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.

 

Just Comey? It Was A COORDINATED Effort Among Top FBI Brass To Decriminalize Clinton's Conduct!

page: 1
33
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:
+11 more 
posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 10:36 AM
link   
The whole FBI needs a complete overhaul. This organization is obviously biased and probably STILL holds a grudge against Trump and his team in the White House. What they did in regard's to Hillary Clinton conduct is despicable.


WE ARE ONE TEAM. At the FBI, we will challenge you to forge a career with other dedicated employees working for the same critical mission.

www.fbijobs.gov...

What "critical" mission would that be? Show favoritism and allow "certain" politicians to break the law?


The letter reveals specific edits made by senior FBI agents when Deputy Director Andrew McCabe exchanged drafts of Comey's statement with senior FBI officials, including Peter Strzok, Strzok's direct supervisor, E.W. "Bill" Priestap, Jonathan Moffa, and an unnamed employee from the Office of General Counsel (identified by Newsweek as DOJ Deputy General Counsel Trisha Anderson) - in what was a coordinated conspiracy among top FBI brass to decriminalize Clinton's conduct by changing legal terms and phrases, omitting key information, and minimizing the role of the Intelligence Community in the email investigation. Doing so virtually assured that then-candidate Hillary Clinton would not be prosecuted.



Furthermore, the FBI edited Comey's statement to downgrade the probability that Clinton's server was hacked by hostile actors, changing their language from "reasonably likely" to "possible" - an edit which eliminated yet another justification for the phrase "Gross negligence." To put it another way, "reasonably likely" means the probability of a hack due to Clinton's negligence is above 50 percent, whereas the hack simply being "possible" is any probability above zero.

www.zerohedge.com...




posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Coney already explained it was a directive from the doj. Who are the prosecutors...



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

The Clintons have a huge pocket book, what else would you expect?



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:00 AM
link   
a reply to: luthier

Yup, AG Lynch insisted that Comey refer to the criminal investigation as a, "matter."


"At one point, the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me," Comey said. "That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we're to close this case credibly."

...

"I wanted to know, was she going to authorize us to confirm we had an investigation, and she said, 'Yes, but don't call it that, call it a matter,'" Comey said. "And I said, 'Why would I do that?' And she said, 'Just call it a matter.'"
Comey said he didn't push back.

"I said (to myself), 'This isn't a hill worth dying on, OK."

But he said the matter gave him a "queasy feeling."


CNN

So we have the head of the agency in charge of prosecuting any criminal wrongdoing insisting that the agency investigating the criminal wrong doing characterize the investigation as something other than investigating criminal wrong doing.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: slapjacks
a reply to: shawmanfromny

The Clintons have a huge pocket book, what else would you expect?


Bigger than Trump's? I'm sure if you asked Donald he'd tell you his is WAY biglier than the Clintons. Their losers anyways.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Zero hedge is a propaganda site that constantly pushes fake stories and doesn’t even employ journalists....

How many fake stories does it take for people to stop baa baa baaing right behind them???




posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Exactly. And possibly tampering evidence if they chose to go forward.

This is why I don't blame Comey for this part.

This was explained months ago, my impression is he does not like lyn



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:07 AM
link   

So we have the head of the agency in charge of prosecuting any criminal wrongdoing insisting that the agency investigating the criminal wrong doing characterize the investigation as something other than investigating criminal wrong doing.


So if it's this simple, this cut-and-dry, explain to me why Donald wouldn't get his pet schnauzer, Sessions to rain hell and fury on Clinton? Would divert attention from the Russia thing. If it's this clear-cut why no special prosecutor, why no charges?



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: luthier

Yup, AG Lynch insisted that Comey refer to the criminal investigation as a, "matter."


"At one point, the attorney general had directed me not to call it an investigation but instead to call it a matter, which confused me and concerned me," Comey said. "That was one of the bricks in the load that led me to conclude I have to step away from the department if we're to close this case credibly."

...

"I wanted to know, was she going to authorize us to confirm we had an investigation, and she said, 'Yes, but don't call it that, call it a matter,'" Comey said. "And I said, 'Why would I do that?' And she said, 'Just call it a matter.'"
Comey said he didn't push back.

"I said (to myself), 'This isn't a hill worth dying on, OK."

But he said the matter gave him a "queasy feeling."


CNN

So we have the head of the agency in charge of prosecuting any criminal wrongdoing insisting that the agency investigating the criminal wrong doing characterize the investigation as something other than investigating criminal wrong doing.


Comey specifically said that it was that request form Lynch, along with her meeting on the tarmac, that lead him to come out to the public with their findings. To keep the integrity of the FBI and their investigation intact.

