IG poised to reignite war over FBI’s Clinton case

a reply to: Boadicea

God I cant wait. Ffffffffffff

When the IG report is released I may take off from work. lol.

Its going to get insane for people in government. I hope they have good coffee makers and know some yoga.

Their whole world is about to get Fudged.

Trickle down terrible coming soon near you!

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

lol and you're always right here to wag your finger at everyone

originally posted by: 3NL1GHT3N3D1
Round and round we go. This is never going to end is it? I don't know how many times it's been said that "THIS" will be the straw that breaks the camel's back only to be shot down with another few weeks of back and forth BS.

You may be right... we'll find out together.

But as noted, the Nunes memo was always more political -- no real legal bite and no real practical or productive reason for releasing it. The IG report, on the other hand, is official, evidence based, and carries legal weight. It's a whole other animal.

But time will tell what all his investigation has found, as well his recommendations for charges and prosecution -- if any.

a reply to: face23785

I understand about not getting any hopes up. And your point about Holder and Fast & Furious is well taken. But I would also remember that at the same time, Horowitz was having trouble getting federal officials to cooperate with him, which became its own issue. It is possible that the obstruction and stonewalling was enough to shield Holder and higher-ups, while letting him have a few fall guys.

a reply to: Boadicea

Seems there must be something coming down the pike.

Another former FBI Agency leading Cybersecity has
gone to work at Buzzfeed to help defend them
against the lawsuits.

Strange times all these so called lead people going
to work at news agencies.

Ding aling.

a reply to: tadaman

Its going to get insane for people in government.

I think you're right about that. I have a feeling that this won't just be a bloodbath for the Dems either. There were no doubt many literal Republicans in name only playing the role of the "loyal opposition".... the Never Trumpers come to mind. Trump plays up the Dem aspect, but I think there's more to his method's (and his madness) than we know.

But for those left standing, it will be an unprecedented madhouse trying to pick up the pieces and put them back together.

Not to mention dealing with the vultures and sharks circling at the first sign of blood.

a reply to: burntheships

Another former FBI Agency leading Cybersecity has
gone to work at Buzzfeed to help defend them
against the lawsuits.

And then they wonder why we don't trust them! Or worse, tell us how bad we are for not trusting them! Sheesh.

a reply to: Boadicea

Did the IG get all of Strzok's and Page's text messages to look at or only the cherry picked ones like we were?

I just feel like this is all a big *show,* at this point.

originally posted by: MotherMayEye
a reply to: Boadicea

Did the IG get all of Strzok's and Page's text messages to look at or only the cherry picked ones like we were?

He got all of them. He is also the one who recovered the messages "lost" by the "glitch." As I understand it, and I believe it's explained in the article, is that he let the Senate see them, and some reporters -- not sure who, or how they got so lucky. But they were not supposed to release any of it. And weren't even supposed to have copies of them, unless I misunderstood that part.

I just feel like this is all a big *show,* at this point.

I definitely agree in terms of the memos and most of what passes as "news and information." So I am hopeful this is much hype for dueling purposes: A -- By the Dems, to discredit/discount the upcoming presumably devastating IG report; and, B -- By Pubs, exploiting for political purposes the much anticipated downfall of their political foes.

Or, what I fear and dread, it's all just a big *show* and Trump's the biggest exploiter of all.

We'll find out together, hopefully sooner rather than later.

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: face23785

I understand about not getting any hopes up. And your point about Holder and Fast & Furious is well taken. But I would also remember that at the same time, Horowitz was having trouble getting federal officials to cooperate with him, which became its own issue. It is possible that the obstruction and stonewalling was enough to shield Holder and higher-ups, while letting him have a few fall guys.

If that's the case, there's no reason to suspect that's changed. Plenty of Obama holdovers left in the bureaucracy to stand in his way.

a reply to: Boadicea

Oh the secret society government coup people? Ha ha ha yeah okay spanky .

a reply to: BlueJacket

Better than to "wag the dog" like these "bombshells" are doing with people.

a reply to: 3NL1GHT3N3D1

Touche'

a reply to: face23785

If that's the case, there's no reason to suspect that's changed.

Maybe. Maybe not....

Plenty of Obama holdovers left in the bureaucracy to stand in his way.

Fewer and fewer every day -- and at least some we know for the worst reasons, including this report... that seems to me to be one reason to believe something's changed!

Some of Hillarys own people will throw her out the window when the truth cones out.

This is all part of making America great again, after years of crime

a reply to: Boadicea

I still don't see them getting Clinton. The email scandal was a slam dunk case. Just the parts she's acknowledged are enough to put her away, nevermind what's known behind the scenes. You could line up thousands of clearance holders to testify whether a "reasonable" person would have thought what they were doing was legal in her shoes. You can't prove what's in someone's head, but you can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt to a jury that there's no way she wouldn't have known. And the sycophants are a lost cause. She could admit everything and they'd still claim it's just all made up by Sean Hannity.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Boadicea

I still don't see them getting Clinton.

I don't see it either. But for different reasons.

The email scandal was a slam dunk case.

Yes, it was -- and is. I've wondered when the statute of limitations would come into play as well since it's dragged out so long. And even if Hillary were charged, I have a feeling she'd make a deal real quick, and it would not include jail time. From a political perspective, putting a sick old lady behind bars isn't going to look good to too many people (i.e. voters).

And the sycophants are a lost cause. She could admit everything and they'd still claim it's just all made up by Sean Hannity.

Yes, there will always be those. But I'd bet dollars to donuts that the majority of those folks know better but push the hype for their own purposes. And to one extent or another, there is good reason for all of us to be suspect about everything going on -- everything is politicized, nothing is transparent or open to the public, rumors and gossip from "unnamed federal officials" fill the void, investigations go nowhere, we get weasel word findings. But if the IG's really got the goods on anyone, then most folks will go where the facts lead them.

We're not stupid. Give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, and we'll figure it out.

originally posted by: Boadicea


And then they wonder why we don't trust them! Or worse, tell us how bad we are for not trusting them! Sheesh.

Yes, aside from the blatant lies they have been caught in,
going to work for the FAKE NEWS outlets certainly makes
it look all the more shady.

a reply to: burntheships

Yes, aside from the blatant lies they have been caught in,
going to work for the FAKE NEWS outlets certainly makes
it look all the more shady.

Including the lies of omission... the news that they fail to report.

I remember a time when good reporters explained the facts of an issue, including history and any background information necessary to understand the issue beyond the political charges and rhetoric. The good, the bad and the ugly. Good reporters would explain each side's position, what facts or studies or evidence supported their position. What we get now is too often just political mudslinging, and anonymous rumors and gossip.

People know the difference between facts and accusations. And when someone's controlling the facts and the message. And it sure doesn't look good when those govt officials we trust least are in charge of what we are allowed to hear...

When the fox moves into the henhouse, no good can come of it.

a reply to: Boadicea

I agree it probably wouldn't include jail time. At this point though it's not about that. It's about showing that everyone is subject to our laws, not just us commoners, and also not setting the precedent that endangering national security so blatantly will be tolerated. Comey tried to hedge his bets a little on that when he made his statement in 2016 basically saying we're not charging her, but no one else should try this. To anyone with an objective eye that was pretty much him acknowledging she should've been charged.

As for the statute of limitations, I recall seeing that discussed on here once before with links to the US Code sections she violated and many of them have 5 year timeframes. However, as I understand it from a legal perspective, those 5 years begin when the crimes were discovered, not when they occurred. The story initially broke in 2015 as I recall, but that doesn't necessarily start the clock either. Not to mention that some of the related crimes were much more recent. Classified information was being mishandled all the way up to late 2016 when some of them were discovered on Weiner's laptop, not to mention the violations of the Federal Records Act when they were deleting classified emails in 2015/2016.