Hillary won more votes for President

I've been listening to the hearing on and off. The GOP is doing as well with this as they did with Benghazi. This is another dud on their part and if anything, gives better clarity to the lack of intent by Sec'y Clinton. Admittedly I only listened to about an hour total, but be interested what others, who are listening, think.

mrussel1 said:

I've been listening to the hearing on and off. The GOP is doing as well with this as they did with Benghazi. This is another dud on their part and if anything, gives better clarity to the lack of intent by Sec'y Clinton. Admittedly I only listened to about an hour total, but be interested what others, who are listening, think.

It is true that Comey has clarified the term "criminal intent." That point has been asserted multiple times with force

Unfortunately, however, the questions are not stopping there. Since the GOP knows they lost that count, they are mostly attacking Clinton's judgment and character. The last round, for example, was all about how ignorant and "careless" she is, with the sole purpose of undermining her qualifications to be Commander in Chief . .

"Couldn't we assume that someone in her position would understand (insert various technical procedures). . . "

"If anybody else did the same thing . . . "

"Did she lie when she said . . . "

It's really awful and painful for me to listen to, for reasons to complex for me to even process here, but it makes me angry at my government more than anything. Kat already said it, but I woke up this morning thinking about all of the very serious problems we are challenged with right now, and we chumps, aka citizen voters, are subjected to this by our so-called leaders. They disgust me.

what dreams said:

Yes, mrussel, I think the Democrats are trying. But ya know, people who are paying attention closely have already made up their minds.

The people paying attention only to the secondary accounts and not listening to the full hearings with all the nuance, will read the headlines only "FBI Director testifies Clinton was extremely careless." "Clinton is not 'Sophisticated'." "Clinton's account could have been hacked." The same exact crap we've been hearing recycled on and on.

I think those headlines will be on the right wing papers. I'm not sure mainstream would carry that and certainly not left leaning. Good news is, as the GOP tells us all the time, the media is liberal.

WashPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fbi-director-set-to-appear-before-congressional-committee-to-answer-questions-on-clinton-investigation/2016/07/07/eb43ec7e-43c1-11e6-88d0-6adee48be8bc_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_comey-testimony-1230pm:homepage/story

Comey: ‘No reasonable prosecutor’ would have charged Clinton under ‘gross negligence’ statute

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

I've been listening to the hearing on and off. The GOP is doing as well with this as they did with Benghazi. This is another dud on their part and if anything, gives better clarity to the lack of intent by Sec'y Clinton. Admittedly I only listened to about an hour total, but be interested what others, who are listening, think.

I'm still listening....Cummings is great. He actually used a block of his time to rip Trump to shreds which I thought was hilarious.

They did get Comey to admit that any classified email is SUPPOSED to have a header marked as "CLASSIFIED". Comey said there were 3 emails that contained marked classified information (marked with a (c)) in the body of the email but NOT in the subject line.

So when Clinton said that she did not send or receive any emails marked as classifed that is what she was referring to.

Now it is being discussed that the email that had the "(c)" marking in it did not actually contain classified information...that the markings were in error.

Yep. The "c" in the body is very important. Just because someone receives an email doesn't mean they read it. In fact, I'm the poster child for that. I get so backed up on emails that I eventually do a 'mass delete'. If someone really needs something for me, they'll show up in my office or call me.

Gern Blansten said:

mrussel1 said:

I've been listening to the hearing on and off. The GOP is doing as well with this as they did with Benghazi. This is another dud on their part and if anything, gives better clarity to the lack of intent by Sec'y Clinton. Admittedly I only listened to about an hour total, but be interested what others, who are listening, think.

I'm still listening....Cummings is great. He actually used a block of his time to rip Trump to shreds which I thought was hilarious.

They did get Comey to admit that any classified email is SUPPOSED to have a header marked as "CLASSIFIED". Comey said there were 3 emails that contained marked classified information (marked with a (c)) in the body of the email but NOT in the subject line.

So when Clinton said that she did not send or receive any emails marked as classifed that is what she was referring to.

Now it is being discussed that the email that had the "(c)" marking in it did not actually contain classified information...that the markings were in error.

Cummings's opening statement included a plea to have hearings on the classification system itself. Honestly, I tend to think all this classified crap is overblown. Living in the DC metro area, I know lots of friends with security clearances. Almost all them either have one, are married to or are the child/sibling of someone with one. I myself have been listed as a reference to two people going through clearance. I believe the total number of people with some kind of clearance is in the 100s of thousands. How in the hell do 100s of thousands of people keep information secure?

Though none of my friends have ever shared specific "secrets" with me, all of them agree that a lot of really stupid shit is marked classified. There are always a few bravados, usually the Pentagon people, who think they're really special shit because they do Top Secret stuff. But overall, I suspect most of it is inconsequential. When I hear all this about 3 emails, or even 110 out of more than 30,000, I know the content could be as simple as "I got the memo about X. Thanks."

Earlier in the hearing, it was also mentioned that none of the emails transmitted actual classified file attachments of important documents. It was all just "reference to classified subjects." Whatever that means, we'll never know.

Kat said:

mrussel1 said:

I heard this question earlier:

Mr Comey, how long have you been Director

3 years

How many cases have you personally been involved with?

10-20

Of those, how many did you have to testify before Congress after your decision?

None

They want to make an example of him so any other Republican who wants to be reasonable will be afraid to do it if it's not in the PARTY's interests. I also wonder why the word McCarthyism just popped into my mind? I also notice that some are using the term reckless instead of careless, thereby trying to elevate the level of any mistake with email. That's just phony. It was recommended that no charges be filed because what happened didn't reach the necessary level of a crime.
These are clearly dangerous times and it's important for reasonable people to remember what America is about.

Are we not about holding our representatives responsible for their carelessness and recklessness? If she is careless with her duties as Secretary of State, is it not safe to conclude that she would also be careless with her duties as the president? Reckless would be her throwing a book at a car driver's head...oh wait she did that too. She seems to display both reckless and careless behavior through many examples in the past. Have we not had enough of those presidents in the past?