It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Comey: FBI looked 'hard' for obstruction of justice in Clinton email probe

page: 3
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:20 PM
link   
The FBI looked hard for obstruction of justice in Clinton email probe.

They didn't find it.

End of story.





posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish
The FBI looked hard for obstruction of justice in Clinton email probe.

They didn't find it.

End of story.



The FBI head reccomended that her employers (the American people) harshly punish her and possibly fire her.

End of story.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler
The FBI head reccomended that her employers (the American people) harshly punish her and possibly fire her.


This is the FBI head's statement. Please show me the section where he says what you claim. Also, thanks for conceding that the FBI found no obstruction of justice.

Thanks.




posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish
The FBI looked hard for obstruction of justice in Clinton email probe.

They didn't find it.

End of story.



The FBI head reccomended that her employers (the American people) harshly punish her and possibly fire her.

End of story.

Let's not be coy here. If that were truly the end of the story to people like you, this stupid investigation wouldn't be occurring. A recommendation to not vote for someone is simple and more then enough to end this debate; yet y'all are now eating your own with these Comey interrogations so it shows desperation and partisan pandering. Especially when you defend these waste of tax payer money events happening.

A simple recommendation to not vote for someone was how it was done in the better days of politics. When the other side at least FEIGNED respect for the other side...
edit on 28-9-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish

originally posted by: Grambler
The FBI head reccomended that her employers (the American people) harshly punish her and possibly fire her.


This is the FBI head's statement. Please show me the section where he says what you claim. Also, thanks for conceding that the FBI found no obstruction of justice.

Thanks.



Oh I am sorry, did you not watch the hearing with Comey today?

Funny that you should be posting all about it if you haven't seen it.

Once the transcript is out I will post it, but you go on commenting on the hearing you didn't watch in the meantime.




posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order.

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.

Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts.

All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now.

As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case.


(Source).




posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: MongolianPaellaFish
The FBI looked hard for obstruction of justice in Clinton email probe.

They didn't find it.

End of story.



The FBI head reccomended that her employers (the American people) harshly punish her and possibly fire her.

End of story.

Let's not be coy here. If that were truly the end of the story to people like you, this stupid investigation wouldn't be occurring. A recommendation to not vote for someone is simple and more then enough to end this debate; yet y'all are now eating your own with these Comey interrogations so it shows desperation and partisan pandering. Especially when you defend these waste of tax payer money even happening.


No I am not the one saying that we must take Comeys word as the end all be all gospel like others.

Some people are saying "Comey said he doesn't recommend prosecution, so that is it. No more investigations, no questioning him, his word is final"

And then when it is pointed out that he also said her employers should punish her, these people all of the sudden don't take his word as final.

So which is it, is his word gospel and she shouldn't be prosecuted and she should be punished and possibly fired by the American people, or are we allowed to question him?



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:32 PM
link   
Comey's continuing testimonies and the already released government reports plus the "leaks" place the Clinton Campaign on the rocks as Nov 8th gets closer and closer.

Clinton lies getting exposed bigtime.

Voters are very suspicious.

End of Story



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

You keep stating that Director Comey stated that "her employers should punish her."

Do you have a quote from Mr. Comey that says that? Thanks.
edit on 28-9-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:34 PM
link   
Not only do voters recognize BS when they see it, but they tire easily.

Congress interviewing Comey over and over is already boring.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

Yes because I take his word as a professional investigator of crimes at face value. Why wouldn't I? That's his #ing job. One that he didn't just get yesterday either. He worked up many years to become good enough of an investigator to be put in the position he is in currently. So damn right I'm going to take his word on matters of crimes.

As for his advise on voting, Comey is just another American citizen like you or I. Equating his authority in the FBI to giving good advice for voting is a rather blatant appeal to authority fallacy.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

You keep stating that Director Comey stated that "her employers should punish her."

Do you have a quote from Mr. Comey that says that? Or are you, as usual, summarizing for your own purposes?


Well the transcript ios not out yet. This is what he said to the best of my knowledge.

Comey said basically that he wanted people in the public to understand that there is a difference between doing something wrong and having enough information to be prosecuted. He said that if a state employee such as an FBI employee done this, he assures us they would have been punished harshly, but would not have been prosecuted. He also says this could include being fired. He says that Hillary wasn't a state employee, so this didn't happen.

