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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Comey being grilled live now

page: 9
31
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



This means that either Combetta comes clean about who it was, or he has violated his immunity, and you arrest him.


That is different than the statement I was replying to. That is much more reasonable than simply saying someone is guilty, but we don't know who, charges need to be filed anyway.



Can you imagine law enforcement closing a case in any other scenario where they knew that one of two people broke the law? Whats that, one of these two people robbed a bank? Well there is two possibilities, so thats it, close the case. It just doesn't make sense.


It doesn't when you frame the scenario in that way. No matter the number of possibilities, you still have to have proof to charge someone.


introvert - we can sit here and ask questions all day. The simple fact is HRC broke several laws here, and continues to cover up these events. You are losing all credibility here.




posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 01:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Steak

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler



This means that either Combetta comes clean about who it was, or he has violated his immunity, and you arrest him.


That is different than the statement I was replying to. That is much more reasonable than simply saying someone is guilty, but we don't know who, charges need to be filed anyway.



Can you imagine law enforcement closing a case in any other scenario where they knew that one of two people broke the law? Whats that, one of these two people robbed a bank? Well there is two possibilities, so thats it, close the case. It just doesn't make sense.


It doesn't when you frame the scenario in that way. No matter the number of possibilities, you still have to have proof to charge someone.


introvert - we can sit here and ask questions all day. The simple fact is HRC broke several laws here, and continues to cover up these events. You are losing all credibility here.


Yes, it is a sad state when asking for proof before convicting someone is a red mark on one's credibility.

I will wear that badge with honor.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:53 PM
link   
Well, at least this is something I can watch for a few hours to kill more time until this blasted cold goes away.

Irrespective of the reality of the situation or the sides or agendas which may or may not be involved, it's still germane to my desire to know more, so... I'll watch it.

Peace.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 11:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: whyamIhere
The fix was in...

Every honest person knows it.


Of course it was. If she only made "mistakes" then why does everyone involved need immunity?



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 02:35 AM
link   
So having watched for a while now... and please bear in mind, as I keep saying lately (sorry to keep using this to excuse any lack of precision or thoughtfulness on my part, but it's just the truth) I'm delirious as hell so please show some forbearance if I'm wrong or unclear...

... I've seen Comey assailed from the left for going too far in stating his own personal opinion of Clinton's impropriety after not finding cause to recommend indictment, and assailed from the right for not going far enough. I've also seen him being given ample opportunity to attack Trump and those associated with him... and he refuses to do so. He says he will not confirm or deny any investigation of any such individuals or Trump himself, and that he does not want to make implications that would be unfounded or irresponsible about Trump.

So, let's consider all of that: He didn't recommend indictment, but scolded her extremely harshly at the time that was announced, which unquestionably gave her opponents a lot of ammunition for both derision and further attempts at investigation (which we are now seeing.) He was given the opportunity to do damage to the reputation of her political opponent, and refused to do so. And he's being questioned and criticized by the Left for going too far in the aforementioned scolding, while also being questioned by the Right for not doing enough to bring her to what they believe would be justice in this instance.

For someone supposedly in Clinton's pocket, he sure isn't doing himself or her any favors, other than simply not indicting. I respect everyone's opinions, but I just don't see someone being a crony. I see someone trying - sometimes failing, but trying - to walk a very narrow tightrope between both sides, and his own conscience and duty.

That doesn't mean I have to like or agree with him about everything. It does mean I just don't see what many others seem to see.

Peace.
edit on 9/30/2016 by AceWombat04 because: typo


ETA: He also, when asked about new evidence forthcoming since the decision not to indict, refuses to say whether the investigation into her has been reopened or not. He leaves open the possibility. So he really doesn't seem to be doing much to protect her from continued speculation or suspicion, honestly.

Again, just my opinion. (I watched a little more, hence the edit.)

Peace.
edit on 9/30/2016 by AceWombat04 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 10:49 AM
link   
How can you watch this and not realize the FBI is corrupt and was covering for Clinton's corruption?



So many lies and deception!



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheBulk
How can you watch this and not realize the FBI is corrupt and was covering for Clinton's corruption?



So many lies and deception!


Obstruction Of Justice at its finest.




top topics



 
31
<< 6  7  8   >>

log in

join