James Comey Has a History of Not Finding the Clintons Guilty of Anything

The justice department decides when to prosecute. The FBI just investigates and doesn't determine guilt. With Hillary the DOJ didn't prosecute.

As far as your second case goes, it sounds like it gained Hillary a few thousand votes. It doesn't sound like a big deal, and even if it was, a lot of politicians do things to gain votes. Your first case would be a big deal if the Clintons had intent, but Comey says they didn't in the first source you showed us.

a reply to: darkbake

Yes, granting convicted criminals pardons for political and financial gains is a good thing.

I am sure Comey thoroughly grilled his friend Hillary on Seth Rich and determined she had no knowledge of such affairs.

I don't understand how some of you can keep defending HER.

Why?
Is it just partisan politics or is it something else?

I don't understand it.
Some of you, who keep defending her, are smart enough to put coherent sentences together yet dumb enough to believe she has done nothing wrong.

What will it take for HER shills, i mean supporters, to see HER for what she is?

The question. ....
Is there any evidence of intent?
Define the word is. Ha!
I think when you destroy phones with hammers and delete email that you know you aren't allowed to , looks like intent to me.
Having a secret server in your basement that you know you aren't allowed to have shows intent. ...and if you are smart enough to get a server in your basement then you understand computers enough to know what it means if someone asks you if you wiped your computer, then to give an answer like "what like wipe it with a cloth or something ? "
After all that anyone who believes anything from this woman has to be a as sharp as a marble.

Guilty of...
he isn't a judge. he doesn't find anyone guilty.
His job is to find compelling evidence that can build a strong case.

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Guilty of...
he isn't a judge. he doesn't find anyone guilty.
His job is to find compelling evidence that can build a strong case.

Yes, and the evidence shows that they accepted money for pardons, state access, and gov favors. The evidence also shows her intent to hide and destroy evidence of her mishandling classified documents that landed in the hands of foriegn powers. But hey evidence schmevidence.

Trey Gowdy points out that these are the points that any investigator would use to show intent, when Comey says he can't show intent, which is not even something you need to show to prosecute the crimes she did.

a reply to: TruMcCarthy

"The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must." It's just the way of the world.

i wouldn't call having a mind for a or passion for ill gotten gain, as being strong.
i know plenty of strong people, both physically and mentally, rich and poor, and none of them have ever pulled any of the sh@@ that hill and billary have.

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Guilty of...
he isn't a judge. he doesn't find anyone guilty.
His job is to find compelling evidence that can build a strong case.

Yes, and the evidence shows that they accepted money for pardons, state access, and gov favors. The evidence also shows her intent to hide and destroy evidence of her mishandling classified documents that landed in the hands of foriegn powers. But hey evidence schmevidence.

Trey Gowdy points out that these are the points that any investigator would use to show intent, when Comey says he can't show intent, which is not even something you need to show to prosecute the crimes she did.

I didn't say any evidence, I said compelling evidence to build a strong case
You must not understand how the system works. What you point out is a little bit of evidence that any lawyer worth a lick could immediately steamroll over as conjecture, speculation, circumstantial, etc.
Cases are built on lots of evidence..enough to make the state feel confident in it being a open and shut case. Anything less and you are asking for lawsuits of harassment and all sorts.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: xuenchen

Didn't the Republicans investigate the Clintons like 12 times for Bengahzi and they never charged her with a crime either. Why not call them crooked and assassinate them like you are Comey???

To be fair, the legislative branch doesn't really "charge" anyone with crimes--criminal activity is addressed by the DOJ, when it's the level of Sec. of State.

When people of one ilk are being protecting by the president and his DOJ, you can't blame congress for that.

And she's done more than Benghazi...don't cherry pick just to try and make an invalid point.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: Woodcarver

originally posted by: SaturnFX
Guilty of...
he isn't a judge. he doesn't find anyone guilty.
His job is to find compelling evidence that can build a strong case.

Yes, and the evidence shows that they accepted money for pardons, state access, and gov favors. The evidence also shows her intent to hide and destroy evidence of her mishandling classified documents that landed in the hands of foriegn powers. But hey evidence schmevidence.

Trey Gowdy points out that these are the points that any investigator would use to show intent, when Comey says he can't show intent, which is not even something you need to show to prosecute the crimes she did.

I didn't say any evidence, I said compelling evidence to build a strong case
You must not understand how the system works. What you point out is a little bit of evidence that any lawyer worth a lick could immediately steamroll over as conjecture, speculation, circumstantial, etc.
Cases are built on lots of evidence..enough to make the state feel confident in it being a open and shut case. Anything less and you are asking for lawsuits of harassment and all sorts.

