Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:I don't read a lot of Sci-Fi, but I will keep an eye out for it next time I hit up the ol' Friends of the Library book sale.Speaker to Animals wrote:Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:
Sorry, didn't mean to trigger you by appropriating your words without authorization.
No, really. You should read the novel. It has some bearing on earlier discussions.
Man, I was ginnin' up for a shouting match, and then it got all civil.
so they sayComey’s private memos on Trump conversations contained classified material
http://thehill.com/policy/national-secu ... classified
More than half of the memos former FBI chief James Comey wrote as personal recollections of his conversations with President Trump about the Russia investigation have been determined to contain classified information, according to interviews with officials familiar with the documents.
Four of the memos had markings making clear they contained information classified at the “secret” or “confidential” level, according to officials directly familiar with the matter.
It was also unclear when the documents were shown to Congress whether the information deemed "secret" or "confidential" was classified at the time Comey wrote the memos or determined so afterwards, the sources said.
it never endsNow, congressional investigators are likely to turn their attention to the same issues to determine if Comey mishandled any classified information in his personal memos. In order to make an assessment, congressional investigators will have to tackle key questions, such as:
Where and how were the memos were created, such as whether they were written on an insecure computer or notepad.
Where and how the memos were stored, such as inside his home, his briefcase or an insecure laptop.
Were any memos shown to private individuals without a security clearance and did those memos contain any classified information
When was it determined by the government that the memos contained classified information, before Comey took them and shared one or after.
One avenue for answering those questions is for a panel like Senate Intelligence, House Intelligence or Senate Judiciary to refer the matter to the Justice Department’s internal watchdog, the inspector general, or to the Director of National Intelligence and its inspector general, aides said.
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
viewtopic.php?p=60751#p60751
Yep, well the media's been behaving poorly for awhile and this is just one more example. 'Gotta have a simple narrative for simple folk' must be their mantra.Fife wrote:Hey, de O: More Turley (and this time he's riffing on TMWSLV): http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/t ... s-comey-as
In one of my favorite Westerns, “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance,” Jimmy Stewart reveals to a reporter that he was not the man who killed villain Liberty Valance — a legend that transformed him from a perceived coward to an inspiration hero and resulted in his being elected U.S. senator and ambassador to Great Britain. The seasoned reporter listens to the whole story, but in the end says that he will not print it.
He states the rule simply as “[w]hen the legend becomes fact…print the legend.” In many ways, James Comey is the Jimmy Stewart of the media production of “The Man Who Shot Lying Trump.”
. . .
It is much like that final scene in “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance”? After Jimmy Stewart unburdened himself that he was a fraudulent hero, he boarded the train back to Washington and thanked the conductor for his kindness. The conductor simply responded, “Nothing’s too good for the man who shot Liberty Valance!”
It seems that in both Westerns and politics, you print the legend.
Now that's good stuff right thur, pilgrim. We just need somebody to play the Duke's role.
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavl ... 7?amp=true
According to new transcripts released by the Senate Judiciary Thursday afternoon, former FBI Director James Comey made the decision not to refer then Democrat presidential candidate Hillary Clinton for prosecution long before ever interviewing key witnesses. Members of the Committee allege Comey made the decision months before FBI agents were finished with the criminal investigation of her mishandling classified information during her time as Secretary of State.
According to the letter and an ongoing investigation into the matter, Comey started drafting a statement exonerating Clinton in April or May of 2016. At this point, he had not interviewed Clinton herself or her closest aides. This included Bryan Pagliano, who set up the personal server where Clinton hosted and shared top secret information, and Chief of Staff Cheryl Mills, who was granted immunity. On July 5, 2016, Comey made his public statement that the FBI would not be referring Clinton to the Department of Justice for prosecution.
...
full letter: https://www.scribd.com/document/3577214 ... from_embed
Pursuant to the Committee's responsibility and authority to review the circumstances of the Director's removal, please provide the following without redactions by September 13, 2017:
1.All drafts of Mr. Corney's statement closing the Clinton investigation, from his original draft in April or May to the final version.
2. All records related to communications between or among FBI officials regarding Corney's draft statement closing the Clinton investigation, including all memoranda or analyses of the factual or legal justification for the announcement.
3.All records previously provided to the Office of Special Counsel in the course of its now closed Hatch Act investigation of Mr. Corney.
Absolution Style by Premium phpBB Styles