One congressmen asked if someone had been caught doing this if he would give them a promotion. Comey said he didn't want to answer that.

So seeing as how we are her employers, we should punish her harshly and possibly fire her.

But hey don't take my word for it. The video is out there, I don't think Hillary has bleach bitted it yet.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

So ... in your best recollection ... he didn't say what you keep saying he did ... at least in the succinct way you're phrasing it.

You're interpreting what Director Comey said to mean what you want to keep repeating.

He didn't say anything about Clinton's "employers" (which would technically have been the United States Government, not some imagined host of citizens, except as metaphor anyway ...).

He didn't express any political opinions whatsoever.

You are rephrasing what Comey said to express YOUR political opinion, in fact.

Thanks.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Grambler

Yes because I take his word as a professional investigator of crimes at face value. Why wouldn't I? That's his #ing job. One that he didn't just get yesterday either. He worked up many years to become good enough of an investigator to be put in the position he is in currently. So damn right I'm going to take his word on matters of crimes.

As for his advise on voting, Comey is just another American citizen like you or I. Equating his authority in the FBI to giving good advice for voting is a rather blatant appeal to authority fallacy.


Gotcha. So he is infallible as an investigator. Keep in mind that as an investigator it was not his job to decide rather or not to prosecute, he just gave a recommendation. Lynch weas the one that decided not to prosecute.

But I will remember this the next time you criticize any law enforcement officer or judge. We can not look into their cases. They are professionals at investigating crime its their f'ing job, right?

And you know what, our constitution disagrees with you. It says the Hous has oversight power. See most of the people in the House have worked many years to get where they are, and it is their job to have oversight of organizations such as the FBI.

So why don't you agree with them when they think that there were many problems with this investigation?

Oh, you don't care about their job title, you want to investigate their decsions. And you know what, you are right to do so!

But when we want to question Comeys decsision, you and others tell us to shut our mouth, Comey is a professional and he says nothing happened.

So in other words, if someone has an important job that agrees with you, we can't question them, but if you disagree with them, then we can investigate their work, accuse them of being biased, etc.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: Grambler

Yes because I take his word as a professional investigator of crimes at face value. Why wouldn't I? That's his #ing job. One that he didn't just get yesterday either.


I was fully prepared to take it at face value, too. Then 'Katica' found the most compelling bit of evidence I've heard concerning this investigation. And I/we would have never known about it if she had not discovered it.

Comey wasn't even sure whether the FBI had known about and investigated the most compelling piece of evidence with regard to this investigatio, or not...

...OR he wasn't willing to go on the record either way.

He lost all my trust that he is "professional" with his responses today.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

So ... in your best recollection ... he didn't say what you keep saying he did ... at least in the succinct way you're phrasing it.

You're interpreting what Director Comey said to mean what you want to keep repeating.

He didn't say anything about Clinton's "employers" (which would technically have been the United States Government, not some imagined host of citizens, except as metaphor anyway ...).

He didn't express any political opinions whatsoever.

You are rephrasing what Comey said to express YOUR political opinion, in fact.

Thanks.


Did he come out and say "Don't vote for Hillary!!!".

No. He just said that her employers would punish her and possibly fire her.

I made it clear that I was saying that we are her employers, and if we are to take his word, his employers would have punished her and possibly fire her.

Do you not find that a fare extrapolation?



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: MotherMayEye

Uh huh... Sure. Whatever you want to say to continue to believe the BS narrative and make this circus continue.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:54 PM
link   
I'm sorry ... the Director of the FBI didn't give credence to wingnut hype about unfounded, non-factual Reddit and Twitter rumors ... and that discredits his competency and experience?

LOLOLOL.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

As I said, I accepted the FBI's conclusions until the Reddit post story broke. But I am allowed to change my mind when presented with new evidence.

I am confident I have provided you with a sound reason.



posted on Sep, 28 2016 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Grambler

In my opinion, your narratives thrive on restating what someone else clearly says, usually in contradiction to the way you want to spin it. As this election season wears on, that tendency in your posts is becoming more apparent.

In fact, you just admitted that Comey didn't say anything similar to "her employers would punish her and possibly fire her."

And yet, now you're repeating it again.

Your schick is more than obvious.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join