DescentBB

This development will disappoint quite a few conservatives who were hoping for an indictment against Hillary.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-comey-no ... 00895.html

actually, the report was hardly flattering, and I certainly cannot see enough of a door-closing here for Conservatives to cease with attacks about the email things. Given the complete assclown they are running, I don't think it will matter, in the long run. Meanwhile, the Speaker keeps waiting.......http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

I don't like Clinton, but this whole sordid episode is nothing but political theater. That's probably why the FBI couldn't recommend any charges because Hillary didn't set precedence or do anything much different from one of her predecessors, Collin Powell, and Collin Powell can't even present anyone with his emails. They're all deleted, so who knows?

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show ... illary-did

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/c ... ate-115707

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/03/c ... ent-115870

And Rachael Maddow shows us just how antiquated the State Department IT system is, still to this day. Computer geeks will find this hilarious.

it's sort of funny watching the GOP immediately overplay the hand: FBI director, in this case, is a respected man of the UTMOST integrity. He's served under 3 AGs, has NEVER been suggested to be controlled by any of them. Despite this, we now have the idiot fringe players(Guiliani of 9/11 self-aggrandizement, Trump, others) suggesting wrongdoing by the FBI director, or at the very least complete incompetence. This will blow up in their faces, fast.

Hold it. Before complaining about 1980s computer hardware running the ICBMs. Consider: odds are these systems have been through an enormous amount of testing and validation which may not be of any practical benefit to attempt with more modern hardware. Similarly, the space program also uses much older hardware because older hardware has been tested and validated to work reliably in high radiation environments.

The reason why is because modern computers can crash or experience errors because bits within your computers memory are composed of cells so small that they can be "flipped" by cosmic rays or other sources of relatively high energy particles striking the memory modules. Older computers are immune to that effect because the components within them are significantly larger, large enough to absorb the energy from cosmic rays or other energetic particles without changing their charge enough to impact the reliability of the machine. If these "1980s" systems are used in close proximity to sources of radiation, all the more reason to not attempt to use dramatically more sensitive modern hardware for mission critical systems.

Keep in mind modern computers have components in them that are so small, the designers had to compensate for quantum effects within them. A reasonable portion of what goes into manufacturing modern processors and memory involves nuclear and or quantum physics, so it makes sense to not use these around sources of significant ionizing radiation.

Yeah, but who in the hell still owns old, antiquated systems like these, other than the government, cosmic bulletproofness (I know, I made up the word) aside? I newest old tech I think I may have are a few 51/4 floppies and a whole bunch of 31/2 floppies still around in a box, but I sure as heck don't have any drives or systems that can read them. My husband actually remembers those old giant space-taking low storage hard drives they use to use at HP. Oh wait, I guess my old XPS Dell, that runs Windows XP and which is stored in my basement in a box because it's no longer internet safe, still has a 31/2 floppy drive. You know you're an old techie when some young precocious kid asks you what that 31/2 inch floppy disk thingie is sitting on your shelf.

tunnelcat wrote:This development will disappoint quite a few conservatives who were hoping for an indictment against Hillary.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/fbi-comey-no ... 00895.html

This only shows how much this country has fallen away from the rule of law...and into becoming just another tyranny where the "elite" are above the law. We're nothing more now than just another banana republic.

find me one person prosecuted for what she did, proveably. Then we can wring our hands about elites and rules of law. For crying out loud,the investigation was overseen by a Republican appointee with a sterling reputation for decency and fairness. I could easily see it causing issues with security training or retraining and a reprimand were she still employed at State. But to suggest anything further is a stretch.

and from the folks who have brought non-stop Clinton hearings......more hearings:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... ar-AAi8X6b

http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... nton-case/

Edit:
http://freebeacon.com/issues/fbi-hostil ... l-secrets/

callmeslick wrote:find me one person prosecuted for what she did, proveably. Then we can wring our hands about elites and rules of law. For crying out loud,the investigation was overseen by a Republican appointee with a sterling reputation for decency and fairness. I could easily see it causing issues with security training or retraining and a reprimand were she still employed at State. But to suggest anything further is a stretch.

John Deutch comes to mind. Ironically he was pardoned by Bill before things got rolling.

but Grendel, all they can say about her servers is 'maybe', while they KNOW hostile actors have penetrated government servers for years. Kind of non supportive facts for anyone to get worked up over Clinton's vulnerability. As I've said before, the whole issue should be around her attitude and awareness, and lord knows I hope she's learned a lesson or two here, because, face it, she will be almost certainly the next POTUS.

