Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
BSCSMD

May I Respectfully Suggest...

130 posts in this topic

Ken, you know I respect you but I think BSCSMD is right here. He presented his opinion in a respectful way. Why the need to paint with such a broad brush?

I said he said it a nicer and more intelligent way. It's still no different than what all the other republican posters have been posting.

Edited by bmore_ken

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing says I'm ready to be your president after hearing the FBI Director say you are a liar, unreasonable and a poor administrator. And that you gave access to classified information to individuals who didn't have clearances. Isn't that what Petraeus was charged with? 

 

But I and over 65,000,000-plus others will vote and say Hillary will be president in November.  Trump's little meeting today with the repubs he is on Twitter yacking how he has unified your party just doesn't fly boy....

Edited by BaySock

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He essentially said what I have been saying. No criminal charges. Hillary did some less than careful things. 

That's not all he said 

 

 

, you will hear or see Director Comey specifically state that he looked for any wat he could to find a way to prosecute Hillary Clinton for what she had done, but he simply could not find a way to justify doing so.

Translation: Hillary is guilty , despite the fact that Comey couldn't prove it. RWNJ 101. You see here's the difference between him and me. You won't find one post from me saying the Baltimore cops are guilty of killing Freddy Gray. Why? I haven't seen the evidence. You won't find one post from me saying the Eric Garner grand jury decision was wrong. Why? Because I haven't seen the evidence. Ditto with the Trayvon Martin case and the Michael Brown case. I trust that evidence in all of those cases led to their conclusions. In short, no sour grapes. Now compare my position to 99% of the republicans who post here. Oh and by the way, the democrats complaining about Comey's statements about her irresponsibility, are just as idiotic. All his post said is HILLARY IS GUILTY, BUT I DON'T BLAME COMEY FOR NOT RECOMMENDING INDICTMENT.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No he didn't. He was charged with giving classified information to someone without a clearance. Comey stated today Clinton gave access to individuals without clearances. 

 

Curious, who did Clinton give access to classified?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not all he said 

Translation: Hillary is guilty , despite the fact that Comey couldn't prove it. RWNJ 101. You see here's the difference between him and me. You won't find one post from me saying the Baltimore cops are guilty of killing Freddy Gray. Why? I haven't seen the evidence. You won't find one post from me saying the Eric Garner grand jury decision was wrong. Why? Because I haven't seen the evidence. Ditto with the Trayvon Martin case and the Michael Brown case. I trust that evidence in all of those cases led to their conclusions. In short, no sour grapes. Now compare my position to 99% of the republicans who post here. Oh and by the way, the democrats complaining about Comey's statements about her irresponsibility, are just as idiotic. All his post said is HILLARY IS GUILTY, BUT I DON'T BLAME COMEY FOR NOT RECOMMENDING INDICTMENT.

 

 

OOppsss, there it is!  The investigators and director were privy to the evidence and came to a conclusion but all the talking heads are second guessing including Congress who has to ask who, what, when, how, where from Comey...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ, so sick of republican gaslighting. Here. I'll repost for you. Maybe you'd like to go after them too since your high standard of honesty demands it. Republicans who did exactly what HRC did:

 

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-republicans-who-did-exactly-what-hillary-did

None of your examples did what Clinton did zenwalk. Each of your examples were at the state level, did not deal in national security or foreign policy, were not covered under FOIA or the various classified material statutes, were not original classification authorities and were not giving advice to the POTUS. Other than that, you're pretty close to accurate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not all he said 

Translation: Hillary is guilty , despite the fact that Comey couldn't prove it. RWNJ 101. You see here's the difference between him and me. You won't find one post from me saying the Baltimore cops are guilty of killing Freddy Gray. Why? I haven't seen the evidence. You won't find one post from me saying the Eric Garner grand jury decision was wrong. Why? Because I haven't seen the evidence. Ditto with the Trayvon Martin case and the Michael Brown case. I trust that evidence in all of those cases led to their conclusions. In short, no sour grapes. Now compare my position to 99% of the republicans who post here. Oh and by the way, the democrats complaining about Comey's statements about her irresponsibility, are just as idiotic. All his post said is HILLARY IS GUILTY, BUT I DON'T BLAME COMEY FOR NOT RECOMMENDING INDICTMENT.

If anyone is interpreting Comey's statements at the hearing in a way to suggest that "he looked for a way to prosecute Hillary but could not find one" it is because of the awful stupid leading questions that some of the Republicans were asking that implied just that. Based on what I heard Comey say in response I don't think that's what he was saying. He made it clear tht the FBI looked at the evidence in light of all of the potential statutes that might apply, and that none of those statutes could reasonably be applied to suggest prosecution in this particular matter. That's not the same as what the Republicans on that panel wanted to hear. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More hearings!  More hearings!  The Democrats are gonna take back Congress.   :D

 

 
GOP accidentally does Clinton a favor with James Comey hearing

 

I honestly have no idea what Republicans thought they were going to achieve with this spectacle. Did GOP lawmakers expect Comey to declare, “Now that you’ve yelled at me for a few hours, I’ve changed my mind and now support criminal charges against Clinton”? . . .

