quote:

MSNBC Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough tore into President Barack Obama Monday after the president appeared to defend his former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, saying during a Fox News Sunday interview that Clinton’s emails did not endanger national security.

“Can you guys believe what you just heard?” Scarborough asked his panel after playing the clip. “He said he wasn’t going to talk to his attorney general about the pending investigation, but he just did. As he did back in October when he said, ‘No national security issues here, nothing to see, move along.'”

Scarborough pointed out that when Obama made comments in October saying Clinton didn’t put national security at risk, The New York Times ran a piece reporting that the FBI was angry that the president appeared to be taking sides before the investigation was complete.

“And he just did it again!” he said. “And then in the same interview said, ‘But I’m not talking to my attorney general about it.’ Talk about a rigged process.”

Bloomberg Politics’ Mark Halperin agreed and called Obama’s comments “ill-advised,” saying Obama should have just played it mum. “I don’t know why he went on at such length defending her, because in theory he shouldn’t really know the facts of the case,” he pointed out.

Scarborough said it was the FBI director he felt bad for. “…You had been killing yourself to run a fair investigation and twice the President of the United States has made a fool of you by saying his investigation doesn’t matter, because the scales — the lady’s not blindfolded, I’m tipping the scales right now.”

“A criminal investigation is being rigged,” he concluded.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

http://samuel-warde.com/2015/10/cia-trey-gowdy-altered-documents-to-frame-hillary-clinton/

and we should suspect the same, there is no reason not to believe (since there is so much nutsucker propaganda being floated) that nothing, and I mean nothing else is true, either.

quote:

Quick side note: The piece accurately frames Blumenthal as "one of Clinton's most prolific advice-givers" during her tenure at State. This is evident from the volume and content of emails they exchanged, many of which she forwarded to other officials after stripping away identifying sourcing (Blumenthal was banned from government work by the Obama administration). She has inaccurately stated that she never solicited intelligence or advice from Blumenthal, and falsely testified under oath that he served as neither an official nor unofficial adviser to her. Anyway, there are several reasons why people are buzzing about the context of the extradition…

The cyber threat posed by "Guccifer" had been cut off at the knees, given that he was sitting in an Eastern European prison cell. Why would the US government bother going through the ordeal and expense of dragging him to America now? Key officials aren't commenting, but we know that the request came from the FBI right around the time that the nonpartisan Inspector General for the intelligence community charged that Mrs. Clinton's unsecure email server contained exceptionally secret material. Ed Morrissey notes that if Guccifer "cracked Hillary’s server rather than Blumenthal’s (or both), then it makes prosecution under 18 USC 793 easier under subsection (f)" of the federal Espionage Act. That's the bit that deals with "gross negligence" in the handling of classified information. I've argued on several occasions that Clinton may be vulnerable under that provision of the statute, particularly in light of her decisions to ignore explicit warnings about the risks associated with her conduct. If it can be proven that Guccifer -- an amateur -- penetrated Clinton's emails, it would follow that hostile foreign powers with far more sophisticated resources and methods could also have gained access to the large cache of secret information, as several high-ranking officials have stated is a near certainty. That goes far beyond mere "carelessness," as President Obama characterized it yesterday...

If triggering the extradition process were standard procedure in hacking cases like this, it might be a stretch to read too far into the timing of this move. But if it's an "outlier," that only renders the "why now?" questions more urgent, and seems to bolster the statement from Herridge's "close to the case" intelligence source, who says the sequence of events is no accident.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

http://samuel-warde.com/2015/10/cia-trey-gowdy-altered-documents-to-frame-hillary-clinton/

and we should suspect the same, there is no reason not to believe (since there is so much nutsucker propaganda being floated) that nothing, and I mean nothing else is true, either.

Yeah Gaudy redacted a name because the law requires him to. Remember the whole Joe Wilson affair. Bullshit article. Bullshit source.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

theres apparently no such thing as a nutsucking cock gargling slobberblog when it agrees with what the comrades wish were true.

nice try though vile critter parts. maybe read some real news though?

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

some follow-up to the guccifer extradition:

nutsucker slobber blog redacted.