Grendel wrote: http://freebeacon.com/national-security ... nton-case/

Edit:
http://freebeacon.com/issues/fbi-hostil ... l-secrets/

Mr. James Kallstrom seems to be forgetting that FBI Director JamesComey is a Republican and was G.W. Bush's Deputy Attorney General. Comey had no reason to let off Clinton for her mistakes, or idiocy in her case. He sounds like an honest man who did the job he was supposed to do. He's also shown he's capable of doing the right thing during the Ashcroft Hospital showdown that occurred years ago. I sense that Kallstrom is chewing on a some partisan sour grapes and doesn't like the taste.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013 ... all-about/

Slick, the FBI did find that Clinton lied to the people about not using her private email for classified documents. I think even though she probably won't be prosecuted, she's shown herself to be either untrustworthy or worse, exhibits poor judgement. The lesson she probably DID learn from all this was that she needs to be more secretive and careful, not more transparent and forthcoming.

I'm just wondering how you democrats can stomach Hillary Nixon.

She's 'your gal' but there has to be some kind of limit to your internal bull**** tolerance from your 'own side'....or is there?

tunnelcat wrote:Comey had no reason to let off Clinton for her mistakes, or idiocy in her case..

But..it wasn't "idiocy" or any kind of a "mistake." Her only mistake in her eyes was getting caught.

Her calculated purpose was to keep her dealings off the record and away from any future consequences. She assumes the rule of law doesn't apply to her- and today she was proven right.

callmeslick wrote:but Grendel, all they can say about her servers is 'maybe', while they KNOW hostile actors have penetrated government servers for years. Kind of non supportive facts for anyone to get worked up over Clinton's vulnerability. As I've said before, the whole issue should be around her attitude and awareness, and lord knows I hope she's learned a lesson or two here, because, face it, she will be almost certainly the next POTUS.

That "maybe" has a very high probability attached to it just by the fact that she was using her email while in Russia and China. The absolute minimum that should be done is revoking her security clearance since she has proven to be negligent w/ classified information. Sad that she won't need the clearance as POTUS.

I don't know about you but I would like someone as POTUS that I can trust to represent the US' best interests. Does that sound like HC ?

Nightshade wrote:I'm just wondering how you democrats can stomach Hillary Nixon.

The two friends of mine who openly support Mrs Clinton are both lawyers, and fairly brilliant ones at that. Both take a "big picture" view of the world and can talk in great detail about her merits and how her presidency will affect the global economy. For the most part I agree with them on her qualifications. As I've said many times I don't like her personally, but I think she would do a great job.

Before I get accused of being a shill, I exercised my right as an unaffiliated voter to choose a Democratic ballot in the California primary and vote for Sanders because I like the conversation he brings to the table (though realistically his ideas are years ahead of where the USA needs to be). Keep in mind I would almost certainly be voting for Jeb! in the general election if he got the nomination.

I don't believe Mrs Clinton is any more corrupt than the rest of the government. In fact, many different departments of government are at each other's throats most of the time. It's a mess, but that goes along with having such a large and diverse nation.

Grendel wrote:I don't know about you but I would like someone as POTUS that I can trust to represent the US' best interests. Does that sound like HC ?

She's been representing the US quite well for over 20 years. I'm perfectly comfortable with her as president. Even more so as president than Secretary of State since she will have a team with some of the most qualified individuals keeping her on track.

tunnelcat wrote:Mr. James Kallstrom seems to be forgetting that FBI Director JamesComey is a Republican and was G.W. Bush's Deputy Attorney General. Comey had no reason to let off Clinton for her mistakes, or idiocy in her case. He sounds like an honest man who did the job he was supposed to do. He's also shown he's capable of doing the right thing during the Ashcroft Hospital showdown that occurred years ago. I sense that Kallstrom is chewing on a some partisan sour grapes and doesn't like the taste.

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013 ... all-about/

People in DC live in their own little world of circle jerking -- some things they do can be perceived as "the right thing". Kallstrom at least provides us w/ some entertainment.

