Surfs_Up

Recent Friends:

Jasper2529 Colour Me Free It Is ME XDm9mm Vic Eldred sixpick CometRider BeastOfTheEast Enoch

BREAKING: FBI Admits Hillary Clinton Emails Found in Obama White House

  
By:  The Magic Eight Ball  •  obama, clinton, emails  •  4 weeks ago  •  160 comments

BREAKING: FBI Admits Hillary Clinton Emails Found in Obama White House

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvcNOjoCUjY

Article is Locked


 

Tags

jrBlog - desc
Find text within the comments Find 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1  author  The Magic Eight Ball    4 weeks ago

don't worry none about it,  aint nothing to see here.. LOL

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1    4 weeks ago

That's correct.  Nothing to see here.  

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
1.1.1  author  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Tessylo @1.1    4 weeks ago

I knew you would be first to deny reality and bump it up... LOL

played ya like a fiddle jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

you never miss a word I post do ya?

 
 
 
Tessylo
1.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @1.1.1    4 weeks ago

jrSmiley_44_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_44_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_44_smiley_image.gifjrSmiley_44_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
2  author  The Magic Eight Ball    4 weeks ago

not a smidgen of corruption folks, not one smidgen... LOL

 
 
 
katrix
3  katrix    4 weeks ago

So ... you published a title without an article?

 
 
 
r.t..b...
3.1  r.t..b...  replied to  katrix @3    4 weeks ago
you published a title without an article?

...the missing link.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2  author  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  katrix @3    4 weeks ago
So ... you published a title without an article?

I published a blog with a video.

enjoy :)

 
 
 
katrix
3.2.1  katrix  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @3.2    4 weeks ago

I can't get to the video from here.  But when I search for the article, I see it's on Infowars and WorldNutDaily - so I'm pretty sure it's worth ignoring anyway. 

But it would be pretty strange if the Obama White House didn't have records of the communications the Secretary of State sent them when she worked for that administration.  And since you clearly haven't worked in the Records Management area and I have, I'll clue you in on something - it is the responsibility of every government employee and contractor to make a determination as to which of their emails are records, and to destroy those which are non-records or are transitory records. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
3.2.2  author  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  katrix @3.2.1    4 weeks ago
I can't get to the video from here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvcNOjoCUjY

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.2.3  Jasper2529  replied to  katrix @3.2.1    4 weeks ago
I can't get to the video from here.

That's odd. I clicked on the above linked video and it opened for me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvcNOjoCUjY

The video is clearly marked with the same headline and within its description is the link to the associated article:

Deleted, the source is not approved [SP]

 

 
 
 
Don Overton
3.2.4  Don Overton  replied to  Jasper2529 @3.2.3    4 weeks ago

Another right wing piece of trash = judicial watch

 
 
 
Jasper2529
3.2.5  Jasper2529  replied to  Don Overton @3.2.4    4 weeks ago
Another right wing piece of trash = judicial watch

Another? What are you talking about? It's the seeded article! ROFL!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4  JohnRussell    4 weeks ago
Judicial Watch announced today that a senior FBI official admitted, in writing and under oath, that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President.

Not a surprise. She was Secretary of State for Obama. I imagine they had emails from one another. 

If this were any sort of "breaking " news, it would be all over the networks.  Instead we hear it from a right wing conspiracy outfit trying to raise donations on You Tube. 

Gaslight America, the Trumpster way. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.1  author  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @4    4 weeks ago

"court ordered discovery" has more credibility than the entire mainstream media combined.

thanks for stopping by :)

 
 
 
katrix
4.2  katrix  replied to  JohnRussell @4    4 weeks ago

Exactly.  When the only sources are WorldNutDaily and InfoWars and similar sites, you know it's likely to be utter bullshit.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.2.1  author  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  katrix @4.2    4 weeks ago
When the only sources are WorldNutDaily and InfoWars

the only source?  judicial watch. and court ordered discovery

but hey... try again :)

 
 
 
katrix
4.2.2  katrix  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @4.2.1    4 weeks ago

"Judicial Watch has described climate science as "fraud science". The group has made numerous false and unsubstantiated claims, which have been picked up by right-wing news outlets. The vast majority of its lawsuits have been dismissed" (from Wikipedia, complete with citations)

Clearly another whackjob site.  No wonder some of the people in here are so ignorant of actual facts; they get all their "news" from whackjob sites and refuse to read anything else.  Willful ignorance so they can only read what they want to believe, and not have their conspiracy theories decimated by facts.

 
 
 
Tessylo
4.2.3  Tessylo  replied to  katrix @4.2.2    4 weeks ago

Whackjobs getting their news from whackjob conspiracy sites.

SURPRISE SURPRISE

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.2.4  author  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Tessylo @4.2.3    4 weeks ago

 court order discovery via judicial watch has more credibility than every leftwing talking head combined.

 
 
 
Willjay9
4.2.5  Willjay9  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @4.2.1    4 weeks ago

Dude! You are the perfect person the rightwing look for when they pull this crap....the low information voter with an already slanted bias! They didnt find anything new, what they found was emails that was STORED and ARCHIVED in the Executive Office of the President, which is an official title NOT an actual office! There was no confirmation that these were additional emails or emails that were thought to be deleted! The first clue that should tip you that this is crap is not even Fox News is touching this one!

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.3  author  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @4    4 weeks ago
I imagine they had emails from one another.

obama said he did not know about hillary's server... now we know he lied.  and we have proof from the fbi via court ordered discovery.

packaged up and sent straight to the doj.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.3.1  JohnRussell  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @4.3    4 weeks ago

nonsense

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.3.2  author  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.1    4 weeks ago

well I have to admit... obamas WH was nonsense.

  • they never thought we would find out.
  • they never thought she would lose -
  • now they will all lose.

cheers :)

 
 
 
katrix
4.3.3  katrix  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @4.3.2    4 weeks ago

Funny how you pretend to care about ethics and transparency, while applauding everything Trump does against both of those things.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.3.4  author  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  katrix @4.3.3    4 weeks ago
Funny how you pretend to care about ethics and transparency,

funny how you ignore everything obamas admin did as well.  go figure... LOL

don't fret, the courts will sort EVERYTHING out.

cheers  :)

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
4.3.5  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.1    4 weeks ago

E.W. (Bill) Priestap, assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, made the disclosure on the emails.

Take it up with him.

 
 
 
katrix
4.3.6  katrix  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @4.3.4    4 weeks ago
funny how you ignore everything obamas admin did as well

What has the Obama administration done that's anywhere near as bad as what the Trump administration has done?  Since you're all for transparency, what about Trump telling people not to testify and refusing to turn over documents as he is legally required to do?  Is it only Democrats who have to be transparent?  Oh, I forgot, you only read things WND and Brietbart - and you actually take their wingnut articles seriously -  so you're not getting actual true news.

I am not justifying what Hillary did with her email server - that was stupid and unethical, and anyone who thinks she did it for any reason other than to avoid transparency is wearing partisan blinders. But it was not illegal at the time.  The FRA has since been updated, as it should have been. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.3.7  JohnRussell  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @4.3.5    4 weeks ago

What disclosure? Was it a disclosure of wrong doing? Spit it out. 

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
4.3.8  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.7    4 weeks ago
dis·clo·sure
/disˈklōZHər/
noun
  1. the action of making new or secret information known.
    "a judge ordered the disclosure of the government documents"
    synonyms: revelationsurprising fact, divulgencedeclarationannouncementnewsreport; More
    • a fact, especially a secret, that is made known.
      plural noun: disclosures
 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.3.10  author  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  katrix @4.3.6    4 weeks ago
What has the Obama administration done that's anywhere near as bad as what the Trump administration has done?

besides covering for clinton?

using fabricated evidence to overthrow the results of an election and remove a sitting president.

