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.
originally posted by: Enderdog
Pretty much have to give her a big balls award, for that one though!
originally posted by: dragonridr
I say good for her to many people want to try to make comey into some kind of saint. Fact was he was in a position that he didnt understand how to manage. And even worse shows over and over he should have never been made director.
But sadly to many see him as some kind of hero and the flip side he wasnt a criminal either. He simply had very poor judgement and was inept but didnt commit a crime.
originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66
Because she lied about it. A lie is all they got Flynn on. Why the double standard?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: keenmachine
How many investigations have to come to the conclusion that there was nothing to indict Clinton for before you folks accept the facts?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TheLead
The OIG report reiterated the decision not to indict Clinton.
Comey took the recommendations of the investigative team which was not to indict Clinton.
So as I said, that’s two: how many more do you guys need?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: network dude
No offense intended there are a lot of folks that look like "drooling idiots" to me ... guess what?
Don't make a hill-of-beans to the truth.
If you really need, I can quote from the IG report that points out that one of Comey's ERRORS that Thump allegedly FIRED him for was the public accusations of Clinton "crimes" when they weren't going to indict.
So which is it? Is the IG right to condemn Comey, or is Comey gold?
Please don't make a simplistic fallacious appeal and then expect me to take you seriously.
originally posted by: Sillyolme
But you guys just go ahead and ignore that.
originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TheLead
The OIG report reiterated the decision not to indict Clinton.
Comey took the recommendations of the investigative team which was not to indict Clinton.
So as I said, that’s two: how many more do you guys need?
I am confused, is the investigative branch also the judicial branch? I was told over and over again that the FBI doesn't assign charges, they investigate then refer those findings to the justice department. I'll need some clarification from you on this, since apparently things have changed.
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: network dude
Offering to quote from the IG's report about your illogical assertion is "whataboutism"?
You guys need to find now terms to parrot. You've worn out this one along with virtue signalling.
I don't need to watch the video; I know what Comey has said and I know what the IG has said.
Tell you what ... why don't you back up your ridiculous claim that I've said that Clinton is innocent and we'll go from there.
How many investigations have to come to the conclusion that there was nothing to indict Clinton for before you folks accept the facts?
originally posted by: Gryphon66
originally posted by: network dude
originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: TheLead
The OIG report reiterated the decision not to indict Clinton.
Comey took the recommendations of the investigative team which was not to indict Clinton.
So as I said, that’s two: how many more do you guys need?
I am confused, is the investigative branch also the judicial branch? I was told over and over again that the FBI doesn't assign charges, they investigate then refer those findings to the justice department. I'll need some clarification from you on this, since apparently things have changed.
Are you ignorant of the fact that the FBI is part of the Justice Department?
Wow, that's embarrassing.
But the public may not always understand that the FBI does not have the job of deciding who should, or should not, be prosecuted for crime. It was created to do investigations – period.