And you posters think this nation is worth a vote? The place is so corrupt there is only one way to save the place.

Well you darn well better hope this is resolved with a vote, for only an idiot would or could ignore the very real threat of Civil War with modern weapons, if this election is stolen or if Donald Trump doesn't turn out to be everything he is claiming and promising.

But, I'll tell you this, if this next election is not fair, honest and above board, if Donald isn't everything we are hoping for, then I will be prepared to fight, kill and if needs be die once again, but this time it will be with a vengeance.

Anyone who still believes in Equal Justice under The Law is an imbecile.

I'm sure David Petraeus is saying the same thing right now.

" Anyone who still believes in Equal Justice under The Law is an imbecile. "

Yep. Just think of Braveheart. One set of laws for us, and no laws for the " Royals "

" this is the second to the last nail in the coffin. "

I expected todays news, but my blood is boiling. I think Comey just flushed his reputation of " impeccable credibility. "

Red, what do you consider the be the last nail? Just curious.

I'm sure the overall message will be, it's over, let's just move on.

I'm sure David Petraeus is saying the same thing right now.

I am neither a fan nor a supporter of Ole Pet, but this I can say without hesitation, he got screwed.

Edit: I suppose if Trump wins, then the FBI can change their minds and indict her, then Obama could pardon her. Maybe it'll work that way.

there is only one way to save the place.

What's that?

Red, what do you consider the be the last nail? Just curious.

Hitlery winning in November. If she wins it will be two terms easy as the Clintons know how to hold on to power. She will nominate 3-5 SCOTUS justices (the R's will cave to her appointments) and she will eviscerate the military.

She will also get us back in the Middle East bleeding our military to help prop up the House of Saud. She has some 'bills' to pay to Middle East royals and I'm sure China will get some loving too.

Well, Comey hardly had good words for her calling her actions as extremely careless. I can't see why that doesn't rate being grossly negligent which rates a criminal action.

I'm sure the overall message will be, it's over, let's just move on.

When I was active duty as a commissioned officer and if I violated security protocols for compartmentalized TS information, I would be in Leavenworth right now. It would not matter if I was 'sloppy' or 'did not know', I would be gone to the big house in Kansas.

I had a fellow LTC who served with me. He accidentally sent SECRET NOFORN (no foreign disclosure) to an allied section in Afghanistan. He realized his error, went to the allied fax in time to receive the data, purged the fax cache on both sides but still was officially reprimanded in writing; security clearance revoked; sent back home to the States in disgrace and issued a relief for cause evaluation report. They let him retire, but he will never get that clearance back and his job opportunities limited.

That is what happened to an officer with a stellar record, over 25 years in the Army who indeed made a mistake which investigators said did not compromise the NOFORN information. CID even opened an espionage investigation (he was cleared of that) as STANDARD procedure given the nature of the information involved and who was at the receiving end.

None of the above even a recommendation for Hitlery. At the MINIMUM she should have her security clearance revoked and not reissued. She has demonstrated she cannot safeguard classified information and should never be in a position handling highly sensitive information ever again.

At least it means Obama can't pardon her, so if Trump wins, this can be reopened under his admin.

Edit: I suppose if Trump wins, then the FBI can change their minds and indict her, then Obama could pardon her. Maybe it'll work that way.

The FBI and media are treating this as if Hitlery is some bubble head bleach blonde who knew no better when she drove off from the gas station with the gas pump handle still inserted in the car while applying her lipstick in the rearview mirror.

Hope she is not this sloppy with Nuclear protocols. If I was Putin, I would be nervous of a Clinton WH.

there is only one way to save the place.

What's that?

if I violated security protocols for compartmentalized TS information, I would be in Leavenworth right now.

I'll wager your surname is not "Clinton" and you're not a D emocrat.

A two-fer if there ever was one.

And you have Hillary sending top secret information over a private unauthorized email server with no safeguards, and the reaction is "nothing to see here folks; move along."

At least it means Obama can't pardon her, so if Trump wins, this can be reopened under his admin.

not going to happen. The perception will be that it is a political prosecution . Trump won't do it for fear of retaliation when he leaves office. It's the real reason why the emperor did not criminally go after anyone in GW Bush's team.

At least it means Obama can't pardon her, so if Trump wins, this can be reopened under his admin.