 

As if that weren’t enough, note that on Tuesday, the story looked like Comey vs. Clinton – the FBI director didn’t think the Democratic candidate broke any laws, but he clearly wasn’t pleased with some of her decisions, and he delivered a public rebuke. Now the story is Comey vs. Republicans – GOP lawmakers had some baseless allegations and reckless conspiracy theories, some of which targeted Comey directly, and they asked the FBI director to give testimony knocking down each of their bad arguments.

 

When congressional Republicans take stock this evening and reflect on their failed gambit, one wonders whether they’ll appreciate the fact that this Comey hearing was a bad plan, executed poorly. The last time Democrats were this pleased with GOP hearing, it was Clinton’s 11-hour Benghazi Committee testimony – in which Republicans made fools of themselves and their conspiracy theories, and Clinton turned her entire presidential campaign around.

 

 

 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I and over 65,000,000-plus others will vote and say Hillary will be president in November.  Trump's little meeting today with the repubs he is on Twitter yacking how he has unified your party just doesn't fly boy....

 

Of course you will. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Curious, who did Clinton give access to classified?

Now that Comey truthfully admitted Clinton did give access to classified information to people without clearances, he will provide those names to congress. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

While I am not in any way a Clinton supporter, sympathizer, or apologist, may I respectfully suggest - as someone who knows that Hillary Clinton brought this all upon herself by attempting to have a secret email server to avoid being subject to the Freedom of Information Act and being held accountable to the People - that you listen to or watch the entire testimony before House Oversight Committee hearings today before you pass judgment based upon the accounts - the carefully picked and edited accounts based upon where the person doing the picking and editing lays on the ideological and political spectrum - you are sure to hear and see for months to come?
 
I don't appreciate or support when those who I ideologically and politically oppose cherry pick facts and comments made by people and use them to advance their cause or misrepresent in a most dishonest manner people they oppose. I don't appreciate or support when those whom I ideologically and politically agree also engage in the same unfair behavior.
 
I did listen to nearly the entire hearing. My takeaway is that while Hillary Clinton did absolutely violate her responsibility to safeguard classified information and that she and her staff absolutely should have known better than to engage in the whole litany and pattern of behavior in which they engaged, there was simply was not enough there IN TOTALITY to make a CLEAR case to a Grand Jury - more or less and jury in a criminal prosecution - that what she did was anything other than careless and frankly, stupid, but based on the evidence and case law precedent, a reasonable prosecutor would not be able to able to expect a reasonable enough chance of obtaining a conviction, and therefore would be foolish to proceed in such a manner. As such, the FBI has done the right thing in this case. Their reputation and integrity should not be called into question over this matter. Again, if you listen to or watch the entire hearing, you will hear or see Director Comey specifically state that he looked for any wat he could to find a way to prosecute Hillary Clinton for what she had done, but he simply could not find a way to justify doing so.
 
In no means does this indicate that in any possible way that Hillary Clinton has been cleared of any wrongdoing. To the contrary, she has behaved in a foolish, careless manner. It does not mean that she is getting a "free pass." In taking account the actions that she did, along with her staff - who are a direct reflection of her - her judgment has seriously called into question to the point that she is forever damaged. It also clearly illustrates the lengths she will go and the risks she will take to avoid transparency and accountability to the American People, with blatant disregard to the public trust and national security. This entire fiasco is nothing short of a reminder of her behavior which belies what must be her personal belief that she is above the law and better than the "average" American.
 
The question remains: "Will it matter to the American voter come November 8, 2016?"
 
For this American voter, "Yes, it will!" and a hope and pray that it matters to enough voters that she is not elected and forever leaves public "service" once and for all.

 

The answer to the question in bold is (drumroll).....No The HRC supporters will not change their mind and neither will the Trumpites.

 Did Hil correspond classified info on a server that was not secure? Yes  Can that put undercover assets in jeopardy? Yes. Will it make a difference with the swing vote? Depends on which sound bite they hear.  Oh, BTW, did you really believe this would change the vote of a Hil supporter?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not all he said 

Translation: Hillary is guilty , despite the fact that Comey couldn't prove it. RWNJ 101. You see here's the difference between him and me. You won't find one post from me saying the Baltimore cops are guilty of killing Freddy Gray. Why? I haven't seen the evidence. You won't find one post from me saying the Eric Garner grand jury decision was wrong. Why? Because I haven't seen the evidence. Ditto with the Trayvon Martin case and the Michael Brown case. I trust that evidence in all of those cases led to their conclusions. In short, no sour grapes. Now compare my position to 99% of the republicans who post here. Oh and by the way, the democrats complaining about Comey's statements about her irresponsibility, are just as idiotic. All his post said is HILLARY IS GUILTY, BUT I DON'T BLAME COMEY FOR NOT RECOMMENDING INDICTMENT.