Grendel wrote: I don't know about you but I would like someone as POTUS that I can trust to represent the US' best interests. Does that sound like HC ?

so much more so than Trump it isn't funny. Yes, I think she could capably and decently be ASSURED to act in our nations best interests. NOTHING she has done indicates any other higher interest. Further, in contrast to Trump, she wouldn't destroy the nation or the world blundering around.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz

note, in this article, one of those supporting Hillary is yet ANOTHER security expert from the Bush administration. Grendel, you ask how someone can feel comfortable with her in charge.......how comfortable are you with the guy talking about Saddam Hussein's great points(suggesting murdering people as a deterrent), retweeting Nazi symbolism without any awareness, or with a track record of ACTIVELY SEEKING to obstruct justice?

No slick, we can be assured she will act in her personal best interests. You forget all the donations given to the Clinton Foundation by foreign govt. and we have yet to see the inner workings of how the Clinton Foundation works. Citizens United got a federal judge to force the release of Hillary's schedules that will show while SoS, Hillary was coordinating state dept trips to see donors for the Foundation. I shudder to think what this self aggrandizing woman will do if President. One only needs look back when Bill was in office and how the Chinese benefited from him .

Grendel wrote:

callmeslick wrote:find me one person prosecuted for what she did, proveably. Then we can wring our hands about elites and rules of law. For crying out loud,the investigation was overseen by a Republican appointee with a sterling reputation for decency and fairness. I could easily see it causing issues with security training or retraining and a reprimand were she still employed at State. But to suggest anything further is a stretch.

John Deutch comes to mind. Ironically he was pardoned by Bill before things got rolling.

Sandy Burger also comes to mind. How is stuffing documents down your pants any different from stuffing documents into your own private server? At least with Berger the documents didn't wind up in some hackers hard drive.

the cynical can view it this way:
https://www.instagram.com/p/BHgV7L-BQhG/

woodchip wrote:Sandy Burger also comes to mind. How is stuffing documents down your pants any different from stuffing documents into your own private server? At least with Berger the documents didn't wind up in some hackers hard drive.

if you cannot see the difference, I'm glad you aren't prosecuting ANYONE. You haven't the first clue WHAT happened to the docs Berger took, NOR if anything ever was taken from her server(the FBI doesn't know, so you sure as feck don't), so thanks for the daily guesswork to bolster your suppositions.

Woodchip and Thunderbunny deeply dissatisfied with outcome that leaves Clintons still drawing breath.

In other news: Rain is still wet.

update, House GOP is getting schooled, shamed and utterly gutted by Comey. Why the hell they thought grilling a career law enforcement expert on the stand, implying he might have been swayed by mere politics is baffling. However, the entire conduct of this matter by the House and Senate GOP has almost been seemingly designed to HELP Hillary look good, and if nothing else, rational and professional by comparison.Today, they let Director Comey make her pitch for her, which frees her to focus elsewhere.

I'm sure republicans already started the paperwork for the next investigation months ago. Actually, they probably just have numbered forms specifically for starting investigations on the Clintons so they can start one as easy as signing a check (out of the taxpayers account of course).

Maybe it isn't even about the findings of these investigations anymore, it is just that they have to always keep investigations going in order to keep a constant supply of political ammunition. Why else maintain this perfect feedback loop of continually starting new investigations because they weren't satisfied with the results of the previous one?

isn't that the definition of insanity? to keep doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result each time?

Only if some sort of conviction is the result they're after. That may be a welcome result, but I don't think it's the main result sought. They are flooding the zone, working the refs, and any other metaphor describes the constant barrage of of negativity that shapes perception. And perception is successfully shaped, so I wouldn't say they are expecting different results.

Heh: http://www.stripes.com/news/marine-corp ... o-1.417907

callmeslick wrote:Grendel, you ask how someone can feel comfortable with her in charge.......how comfortable are you with the guy talking about Saddam Hussein's great points(suggesting murdering people as a deterrent), retweeting Nazi symbolism without any awareness, or with a track record of ACTIVELY SEEKING to obstruct justice?

About the same.

Well this complicates things. FBI head says Hillary claims of emails while under oath...were not true. So why does Martha Stewart go to jail for exact same scenario and Hillary skates?

FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday that Hillary Clinton’s claims -- some made under oath -- about her use of a private email server were “not true,” raising the question of whether in doing so she committed a felony.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07 ... aring.html

except, when asked DIRECTLY, he replied that there was NO EVIDENCE of her lying under oath, or even being purposefully deceptive in questioning. He made the GOP questioners look like spoiled children, whining because they didn't like losing a game. I disagree with some above who might suggest that the outcome is to keep it in the spotlight. At this point, they've sold their BS to everyone dumb enough to buy it(Woody, for instance) and the blowback about the constant attacks upon Clinton, in the face of so many REAL ISSUES to deal with is going to be huge. Today did NOT in any way hurt Clinton. She got a free defense, from an unimpeachable source, and didn't even have to add further comment. Her campaign staff has to be dancing. At this point, the Presidential race is approaching a foregone conclusion, and the real game being played is to turn over the House and win back the Senate. Public displays of the lack of responsibilty by the incumbant party in control of Congress will just add to the message being sent in Dem advertising.