Edit: I suppose if Trump wins, then the FBI can change their minds and indict her, then Obama could pardon her. Maybe it'll work that way.

Trump seems to be working hard to make sure Hillary need not worry about that.

And you have Hillary sending top secret information over a private unauthorized email server with no safeguards, and the reaction is "nothing to see here folks; move along."

There is a 'valid' explanation only the power elite understand:

The facial expression is so fitting.

Good job ...

The perception will be that it is a political prosecution . Trump won't do it for fear of retaliation when he leaves office. It's the real reason why the emperor did not criminally go after anyone in GW Bush's team.

It's been the norm, for political reasons, to not prosecute past presidents and such but Trump may not be so willing to go along with that.

Trump is a wild card. No one really knows what he'll do.

Using a private email server is precluded by Executive Order 13526 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 793(f) of the federal code. It is unlawful to send of store classified information on personal email.

Section 1236.22 of the 2009 National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requirements states that: “Agencies that allow employees to send and receive official electronic mail messages using a system not operated by the agency must ensure that Federal records sent or received on such systems are preserved in the appropriate agency record keeping system.” Hillary intentionally deleted official emails, which is a clear felony.

Hillary also violated the freedom of Information Act by refusing to disclose all of her official communications.

Hillary violated U.S. Code § 1924 – Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material.

Hillary repeatedly violated 18 U.S. Code § 1505 – Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees. She did this by withholding and concealing evidence from a Congressional investigation.

None of these criminal actions are in dispute. Instead a new standard of "intent" has been applied to Hillary and ONLY to Hillary since the director said subsequent offenders could be prosecuted.

KWCrazy, Today at 1:51 PM

When I was active duty as a commissioned officer and if I violated security protocols for compartmentalized TS information, I would be in Leavenworth right now. It would not matter if I was 'sloppy' or 'did not know', I would be gone to the big house in Kansas.

Hell, you could get charged for having UNCLASSIFIED information that violated the Privacy Act.

Won't be online much for a few days.

I was especially unpersuaded by Director Comey’s claim that no reasonable prosecutor would bring a case based on the evidence uncovered by the FBI. To my mind, a reasonable prosecutor would ask: Why did Congress criminalize the mishandling of classified information through gross negligence? The answer, obviously, is to prevent harm to national security. So then the reasonable prosecutor asks: Was the statute clearly violated, and if yes, is it likely that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct caused harm to national security? If those two questions are answered in the affirmative, I believe many, if not most, reasonable prosecutors would feel obliged to bring the case.

Comey was very clear in his comments that this ruling only applies to Evita .

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

Hell, you could get charged for having UNCLASSIFIED information that violated the Privacy Act.

I'm sure you are right, but given that the exhaustive investigation has shown that H Clinton has compromised top secret information with reckless disregard, and will not be charged with anything; does it really matter?

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

This is what should be emphasized more than anything else.

H Clinton has special protected status.

Of possible interest.

https://www.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/75450CA390CB52C985257FE7005038BD/$file/15-5128-1622973.pdf

Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Office of Science and Technology Policy, No. 15-5128 (D.C. Cir. 5 Jul 2016)

Excerpts

Because we agree with plaintiff-appellant that an agency cannot shield its records from search or disclosure under FOIA by the expedient of storing them in a private email account controlled by the agency head, we reverse the dismissal and remand the case for further proceedings.

[...]

Appellant Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), in October of 2013, submitted a FOIA request for “all policy/OSTP-related email sent to or from jholdren@whrc.org (including as cc: or bcc:).” J.A. at 35. The email address set forth in the FOIA request is a nonofficial account maintained by John Holdren, Director of OSTP, at Woods Hole Research Center.

[...]

At each stage of this litigation, appellee has argued that “[d]ocuments on a nongovernmental email server are outside the possession or control of federal agencies, and thus beyond the scope of FOIA.” Appellee’s Br. at 14. In pursuing that defense, appellee repeatedly refers to the email account as being “under the control” of the Woods Hole Research Center, a private entity. See, e.g., Appellee’s Br. at 6, 8. Appellant has consistently challenged the logic of the proposition that the director of an agency may place his work-related records beyond the reach of FOIA for the simple expedient of using a private email account rather than the official government communications system.

[...]

