AntonToo
Diamond Member
- Jun 13, 2016
- 31,602
- 9,260
- 1,340
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.....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.
...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....
But even Comey himself said that even though no criminal charges will be brought Hillary was still culpable of mishandling classified materials, and could’ve been subject to internal DoS consequences, so that wasn’t exactly “exoneration” either.
Horowitz said that the investigation that found not enough evidence to charge Hillary was conducted fairly, on sound legal grounds and consistent with prior department treatment of such cases.
It certainly is exoneration of the investigation’s conclusion and the end of the road for the email case. You are just too fucking nuts to understand that part.
Last edited: