DrmDoc

A violation of rules isn't necessarily a violation of law or a criminal act. According to the FBI investigation led by a respected republican appointee, it's my understanding that Mrs. Clinton's email mishandling may have violated the rules but was not a violation of law or a criminally prosecutorial offense. What you may consider "evidence of three crimes", were merely violations of rules that do not rise to criminality according the investigative arm of our government. Those were three mole hills that partisans want us to believe are mountains, which they are not according to a fair and thorough investigation. It's time to let this one go.

As you are not an American citizen, perhaps you are not entirely familiar with the process of congressional hearings as some of our citizenry. The handling of climate change issues, for example, are done by order of congressional legislation or executive order by our President. Hearings are just that, which is a forum where facts and potential legislation are introduced and discussed. Potential legislation is sent to a congressional committee that may or may not hold hearings for that legislation. Legislation in Congress doesn't become law until after this review process, a vote by both Houses of Congress, and finally the signature of our President. Yes, people do lie at hearings and they are subject to perjury penalties when found guilty of doing so. However, the detailed facts presented as evidence in those hearings stand alone from potentially perjured testimony, which is how perjured testimony is primarily uncovered. I gave the Congressional Hearings link as an example of where you may find the sort of facts in evidence that stand alone from testimony or opinion as you provided through the video you supplied. That linking isn't intellectual dishonesty; however, providing opinion pieces as, seemingly, facts in evidence certainly is.

Congressional hearings are where facts are introduced and discussed as sworn testimony. A congressional hearing was where the FBI's assessment of Mrs. Clinton's email handling was delivered and discussed in detail. During that congressional hearing, the FBI introduced and discussed the facts of her case as evidence in sworn testimony. We have explored and debated some of those facts here. If you're truly interested in supporting your claims, you certainly should be interested in providing a similar source of evidence rather than partisan opinion pieces.

Ridiculous. We both know evidence can be fabricated, which is why we investigate evidence for facts versus fiction and, furthermore, some reporting is almost always biased (e.g., Fox News). Your presented a video opinion piece as evidence for discussion and, as I commented, opinion isn't evidence. This is why I subsequently requested more direct evidence of the argument you were trying to make through the video your posted. Contrary to your opinion, direct source of the type of information I requested is available for those so interested (e.g., Congressional Hearings). If I'm not mistaken, you are claiming some maleficence in Mrs. Clinton's actions; therefore, it's incumbent upon you to support that claim with valid evidence. In America's presidential election, third part voting is notoriously a bad idea, particularly when there's not the slightest possibility that a third party candidate would ever win. Third party candidates syphon votes from major party candidates supported by a majority of voters in our, primarily, two party system. The results is often an elected official not supported by a majority of our electorate because of this vote syphoning effect. Therefore, choosing the best candidate among the two major parties is the most effect way to keep a less qualified candidate from being elected. As to polls, they are not always an accurate reflection of how intelligent American voters are.

Since we are discussing Mrs. Clinton and if you genuinely consider her the better candidate, shouldn't you be arguing here in favor of her candidacy since she is likely the better alternative? Also, it isn't unbiased reporting I recommend, it's unbiased evidence that is public record and provided independent of partisan commentary unlike the video you posted.

On either candidate, I only believe real and unbiased evidence that I have personally reviewed and found trustworthy. Partisan and biased opinions are only interesting for their entertainment value rather than honest information. Based on what I've investigated, I have no illusions or reservations about a Clinton presidency, she will be a great leader. However, you are clearly outraged by Clinton's alleged transgressions. Are there no Trump transgressions you find equally outrageous and disqualifying?

That is an opinion piece...do you believe everything you are told or do you actually have some verifiable, undeniable, or objective evidence we can review without biased commentary?

The pinnacle of our evolution is a brain capable of adapting our environment to our survival needs beyond our physical capabilities, which requires an ability to devise tools and strategies essential to our survival goals. H. sapiens developed the mental capacity for mathematics as an extension of its brain's evolving capacity to devise survival strategies and tools. Our primal ancestors likely intuit the rudiments of math the moment they began foraging for food (e.g., distance and probability) or using wooden and stone tools (e.g., angles and trajectories), in my opinion.

