Alert! ACLJ Obtains Obama's Immunity Agreements with Hillary Clinton Aides Destroying Emails/Laptops

[bigrebnc1775]

hillary should have been indicted just because it didn't happen doesn't mean a crime didn't happen.
It just means criminals don't indict their own.

No she shouldn't have, and she wasn't. This decision was REVIEWED AND RE-AFFIRMED BY TRUMP'S INSPECTOR GENERAL IN 2018.

DOJ Clinton Report Blasts Comey, Agents, but Finds No Bias in Conclusion

You just don't want to accept simple reality.

what does having a bias or not have to do with violation of laws?

Dummy, it has to with FBI coming to a fair, unbiased recomendation to not bring charges.

Upon review in 2018 Trump's Inspector General found the descision in Clinton's bias free, legally sound and consistent with previous handling of such cases.

But it doesn't matter how many times Clinton will get cleared, you retards will still keep claiming that she is a criminal, will keep pushing insane vast conspiracy theories about how everyone from Democrats, to Republicans to DOJ and FBI are "in on it!"

It's not the FBI's job to bring charges. Thanks for showing your ignorence.

no it is not the job of a special counsel like Mueller to bring charges according to him. A special prosecutor like Starr yes FBI yes of course what the hell are you talkin about LOL...

The FBI does not bring charges. They investigate crimes

 

[The Purge]

The only thing that surprises me about the whole thing is that there are still snowflakes out there (& on here) that still somehow claim Hillary never broke any law...and that Obama's administration was not THE most criminal in US history...

All those indictments and convictions...absolutely the most criminal.

Whats the matter little girl....haven't been following all the info gained about her felonies...let me remind you of her HUNDREDS OF FELONIES....

 

[theHawk]

Good grief! In other words, the DOJ/FBI were not conducting an investigation but were themselves part of a criminal conspiracy with Clinton to destroy evidence.

Edit: Aids should be spelled Aides in title. Fixed White_MAGA_Man

ACLJ Obtains Obama DOJ’s Immunity Agreements with Hillary Clinton Lawyers Cheryl Mills and Heather Samuelson to “Dispose” of Evidence and Refuse to Comply with Federal Law | American Center for Law and Justice

I’m glad Dems now agree it’s okay to go after ex-Presidents and throw them in prison.

 

[easyt65]

It's not the FBI's job to bring charges. Thanks for showing your ignorance.

It has been proven that the serious errors in judgment and the tendency to commit extensive violations of Justice Department rules and protocols were passed on from the MENTOR - Robert Mueller - to his protégé - James Comey.

The US IG condemned Comey for PUBLICLY TALKING ABOUT UN-CHARGED / UN-INDICTED ACTIONS / BEHAVIOR:

"We (US IG / his office) concluded that Comey’s unilateral announcementwas inconsistent with Department policy and violated long-standing Department practice and protocol by, among other things, criticizing Clinton’s uncharged conduct."

This means the FBI Director's job as head of the investigation of Hillary Clinton was to provide a report on the investigation's findings. Instead, he chose to make a public announcement that IN HIS OPINION Hillary had broken laws, was too stupid to know she had done it, that there was not enough evidence for a Prosecutor (which he was not) to successfully prosecute her (again, NOT HIS JOB / NOT his call to make).

Mueller made the same 'serious error in judgment' and perpetrated the same type of prosecutorial misconduct / mistake in 'HIS' report. In WEISMANN'S report, the inability to come to a conclusion of guilt (inability to prove guilt) was made in the 1st half of the report, but it then goes on to give a lengthy diatribe about UN-CHARGED / UN-INDICTED ACTIONS / BEHAVIOR - exactly what the US IG blasted Comey, Mueller's protégé, for doing!

 

[Dragonlady]

It's not the FBI's job to bring charges. Thanks for showing your ignorance.

It has been proven that the serious errors in judgment and the tendency to commit extensive violations of Justice Department rules and protocols were passed on from the MENTOR - Robert Mueller - to his protégé - James Comey.

