FBI Director Comey: It is possible hostile actors gained access to Clinton's email account.

well, Im a supporter of TPP because of the net positives for business services.(I do work overseas in the PR and it will be a great deal better than the preent "choose and slash profits by imposition of local tarrifs and contract fees)

I too, as an informed citizen would initially have voted for the IRAQ invasion since I had no reason to disbelieve the issues on WMD's . It wasnt till slightly after that air photos detailing the nature of the supposed chemical sites(and non-existent centrifuges) that Secy of Defense had discussed in his speeches before us and the UN. Ill admit I was fooled.

She claimed responsibility for the e-mails re Libya

I believe her sytance on Obama care had to do with several places that chnges are needed (especially issues on pharmas)
I dont disagree with some of what you say but I dont claim to be prescient.

"Prisons for profit"? Im not sure I even have considered an opinion re that one.

If they EVER get a successful politician into office you'll find yourself disagreeing with them more and more.

It's easy to be idealistic when no one is paying any attention to you. Once you have to make tough decisions and compromises and be held accountable for the consequences of those decisions, everything gets a little muddier.

I'm a supporter of the TPP because it makes life better for the world as a whole. The net result of free(er) trade is positive for the world.

People against NAFTA and the TPP are just protectionists. Americans are wealthier than just about the entire world. If free trade can improve the lives of the rest of the world then it's humanitarian to support it.

If I can't afford a 3rd television because someone in rural China is able to enjoy a life not worried about where their next meal may come from, then so be it.

I have been posting anti TPP information for months, but it dosn't seem to make an impression.
https://www.eff.org/issues/tpp
https://www.citizen.org/tpp

I have a separate thread to discuss the Greens. One point people seem intent on pressing is the difficulty of doing the right thing, so, consider it best to take what is offered without a struggle.

"Bad judgment"

That's all it is.

Just a case of bad judgment. With the Clintons, it always seems to be just a case of bad judgment, and yet their supporters are legion and prepared to see her as Commander-in-Chief of our armed forces and the Chief Executive of our government. One would expect, at a minimum, good judgment from such a person, but for her supporters, apparently, it's good enough that she simply not be a convicted felon. Well, that certainly makes for a Big Tent proposition for their party.

It was all too predictable that Clinton supporters would listen only for whether or not Comey was recommending prosecution and ignore all the rest. It's probably why he waited until the end for his reveal.

He may not be recommending a criminal indictment, but his statement couldn't have been much more of a personal indictment of her character and qualifications.

He didn't specifically call her a liar, but he took great pains to note, in detail, that the FBI found at least 100 e-mails which bore markings indicating they were classified, with quite a few being Secret and even Top Secret. This is clear evidence that she has been lying to the American people from the very beginning by stating that no e-mail sent or received by her via her personal server bore markings denoting their confidential nature. Her supporters can and will try to spin the truth in a thousand ways to cover for her, but she lied to us...emphatically and repeatedly.

Of course this isn't the first time she's been caught out in a lie. Like her supporters, her instances of prevarication and outright lying are legion.

But I guess that's just bad judgment. You know, it's not that easy for politicians to tell the truth. It's complicated. what with all the grey lines between what actually happened and their ambitious goals for the country. Yeah, she probably showed bad judgment by lying about this and all the other trouble she was trying to avoid, the schemes she was trying to advance, but hey, we all make mistakes. Besides, what's the big deal? It was e-mail. Sheesh, you would think State secrets or lives were involved?

Comey also quite directly obliterated the foundation of her lies that must have driven every career intelligence or federal law enforcement nuts: It never mattered whether or not the e-mail were marked SECRET, it's the content, not the labels that determine how sensitive information is to be properly treated. Yet that was her intended defense: "None of the e-mail I sent or received were marked in any way as confidential" What's unspoken there is "And I was too stupid to know what was or wasn't Secret or Top Secret without a label in red font, so don't blame me." Of course she didn't believe that, not Hillary, but her and team of strategists figured it might sound good to the American people, and at the very least it gave her surrogates on the Sunday shows something to repeat.

If justice is truly being served there will be consequences for this cynical and shabby defense which upon investigation fell completely apart because there were e-mails with marking indicating they were classified. It's quite clear there will be no legal consequences, but we can hope for those of a political nature. After all, what she was saying basically was "I didn't do anything wrong because none of the e-mail were marked SECRET." The obvious implication being "I did do something wrong if some were marked SECRET." And they were, top secret too in fact. She indicted herself with her own lousy defense.

The Director of the FBI stated

"...there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information...

He also stated she and her people were "extremely careless" with confidential/sensitive/secret/top secret information and although he characterized the likelihood of her server being hacked as only "possible" (an example of "restraint" that was beyond what was called for) he detailed why it was more than possible, it was likely that it had been hacked:

It was common knowledge that she was using a personal server. Her system didn't even have the level of security that comes with G-Mail, and she was sending classified information back and forth via that server, even while on the soil of the nations most likely to try an attack. He concluded with the caveat that the fact that they found no evidence of hacking is in no way proof that it didn't occurred because all of the hostile actors who might have attacked it, have the means to cover their tracks. She or one of her clowns is going to triumphantly pronounce that the FBI found that her server wasn't hacked, and my head is going to explode.