The agency’s claim before us simply makes little sense. That argument relies on the proposition that the emails in question are under the control of a private entity, not the government. That private entity is Woods Hole Research Center, apparently the owner of the “whrc.org” domain where Director Holdren of the OSTP maintains the account jholdren@whrc.org. While this specific fact is not addressed in the record, it is not apparent to us that the domain where an email account is maintained controls the emails therein to the exclusion of the user, in this case Director Holdren, who maintains the account. When one receives an email from John Doe at, for example, gmail.com, and replies thereto, the replier would be likely to think that message is going to John Doe, not gmail.com. Even so here.

If a department head can deprive the citizens of their right to know what his department is up to by the simple expedient of maintaining his departmental emails on an account in another domain, that purpose is hardly served. It would make as much sense to say that the department head could deprive requestors of hard-copy documents by leaving them in a file at his daughter’s house and then claiming that they are under her control.

does it really matter?

Not a bit. At least what Comey said will make some good Trump commercials.

On this, the day after the director of the fbi confirmed that Equal Justice Under the law is dead, let me urge all of those in the various police departments at all levels, use extreme caution before turning on those blues.

This is not the time to play games with the 3%.

It is not going to take much to light the fuse, remember the first Revolution started with a callous act by the police.

www.mainetv.net/snake.htm

From dgiharris

Hmm mm good point.

Okay, how about this line of attack. The criteria to be president as defined by the Constitution entails getting votes. Your credit history, high school gpa, physical fitness level and ability to "normally" qualify for a security clearance are irrelevant as far as the actual Constitutional requirements are concerned.

The people voting will know all that stuff and if they choose you despite that baggage than that choice overrides other qualifiers that would be in effect for typical jobs.

dgiharris, Today at 12:45 AM

My response:

Of course Central Clearance overlooks a lot for politicians when it comes to personal indiscretions. If they did not Bush (drunk driving) and Obama (undisclosed foreign travel) would not get a security clearance without a waiver.

That is not the point and your approach is missing the point. Neither Bush nor Obama demonstrated prior to their swearing in that they were incompetent managers of the nation's highest secrets. Comey's comments yesterday read like a relief for cause evaluation report. Comey made it clear that from the FBI's perspective they would not prosecute, however he made it clear Hillary Clinton, her staff and most of the Dept of State were incompetent.

I guess Hillary can go on the campaign trail now and say "officially I'm not a crook, just incompetent." Guess she is good to go as that NOW seems to be a requirement for higher office in our government within the Beltway. redleghunter

You all should view some of the comments over at this thread Christian Forums liberal comments

Don't get your panties all in a bind.

I see you haven't changed, still the same ole obama serving allah worshiping piece of cowardly Christ denying scum.

Now go suck your big toe like a good little obamite.

At the MINIMUM she should have her security clearance revoked and not reissued.

Unless, of course, she is elected President. The Constitutional power of the office trumps ALL lesser law to the contrary, including all law pertaining to national security.

The President is the Commander in Chief, and has the absolute authority, of office, to access to classified information. Classification and national security have their purpose, but those purposes are ultimately decided by the President as a constitutional matter of office, so no President can be "denied a security clearance" because every single person in all intelligence agencies is an executive branch person subject to the command authority of the President, and the President has the final authority as to what classified information the President needs to make his decisions.

The laws that apply to everybody else do not apply to the President, for obvious reasons. If the Americans elect a Communist President, than a Communist has access to the most compartmented of national secrets, if he feels he needs them. There's no veto on the command of the Commander in Chief, and his decision is the final one as far as what national security IS.

Should Congress try to prevent the Commander in Chief from having information, the Supreme Court would slap down such a restriction as unconstitutional, as it clearly would be.

So, the President really IS above the national security law, because he decides, of office, what the ultimate national security IS.

But Hillary is not President yet.

She's simply "too big to jail". Sort of like Robert E. Lee in his day.

Comey's comments yesterday read like a relief for cause evaluation report. Comey made it clear that from the FBI's perspective they would not prosecute, however he made it clear Hillary Clinton, her staff and most of the Dept of State were incompetent.

That is the correct takeaway, incompetency. It is the weapon that Comey handed the anti-clintonistas already locked and loaded. Some indignation must be shown towards Comey so it will not appear that his lack of action is approved and accepted. But a frontal attack on Comey should not take place, take the loaded weapon Comey provided and use it against Hillary….fire for effect. Attack over and over and over….keep firing at the incompetency.

I posted a similar message to Stone here.