Nope... No double standard here...

[Black Dog]

Makes me wanna puke 

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/07/marine-officer-wants-same-treatment-as-hillary-clinton.html?intcmp=ob_article_sidebar_video&intcmp=obinsite

Black Dog

[Rams]

Seems fair to me.   But then, I'm one of those folks who believes Hilary should already be behind bars. 

[Robert]

But But But Hillary didn't do it with the intention to commit a crime, charge her. Thanks this is the problem with unequal application of the law.

[FryeVRCCDS0067]

Maybe I'm seeing good where it doesn't exist but I think the FBI head handled the Hillary investigation in the best possible way.

If they had filed charges the Dem party could have replaced Hillary with Biden and kept the facts hidden behind legal proceedings until after the election. (just like Benghazi) Then when Obama pardoned her, Her crimes might never be proven if Biden won and helped cover it up.

Now, at least some of the truth has become public knowledge, more will quickly follow I'm sure and they can't easily replace her. I think the FBI head did it this way knowing he would be hated for it but hoping it would give the voters a chance to make an intelligent, better informed decision. The guy is a patriot in my book and probably sacrificed his career by not recommending charges be filed when he clearly could have. This is, I think the only way it could have fallen out and given the public a clear view of the dishonestly of this women who wants to lead us. Cudos to the FBI.

And, of course, his testimony to the Senate and the American public pretty well sealed the deal concerning her perjury during the Benghazi hearings. I expect she will be charged for this one but hopefully not until after the convention so the dems are stuck with her. In the mean time, the American voter is going to see a daily peek show as her dishonesty continues to unravel under the spotlight.

At least, I hope so.

[solo1]

That very well may be the logical thought in an illogical solution.  Another way of looking at it.  thanks.

wayne

[Pete]

Frye,
Most of what you wrote I agree with except:
He should have recommended sending it to a grand jury.
And because he did not he killed his own credibility.

It has come to light that he is hard on the average citizen  but tends to allow the political class to escape punishment especially the Clintons. It seems he has actually been involved in Clinton cases more than has been alluded to by the news media.

I think he was the appointed fall person and used the first part of his announcement to hit back at his handlers before folding.

[Bighead]

I don't think it should be the FBI's place to recommend or not recommend indictment. All they should do is gather evidence and turn it over to the prosecutors and let them decide whether charges should/shouldn't be filed, If there is enough evidence to file or not.

[JimC]

I don't think it should be the FBI's place to recommend or not recommend indictment. All they should do is gather evidence and turn it over to the prosecutors and let them decide whether charges should/shouldn't be filed, If there is enough evidence to file or not.

THIS ^^^

He has taken an organization that has had high morals and reduced it to another political entity.
He should have referred his evidence to the grand jury and let them decide whether charges are warranted or not.

Jim

[Serk]

Time for an independent prosecutor.

[Rams]

Reference the Marine Major and "Presumptive Nominee" Clinton, who would you put your trust into?

Clinton trusts me much less than I trust her.   I trust her about as far as I can throw Moby Dick. 

 

[TallRider]

The law that applies to classified material has no mention of intent in it. Judge Napolitano explained the law a while back before the FBI ruling on Fox News. In simple layman's terms if  any person or persons knowingly,  or unknowingly handle or transmit classified material improperly they are subject to punishment under the law. Intent has nothing to do with it. Any one following Clinton's use or purported purpose of the server knowing Clinton's can understand her purpose for the server. That is why this man is being charged as was Petraeus  and others that it was applied with no application of intent in the rullings. The amazing thing about Clinton and her job she knew she would be handling classified material and manipulated the transmissions on the server. The FBI inserted intent in the rullings as Justice Robert's did on the Supreme Court Rulling for the Affordable  Care Act. Rewrote the law to apply to the ruling. They only manipulate laws for situations involving political ramifications average Joe is screwed.

[The emperor has no clothes]

The law that applies to classified material has no mention of intent in it. Judge Napolitano explained the law a while back before the FBI ruling on Fox News. In simple layman's terms if  any person or persons knowingly,  or unknowingly handle or transmit classified material improperly they are subject to punishment under the law. Intent has nothing to do with it. Any one following Clinton's use or purported purpose of the server knowing Clinton's can understand her purpose for the server. That is why this man is being charged as was Petraeus  and others that it was applied with no application of intent in the rullings. The amazing thing about Clinton and her job she knew she would be handling classified material and manipulated the transmissions on the server. The FBI inserted intent in the rullings as Justice Robert's did on the Supreme Court Rulling for the Affordable  Care Act. Rewrote the law to apply to the ruling. They only manipulate laws for situations involving political ramifications average Joe is screwed.

Did you watch the House Hearing where Comey testified. He explained all of your objections pretty well.

[Robert]

Did you watch the House Hearing where Comey testified. He explained all of your objections pretty well.

No he did a dance given the position he was in, I dont doubt his integrity or sincerity but the one thing that he did not mention in his speech is that during an investigation intention is only established by actions of the criminal. Its only on the arrest and hindsight that the real scope and admissions come forward of the truth of the matter.

  No criminal and most people dont feel unjustified in their actions while doing them. Its usually only after arrest and prosecution or the threat of prosecution when all the escape routes are closed that clarity and honesty comes into their minds and true intent is established.

ARREST HER AND LETS SEE WHAT CLARITY WILL COME. ESPECIALLY SINCE SHE CORRECTED COMEY ON WHAT HE SAID. BRAZEN

The Dems are a total waste if you listened to the 6 hours of testimony of Comey they basically had nothing to say and want to flout the law for their goals.

Let me also bring up the question why did he personally not interview clinton when the FBI asked her questions?
Did the whole rank and file agree with his decision?

Meathead I dont understand, is it your personal conviction that its ok to have hillary as pres,

 when Comey stated she lied, negligent and possibly performed an illegal act in handling of the confidential emails and having  a private server?

You know being open and honest about your personal position on this would go a long way instead of using insipid one liners to make a point.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Did you watch the House Hearing where Comey testified. He explained all of your objections pretty well.

No he did a dance given the position he was in, I dont doubt his integrity or sincerity but the one thing that he did not mention in his speech is that during an investigation intention is only established by actions of the criminal. Its only on the arrest and hindsight that the real scope and admissions come forward of the truth of the matter. No criminal and most people dont feel unjustified in their actions while doing them. Its usually only after arrest and prosecution or the threat of prosecution when all the escape routes are closed that clarity and honesty comes into their minds.

ARREST HER AND LETS SEE WHAT CLARITY WILL COME. ESPECIALLY SINCE SHE CORRECTED COMEY ON WHAT HE SAID. BRAZEN

The Dems are a total waste if you listened to the 6 hours of testimony of Comey they basically had nothing to say and want to flout the law for their goals.

Let me also bring up the question why did he personally not interview clinton when the FBI asked her questions?
Did the whole rank and file agree with his decision?

Well I guess we will just have to disagree about his testimony. I was very leery about how he was going to explain what he did. But I thought he came across as forthright , honest, and understandable. The diatribes from the Democrats on the committee were no worse or no better than the Republicans. They all wanted to grandstand.

[Robert]

Did you watch the House Hearing where Comey testified. He explained all of your objections pretty well.

No he did a dance given the position he was in, I dont doubt his integrity or sincerity but the one thing that he did not mention in his speech is that during an investigation intention is only established by actions of the criminal. Its only on the arrest and hindsight that the real scope and admissions come forward of the truth of the matter. No criminal and most people dont feel unjustified in their actions while doing them. Its usually only after arrest and prosecution or the threat of prosecution when all the escape routes are closed that clarity and honesty comes into their minds.

ARREST HER AND LETS SEE WHAT CLARITY WILL COME. ESPECIALLY SINCE SHE CORRECTED COMEY ON WHAT HE SAID. BRAZEN

The Dems are a total waste if you listened to the 6 hours of testimony of Comey they basically had nothing to say and want to flout the law for their goals.

Let me also bring up the question why did he personally not interview clinton when the FBI asked her questions?
Did the whole rank and file agree with his decision?

Well I guess we will just have to disagree about his testimony. I was very leery about how he was going to explain what he did. But I thought he came across as forthright , honest, and understandable. The diatribes from the Democrats on the committee were no worse or no better than the Republicans. They all wanted to grandstand.

The Dems used the time to divert the issue and did not give a flip about the American people. While the Repubs used the time to bring up points about the issue and used their time to have Comey explain why we as the American people should accept no prosecution.

Meathead I dont understand, is it your personal conviction that its ok to have hillary as pres,

 when Comey stated she lied, negligent and possibly performed an illegal act in handling of the confidential emails and having  a private server?

You know being open and honest about your personal position on this would go a long way instead of using insipid one liners to make a point.

This is the whole questioning of FBI director if you have the stomach to watch

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/07/watch_live_fbi_director_comey_testifies_on_hillary_clintons_handling_of_classified_info.html

[The emperor has no clothes]

Robert, I didn't realize a paragraph was considered a one liner ? Luckily or unluckily I had the day off and watched it in its entirety. If you truly think the Republicans weren't grandstanding just as much as the Democrats during the hearing there is not much sense in us continuing our conversation. 

[Robert]

Robert, I didn't realize a paragraph was considered a one liner ? Luckily or unluckily I had the day off and watched it in its entirety. If you truly think the Republicans weren't grandstanding just as much as the Democrats during the hearing there is not much sense in us continuing our conversation. 

I do have to agree that the Repubs were also grandstanding but at least they were asking the questions that most wanted to hear the answers to instead of diverting and making excuses for Hilary.

 I see it as if you are really concerned about your own personal integrity and follow the idea that laws need to be obeyed by everyone and then see something like this, then if you dont address it directly or divert or try to cover the action then you are just as guilty and not a good representative to the people you are responsible to.

Quote
Meathead
Did you watch the House Hearing where Comey testified. He explained all of your objections pretty well.
end qquote

 You wrote the above that is not a paragraph its a one liner.


Meathead I dont understand, is it your personal conviction that its ok to have hillary as pres,

 when Comey stated she lied, negligent and possibly performed an illegal act in handling of the confidential emails and having  a private server?

You know being open and honest about your personal position on this would go a long way instead of using insipid one liners to make a point.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Robert, I didn't realize a paragraph was considered a one liner ? Luckily or unluckily I had the day off and watched it in its entirety. If you truly think the Republicans weren't grandstanding just as much as the Democrats during the hearing there is not much sense in us continuing our conversation. 

I do have to agree that the Repubs were also grandstanding but at least they were asking the questions that most wanted to hear the answers to instead of diverting and making excuses for Hilary.

 I see it as if you are really concerned about your own personal integrity and follow the idea that laws need to be obeyed by everyone and then see something like this, then if you dont address it directly or divert or try to cover the action then you are just as guilty and not a good representative to the people you are responsible to.

Quote
Meathead
Did you watch the House Hearing where Comey testified. He explained all of your objections pretty well.
end qquote

 You wrote the above that is not a paragraph its a one liner.


Meathead I dont understand, is it your personal conviction that its ok to have hillary as pres,

 when Comey stated she lied, negligent and possibly performed an illegal act in handling of the confidential emails and having  a private server?

You know being open and honest about your personal position on this would go a long way instead of using insipid one liners to make a point.

Have a good day Robert 

[Robert]

Robert, I didn't realize a paragraph was considered a one liner ? Luckily or unluckily I had the day off and watched it in its entirety. If you truly think the Republicans weren't grandstanding just as much as the Democrats during the hearing there is not much sense in us continuing our conversation. 

I do have to agree that the Repubs were also grandstanding but at least they were asking the questions that most wanted to hear the answers to instead of diverting and making excuses for Hilary.

 I see it as if you are really concerned about your own personal integrity and follow the idea that laws need to be obeyed by everyone and then see something like this, then if you dont address it directly or divert or try to cover the action then you are just as guilty and not a good representative to the people you are responsible to.

Quote
Meathead
Did you watch the House Hearing where Comey testified. He explained all of your objections pretty well.
end qquote

 You wrote the above that is not a paragraph its a one liner.


Meathead I dont understand, is it your personal conviction that its ok to have hillary as pres,

 when Comey stated she lied, negligent and possibly performed an illegal act in handling of the confidential emails and having  a private server?

You know being open and honest about your personal position on this would go a long way instead of using insipid one liners to make a point.

Have a good day Robert 

Yup thought so.

[Thespian]

 You all are not dumb. why do you pretend you don't know how all this $hit works? http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/19/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187.html

[Rams]

Meathead,
Please enlighten me as to whom you trust to protect the Constitution as it currently stands?