Comey has a solid reputation for integrity and independence so it's going to be tough for Clinton critics to make a "fix is in" charge stick, but his reputation is no guarantee that his finding isn't tainted.

I'm inclined to accept his statement that there was no evidence of criminal intent, but he made a clear point of stating that the applicable trigger doesn't require criminal intent, that it can be violated by gross negligence. Yet, after 15 minutes of laying out a case for gross negligence, he didn't even mention it in explaining his recommendation.

I swear, it was like watching someone saying what the bad guys who kidnapped his wife and kids demand he say, while all the while working working in contradictions to the finding he was forced to announce, as some sort of message to those listening.

It didn't make sense.

Regardless, there is zero chance of the DOJ not taking his recommendation, so there will be no legal consequences for Clinton. That it came right on the heels of the Lynch/Bill meeting and Lynch announcing she would follow the FBI's recommendations (as if she had to because she screwed the pooch with the totally inappropriate meeting), makes the who thing smell even worse.

Going down that rabbit hole would be a big mistake though. Even if there was some blatant, corrupt conspiracy going on, who would even try and uncover it, let alone have a chance to? Claiming Loretta Lynch and James Comey (in particular) were in on a fix is simply going to appear, after the MSM gets through with the story, desperate and unhinged. Besides, unless someone has irrefutable proof of a conspiracy there's nothing to be gained by ranting about a fix. There isn't some huge swath of voters who are undecided on this and who could be convinced with more evidence-free accusations. I will be, however, keeping a eye out for a possible backlash from career FBI and intelligence services agents...and I don't mean a couple of retired kooks who show up on Hannity. I don't think it will happen because at the very least, I believe Comey has gotten buy-in from these folks. If he didn't though, and they expected a recommendation for prosecution, look out.

I do though think someone (preferably in the MSM) needs to press Comey on why the "extreme carelessness" he described for 15 minutes doesn't, in his mind, amount to "gross negligence," and they also need to look back on all the cases where government employees were actually prosecuted for "gross negligence." If the minions can face jail-time for reckless handling of State secrets, the bosses need to as well.

However, Trump and the GOP need to forget about the fact that Comey didn't say what they wanted to hear and concentrate on what he did say. It should be fairly devastating for someone who wants to be president of this country, even if the millions of members of her tribe think it was just a reflection of bad judgment.

Dammit Finn. There ya go making sense again.

I hear your concerns, I just dont agree with em.

I have worked with Top Secret military information on a regular basis while in the USAF. It's not always clear what classification any document should have, but we never shared information with outsiders no matter what the level of classification. We were simply told not to discuss our work outside of the secured area.
I worked with the "Fat Man" nuclear bomb, and they have it on display at the Nimitz Museum in Fredericksburg, Texas.
We also worked with thermonuclear bombs, but I can't find any pictures of it on the web.

Given that Comey was known to want to find something to take down Mrs. Clinton, the way he reported being unable to find anything actionable was fascinating.

You might want to take a very very close look at where the Greens are on the economic side. I thought I was a supporter of the Greens in Canada, til I did some investigating and found them to be right of the Conservatives up here (strictly re economics).

When I wrote Green, I should have written Jill. I love her take on pretty much everything
http://www.ontheissues.org/Jill_Stein.htm

Yes, we are almost as bad as the Bernie is our savior crowd. Dont throw rocks Edgar it might start raining in your house.

Edgar I understand your principled stand. I agree with it totally. But Bernie dosent live in the real world. In order to get just 25% of what he is claiming he will get he would need a democratic house and senate. He has been lying to all of you from the start. He never at any time told his followers that they needed to elect liberal legislators. He just advocated electing him. He is on a power kick and was counting on the FBI outing Clinton. I live in the real world. I want some liberal supreme court judges on the court so we can get money out of politics and do away with that ridiculous corporations are people with the right to vote with their money. If that happens maybe in 4 or so years we might even elect a democratic house. But there are still conservative democrats we need to get rid of. Do I think a democratic government will cure all our Ills. No, but it would be a start and when they get as corrupt as the republicans are now we can kick them out.

Finn makes sense...it's trending on Facebook

I'm sure you never treated classified information in a reckless manner and if you had, I'm also sure your ass would have been sent to jail.

Kind of the point.

She didn't treat the information with a fraction of the care most Americans with a security clearance do and she's not only not going to jail, she's liable to be the next president.

Sure seems like there is one set of rule for the ruling elite and another for the rest of us.

I can imagine that the distinction between the grades of classification may not always be crystal clear, but I also imagine it's not difficult to mistake Top Secret info for a laundry list or plans for a daughter's baby shower.

