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

Cut the funding. Cut the funding. Cut the funding.

Three simple words three times is a charm?

originally posted by: ausername

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?

I used to respect Gowdy until I found he was using tax payer money for private law suits, and came out with this bias bs after being part of the benghazi hearings.

The bias doesn't create facts in an investigation. The opposite a supporter can however hide them.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
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?

Why should Gowdy be able to investigate if he is biased?

originally posted by: ausername

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?

I don't care one bit if they're biased as long as they can do their job and follow the facts.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: ausername

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?

I don't are one bit if their biased as long as they can do their job and follow the facts.

Ding ding ding.

Correct answer.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

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.

www.politico.com...

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

Actually, the charge was later dropped. Making it even more questionable as to how the GN approach would work without intent.

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

Yes. I remember this. It was an attempt at Gowdy to further muddy the waters, while knowing full well mens rea applied.

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.

If you could prove she blatantly ignored the law, you would have intent and could prosecute her. But we don't.

Should she be held accountable to that or not?

Sure, if she was still in office. Things such as this are handled within the specific departments, not in court. Unless intent could be found showing much more serious violations.

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Should she be held accountable to that or not?

Well of course not!
She apparently wants us to believe that she was either a stupid or naive woman.... that thought she shpuld be the POTUS.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: shawmanfromny

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

The FBI rolled over to the politicalized DOJ. Why did the DOJ issue 16 immunities in this case ect. Then when Clinton lost they went full tilt into the Trump/Russia.

I will wait for the IG report. I'd imagine it will be eye popping .

a reply to: pavil

Rolled over yes but when the prosecutor says we aren't going to do anything and god knows what else behind closed doors it's a unique position. Maybe she had some dirt in comey..who knows.

I also think the case wasn't air tight as Hilary is a pro. I think the language changes were more for the election than actual criminal prosecution. I don't think they had a solid case to make it a slam dunk.

The spin is deep in this thread.

Same arguments, different day.

a reply to: shawmanfromny

I like that photo of Trump addressing the FBI at their headquarters this morning. He's looking at FBI Director Wray,really weird.

(I wish posting photos to ATS was more intuitive)

originally posted by: introvert

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.

But we can see the differences when the FBI is investigating Trump compared to Hillary and Obama and anyone under them. A lot of miss deeds under Obama that just got the "nothing to see here" and we are over a year with Trump and though there has been nothing to see they are still driving hard to find anything at all. It just seems that Obama and his DOJ had full control over the 3 letter agencies and now with Trump there are big walls in place suggesting they need to act independent of the executive office.

It all seems like Hillary’s private email server, intrusive scrutiny by the IRS towards conservative groups, DOJ spying on AP reporters, operation Fast & Furious, suing Arizona for enforcing federal law, Muslim Brotherhood ties within his organization, Miriam Carey incident, Solyndra deal and the lost $535 million just to name a few that just came and went with minimal investigations to a point of cover up.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

Rolled over yes but when the prosecutor says we aren't going to do anything and god knows what else behind closed doors it's a unique position. Maybe she had some dirt in comey..who knows.

I also think the case wasn't air tight as Hilary is a pro. I think the language changes were more for the election than actual criminal prosecution. I don't think they had a solid case to male it a slam dunk.

The claim that Clinton didn't "intentionally" do all the server stuff is garbage. We all get worked up on all the other stuff but miss the initial glaring mistake Clinton did.
The whole investigation from that point on was a farce. There was NO way the Obama Administration was going to convict Clinton of anything, let's be honest.

The fix was in to minimize any damage to Clinton , she had an election to win for the Obama Legacy. To state otherwise is to ignore all the things we have found out subsequently.

For all the talk of Trump's obstruction of Justice, we hear nothing of the successful attempt to thwart any charges against Clinton. You have Comey's own words of how uneasy he felt about Lynch's actions.

a reply to: pavil

Trial by media and trial by court is different.

This is how known criminals get off. The evidence wasn't clear enough to smash through any corruption or even pass legal prosecution standards.

And maybe lynch will go down. The investigation currently though isn't about the email servers. However, I think nearly everyone in politics has some Russian skeletons so there is hope.

Everyone knows I have been critical of the fbi and some of the things that have occured.

But I kinda think this is a non story.

Yes, comey lied in his speech saying no one else has read his statement he was giving.

And he came to conclusions before interviewing key people.

And there are many other things that are shady like not prosecuting mills and huma for lying.

But in this, comey decided she was not guilty. He wanted his statement to reflect that he would not be recommending charges.

So he and others say down to make sure his statement reflected that.

Now you may think his decision to not recommend charges was bad. Fair enough.

But once he reached that decsion, I don't see how getting together with fbi people to make sure his statement reflected that is a big deal.

a reply to: Grambler

Just remember a lot of people get there info from the media. Which spins and programs everything.

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

Trial by media and trial by court is different.

This is how known criminals get off. The evidence wasn't clear enough to smash through any corruption or even pass legal prosecution standards.

C'mon now.....did the prosecution even try? Was Lynch trying to get to the Truth or just figure out a way to not charge Clinton. Would the FBI put a Clinton supporter in charge of the investigation and do the interviews with key people if they were trying to get her?

They were not trying, merely going through the motions.

Think about it. Clinton supporter heads Clinton investigation....how would that have played out in real time rather than after the fact?

For gods sake Comey had his letter of no charges drafted before Clinton was even interviewed by her own supporter.

No collusion or obstructing justice here....move along.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

Trial by media and trial by court is different.

This is how known criminals get off. The evidence wasn't clear enough to smash through any corruption or even pass legal prosecution standards.

C'mon now.....did the prosecution even try? Was Lynch trying to get to the Truth or just figure out a way to not charge Clinton. Would the FBI put a Clinton supporter in charge of the investigation and do the interviews with key people?

They were not trying, merely going through the motions.

For gods sake Comey had his letter of no charges drafted before Clinton was even interviewed by her own supporter.

No collusion or obstructing justice here....move along.

He also stated the doj directed him.

I don't know if you have any legal back round but prosecutors in federal cases don't usually just try they assemble overwhelming evidence.


It's a lose lose anyhow. If they try and fail it's rigged as well correct? And now the public has been dragged through even more loss of faith.

Ps the doj right now can read open the case if it's not just political bs.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: introvert

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.

But we can see the differences when the FBI is investigating Trump compared to Hillary and Obama and anyone under them. A lot of miss deeds under Obama that just got the "nothing to see here" and we are over a year with Trump and though there has been nothing to see they are still driving hard to find anything at all. It just seems that Obama and his DOJ had full control over the 3 letter agencies and now with Trump there are big walls in place suggesting they need to act independent of the executive office.

It all seems like Hillary’s private email server, intrusive scrutiny by the IRS towards conservative groups, DOJ spying on AP reporters, operation Fast & Furious, suing Arizona for enforcing federal law, Muslim Brotherhood ties within his organization, Miriam Carey incident, Solyndra deal and the lost $535 million just to name a few that just came and went with minimal investigations to a point of cover up.

You seem to be conflating real issues that need to be addressed with politically partisan conspiracy talking points.

Separate the two and I would be willing to engage.

a reply to: introvert

People seem to be so gullible they forget if any of that is true the doj can open an investigation right now.