I think they call that treason for a reason :)

 
 
 
katrix
4.3.11  katrix  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @4.3.10    4 weeks ago

Just as I thought.  You're grasping at conspiracy theories spread by these whackjob sites.

And yet, you're just fine with Trump obstructing justice and his people lying all over the place about dealing with our enemies.

/smh

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.3.12  JohnRussell  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @4.3.8    4 weeks ago

Priestap didnt even want to respond to Judicial Watch , and filed objection after objection with the court. 

His "disclosures" mean nothing like what you think they do. Notice he also "implicated" The Secret Service and The US Department of State.  Was the Secret Service helping conceal Clinton crimes too?  The Department of State? lol

As an anarchist, you eat up all this constant bamboozling, but it damages this country beyond words. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.3.13  author  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  katrix @4.3.11    4 weeks ago
Trump obstructing justice

the only thing trump obstructed was the democrats treasonous bs.

and job well done :)

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
4.3.14  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  JohnRussell @4.3.12    4 weeks ago

Let me bring back your nemesis Gunny to explain this to you.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.3.15  JohnRussell  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @4.3.14    4 weeks ago

Might not be a bad idea. Maybe even he will understand this better than you and 8ball do. 

 
 
 
Willjay9
4.3.16  Willjay9  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @4.3.2    4 weeks ago

Umm.....you do know what the Executive Office of the President means right?......(rhetorical question)

 
 
 
Snuffy
4.3.17  Snuffy  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @4.3    4 weeks ago

Isn't this actually old news?  The below link is from 2015 where they had emails from Clinton to Obama with her private email address/server?  Around the same time  (second URL) from Oct 2015 showing Obama knew about her personal email server.

Or is the news that the FBI is finally admitting what was known all along?

https://www.factcheck.org/2015/03/obama-on-clintons-emails/

https://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/politics/obama-hillary-clinton-email-server-60-minutes/index.html

 
 
 
Snuffy
4.3.18  Snuffy  replied to  katrix @4.3.6    4 weeks ago
Since you're all for transparency, what about Trump telling people not to testify and refusing to turn over documents as he is legally required to do?

Trump was very transparent during the Mueller investigation and so far in it's aftermath. He did not invoke Executive Privilege on any parts of the report when he legally could have. I would say that this White House has been more transparent than any of the past few administrations. As for turning over the requested documents,  the requirement of that does seem to be in doubt. You can find as many experts who will state they are private and do not need to be disclosed as you can find who will state they must be turned over.  This will need to go to the courts to be determined.

But arguing about it here is really beneficial in making a point for your side.

    "Tastes Great!    Less Filling!"

 
 
 
katrix
4.3.19  katrix  replied to  Snuffy @4.3.18    4 weeks ago

Trump tried to have Mueller fired.  He pressured Sessions to un-recuse himself.  He did all kinds of things that were anything but transparent, in an attempt to stop the investigation.  Now he is telling his aides not to testify ... he's the least transparent, to anyone who reads actual facts.  And since when is constantly telling lies being transparent with what's going on?  And what is in doubt over requirements to respond to subpoenas?  He thinks he's above the law, plain and simple.  He thought that when he was a Democrat and he thinks it now that he's a Republican.  He's always been incredibly dishonest.

Arguing about it here, in a seed that's the darling of right wing conspiracy whackjob sites, is almost definitely useless, but one can always hope that not all conspiracy theorists are totally hopeless.  I don't lump you in with them, btw. 

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.3.20  r.t..b...  replied to  katrix @4.3.19    4 weeks ago
He thinks he's above the law, plain and simple. 

The bottom line. There will be arguments from both sides whether it rises to an impeachable offense, but our Congress is the only Constitutional firewall charged with determining if his actions meet the standard. Let them proceed, unfettered, and let the chips fall where they may. It is unquestionable that this fractured human being is an aberration...if he has obstructed justice, we must accept the outcome of an inquiry into such, but the inquiry must take place as our marvelously constructed system demands. There is enough evidence to warrant a full accounting.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
4.3.21  author  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Snuffy @4.3.17    4 weeks ago
Isn't this actually old news?

clintons emails?  yes, old news. however, clintons emails found in obamas whitehouse after obama said he did not know about clintons server??  2 day old news

 
 
 
Snuffy
4.3.22  Snuffy  replied to  katrix @4.3.19    4 weeks ago
but one can always hope that not all conspiracy theorists are totally hopeless.  I don't lump you in with them, btw. 

which one?  Am I not a conspiracy theorist? Not totally hopeless?  /s

Yep, Trump did somethings that I didn't like. I wasn't there when it was happening and the only reporting I have on Trump attempting to fire Mueller comes thru MSM, so let's just say I'm hesitant to give that reporting a gold star.  But a lot of the things he did were right out in the open,  he didn't do a lot of it behind closed doors. And I can't count how many times we were "warned" by Democrats in Congress about the threat that Trump was going to fire Mueller and they needed to defend the investigation.  But the end result was Mueller was never fired and did complete his work. And I seem to remember hearing that Mueller and his team had complete cooperation with the White House and never felt they were impeded from completing their work. So that has to count for something. Yes, so Trump refused to sit down with Mueller,  oh darn. I'm not a lawyer and I would have recommended that he not sit down.

As far as the dishonest part, you have to agree that all politicians lie on a regular basis. I think what's more different with Trump over other politicians is that he just doesn't seem to care if you know he lies or not.

 
 
 
Snuffy
4.3.23  Snuffy  replied to  r.t..b... @4.3.20    4 weeks ago
There will be arguments from both sides whether it rises to an impeachable offense, but our Congress is the only Constitutional firewall charged with determining if his actions meet the standard. Let them proceed, unfettered, and let the chips fall where they may

Agreed.  For myself I do not believe that this reaches the level for impeachment but it's not my call. However,  I don't believe that Trump will be impeached but I do think that the Democrats will continue to push every investigation and keep the thread of impeachment alive until the 2020 elections are over. With the investigation over this has moved fully into the realm of party politics I'm afraid. Oh how I wish that election campaigning was not allowed to start until Aug 1st of the election year.

But for all my wishes,  I'm confident that I will only get one of them fulfilled.  I have wished to once again get a hot smoking body, so when I die I have put into my will that I will be cremated.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
4.3.24  Sean Treacy  replied to  katrix @4.3.19    4 weeks ago
Trump tried to have Mueller fired.  He pressured Sessions to un-recuse himself.

If he wanted either of them fired, he could have.  The fact remains he didn't actually interfere with the Mueller investigation  and he he cooperated to a much greater extent than legally required.  

Now he is telling his aides not to testify .

So did Obama. So has pretty much every President I can think of. It's a pretty standard declaration of executive privilege. 

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
4.3.25  Colour Me Free  replied to  r.t..b... @4.3.20    4 weeks ago
if he has obstructed justice, we must accept the outcome of an inquiry into such, but the inquiry must take place as our marvelously constructed system demands. There is enough evidence to warrant a full accounting.

Hi razing … I have to with great respect take issue with this … I waited for the Mueller report (the end all to end all counterintelligence investigations)  and got nothing in return for waiting … now the House Democrats are suppose to interpret Mueller's intent?  2 years spent digging and the results are "decide for yourself" interpret away kids .....?   So now another investigation is needed .. am I suppose to wait patiently again for a more biased report to be 'redacted'..?

I am frustrated … as you can see... but if Mueller's investigations was not intended to be a 'full accounting' why was it conducted?

                                                      and yes I used 'conducted' properly as the whole investigation was led by a guide / managed.

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4.3.26  Jasper2529  replied to  katrix @4.3.19    4 weeks ago
Trump tried to have Mueller fired. 
He pressured Sessions to un-recuse himself.

Neither would be against the law or treasonous.

 
 
 
katrix
4.3.27  katrix  replied to  Sean Treacy @4.3.24    4 weeks ago

Neither hopeless nor a conspiracy theorist ;)

He directed the White House counsel to fire Mueller.  He told Comey to drop the investigation into Flynn; he told witnesses not to cooperate; he openly lied about the Trump Tower meeting; he told Sessions to limit the probe.  None of these are "cooperating to a greater extent than legally required."

The report says: “At that point, the president engaged in a second phase of conduct involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both private and public to encourage witnesses not cooperate with the investigation,” 

And while Bush and Obama each extended the limit of executive privilege, Trump is going above and beyond.  These are not things that should need a court to decide.  Of course, an honest person with nothing to hide wouldn't be bothering with all this cover-up and refusing to accept that Congress' job is to provide checks and balances.  Trump thinks he's above our laws, and based on his past actions, he has always thought he's above it all.

Regarding his lies, he has been proven to lie much, much more than any past President.  You're right that he doesn't care who knows; even when there's a video to prove that he actually did say something he denies saying, or when everyone knows his father wasn't born in Germany, he keeps right on lying.  That bothers me, a lot.

I don't know whether or not I consider it an impeachable offense, but I consider impeachment to be fairly useless.  Neither Nixon nor Clinton lost their jobs after they were impeached (we don't know if Nixon would have if he hadn't resigned, of course).  And there's no way we'd get enough bi-partisan buy-in to impeach him, much less do anything about it if he were impeached.  I'm not sure we'll ever have enough bi-partisan buy-in to do much of anything at this point.  People are too divided, and the ultra partisan on both sides will never admit when their party does anything wrong, while screeching when the other party does anything they don't like.

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.3.28  r.t..b...  replied to  Colour Me Free @4.3.25    4 weeks ago
and got nothing in return for waiting

I think we're all frustrated. As there is no precedent to indict a sitting President, Mueller deferred to Congress to proceed with the determination of whether or not to continue the investigation. Given the well documented words and deeds of the protagonist-in-chief, they have deemed it necessary. It is ugly and it is partisan. But it is our only remedy as citizens to reach anything close to a conclusive outcome...warts and all. Sadly, I have little faith a consensus will ever be reached.                                 ....respectfully submitted.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
4.3.29  Colour Me Free  replied to  r.t..b... @4.3.28    4 weeks ago
It is ugly and it is partisan. But it is our only remedy as citizens to reach anything close to a conclusive outcome...warts and all. Sadly, I have little faith of a consensus ever be reached.                                 ....respectfully submitted.

I am not an anarchist … not in my nature to cause trouble - but wow my friend it is difficult not to mutiny!  As you said, there is lil 'faith' (of which you have far more than I do in people) that there will be consensus ...

I detest what is happening in and to this great nation .. but is more investigation truthfully necessary?  even Mueller's footnotes seem to indicate ... 'wait til he is not president...'  

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.3.30  r.t..b...  replied to  Colour Me Free @4.3.29    4 weeks ago
even Mueller's footnotes seem to indicate ... 'wait til he is not president...'  

Perhaps his admonition to avoid a potential crisis, particularly given the fevered pitch and the not-so-veiled threats of violence (against our fellow citizens) that one hears almost daily. Unfathomable how far we have strayed from being '...indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.3.31  1stwarrior  replied to  katrix @4.3.27    4 weeks ago

And what does any of that have to do with this thread?

 
 
 
Sunshine
4.3.32  Sunshine  replied to  Colour Me Free @4.3.29    4 weeks ago
but is more investigation truthfully necessary?

I believe most Americans are experiencing investigation fatigue and would like to focus more on solving issues.

Especially after 2 years and $35 million for nothing.  

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
4.3.33  Colour Me Free  replied to  r.t..b... @4.3.30    4 weeks ago
Perhaps his admonition to avoid a potential crisis, particularly given the fevered pitch and the not-so-veiled threats of violence (against our fellow citizens) that one hears almost daily.

Interesting .. but I think Mueller knew what was going to happen when he wrote that report intentionally void of summation, thus kicking the can to the House .. the Pavlovian respond is strong among many in Congress....

Unfathomable how far we have strayed from being '...indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

The pledge of allegiance is / can be found to be offensive, does not fit the narrative so many have that the US is a democracy .. etc  …  indivisible, with liberty and justice for all … never stood a chance - free speech will be next .. well unless said free speech is 'approved' by the 'majority rule'

I am beginning to think I may be cynical .. what do you think?  : )

 

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
4.3.34  Colour Me Free  replied to  Sunshine @4.3.32    4 weeks ago
I believe most Americans are experiencing investigation fatigue and would like to focus more on solving issues.

Of which I am one .. soooo frustrating!

 
 
 
r.t..b...
4.3.35  r.t..b...  replied to  Colour Me Free @4.3.33    4 weeks ago
what do you think?  : )

Thinking gives me a headache. It is more therapeutic to just 'ramble on' and squint through my rose-colored glasses. And you are more realist than cynic, just insightful in reflecting the times in which we live. As always and ever hopeful for...Peace.

 
 
 
Willjay9
4.3.36  Willjay9  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.3.26    4 weeks ago

Thats the thing about obstruction of justice....even the ATTEMPT is crime!

 
 
 
Jasper2529
4.3.37  Jasper2529  replied to  Willjay9 @4.3.36    4 weeks ago
Thats the thing about obstruction of justice....even the ATTEMPT is crime!

Thanks for admitting that there's plenty of evidence proving that Obama's and Hillary's ATTEMPTS at obstruction of justice are crimes. Stay tuned!

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.38  Dulay  replied to  Colour Me Free @4.3.29    4 weeks ago
even Mueller's footnotes seem to indicate ... 'wait til he is not president...'  

Really? Which footnote is that? 

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
4.3.39  Colour Me Free  replied to  Dulay @4.3.38    4 weeks ago

Footnote 1091 page 178 … anything else I can find for you?

 
 
 
Willjay9
4.3.40  Willjay9  replied to  Jasper2529 @4.3.37    4 weeks ago

Now thats funny.....care to tell me which "office" they found those emails in? How about the findings in the HUNDREDS of investigations the Republicans did regarding Obama and Clinton?....

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.41  Dulay  replied to  Colour Me Free @4.3.39    4 weeks ago
Footnote 1091 page 178 

Footnote 1091 [on page 156] states: Prince 5/3/18 302 at 5. 

… anything else I can find for you?

Yes, something that actually supports your claim. 

BTFW, giving you the benefit of the doubt [though I can't really cite WHY], I checked out Footnote 1191 which is equally irrelevant AND page 178, which is totally REDACTED. 

Utter fail. But hey Colour, stay cocky...

 
 
 
katrix
4.3.42  katrix  replied to  1stwarrior @4.3.31    4 weeks ago
And what does any of that have to do with this thread?

I was having a conversation with Snuffy, and responding to one of his comments.  Report us both for being off topic if it offends you.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
4.3.43  Colour Me Free  replied to  Dulay @4.3.41    4 weeks ago
Utter fail. But hey Colour, stay cocky...

[Sigh] … Wow Dulay, I think you are the one that over cock'd!  Good luck with that..... if it lasts longer than 4 hours ……..

3. Congressional choices: Footnote 1091 (Volume II pg 178) suggests Congress can either craft new rules to stop a president from trying to thwart an investigation, or pursue impeachment as a drastic measure:

The second volume of the Mueller report assesses whether the president obstructed justice. Mueller’s team declined to make a traditional prosecutorial judgment on the matter, but in the footnotes Mueller notes that Congress could still take up the matter by crafting new laws to prevent a future president from conducting behavior described in the report.

The Mueller report states that “Congress has authority to prohibit a President’s corrupt use of his authority in order to protect the integrity of the administration of justice.”

One way that Congress could exercise this authority, according to the footnote, is to clarify an already existing opinion established by the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel, which found that a president could be held accountable for his or her actions after they leave office.

Another option available to Congress, according to the footnote, is to pursue impeachment “as a drastic and rarely invoked remedy.”

