slugsrbad wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:As of right now, these are the facts:

. While Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a private email server stored in the basement of her house on which she sends and receives both personal and official government emails.

. The FBI uncovers 30,000+ emails from said server which relate to State Department business.

. Of those 30K+ emails, the FBI finds three (3) emails which contain classified markings.

. None of those three (3) emails are properly marked classified in accordance with government regulation which stipulate (among other requirements) that classified emails be marked with a header designating classified status. Rather further down in the body of the emails in question each has the marking "(C)" next to one paragraph.

. Yesterday the State Department announced that two (2) of the three (3) emails in question did not contain classified information and should not have contained any classified markings.

So this whole investigation turned up one (1) email which contained a paragraph marked with a "(C)", but which was not properly marked as classified in accordance with Federal regulations.

Weren't there also 110 unmarked emails that were discovered to have classified information?

Bucky wrote:if they did publish said letter that would all but guarantee his victory in october

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

Bucky wrote:

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:I was just talking with a coworker this morning about how I wondered if Sanders would endorse Clinton now that she's not being indicted--my guess is that he'd been holding out in the remote hopes that he'd be able to step in as the only viable option if that happened. (Nevermind that if he merely suspended his campaign, he'd still be able to do that.)

Lo and behold, it comes out today that he's negotiating an endorsement. Shocking.

it actually came out a couple days ago. I don't think it has much (or anything) to do with that. It's a matter of she & the party adopting key parts of the progressive platform. I think her agreeing to the college thing was probably what precipitated the endorsement talks.

?

I'm talking about where he acknowledged it last night on Chris Hayes' show. I didn't see the reports until a few hours ago and misunderstood that it was on a morning news show rather than last night, but he certainly didn't acknowledge anything a couple of days ago.

Besides, the party platform has already been set, and any policy announcement from her this week has been weeks in the making. This is about Bernie saving face and holding out hope for as long as possible.

The Crimson Cyclone wrote:

slugsrbad wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:As of right now, these are the facts:

. While Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a private email server stored in the basement of her house on which she sends and receives both personal and official government emails.

. The FBI uncovers 30,000+ emails from said server which relate to State Department business.

. Of those 30K+ emails, the FBI finds three (3) emails which contain classified markings.

. None of those three (3) emails are properly marked classified in accordance with government regulation which stipulate (among other requirements) that classified emails be marked with a header designating classified status. Rather further down in the body of the emails in question each has the marking "(C)" next to one paragraph.

. Yesterday the State Department announced that two (2) of the three (3) emails in question did not contain classified information and should not have contained any classified markings.

So this whole investigation turned up one (1) email which contained a paragraph marked with a "(C)", but which was not properly marked as classified in accordance with Federal regulations.

Weren't there also 110 unmarked emails that were discovered to have classified information?

Marked classified and classified are not the same thing

JFLNYC wrote:Another fascinating aspect which was addressed in the hearing today was the point Mo brought up earlier concerning the "gross negligence" standard. Apparently, although the "gross negligence" standard is clearly written into the law, the DOJ is loathe to invoke it because of a concern throughout the prosecuting community about that standard's constitutionality. From what I gathered there's only been one case brought in the last 99 years and the defendant in that case pleaded guilty to another charge, so the issue has never been tried.

JFLNYC wrote:CNN reporting two police officers shot in Dallas.

Warszawa wrote:

JFLNYC wrote:Another fascinating aspect which was addressed in the hearing today was the point Mo brought up earlier concerning the "gross negligence" standard. Apparently, although the "gross negligence" standard is clearly written into the law, the DOJ is loathe to invoke it because of a concern throughout the prosecuting community about that standard's constitutionality. From what I gathered there's only been one case brought in the last 99 years and the defendant in that case pleaded guilty to another charge, so the issue has never been tried.

It appears this issue is opening a whole can or worms.

An explosion ripped through a busy commuter train in Taiwan's capital, Taipei, late on Thursday injuring at least 24 people, police say.
The blast hit a train at Taipei's Songshan station before midnight leaving some passengers badly burned.
Police told local media they found a broken tube with explosive material inside that looked like a firecracker.
Premier Lin Chuan told media it appeared "malicious" but police have not ruled out an accident.
Police bomb squad chief Lee Tzu-wen told local media that investigators found "a 15cm-long, broken metal tube stuffed with explosive material inside a black backpack" that they believe could have caused the blast.
"There was a blast and the carriage went dark. People were panicking and screaming," one passenger is quoted as telling a local news channel.
Other eyewitnesses cited in local media reported seeing a man carry a rectangular object onto the train carriage shortly before the explosion.

pacino wrote:

Roger Ailes wrote:Gretchen Carlson’s allegations are false. This is a retaliatory suit for the network’s decision not to renew her contract, which was due to the fact that her disappointingly low ratings were dragging down the afternoon lineup. When Fox News did not commence any negotiations to renew her contract, Ms. Carlson became aware that her career with the network was likely over and conveniently began to pursue a lawsuit. Ironically, FOX News provided her with more on-air opportunities over her 11 year tenure than any other employer in the industry, for which she thanked me in her recent book. This defamatory lawsuit is not only offensive, it is wholly without merit and will be defended vigorously.

read that in Trump's voice and it's hardly different.

pacino wrote:

pacino wrote:

Roger Ailes wrote:Gretchen Carlson’s allegations are false. This is a retaliatory suit for the network’s decision not to renew her contract, which was due to the fact that her disappointingly low ratings were dragging down the afternoon lineup. When Fox News did not commence any negotiations to renew her contract, Ms. Carlson became aware that her career with the network was likely over and conveniently began to pursue a lawsuit. Ironically, FOX News provided her with more on-air opportunities over her 11 year tenure than any other employer in the industry, for which she thanked me in her recent book. This defamatory lawsuit is not only offensive, it is wholly without merit and will be defended vigorously.

read that in Trump's voice and it's hardly different.

super cut of people on the air commenting on her appearance

RichmondPhilsFan wrote:

pacino wrote:

pacino wrote:

Roger Ailes wrote:Gretchen Carlson’s allegations are false. This is a retaliatory suit for the network’s decision not to renew her contract, which was due to the fact that her disappointingly low ratings were dragging down the afternoon lineup. When Fox News did not commence any negotiations to renew her contract, Ms. Carlson became aware that her career with the network was likely over and conveniently began to pursue a lawsuit. Ironically, FOX News provided her with more on-air opportunities over her 11 year tenure than any other employer in the industry, for which she thanked me in her recent book. This defamatory lawsuit is not only offensive, it is wholly without merit and will be defended vigorously.

read that in Trump's voice and it's hardly different.

super cut of people on the air commenting on her appearance

I mean, she was Miss America in 1989, so we can't be surprised about superficial statements. Then again, she graduated with honors from Stanford, so even though she said (many) stupid things on air, we know she's not a complete airhead.