The US IG condemned Comey for PUBLICLY TALKING ABOUT UN-CHARGED / UN-INDICTED ACTIONS / BEHAVIOR:

"We (US IG / his office) concluded that Comey’s unilateral announcementwas inconsistent with Department policy and violated long-standing Department practice and protocol by, among other things, criticizing Clinton’s uncharged conduct."

This means the FBI Director's job as head of the investigation of Hillary Clinton was to provide a report on the investigation's findings. Instead, he chose to make a public announcement that IN HIS OPINION Hillary had broken laws, was too stupid to know she had done it, that there was not enough evidence for a Prosecutor (which he was not) to successfully prosecute her (again, NOT HIS JOB / NOT his call to make).

Mueller made the same 'serious error in judgment' and perpetrated the same type of prosecutorial misconduct / mistake in 'HIS' report. In WEISMANN'S report, the inability to come to a conclusion of guilt (inability to prove guilt) was made in the 1st half of the report, but it then goes on to give a lengthy diatribe about UN-CHARGED / UN-INDICTED ACTIONS / BEHAVIOR - exactly what the US IG blasted Comey, Mueller's protégé, for doing!

 

[theHawk]

You're one of the same ass-clowns who continue to declare Trump is guilty after 3 years of failed investigations that never yielded evidence a crime was ever committed warranting an investigations to begin with.

In the meantime evidence shows...

Obama spent 8 years supporting terrorists, spying in citizens / reporters / the media / US Senators / USSC Justices, using the IRS against his political enemies, running weapons to Mexican Drug Cartels and terrorists, dragged the US into w wars to help terrorists - to include those who slaughtered 3,000 Americans - after winning the Nobel Peace Prize, protected numerous members of his Cabinet from prison for Perjury & other crimes, set a new record for non-compliance with the FISA, protected Hillary from Prison, gave Putin uranium / Crimea / 2 years of in-challenged interference, attempted a coup against a newly elected President, and that's not even all.

This list could go on and on but the 2 things that stick with me the most are when Obama pulled US troops out of Iraq in 2011, opening the vacuum for ISIS to move into...…….and...…...allowing ISIS convoys to move freely on open, desert roads (sitting ducks for air strikes), causing ISIS to be successful at robbing banks and killing thousands of people.

Why was Obama so friendly to the worst of jihadists ? Because he's one of them.

The Hussein was the de facto President of ISIS. They wanted the overthrow of moderate governments in the ME. What did the Hussein do? He called for the overthrow of the Libyan and Syrian governments, and supported the Muslim Brotherhood. His goals and their goals were the same.

 

[jc456]

who was that screaming no one is above the law?

 

[Coyote]

The only thing that surprises me about the whole thing is that there are still snowflakes out there (& on here) that still somehow claim Hillary never broke any law...and that Obama's administration was not THE most criminal in US history...

All those indictments and convictions...absolutely the most criminal.

Since when do criminals indict their own? You will be amazed at the indictments that will be coming for what corruption occurred from 2009-2017.

I guess that explains why the Republican majority Congress hasn't indicted anyone in the Trump Administration, but it doesnt explain why the Republican majority Congress failed to indict anyone in the Obama administration despite years of taxpayer funded investigations.

 

[AntonToo]

Something is TERRIBLY fucking wrong with you. How hard is it to post something true once a while?

You DO know that just because you say something is false / a lie does not make it so, right?

You can post all the bluster and BS you want, claim I lie without having anything to back it up, only to be embarrassed by the fact that, unlike you, I DO post links / reports / info to back up what I say...

For example:


Watchdog Report Dismantles Trump Claims, but Slams Comey and the FBI

"A report by the Justice Department’s internal watchdog found no political bias in the conduct of an investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server and account, but it offers a scathing condemnation of how former FBI Director James Comey and other FBI employees handled aspects of the investigation, including extensive violations of Justice Department rules and protocols.

Comey violated protocol by making a public announcement, rather than sending a recommendation to Lynch, then the attorney general.

We concluded that Comey’s unilateral announcement was inconsistent with Department policy and violated long-standing Department practice and protocol by, among other things, criticizing Clinton’s uncharged conduct. We also found that Comey usurped the authority of the Attorney General, and inadequately and incompletely described the legal position of Department prosecutors."
I stated the US IG, in his report, rebuked Comey for 'USURPING THE AUTHORITY OF THE DOJ / US AG'. These are the exact same words the US IG used in his rebuke of Comey in his report.