“A possible remedy through impeachment for abuses of power would not substitute for potential criminal liability after a President leaves office. Impeachment would remove a President from office, but would not address the underlying culpability of the conduct or serve the usual purposes of the criminal law. Indeed, the Impeachment Judgment Clause recognizes that criminal law plays an independent role in addressing an official’s conduct, distinct from the political remedy of impeachment. See U.S. CONST. ART. I, § 3, cl. 7. Impeachment is also a drastic and rarely invoked remedy, and Congress is not restricted to relying only on impeachment, rather than making criminal law applicable to a former President, as OLC has recognized. A Sitting President’s Amenability to Indictment and Criminal Prosecution, 24 Op. O.L.C. at 255 (‘Recognizing an immunity from prosecution for a sitting President would not preclude such prosecution once the President’s term is over or he is otherwise removed from office by resignation or impeachment.’).”

http://kticradio.com/abc_politics/ten-best-footnotes-of-the-mueller-report-abcid36177522/

 
 
 
Dulay
4.3.44  Dulay  replied to  Colour Me Free @4.3.43    4 weeks ago
[Sigh] … Wow Dulay, I think you are the one that over cock'd! Good luck with that..... if it lasts longer than 4 hours ……..

Devolving to mocking. Well done. 

You stated:

I detest what is happening in and to this great nation .. but is more investigation truthfully necessary? even Mueller's footnotes seem to indicate ... 'wait til he is not president...'

Then claim that Footnote 1091 supports your claim. It doesn't. 

First of all, you predicate your statement with a question about whether "more investigation" is 'truthfuly necessary'. 

Then you claim that Mueller's footnotes somehow infer that 'more investigation' should 'wait til he is not president'. 

Instead of posting the OFFICIAL analysis cited in the Mueller report, you post a link from a third party analysis of a FOOTNOTE in the Mueller report. It begs the question: Why are you intent on avoiding the OFFICIAL analysis? 

In order for your claim to be truthful, you'd have to utterly ignore what the footnote, which you seem so anamored with, is actually attached to.

It is under the subheading: 

Congress Has Power to Protect Congressional, Grand Jury, and Judicial Proceedings Against Corrupt Acts from Any Source

It is cited at the end of this statement:

Accordingly, based on the analysis above, we were not persuaded by the argument that the President has blanket constitutional immunity to engage in acts that would corruptly obstruct justice through the exercise of otherwise-valid Article TI powers. 

Neither the Mueller report or your link support your statement. Neither analysis states that the Congress should 'wait til he is not president' to investigate. 

Seondly, footnote 1091 doesn't say a fucking thing about the Congress 'crafting new laws' as claimed by in your linked analysis. In fact, the section that contains footnote 1091 has multiple legal citations that support the posit that the law as it stands is indeed applicable to POTUS. 

This isn't a difference in 'interpretation', this is me calling out bullshit. 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
4.4  tomwcraig  replied to  JohnRussell @4    4 weeks ago

You do realize all of this is a result of a LAWSUIT by Judicial Watch over the Clinton email scandal?  This is not a conspiracy theory or made up hoax by a dossier.  These are facts discovered through a COURT ORDER to get TESTIMONY and DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE where the evidence in the Clinton Email Scandal was discovered by investigators.  The FBI found nearly 49,000 Clinton emails that were "missing" in the Executive Office at the White House.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  tomwcraig @4.4    4 weeks ago
The FBI found nearly 49,000 Clinton emails that were "missing" in the Executive Office at the White House.

Nonsense. You seem to be an intelligent man who is overly attracted to right wing conspiracy thinking. The 49,000 emails refers to what was on Abedin's computer. They were almost all duplicates of what the FBI had previously examined. Thats how the FBI was able to do that investigation (of the Weiner laptop) so fast. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.4.2  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @4.4.1    4 weeks ago

Prove that they were duplicates John - for once, prove what you say.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.4.3  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @4.4.2    4 weeks ago
The Federal Bureau of Investigation determined that almost every email discovered in a laptop used primarily by the husband of an aide to Hillary Clinton was a duplicate of previously produced documents or personal emails, a person close to the case told Newsweek. As a result, FBI Director James Comey sent a letter to Congress Sunday saying the new emails have not changed the bureau’s earlier decision that no crime occurred with Clinton’s use of a private server while she was secretary of state. https://www.newsweek.com/what-fbi-found-emails-anthony-weiner-laptop-517652

Take your further complaints up with Comey etc. 

This frenzy to get "Clinton" is as depressing as it is farfetched.  

And yet you support a pathological liar like Trump. It really is amazing. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
4.4.4  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @4.4.2    4 weeks ago

How the heck did you become a conspiracy monger? You used to make sense sometimes. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.4.5  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @4.4    4 weeks ago
You do realize all of this is a result of a LAWSUIT by Judicial Watch over the Clinton email scandal?

That's false tom. The JW lawsuit is over the 'talking points' of the Obama Administration about Benghazi. There are already plenty of links in this seed to JW. Go look it up...

 
 
 
tomwcraig
4.4.6  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @4.4.5    4 weeks ago

Benghazi is a part of the Clinton email scandal as many of the emails that went missing were regarding Benghazi and the Obama Administration's response.

 
 
 
Willjay9
4.4.7  Willjay9  replied to  tomwcraig @4.4.6    4 weeks ago

Ok....if the emails are missing......how the hell you know what they are about??!!

 
 
 
Dulay
4.4.8  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @4.4.6    4 weeks ago
as many of the emails that went missing were regarding Benghazi and the Obama Administration's response.

Please answer Willjay9's question in 4.4.7.

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.4.9  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @4.4.8    4 weeks ago
Please answer Willjay9's question in 4.4.7.

Maybe you can shed more, and a better "Light" on it. jrSmiley_18_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
tomwcraig
4.4.10  tomwcraig  replied to  Willjay9 @4.4.7    4 weeks ago

Willjay,

The "missing" emails were the emails that Hillary Clinton was required to turn over to the State Department for preservation purposes as required by law.  Those emails were "found" in multiple different locations other than the State Department.  They were missing from the State Department's repositories and were not turned over as required; hence the "missing" adjective.  Please do keep up.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.4.11  Dulay  replied to  It Is ME @4.4.9    4 weeks ago
Maybe you can shed more, and a better "Light" on it.

Now you're asking me to answer for other members. 

This is starting to look like stalking. 

 
 
 
Dulay
4.4.12  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @4.4.10    4 weeks ago
Those emails were "found" in multiple different locations other than the State Department.

Now all you have to do is PROVE that they "were regarding Benghazi and the Obama Administration's response." as you claimed. 

Please proceed. 

 
 
 
It Is ME
4.4.13  It Is ME  replied to  Dulay @4.4.11    4 weeks ago
Now you're asking me to answer for other members. 

REALLY ?

But responding for another member is just AOK ? jrSmiley_88_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.4.14  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @4.4.3    4 weeks ago

"a person close to the case told Newsweek."

So, as usual, you have no facts - just biased reporting sources.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.4.15  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @4.4.4    4 weeks ago

Conspiracy???  Nope - just remembering some of your many, many threads 'bout "her highnesses" innocence.

"that 48,982 emails were reviewed as a result of a warrant for Clinton email account information from the laptop of Anthony Weiner" - explain to us how this statement sez that they had already reviewed the 49K e-mails that they had already reviewed since Clinton had/probably did scrubbed them from her highly secure personal computer that was sitting in a bathroom closet.  Will you do that for us John?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
4.4.16  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @4.4.12    4 weeks ago

Which then requires tit-for-tat with you PROVING that they are/were not.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.4.17  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @4.4.16    4 weeks ago
Which then requires tit-for-tat with you PROVING that they are/were not.

Actually NO 1st. tom made an assertion that he should be able to support, NOT I. 

 
 
 
tomwcraig
4.4.18  tomwcraig  replied to  Dulay @4.4.12    4 weeks ago

Nope, since I did not say all, just many of them were.

