House Launches Probe Into Comey's Handling Of Clinton Email Investigation

a reply to: JinMI

Exactly so.

That is the essence of what I heard Jim Comey say.

a reply to: Gryphon66

So, as it now pertains to the topic, do you think the FBI did a right and proper job during the investigation?

a reply to: Gryphon66

What CAN one expect when you arrest a MESSIAH?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

I would share your outrage if it were not for the fact that the GWBush White House a) used a private server and b) lost 22 million emails under subpoena from Congress regarding our involvement in two wars killing millions.

That's not "tit-for-tat" ... that's recognition of a matter of SCALE.

Screw the Bushs. They should be held accountable for that too!

And if Trump deletes requested info, he too should be held accountable.

I dont care about the teams, I am tired of corruption.

originally posted by: JinMI
Lastly, I don't think it is at all up to Comey to place himself into the know of what prosecutors should or shouldn't do and yes I remember Lynch saying that she would do whatever Comey recommended. Which is a bonkers idea IMO.

His credentials say otherwise:

Comey was the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York from January 2002 to December 2003, and subsequently the United States Deputy Attorney General from December 2003 to August 2005 in the administration of President George W. Bush. Comey appointed Patrick Fitzgerald to be the Special Counsel to head the grand jury investigation into the Plame affair after Attorney General John Ashcroft recused himself.
In August 2005, Comey left the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) and became general counsel and senior vice president of Lockheed Martin, based in Bethesda, Maryland. In 2010, he became general counsel at Bridgewater Associates, based in Westport, Connecticut. In early 2013, he left Bridgewater to become a Senior Research Scholar and Hertog Fellow on National Security Law at Columbia Law School. He served on the board of directors of HSBC Holdings until July 2013.

The above highlighted absolutely gives him the authority to "place himself into the know of what prosecutors should or shouldn't do".

a reply to: alphabetaone

Just because he used to be a prosecutor does not mean he should act as one. he is an investigator, not a prosecutor.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Gryphon66

So much for my attempt at sarcasm eh? haha


For sure there's something there...you can't be secstate without getting your hands a little dirty, but not nearly as damning as most folks here would have others believe.

Contrary to common delusion around here, I have always said that Clinton is a psychopathic liar, in point of fact, I believe that she's probably a lot more criminal than these silly right-wing tabloid conspiracies make her out to be ...

... and I would still rather have her as President than Trump.

Honestly, I know you have. I dont typically "forget" key elements of what others have said before out of convenience. Like you, I tend to believe the alt-right media has sincerely missed the mark on Clinton with respect to her activity, which is precisely what made her such a horrible Presidential option.....she is the quintessential Prestidigitation Princess.

Trey Gowdy? Well thats all I need to know to know this is a partisan investigation like Benghazi. Honestly I am suprised it took him this long. Wasnt he one of the ones bragging about years of Clinton investigation before the election then did nothing?

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: alphabetaone

Just because he used to be a prosecutor does not mean he should act as one. he is an investigator, not a prosecutor.

I didnt say he should act as one, I said it gives him the right to put himself in a place where he knows what a prosecutor should or should not do.... dont try and add something that isnt there.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: alphabetaone

Just because he used to be a prosecutor does not mean he should act as one. he is an investigator, not a prosecutor.

I didnt say he should act as one, I said it gives him the right to put himself in a place where he knows what a prosecutor should or should not do.... dont try and add something that isnt there.

No it does not give him that right.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: alphabetaone

Just because he used to be a prosecutor does not mean he should act as one. he is an investigator, not a prosecutor.

I didnt say he should act as one, I said it gives him the right to put himself in a place where he knows what a prosecutor should or should not do.... dont try and add something that isnt there.

No it does not give him that right.

Um yea, it does.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: alphabetaone

Just because he used to be a prosecutor does not mean he should act as one. he is an investigator, not a prosecutor.

I didnt say he should act as one, I said it gives him the right to put himself in a place where he knows what a prosecutor should or should not do.... dont try and add something that isnt there.

No it does not give him that right.

Um yea, it does.

Ok, then I assume I have the right to think as a prosecutor. Show me why I dont have that right.

And for the record, this is dumb.

He legally was not allowed to act as prosecutor.

he never handled cases that are prosecuted by the DOJ.

So whatever you think he has the right to think is irrelevant.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: alphabetaone

Just because he used to be a prosecutor does not mean he should act as one. he is an investigator, not a prosecutor.

I didnt say he should act as one, I said it gives him the right to put himself in a place where he knows what a prosecutor should or should not do.... dont try and add something that isnt there.

No it does not give him that right.

Um yea, it does.

Ok, then I assume I have the right to think as a prosecutor. Show me why I dont have that right.

