AP FACT CHECK: Clinton email claims collapse under FBI probe


#1

AP FACT CHECK: Clinton email claims collapse under FBI probe
By STEPHEN BRAUN and JACK GILLUM, Associated Press
July 5, 2016, at 4:46 p.m.

CLINTON: “I did not email any classified material to anyone on my email. There is no classified material.” News conference, March 2015.

THE FACTS: Actually, the FBI identified at least 113 emails that passed through Clinton’s server and contained materials that were classified at the time they were sent, including some that were Top Secret and referred to a highly classified special access program, Comey said.

CLINTON: “I never received nor sent any material that was marked classified.” NBC interview, July 2016.

THE FACTS: Clinton has separately clung to her rationale that there were no classification markings on her emails that would have warned her and others not to transmit the sensitive material. But the private system did, in fact, handle emails that bore markings indicating they contained classified information, Comey said.

CLINTON: “I responded right away and provided all my emails that could possibly be work related” to the State Department. News conference, March 2015.

THE FACTS: Not so, the FBI found.

This is just parts of this article. The AP’s summary examines more claims, and a bit deeper than I quoted. Even the AP has pointed out, finally, that The SHREW has been monumentally and systematically lying about this whole mess!

The bottom line:

  • The SHREW set up this email server to bypass and evade the Freedom Of Information Act and other government transparency laws and regs;

  • The SHREW’s email server had mediocre or poor security, utterly inadequate for the kind of target it was for hackers, the latter something even a technophobic inept should have realized;

  • The SHREW conducted business through her email server …

  • … Using insecure devices …

  • … In hostile environments …

  • … That have sophisticated hacking capabilities;

  • The SHREW received and sent scores of emails that contained classified information - or information any competent person would know would be classified once security people examined it;

  • The SHREW’s email server was pretty much certainly hacked, probably multiple times;

  • The emails of people outside of the government with whom The SHREW communicated about State Department business were hacked;

  • Untold numbers of people’s lives were endangered, and 10s or 100s of millions of $$ have had to be spent, changing processes, operations, and people;

  • The SHREW has been monumentally and systematically lying about this to the public for years.


#2

I am watching the House questioning of Director Comey. I believe Comey is an honest person, but put in a difficult position, he is trying to be as objective as possible. Was there pressure placed on him by the AG? Considering the heat that was occurring when Bill met with Loretta Lynch, it’s possible. There was a push and it was going to become a shove that an independent investigation occur and Lynch recluse herself from the process.

One key issue to come out of this is that Chaffetz asked Comey if Clinton had lied, they did a bit of a dance around the question as she has stated things to the public which has been untrue, while not saying these same things to the FBI. However, Chaffetz asked him specifically if the FBI would investigate her statements to the House, which Chaffetz claims were lies (about the possibility of classified information being on her server). Comey stated, the FBI has not investigated and wouldn’t without a specific recommendation from the House. Chaffetz clarified with “do you need a recommendation to investigate this?” Comey replied in the affirmative, Chaffetz told him to “expect one to come within a few hours”.

This type of democracy and transparency is excellent to watch. Noone pulling punches and a Director honourably standing up for his decision. I will say this, Chaffetz is really on the ball and was quite direct and forceful.


#3

Except now she is claiming that her email account was hacked. AND, they even have the culprit…and guess what? He’s been murdered! Typical Hildabeest…


#4

If you’re referring to “Guccifer”, that report is false. And the “source”, the “Christian Times Newspaper”, has a front page “story” that Obama had cancelled all 4th of July fireworks displays across the US. Whether conspiracy-theorist or Christian-mocking troll, it’s not credible.


#5

Yes, “Guccifer” is what I read. So, that’s false? But, they are claiming that her email account was hacked, right? Now she has an excuse for “missing” emails, right?


#6

Comey has been ANYTHING but “honorable.” He was bought and paid for…period. He laid out all the reasons that Hillary SHOULD be indicted and then said that he would NOT recommend indictment. Anyone else would already be reading their indictment.


#7

I’m watching his testimony, he has explained it in detail. He has stated if these things happened at the FBI there would be consequences for the person involved, all the way up to dismissal. His hands appear to be tied by the law and the willingness of the Justice Department to lay charges.

This debate is far from over.


#8

[quote=“shockedcanadian, post:7, topic:49019”]
I’m watching his testimony, he has explained it in detail. He has stated if these things happened at the FBI there would be consequences for the person involved, all the way up to dismissal. His hands appear to be tied by the law and the willingness of the Justice Department to lay charges.

This debate is far from over.
[/quote] He can “explain” all he wants. The fact is, she’s committed perjury before a Congressional committee, she’s illegally captured and transmitted classified information on an unsecured server and other, private devices–even while traveling out of the country, and she’s given her attorneys access to classified data when they don’t have security clearances either. Comey hasn’t acted “honorably” in this matter at all. He outlined dozens of reasons why she should be indicted and then refused to recommend indictment. What good are ANY laws if breaking them doesn’t result in any consequences for criminal behavior?


#9

So in doing us all a favor and “educating” we, the unenlightened as to how Hillary broke the law but really didn’t break the law … Comey destroys whatever ‘integrity’ the FBI had left and you can still call him “Honest”?
(Yours and mine definition of Honesty must come from a different dictionary?)

Too, The ‘stink’ started with Comey’s very first sentence!

No One knows what I am about to say!

Really?

At that moment, Obama was boarding Air-force 1 with Hillary to do some campaigning!

Do You Really believe that Obama would be leaving, with Hillary to campaign if he Didn’t know what the outcome would be?
Really?

Obama knew and Comey told him or told Lynch which is the same as telling Obama!

Doesn’t sound like something a person who is supposed to uphold the law, a person of integrity would do?

BTW: What everyone has overlooked is … this whole charade did not start with the ‘chance’ meeting between Bill Clinton and Loretta Lynch!

As everything else, it started with Obama!
Remember his endorsement of Hillary (weeks before)?
You think that might have sent a clear message?

From that moment forward … Everyone fell in line to Save Obama’s “Legacy” and that includes Comey!


#10

I read where the State Dept. is now doing an “internal” investigation into this whole mess. She may not be indicted, but this is not going to bode well on her quest to seize the throne.


#11

The state department as been in it from day one covering up, stalling, losing stuff, trying to claim emails were mislabeled. Not buying that anything will result from this investigation.


#12

IMO, it’s a tactic to diminish news coverage and release of information:

**State Department: “We can’t comment, because of the ongoing investigation.”

MSM: “No conclusions have been reached, so there’s nothing to report.”**

All very chummy, and the purpose and hoped-for result is that the public will be kept in the dark until after the first Tuesday in November (and maybe beyond that).


#13

Whatever little comes out today will be dismissed by the media as “old news” just before the election, too, and they won’t repeat it for those just then paying attention. As a result, millions will go to the polls in November totally ignorant of what an evil person Hillary really is because they didn’t care enough to pay attention 6 months earlier.