 
 
 
Dulay
4.4.19  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @4.4.18    4 weeks ago
Nope, since I did not say all, just many of them were.

We're not arguing numbers yet tom, we'll get to that. 

You still haven't proved your original claim. 

Please proceed. 

 
 
 
luther28
5  luther28    4 weeks ago

Sorry, did not realized I had stumbled into the National Enquirers web site.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
5.1  author  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  luther28 @5    4 weeks ago

no worries, feel free to stumble again... anytime

cheers :)

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
6  author  The Magic Eight Ball    4 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
Jasper2529
6.1  Jasper2529  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @6    4 weeks ago

[deleted]

Valerie Jarrett and a couple of others are missing.

 
 
 
Don Overton
6.1.1  Don Overton  replied to  Jasper2529 @6.1    4 weeks ago

So much bullshit so little time

 
 
 
Tessylo
7  Tessylo    4 weeks ago

Ding dong

 
 
 
1stwarrior
8  1stwarrior    4 weeks ago

Maybe this will help the doubting thomas's

Judicial Watch: FBI Admits Hillary Clinton Emails Found in Obama White House

APRIL 23, 2019

Also Confirms Over 49,000 Clinton Server Emails Found on Weiner Laptop

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that a senior FBI official admitted, in writing and under oath, that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President. The FBI also admitted nearly 49,000 Clinton server emails were reviewed as result of a search warrant for her material on the laptop of Anthony Weiner.

E.W. (Bill) Priestap, assistant director of the FBI Counterintelligence Division, made the disclosure to Judicial Watch as part of court-ordered discovery into the Clinton email issue.

U.S District Court Judge Royce Lamberth ordered Obama administration senior State Department officials, lawyers, and Clinton aides, as well as Priestap, to be deposed or answer writer questions under oath. The court ruled that the Clinton email system was “one of the gravest modern offenses to government transparency.”

Priestap was asked by Judicial Watch to identify representatives of Hillary Clinton, her former staff, and government agencies from which “email repositories were obtained.” Priestap responded with the following non-exhaustive list:

  • Bryan Pagliano
  • Cheryl Mills
  • Executive Office of the President [Emphasis added]
  • Heather Samuelson
  • Jacob Sullivan
  • Justin Cooper
  • United States Department of State
  • United States Secret Service
  • Williams & Connolly LLP

Priestap also testifies that 48,982 emails were reviewed as a result of a warrant for Clinton email account information from the laptop of Anthony Weiner, who had been married to top Clinton aide Huma Abedin.

A complete copy of Priestap’s interrogatory responses is available here. Priestap, is serving as assistant director of the FBI’s counterintelligence division and helped oversee both the Clinton email and the 2016 presidential campaign investigations. Priestap testified in a separate lawsuit that Clinton was the subject of a grand jury investigation related to her BlackBerry email accounts.

“This astonishing confirmation, made under oath by the FBI, shows that the Obama FBI had to go to President Obama’s White House office to find emails that Hillary Clinton tried to destroy or hide from the American people.” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “No wonder Hillary Clinton has thus far skated – Barack Obama is implicated in her email scheme.”

Priestap was ordered to answer the written questions by United States District Court Judge Royce C. Lamberth when he ruled in January that Judicial Watch’s discovery could begin in Hillary Clinton’s email scandal. This action came in Judicial Watch’s July 2014 FOIA lawsuit for:

Copies of any updates and/or talking points given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency concerning, regarding, or related to the September 11, 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya.

Any and all records or communications concerning, regarding, or relating to talking points or updates on the Benghazi attack given to Ambassador Rice by the White House or any federal agency.

Judicial Watch’s discovery seeks answers to:

  • Whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system;
  • whether the State Department’s efforts to settle this case beginning in late 2014 amounted to bad faith; and
  • whether the State Department adequately searched for records responsive to Judicial Watch’s FOIA request.

https://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-fbi-admits-hillary-clinton-emails-found-in-obama-white-house/

And this one - 

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/fbi-found-hillary-clintons-emails-in-obama-white-house-former-top-official-says

And this one -

https://canadafreepress.com/article/judicial-watch-fbi-admits-hillary-clinton-emails-found-in-obama-white-house

And this one - 

https://www.worldtribune.com/fbi-official-missing-hillary-clinton-emails-found-in-obama-white-house/

And, finally, this one -

https://pjmedia.com/trending/former-fbi-official-admits-hillary-clinton-emails-were-found-in-obama-white-house/

 
 
 
JohnRussell
8.1  JohnRussell  replied to  1stwarrior @8    4 weeks ago

I decided to look at the transcript of this FBI officer's responses and objections. Turns out he objected to pretty much the entire line of questioning from Judicial Watch. 

We should also note that both the Secret Service and the US Department of State were also recipients of Clinton e-mails, in addition to the Executive office at the White House. 

1st, were the Secret Service and the Department of State in on Clinton's conspiracy too?

Judicial Watch is not a legitimate advocate for truth. They are a right wing advocacy group not at all above being extremely misleading. 

MBFC describes Judicial Watch as a conspiracy site. 

 
 
 
katrix
8.2  katrix  replied to  1stwarrior @8    4 weeks ago
Judicial Watch announced today that a senior FBI official admitted, in writing and under oath, that the agency found Clinton email records in the Obama White House, specifically, the Executive Office of the President

Of course they did - the Secretary of State communicated with the administration she worked for.  What's the big surprise about this?

The FBI also admitted nearly 49,000 Clinton server emails were reviewed as result of a search warrant for her material on the laptop of Anthony Weiner.

Isn't this the same thing Comey told us about right before the election?  Again, what's the big surprise?

Whether Clinton intentionally attempted to evade the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) by using a non-government email system

This one seems possible, or even likely.  She was clearly trying to avoid transparency. Although anyone she sent the emails to would have copies on their email systems which would be discoverable, so if there were other record copies, it might be a moot point. 

 
 
 
Dulay
8.3  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @8    4 weeks ago
The FBI also admitted nearly 49,000 Clinton server emails were reviewed as result of a search warrant for her material on the laptop of Anthony Weiner.

Actually, that is false. You posted Priestap's interrogatory and that is NOT what he said. Priestap actually lists nine other sources of emails from "representatives" of Secretary Clinton, "former members of her staff," and "government agencies"
from which email repositories were obtained".

Judicial watch likes to mislead it's readers about the evidence. One has to have the intellectual curiosity to actually READ the evidence, instead of relying on JW false interpretation of it. 

The fact that other 'media' outlets regurgitate the BS fed to them calls into question whether they are journalists or stenographers. 

 
 
 
Willjay9
8.3.1  Willjay9  replied to  Dulay @8.3    4 weeks ago

Exactly! Whats hilarious to me is when they say the Executive Office of the President...then they jump to this crap! There us almost a dozen Departments that make up that with multiple departments within those departments, but the people they're throwing the red meat to either have no clue or dont care about that little bit of fact.....all they heard was OFFICE....PRESIDENT....and they come out of the woodwork frothing

 
 
 
Don Overton
8.4  Don Overton  replied to  1stwarrior @8    4 weeks ago

None of your links are reliable and are mostly fake news

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
9  author  The Magic Eight Ball    4 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.1  JohnRussell  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @9    4 weeks ago

Gaslighting and fakery from the right. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
9.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1    4 weeks ago

That's all they have.  

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
9.1.2  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1    4 weeks ago

You still don't understand the term gas lighting.

You own the trophy on the internet for posting hundreds of stories that have been proven to be false over the last 2 years.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.1.3  JohnRussell  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @9.1.2    4 weeks ago

BF, you posted on this seed in a way that would perpetrate and forward this Judicial Watch conspiracy nonsense.  Own your own words and actions. 

So JW discovered from an FBI officer that Clinton sent emails to the White House, the Secret Service and the US Department of State. Guess what? That was her job. 

