Rongone wrote:

Now we'll finally get the truth !

Just what we need . . . Another investigation by a House select committee. That'll get to the bottom of this thing.


Paul Ryan suggests he will call FBI director James Comey to testify before Congress

House Speaker Paul Ryan unloaded on James Comey Tuesday night, threatening to call the FBI director to testify before Congress about his role in the investigation of Hillary Clinton's State Department emails.
Comey announced on Tuesday that the FBI would not recommend charges against Clinton for using a private email server to conduct business as Secretary of State.

"We're going to have hearings," Ryan said in an interview with Fox News' Megyn Kelly, objecting to Comey's choice to not take questions from the media after the announcement.

"There are a lot of unanswered questions here, Megyn, that need to get answers."

Ryan criticized Comey for failing to find Clinton worthy of prosecution, despite calling her "extremely careless" in the way she handled the classified information.

"What really just mystifies me is the case he makes and then the conclusion he draws," Ryan said. "This certainly does underscore the belief that the Clintons live above the law."

"He shredded the case she had been making all year long," he added. "I think we need to know more, quite frankly."

Ryan demanded the FBI release its full findings to the public.

Just what we need ANOTHER INVESTIGATION ! 
 

Yes, it is rather difficult for me to believe that a desire for the public good will be the aim of this investigation.

I sent Paul Ryan the following message in my best Matthew McConaughey voice:

"Paul, I want to tell you a story. I'm going to ask you all to close your eyes while I tell you the story. I want you to listen to me. I want you to listen to yourselves. Go ahead. Close your eyes, please. Now Paul, imagine that woman is a republican."

Last edited by Rongone (7/06/2016 11:37 am)

Comey's speaking to Congress right now...interesting discussion, intermingled with a lot of long-winded stuff, but he seems to be saying that Clinton lacks the tech know-how to distinguish between an unclassified (unsecure) email system and a classified system. And that it was more on her team for creating an email account on the pre-existing unclassified email system, which they should have known not to do, than it was on Clinton for using it. I *almost* buy it. She's 68 years old. I know many people younger than her who don't know the difference between secure and unsecure email, let alone a USB cable and an ethernet cable. We live in a technologically daunting world and are led by people who grew up with slide rules, paper, and pencils.

tennyson wrote:

TheLagerLad wrote:

Ryan criticized Comey for failing to find Clinton worthy of prosecution, despite calling her "extremely careless" in the way she handled the classified information.

"What really just mystifies me is the case he makes and then the conclusion he draws," Ryan said. "This certainly does underscore the belief that the Clintons live above the law."

"He shredded the case she had been making all year long," he added. "I think we need to know more, quite frankly."

In one regard, I think Ryan is right for wanting Congress to get more information from Comey on this.

In another regard, it's just going to be a huge political theater shit show with congresscritters trying to scream the loudest at Comey so they can get their 15 second soundbite on the evening news.

 

What "information" do you think is still needed ? 

I thought Comey laid out the entire facts pretty clearly. All I see coming out of this is a second guessing of Comey's recommendation and that IS going to be the "shit show" that you predicted. 

Nah, I have questions about some of what was in Comey's statement.

First up:

I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort.

For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together.

My questions:

How many servers?
What was the process they used to decommission each and every one of them?
Who was in charge in setting up and decommissioning these server and what was there background, experience as a server admin and what was there security clearance?
How much of the fragmented e-mail was able to be recovered and put back together.

It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery.

In Comey's opinion, did he consider this to be an obstruction of justice, or at the very least, a hindrance to his investigation? Should Clinton have instructed her lawyers to not preclude a complete forensic recovery?
Is this a common problem the FBI has in other investigations they perform?

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

In the interview with Clinton, was the question asked on her reasoning behind sending such e-mail on an unclassified system? Can we derive from this statement that Sec. Clinton is not a reasonable person?

I have more questions, particularly around the part of Comey's statement about hostile actors gaining access to her server(s) and communications abroad, but this all I have time to write now.


 

Last edited by TheLagerLad (7/07/2016 10:54 am)