Regardless of who you trust, it's the President's sworn oath to govern by the Constitution of the US.   SCOTUS may change an interpretation to laws but, that's their job (whether I like that interpretation or not), not the President's job and not Congress's job.   They (Congress and purportedly, the President) can propose, pass and legislate, they don't get to enforce and should not IMHO, produce Executive Orders just cause they can to cover loop holes.   Those loop holes should be addressed by the courts and Congress.   

I'm not trying to start any pissing contest, I would simply like an answer to the question, if you will.

[Rams]

Bump

[The emperor has no clothes]

Meathead,
Please enlighten me as to whom you trust to protect the Constitution as it currently stands?

Regardless of who you trust, it's the President's sworn oath to govern by the Constitution of the US.   SCOTUS may change an interpretation to laws but, that's their job (whether I like that interpretation or not), not the President's job and not Congress's job.   They (Congress and purportedly, the President) can propose, pass and legislate, they don't get to enforce and should not IMHO, produce Executive Orders just cause they can to cover loop holes.   Those loop holes should be addressed by the courts and Congress.   

I'm not trying to start any pissing contest, I would simply like an answer to the question, if you will.

I'm not really sure how this relates to the thread, but I will try to answer your question. There many people I would trust to uphold the constitution . If you are asking me , do I trust the president to uphold it ? The answer is yes. I understand you don't.

[The emperor has no clothes]

Bump

Damn, now we bumping a dumb ass political thread ? 

Yep, that's what one does when they would like an answer.   

Based on that response, you obviously have a troublesome decision to make.   

Geez, it's 4 AM. I just woke up and getting ready for work. 

[Pete]

Give it up folks.
It is not possible to logically justify voting for Hillary for president. No one can.

The reality is that:

We are again forced into make a choice between two persons that have flaws.
And again this year folks will be voting against someone for president as much as voting for someone.

[The emperor has no clothes]

I'm not really sure how this relates to the thread, but I will try to answer your question. There many people I would trust to uphold the constitution . If you are asking me , do I trust the president to uphold it ? The answer is yes. I understand you don't.

Seriously?   While you do have a cute/cool/unique screen name, I don't believe it has any validity.     

Thats only because we haven't met in person. If you were to ask the members who know me you might get agreement of my handle. 

[Robert]

You all are not dumb. why do you pretend you don't know how all this $hit works? http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/19/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187.html

Just like every democratic argument I have heard since, they did it its ok for Hillary. It seems to me I tried that on a speeding ticket once and it didn't work then. We will have to enter that into the legal books for an effective defense. Plus I'm really interested in who got caught lying on record to the Congress and to others. So the crime is not the lying or the violation of protocol or the blatant disrespect of the legal system the real problem is she got caught.   

Hillay had many of her own email SERVERS in her home not just an email accounts and that is the only one difference.

[Thespian]

 The post stated No double standard here... That was what my link addressed. Nothing about guilt or innocence. BTY Hillary is not a member of the armed forces, and as I am sure your all know is not held to that standard of conduct.   

[Rams]

May have a valid point on standards of conduct.   

But, discussing, disclosing and/or improper use and or transfer of such information is still illegal.   Or do the rules not apply to the former Sec. of State, NY Senator and former (stretching the definition significantly) First Lady?   Apparently not.   

Some will trust her with their future and the future of their children and grand children.   Who was it that said there's a fool born every minute.     Pretty sure that was supposed to have something to do with a circus.     Oh look, free stuff and it sparkles.................   

[Firefighter]

How can you trust Obama to uphold the constitution when he finds ways to skirt it. How about Obama care? Fine the citizens if they don't sign up! Very unconstitutional.

The FBI agent obviously was saving his on job like republican politicians have been doing. Hillary is protected to save face and keep the party in power.

[Psycho]

You all are not dumb. why do you pretend you don't know how all this $hit works? http://www.newsweek.com/2016/02/19/colin-powell-emails-hillary-clinton-424187.html

Among other differences, Powell and Rice both had personal and official email accounts; official accounts were used for classified material (this is stated in the article you cited).  Hillary used no official email account for classified material, she used personal accounts and personal servers for everything.  Powell and Rice also used public servers, not personal servers, so their emails could be retrieved by officials if necessary.

[Thespian]

 How many miles did you put on your bike this week?