The e-mails noted in this story are the same emails that Comey and the FBI looked at it their year long investigation of Clinton. The only thinbg "new" here is who the recipients of those emails were. These emails were work related, and not a "secret" other than they were not intended to be broadcast to the world. What emails, by any individual, are? 

JW is trying to give the false impression that unknown emails were found in Obamas possession. That is not what this is about. 

The Secret Service and The State Dept. had "repositories" of emails. That is a dead giveaway to anyone but the terminally dullwitted that these emalis were work related. 

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
9.1.4  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.3    4 weeks ago

So basically you have nothing?

Roger that, moving on!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
9.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @9.1.4    4 weeks ago

I just explained it to you in plain language. Try to keep up. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
9.1.6  1stwarrior  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.3    4 weeks ago

And those same "repositories" of e-mails were never turned over to the FBI.  Why?  Well, DOS and SS "said" they got wiped - but, somehow they're starting to show up.

Hmmmm - wonder why?

 
 
 
tomwcraig
9.1.7  tomwcraig  replied to  JohnRussell @9.1.3    4 weeks ago

Yes, they were work-related, and were required BY LAW to be turned over for preservation to the State Department by Clinton even if they were on her home-brew server.  Instead, these emails were among the emails that Hillary ordered deleted and destroyed, so the FBI had to look elsewhere to find them.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1.8  Dulay  replied to  tomwcraig @9.1.7    4 weeks ago
Instead, these emails were among the emails that Hillary ordered deleted and destroyed, so the FBI had to look elsewhere to find them.

She did? Link? 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
9.1.9  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @9.1.8    4 weeks ago

“This astonishing confirmation, made under oath by the FBI, shows that the Obama FBI had to go to President Obama’s White House office to find emails that Hillary Clinton tried to destroy or hide from the American people.”

Try reading some of the comments and you'll find your questions have already been answered.

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1.10  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @9.1.9    4 weeks ago
Try reading some of the comments and you'll find your questions have already been answered.

You and tom making the same claim without a shred of evidence to PROVE it doesn't fulfill my request. Instead of posting a kneejerk reaction, perhaps you should try rereading at least my comment. 

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1.11  Dulay  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @9.1.4    4 weeks ago
So basically you have nothing? Roger that, moving on!

At least John had more than just personal insults. 

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
9.1.12  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  Dulay @9.1.11    4 weeks ago

Irony!

 
 
 
Dulay
9.1.13  Dulay  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @9.1.12    4 weeks ago

Fact. 

 
 
 
Sunshine
10  Sunshine    4 weeks ago

She never used a .gov email account...I would think the White House and others would have noticed that.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
10.1  1stwarrior  replied to  Sunshine @10    4 weeks ago

She also refused to take the FEDERALLY REQUIRED annual security update courses - but, she didn't have time - they didn't apply to her - her contractor said it's a private server, not used for government work.

 
 
 
Tessylo
10.1.1  Tessylo  replied to  1stwarrior @10.1    4 weeks ago

Link?

 
 
 
1stwarrior
10.1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  Tessylo @10.1.1    4 weeks ago

You really need to keep current with daily affairs.  I'm not going to give you history lessons all day long.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.3  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @10.1.2    4 weeks ago
You really need to keep current with daily affairs.  I'm not going to give you history lessons all day long.

That's interesting 1st, you just got done saying:

for once, prove what you say.

Please proceed. 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
10.1.4  1stwarrior  replied to  Dulay @10.1.3    4 weeks ago

And did you?  'Course not - not part of your MO.

 
 
 
Dulay
10.1.5  Dulay  replied to  1stwarrior @10.1.4    4 weeks ago
And did you? 

Please clarify WTF you what comment you want me to prove 1st. 

'Course not - not part of your MO.

Again with the personal bullshit. That's part or yours. 

 
 
 
Don Overton
10.1.6  Don Overton  replied to  1stwarrior @10.1.2    4 weeks ago

Normal to not have links to your fake news

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
10.2  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sunshine @10    4 weeks ago
She never used a .gov email account...I would think the White House and others would have noticed that.

That's hilarious. So for four years, Hillary only sent or received 110 classified emails? Hillary did have a State department issued email and used it for tens of thousands of work related emails. There were a couple handfuls of classified emails among tens of thousands of personal emails that went through her private email server and there was no evidence her server was ever compromised. The emails were reviewed and the FBI concluded she did not intentionally use her private email server for those emails and did not intentionally try to hide or obfuscate their existence. Her request to delete emails (which her lawyers and staff did) was to destroy only the personal emails the lawyers had supposedly combed through and considered "personal". We know now that there were 110 classified emails found among that bunch, again, out of tens of thousands of classified emails she handled properly on State Department severs over several years.

Now, one of the other reasons I hear that what Hillary did was supposedly so egregious is that it put those few handfuls of classified emails at risk of being compromised. Well guess what? Besides there being no evidence that Hillary's private email server was ever hacked, we do have definitive evidence that the State Departments official servers were compromised by the Russians.

"Federal law enforcement, intelligence and congressional officials briefed on the investigation say the hack of the State email system is the "worst ever" cyberattack intrusion against a federal agency. The attackers who breached State are also believed to be behind hacks on the White House's email system, and against several other federal agencies, the officials say."

https://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/politics/state-department-hack-worst-ever/index.html

I know Trump supporters are desperate to investigate anything other than Trump, but this is getting ridiculous. Hillary isn't President, none of us are asking to replace Trump with Hillary, she's a washed up has-been Granny with the taint of epic failure surrounding her, why does anyone care about her anymore? I don't hear any stories about her coming from the left, they're all from the right to deflect and distract from what they know is a dumpster fire of a current administration.

 
 
 
katrix
10.2.1  katrix  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.2    4 weeks ago
did have a State department issued email and used it for tens of thousands of work related emails.

Actually, she didn't.  That's why I feel that she clearly was trying to avoid transparency.  As far as the classified emails go, my understanding is that none of them were marked as such.  People can argue about whether or not she should have been able to tell they should have been, but she was investigated and found to have been stupid, not criminal.  She violated a State Department policy but not a Federal law.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
10.2.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.2    4 weeks ago
Hillary did have a State department issued email and used it for tens of thousands of work related emails

When you have to make up facts to support your argument, you don't have one. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
10.2.3  evilgenius  replied to  Sean Treacy @10.2.2    4 weeks ago
When you have to make up facts to support your argument, you don't have one. 

Well there goes Trumps whole 2020 campaign! 

 
 
 
1stwarrior
10.2.4  1stwarrior  replied to  katrix @10.2.1    4 weeks ago

The FBI stated/admitted that there were over 1,000 classified e-mails, ranging from "Confidential" to "Top Secret".

Top Secret is the highest level of classified information. Information is further compartmented so that specific access using a code word after top secret is a legal way to hide collective and important information. Such material would cause "exceptionally grave damage" to national security if made publicly available.

There were some mails that should have only been seen by certain people/agencies that the FBI couldn't review because the didn't have the code word nor the "need to know".

 
 
 
dennis smith
10.2.5  dennis smith  replied to  katrix @10.2.1    4 weeks ago

You are correct, Hilary was stupid

 
 
 
Sunshine
10.2.6  Sunshine  replied to  dennis smith @10.2.5    4 weeks ago
You are correct, Hilary was stupid

And people voted for the stupid.  

 
 
 
1stwarrior
10.2.7  1stwarrior  replied to  katrix @10.2.1    4 weeks ago

No, she violated Fed law - The Espionage Act - Specifically section 793 - 

“Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer — shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.”

 
 
 
Don Overton
10.2.8  Don Overton  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @10.2    4 weeks ago

Remember we have several paid trolls that use a right wing play book that have no actual factual content

 
 
 
Don Overton
10.2.9  Don Overton  replied to  1stwarrior @10.2.7    4 weeks ago

Lie

 
 
 
katrix
10.3  katrix  replied to  Sunshine @10    4 weeks ago
She never used a .gov email account...I would think the White House and others would have noticed that.

