James Comey Clinton Email Congressional Testimony Thread
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:39:58 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2016 U.S. Presidential Election
  James Comey Clinton Email Congressional Testimony Thread
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: James Comey Clinton Email Congressional Testimony Thread  (Read 1357 times)
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 07, 2016, 09:34:01 AM »
« edited: July 07, 2016, 01:48:23 PM by Likely Voter »

Couple early points in Comey's Congressional testimony:

- Goes further than at his press conference, says he doesn't think Clinton broke the law regarding email.
- "I know no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case. not just my view, but of entire team."
- Clinton didn't lie to the FBI. Won't speak to her public statements.
- Petraeus did not get away with less, what he did was far worse than this case.
Logged
JRP1994
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,045


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 07, 2016, 09:39:19 AM »

Trey Gowdy is shredding Clinton by pointing out blatant lies Clinton told, and Comey is agreeing that every quote Gowdy brought up was untrue.

I strongly dislike Trey Gowdy, but this is a sucker-punch to the gut for Team Clinton.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 07, 2016, 09:54:00 AM »

Trey Gowdy is shredding Clinton by pointing out blatant lies Clinton told, and Comey is agreeing that every quote Gowdy brought up was untrue.

I strongly dislike Trey Gowdy, but this is a sucker-punch to the gut for Team Clinton.

Democrats on the committee are doing the same with the typical Republican over reactions and conspiracy theories.
Logged
JRP1994
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,045


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 07, 2016, 10:18:13 AM »

Trey Gowdy is shredding Clinton by pointing out blatant lies Clinton told, and Comey is agreeing that every quote Gowdy brought up was untrue.

I strongly dislike Trey Gowdy, but this is a sucker-punch to the gut for Team Clinton.

Democrats on the committee are doing the same with the typical Republican over reactions and conspiracy theories.

Oh absolutely. But wouldn't you agree that a presidential candidate potentially lying to Congress - under oath - is a more serious matter than reactionary partisan games? 
Logged
Dr. Arch
Arch
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,452
Puerto Rico


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 07, 2016, 10:29:14 AM »

Lo, the witch hunte continueth.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 07, 2016, 10:37:55 AM »

Trey Gowdy is shredding Clinton by pointing out blatant lies Clinton told, and Comey is agreeing that every quote Gowdy brought up was untrue.

I strongly dislike Trey Gowdy, but this is a sucker-punch to the gut for Team Clinton.

Democrats on the committee are doing the same with the typical Republican over reactions and conspiracy theories.

Oh absolutely. But wouldn't you agree that a presidential candidate potentially lying to Congress - under oath - is a more serious matter than reactionary partisan games? 

Of course, but most people already see this issue from their given partisan camps. Not many neutral people out there to convince.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 07, 2016, 11:10:02 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Fusionmunster
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,483


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 07, 2016, 11:16:26 AM »

I was worried about this. Having watched chunks of this, I definitely shouldn't have been.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 07, 2016, 11:22:49 AM »

John Mica asks Comey if he's seen broadway production of Hamilton...

Seriously
Logged
HagridOfTheDeep
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,720
Canada


Political Matrix
E: -6.19, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 07, 2016, 11:35:29 AM »

So none of them were actually marked classified?
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 07, 2016, 11:37:08 AM »

So none of them were actually marked classified?
Not when Hillary sent them.

Comey openly lied by saying it was classified because he's a republican hack and wanted the GOP to make ads against Hillary
Logged
Crumpets
Thinking Crumpets Crumpet
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,586
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.06, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 07, 2016, 11:38:36 AM »

So none of them were actually marked classified?

