It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


GOP calls FBI head Comey to testify this week

page: 10
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 08:14 AM
There is already speculation that the reason Lynch closed the investigation out so quickly was to avoid possible fallout from Comey going before Congress.

Should be an interesting day.

posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 08:57 AM
a reply to: dragonridr

Either that, or he's some kind of evil genius.

I'm not a big fan except for the fact that he's running against Herself. But I listened to quite a bit of his speech in Ohio yesterday and was pleasantly surprised. The guy speaks really well just off the top of his head. No prompter, no notes that I could see... and he made a pretty darn good, coherent speech.

posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 09:02 AM

originally posted by: kazanoom
This is a cynical and feigned outrage that the GOP has been doing for decades. The big difference is it doesn't work anymore. People have caught on. Remember these treasonous acts that no one seems to be outraged by:

Rove erases 22 million emails

Classified data in personal emails

White House "loses" millions of emails

Oh yes the "Someone else did it, so its ok for me to do it" argument … its what’s been fuelling our government for decades in our constant race to the bottom.

posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 04:38 AM
The FBI investigation into the Clinton foundation is ongoing. The State Departments IG is also involved.

Congress today drafted a referral to the FBI formally requesting the FBI investigate Clinton for perjury. Apparently the perjury is coming from 2 different congressional committees she appeared before where she made statements under oath that Director Comey has since testified that they were lies.

The prosecution for the espionage might still be hanging on by a thread given Trey Gowdys questioning of Comey at the hearing. Trey Gowdy rattled off questions that dealt with what Hillary said which were false according to Comey. The purpose of the questions were to demonstrate intent was present but it was ignored.

The other bombshell from the hearing revolved around Comey stating the FBI never investigated what Clinton said / lied. By ignoring that avenue it removed the intent factor allowing them to recommend no charges.

Now that the cat is out of the bag there needs to be some type of action to correct the miscarriage of justice.

**There is a video in the link as well with the exchange between them.
Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'

Gowdy: Well, in the interest of time and because I have a plane to catch tomorrow afternoon, I'm not going to go through any more of the false statements but I am going to ask you to put on your old hat. Faults exculpatory statements are used for what?

Comey: Well, either for a substantive prosecution or evidence of intent in a criminal prosecution.

Gowdy: Exactly. Intent and consciousness of guilt, right?

Comey: That is right?

Gowdy: Consciousness of guilt and intent? In your old job you would prove intent as you referenced by showing the jury evidence of a complex scheme that was designed for the very purpose of concealing the public record and you would be arguing in addition to concealment the destruction that you and i just talked about or certainly the failure to preserve.

You would argue all of that under the heading of content. You would also — intent. You would also be arguing the pervasiveness of the scheme when it started, when it ended and the number of emails whether

They were originally classified or of classified under the heading of intent. You would also, probably, under common scheme or plan, argue the burn bags of daily calendar entries or the missing daily calendar entries as a common scheme or plan to conceal.

Two days ago, Director, you said a reasonable person in her position should have known a private email was no place to send and receive classified information. You're right. An average person does know not to do that.

This is no average person. This is a former First Lady, a former United States senator, and a former Secretary of State that the president now contends is the most competent, qualified person to be president since Jefferson. He didn't say that in '08 but says it now.

She affirmatively rejected efforts to give her a account, kept the private emails for almost two years and only turned them over to Congress because we found out she had a private email account.

So you have a rogue email system set up before she took the oath of office, thousands of what we now know to be classified emails, some of which were classified at the time. One of her more frequent email comrades was hacked and you don't know whether or not she was.

And this scheme took place over a long period of time and resulted in the destruction of public records and yet you say there is insufficient evidence of intent. You say she was extremely careless, but not intentionally so.

You and I both know intent is really difficult to prove. Very rarely do defendants announce 'On this date I intend to break this criminal code section. Just to put everyone on notice, I am going to break the law on this date.'

It never happens that way. You have to do it with circumstantial evidence or if you're Congress and you realize how difficult it is prove, specific intent, you will form lathe a statute that allows for gross negligence.

My time is out but this is really important. You mentioned there's no precedent for criminal prosecution. My fear is there still isn't. There's nothing to keep a future Secretary of State or President from this exact same email scheme or their staff.

And my real fear is this, what the chairman touched upon, this double track justice system that is rightly or wrongly perceived in this country. That if you are a private in the Army and email yourself classified information you will be kicked out. But if you are Hillary Clinton, and you seek a promotion to Commander in Chief, you will not be. So what I hope you can do today is help the average person, the reasonable person you made reference to, the reasonable person understand why she appears to be treated differently than the rest of us would be. With that I would yield back.

The above is the confirmation that Clinton lied. Here is the result -
Chaffetz: Oversight Committee sending referral to FBI to probe Clinton testimony

By consistently lying / changing her story with the assumption an innocent person will not lie if they did nothing wrong demonstrates guilt of conscious. That then goes to intent which is what Comey said was required (which its not gross negligence is) to recommend charges.

I really do think something else is going on with all of this (From the FBI / Administration side).

edit on 8-7-2016 by Xcathdra because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 8 2016 @ 09:28 AM

originally posted by: Xcathdra

I really do think something else is going on with all of this (From the FBI / Administration side).

I completely agree. I think the career DOJ and State Department people are appalled at what has transpired and what we're seeing is probably the only way to get any sort of satisfactory resolution for the myriad of violations that have been committed. Turning it over to Lynch would've been a road to nowhere. The career folks will not let Hillary's actions go ignored.


top topics
<< 7  8  9   >>

log in