Are you a prosecutor? Have you ever been one? Can I see your credentials from accredited Law Universities? No? Until you show me your years in the field, with a track record of prosecutions and appropriate schooling and training, you do no share that same right. Furthermore, you can "think" any way you like, but your opinion on the subject is worthless as the aforementioned has not been satisfied.

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: alphabetaone

Just because he used to be a prosecutor does not mean he should act as one. he is an investigator, not a prosecutor.

I didnt say he should act as one, I said it gives him the right to put himself in a place where he knows what a prosecutor should or should not do.... dont try and add something that isnt there.

No it does not give him that right.

Um yea, it does.

Ok, then I assume I have the right to think as a prosecutor. Show me why I dont have that right.

Are you a prosecutor? Have you ever been one? Can I see your credentials from accredited Law Universities? No? Until you show me your years in the field, with a track record of prosecutions and appropriate schooling and training, you do no share that same right.

So you presume to tell people what they have the right to think?

Wow.

a reply to: alphabetaone

There are prosecutors who disagree. Ultimately, it's not for him to decide.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: alphabetaone

There are prosecutors who disagree. Ultimately, it's not for him to decide.

Well, "ultimately" so far, apparently Comey was right.

originally posted by: Grambler

So whatever you think he has the right to think is irrelevant.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: alphabetaone

originally posted by: Grambler
a reply to: alphabetaone

Just because he used to be a prosecutor does not mean he should act as one. he is an investigator, not a prosecutor.

I didnt say he should act as one, I said it gives him the right to put himself in a place where he knows what a prosecutor should or should not do.... dont try and add something that isnt there.

No it does not give him that right.

Um yea, it does.

Ok, then I assume I have the right to think as a prosecutor. Show me why I dont have that right.

Are you a prosecutor? Have you ever been one? Can I see your credentials from accredited Law Universities? No? Until you show me your years in the field, with a track record of prosecutions and appropriate schooling and training, you do no share that same right.

So you presume to tell people what they have the right to think?

Wow.

Mr. Teapot, meet Mr. Kettle.

a reply to: alphabetaone

She does understand policy probably better than anyone on the current playing field in Washington ... but ... we knew she was a horrible option in 2008. Too much baggage. Not enough charisma. Barack Obama blew by her and the ink on his Washington apartment lease was barely even dry ... three years into his freshman Senatorial term, he defeated one of the best known names in Democratic politics. Badly.

I hoped she would finish a decent career in politics at that point. Nope, she becomes Secretary of State ... and the press keeps eating her lunch because she's got her head stuck in her policy manual and thinks they'e a bunch of idiots (and treats them that way.)

Liberal and conservative press turned on her. She finished up as SoS, and isn't interested in running for President. Good. Wrong, she's running. Jesus Christ. The email debacle was about the most stupid thing I've ever witnessed from a reasonably intelligent person. (The only dumber thing was Nancy Pelosi and the bit about "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it.") (Not that Pelosi is intelligent, reasonably or otherwise.)

That was just STUPID, but that's Hillary's story ... whatever good or bad she's actually doing, her lack of any sense of optics and let's be honest, her rather apparent and considerable arrogance leaves her wide open to the lying ignorant mass of the Republican Party and the right-wing media.

She's still her own worst enemy, and considering the enemies she obviously has ... that's saying something.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: alphabetaone

There are prosecutors who disagree. Ultimately, it's not for him to decide.

Well, "ultimately" so far, apparently Comey was right.

Ultimately so far? What kind of word play are you using here?

Point being, he's not a prosecutor, he's the figurehead of the investigative body.

originally posted by: JinMI

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: alphabetaone

There are prosecutors who disagree. Ultimately, it's not for him to decide.

Well, "ultimately" so far, apparently Comey was right.

Ultimately so far? What kind of word play are you using here?

Point being, he's not a prosecutor, he's the figurehead of the investigative body.

Good god.

No word play. Jim Comey's career was built on being a prosecutor and a successful one.

I'll rephrase: to this point no case has been brought by any prosecutor. Honestly, there's zero indication that any case will be brought. If they were going to bring a case out of the DOJ they would NOT be investigating the investigation in Congress ... because IF THEY FIND SOMETHING AMISS they will be compromising any evidence against Clinton that does exist.

There will be no indictments because that's not what is wanted. If any one of these issues were brought to trial and judgement was rendered, its use as political fodder would be over, and considering the total incompetence of the Congress and the President at the current time, political fodder is all they have left.

Instead, the interminable side-show of Congressional investigation is going to be used to churn out political theatre 24/7.

The Republicans are gambling that will do something to energize their flagging base and provide smoke for the Trump Administration/Campaign.

I personally think they're going to lose big-time, but we will see.