As far as what the OP and it's source claims, the gross negligence aspect is a non-starter. Only one person has ever been prosecuted under the umbrella of gross negligence and it was hotly debated afterwards.

Standard practice has been to employ mens rea in cases such as these, which means they had to have intent of some sort.

So it doesn't matter one bit how the FBI characterized it or the words they used. Apparently no intent was found and that is why no recommendation for prosecution came out.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Zero hedge is a propaganda site that constantly pushes fake stories and doesn’t even employ journalists....

How many fake stories does it take for people to stop baa baa baaing right behind them???



While that might be true it still has valid points regardless of the messenger.

I recall all the Hilly bots here stating she was not under investigation it was only an inquiry. Also the DOJ and the FBI nor any other gov't agency did anything about the obvious conflict of interest when Bill met with Lynch on an a secret meeting on the tarmac a day before the decision to prosecute his wife.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: jtma508

So we have the head of the agency in charge of prosecuting any criminal wrongdoing insisting that the agency investigating the criminal wrong doing characterize the investigation as something other than investigating criminal wrong doing.


So if it's this simple, this cut-and-dry, explain to me why Donald wouldn't get his pet schnauzer, Sessions to rain hell and fury on Clinton? Would divert attention from the Russia thing. If it's this clear-cut why no special prosecutor, why no charges?


If you haven't figured out Sessions is part of the establishment ie swamp by now, not much help for ya! I knew it was a mistake when Trump put trust in him on the campaign trail. Sessions is a lifer in DC and that is why we need term limits.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:14 AM
link   
And the agent in charge of interviewing Hillary had the following to say:


Strzok then praised Clinton's nomination in July: "Congrats on a woman nominated for President in a major party! About damn time!"

...

The messages were sent between Aug. 16, 2015 through Dec. 1, 2016.

Many were sent before either party locked up its nominee, and Strzok and Page took shots at candidates across the spectrum, including former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders — both of whom were seeking the Democratic nomination — and Ohio Gov. John Kasich, a Republican.


NBC

Clear bias is clear.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:18 AM
link   
I would advise Trump to back away from attacking any 3 letters. His money means nothing to them and talk about collusion...the widest blue line their is. Just sayin...

Me thinks Kelly needs to have a "come to Jesus" talk with Trump!!
edit on 15-12-2017 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Obama wanted his legacy to continue.

He put in place people that would insure that.

The rule of law, Constitution, and the people be damned!

Just my opinion.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



Clear bias is clear.


Biased towards the first woman candidate of a major party?

Sure.

Now did that bias affect how he did his job and did he do anything that changed the outcome of the investigation?

That is what matters. Not his bias, which everyone has.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   
The FBI is a ""draining process"" in progress.

They need to get all the Swampers out asap.



edit on Dec-15-2017 by xuenchen because: +++ ++ + - -- ---



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:26 AM
link   
I thought the FBI was one of the reasons Hillary lost the election , they certainly did not help her run



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: jadedANDcynical



Clear bias is clear.


Biased towards the first woman candidate of a major party?

Sure.

Now did that bias affect how he did his job and did he do anything that changed the outcome of the investigation?

That is what matters. Not his bias, which everyone has.


However people with overt bias against the almighty Clintons should never be involved at any level or in any way in any probe or investigations of them.

Right?




posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Whereismypassword
I thought the FBI was one of the reasons Hillary lost the election , they certainly did not help her run


Exactly. It's bonkers town here. He also literally came out damming lynch who forced his hand.

He may have been a bad manager but this issue is the doj not fbi.

The fbi needs to be attacked now so what ever negative finding of the Trump cabinet is glazed over.

It's really sad to watch people buy the rhetoric and believe they are somehow the rebels and outsiders.



posted on Dec, 15 2017 @ 11:34 AM
link   
a reply to: introvert


Only one person has ever been prosecuted under the umbrella of gross negligence and it was hotly debated afterwards.


Would you happen to have a link or a name? I've been looking for that case and have been unable to find it due to all the Hillary related articles that come up even using boolean searches.

Regardless, the person who was prosecuted was (I am presuming) not in a similar position as was Hillary at the time.

This is why Gowdy referred to, "a case of first impression:"


n. a case in which a question of interpretation of law is presented which has never arisen before in any reported case. Sometimes, it is only of first impression in the particular state or jurisdiction, so decisions from other states or the federal courts may be examined as a guideline.


Law.com

No one in Hillary's position (Secretary of State) had ever treated the handling of classified information in such a cavalier way. She blatantly ignored laws governing the handling of such information and tried to claim ignorance of said law. She even tried to say that she did not remember signing the NdA which governs these things.



Should she be held accountable to that or not?




top topics



 
33
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join