As I review the methods researchers applied to their study, I think their results are more applicable to the so-called Mandela Effect. This effect involves the false memories held by large groups of individuals surrounding some central well-known or pivotal fact, event, item, or subject. Believers in this effect frequently reference its examples as evidence of one's transit between alternate realities. The examples of this effect are, in my opinion, identical to the results produced by the word association method used in the above referenced Deja vu study. Perhaps this research is of more value to the study of false memories and the Mandela Effect than Deja vu phenomena.

You've made a very clear distinction between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in that Mr. Trump has always known privilege and was never a pauper. If you examine his business record, you'll find that Mr. Trump has only done what was in the best interest of his business and not that of his employees, tenants, the middle class, or the common man. He is self-made to the extent that he had substantial financial support from his father at the beginning of his business career. If your compatriots would take the time to investigate Mr. Trump, they will find that he has a clear history of caring more about himself and his image than the needs of our nation and people.

It may have seemed 90/10 to the AG, as well, as she listened to Comey's assessment; however, carelessness with documents does not equal chargeable offenses without clear intent and actual evidence of harm to our national security. Remember, she was advised on how to handle her emails by a republican Secretary of State and no evidence of harm to our national security was ever found. Also, characterizing preplanned campaign related events with the president as a victory tour is not evidence that she or the president had foreknowledge of what Comey would recommend. Until Mrs. Clinton was either charged or absolved of some crime, she and the president had no need to cancel her presidential campaign efforts that were planned several months in advance given the president's likely busy schedule.

You do understand that "he did not actually recommend anything" because "no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges, given the evidence"? The only action the AG could pursue was prosecution. Which means Mr. Comey could either recommend charges and prosecution or recommend no charges and prosecution to the AG. To avoid the appearance of partiality, the AG agreed to accept whatever recommendation Mr. Comey provided without knowing what he might recommend. She was facing a 50/50 chance that he might recommend prosecution, yet he did not. If he had, she would have had no choice because she had publically agreed to accept his decision. Mr. Comey, with the powerful backing of congress, could have confidently and securely recommended prosecution but we all know he did not. The AG agreed to accept that. Regardless of what you may personally believe, there was no collusion between the power elite on the outcome of this investigation.

If I understand your position correctly, Mrs. Clinton has an "in" with the highest placed republican FBI investigator (James Comey), who was, until his politically unfavorable recommendation, endorsed by our republican led congress possessed of such significant power that it could impeach or dethrone the most powerful man (POTUS) in the free world? Mr. Comey could have recommended otherwise with the power of congress backing him--but he did not. Are you suggesting that Mrs. Clinton has an "in" with this powerful so-called "republican" enemy? Isn't that a ludicrous suggestion?

If you accept and believe in the integrity of the laws of our nation, then you should accept and believe in a major tenet of that law, which is an accused person is innocent until proven guilt. This is unlike the laws in other nations (e.g., Japan) where there is a presumption of guilt. It seems you've declared Mrs. Clinton guilt without benefit of trial or evidence, which isn't the American way. This type of vigilantly mentality can ruin and cost the lives of innocent Americans and we should all endeavor to rise above this type of thinking to our better nature.

Ha! I was a bit slow on the uptake, but I get it The funny thing is, I do remember posting something like this before but have yet to find evidence that I had...spooky.

Hmmm, indeed. The problem I have with their assessment is that researchers began with the presumption of deja vu as a type of false memory production when the phenomenon is perceived more as an instant and precise replay of an immediate event or experience. Perhaps their results are significant for false memory study; however, in my view, there's a distinction between false memories based on previously known word associations and the perception of reliving or instantly re-experiencing some immediate moment or event not previously experienced or known. Essentially, their results show how false memories can be created from previously known and remembered associations, while deja vu appears to involve previously unexperienced, therefore, unknown moments perceived as past memories.

For all you partisans feverously clamoring for justice over Mrs. Clinton's alleged email mishandling, why aren't you just as outraged over our former republican Secretary of State email mishandling? Colin Powell, according to this USA Today article, has not given investigators access to the classified emails he maintained on a non-sanctioned AOL server. Further, despite his denials, Former Sec. Powell did advise Mrs. Clinton on the handling of her emails according to recent evidence this article discusses.

