Is FBI Director James Comey Blinking “C-O-E-R-C-I-O-N”?…

The evidence we have discussed here in specific instances of criminal and terrorist incidence, has continually led us to believe there is an ideological shadow war within our current U.S. government.

IRS targeting, DOJ racial emphasis, the rise of the CRS, Jonathan Gruber (“grubering”), Benghazi aftermath, executive orders classified as “executive action”, Fort Hood terrorist attack framework/narrative, Philadelphia Naval Yard attack, San Bernardino terrorist attack and subsequent leaks, Dangerous political correctness, damaging rules of engagement, Orlando terrorist attack etc….

In essence, the White House and appointed upper level administration cabinet officials (writ large) on one side, and those tasked with trying to maintain law, order and national security on the other.

comey 1

Ann Coulter mentioned something today about the testimony of FBI Director James Comey and the manner of how he continually referenced people to re-read his initial statement about the Hillary Clinton investigation:

Is Director Comey, like Jeremiah Denton Jr, blinking T-O-R-T-U-R-E into the camera, only for Comey the coded message is C-O-E-R-C-I-O-N?

hillary benghazi comey

Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State.

After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.

This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say.

I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts.

So, first, what we have done:

The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system.

Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities.

Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors.

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”).

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond.

This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013.

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.”

I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department.

It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s rainmaker lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014.

The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort.

And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself.

Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation.

That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found:

Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail.

Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.

With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account.

So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice:

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent and identification through the Dental information here. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

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.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.

I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.

I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization.

Situation Room to discuss the the San Bernardino, Calif., shootings, Saturday, Dec. 5, 2015. Here, the Presidents receives an update on the investigation from FBI Director James Comey. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Situation Room to discuss the the San Bernardino, Calif., shootings, Saturday, Dec. 5, 2015. Here, the Presidents receives an update on the investigation from FBI Director James Comey.
(Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Agitprop, Clinton(s), Conspiracy ?, Dem Hypocrisy, Dept Of Justice, Desperately Seeking Hillary, Election 2016. Bookmark the permalink.

317 Responses to Is FBI Director James Comey Blinking “C-O-E-R-C-I-O-N”?…

  1. lisaginnz says:

    A “reasonable” attorney who is brave enought to NOT fear death by Clinton machine should happily be able to prosecute Hillary/Bill, Obama, Comey and MANY others ……. under a Trump presidency of course. #RuleOfLawMissing #Bueller #TrumpASAP #LawMatters

    Liked by 5 people

    • Papoose says:

      This guy is scared to death. I happen to catch it live the other day… Today he was forced to admit he and his agents failed to take Congressional Hearings into consideration in the fact finding process… he probably was NOT permitted to take them into consideration without a “referral”… breach of duty in investigating; an error and an omission.

      What a crying shame. A treacherous travesty. We’re Coup’d.

      Trump 2016

      Liked by 5 people

      • Jedi9 says:

        Where does Pagliano fit in of this? If the guy had to strike a deal for prosecution immunity, and now no one seems to be mentioning him in this current circus frenzy, seems rather strange, don’t you think that has all of a sudden become forgotten? Apparently, he has something, and is A.) being shielded until such a time where an mysterious death awaits in order to bury the trail, or B) a large copious amounts of money will buy his loyalty to be silent then will be exiled to some remote region of the world where no one knows who he is.

        Like

        • KillingEmSoftly says:

          It’s highly likely that the Clinton Foundation activities are still under investigation, perhaps his testimony is more damning in that investigation?

          Like

    • WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO ABOUT IT – By Robert Gore

      Posted down thread by a John Denny.

      Really apropos/worth reading.

      https://straightlinelogic.com/2016/07/06/what-are-you-going-to-do-about-it-by-robert-gore/

      Like

    • vietnamvet says:

      Comey has a long history of helping the Clintons get away with shady stuff.
      Check out his part in Whitewater, the New Square incident, and the pardon of Mark Rich.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Jedi9 says:

      The one thing I am having trouble with, and I am hoping that someone will indulge me in providing a thoughtful response is: How is it that Hillary and the Clinton’s can get away with for so long for of all the alleged crimes that have committed? First the mysterious deaths, as well as the countless others that is in their history that can be found on so many sources on the internet?

      Remember Al Capone? John Gotti? Sam Giacone, Charlie Lucky Luciano, Meyer Lanskey, Bugsey Seigal, Dutch Schultz, and many others? They eventually met their demise, and I am just wondering why the Clinton’s (who I believe, along with Obola and his minions fit right up there in perfect company) continue to skate from justice? To me, not only is this confounding, but this is just outright very wrong in so many ways that I am getting exhausted on trying to reconcile all of this. One would have to figure that eventually the law of averages at some point would have to yield something in the form of a ‘smoking Gun” right? Meaning, for lack of a better analogy, Clinton’s have to be on their 9th last life and that it is a matter of time before something gives way in order to criminally charge Hillary and Bill Clinton? To me, her supporters are just as culpable for going along and being her followers! I just can’t bring myself to believe that Americans who would openly support someone such as Clinton, would be that uninformed, or dumb enough to not be informed of what they are supporting! This is just astounding!

      Liked by 3 people

      • SharonKinDC says:

        B/C the MOB was private industry racketeering. Clinton Cabal is public/gov’t. No one to watch the ‘watchers’ and all who would are subordinate to the kingpins.

        Liked by 4 people

        • chris says:

          .. Its long been my belief , the Mob was allowed to exist long enough to infiltrate and learn all its connections/ inner workings, then the Rico Act was designed and enacted to disassemble it in a court of law .

          At THAT point, the Criminals in power hijacked it, coopted it, put their own people in place .
          Those people are now in power, they control all the worlds drugs, courts and all branches of law enforcement at upper levels .. CIA, FBI , ATF, IRS, all Federal law enforcement agencies.. and those in upper levels of Congress
          I know that sounds unbelievable, but what other explanation can be made for the complete lawlessness and obvious corruption ? these agencies are nothing more than tools of a corrupt government . Everyday we hear of a new abuse .
          Sorry, I just do not trust them .
          Their righteous moral victories for America and humanity Vs Colossal unbelievable failure with evil undertones ratio is simply too large for me to believe anymore .
          God Bless America

          Like

      • Bettijo says:

        “the mysterious deaths.” You just answered your own question.

        Like

      • jay says:

        Cause no one will stop them. They just shove in your face and keep moving along.

