more to unaddressed self-loathing among conservatives than to any faults Clinton might have, real or imagined.

I don't hate either Hillary or Obama, just their policies. But at least, we can soon breath a sigh of relief that Obama won't be here to bother us or the country anymore, that's one less stress factor in our lives.

bass: I don't know more than Comey

Exactly, so that's why you rely on the FBI's investigation. Men like Comey and the FBI step in to make sure the evidence is looked at carefully. The alternative is mob rule and opinion polls, and I know you don't want that.

FLRagain: You were wrong about Benghazi and you're wrong about the emails. How many more times do you have to be wrong for it to finally stick?

Why stop there? Look at Planned Parenthood. The sheer number of Republicans who believe they were selling baby parts is insanely high for something that never actually happened. Or how about 40% of Trump supporters thinking Obama was born overseas? Once again, extremely high numbers for something proven to be untrue. Or the IRS scandal. Or climate change deniers. The GOP are like the anti-vaxxers of politics.

The list of investigated incidents where Republicans simply chose to not believe the outcome is getting to be pretty high. Maybe even dangerously so. I honestly think if we can get Clinton in the White House it would cause the current crop of Republicans to lose steam and maybe we can get some moderates in there. The US would be a lot better for it.

Exactly, so that's why you rely on the FBI's investigation. Men like Comey and the FBI step in to make sure the evidence is looked at carefully. The alternative is mob rule and opinion polls, and I know you don't want that

Uh-huh, as if the FBI never, ever was corrupt in its existence, never framed, never planted evidence on anyone. Sorry, most people aren't buying it. Again, anyone else would have faced serious charges on the same counts, Hillary gets a complete pass. I expect nothing less from a Democratic admin. overseeing a Democratic presidential candidate.

Why stop there? Look at Planned Parenthood. The sheer number of Republicans who believe they were selling baby parts is insanely high for something that never actually happened.

They were. But that's beside the point and not the issue. Just like most people believe Hillary is the most corrupt politician.

Or how about 40% of Trump supporters thinking Obama was born overseas? Once again, extremely high numbers for something proven to be untrue. Or the IRS scandal. Or climate change deniers. The GOP are like the anti-vaxxers of politics.

We'll never agree on that, the only thing I believe is Obama was born in the country, everything else, as they say, talk to the hand.

The list of investigated incidents where Republicans simply chose to not believe the outcome is getting to be pretty high. Maybe even dangerously so. I honestly think if we can get Clinton in the White House it would cause the current crop of Republicans to lose steam and maybe we can get some moderates in there. The US would be a lot better for it.

That's not what the middle class think or rural Americans and small businesses owners.

bass4funk: Uh-huh, as if the FBI never, ever was corrupt in its existence, never framed, never planted evidence on anyone. ...

The FBI were the left's bogeymen / lackeys of imperialist running dogs until Comey rolled over for Hillary. Now they're the golden boys.

bass: the only thing I believe is Obama was born in the country

So why do you think so many other conservatives don't believe the evidence that you and I clearly see? Are they getting inaccurate information, or do they simply choose to not believe?

That's not what the middle class think or rural Americans and small businesses owners.

Of course not. They most likely feel frustrated because they were lead to believe an indictment was eminent. I feel bad that they were mislead by the conservative media but no one made them cut off all news contact with the outside world, and certainly no one told them to switch to conspiracy theories as a coping mechanism. That's all self-inflicted.

turbostat: The FBI were the left's bogeymen / lackeys of imperialist running dogs until Comey rolled over for Hillary. Now they're the golden boys.

Here's another one. Do you have any evidence - besides your outrage created by the right wing media - that Comey was compromised?

Bass,

I don't hate either Hillary or Obama, just their policies.

And that's the crux of the problem: You hate the policies, but you and an alarming number of conservatives have instead opted to attack the person and not the policies.

It's time for all Hillary supporters to grow up, man up and realize what the rest of the country realizes and that is, the woman is extremely flawed and her lies are slowly catching up to her.

Case in point. Flaws? Lies? Precisely what lies are catching up with her? Benghazi? Thirteen Republican-led investigations put that partisan fishing expedition to rest. Classified emails? The FBI settled that with a thorough investigation. Are you guys going to go back to Whitewater? Honestly, I don't see Clinton being any more or liberal with the truth an any other politician out there.

