One major problem however, that he doesn't address.

"They attempted to undermine the integrity of U.S. elections, a fundamental attack on our democracy."

"Beyond investigating how this name was unmasked, we need to know whether the Obama White House was reading political surveilled information about the Trump transition. They have a right to see intel bearing on U.S. national security, not politics."

If they, indeed did the first, attack our democracy, how does one separate national what was done from a national security effort vs. a political one?

Me thinks it will be a long long time before any investigations sort that one out, and much of it may be left to interpretation.

Your first statement isn't even a FACT.  Did the FBI analyze the server? Nope. They took the word of a third party. That's hearsay. That's at best circumstantial evidence. However they may know other things not reported.  Since then they've admitted there their analysis was faulty. They claimed it was a signature from a certain Russian group but it proved to them that others had that code.  

In my mind anyway, it's far more plausible that Wikileaks is right. It was an insider. Not Russia.

The one percent who deny what even Nikki Haley our U.N. Ambassador, and Trump admit. By the way, that was not my statement.

You don't get.  They are all parroting Comey/the FBI.  None of these people have seen the evidence. Guess what, neither did the FBI.

Keep on chugging your Kool-Aid, Mintsy.

Prove I'm wrong.

Who saw the evidence of the Hack?

Links Please.

he woulda voted "Not Guilty" because there wasn't a video tape showing O.J. killing her AND there wasn't a video tape of O.J.'s signing his confession

-- Modified on 4/3/2017 6:27:18 PM

TSTTT

Evidence was a plenty in the O.J. case. Shoe print. From foreign made shoes in the right size which almost no one owned in the States. Designer Gloves... All sorts of stuff.

Comey, admitted that they couldn't check the server. They where denied access. They had to take the word for it, from a third party company with links to Clinton. Then they had to back track their methods.  That isn't proof.  Do you just believe people because they say it? You believed that Comey managed to get through the 655k emails on Weiner's laptop over a weekend? The guy lies/obfuscates for a living.  

What you have is a third party said it was the Russians. FBI had to take their world for it.  That's sound reasonable to you?  Just because a million/billion repeat it, doesn't make it true.   The left still thinks Hillary's 33k emails where all about yoga and Webb Hubbell's daughter's wedding.

That wasn't even a nice try, Mintsy.

END OF MESSAGE

2-Mints-buddy, take a junior college class in IT....hopefully, for your sake, you can qualify for admission...I doubt that you can

Believe-it-or-not, it's beyond fucking easy for a mediocre ITer to to search 33k emails in seconds - forgetabout minutes.

The sad truth is that Comey advertised these emails BEFORE doing this simple search - cost Hillary the election

And, therefore, look at the fucking mess we're in now

END OF MESSAGE

I wish they had those 33k emails to search... On yeah she "acid" washed those emails...  while they where under subpoena.

Keyword searches maybe but it was 655k emails. Let's even say they did the search, they had time to go back an analyze them?  It's implausible.  

END OF MESSAGE