        Like

  2. truthandjustice says:

    Yes, ditto what Martin said up thread. With all of these scandals, people have no idea just how “wide and deep” they are and how many other Elites are involved. I have a general idea but I’m sure that’s too “shallow”.
    They can’t afford to have any grand jury on anything as it would lead to exposure of the rest – which includes most all of the Government, like dominoes. That’s why you see the long “body list” connected to the Clintons. But it’s not just them that are the criminals.
    I really, really hope and pray when Trump is elected, he will start that process – that domino effect. It’ll truly be an astounding, overwhelming and beautiful thing to see………

    Liked by 11 people

  3. formwiz says:

    Somebody was coerced. We were told the Feds were demanding a presentment. Now this.

    Comey could resign and get a cushy job, but many of the agents who worked on this would be blowing a 20 or 30 year pension, complete with benefits, and many are doubtless too old to start over.

    So, is Coulter right and Comey, stuck in the middle, decided to tell the awful truth, as, God knows, it does nothing to exonerate her and everything to make her look even more guilty. if such were possible as the only way to let people know what the score is?

    We may never know, but Donald Trump visited Capitol Hill and got 2 standing ovations from better than 200 (out of 247) members of the Republican caucus of the House, so I’ll bet if DC isn’t angry, they’re finding out America is.

    Liked by 7 people

    • JBuck says:

      This may be to simplistic an observation but… Comey was Deputy Attorney General under Bush before Obama appointed him as FBI Director. And if I recall correctly Obama also kept Bush’s CIA Director and his Secretary of Defense. Not sure I have seen so much of this when the White House changed from one party to another. They usually clean house. Smells to much like Uni-party to me. I don’t trust Comey at this point and his statements and conclusions sound ridiculous, he makes no sense to me..

      Like

  4. cara says:

    I’d like to have people’s opinions on WHY Comey refuses to deny or to affirm that the FBI is looking into the Clinton Foundation. He as much as said under questioning about this whole email thing that the FBI only investigated it under a request from the IG. So, who would have to request or order the FBI to undertake an investigation of the Clinton Foundation?

    Liked by 3 people

    • notamemberofanyorganizedpoliticital says:

      If you were, why put them on notice of the fact publicly?

      Liked by 2 people

      • Jedi9 says:

        Exactly! I am assuming that they already are, along with other rabbit holes they found as they conducted this investigation, that there is still more to come. This is just the beginning, and I expect more chaos and more allegations, as well as more people stepping forward as we get closer to this November’s elections.

        Like

    • mimbler says:

      Because there would be an outrage if he said they were not looking into it. But if he said they were, he would be on the hook to do another coverup. This way he isn’t obligated to look, and in a couple of years he hopes people will have forgotten about it.

      If they haven’t, well he can say he was never asked to look into it,
      Mike

      Liked by 2 people

    • Sherlock says:

      They failed to ask the right question, which should have been: “Are you recommending ‘no prosecution’ on any matters OTHER than those relating to the mishandling of classified material?”
      He would have said “no”. His written statement and testimony made it rather clear that the investigation only centered on the email matters, likewise his recommendation not to prosecute. That said, I have no confidence that any foundation investigation (which would take years) will be handled any better than this sorry effort was.

      Like

    • 2x4x8 says:

      Comey Chameleon

      Liked by 1 person

  5. drdeb says:

    New International Version
    “if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”
    2 Chronicles 7:34

    Liked by 6 people

  6. BobW462 says:

    We are all witnessing another carefully planned and scripted obfuscation ‘kabuki dance’. There is surely much more being covered-up here than just Clinton’s criminal mishandling of classified information. The deleted emails likely hold the key to a much bigger Pandora’s box, which Comey simply isn’t willing to breach.

    Liked by 4 people

    • BobW462 says:

      …and, BTW, those ‘deleted emails’ are not lost and unrecoverable. If they were ever sent through the “wire”, somebody (e.g. NSA, CIA, etc..) collected them, and still has them archived somewhere.

      Liked by 4 people

  7. tinkerthinker2 says:

    I thought it was odd how the democrats were so full of praise for Comey after he outed hill as a liar and incompetent.

    Liked by 2 people

    • mimbler says:

      Because all he did was list things already in the public domain, and say that no reasonable prosecutor would charge them as criminal.

      What more could the dems hope for?

      Mike

      Like

      • tinkerthinker2 says:

        In my mind they praised him for telling the truth.. that Hill is a liar. None took up for Hill…? (I missed it if they did). In other words they agree that Hill is a liar. Good ammo.

        Liked by 1 person

    • grandmomfortrump says:

      You know, that’s a really good point. But then again, what else could they do? They all know the steps to the dance, right?

      Like

    • Jedi9 says:

      Yes I noticed that too. I was watching a live feed of the event, but when members were speaking, the camera stayed on Comey the entire time, so I could not tell who it was that was asking the questions. At one point a woman Rep. was heaping so much praise, I was thinking to my self; “my god, why don’t you just get a room with the guy”! I never seen so much brown nosing in my life, it truly was disgusting!

      Liked by 1 person

    • chris says:

      Really??

      Like

  8. Roberto says:

    Clinton Body Count. That is what is on Comey’s mind.

    Liked by 4 people

  9. nyetneetot says:

    “…..Opinions are irrelevant…”

    But let me give you mine….

    — FBI Dir. J Comey

    Liked by 5 people

  10. willvecchio says:

    Comey’s words lead us to a definition or description of the kind of people we need to be: UNreasonable patriots.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. Keln says:

    After reading this again, I want to make a few observations, and I am sure others here who have worked with classified information can back me up on these things. This might be a long post, so please bear with me here.

    First, Comey mentions the “up-classifying” or upgrading of information to classified status. This has been a go-to defense for Clinton, her campaign, and her supporters. Let me explain this a bit. First of all, it is not standard practice to upgrade information that was deemed unclassified, or classified at a lower level.

    This is because it brings undue attention to a potential adversary to that information. Generally, it is better to leave it alone in the hopes that our adversaries will continue to regard it as either false/planted information or unimportant and beneath their scrutiny. In other words, it gains value when it is suddenly classified or upgraded in classification.

    If it has already been on the “low side” (non classified network or even public domain), it is just assumed an adversary has seen it and classifying it accomplishes nothing and only serves to bring attention to it.

    I suspect that what Comey is referring to here is not information that was ever deemed unclassified, but information that was generated or obtained in a classified setting but had not yet been either derivatively classified using guidance or assessed by a classification office in the case where there is no guidance.

