Rieder of USA Today lies about Hillary's emails - what the hell, everybody else is doing it!

[Bill USA]

Last edited Wed Aug 10, 2016, 07:53 PM - Edit history (1)

Rem Rieder, in USA Today criticizes Clinton for not being transparent. Really getting into the spirit of his Hillary hit piece, poor Rem can't help himself and utters a demonstrable LIE, saying that Clinton lied when she said she sent or received nothing that was marked Classified...


Can Clinton become transparent?

"she said no email marked classified at the time was sent over the server. It was."

Rem you either have gotten carried away with the popular M$M sport, piling on with baseless character assassinations of Clinton, or you are so fucking stupid you didn't listen to ALL the testimony given by Comey in his Congressional hearing. You either really don't know what Rep Matt Cartwright's asked Comey about Classified Headers nor Comey's answers to those questions or you are brazenly lying about what transpired between Rep Cartwright and Dir Comey.

Comy admitted that NONE of the Emails which Comey said had Classified info in them, NOT ONE had the Classification Header/subject line - as is required by the governing reg/manual......

(emphases my own)
[blockquote style="border:1px solid #000000;padding:10px;"]
MATT CARTWRIGHT: You were asked about markings on a few documents, I have the manual here, marking national classified security information. And I don't think you were given a full chance to talk about those three documents with the little c's on them. Were they properly documented? Were they properly marked according to the manual?

JAMES COMEY: No. [...]

MATT CARTWRIGHT: According to the manual, if you're going to classify something, there has to be a header on the document? Right?

JAMES COMEY: Correct.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: Was there a header on the three documents that we've discussed today that had the little c in the text someplace?

JAMES COMEY: No. There were three e-mails, the c was in the body, in the text, but there was no header on the email or in the text.

MATT CARTWRIGHT: So if Secretary Clinton really were an expert about what's classified and what's not classified and we're following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

JAMES COMEY: That would be a reasonable inference.


[font size="3"] I guess this is fanciful thinking, but it would be nice if someone in the Clinton camp would inform the GOP toadies of M$M about this - preferably Hillary.[/font]

[MFM008]

1. extremely boring

emails = boring.

[Bill USA]

2. M$M keep bringing it up. I know most people r not cut out to fight the fight against Big Lies, but

those who are up to it - should. Thanks for at least taking the time to inform me of your ennui.

[SunSeeker]

3. I'm still pissed at Comey for his unprofessional editorializing/lying at his presser.

He invited all this crap about "lying to the FBI," when she did no such thing.

[Bill USA]

4. Comey's statement of July 5, was a masterpiece of disinformation, appearing to say things which it

Last edited Wed Aug 10, 2016, 07:52 PM - Edit history (1)

did not. This is just the stuff that feeds the Hillary as the anti-Christ meme believers hysteria. Comey showed himself to be no better than a Limbaugh or a Glenn Beck.

Here's a great example of gobble-dee-gook:

"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."

OF course, even if he could cite what his evidence was (what would that evidence BE? Something written in the emails? There is no evidence.), what is it evidence OF? ... that a reasonable person ... in Sec Clinton's position .... SHOULD have known ... that unclassified system was no place for that conversation.

I would suggest that any reasonably professional prosecutorial type should know ... that you don't insinuate wrongdoing by a person unless you ACTUALLY do have tangible evidence of a wrongdoing --- in act --- not in thought (as devined by the accuser).

[SunSeeker]

5. Yup. His statements were utterly unprofessional and unethical.

He let his partisanship get the better of him.