FBI's Clinton Email Review Done ....

The FBI director who in my opinion has been professional since day one has found that Hillary Clinton will not be charged and that most of the emails were simple duplications. I did not like the FBI director being attacked by the crazies when he followed the law, and I did not like the folks who attacked him and said that he did something wrong when in an attempt for full disclosure he notified congress of additional emails. This always was a nothing burger, and so was the memo to congress. Everybody needs to shift back to campaign issues and quit wasting one second on fascist propaganda. All I said a year ago was a simple Hillary did not break the law, and nothing in this memo changed that fact. The way the tinfoilers get worked up thinking they are going to LOCK HER UP.....dear God, people just cannot be this stupid.

My guess is that Rudy is in deep chit after the election, the FBI will further investigate the Russian connections and where that leads in my opinion is obvious. There appears to have been massive leaks within the FBI. Some career officers are going to lose their careers and maybe worse. We need to have Justice and the FBI follow the law. It cannot become part of the political witch hunt in Congress. I also think some congressmen may have some criminal culpability with leaks.....or at the least some staff members.

Dirty.

And now, of course, the Donald will revert to saying all is fixed and pointing fingers at Comey, who has fallen from grace. I doubt Clinton will have anything good to say, though, except for the campaign's polite thank you.

The massive year-long investigation into the Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Foundation continues.

The chaos revolving around the emails is insurmountable.

Now the FBI want's us to believe they reviewed SIX HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND EMAILS in a matter of days...after they said it would take months.

What a cluster....!

This will continue throughout any possible Clinton Administration. Just as it did during Bill's administration.

The FBI went through 650,000 emails in 691,200 seconds (8 days) BUT it took them 12 months to go through 33,000 emails! Hmmmm.

Because hillary printed all of those that were not incriminating onto paper... then destroyed the digital evidence.

Showing further intent to evade record keeping laws... and gawd knows what else.

Dirty.

Now the FBI want's us to believe they reviewed SIX HUNDRED FIFTY THOUSAND EMAILS in a matter of days...after they said it would take months.

Ok.....I will type this slowly for the technologically challenged among us.....but a senior at the University of Illinois could devise a database query in less than five minutes which could find every duplication from the original emails. The majority of emails on that server were Wieners talking to mr. Markle about pervert stuff, but until the query was ran there was no way of knowing how long it would take......about 99.9% probably matched. Probably less than a hundred were not exact matches which may have had other query criteria which required manual review......I mean folks....quit watching Fox News.....stupid is being taught. Use your own brain. You can query google and get an answer in two seconds, yet you think the FBI does not have forensic experts......please just stop being stupid.

Because hillary printed all of those that were not incriminating onto paper... then destroyed the digital evidence.

Showing further intent to evade record keeping laws... and gawd knows what else.

Dirty.

The FBI found no such contradictions in their queries of the digital records on other computers......I mean really, you think the FBI is stupid. You folks just keep showing who is stupid. Just because you wish Hillary was corrupt does not make it so. You realize if she intentionally did what you have suggested how easy it would be for the FBI to find the contradiction......no maybe you are not as technological familiar as I presumed. Hillary did not destroy evidence. Hillary did not lie to the FBI. Hillary did not intentionally transfer classified documents to third parties for a quid pro quo bribe, and she is not about to be indicted for crimes connected to the Clinton Foundation. Just like the Nazis fooled the German People with a well thought out propaganda strategy, you and otherwise normal folks have been vicitimized by the same, but you continue to swallow the nonsense..........just think independently for a change, and apologize for acting stupid for over a year like the drunk bore at the party.

FBI clears Clinton -- again

http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/06/politics/comey-tells-congress-fbi-has-not-changed-conclusions/index.html

There are going to be hearings on the leaked FBI information......and Rudy in drag will actually go over great in prison......he will be happy.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/james-comey-testimony/2016/07/clinton-untrue-statements-fbi-comey-225216

FBI Director James Comey confirmed on Thursday that some of Hillary Clinton's statements and explanations about her email server to the House Benghazi Committee last October were not true, as evidenced by the bureau's investigation into whether she mishandled classified information.

During an extended exchange with Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.), Comey affirmed that the FBI's investigation found information marked classified on her server even after Clinton had said that she had neither sent nor received any items marked classified.

"That is not true," Comey said. "There were a small number of portion markings on, I think, three of the documents."

Asked whether Clinton's testimony that she did not email "any classified material to anyone on my email" and "there is no classified material" was true, Comey responded, "No, there was classified material emailed."

"Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?" Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, "She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state."

Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department.

"No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned," Comey said.

"Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account. Was that true?" Gowdy asked.

"That's a harder one to answer," Comey responded. "We found traces of work-related emails in, on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or whether when a server changed out something happened to them, there is no doubt that the work-related emails that were removed electronically from the email system."

Gowdy asked whether Clintons' lawyers read every one of her emails as she had said. Comey replied, "No."

"In interest of time, because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through anymore of the false statements but I am going to ask you put on your old hat. False exculpatory statements, they are used for what?" Gowdy inquired.

Comey responded, "Either for the substantive prosecution or for evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution."

"Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right? Is that right?" Gowdy asked. "Consciousness of guilt and intent. In your old job you would prove intent as you just referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record, and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and I just talked about, or certainly the failure to preserve. Would you argue all that under heading of content--intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme, when it started, when it ended and number of emails, whether they were originally classified or up-classified, you would argue all of that under the heading of intent. You would also probably under common scheme or plan argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal. Two days ago, director, you said a reasonable person in her should have known a private email is no place to send and receive classified information. You're right."

"An average person does know not to do that. This is no average person," Gowdy said. "This is a former first lady, a former United States senator, and a former secretary of state that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but he says it now. She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a state.gov account. She kept these private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account."

He continued, "So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office. Thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was in fact hacked, and you don't know whether or not she was. And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent."

"You say careless but not intentionally. You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove," Gowdy continued. "Very rarely do defendants announce, 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.' It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence, or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is to prove specific intent, you will formulate a statute that allows for gross negligence."

Remarking that his time had expired, Gowdy said he still feared that there was no precedent for criminal prosecution for future cases similar to Clinton.

"And my real fear is this, this is what [Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah)] touched upon, this double tracked justice system rightly or wrong hey perceived this country, that if you are a private in the Army and you email yourself classified information, you will be kicked out but if you are Hillary Clinton and you seek a promotion to commander-in-chief, you will not be," Gowdy concluded. "So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand, why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be."

2seaoat wrote:There are going to be hearings on the leaked FBI information......and Rudy in drag will actually go over great in prison......he will be happy.

The most beautiful girl in the world...

What I find most entertaining about the Monday morning reaction to this FBI decision is the certain line of reasoning..."Well if it took them a year to review 33k emails, how did they do 650k in a few days!? Huh?!?"  I've seen it at least 30 times today, almost word for word.

In order to buy this type of reasoning, one first has to assume that they are more knowledgeable than the teams of experts at the FBI who actually do this stuff for a living, day in day out.  And yet I scroll through my Facebook feed this morning and am amazed at all of the pizza delivery drivers, school teachers, cops, accountants, college students, etc, who all appear to be under the belief that if they can't fathom how email analysis on some number of emails could be done in some period of time...well...then it just must not be possible!   Conspiracy!  She's getting away with it again!  Lock her up!

It's hilarious.

https://www.wired.com/2016/11/yes-donald-trump-fbi-can-vet-650000-emails-eight-days/

It's hilarious.

It really is an election based on intelligence. I mean I can take my microsoft Outlook software and get all emails from a particular sender. So you type in Hillary clinton and get all the emails where she sent or received an email. You copy and paste the same into a simple teachers plagerism program over the counter. Put the original emails into the software database, and then put those you found with the Outlook query. Within five minutes you will have a list of copied emails. Now examine what is left.

I just did this in about ten minutes by myself with over the counter software. Of Course the FBI forensic people have sophisticated document databases which are capable of finding particular language in emails which deal with terrorism, but would do the initial query with their software, and then run the comparison.

I mean they are like zombies puking out what has been programed into their minds. There have been quite a few people here belching the ridiculous idea that the FBI could not go through 650k emails which show a new intent or quid pro quo in regard to classified documents. It is mind numbing stupid, but the worse part.......these folks do not see what parrots they have become.

"Secretary Clinton said she used one device. Was that true?" Gowdy asked, to which Comey answered, "She used multiple devices during the four years of her term as secretary of state."

Gowdy then asked whether it was true that Clinton, as she said, returned all work-related emails to the State Department.

"No, we found work-related emails, thousands that were not returned," Comey said.

"Secretary Clinton said neither she or anyone else deleted work-related emails from her personal account. Was that true?" Gowdy asked.

"That's a harder one to answer," Comey responded. "We found traces of work-related emails in, on devices or in slack space. Whether they were deleted or whether when a server changed out something happened to them, there is no doubt that the work-related emails that were removed electronically from the email system."

Gowdy asked whether Clintons' lawyers read every one of her emails as she had said. Comey replied, "No."

18 U.S. Code § 2071 – Concealment, removal, or mutilation generally)

“(a) Whoever willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, or destroys, or attempts to do so, or, with intent to do so takes and carries away any record, proceeding, map, book, paper, document, or other thing, filed or deposited with any clerk or officer of any court of the United States, or in any public office, or with any judicial or public officer of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

(b) Whoever, having the custody of any such record, proceeding, map, book, document, paper, or other thing, willfully and unlawfully conceals, removes, mutilates, obliterates, falsifies, or destroys the same, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both; and shall forfeit his office and be disqualified from holding any office under the United States. As used in this subsection, the term “office” does not include the office held by any person as a retired officer of the Armed Forces of the United States.”

Sal wrote:https://www.wired.com/2016/11/yes-donald-trump-fbi-can-vet-650000-emails-eight-days/

http://newcenturytimes.com/2016/11/07/edward-snowden-just-brilliantly-ended-trumps-fbi-conspiracy-theory/