    Standard protocol (and it isn’t just a suggestion) is that any information obtained or generated within a classified setting, whether it is from a classified briefing, information from an operation, or new information from intelligence sources, is to be treated and protected as classified at the highest level of that setting until it is either reviewed by a DC/CO (Derivative Classifier/Classification Officer) or OC (Office of Classification). Until then it should not be treated as unclassified, and should be treated as C/S/TS (plus designations) and handled accordingly until reviewed.

    This suggests that most, if not all, of the “up-classified” information found in Hillary’s emails was of this nature; that it had not been reviewed and that she and those she was corresponding with in these email chains were completely ignoring the entire concept of protecting potentially classified information and simply discussing new information carelessly. This is gross negligence.

    Of course, the fact that information which had been reviewed and deemed classified, all the way up to TS//SAR- at the time completely invalidates their argument about “it wasn’t classified at the time”.

    Secondly, the fact that text was found within several email chains that had at least partial classification markings (I am assuming these were what is called portion markings) proves that this wasn’t merely a case of people spouting off information from memory and simply making a lot of careless mistakes. That such portion markings made it into emails is evidence of intent.

    The only possible way that portion markings could have made it into an email is for a classified document on the high side (classified network) to be electronically copied (as with a USB stick or similar means), and then physically transferred to a low side computer.

    Let me back up one second. Yes, it is possible that someone wrote an email and put in portion markings, but that would be on a level of stupid that is hard to comprehend. So I’ll go with the assumption that such text was electronically copied from high side to low side, being that it is far more likely.

    In a classified setting, bringing a USB stick or blank CD or other device for copying information into the classified area is illegal. There are classified USBs and such, and they are controlled in the same manner as classified paper documents. They are not allowed to leave a classified controlled space, except using a locked briefcase/container, and tracked using a chain-of-custody, where it cannot be opened unless in another classified controlled space at the same or higher level.

    To purposely bring such a device into a classified setting, electronically copy classified documents, take the device out of the classified setting, and stick it into a low side computer is intentional. It is the modern equivalent of photocopying classified documents, shoving them in your britches, and sneaking them out of the building. It is intentional, and it takes effort.

    It requires knowingly and willfully circumventing security to do so. In other words, it is an action that is undertaken in the face of potentially getting caught. It is thus a crime, and the persons that did it knew they were committing a crime at the time they did it. Ignorance cannot be a defense in this matter.

    I’m going to leave it at that. I just wanted to shine a little sunlight on what some of this stuff means.

    Liked by 10 people

    • Eric Kennedy says:

      Keln, Hillary had Original Classification Authority (OCA) as Secretary of State. She could classify documents at will. Why was she given that authority. because Secretary of States need this authority to do their job. Much of what she generated was automatically classified, up to Top Secret.

      The fast that this has not been addressed by ANYONE publicly is astounding.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Keln says:

        I do understand that, but there is a process to that. The implications here are that she never even bothered to use that authority. Her and her cohorts were merely discussing this stuff without any concern about it being classified.

        Liked by 1 person

        • three by one says:

          Clinton communiques were up-classified to keep them from the citizenry, not the enemy*. Kinna like 28 pages from the 9/11 report.

          Comey had a chance to do the right thing. A career agent might have. An appointed lawyer? Name one political appointee hack who has ever put integrity first.

          *or rather, enemieS, who likely have everything on her server.

          Like

          • Keln says:

            I can’t comment on whether or not that was the case, however, that is against the law.

            The classification system is solely based on protecting sensitive information from a potential adversary, not from the public. Obviously, protecting it from a potential adversary includes the public, just because that is the nature of the beast. But the requirements to deem information as classified require that it is damaging in some fashion to national security interests. It is not intended to block public access or to protect government officials.

            In fact, that is expressly spelled out in the guidance.

            Does that mean it doesn’t happen? No. So many politicians are criminals in reality, that it stands to reason that such does happen.

            Like

            • three by one says:

              “Against the law”?

              We’ve just witnessed the law trampled.

              Again.

              State has reopened their “investigation” and will arrive at the same conclusion as Comey. Guaranteed. It’s all window dressing to give Canklestien (It’s alive!) a clean bill of legal health, pure as the driven snow, above reproach.

              Comey didn’t sit in on the questioning, no oath, no transcript, no nothing. How many other investigations on classification violations are so treated? Will everyone now get the “Hillary treatment” by the bureau?

              Perhaps more importantly, who would now ever go to the bureau with evidence of illegality, especially by those in government? They’ve just set a pretty horrible precedent.

              Growing up we used to look up to those guys as the best.

              Like

        • Eric Kennedy says:

          What I’m saying is she couldn’t do her job without half her stuff automatically being classified…whether it was labeled or not does not matter. (Even Comey admitted that in his original statement … not with respect to OCA, but ANY material that could hurt national security). My point? None of her arguments ever held water when you consider her position and OCA.

          Liked by 1 person

      • Dustball says:

        Even Hillary does not possess the authority to reclassify previously classified documents or information without going through the office that controls the activity, that is illegal. Another point is that a computer that is designated as classified computer has all CD and USB drives disabled be security default, to use them requires another level of training and accountability. Then the document must be reviewed by subject matter experts and security prior to leaving room and as mentioned above must be approved by the controlling office to the activity. There is no way this could have been accomplished without directly and a knowing and purposeful violation of federal law to the documents and monthly training required to work in that environment, not to mention the annual refreshers for which you again sign your acknowledgment to your legal requirements. This was willful and intentional, period.

        Liked by 3 people

        • Crystal says:

          From what I recall, H attended the first training meeting on the recognition and use of Classified documents on her first day in office, but did not attend subsequent meetings in the other 3 years.

          What also astounded me today was that Comey admitted they did not question the guy who Hillary ordered to strip the Classified headings off an email in order to send it to her via her unsecured personal server. Unbelievable.

          Like

    • CountryclassVulgarian says:

      One of my problems with the whole thing is this excuse that she “was not sophisticated enough to recognize classified markings”. This woman is supposed to be the smartest woman in the world and she doesn’t know classified information when she sees it, markings or not? In my mind this means she is too stupid to be handed the nuclear codes.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Keln says:

        It is the most BS of the BS arguments.

        Liked by 1 person

      • TheseTruths says:

        “In my mind this means she is too stupid to be handed the nuclear codes.”
        Yes, and she was “extremely careless” to boot. That’s what Comey said. She is too careless to be handed the nuclear codes and to be president. These are things she can never live down.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Jedi9 says:

      Thank you for that!

