double post
The real question: is someone that the FBI finds behaved in a “reckless” manner with American secrets, vital to U.S. security, fit for the presidency?
weird double post…
My favorite part was patreus keeping his notebook under insulation in the attic. Apparently, that’s much worse than keeping top secret material that has been removed from a secure system on a server in your basement and then not turning it all over when asked. Might be a generational difference. Comey obviously still thinks in terms of ink and paper.
I watched the whole thing. He’s someone that I hope can be trusted. I get it that a reasonable prosecuter would not bring charges and that Hillary’s case differs from others, like General Petraeus. However, I wish he would’ve had some balls when answering direct questions regarding if Hillary would ever likely be hired by the FBI and if she would be given a security clearance based on the facts of her gross negligence. Instead, he pussied out and answered like a politician, just saying that he wouldn’t answer hypotheticals and that the facts would be part of the total consideration.
Editing: I think this edit thing may still be broken. Quotes are being added and separate posts made.
Isn’t this topic now over, time to move on I think?
State department has reopened the internal investigation for those that don’t follow the news.
Again with this petty nonsense??? The American “democratic process” is a corrupt joke.
OK, let’s move on. The presumptive nominee of the Democractic Party for POTUS has been decribed by the FBI as “reckless” in their handling of classified materials that are vital to our national security. Is this person fit to the next POTUS given this information? Pretty scary if you ask me.
Given the polarized electorate (and the very polarizing nominee on the GOP side even within his own party), this will most likely be a non issue.
Finally a voice of reason. As to why he “pussied out”, you answered your own question - it’s not his place to speculate whether HRC would ever qualify for a SC, especially when the question is obviously political.
Yeah she is. I hope that answers your question.
Good, something for Fox News to report on and for nobody else to care about.
Double P
Quite scary when her rival promises to defend Article XII of the constitution.
As expected, the world (not just China) getting more worried as the date approaches. I expect people will hedge since not to hedge such a risk is retarded. I already hedged. Global hedging creates market disturbances. You guys have a lot more to worry about than freakin’ emails.
You don’t think he was just rattling off numbers when you look at the context? But you’re right, competent politicians never misspeak… http://humanevents.com/2011/07/10/top-10-obama-gaffes/
Fascinating:
Now that Benghazi and Emailgate are over. What can Fox News focus their latest witchhunt on?
a) Clinton Foundation
b) Huma Abedin is a sleeper Muslim Brotherhood operative.
c) The death of Vince Foster
So when do we start hearing about all the rapes Drumpf has perpetrated? Everyone has done something, and he has done a LOT, we all know it’s going to come out eventually. So it should come out now to be fair. Let’s muck things up equally! LOL
I remember that. It was related to the US Attorneys firings by Bush. It involved white house staffers and advisors doing some business on private rnc email servers and then conveniently losing said emails. Bush was not party to the exchanges, hence the lack of interest. Funny, even back then, staffers new business was suppose to be done over government accounts and actually had government accounts. Clinton only did business over a private account and trafficked in classified information. Go get those staffers palantir. Maybe some of them are running for president.