Three of the 30,000 had "classified" somewhere in them, but according to Comey, it was buried in the text, and had loads of replies before they reached Clinton's desk, and it would be unreasonable to apportion blame onto her, since she was only being asked to reply to the last email in the chain, rather than the person who sent it along. At least that's my understanding.
Logged
Devout Centrist
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,102
United States


Political Matrix
E: -99.99, S: -99.99

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 07, 2016, 11:53:25 AM »

Never underestimate the ability of people to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
Logged
dspNY
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,802
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 07, 2016, 12:02:08 PM »

Comey: None of the Clinton documents had headers stating the documents were classified

Too bad, so sad Republicans. You threw Comey's gift away and overplayed your hand. Now this looks like a Republican witch hunt and Clinton has her mojo back
Logged
Likely Voter
Moderators
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,344


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 07, 2016, 12:11:26 PM »

I have split off the congressional hearing stuff from the press conference thread and stickied it while it is live
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: July 07, 2016, 12:24:13 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: July 07, 2016, 12:40:05 PM »

So, on Tuesday it was "110 emails in 52 email chains were in some category of classification". Now it's "Well, three emails were marked classified, but you wouldn't see that if you weren't looking for it." How are the two statements even consistent? Serious answers only please.
Logged
Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon
Dwarven Dragon
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,578
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.42, S: -0.52

P P P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: July 07, 2016, 12:41:58 PM »

Comey: None of the Clinton documents had headers stating the documents were classified

Too bad, so sad Republicans. You threw Comey's gift away and overplayed your hand. Now this looks like a Republican witch hunt and Clinton has her mojo back

No one actually watches congressional testimony. Each media station will put their own personal spin on it tonight, and the overall polling result will be a total wash.
Logged
Lincoln Republican
Winfield
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,348


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: July 07, 2016, 12:56:38 PM »

I have never seen such Republican pontification in my entire life.
Logged
moderatevoter
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,381


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: July 07, 2016, 12:59:20 PM »

So none of them were actually marked classified?

This is what Director Comey had to say about this in his presser on Tuesday.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Crumpets
Thinking Crumpets Crumpet
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,586
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.06, S: -6.52

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: July 07, 2016, 01:02:23 PM »

So, on Tuesday it was "110 emails in 52 email chains were in some category of classification". Now it's "Well, three emails were marked classified, but you wouldn't see that if you weren't looking for it." How are the two statements even consistent? Serious answers only please.

110 e-mails contained classified material (likely classified after-the-fact). 3 were marked classified somewhere at the time she received them.

I think.
Logged
emailking
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,976
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: July 07, 2016, 01:05:07 PM »

So, on Tuesday it was "110 emails in 52 email chains were in some category of classification". Now it's "Well, three emails were marked classified, but you wouldn't see that if you weren't looking for it." How are the two statements even consistent? Serious answers only please.

He's saying 110 contained classified information but in almost all cases the information wasn't marked classified. Classified documents and e-mails need to contain markings at the top that they contain classified information. Then each piece that is actually classified needs to be labeled as such individually in the document or e-mail. Apparently in 3 e-mails there were pieces that were marked classified but the entire e-mail did not have classified markings at the top. In the other 100+ cases, there was classified information but it was not marked in any way, probably because the person who typed it didn't it know it was considered classified by another agency. That's my understanding of the distinctions he's making.
Logged
riceowl
riceowl315
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,350


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: July 07, 2016, 01:13:28 PM »

Oh geez are House Pubs going to try to bring a case about her lying under oath now?
Logged
moderatevoter
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,381


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: July 07, 2016, 01:14:45 PM »

So, on Tuesday it was "110 emails in 52 email chains were in some category of classification". Now it's "Well, three emails were marked classified, but you wouldn't see that if you weren't looking for it." How are the two statements even consistent? Serious answers only please.

110 e-mails contained classified material (likely classified after-the-fact). 3 were marked classified somewhere at the time she received them.

I think.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
moderatevoter
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,381


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: July 07, 2016, 01:16:27 PM »

So, on Tuesday it was "110 emails in 52 email chains were in some category of classification". Now it's "Well, three emails were marked classified, but you wouldn't see that if you weren't looking for it." How are the two statements even consistent? Serious answers only please.

He's saying 110 contained classified information but in almost all cases the information wasn't marked classified. Classified documents and e-mails need to contain markings at the top that they contain classified information. Then each piece that is actually classified needs to be labeled as such individually in the document or e-mail. Apparently in 3 e-mails there were pieces that were marked classified but the entire e-mail did not have classified markings at the top. In the other 100+ cases, there was classified information but it was not marked in any way, probably because the person who typed it didn't it know it was considered classified by another agency. That's my understanding of the distinctions he's making.

This is what he said about classified information, even if it's not marked classified:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.059 seconds with 13 queries.