      Like

    • Trumpire says:

      Or information that came from her shadow government that needed to be upclassified.

      Crooked Hillary + Sidney Blumenthal + Tyler Drumheller – former CIA

      “Author of Benghazi memos sent to Clinton dies after cancer battle …”

      “Another murky mystery surrounding Hillary’s private email”

      http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/25/monica-crowley-was-tyler-drumheller-part-of-hillar/

      “Did Mr. Blumenthal then team up with Mr. Drumheller to create their own intelligence-gathering operation? Mr. Drumheller has been known to claim he has a global intelligence network of sources and operatives. Does he? And if so, is Mr. Blumenthal in business with him?”

      Like

    • SharonKinDC says:

      BINGO! I’ve never worked for Fed Gov and/or had security clearance in my line of work. However, hubs does…and even I know much of what you said, simply through osmosis (mainly from hubs indignantly shouting at the tv through this whole ordeal)

      Great and important post.

      Liked by 1 person

  12. Ziiggii says:

    Liked by 3 people

    • Jedi9 says:

      I am not sure what the “blinking out” reference means! If I am to assume that he is sending out a coded message to the public, then this whole thing is just getting bizarre by the minute!

      Like

      • Ziiggii says:

        It’s a bit of a joke Jedi. He blinks an awful lot when he’s in front of the press. Like he’s trying to pass a message or something

        Like

      • ZurichMike says:

        When US POWs were paraded on TV by the North Vietnamese and were berating the US, one of them used eyeblinks to spell out, in Morse code, the word “torture”. This was signal to those paying attention in the US that his remarks were coerced under torture. Sundance gave a hyperlink to Jeremiah Denton (right above the small photo of Clinton and Comey), the man who did the blinking.

        The point is the Comey, while obviously coerced not to spill the beans about Hillary, laid out enough information for anyone paying attention that he was forced not to recommend prosecution, but gave enough information for someone else to (the House, for example). Hillary is damaged goods. This will haunt her until she loses in November.

        Liked by 2 people

        • KillingEmSoftly says:

          thank you for spelling that out…I was confused as to whether I should be watching the press conference and looking for morse code or if it was just a metaphor…cheers

          Liked by 1 person

  13. Is there any doubt that the majority of our Hi level beaurocrats and politicians are compromised in some way or another. As a matter of fact I believe they are specifically chosen and appointed because of this.
    There is no other plausible explanation.

    Liked by 3 people

  14. zephyrbreeze says:

    I guess an FBI director would understand there are dozens of covert ways to get rid of someone and make it look like a heart condition, or accelerating into a palm tree with the engine of the car flying off 100 feet, or, or, or….and Comey is just being prudent…and a coward.

    Otherwise, I don’t understand being so materialistic, and so career driven that you are afraid to stand up to corruption.

    I think of the soldier who beat that Afghani pedophile up to within an inch of his life because he had seen him abusing and raping young boys. His career was put through hell and it took and act of Congress to re-instate him. I think THAT story should be in the so-called government “ethics training.”

    Joan of Arc was burned at the stake for telling the truth.
    Thomas More
    Dietrich Bonhoeffer

    Charles Martland

    “As for the incident in 2011, Hunter told Carter: “To intervene was a moral decision, and SFC Martland and his Special Forces team felt they had no choice but to respond.”

    “Casey, a former Green Beret teammate who would only use his first name since he is now a member of a federal counterterrorism team, told Fox News, “If I was a commander, I would have given him an award. They saved that kid’s life.””

    http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/08/21/army-kicking-out-green-beret-who-stood-up-for-afghan-rape-victim.html

    Like

    • zephyrbreeze says:

      I was lamenting how unfair it was for this Green Beret to lose his job based on shoving someone to the ground, to which my husband replied, “You have to do the right thing and sometimes at a big price. So what; you still have to do the right thing.”

      Indeed.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Concerned Virginian says:

      Mr. Comey, if he manages to keep his—LIFE—will never again be able to draw a peaceful breath. He will spend the rest of his—LIFE—looking over his shoulder, literally and figuratively.
      I wonder if he understands the depth of corruption he has permitted to either be inculcated or spread (if it was there when he took over) into the FBI. How many agents understand that their careers can be compromised at the whim of a “somebody” who has power and influence. How many agents understand that they can be asked and/or ordered to violate the oath they took when sworn as agents.

      Like

      • zephyrbreeze says:

        If they can’t walk away with integrity, then they have to admit they are owned, and are slaves of the state.

        Like

      • Dustball says:

        Comey isn’t the only one who should fear for his life from the Clintons, everyone who is connected to this treason and knows details regardless of pleading the fifth is subject to being suicided by some freak or not so freak accident.
        Such as:
        1 – James McDougal – Clinton’s convicted Whitewater partner died of an apparent heart attack, while in solitary confinement. He was a key witness in Ken Starr’s investigation.
        2 – Mary Mahoney – A former White House intern was murdered July 1997 at a Starbucks Coffee Shop in Georgetown. The murder happened just after she was to go public with her story of sexual harassment in the White House.
        3 – Vince Foster – Former white House councilor, and colleague of Hillary Clinton at Little Rock’s Rose Law firm. Died of a gunshot wound to the head with no blood at the scene, ruled a suicide.
        4 – Ron Brown – Secretary of Commerce and former DNC Chairman. Reported to have died by impact in a plane crash. A pathologist close to the investigation reported that there was a hole in the top of Brown’s skull resembling a gunshot wound. At the time of his death Brown was being investigated, and spoke publicly of his willingness to cut a deal with prosecutors.
        5 – C. Victor Raiser II and Montgomery Raiser, Major players in the Clinton fund raising organization died in a private plane crash in July 1992.
        6 – Paul Tulley – Democratic National Committee Political Director found dead in a hotel room in Little Rock, September 1992… Described by Clinton as a “Dear friend and trusted advisor.”
        7- Ed Willey – Clinton fund raiser, found dead November 1993 deep in the woods in VA of a gunshot wound to the head. Ruled a suicide. Ed Willey died on the same day his wife Kathleen Willey claimed Bill Clinton groped her in the oval office in the White House. Ed Willey was involved in several Clinton fund raising events.
        8 – Jerry Parks – Head of Clinton’s gubernatorial security team in Little Rock. Gunned down in his car at a deserted intersection outside Little Rock. Park’s son said his father was building a dossier on Clinton. He allegedly threatened to reveal this information. After he died the files were mysteriously removed from his house.
        9 – James Bunch – Died from a gunshot suicide. It was reported that he had a “Black Book” of people which contained names of influential people who visited prostitutes in Texas and Arkansas.
        10 – James Wilson – Was found dead in May 1993 from an apparent hanging suicide. He was reported to have ties to Whitewater.
        11- Kathy Ferguson, ex-wife of Arkansas Trooper Danny Ferguson, was found dead in May 1994, in her living room with a gunshot to her head. It was ruled a suicide even though there were several packed suitcases, as if she were going somewhere. Danny Ferguson was a co-defendant along with Bill Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit. Kathy Ferguson was a possible corroborating witness for Paula Jones.
        12 – Bill Shelton – Arkansas State Trooper and fiancee of Kathy Ferguson. Critical of the suicide ruling of his fiancee, he was found dead in June, 1994 of a gunshot wound also ruled a suicide at the grave site of his fiancee.
        13 – Gandy Baugh – Attorney for Clinton’s friend Dan Lassater, died by jumping out a window of a tall building January, 1994. His client was a convicted drug distributor.
        14 – Florence Martin – Accountant & sub-contractor for the CIA, was related to the Barry Seal Mena Airport drug smuggling case. He died of three gunshot wounds.
        15 – Suzanne Coleman – Reportedly had an affair with Clinton when he was Arkansas Attorney General. Died of a gunshot wound to the back of the head, ruled a suicide. Was pregnant at the time of her death.
        16 – Paula Grober – Clinton’s speech interpreter for the deaf from 1978 until her death December 9, 1992. She died in a one car accident.
        17 – Danny Casolaro – Investigative reporter. Investigating Mena Airport and Arkansas Development Finance Authority. He slit his wrists, apparently, in the middle of his investigation.
        18 – Paul Wilcher – Attorney investigating corruption at Mena Airport with Casolaro and the 1980 “October Surprise” was found dead on a toilet June 22, 1993 in his Washington DC apartment. Had delivered a report to Janet Reno three weeks before his death
        19 – Jon Parnell Walker – Whitewater investigator for Resolution Trust Corp. Jumped to his death from his Arlington, Virginia apartment balcony August15, 1993. He was investigating the Morgan Guarantee scandal.
        20 – Barbara Wise – Commerce Department staffer. Worked closely with Ron Brown and John Huang. Cause of death unknown. Died November 29, 1996. Her bruised, nude body was found locked in her office at the Department of Commerce.
        21- Charles Meissner – Assistant Secretary of Commerce who gave John Huang special security clearance, died shortly thereafter in a small plane crash.
        22 – Dr. Stanley Heard – Chairman of the National Chiropractic Health Care Advisory Committee, died with his attorney Steve Dickson in a small plane crash. Dr. Heard, in addition to serving on Clinton’s advisory council personally treated Clinton’s mother, stepfather and brother.
        23 – Barry Seal – Drug running pilot out of Mena, Arkansas, death was no accident.
        24 – Johnny Lawhorn Jr. – Mechanic, found a check made out to Bill Clinton in the trunk of a car left at his repair shop. He was found dead after his car had hit a utility pole.
        25 – Stanley Huggins – Investigated Madison Guarantee. His death was a purported suicide and his report was never released.
        26- Hershell Friday – Attorney and Clinton fund raiser died March 1, 1994 when his plane exploded.
        27 – Kevin Ives and Don Henry – Known as “The boys on the track” case. Reports say the boys may have stumbled upon the Mena Arkansas airport drug operation. A controversial case, the initial report of death said, due to falling asleep on railroad tracks. Later reports claim the two boys had been slain before being placed on the tracks. Many linked to the case died before their testimony could come before a Grand Jury.
        THE FOLLOWING PERSONS HAD INFORMATION ON THE IVES/HENRY CASE:
        28 – Keith Coney – Died when his motorcycle slammed into the back of a truck, July 1988.
        29 – Keith McMaskle – Died stabbed 113 times, Nov, 1988
        30 – Gregory Collins – Died from a gunshot wound January 1989.
        31 – Jeff Rhodes – He was shot, mutilated and found burned in a trash dump in April 1989.
        33 – James Milan – Found decapitated. However, the Coroner ruled his death was due to “natural causes.”
        34 – Jordan Kettleson – Was found shot to death in the front seat of his pickup truck in June 1990.
        35 – Richard Winters – A suspect in the Ives / Henry deaths. He was killed in a set-up robbery July 1989.
        THE FOLLOWING CLINTON BODYGUARDS ARE DEAD: 36 – Major William S. Barkley Jr. 37 – Captain Scott J. Reynolds 38 – Sgt. Brian Hanley 39 – Sgt. Tim Sabel 40 – Major General William Robertson 41 – Col. William Densberger 42 – Col. Robert Kelly 43 – Spec. Gary Rhodes 44 – Steve Willis 45 – Robert Williams 46 – Conway LeBleu 47 – Todd McKeehan

        Liked by 3 people

  15. Pam says:

    Liked by 1 person

  16. bertdilbert says:

    At this point what difference does it make? If Comey said prosecute, Obama would have ended up and will still probably pardon Hillary for any wrongdoing. So why waste a single tax dollar moving forward? That would just be dumb. Meanwhile after Obama leaves office, he will speak privately at the Clinton Foundation for a couple million bucks. It is not like we do not know how the game works by now.

    Like

    • Jedi9 says:

      Also, to add to your point, which is a very important one, is that Clinton has not been tried yet, so in essence there is no statue of limitations on this, as of many of the other egregious violations committed by the Clinton’s. So in essence thinking about this in a broader context, yes we are outraged, but in the longer term, it could be a good thing. Also as others have pointed out here on this forum, that this particular case probably involves a lot more people, including the President, so the possibility that there is a cover up going on here has some plausibility!

      Liked by 2 people

    • ZurichMike says:

      Correct. Obama can’t pardon someone who has not been indicted, prosecuted, and/or found guilty. So this is still lingering over Hillary’s carcass.

      Like

      • wheatietoo says:

        Not so, Mike…unfortunately.

        President Gerald Ford pardoned Nixon, for the Watergate thing.
        It was done preemptively, before any indictments had been made.
        It was a blanket pardon…for anything related to the subject of Watergate or the coverup.