This clip right here isn't compelling to you?youtu.be...

Because i'm pretty sure comey is testifying that hillary lied under oath about a handful of events that would prove she committed several crimes. Both of which are treason in this case.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Because i'm pretty sure comey is testifying that hillary lied under oath about a handful of events that would prove she committed several crimes. Both of which are treason in this case.

Treason
The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

And now you know why the fringe right is ignored in matters of legality. hyper-reactionary snowflakes

As far as what I think about what is considered compelling, I dont know, because I am not a lawyer, judge, investigator, etc. What I do know is that the issue of intent is the key factor here and that seems the hangup

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: Woodcarver
Because i'm pretty sure comey is testifying that hillary lied under oath about a handful of events that would prove she committed several crimes. Both of which are treason in this case.

Treason
The betrayal of one's own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies.

And now you know why the fringe right is ignored in matters of legality. hyper-reactionary snowflakes

As far as what I think about what is considered compelling, I dont know, because I am not a lawyer, judge, investigator, etc. What I do know is that the issue of intent is the key factor here and that seems the hangup

well, you obviously didn't watch the video. Trey gowdy says that when you are trying to prove intent, things like lieing in court, destroying evidence, and hiding emails are how you would prove intent. She intended to hide the fact that she had classified emails in her illegal server. We know that because she wiped it with bleachbit, destroyed her phones, and lied under oath about it. (Remember that these are public record and she is required by law to keep them secure. She also has to account for all of this info. It has to be turned in and be added to the record. All of her work. )

Gowdy leads comey down the path. He literally points out five things hillary lied about under oath, by questioning comey. He makes comey say out loud and on record, all of hillary's crimes.

Comey invented the intent argument. Intent is not a concern when you are lying to a judge. Intent is nowhere in the law. Gowdy says this plain and clear in this video.


Remember martha stewart? She didn't go to prison for insider trading, she went to prison for lieing to a judge. Hillary lied to the judge. Why? Because she wanted to hide the fact that she was keeping highly classified documents on an unsecure server. Which is treason all by itself. Then she hid a lot of these emails from the investigators, then she destroyed phones and computers to hide them better, then she lied to investigators and judges. This is what comey says in this hearing.

originally posted by: dragonridr
The justice department decides when to prosecute. The FBI just investigates and doesn't determine guilt. With Hillary the DOJ didn't prosecute.

Exactly. The decision to prosecute is out of the FBI's hands, it's up to the DOJ. The DOJ was being run by Hilary's BFF Lynch, so Clinton not getting prosecuted is on Lynch, not Comey. Comey did his job with Hilary, and the Democrats cried for his head.

And now that he did his job with Trump, Trump and his cultists are the ones screaming for blood, and trying their damnest to deflect attention from their guilty as charged Commander in Chief. So expect more threads like this.

As far as I'm concerned, my respect Comey grows. He performed one of the most important functions of the FBI: going after political corruption. And in doing so, he paid the price, and both sides turned on him. That tells me he was correct to pursue both cases.

Expect attacks on Comey tp increase, as the noose tightens around the Trump administration.

originally posted by: Woodcarver
well, you obviously didn't watch the video.

I watched the video
What I seen was a former attorney and partisan politician coaching the head of the FBI on what constitutes enough evidence to prosecute someone he politically is opposed to.

Gonna let this sit with the active legal experts. Sidenote: I find prosecutors on a good day to be scummy..much less former partisan ones going after political adversary.

Personally, I imagine there was some wrongdoing but the case became soo murky that such a case would take years to unfold and get the best evidence laid out..and for ultimately what comes down to high misdemeanors and maybe a felony.

Since she never became POTUS, I am far more interested in what is going on now...of course I understand why people are desperate to shut down that conversation...partisanship of course.

a reply to: mOjOm

They couldn't put the Clinton's in jail before because of Lynch and Comey. Even with the mountains of evidence. But now Trump has removed Them.

a reply to: Doctor Smith

Then I should be seeing her in jail here very soon, correct???

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Doctor Smith

Then I should be seeing her in jail here very soon, correct???

Hopefully they will both be sharing the same cell for punishment.

But I'm not going to hold my breath. Even though the Clinton's are guilty as sin. Half of Americans are dumber than stumps, and will lick their boots till the very end. It would look to them like Trump is only incarcerating political opponents.

If Trump could Federally legalize cannabis and then put the Clinton's in prison. He would go down as the greatest President of all time.

a reply to: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf

They don't have anything on Trump. They look like idiots even trying it. Their has to be a crime more serious than 2 scoops for Trump.