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

a reply to: Gryphon66

Good god.

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

Fine, however he was not during this case nor did he have the authority to decide. Lynch decided before the interview to go on whatever he recommended.

The repelicans will only go in so far as their arses can cash. Unless your head is completely in the sand, anyone should be able to notice that you can only trace partisan politics so far back before you come to a meeting of the other party.

originally posted by: NotTheCIA
a reply to: jimmyx

Well let's just go straight back into history,

Conservatives are the kings of witch hunts.

They believed in Witches.

Some still do.

Let's get real; they boycott Harry Potter.

Thgose were not conservatives. those were puritans. Conservatives liek things to stay as they are is all they truly are. the people misuse that term these days.

...

a reply to: JinMI

When you say "he didn't have the authority to decide" you're alluding to some sort of protocol within the DOJ that may or may not exist. He didn't "decide" but he did make an expert informed recommendation based on the evidence.

AG Lynch (and arguably President Obama) decided to accept that recommendation, and they did have the authority to decide that without question.

My argument is simple: the entirety of the FBI's investigation into Clinton's email server was available on January 20th when President Trump assumed power. It was all still there on February 9th when Jeff Sessions became AG. Most if not all of the agents who worked the case were there. It was all still there on June 7th when Christ Wray became the new FBI Director.

Given the fact that Trump threatened THROUGHOUT the Presidential Campaign that he was going to pursue the case against Clinton if he became President which was such a feature of the message that it spawned the "lock her up" chants ... it is very odd that nothing has been done to date in that regard given Trump's mania to "keep his promises."

The fact that nothing has been done to this date, and that now, rather than indictment, the Republican Congress is going to stage "an investigation into the investigation" tells me all I need to know about the political theatre we're about to witness.

YMMV

a reply to: yuppa

American conservatives have always valued the existing power structures and insisted on obedience to the letter of existing laws and social mores. They are statists, authoritarians, nationalists and traditionalists. They are reactionary and regressive. Refining all that down to "they don't like change" is a blatant oversimplification.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

Was that quote from me saying he doesn't have the right to think something?

Oh it wasn't?

Well I guess that would make your statement foolish then wouldn't it.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

Was that quote from me saying he doesn't have the right to think something?

Oh it wasn't?

Well I guess that would make your statement foolish then wouldn't it.

You can't read and understand your own words? Is English syntax suddenly an issue for you? LOL.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

Was that quote from me saying he doesn't have the right to think something?

Oh it wasn't?

Well I guess that would make your statement foolish then wouldn't it.

You can't read and understand your own words? Is English syntax suddenly an issue for you? LOL.

"You don't have the right to think that"

vs.

"Your thought is irrelevant" Is this saying that you don't have the right to think something? Nope not at all.

For example, if I said you don't have the right to say something, and someone else says you saying what you want is irrelevant, that doesn't mean that the second person is saying you don't have the right to say it though.


Please stop trying to deflect your own problems with reading comprehension on to others.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

Was that quote from me saying he doesn't have the right to think something?

Oh it wasn't?

Well I guess that would make your statement foolish then wouldn't it.

You can't read and understand your own words? Is English syntax suddenly an issue for you? LOL.

"You don't have the right to think that"

vs.

"Your thought is irrelevant" Is this saying that you don't have the right to think something? Nope not at all.

For example, if I said you don't have the right to say something, and someone else says you saying what you want is irrelevant, that doesn't mean that the second person is saying you don't have the right to say it though.


Please stop trying to deflect your own problems with reading comprehension on to others.

Are you going to properly quote what you said directly above or should I got to the trouble of quoting you again?(which I've already done once.)

For goodness sake's get it together.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66

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.

Was that quote from me saying he doesn't have the right to think something?

Oh it wasn't?

Well I guess that would make your statement foolish then wouldn't it.

You can't read and understand your own words? Is English syntax suddenly an issue for you? LOL.

"You don't have the right to think that"

vs.

"Your thought is irrelevant" Is this saying that you don't have the right to think something? Nope not at all.

For example, if I said you don't have the right to say something, and someone else says you saying what you want is irrelevant, that doesn't mean that the second person is saying you don't have the right to say it though.


Please stop trying to deflect your own problems with reading comprehension on to others.

Are you going to properly quote what you said directly above or should I got to the trouble of quoting you again?(which I've already done once.)

For goodness sake's get it together.

Sure I will quote it.

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

Explain to me where that says he doesnt have the right to think something.

Did I say "You dont have the right to think what he thinks"

Nope, I just said its irrelevant.

I am so sorry you lack the reading comprehension to understand this.

If there is anything I can do to help, let me know.

a reply to: NotTheCIA

Textmeanwhile Trump's known collusion seems far greater, like forgetting he owns the tallest building in Russia.

Exactly how is that Collusion? Please elaborate.

a reply to: Grambler

I think you're not thinking ... clearly.

Move on.

SO ... anyone up for telling us why the Trump DOJ hasn't indicted Clinton?

The evidence that all you ATS legal experts were certain of last summer is still there, they've had access to it since January 2017.

Why is the Republican Congress "investigating an investigation" rather than the DOJ pursuing this open-and-shut case?

a reply to: Gryphon66

I'll take a stab....because maybe they can't find criminal wrongdoing? *gasp*

originally posted by: alphabetaone
a reply to: Gryphon66

I'll take a stab....because maybe they can't find criminal wrongdoing? *gasp*

That's certainly what logic would suggest. I can't imagine Trump resisting a "great victory" in court.

I'll believe there's some credibility to any of this when indictments are filed. Until then it's simply more political theatre brought to you from the Kangaroo Court aka the Republican Congress.

a reply to: jimmyxfirst off since when are the public usually told about troop engagements and when we take losses? not usually. they did say these guys left on standard mission in region when they were informed that a high value target showed up in region and the mission was changed on the fly and as sometimes happens when you stuck unprepared everything goes to crap.

originally posted by: proteus33
a reply to: jimmyxfirst off since when are the public usually told about troop engagements and when we take losses? not usually. they did say these guys left on standard mission in region when they were informed that a high value target showed up in region and the mission was changed on the fly and as sometimes happens when you stuck unprepared everything goes to crap.

You don't think any of this has to do with French uranium interests in Niger?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: yuppa

American conservatives have always valued the existing power structures and insisted on obedience to the letter of existing laws and social mores. They are statists, authoritarians, nationalists and traditionalists. They are reactionary and regressive. Refining all that down to "they don't like change" is a blatant oversimplification.

Im a letter of the law man myself. Although I also know that some laws are not good after a while. If a law is passed constitutionally you would find conservatives supporting it. If conserves were reactionary if would go against keeping the status quo you mention they like correct? If they were regressive then we would be regressing backwards not staying put correct?

You contradicted yourself alot there.