        In Hillary’s case though, she knows so much on Obama that he would be foolish to give her a pardon.
        That would free her up to spill what she knows about him.

        Liked by 1 person

  17. Daniel says:

    I’ll just say the coercion is plain and obvious. He told the Truth to the world and then made the recommendation he was required to make, That the information and the conclusion do not match is the message.

    Many people keep trashing Comey. I saw it as courageous from the get-go. I knew as he introduced his delivery, that he was about to do something amazing but I also expected him to resign as a form of protest…. I got that wrong but a resignation could come at any time.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Trumpire says:

      I think he got pulled into it because of Lynch and Clinton getting caught on the tarmac.

      Lynch was obviously compromised, publically because of the tarmac meeting, and that forced them to go with Plan B, the FBI Director had to come out and give the non-indictment recommendation and so he was forced to try to back that decision up since there was already so much information known by the public about her having a server/email system thanks to Judicial Watch.

      Like

    • PatriotKate says:

      I think that Scott Adams’ take on the situation was interesting. I had never thought of it this way.
      http://blog.dilbert.com/post/147045002381/the-fbi-credibility-and-government

      Like

  18. Pam says:

    Like

  19. Pam says:

    Like

  20. CM-TX says:

    So we have Gross Negligence (“extreme carelessness”) that technically requires no intent beyond the act itself. Most probable it was hacked because of this, but a separate issue if it did. She ultimately jeopardized national security- again it’s the risk not whether it did or didn’t.

    And What do they mean there was no intent? She intentionally bypassed the system knowing she should not. And she did so in a most irresponsible manner. Her intent was to hide her emails from gov, press, & the people. Why would she do that? Because she expected to receive questionable content, & intended to send the same. What additional crimes those entailed is anyone’s guess- because she intentionally tampered with & destroyed evidence.

    She also took steps to ensure that evidence was not recoverable. She did this by instructing staff to send her server to another IT security company to have it wiped/overwritten. That’s yet another channel that conceivably saw or stored server contents. It defies common sense that none of this is a crime warranting prosecution.

    Like

    • Stinky-Inky says:

      I think it’s more than gross negligence. She was PROFITING from the negligence.
      I’m not a lawyer. Nor a prosecutor. Nor a cop. But I kind of think like a cop–it’s in my genes. Gotta ask: qui bene?
      Does the classified material mishandling coincide with donations to the CGI from foreign entities?
      I don’t understand how any investigator could look at this situation and not ask that simple question.

      Liked by 2 people

      • SharonKinDC says:

        I’ve been banging on re the Clinton Foundation for months. The linkages between donations & ‘favors’ to donors shows a high coincidence factor in many cases. Ppl need to be tweeting/posting re Clinton Fdn>pay 2 play> RICO. That’s how the Clinton Mob gets taken out… When AG Christie goes after them in the Trump Admin.

        Liked by 2 people

  21. bertdilbert says:

    Wait, another broken Obama promise.

    Like

  22. flitetym says:

    Oh Gawd … Clinton gave away the family jewels …

    Like

  23. Eric Kennedy says:

    Perhaps I’m stating the obvious to some OR sounding like a conspiracy theory nut to others, but I believe the FOCUS of the entire e-mail scandal has been misplaced and that Americans have not draw the correct conclusions.

    Why did Hillary do what she did? Answer: To hide foreign donations and influence peddling by foreign governments WHILE she was Secretary of State.

    What does this really mean? Foreign governments have bribed Hillary to receive preferential treatment/influence both as Secretary and, more importantly, when she became President. At best, this is MASSIVE ethics violations (also against the law) and at worst TREASON.

    What this REALLY means, Part II: USG governmental decision making is in the hands of foreign governments and/or entities.

    If this is really and truly revealed, faith in our entire system of government will collapse.

    That is what is being hidden.

    Liked by 5 people

  24. Pam says:

    Liked by 2 people

  25. Joe says:

    I couldn’t give two shits about Comey’s supposed fear of being killed if he tells the truth.

    Go look at American military cemeteries then get back to me.

    F’ him if that is his excuse.

    Investigate Comey. DESTROY his reputation. DESTROY his lifestyle. DESTROY the respect his family and friends have for him. Threaten him with a state execution. Then, just then, he may find a f’n backbone.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jett Black says:

      Excellent points and very well said! This will be my go-to retort to anyone who says Comey dissembled b/c he was under duress. I think it’s BS for other reasons, but yours really put the right hat on it. He’s a traitor and a coward and deserves all the vilification that can be heaped on him, unless and until he redeems himself (which I’m betting is never).

      Like

      • Joe says:

        I agree, i think Comey is simply a traitor who made a deal.

        But if not then he is a major league coward and deserves the most intense public vilification that can be heaped on a human being. Anyone who benefits from his income or prestige should be treated the same. And YES, I mean his wife and kids.

        Anyone with a modicum of historical knowledge knows that during the Revolutionary War & Civil War everyone was forced to declare their loyalties. Hell, Franklin disowned his own son, whom he adored.

        Liked by 1 person

        • bofh says:

          Could not agree more with this thread of comments.

          Remember all the tortured logic after Roberts crumbled and gave us Obamare – intricate fantasies how his action was actually courageous and would surely result in Ocare being ultimately removed (by the action of others). Sure it made no sense, but it offered us a brief chance to not have to embrace the realization that we had been betrayed by the “conservative” John Roberts, which was the rather obvious conclusion to ultimately arrive at.

          This has that same smell. Comey has shown no evidence that he even deserves the benefit of the doubt on this. He had ONE JOB TO DO and he bailed on it. Period. His mewling and the tenuous theories of those unwilling to face the magnitude of his cowardice and betrayal don’t change that.

          Like

          • Jedi9 says:

            Interesting enough on the premise of cowardice, why Gowdy continues to defy this if indeed Clinton is the Dragon everyone fears, and Comey, head of the largest Law enforcement agency folds like a stack of cards in fear of such reprisals, certainly is a confounding disposition to ponder when all things are considered. I am having a very hard time reconciling this!

            Like

    • Trumpire says:

      “I couldn’t give two shits about Comey’s supposed fear of being killed if he tells the truth.
      Go look at American military cemeteries then get back to me. F’ him if that is his excuse.”

      Exactly! That’s what I say. I’m dumbfounded by all the comments across multiple internet board with comments like, “Well, he doesn’t want to get Vince Fostered.”

      OMG. That’s his job. That’s what he’s paid for. That’s why we give him physical security.