Oh please slick, stop acting like Hillary's personal defense lawyer. Comey first says she said things under oath that were not true. Then he says:

At the same time, Comey staunchly defended the bureau’s decision not to pursue charges. He also said, “We have no basis to conclude that [Clinton] lied to the FBI.”

I'm beginning to wonder if Comey is not doing the old "definition of is" routine. Does he not understand that untrue statements are lies? While I respected Comey's integrity at one time, I'm beginning to wonder if it hasn't been co-opted.

meanwhile, coupled with an all-day public exoneration of Hillary, which could have been avoided(Comey didn't elaborate yesterday), we had this meeting, which just went dandy.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnbcA1

I'd give anything to be having dinner and drinks with Sen Flake this evening. Anything.

You call Comey statements of Hillary an exoneration? Wow

He also keeps deflecting by dragging Trump into this thread. Oh well, whatever.

Nightshade wrote:I'm just wondering how you democrats can stomach Hillary Nixon.

She's 'your gal' but there has to be some kind of limit to your internal bull**** tolerance from your 'own side'....or is there?

tunnelcat wrote:Comey had no reason to let off Clinton for her mistakes, or idiocy in her case..

But..it wasn't "idiocy" or any kind of a "mistake." Her only mistake in her eyes was getting caught.

Her calculated purpose was to keep her dealings off the record and away from any future consequences. She assumes the rule of law doesn't apply to her- and today she was proven right.

First of all NS, Hillary is not my gal. I loathe her and everything she does. I loathe the fact the American people only have either her or Trump to choose from to elect to the highest office in the land. Plus, about half of all Democrats cannot stomach Hillary Clinton, nor want her as president. That's about a similar percentage of Republicans who can't stomach Trump, nor want him to be president either. What a choice. Which turd to vote for. The one that's orange or the one that's brown.

And according to Comey, they found no "intent", and that's the operative word here, to mishandle classified information. Everything else he said pretty much lambasts her actions. So she had to be either an idiot or careless, or as you pointed out and I quote, "Her calculated purpose was to keep her dealings off the record and away from any future consequences". You know, I'm kind of liking your thinking on this point too. I think she's arrogant and in an effort to keep prying eyes away from her personal business, things royally backfired. Certainly her motivation was partially due to past Clinton dealings with the Republicans, so I can't blame her for trying. Unfortunately, she didn't do things properly befitting her post as Sec. State.

However, if Congress is so "intent" themselves on nailing Hillary to the wall, they'd better make sure she actually violated a federal statute to the letter. If Congress can't do that within the bounds of the law, they need to change the wording of the law, not that they can charge Hillary after the fact anyway. Personally, I'd love to see her convicted of something from this whole mess. She allowed her lawyers and staff, who were not cleared to view classified information or materials, to view her emails AND she lied to the American people about not using her personal email account for classified information. As to Comey's statement that she didn't lie to the FBI, since she wasn't under oath during that meeting, she could have told the FBI anything she wanted. I'm assuming that the FBI had some sort of evidence to back up her statements. It's the FBI after all.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press ... ablemobile

Director Comey wrote: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.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/politics/c ... st-clinton

Personally, I think it would be absolutely hilarious if she were the first elected president of the U.S. to be denied a top level security clearance based on past mishandling of top secret and classified documents.

EDIT: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/now-know ... 00426.html

tunnelcat wrote:Personally, I think it would be absolutely hilarious if she were the first elected president of the U.S. to be denied a top level security clearance based on past mishandling of top secret and classified documents.

Just too bad it won't matter

"The President of the United States may be given access to any government or military information that they request if there is a proper "need to know", even if they would not otherwise be able to normally obtain a security clearance were they not the President."

It's a fantasy, I realize that. I just think it would be a nice little black mark to stain her royal coronation.

woodchip wrote:You call Comey statements of Hillary an exoneration? Wow

yes, that was precisely what came across, due to the lines of questioning put forth by the GOP members. They set themselves up.