You would think so.  Even though it wasn't illegal, it was clearly unethical - out of all the people who emailed her, nobody bothered to bring that up?  It's one thing for those whom she emailed - the display name shows up in the email, not the actual email address, so maybe they didn't notice.  But the fact that she had no government email address in the GAL should have been pretty obvious.  When I type in someone's last name, their display name shows up with the email address in <> next to it, so I can make sure I'm picking the right person.

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
11  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ    4 weeks ago

After watching the Hillary & Janet Reno sex-tape, I'm not so sure prison would be punishment.

 
 
 
Don Overton
11.1  Don Overton  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @11    4 weeks ago

Moderators,  you still aren't you, making up bias false news

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
12  author  The Magic Eight Ball    4 weeks ago

related

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/ex-fbi-lawyer-lisa-page-admitted-obama-doj-ordered-stand-down-on-clinton-email-prosecution-gop-rep-says

Former FBI lawyer Lisa Page admitted under questioning from Texas Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe last summer that "the FBI was ordered by the Obama DOJ not to consider charging Hillary Clinton for gross negligence in the handling of classified information,"

 
 
 
katrix
12.1  katrix  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @12    4 weeks ago

I can't find that from any source that isn't extremely right wing.  What does appear to have happened is that the DOJ advised that they didn't think there was enough (evidence and precedence both, from what I recall) to charge her for gross negligence.  Do you have the entire transcript of Lisa Page's interview to prove what you claim?

Do you have a problem with Mueller not charging Trump with obstruction of justice?  He made it clear that obstruction occurred and provided his reasons for not charging Trump.

 
 
 
JBB
12.1.1  JBB  replied to  katrix @12.1    4 weeks ago

It should be noted that the private server Clinton was using was specially designed for and privatel owned by and paid for by her husband who just so happens to be an ex President of the United States of America and which, unlike the State Department's and the DNC's, was never hacked. So, that does make Clinton's email situation somewhat exceptional. The clintons knew exceptional measures would be made to hack their personal emails so the took exceptional measures to stop them. This often gets overlooked. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
12.1.2  Sean Treacy  replied to  JBB @12.1.1    4 weeks ago
he clintons knew exceptional measures would be made to hack their personal emails so the took exceptional measures to stop them.

Please tell me you don't believe this....

 
 
 
Don Overton
12.2  Don Overton  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @12    4 weeks ago

Oh wow, fox news, that bastion of fake news

 
 
 
Tessylo
13  Tessylo    4 weeks ago

Faux 'news' - another worthless source.  

 
 
 
jim999
14  jim999    4 weeks ago

The most investigated woman in American history. Still not a single charge filed in what amounts to a decades long crime spree. She must be a super criminal mastermind, or her accusers are full of cow chips. Seriously, it's one or the other.

 
 
 
1stwarrior
14.1  1stwarrior  replied to  jim999 @14    4 weeks ago

Nope - she's a Clinton and all Clinton's get a pass on any wrong doing.

 
 
 
βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ
14.1.1  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ  replied to  1stwarrior @14.1    4 weeks ago

Yes because using bleach bit to destroy evidence is not obstruction.....lol

 
 
 
1stwarrior
14.1.2  1stwarrior  replied to  1stwarrior @14.1    4 weeks ago

320

 
 
 
Don Overton
14.1.3  Don Overton  replied to  1stwarrior @14.1    4 weeks ago

Prove it. Which you never do

 
 
 
Don Overton
14.1.4  Don Overton  replied to  βΔĐ₣ƗŞĦ ĦΔŇĐ Ø₣ ĐØØΜ @14.1.1    4 weeks ago
Again with the bias fake news.  Are moderators suppose to do that?

Trump, Pence ‘Acid Wash’ Facts

By Eugene Kiely

Posted on September 8, 2016

The FBI investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email system while secretary of state continues to be a rich source of attack lines for her opponents. But not all of them are accurate:

  • Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump falsely claimed Clinton “acid washed” 33,000 personal emails to delete them, calling it “an expensive process.” The FBI said Clinton’s tech team used BleachBit, which is a free software program. It does not use chemicals.
  • Mike Pence, Trump’s running mate, falsely claimed the FBI found “more than 15,000 additional emails dealing with national security.” The FBI recovered about 14,900 emails, but not all of them are work-related and only three contained classified information.

The FBI on Sept. 2 released a two-part summary of its investigation of Clinton and her staff, and their handling of classified information on her private server. As we wrote, the agency’s investigation notes contradict some past statements that Clinton and her campaign made about her emails, including when her emails were deleted from her server.

Clinton’s office disclosed on March 10, 2015, that she gave the State Department 30,490 work-related emails on Dec. 5, 2014, and “chose not to keep” 31,830 emails she deemed “personal.” It did not say when the personal emails were deleted, but the FBI learned that they were deleted between March 25-31, 2015, about three weeks after she was served with a congressional subpoena.

One other new piece of information was how the emails were deleted — a point that Trump has worked into recent public remarks, including in a Sept. 5 ABC News interview, and Sept. 6 campaign events in North Carolina and Virginia.

Trump, Sept. 5: You see what’s going on with her emails. It’s a disgrace. It’s a disgusting situation where she pretends like she doesn’t know. I mean, she had her emails — 33,000 emails — acid washed. The most sophisticated person never heard about acid washing. Acid washing is a very expensive process and that’s to really get rid of them.

Trump, Sept. 6, North Carolina: But why do you acid wash, or bleach, the emails? Nobody even heard of it before. Very expensive. Just ask yourself.

Trump, Sept. 6, Virginia: How about the acid wash of the e-mails that didn’t mean anything? How about the 33,000 missing e-mails that were acid washed — acid washed. And Rudy was telling me, nobody does it because it’s such an expensive process. OK, 33,000.

Trump is wrong on two counts: The software used to delete Clinton’s emails is free, and no chemicals were used.

His campaign told us Trump didn’t literally mean that Clinton “acid washed” her emails. It said that he was using a play on words, referring to Clinton’s joke a year ago about “wiping” her server with a cloth.

Sorry, we don’t get the play on words, which was not clear in any of Trump’s remarks. Let’s look at the facts.

The FBI said that Platte River Networks, which set up and maintained Clinton’s server, used an open-source software program called BleachBit. (See page 18.)

BleachBit debunks Trump’s claims on its FAQ page“BleachBit is not ‘very expensive software.’ Actually, it is completely free of charge for everyone in all situations.” It also says, “BleachBit is neither a chemical nor a physical device. BleachBit is an anti-forensics software application.”

The site links to a statement on Trump’s website by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani that claims, “This software is very expensive and is used by criminals seeking to hide evidence from law enforcement.” It also links to a story that quotes Trump as saying Clinton “bleached” her hard drive and “used chemicals so that nobody will ever be able to see them.”

PCWorld, the consumer magazine for computer owners, described BleachBit in a 2013 review as good for a business user, but not necessarily the novice home user. “If you’re a business user looking for a truly free system cleaner, one interesting option is open-source, cross-platform BleachBit,” it said.

Andreas Haeberlen, an associate professor of computer and information science at the University of Pennsylvania, told us that the FBI description of how BleachBit was used suggests that “the data would have been physically overwritten on the disk and would be very difficult to recover, at least without specialized equipment.” But he said this “is certainly not the strongest method for secure deletion.”

Haeberlen said there are stronger methods, such as degaussing or physical destruction, referring us to Table 5.1 of the National Institute of Standards and Technology’s “Guidelines for Media Sanitation.” Degaussing is “a demagnetizing process to erase a hard drive or tape,” as explained by Data Security Inc.

“Regarding ‘expensive,’ the website says that the BleachBit software is published under an open-source license (GPL version 3 is mentioned), which would mean that it is available for free,” Haeberlen wrote in an email to us. “It certainly doesn’t involve chemicals – it’s just a software program.”