      The lame ass comments make it sound it’s ok for him to commit crimes for the criminals if they threaten him. Damn.

      Was there a clause in his contract about taking all the money, pension and accolades but if he has to actually do his job well then it’s ok to do nothing? To cave? To join them?

      We currently have soldiers maimed or buried and these ##### are excusing his behavior. It’s a mockery at a bear minimum to their sacrifices for our country.

      Like

    • SharonKinDC says:

      Not when you consider the pay-2-play Clinton Fdn skullduggery which is the big fish which will ONLY be caught when Trump is POTUS. I do NOT want Comey stepping down so BO can bring in the ‘shredding’ candidate who will purge files.

      Like

  26. Papoose says:

    No Oath or Transcripts of the Saturday FBI “Review”….mmmkay,. So it was a review. A complete review of what was going to be said just as predicted by bogus potus back in April.

    No Oath, No transcripts on the Saturday Eve of the National Holiday of Independence. mmmmkay.

    Collusion

    Like

  27. Richard_Iowa says:

    Here is what stood out to me. “… what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice.” He is stating that they did investigate, they did find something, but he is not divulging what they concluded. He is divulging what they are recommending to the DOJ. These two things might be millions of miles apart.

    Like

  28. Paul Killinger says:

    What IS true here is it’s exceedingly rare when the opposition is literally handed a genuine Watergate-type political opportunity.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Pam says:

    Like

  30. Pam says:

    Liked by 1 person

  31. RM says:

    Inspector Erskine has been dead a long time. Director Comey is just like the rest of Washington D.C: Totally corrupt and determined to continue the “Fundamental Transformation” of the U.S spearheaded by “Dear Leader”. Not ONE F.B.I agent has resigned in protest of this treacherous failure to act. What does that tell you about “Bravery, Loyalty and Integrity”? It’s just another marketing slogan. I’m voting for Trump but I’ve come to the conclusion that only The Lord Jesus Christ is going to stop the evil running loose in our nation and all over the entire planet.
    Come soon Lord.

    Like

  32. AmyB says:

    The only way Comey could be telling the truth about Clinton’s “unsophistication” at this point in her career, with years of experience at high levels of government, is if she is mentally incompetent. Is that it, Mrs. Clinton? We know that you’re a famous liar and killer. We also know you are evil as they come. But Comey seems to be adding to the list why no American should ever vote for you – your evil is eating your brain now that it is finished with your soul.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. paul vincent zecchino says:

    Who cares what his stupid blinking means?
    He sent a signal: The Clintons can get away with murder, treason, anything they want on his watch.

    He failed to prosecute. End of story. Blink away, blinkypuff.

    He sent a signal to the world that America is a lawless nation ripe for takeover by hostile nations.

    Liked by 1 person

  34. trapper says:

    I listened to some of Comey’s testimony, certainly not all of it. The part I watched was remarkable for an answer he gave, and the obvious follow-up question that was never asked.

    You have to listen very carefully to Comey’s words. He stated that there is no “direct evidence” that classified information found its way to a hostile regime. But there is hardly ever direct evidence of such a thing. The relevant question, the follow-up question that never came, the dog that didn’t bark, is whether the FBI found INdirect evidence from which a legal inference may be drawn that classified information was compromised.

    In this context, if you include top secret information in an email, such as the name of an agent or intel source (or an ambassador’s itinerary?) and that person later turns up dead, that would be indirect evidence from which you may draw the legal inference that your email had been compromised.

    It’s similar to the old law school joke where a defense attorney asks a prosecution witness whether he actually SAW his client bite off the victim’s ear, to which the witness answers “no, I did not.” Then the defense attorney asks the witness if he didn’t SEE him bite it off, how does the witness know he did it? The witness answers “because I saw him spit it out.”

    Indirect evidence of an action from which the action itself may be legally inferred.

    Like

    • trapper says:

      In this regard, I repost the following:

      There was an article by John Fund in National Review that went through some of Hillary’s emails:

      http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429526/hillarys-e-mail-scandal-grows-latest-batch-shows-she-broke-rules-again

      I can’t shake the feeling that we are being led down a specific path here by some tantalizing bread crumbs left for us. So let’s follow them and see where they take us.

      Mr. Fund begins in the second paragraph by telling us “there is vitriol of an intense amount developing’ in the intelligence community”

      Intelligence community? OK, I’ll bite. This first bread crumb identifies the path to go down: the intelligence community.

      He then tells us about two emails in 2011, the first in January and the second four months later that had a redacted subject line “almost certainly because it involved classified or confidential material.”

      These are the second and third bread crumbs. January, 2011, and then 4 months later. That gives us our point of beginning and direction, begin in January, 2011, and go forward from there.

      A few paragraphs later: “Among the security breaches: Clinton forwarded the name of a confidential CIA source to staff at State through her insecure server.” That describes the treasure we are looking for, the message: something to do with breach of security and confidential CIA sources.

      Put it all together, and what happened in mid to late 2011 that involved compromised confidential CIA sources? Glad you asked. This from the Daily Mail article in November, 2011: “More than a dozen CIA spies have reportedly been caught in Iran and Lebanon and the U.S. government now fears they have been executed.”

      Read the Mail article here:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2064286/CIA-spies-captured-Iran-Lebanon-Hezbollah-feared-executed.html

      Did Hillary get them killed?

      Liked by 2 people

      • frangelica1 says:

        There is some talk that Hillary may have deliberately released info like this in exchange for money from other governments to the Clinton Foundation. Maybe one of the reason’s she had her own email server was to send info she knew could be hacked after a payment was made. Then it wouldn’t be traced back to her directly; they could just say her server was hacked!

        Comments were made that she committed treason and sacrificed US personnel in order to make big bucks that got some US agents/ personnel killed. This could have been one of her deals.

        This is the reason Congress must request the FBI to conduct a Clinton Foundation investigation. Forget the email case, this is the Big Dog that needs to be investigated!

        Like

  35. Boudica says:

    A while back they made a big ta-do about the fact that Hillary’s server was in a bathroom closet. Now they talk about the server being in the basement. Since we now know there were multiple servers, exactly how many were there, where were they, who administered them, and who used them and did all those people have proper clearance including those that searched them to determine their final destiny.

    Like

    • Jedi9 says:

      Why not add to what exactly did Pagliano agree to for his immunity deal as well? The fact that his name is being scarcely mention, is further indictment that we as commoners observing this are being led off the trail of truth!