I'm betting that if you saw any documents with any reference to "Fat Man" you knew the information was classified. Clinton knew the same about the really secret stuff she saw, and if she really, truly didn't, what does that say about her much vaunted international experience?

This wasn't simply carelessness born or being lazy or distracted, or the result of not wanting to bother with more than one handheld device (that too has proven to be a lie she told).

Clinton knew, while she was Sec of State, she going to run for the presidency. Any claim, by her, to the contrary is another big fat lie. She wanted complete control of her communications and the ability to delete any that might prove inconvenient during her campaign.

I wouldn't be surprised if a fair number of the ones her lawyers did manage to render into scattered electrons were chock full with stuff about the Clinton Foundation and meetings with foreign powers. Of course we'll never know because she maintained the control she craved (regardless of whether or not by having it she created a risk to US security) and used it to destroy thousands upon thousands of e-mail.

One of the only enjoyable aspects of this dismal day has been watching usually reliable Democratic Strategists (aka Clinton propagandists and apologists) squirm in their seats on the news shows. Most of them had a hard time coming up with anything other than "Well it's over..."

Of course there were a few dutiful weasels who are counting on their performances today to curry favor with a Clinton White House. One was the former spokesman for the Holder DOJ (name escapes me) who actually went into a tirade about how unfair Comey was to Clinton!

Some of these people (including their Great Leader) have no shame whatsoever.

How do they square HRC's actions, and results of the investigation, against what happened to Bryan Nishimura just about a year ago?

'He was sentenced to two years of probation and a $7,500 fine, and was ordered to surrender his security clearance. He is barred from seeking a future security clearance.'

'This story was originally published on July 29, 2015.

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — A Naval reservist was sentenced for mishandling classified military materials.

A federal attorney announced Wednesday that Bryan Nishimura of Folsom, California, pleaded guilty to the unauthorized removal and retention of classified materials.

Nishimura, deployed in Afghanistan in 2007 and 2008 as a regional engineer, admitted to downloading classified briefings and digital records onto his personal electronic devices. He carried the materials off base and brought them back to the U.S. when his deployment ended.'

http://www.navytimes.com/story/military/crime/2015/07/29/navy-engineer-sentenced-for-mishandling-classified-material/30862027/

Perhaps it is because Hillary didn't download classified material and carry it off a military base? She had an email server in her house which was legal at the time she sent and received emails messages which were not classified at the time she received or sent them. Colin Powell did the same with an outside server yet he was never investigated for years over it.

See, you are confusing Clinton with a liberal. She is not going to nominate a real liberal Justice. She will say something like, I had to nominate somebody the Republicans will like too. You are likely also overlooking how the Democrats can deny a badly picked nominee, as in Bork, but which they knowingly didn't do with Thomas. Clinton is not a liberal.

You either did not hear or read Comey's statement or you are deliberately holding on to the Clinton lie as a means for disinformation.

There were over 100 Clinton e-mail that were classified at the time she received or sent them. Some were even classified Secret and Top Secret. Many were part of a 1000 + batch of e-mail that Clinton did not turn over to State, but which had been deleted. The FBI went through a painstaking process of reassembling these e-mail, but there are thousands more which were very thoroughly and professionally destroyed by her lawyers, and, in all likelihood, we will never know what they contained.

While there are, no doubt, plenty of cynical partisans out there who are focused on obfuscating the truth and using lies for damage control, I don't, for a minute believe you are one of them. (Maybe for a second, but not for a minute - sorry, I couldn't resist )

This leads me to believe you just don't care what the truth might be. For whatever reason, you've long ago made up your mind that Clinton is your choice for the White House, and having signed on to the campaign/mission/crusade, you are not about to allow a counter-narrative, regardless of how well founded in the truth it may be, to break your focus. So you've studied and possibly memorized all of the Clinton Campaign talking points to the extent you can recite them in your sleep

(You certainly recite them in this forum ad nauseum).

When someone introduces a counter-narrative, your senses shut down and your brain flips instantly to defense mode. You pride yourself for the cleverness of your rebuttals, when they are simply regurgitation of what you've been fed by your tribal leaders.

You, in reality, have less trust in the media and our institutions than do I, because your convinced that the only source of truth on any of these matters is that which is disseminated by the tribal elders, and their agents. Anything and everything coming out of the mouth of an Obama or Clinton critic is immediately suspect or dismissed. The tribal elders and their spin squad are quite good at letting you know all the reasons why anyone saying anything bad about them can't be trusted

This is exactly what the Clinton Campaign is counting on.

If you listened at all, all you listened for was whether or not she would be indicted.

No indictment? Revert back to Clinton Campaign E-Mail Defense Talking Point List, and claim she has been exonerated by the FBI

Comey obliterated her defenses so now you and her Campaign are going to have to come up with some new spin or join the minimizing fan group:

It was just a case of poor judgment.