So what else is there?

I'll go ahead an address the elephant in this particular room. The primary reason conservatives are so frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Clinton is because she's a woman and she's about 62 days from winning the highest elected seat in the land.

"Hang the bitch." That says pretty everything anyone needs to know about how legitimate claims of corruption against Clinton actually are.

And that's the crux of the problem: You hate the policies, but you and an alarming number of conservatives have instead opted to attack the person and not the policies.

Gee, I wonder why?!

Case in point. Flaws? Lies? Precisely what lies are catching up with her? Benghazi? Thirteen Republican-led investigations put that partisan fishing expedition to rest.

As long as you have a Democratic president preceding over a Democratic presidential candidate and being head of the DOJ, there is NO way on God's green Earth that Obama would EVER let that happen. Imagine, Hillary indicted, then who do the Democrats have as their candidate? Sanders? We all know now the Dems weren't going to let that happen. Perhaps Biden, Warren? LOL So of course, Obama and Bill intervened. That meeting on the plane and Lynch and Clinton talking about their grandchildren....give me a break!

Classified emails? The FBI settled that with a thorough investigation. Are you guys going to go back to Whitewater? Honestly, I don't see Clinton being any more or liberal with the truth an any other politician out there.

With the exception every other politician would have been locked up or their security clearance taken away from them, NOT Hillary.....gee, I wonder why?

So what else is there? I'll go ahead an address the elephant in this particular room. The primary reason conservatives are so frothing-at-the-mouth anti-Clinton is because she's a woman and she's about 62 days from winning the highest elected seat in the land.

Ahhh, so now you guys can't use the race card anymore like you did for the last 8 years, we know are going to use the gender card, good, it might work for you guys. Democrats have no other defense, can't run on any real policies so let's talk about the gender issue.

"Hang the bitch." That says pretty everything anyone needs to know about how legitimate claims of corruption against Clinton actually are.

No one cares she's a woman, but everyone cares, she's Hillary Clinton, that's the nightmare that's giving unrest to the majority of Americans.

As long as you have a Democratic president preceding over a Democratic presidential candidate and being head of the DOJ, there is NO way on God's green Earth that Obama would EVER let that happen.

This is a conspiracy theory. There no evidence of what bass was claiming.

SuperLib: Here's another one. Do you have any evidence - besides your outrage created by the right wing media - that Comey was compromised?

Comey's boss meeting with Hillary's husband on the tarmac prior to 'The Absolution', and trying to hide it. And to play it off as 'chatting about grandkids'. The FBI not videoing or recording or even transcribing her interview (only taking notes), permitting a witness in the case (Cheryl Mills) to attend Hillary's interview as one of her attorneys, requiring the interviewing agents to sign Non-Disclosure Agreements. Articles describing FBI agents as angry that Comey absolved Hillary.

Sprinkled among this July 6th NBC article (link below) on past cases of mishandling classified info, you can find statements such as "The FBI did not find that Clinton or officials ... misled investigators." and "Hitselberger deliberately removed physical classified documents, slightly altered them ... The FBI did not find such deliberate ... altering in the Clinton case, nor a lack of cooperation with the investigation." Note this article was published before the FBI's notes were released and the discrepancies between Hillary's private (to FBI) and public assertions came to light.

What person above the level of a Sesame Street graduate believes Hillary's claim that she thought 'C' meant a letter ordering paragraphs? Why didn't the interviewers ask her why she didn't notice all the missing 'A's and 'B's? And if Hillary really believed that bit about 'C' is she even qualified to serve as a secretarial admin?

How is a directive from Hillary to strip headers off a classified document and send it electronically over non-secure channels not a directive to alter and mishandle classified material?

At some point her server was administrated from a mom-and-pop IT company's closet. Did Ma and Pa have security clearances? Was there any governmental security review whatsoever of their setup?

Part of her duties, for the position she was hired for, were to handle classified information. Even if we believe her original story (maintained until the layers were peeled away), that her system didn't carry classified info, what does that say about how she did her job?