No, what he said was that Comey did his job, which was to look for any criminal activity (he is FBI, that is what they do). He did his job as hard as he could and could not find enough evidence to support criminal behavior. It doesn't make Hillary a saint, and it doesn't mean that there weren't things she could have done more properly. It means she did not commit a criminal act based on the evidence. There isn't anything wrong with what Comey said, and there wasn't anything wrong with the way BCBSMD restated it. In my opinion, of course. And 99% of the republicans don't walk in lockstep with every opinion any more than 99% of the democrats do.  Most people on both parties have some version of the same opinion Comey did. Hillary was careless but it probably didn't rise to the level of criminal behavior. Now, to be certain, there are cartoon characters of both wings posting here that believe something much more black and white, but I think you do a disservice to those who post with brain engaged. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You were never going to vote for her.

 

Did he ever say he was going to?  I must have missed that ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Christ, so sick of republican gaslighting. Here. I'll repost for you. Maybe you'd like to go after them too since your high standard of honesty demands it. Republicans who did exactly what HRC did:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/the-republicans-who-did-exactly-what-hillary-did

All the Republican players mentioned in your useless link are mentioned as having private email accounts, not private servers. Stop with that tired old lie, you're just embarrassing yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, what he said was that Comey did his job, which was to look for any criminal activity (he is FBI, that is what they do). He did his job as hard as he could and could not find enough evidence to support criminal behavior. It doesn't make Hillary a saint, and it doesn't mean that there weren't things she could have done more properly. It means she did not commit a criminal act based on the evidence. There isn't anything wrong with what Comey said, and there wasn't anything wrong with the way BCBSMD restated it. In my opinion, of course. And 99% of the republicans don't walk in lockstep with every opinion any more than 99% of the democrats do.  Most people on both parties have some version of the same opinion Comey did. Hillary was careless but it probably didn't rise to the level of criminal behavior. Now, to be certain, there are cartoon characters of both wings posting here that believe something much more black and white, but I think you do a disservice to those who post with brain engaged. 

 

 

You overlook the part where Comey repeated that only a nutter would bring charges against her over this: :D

 

 
No ‘reasonable prosecutor’ would bring charges against Hillary Clinton over her private email server

 

 

http://www.recode.net/2016/7/5/12097356/fbi-director-no-charges-hillary-clinton-email-server

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the Republican players mentioned in your useless link are mentioned as having private email accounts, not private servers. Stop with that tired old lie, you're just embarrassing yourself.

 

 

You prefer that a Secretary of State would use yahoo!?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now that Comey truthfully admitted Clinton did give access to classified information to people without clearances, he will provide those names to congress. 

 

 

But you do know all those people will have a clearance back dated and the FBI can say they were mistaken .........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You overlook the part where Comey repeated that only a nutter would bring charges against her over this: :D

 

 

 

I did not. I said he looked for actionable activity and found none. Presumably, if a reasonable prosecutor had charges to bring, Comey would have done so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You prefer that a Secretary of State would use yahoo!?  

I would have preferred that Secretary Clinton follow known "best practices" for handling government classified data.  It is likely she chose not to given that I.T. staff who questioned the server were told by their superiors to never speak of it again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would have preferred that Secretary Clinton follow known "best practices" for handling government classified data.  It is likely she chose not to given that I.T. staff who questioned the server were told by their superiors to never speak of it again.

 

So we have Secretaries of State using personal email - -  do you prefer that a Secretary of State use yahoo! or a private server? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, what he said was that Comey did his job, which was to look for any criminal activity (he is FBI, that is what they do). He did his job as hard as he could and could not find enough evidence to support criminal behavior. It doesn't make Hillary a saint, and it doesn't mean that there weren't things she could have done more properly. It means she did not commit a criminal act based on the evidence. There isn't anything wrong with what Comey said, and there wasn't anything wrong with the way BCBSMD restated it. In my opinion, of course. 

Then we can agree that we have a difference of opinion and leave it at that.  The tone of his post (IN MY OPINION) is that Hillary got away with something. And knowing his past posting history like I do, (IN MY OPINION) that's exactly how he feels. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So we have Secretaries of State using personal email - -  do you prefer that a Secretary of State use yahoo! or a private server? 

I prefer that she followed I.T. best practices as outlined in their policies.  Since she had classified email were it shouldn't be, it is clear that this was not done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then we can agree that we have a difference of opinion and leave it at that.  The tone of his post (IN MY OPINION) is that Hillary got away with something. And knowing his past posting history like I do, (IN MY OPINION) that's exactly how he feels. 

I can live with a difference of opinion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0