Poll releases are generally less frequent on the weekend. Not the case on this, the 2nd to final weekend before the 2016 presidential election. The graphic below shows what we've seen this Sunday morning as of about 9:45 Eastern Time. Click it for all the most recent polling (both president and Senate). Click a row to see all the polling for that state.
0 Replies
Glennn
-1
Reply
Sun 30 Oct, 2016 08:19 pm
“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.
A high-ranking FBI official told Fox News that while it might not have been a unanimous decision, “It was unanimous that we all wanted her [Clinton’s] security clearance yanked.”
“It is safe to say the vast majority felt she should be prosecuted,” the senior FBI official told Fox News. “We were floored while listening to the FBI briefing because Comey laid it all out, and then said ‘but we are doing nothing,’ which made no sense to us.”
"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."
"There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those with whom she was corresponding about those matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation."
"None of these emails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these emails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at agencies and departments of the United States government -- or even with a commercial email service like Gmail."
"Only a very small number of the emails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it." (This is made clear in the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed when she became Secretary of State.)
"We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial email 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 email domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent."
"She also used her personal email extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related emails 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 email account."
______________________________________________________________________________
So, here we have Comey describing gross negligence, after which he attempts to show her innocence by virtue of the fact that she did not intend to be grossly negligent. As I said before, there is no "intent" clause in the U.S. Code which deal with this kind of breach of legal obligation. Bryan Nishimura was found to have done the same as Clinton, and the FBI found his actions to be lacking malicious intent, yet he was charged and convicted.
0 Replies
Blickers
0
Reply
Sun 30 Oct, 2016 11:07 pm
@Glennn,
Quote Glenn:
Quote:
....what is she [Hillary] doing accepting money [the Clinton Foundation accepted the money] from countries known for human rights abuses [Saudi Arabia]? As I said, the U.S. usually punishes human rights abusers; not give them more weapons to bomb hospitals with.
You are concerned that the Clinton Foundation accepted money from Saudi Arabia, which funds militias which bombs hospitals, so the Clinton Foundation can give international relief where it is needed? Let's examine this. Earlier, you freely admitted to being a Jill Stein partisan.
I think you should know, Russia bombs hospitals. For instance, here is Russia bombing a hospital in Nov of 2015 in Sarmin, Syria, (after bombing the school next door two weeks before):
Now, here's Russia bombing TWO hospitals in Aleppo just recently:
Russia cluster bombs Aleppo a few weeks ago:
As for domestic human rights abuses, Russian cops beat Pussy Riot during the Olympics for having the nerve to shoot an anti Putin video in an unoccupied courtyard:
And now here is Jill Stein, coming to you from the Russia Today network, (Putin's state owned propaganda network), meeting in Red Square, Moscow, running down the US but saying not a single word about Russia's human rights abuses:
You can't stand the Clinton Foundation for taking money from Saudi Arabia which does human rights abuses, but your candidate does an anti-American commercial for Russia and never mentions a single word about Russian abuses. Your candidate, Jill Stein, is a stooge for Putin. Don't feel bad, though, she's no worse than Trump in the All Praise Putin Department.
Just a little hypocritical to support Stein but run down Hillary for supporting countries with bad human rights abuse records.
You are concerned that the Clinton Foundation accepted money from Saudi Arabia, which funds militias which bombs hospitals, so the Clinton Foundation can give international relief where it is needed? Let's examine this. Earlier, you freely admitted to being a Jill Stein partisan.
I think you should know, Russia bombs hospitals.
So, let's examine your post. Clinton accepts contributions from foreign regimes known for their human rights abuses as a way to help abused persons, and she supports weapons deals to these same regimes that bomb hospitals. What an interesting attempt to justify weapons deals with human rights abusers. And why are you referring to the Saudis as a militia? The Saudis bombed hospitals. You also appear to be trying to justify weapons deals to known human rights abusers by referring to Russia's actions. What does that change about what I've posted?
And could you please refer me to the post where I freely admitted to being a Jill Stein partisan? I would like to see that.
0 Replies
DrewDad
2
Reply
Mon 31 Oct, 2016 06:43 am
@Glennn,
From your own source:
Quote:
these emails were unmarked at the time they were sent
Glennn wrote:
You'll understand if I don't take you seriously . . .
How is it that you believe this while at the same time say that Trump hasn't paid income taxes since 1998 or what ever bullshit it is despite having absolutely no knowledge of whether he did or not?
WTF are you talking about?
I don't criticize Trump for not paying taxes; I criticize the tax code.
I also think it's absolutely hilarious that it makes Trump one of the 47% that Mittens went off about....
0 Replies
parados
3
Reply
Mon 31 Oct, 2016 06:47 am
@Glennn,
Quote:
your characterization of Clinton passing top secret information through her email server as not following the rules is kind of humorous.
It seems the only thing you can do is ignore what I actually said and make up stuff you want to argue against.
Quote:
You didn't read the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed, did you?
That really has nothing to do with your claim she broke the law. There is nothing in the law about the a CINA.
You have provided zero support of her breaking any law. The thing about charging someone with a crime is you have to point to the specific law and then give evidence showing how they broke that law. So far, we have no evidence from you showing how she broke a law. You provided a law. I pointed out that your argument is circular and would be laughed out of court. Rather then provide evidence in support of your claim, you seem to be doing everything to avoid giving support.