      Liked by 1 person

  36. three by one says:

    Problem is the MSM plays this to the inattentive masses as, “the FBI cleared her”

    That’s the summary that Comey handed to them.

    Like

  37. Frank_O'Pinion says:

    Root cause: the unConstitutional presidency of Barack Hussein Obama.

    Washington D.C. is a massive web of interlinked blackmail among all departments, starting with the mutual blackmail between Obama and the Clintons. Then there is Congress. Obama has dirt on all of those scabs, simply from the fact that they allowed an unConstitutional and undocumented alien to usurp the executive office. Misprision of treason is what you call it. Do you think that any of these 535 cowards are going to fink?

    B. HUSSEIN Obama is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the citizens of the U.S.A. by all 535+ Cowards in the Congress, by all nine Traitors in the U.S. Supreme Court, by all of the Brain-dead democratic and White-guilt republican voters, and by all of the Communists in the Lame-stream Media.

    Obama is a putative usurping POtuS and undocumented alien occupying the White House of Sodomy.

    Every time Obama opens his mouth, taqiyya-dribble rolls off of his tongue.

    http://www.islam-watch.org/Warner/Taqiyya-Islamic-Principle-Lying-for-Allah.htm
    From a poster that is right-on-target.
    To wit:
    The reason the meaning of natural born citizen has been tortured into meaning virtually anyone is because this discussion is taking place after the commission of a crime, “too big to prosecute”, by a lot of rich, powerful, and influential people.

    Once Congress allowed and assisted the ineligible, identity fraud con-artist Barack Hussein Obama to usurp the presidency there was no one complicit in Obama’s successful takeover of America’s highest office, and her military, who was not going to fight, with everything in them to insure Barry remains officially a legitimate president. Anything else subjects the complicit to charges of treason, many at the highest possible level, for literally giving America’s government and her military to the enemy. No amount of history, common sense or anything else will ever get an admission from the media, Congress or the others involved that they were complicit in, as a minimum, misprision of felony/treason for their part in the biggest hoax in history.

    Obama must be protected from the truth about him being fully revealed and acted on. When the regime owns the courts, Congress, and the media, that job becomes doable, no matter how compelling or plentiful evidence to the contrary may be. 

    Supporting and defending as many ineligible presidential candidates (such as Jindal, Rubio, and Cruz) as possible is a way of protecting Obama’s false eligibility, as ineligible candidates are molded into natural born citizens by those who want the Obama fraud to just fade away, and their paid assistants. Every ineligible candidate accepted as, “eligible”, no matter what it takes for that to happen, helps them reach their goal.

    Those complicit believe their personal freedom could depend on continuing the charade of legitimacy they have surrounded Obama with, both by their actions, and inaction.

    Mr. Donald Trump, the first and most important thing about him is he is not a politician, he is not loved nor liked by the GOP establishment, the media, or the Democratic Party. Trump is not just disliked by these people, he is feared. If there was no other reason than that to vote for him, he would get my vote. But there is more, much more. 

    1.Trump has made many enemies over the years because of his ability to outmaneuver his adversaries. He has been described by those competitors as aggressive and brutal. Not one of them however has said that they had ever been lied to or cheated by him. 

    2.Some have said Donald’s word was better than a written contract with anyone else. 

    3.He saw the sorry pathetic group of people who declared they were entering the primary and he realized that America could not survive more of the same. 

    4.He decided to run for President at a great loss of personal wealth and enormous danger to both him and his family. He did this not for any reason except he feared where our country was being taken. 

    There may be, in some people’s mind, many reasons to not support Trump. Some might say he’s arrogant, some might think he can’t do what he promises, some might not like his bluster or his tone. If those issues are deemed valid and if in fact they are the only reasons for not supporting him and enough voters feel that way, America is destined to the cycle of perpetual cronyism as there will never be accepted, a man with the abilities needed to end it. 

    Then there will be those who, whether they care to admit it to themselves or not, are simply jealous of what Trump has done. Jealous of his financial success, jealous of his social success and jealous of his rise in the political arena in such a very small time. Those people know who they are. Those attitudes mostly dominate the Democratic Party where envy and jealousy are mandatory traits. Thankfully, a very small number of people who call themselves conservatives, harbor such thoughts. 

    The reason he is hated and feared is really quite simple. He has promised his supporters during his rallies to end corruption, find those who are doing it and put them in jail, he has promised to find and stamp out waste. Trump looks into the camera and thereby the eyes of his followers and swears he will do this. Some of you reading this may not be sure, but the establishment is made up of true believers. That my friends, is why all of them have aligned against him. He must be stopped. Trump understands the danger he is placing himself in. Trump has nothing to gain financially and much to lose running for President. His losses will be America’s gain. All we need to do is help him, help us. 

    Others who do not like Trump, will find themselves putting labels on him, believing what his enemies suggest he is or will do, all without any proof or reason except that it fits with their dislike of him. That of course is how politics works. And for sure it will always be so. 

    Some of the things I hear is that Trump is not conservative. There is no real description of just exactly what that means. But what I do know is that every politician I have supported over the years, who had called himself a conservative, has gone to Washington and left his political dictionary home. 

    It is my belief that none, not one of the people running for the Presidency will change anything, will confront or the villains and battle the crooks. None that is except Trump. He may not be able to do what he has promised but three things are certain. He believes he can, he will try and not one of the others will. 

    TPATH is supporting Donald Trump and I believe he is the only answer to the mess this country is in because of both parties. God help and protect Donald Trump. If we lose him, it’s doubtful our country will survive long enough for another to arrive. 

    Liked by 2 people

  38. Bluto says:

    Liked by 2 people

  39. milo minderbinder says:

    Actually I think this situation is better than Hillary being indicted and becoming a martyr.

    Liked by 1 person

  40. Bluto says:

    Liked by 3 people

  41. Deserttrek says:

    he is a traitor just like john roberts

    Like

  42. TrustyHaste says:

    I am thinking Comey is doing something brilliant. Let her go because of the emails, then get both Bill and Hillary with the Foundation crimes which just might dwarf the others. Just in time for new AG, Chris Christie to prosecute.

    Like

    • I was thinking the same thing. But then I have been reading all night. Apparently Comey has a rather long history of helping the Clintons skate. We’ve been had. I can’t understand why everyone was praising Comey so much until today. Congress should have known better.

      Like

  43. Papoose says:

    LOOKTHATAWAY, PATRIOTS… RIOTS…. 2016 !!!

    agenda

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s