Of course there's corruption, have you seen the list of perks our congress has over the average citizen? Like the latter days of the Roman empire, ours is a system destined for failure in a few hundred years or less. However, it's the system we have now and it won't change overnight no matter what well intentioned politician we elect. Our job as citizen of this corrupt system is to effect change where possible and, if not, choose the lesser evil. Given our choices, do we really want Lex Luthor Donald Trump as POTUS?

According to this New Scientist article, researchers at the University of St. Andrews in the UK found that this "phenomenon" may not involve false memory production as some have speculated. Researchers were able to trigger this phenomenon, through a word association method, during fMRI study of 21 volunteers. Their method involved presenting each volunteer with a series of associated words excluding a keyword linked to that association as a likely trigger. When asked under fMRI whether the volunteers recalled that keyword as part of their word association, which they did, researchers observed activity in the prefrontal cortex rather than the hippocampus. Prior to that observation, it was believe that deja vu primarily involved the hippocampus and it association with memory formation. One researcher concludes that deja vu may involved a type of memory resolution process, which another researcher believes is advantageous to a healthy brain, according to the article. I disagree with their findings because of issues I perceive with their deja vu induction methods; however, it's an interesting article regarding the nature of some false memories. Enjoy!

Ok, let see if we can address these issue specifically and put them to rest. Here is the portion of that code that pertains to negligence: f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both. There was no indication that those 3 of 30,000 documents of Mrs. Clinton were related to "national defense" or that the handling and destruction of those 3 documents constituted "gross negligence" according to this code. The FBI recovered those document and is likely aware of their content and found no gross negligence. Again, this code is not applicable to Mrs. Clinton. From this code: (a) Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both As Secretary of State, Mrs. Clinton was authorized to receive and transport documents related to her government position in the commission of her duties as Secretary. It's my understanding that deletion of those 3 documents occurred during a period prior to calls for an investigation, which affirms that they were not maintained on her server. So...where is the violation. How about the Senate Judiciary chairman, Charles E. Grassley (R-Iowa) and Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. You also said you want justice and, as far as Comey has commented, justice in this case doesn't amount to prosecution.

As I now understand, those 30,000 deleted emails were recovered. Of those 30,000, just 3 emails bore classified markings and the investigators believed it was possible that Mrs. Clinton lacked the technical sophistication to know those documents were classified, which is plausible because they were marked with a symbol commonly used to designate copyrighted publications--an encircled small "c". Mrs. Clinton culpability resided in her detection of a copyright symbol on 3 of 30,000 documents. The clear distinction between Mrs. Clinton's actions and those provided in your link is that she was likely not aware that the deleted documents were classified as the other accused were and the republican led FBI investigators believed her. As I understand, multiple documents were stored on a government computer Mr. Deutch had taken home and he new they were classified. Those 3 of 30,000 recovered documents were not on government property Mrs. Clinton secreted in her home and she was not aware they were classified. The two cases are dissimilar. It is certainly your choice to believe in a conspiracy within the US government to usurp law and justice, indeed there could be many. However, there are people in government with considerably more influence and power than candidate Clinton and they are likely the same sort of people who exposed her husband misdeeds as POTUS. Read here what you've provided. Where does Comey said that individuals who commit these offenses are subject to criminal prosecution? Her offenses obviously doesn't rise to the level of punishment and outrage, according to Comey, you seem to be expressing.

I had a look at your link and if the details provided are true, they are obviously not the offenses Mrs. Clinton is alleged to have committed. Neither are they comparable to what she is alleged to have done. If the accusation is that she deleted government related emails, FBI investigators haven't found any evidence that she did. The emails destroyed weren't government related, as she has stated and the investigators have investigated and accepted; therefore, Mrs. Clinton isn't culpable in any action related to their destruction. So, what prosecutorial act did Mrs. Clinton commit? Do you really believe that Hillary Clinton has the power to favorably sway an investigation led by a trusted republican? Although it is exceedingly hard to accept, this is merely political vitriol.

Indeed, much ado about nothing!

I guess that wasn't clear to you from my previous post. Amid my apparent convulsion, I believe your position here is what I expressed.

Admittedly, no; however, Mrs. Clinton did suggest that those emails may have been destroyed as personal and irrelevant to the investigation, which further suggests she wanted them kept from the purview of her investigators.