Thank you for bombarding us / me with your emotionally-manipulated, Trump-hating OPINIONS - much like the Trump Dossier, supported by NOTHING....but as you can see, I did NOT lie about anything. As EVERYONE can see, YOU are a reality-denying, lying snowflake who has lost what little credibility you may have had left, which was not much to begin with.
.

From your link:

Yet the report also rejects Trump’s claims that the FBI went easy on Clinton. Investigators found no evidence that the FBI avoided charges because of political bias—ultimately concluding the decisions made during the investigation were reasonable.

What part of that do you not fucking get?



Your bringing up that Comey ursurped Lynch's power is a total self-refutation since DOJ position on bringing charges was ultimately same as Comey's - not enough evidence for criminal indictment.

 

[easyt65]

From your link:

Yet the report also rejects Trump’s claims that the FBI went easy on Clinton. Investigators found no evidence that the FBI avoided charges because of political bias—ultimately concluding the decisions made during the investigation were reasonable.

What part of that do you not fucking get?



Your bringing up that Comey ursurped Lynch's power is a total self-refutation since DOJ position on bringing charges was ultimately same as Comey's - not enough evidence for criminal indictment.

Bwuhahahaha......

Please explain what the US IG ruling no bias was shown by Comey when he chose to violate FBI rules and protocols, when he took it upon himself to make the decision that Hillary would not be indicted - which was never his job or within his power to make - and when he chose to spew personal opinion about her behavior for which she was not charged / indicted and the US IG rebuking / slamming him for doing those things?

I never made the argument that Comey's actions were based on bias - I said the US IG rebuked Comey for 'usurping the power / role / responsibility of the DOJ / US IG by making his public declaration that Hillary would not be indicted, which the article clearly states and which YOU just helped support. (Thank you.)

Attempting to change the entire discussion by making false accusations that I argued something I did not is pathetic. I could care less why Comey did what he did. I pointed out that he was condemned by the US IG for violating FBI SOP, rules, regulations, and for 'usrpig the authority of the US AG'.



AND, by the way, your final claim is a flat-out debunked LIE, as the article states, which I posted a little earlier:

"Your bringing up that Comey ursurped Lynch's power is a total self-refutation since DOJ position on bringing charges was ultimately same as Comey's - not enough evidence for criminal indictment."

The article clearly states - quotes the US IG report - the US IG made a point to declare it did NOT investigate whether Hillary had committed crimes or not, that it's focus on their investigation was to determine if Comey's actions were effected by bias, not to investigate Hillary, not te 2nd-guess Comey's decision.

It's all in the article - it's all in the report - it's all in the post I made earlier. AGAIN, you deliberately LIE, in the face of evidence posted earlier. AGAIN, your credibility is SHOT! There is simply no reason to read anything else you post as you have been proven to be intentionally lying TWICE and attempting to claim I was arguing some point I did not and could not care less about.

As you asked earlier - right back at you, 'What the F* is wrong with YOU", snowflake?!

 

[easyt65]

I guess that explains why the Republican majority Congress hasn't indicted anyone in the Trump Administration, but it doesnt explain why the Republican majority Congress failed to indict anyone in the Obama administration despite years of taxpayer funded investigations.

You're kidding, right? I mean no one can seriously be that ignorant of our government....

For example, your comment suggest you have no clue about the 3 separate branches of our government and what their roles / duties / powers are according to the US Constitution. Your comments suggest that you do not understand that CONGRESS does not have the power to indict anyone, that the power to do so is the responsibility of the DOJ....and I do not believe you are too ignorant to know this.

The fact that Republicans had 'control' of both the House and Senate means absolutely NOTHING since Obama owned the DOJ, NIA, CIA, and FBI, all of whom evidence shows committed criminal acts such as Perjury and Illegally spying not just on US citizens but on US Senators and USSC Justices.