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/how-hillary-clinton-s-email-case-compares-similar-fbi-probes-n604856

http://nypost.com/2015/08/18/hillarys-email-server-was-run-out-of-an-old-bathroom-closet/

Sounds good, turbo. When you or bass find any credible evidence of a conspiracy, let me know.

Turbostat - I don't think the horse is dead yet! Keep beating it!

SuperLib: Sounds good, turbo. When you or bass find any credible evidence of a conspiracy, let me know.

Strangerland: Turbostat - I don't think the horse is dead yet! Keep beating it!

LOL, after skipping past a post with several points of evidence, s/he #1 wants more evidence, ...

and s/he #2 asks 'Why are you still talking about this?'

after skipping past a post with several points of evidence, s/he #1 wants more evidence

No, he wants evidence. You have provided nothing more than tin-foil hat conspiracy theories. Absolutely nothing of substance.

You've been lied to by your MSM, and now are rightfully angry, but your target is the wrong one. You should be mad at your MSM for lying to you.

Nothing tin-foil in there. Even CNN is reporting these points.

Nothing tin-foil in there.

Other than the fact that it's all speculation, and there is literally no proof of wrongdoing.

AKA tin-foil hat.

(lifting up the hood)

Comey's boss meeting with Hillary's husband on the tarmac prior to 'The Absolution', and trying to hide it. And to play it off as 'chatting about grandkids'.

Well here's your problem right here. You have a pretty car, nice paint job, leather seats, all the fixings, but you don't have an engine.

(closing the hood)

If you're too confused as to why your very first sentence doesn't belong then you're wasting everyone's time. Believe what you want to believe, I really don't care. But don't offer up an empty hand as proof and tell me the problem is that I'm not looking hard enough.

That's a pretty good analogy. Much better than my comment on the matter.

It's still speculation when the FBI reports it?

Telling one story to the FBI and a different story to Congress and a different story to the public and there's no proof of wrongdoing?

It seems you don't care that she lied repeatedly to the public about her actions. Every time they peel the onion her latest story is disproved. Lately with her own emails.

It seems you don't care that she lied repeatedly to the public about her actions.

We just don't buy into the same lies you are being told about what she is saying.

If you want to believe your MSM, that's your prerogative. But don't expect the rest of us to fall for their lies.

It's not difficult. You can just compare what the FBI says she said to them, or what the press reports she said to the public, vs. what the emails show she said privately. The FBI's lying about what she said? ALL the press outlets are lying about what she said?

And Benghazi blah blah blah.

Face it, you guys as willing to believe anything that comes from your MSM.

That has killed any credibility of anything you complain about, unless it comes with a smoking gun and a signed confession. Boy who cried wolf anyone?

The fact is if she had done something illegal, the FBI would have recommended charges.

Exactly. Nothing to see. And yet your MSM would have you believe otherwise.

I was parroting your parroting of Hillary and the DNC's talking points, not claiming they weren't total crap, which they are.

Face it, you guys as willing to believe anything that comes from your MSM

If that were true, then we would have brainwashed into thinking Hillary is the most honest person with the greatest integrity. LMAO

If that were true, then we would have brainwashed into thinking Hillary is the most honest person with the greatest integrity.

Your MSM has never said that even once. They've been smearing her for years.

And that's the crux of the problem: You hate the policies, but you and an alarming number of conservatives have instead opted to attack the person and not the policies.

Gee, so what are liberals doing? They attack ANYONE that has a "C and ""I or an "R" Do we need to go back to the Bush admin. when you guys attacked the man, plus his policies and now you're crying foul?

The relentless drumbeat of what a supposedly unlikeable, untrustworthy candidate is -- sans actual proof -- coupled with attacks on her health, her hair, her laugh, her choice of clothing, her decision to not divorce her husband -- DESPITE conservatives still passing around that old chestnut that they are the embodiment of the sanctity of marriage in America

Should we go down the detailed list of Trump insults or how about slamming Trump's wife.

-- bears all the hallmarks of desperation giving way to a mean-spirited, almost pathological hatred of Clinton. This irrational hatred -- and it is irrational when you find yourselves continuously doing mental acrobatics to explain away the results of two federal investigations into Clinton that came up empty -- this irrational hatred ultimately speaks, I suspect, more to unaddressed self-loathing among conservatives than to any faults Clinton might have, real or imagined.

I would say, REAL.