Share The Facts
Donald Trump
Republican Presidential Nominee
false.pngfactcheckdotorg_logo.png

Claims Hillary Clinton "had her emails — 33,000 emails — acid washed ... a very expensive process."
Interview on ABC News – Monday, September 5, 2016
 

15,000 Additional Emails

Trump’s running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, also cited the FBI investigation in attacking Clinton. Pence cited the fact that the FBI recovered about 14,900 emails that were not part of the 30,000 work-related emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department in December 2014.

In a speech in Springfield, Missouri, Pence incorrectly referred to the recovered documents as “more than 15,000 additional emails dealing with national security.”

Pence, Sept. 6: I mean Hillary Clinton said she had turned over all of her emails except for the ones having to do with yoga and wedding plans. Now we have found more than 15,000 additional emails dealing with national security.

As we have written, the 14,900 are not all work-related emails, so Pence was wrong when he said all of them deal with national security. The State Department is in the process of reviewing the emails to determine how many of them are work-related and, of those, how many have not yet been publicly released.

What we do know is that very few of them included classified information.

At his July 5 press conference announcing that the FBI would not seek charges against Clinton, FBI Director James Comey said only three emails contained information that was classified at the time. He also said none was “up-classified,” which refers to information that is deemed classified when documents are reviewed for public release.

Comey, July 5: With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.”

Pence simply went too far when he described the recovered emails as “more than 15,000 additional emails dealing with national security.” Not everything that the secretary of state receives or sends deals with national security.

Share The Facts
Mike Pence
Republican Vice Presidential Nominee
false.pngfactcheckdotorg_logo.png

Claims the FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton found “more than 15,000 additional emails dealing with national security.”
In a speech in Missouri – Tuesday, September 6, 2016
 

 
 
 
Don Overton
14.1.5  Don Overton  replied to  1stwarrior @14.1.2    4 weeks ago

512512

 
 
 
Ender
15  Ender    4 weeks ago

trump lied about (everything) ... Hillary!

trump giving away national lands to big oil ... Emails!

trump DOJ fighting to get rid of health insurance mandates ... Bengazi!

trump sides with Saudis that murdered a journalist ... Obama!

trump get s a report that characterizes his corrupt ways ... Squirrel!

 
 
 
Veronica
16  Veronica    4 weeks ago

The horse is dead - stop beating it.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
17  livefreeordie    4 weeks ago

Exactly.  Just as we know that the DNC server was never hacked by the Russians.  The DNC and Hillary refused to allow FBI access to the server and NO EVIDENCE has been presented to ever authenticated that any hack occurred, much less by a foreign power.

This is just another example of the collusion between the Deep State and the Democrats and why we need to dismantle most of the Deep State beginning with a massive reduction in the size, scope, and power of the DOJ and FBI. 

Then we can also get rid of the DEA and ATF which merely serve to put Americians under the thumb and punitive power of the Federal Government

 
 
 
Dulay
17.1  Dulay  replied to  livefreeordie @17    4 weeks ago

So your 'theory' is that the entire IC of the last and current administrations conspired to perpetuate those lies. 

Wow!

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
livefreeordie
17.1.1  livefreeordie  replied to  Dulay @17.1    4 weeks ago

Fact 1, we know that the IC has no idea about the DNC or Hillary Servers because they were never allowed access

Fact 2  the IC has prevented ZERO evidence that these crimes actually took place.

I align with the left of the past that the FBI, DOJ, and other ICs cannot be trusted.  Only since Trump has the left suddenly embraced and trusted the IC

 
 
 
Dulay
17.1.2  Dulay  replied to  livefreeordie @17.1.1    4 weeks ago
Fact 1, we know that the IC has no idea about the DNC or Hillary Servers because they were never allowed access

That isn't a fact LFOD, that is your unfounded opinion. 

Fact 2 the IC has prevented ZERO evidence that these crimes actually took place.

I presume you mean 'provided' and again, that is your unfounded opinion, NOT fact. 

I align with the left of the past that the FBI, DOJ, and other ICs cannot be trusted.

You forgot the DEA and ATF. 

Only since Trump has the left suddenly embraced and trusted the IC

That's funny since Obama kept Mueller on as FBI Director after he took office and then appointed a prior GOP AG to succeed him. Sure looks like the Obama 'left' embraced and trusted at least the FBI and DOJ.

 
 
 
livefreeordie
17.1.3  livefreeordie  replied to  Dulay @17.1.2    4 weeks ago

No it's fact

"Washington (CNN)The Democratic National Committee "rebuffed" a request from the FBI to examine its computer services after it was allegedly hacked by Russia during the 2016 election, a senior law enforcement official told CNN Thursday.

"The FBI repeatedly stressed to DNC officials the necessity of obtaining direct access to servers and data, only to be rebuffed until well after the initial compromise had been mitigated," a senior law enforcement official told CNN. "This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information. These actions caused significant delays and inhibited the FBI from addressing the intrusion earlier."
This statement is in response to reports that the FBI never asked the DNC for access to the hacked systems."

https://www.cnn.com/2017/01/05/politics/fbi-russia-hacking-dnc-crowdstrike/index.html

 
 
 
Dulay
17.1.4  Dulay  replied to  livefreeordie @17.1.3    4 weeks ago
No it's fact

Thank you for posting a link that proves that your claim that the FBI had 'no idea' about the DNC server. 

From YOUR link:

This left the FBI no choice but to rely upon a third party for information.

See there LFOD? The FBI relied on information from a third party. That there proves that the FBI DOES have an 'idea' about the DNC server, doesn't it? 

Oh and BTFW, much has been revealed about this topic in the 2 YEARS since 1/5/2017. You may want to review more recent reports before you post more unfounded comments. 

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
17.1.5  author  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dulay @17.1.4    4 weeks ago
The FBI relied on information from a third party. That there proves that the FBI DOES have an 'idea' about the DNC server, doesn't it? 

it is not the job of the fbi to believe third parties. - everyone is suspect.

it is the fbi's job to NOT believe third parties and prove or disprove the veracity of their claims.

the fbi going with third party opinions only proves a cover-up at the highest levels in the fbi.

the fbi did not get/take the server in hand  =  they did not do their job. 

 
 
 
Dulay
17.1.6  Dulay  replied to  The Magic Eight Ball @17.1.5    4 weeks ago
it is not the job of the fbi to believe third parties. - everyone is suspect.

So the FBI shouldn't believe Trump. Got ya. 

it is the fbi's job to NOT believe third parties and prove or disprove the veracity of their claims.

How would the FBI do that without judging the veracity of another third party? You do know that the FBI isn't a 'first party' witness of the vast majority of evidence they cite right? 

the fbi going with third party opinions only proves a cover-up at the highest levels in the fbi.

It does? Why? 

the fbi did not get/take the server in hand  =  they did not do their job. 

Please cite the statute that the FBI would use to confiscate the property of the victim of a crime. I'll wait.

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
17.1.7  author  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dulay @17.1.6    4 weeks ago

I'm not playing your games....  everything I said is fact.

take it with a grain of salt for all I care.

cheers :)

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
17.1.8  author  The Magic Eight Ball  replied to  Dulay @17.1.6    4 weeks ago
confiscate the property of the victim of a crime

every single time that property proves who committed the crime.

obviously, any evidence with the perps blood on it will be taken by investigators also

a server will prove who, what, when, and how it was hacked.

the fbi would have taken it, investigated it and then returned it.

your understanding of the law is a little weak.

 
 
 
Don Overton
17.2  Don Overton  replied to  livefreeordie @17    4 weeks ago

Love it when the right tries to use "deep state" and don't even understand what they are talking about

 
 
 
The Magic Eight Ball
18  author  The Magic Eight Ball    4 weeks ago

this discussion is now closed.

c-ya next time

and as always, at some point, this entire discussion will eventually disappear without further notice.

cheers :)