Obama's US AG, who ran the Justice Department, was Eric Holder. Holder was caught committing Perjury under oath during is testimony about the Obama gun-running scandal 'Fast and Furious'. He was recommended for indictment for his crime...Umm, WHO was supposed to Indict the US AG? His hand-picked DOJ employees? Yeah, NO - they refused to do so, and Obama protected him. Congress did the only thing they could do - a bipartisan Congress voted to Censure Holder, making him the only Presidential Cabinet member in US history to be Censured....they - Congress - could to that but did not have the power / authority to indict him.

So your theatrical post above (either that or you are ignorant of how our government works) is easily discarded.

Obama OWNED the law enforcement agencies - not that hard to NOT have any indictments that way.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The only thing that surprises me about the whole thing is that there are still snowflakes out there (& on here) that still somehow claim Hillary never broke any law...and that Obama's administration was not THE most criminal in US history...

All those indictments and convictions...absolutely the most criminal.

Since when do criminals indict their own? You will be amazed at the indictments that will be coming for what corruption occurred from 2009-2017.

I guess that explains why the Republican majority Congress hasn't indicted anyone in the Trump Administration, but it doesnt explain why the Republican majority Congress failed to indict anyone in the Obama administration despite years of taxpayer funded investigations.

The indictment is up to the DOJ who controlled it?

 

[daveman]

Let's NOT. The joke that is MBFC has already been exposed. See Post # 123.

You've exposed nothing but your own ignorance and bias. Give one instance where Politifact has been proven wrong. Just one.

As soon as you see the list of names behind this right wing attempt to undermine truth, justice and the Constitution, you know that it's a farce when it comes to truth, or accuracy.

21 Lies Told By PolitiFact (Not Including Obama Got Rid of Syria's Chemical Weapons)

Just saying that Politifact lied isn't proof they lied.

You didn't even read the article. Can't have your dogma challenged, can you?

Apparently you’re the one who didn’t read the link.

There was no article. Just a series of links to Politifact fact checks. No rebuttal of what politifact said just the title that these were all lies.

Yup, I was right. You clicked on the first link, which was indeed to Politifact. And they rated Obama's claim that you can keep your health coverage as "true". How did that turn out?

Let's NOT. The joke that is MBFC has already been exposed. See Post # 123.

You've exposed nothing but your own ignorance and bias. Give one instance where Politifact has been proven wrong. Just one.

As soon as you see the list of names behind this right wing attempt to undermine truth, justice and the Constitution, you know that it's a farce when it comes to truth, or accuracy.

21 Lies Told By PolitiFact (Not Including Obama Got Rid of Syria's Chemical Weapons)

Just saying that Politifact lied isn't proof they lied.

You didn't even read the article. Can't have your dogma challenged, can you?

Apparently you’re the one who didn’t read the link.

There was no article. Just a series of links to Politifact fact checks. No rebuttal of what politifact said just the title that these were all lies.

Of the 21 links, 1, 8, and 15 were to Politifact. The others were to articles proving Politifact was less than honest in their ratings.

Politifact is just another propaganda outlet for the People's Democratic Party.

 

[daveman]

Let’s start with the media’s bias check.

American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ)

Extreme right wing bias, founded by Pat Robertson, another conman right win televangelis, featuring misleading and lying headlines. Yup this story has all that.

Let's NOT. The joke that is MBFC has already been exposed. See Post # 123.

You've exposed nothing but your own ignorance and bias. Give one instance where Politifact has been proven wrong. Just one.

As soon as you see the list of names behind this right wing attempt to undermine truth, justice and the Constitution, you know that it's a farce when it comes to truth, or accuracy.

21 Lies Told By PolitiFact (Not Including Obama Got Rid of Syria's Chemical Weapons)

Idiot, did you read your list?

First one up is a fact check from 2008, which is not a retrospective fact check of ACA (Obamacare), but a general assesment of Obama's orginal plan and how it would affect the market VS government-run healthcare.

So, by rating Obama's claim as True, they proved only that Obama was stupid.

That's probably not where you wanted to go with this, but here we are.

 

[daveman]

The only thing that surprises me about the whole thing is that there are still snowflakes out there (& on here) that still somehow claim Hillary never broke any law...and that Obama's administration was not THE most criminal in US history...

All those indictments and convictions...absolutely the most criminal.

Since when do criminals indict their own? You will be amazed at the indictments that will be coming for what corruption occurred from 2009-2017.

Yep it's a big bad conspiracy.

And when are these indictments coming dupe? Give me a cut off date.

When is Trump going to be impeached?

 

[Coyote]

The only thing that surprises me about the whole thing is that there are still snowflakes out there (& on here) that still somehow claim Hillary never broke any law...and that Obama's administration was not THE most criminal in US history...

All those indictments and convictions...absolutely the most criminal.

Since when do criminals indict their own? You will be amazed at the indictments that will be coming for what corruption occurred from 2009-2017.

I guess that explains why the Republican majority Congress hasn't indicted anyone in the Trump Administration, but it doesnt explain why the Republican majority Congress failed to indict anyone in the Obama administration despite years of taxpayer funded investigations.

The indictment is up to the DOJ who controlled it?

Hmmm....yet two and a half years of a Republican DoJ produced....what?

 

[Coyote]

I guess that explains why the Republican majority Congress hasn't indicted anyone in the Trump Administration, but it doesnt explain why the Republican majority Congress failed to indict anyone in the Obama administration despite years of taxpayer funded investigations.

You're kidding, right? I mean no one can seriously be that ignorant of our government....

For example, your comment suggest you have no clue about the 3 separate branches of our government and what their roles / duties / powers are according to the US Constitution. Your comments suggest that you do not understand that CONGRESS does not have the power to indict anyone, that the power to do so is the responsibility of the DOJ....and I do not believe you are too ignorant to know this.

The fact that Republicans had 'control' of both the House and Senate means absolutely NOTHING since Obama owned the DOJ, NIA, CIA, and FBI, all of whom evidence shows committed criminal acts such as Perjury and Illegally spying not just on US citizens but on US Senators and USSC Justices.

Obama's US AG, who ran the Justice Department, was Eric Holder. Holder was caught committing Perjury under oath during is testimony about the Obama gun-running scandal 'Fast and Furious'. He was recommended for indictment for his crime...Umm, WHO was supposed to Indict the US AG? His hand-picked DOJ employees? Yeah, NO - they refused to do so, and Obama protected him. Congress did the only thing they could do - a bipartisan Congress voted to Censure Holder, making him the only Presidential Cabinet member in US history to be Censured....they - Congress - could to that but did not have the power / authority to indict him.

So your theatrical post above (either that or you are ignorant of how our government works) is easily discarded.

Obama OWNED the law enforcement agencies - not that hard to NOT have any indictments that way.

No indictments. No charges. Not even close. And not for failure of trying either. And still nothing. Witch hunt come to mind?

 

[Coyote]

The only thing that surprises me about the whole thing is that there are still snowflakes out there (& on here) that still somehow claim Hillary never broke any law...and that Obama's administration was not THE most criminal in US history...

All those indictments and convictions...absolutely the most criminal.

Since when do criminals indict their own? You will be amazed at the indictments that will be coming for what corruption occurred from 2009-2017.

I guess that explains why the Republican majority Congress hasn't indicted anyone in the Trump Administration, but it doesnt explain why the Republican majority Congress failed to indict anyone in the Obama administration despite years of taxpayer funded investigations.

The indictment is up to the DOJ who controlled it?

Is that why there was no indictment of Trump?

 

[AntonToo]

I guess that explains why the Republican majority Congress hasn't indicted anyone in the Trump Administration, but it doesnt explain why the Republican majority Congress failed to indict anyone in the Obama administration despite years of taxpayer funded investigations.

You're kidding, right? I mean no one can seriously be that ignorant of our government....

For example, your comment suggest you have no clue about the 3 separate branches of our government and what their roles / duties / powers are according to the US Constitution. Your comments suggest that you do not understand that CONGRESS does not have the power to indict anyone, that the power to do so is the responsibility of the DOJ....and I do not believe you are too ignorant to know this.

The fact that Republicans had 'control' of both the House and Senate means absolutely NOTHING since Obama owned the DOJ, NIA, CIA, and FBI, all of whom evidence shows committed criminal acts such as Perjury and Illegally spying not just on US citizens but on US Senators and USSC Justices.

Obama's US AG, who ran the Justice Department, was Eric Holder. Holder was caught committing Perjury under oath during is testimony about the Obama gun-running scandal 'Fast and Furious'. He was recommended for indictment for his crime...Umm, WHO was supposed to Indict the US AG? His hand-picked DOJ employees? Yeah, NO - they refused to do so, and Obama protected him. Congress did the only thing they could do - a bipartisan Congress voted to Censure Holder, making him the only Presidential Cabinet member in US history to be Censured....they - Congress - could to that but did not have the power / authority to indict him.

So your theatrical post above (either that or you are ignorant of how our government works) is easily discarded.

Obama OWNED the law enforcement agencies - not that hard to NOT have any indictments that way.

From your link:

Yet the report also rejects Trump’s claims that the FBI went easy on Clinton. Investigators found no evidence that the FBI avoided charges because of political bias—ultimately concluding the decisions made during the investigation were reasonable.

What part of that do you not fucking get?



Your bringing up that Comey ursurped Lynch's power is a total self-refutation since DOJ position on bringing charges was ultimately same as Comey's - not enough evidence for criminal indictment.

Bwuhahahaha......

Please explain what the US IG ruling no bias was shown by Comey when he chose to violate FBI rules and protocols, when he took it upon himself to make the decision that Hillary would not be indicted - which was never his job or within his power to make - and when he chose to spew personal opinion about her behavior for which she was not charged / indicted and the US IG rebuking / slamming him for doing those things?

I never made the argument that Comey's actions were based on bias - I said the US IG rebuked Comey for 'usurping the power / role / responsibility of the DOJ / US IG by making his public declaration that Hillary would not be indicted, which the article clearly states and which YOU just helped support. (Thank you.)

Attempting to change the entire discussion by making false accusations that I argued something I did not is pathetic. I could care less why Comey did what he did. I pointed out that he was condemned by the US IG for violating FBI SOP, rules, regulations, and for 'usrpig the authority of the US AG'.



AND, by the way, your final claim is a flat-out debunked LIE, as the article states, which I posted a little earlier:

"Your bringing up that Comey ursurped Lynch's power is a total self-refutation since DOJ position on bringing charges was ultimately same as Comey's - not enough evidence for criminal indictment."

The article clearly states - quotes the US IG report - the US IG made a point to declare it did NOT investigate whether Hillary had committed crimes or not, that it's focus on their investigation was to determine if Comey's actions were effected by bias, not to investigate Hillary, not te 2nd-guess Comey's decision.

It's all in the article - it's all in the report - it's all in the post I made earlier. AGAIN, you deliberately LIE, in the face of evidence posted earlier. AGAIN, your credibility is SHOT! There is simply no reason to read anything else you post as you have been proven to be intentionally lying TWICE and attempting to claim I was arguing some point I did not and could not care less about.

As you asked earlier - right back at you, 'What the F* is wrong with YOU", snowflake?!

Moron, there is not a single word of what you just said that refuted that both the AG and Comey were in agreement on lack of evidence to charge.

Whether Comey ursurped or not, recommended or not, THE OUTCOME FOR THE CASE IS THE SAME - NO INDICTMENT. So your argument is completely retarded.

And IG REPORT ABSOLUTELY second guessed Comey.

It looked for pro, or anti, Hillary bias.

It reviewed department’s prior handling of such cases to ensure consistency.

It reviewed legal basis.

If that’s not second guessing those words have no meaning.

 

[easyt65]

I guess that explains why the Republican majority Congress hasn't indicted anyone in the Trump Administration, but it doesnt explain why the Republican majority Congress failed to indict anyone in the Obama administration despite years of taxpayer funded investigations.

You're kidding, right? I mean no one can seriously be that ignorant of our government....

For example, your comment suggest you have no clue about the 3 separate branches of our government and what their roles / duties / powers are according to the US Constitution. Your comments suggest that you do not understand that CONGRESS does not have the power to indict anyone, that the power to do so is the responsibility of the DOJ....and I do not believe you are too ignorant to know this.

The fact that Republicans had 'control' of both the House and Senate means absolutely NOTHING since Obama owned the DOJ, NIA, CIA, and FBI, all of whom evidence shows committed criminal acts such as Perjury and Illegally spying not just on US citizens but on US Senators and USSC Justices.

Obama's US AG, who ran the Justice Department, was Eric Holder. Holder was caught committing Perjury under oath during is testimony about the Obama gun-running scandal 'Fast and Furious'. He was recommended for indictment for his crime...Umm, WHO was supposed to Indict the US AG? His hand-picked DOJ employees? Yeah, NO - they refused to do so, and Obama protected him. Congress did the only thing they could do - a bipartisan Congress voted to Censure Holder, making him the only Presidential Cabinet member in US history to be Censured....they - Congress - could to that but did not have the power / authority to indict him.

So your theatrical post above (either that or you are ignorant of how our government works) is easily discarded.

Obama OWNED the law enforcement agencies - not that hard to NOT have any indictments that way.

From your link:

Yet the report also rejects Trump’s claims that the FBI went easy on Clinton. Investigators found no evidence that the FBI avoided charges because of political bias—ultimately concluding the decisions made during the investigation were reasonable.

What part of that do you not fucking get?



Your bringing up that Comey ursurped Lynch's power is a total self-refutation since DOJ position on bringing charges was ultimately same as Comey's - not enough evidence for criminal indictment.

Bwuhahahaha......

Please explain what the US IG ruling no bias was shown by Comey when he chose to violate FBI rules and protocols, when he took it upon himself to make the decision that Hillary would not be indicted - which was never his job or within his power to make - and when he chose to spew personal opinion about her behavior for which she was not charged / indicted and the US IG rebuking / slamming him for doing those things?

I never made the argument that Comey's actions were based on bias - I said the US IG rebuked Comey for 'usurping the power / role / responsibility of the DOJ / US IG by making his public declaration that Hillary would not be indicted, which the article clearly states and which YOU just helped support. (Thank you.)

Attempting to change the entire discussion by making false accusations that I argued something I did not is pathetic. I could care less why Comey did what he did. I pointed out that he was condemned by the US IG for violating FBI SOP, rules, regulations, and for 'usrpig the authority of the US AG'.



AND, by the way, your final claim is a flat-out debunked LIE, as the article states, which I posted a little earlier:

"Your bringing up that Comey ursurped Lynch's power is a total self-refutation since DOJ position on bringing charges was ultimately same as Comey's - not enough evidence for criminal indictment."

The article clearly states - quotes the US IG report - the US IG made a point to declare it did NOT investigate whether Hillary had committed crimes or not, that it's focus on their investigation was to determine if Comey's actions were effected by bias, not to investigate Hillary, not te 2nd-guess Comey's decision.

It's all in the article - it's all in the report - it's all in the post I made earlier. AGAIN, you deliberately LIE, in the face of evidence posted earlier. AGAIN, your credibility is SHOT! There is simply no reason to read anything else you post as you have been proven to be intentionally lying TWICE and attempting to claim I was arguing some point I did not and could not care less about.

As you asked earlier - right back at you, 'What the F* is wrong with YOU", snowflake?!

Moron, there is not a single word of what you just said that refuted that both the AG and Comey were in agreement on lack of evidence to charge.

Whether Comey ursurped or not, recommended or not, THE OUTCOME FOR THE CASE IS THE SAME - NO INDICTMENT. So your argument is completely retarded.

And IG REPORT ABSOLUTELY second guessed Comey.

It looked for pro, or anti, Hillary bias.

It reviewed department’s prior handling of such cases to ensure consistency.

It reviewed legal basis.

If that’s not second guessing those words have no meaning.

Horowitz, the US IG, declared his report did not exonerate Hillary becaause he did not investigate her to see if Comey was right to NOT indict her.....

...but YOU are trying to tell us he lied and did investigate her and said Comey made the right call...which, again, is not what the US IG said in his report.

Have you told Horowitz this yet?

Bwuhahahaha....