0 Replies
McGentrix
0
Reply
Mon 31 Oct, 2016 06:47 am
@DrewDad,
Also from his own source:
Quote:
these emails were unmarked at the time they were sent...But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
Glennn wrote:
You'll understand if I don't take you seriously . . .
I'm beginning to think that your recall is subpar. Do you recall this:
The State Department acknowledged for the first time Friday that “top secret” information has been found in emails that passed through the private email server Hillary Clinton used while leading the agency, elevating the issue in the presidential campaign three days before the hotly contested Iowa caucuses.
And even if that wasn't true, the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement Clinton signed makes clear what qualifies as classified material. Perhaps you should look at the first paragraph in the document at the link below, as it is obvious that it is new to you.
You, agree with someone who criticizes Hillary Clinton? What a shocker.
You attempted to obfuscate Glenn's post into something it wasn't. I merely corrected you and pointed out that Glenn was correct in his assumptions.
0 Replies
DrewDad
2
Reply
Mon 31 Oct, 2016 07:00 am
@Glennn,
Before the Iowa caucuses? Really? Is that the most recent article on the subject with the most up-to-date information? Or is it just the article you're clinging to because nothing more recent supports your narrative?
And if she violated a non-disclosure agreement... it's a civil matter.
Whoop-de-doo. We're electing a President, not a Paragon of Virtue.
Is that the most recent article on the subject with the most up-to-date information?
If you knew of anything that would negate what the State Department has said, I'm absolutely certain that you would produce it. So, do you have anything like that to offer? Did the State Department recant?
Also, you must have missed the beginning of the first paragraph where Clinton acknowledges and accepts that she is legally bound by the conditions set forth in the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement. She also acknowledges that she was trained in the proper procedures concerning the handling of sensitive material. So it's kind of funny that she told investigators that she wasn't aware of what the markings meant, and that she thought a "C" has to do with the alphabetical order of paragraphs.
______________________________________
Hillary Clinton--brought to you because you'll believe anything.
If you knew of anything that would negate what the State Department has said, I'm absolutely certain that you would produce it. So, do you have anything like that to offer?
Um... How about the report in July that says there were three questionable emails that might have had material classified at the time they were sent/received, none correctly marked, none with material more sensitive than "confidential."
Glennn wrote:
Also, you must have missed the beginning of the first paragraph where Clinton acknowledges and accepts that she is legally bound by the conditions set forth in the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement. She also acknowledges that she was trained in the proper procedures concerning the handling of sensitive material. So it's kind of funny that she told investigators that she wasn't aware of what the markings meant, and that she thought a "C" has to do with the alphabetical order of paragraphs.
Yeah... you're either an idiot pushing debunked information, or a shill pushing debunked information.
July 5 press conference, FBI Director James Comey said a “very small number” of emails sent and received by Hillary Clinton over her private server “bore markings indicating the presence of classified information”
...
Comey said three emails had “portion markings” on them indicating that they were classified, but they were not properly marked and therefore could have been missed by Clinton. He said the emails were marked as classified with the letter “C” in the body of the email.
Kirby said the State Department believes that at least two of the emails were mistakenly marked as confidential. He could not speak to the third email, saying the department didn’t have “all of the records and documents that the FBI used in their investigation.”
...
Cartwright, July 7: So, if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what’s classified and what’s not classified and we’re following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?
Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.
As I said... hashed and rehashed. I'm sure you're one of those folks who knows better than the FBI what is and isn't illegal.
Sure I do. I've shown that she violated the Classified Information Nondisclosure Agreement she signed which made her legally obligated to the conditions. I believe I've established that she violated that trust here:
Really? Cite the specific law that makes it illegal to violate a CINA.
You have stated the Clinton violated the US Code. A CINA is not US Code.
Glenn wrote:
The fact is that Clinton violated the U.S. Code concerning classified material.
Let me ask you again. What code did she violate and where is your evidence? So far you have been deflecting every time I ask the question.
Perhaps you need to read the Nondisclosure Agreement. It gives other penalties than prosecution for violations of it. A legal binding contract is not US Code.
Quote:
Now, if top secret information passing through her private email server is not enough to convince you that she was in serious breach of duty . . .
But you specifically claimed she violated US Code. Are you now backtracking from that statement of "fact".
So far you are proving you are ignorant and incapable of making a valid argument to support things you claimed were fact.
0 Replies
parados
2
Reply
Mon 31 Oct, 2016 07:31 am
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
Also from his own source:
Quote:
these emails were unmarked at the time they were sent...But even if information is not marked 'classified' in an email, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.
OK. Let's take that statement at face value. What evidence do you have that Clinton didn't protect those emails after they were received?
Um... How about the report in July that says there were three questionable emails that might have had material classified at the time they were sent/received, none correctly marked, none with material more sensitive than "confidential."
Yeah, I believe that the operative work there if "might." Pretty solid stuff, huh? You should probably produce something indicating that the State Department retracted what they said about top secret information on Clinton's email server. Do that.
Quote:
Yeah... you're either an idiot pushing debunked information, or a shill pushing debunked information.
Why don't you pull from the link you provided the part that debunks Clinton saying she didn't understand that "C" meant confidential?
The link you provided has to do with two mismarked emails. It does not negate the State Department's claim that top secret information passed through Clinton's email server.
Quote:
I'm sure you're one of those folks who knows better than the FBI what is and isn't illegal.
I've already posted a link that contains verified source from the FBI who said that it was unanimous among the hundred agents and trial lawyers that Clinton should have her security clearance yanked. You're just choosing to believe Comey instead of the investigators.