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

some follow-up to the guccifer extradition:

quote:

Quick side note: The piece accurately frames Blumenthal as "one of Clinton's most prolific advice-givers" during her tenure at State. This is evident from the volume and content of emails they exchanged, many of which she forwarded to other officials after stripping away identifying sourcing (Blumenthal was banned from government work by the Obama administration). She has inaccurately stated that she never solicited intelligence or advice from Blumenthal, and falsely testified under oath that he served as neither an official nor unofficial adviser to her. Anyway, there are several reasons why people are buzzing about the context of the extradition…

The cyber threat posed by "Guccifer" had been cut off at the knees, given that he was sitting in an Eastern European prison cell. Why would the US government bother going through the ordeal and expense of dragging him to America now? Key officials aren't commenting, but we know that the request came from the FBI right around the time that the nonpartisan Inspector General for the intelligence community charged that Mrs. Clinton's unsecure email server contained exceptionally secret material. Ed Morrissey notes that if Guccifer "cracked Hillary’s server rather than Blumenthal’s (or both), then it makes prosecution under 18 USC 793 easier under subsection (f)" of the federal Espionage Act. That's the bit that deals with "gross negligence" in the handling of classified information. I've argued on several occasions that Clinton may be vulnerable under that provision of the statute, particularly in light of her decisions to ignore explicit warnings about the risks associated with her conduct. If it can be proven that Guccifer -- an amateur -- penetrated Clinton's emails, it would follow that hostile foreign powers with far more sophisticated resources and methods could also have gained access to the large cache of secret information, as several high-ranking officials have stated is a near certainty. That goes far beyond mere "carelessness," as President Obama characterized it yesterday...

If triggering the extradition process were standard procedure in hacking cases like this, it might be a stretch to read too far into the timing of this move. But if it's an "outlier," that only renders the "why now?" questions more urgent, and seems to bolster the statement from Herridge's "close to the case" intelligence source, who says the sequence of events is no accident.

oh no comrades, townhall!

quote:

Ed Morrissey notes that if Guccifer "cracked Hillary’s server rather than Blumenthal’s (or both), then it makes prosecution under 18 USC 793 easier under subsection (f)" of the federal Espionage Act.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

some follow-up to the guccifer extradition:

quote:

Quick side note: The piece accurately frames Blumenthal as "one of Clinton's most prolific advice-givers" during her tenure at State. This is evident from the volume and content of emails they exchanged, many of which she forwarded to other officials after stripping away identifying sourcing (Blumenthal was banned from government work by the Obama administration). She has inaccurately stated that she never solicited intelligence or advice from Blumenthal, and falsely testified under oath that he served as neither an official nor unofficial adviser to her. Anyway, there are several reasons why people are buzzing about the context of the extradition…

The cyber threat posed by "Guccifer" had been cut off at the knees, given that he was sitting in an Eastern European prison cell. Why would the US government bother going through the ordeal and expense of dragging him to America now? Key officials aren't commenting, but we know that the request came from the FBI right around the time that the nonpartisan Inspector General for the intelligence community charged that Mrs. Clinton's unsecure email server contained exceptionally secret material. Ed Morrissey notes that if Guccifer "cracked Hillary’s server rather than Blumenthal’s (or both), then it makes prosecution under 18 USC 793 easier under subsection (f)" of the federal Espionage Act. That's the bit that deals with "gross negligence" in the handling of classified information. I've argued on several occasions that Clinton may be vulnerable under that provision of the statute, particularly in light of her decisions to ignore explicit warnings about the risks associated with her conduct. If it can be proven that Guccifer -- an amateur -- penetrated Clinton's emails, it would follow that hostile foreign powers with far more sophisticated resources and methods could also have gained access to the large cache of secret information, as several high-ranking officials have stated is a near certainty. That goes far beyond mere "carelessness," as President Obama characterized it yesterday...

If triggering the extradition process were standard procedure in hacking cases like this, it might be a stretch to read too far into the timing of this move. But if it's an "outlier," that only renders the "why now?" questions more urgent, and seems to bolster the statement from Herridge's "close to the case" intelligence source, who says the sequence of events is no accident.

oh no comrades, townhall!

From your quote

quote:

Ed Morrissey notes that if Guccifer "cracked Hillary’s server rather than Blumenthal’s (or both), then it makes prosecution under 18 USC 793 easier under subsection (f)" of the federal Espionage Act.

Where is the evidence that guccifer cracked hillaries server?

quote:



Last week, the State Department signaled it did not plan to further oppose Judicial Watch's proposal to seek sworn testimony from former Clinton Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, former Deputy Chief of Staff Huma Abedin and information technology aide Bryan Pagliano. However, State asked for limits on what questions could be asked of those individuals and other, current State officials to the issue of why Clinton's server was set up in the first place. State is seeking to rule out queries about cybersecurity issues, the presence of classified information on the server and about Abedin's employment arrangement, which is the subject of the Freedom of Information Act request and suit brought by Judicial Watch.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2016/04/hillary-clinton-emails-judicial-watch-221864#ixzz45gU6v4E0
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook