FBI Leaks: Why Comey Didn't Charge Hillary

[jwoodie]

Apparently, the agents at the FBI are livid that Comey did what he did. They are claiming there was more than sufficient evidence to bring several indictments against Hillary Clinton. It wasn't a slam dunk case, but it had more than a good probability of a conviction for Hillary Clinton.

Lynch and Obama made it clear to Comey that if he pressed for an indictment, he would be taking the Democrat nominee for president out of the election. If he failed to get a conviction he would be facing charges of tampering with and changing the outcome of a federal election, to which he would be facing the rest of his life in prison, and Obama and Lynch, as well as others, would see to it that he did.
Now you know why he presented his case the way he did and why it was so obvious he was reluctant to not press for an indictment.

Hillary's statement to the FBI was intentionally given without a court reporter present or without any recording of her testimony to prevent her from having any further exposure to legal charges like perjury. If she lied to Congress, they have no written FBI deposition to confront Hillary with. This was set up to let her walk without fear of being charged with giving False Testimony or being charged with Obstruction of Justice.

This is what those in the "legalese world" call a "Straw Man" legal charge. (It is a charge designed to make someone appear innocent of the charges!) EXAMPLE: Bill beats up Shirley at their home. Bill is arrested for "Felony Spousal Abuse" . Bill's lawyer gets the charges dismissed because Bill is not married to Shirley! (They are only "live in boyfriend and girlfriend".) Bill walks out of court totally exonerated of the charges thanks to a technicality! The twist in the case is the arresting officer knew all along Bill was not married to Shirley because the officer and Bill are old fraternity brothers. The officer intentionally charged Bill with something he knew would not stick. Bill would easily have been convicted of Assault and Battery, but he was not charged with that! This is what is known as the "STRAW MAN" charge. It is how you make a guilty person appear innocent.

This is exactly what was done with the Hillary Clinton case! If she had been charged with "Destruction of Government Documents", she would have easily been convicted, because she admitted to doing this! Instead, she was charged with "Mishandling Classified Documents" which has wiggle room for reasonable doubt regarding Criminal Intent.

 

[JoeB131]

This is exactly what was done with the Hillary Clinton case! If she had been charged with "Destruction of Government Documents", she would have easily been convicted, because she admitted to doing this! Instead, she was charged with "Mishandling Classified Documents" which has wiggle room for reasonable doubt regarding Criminal Intent.

actually, she wasn't charged with anything.

Once more, my challenge to you wingnuts, can you cite another case of someone doing what Mrs. Clinton did where criminal charges were brought.

You can't. Because the case doesn't exist.

 

[owebo]

BJ owns Loretta....he bought her at Sky Harbor airport......

 

[easyt65]

1. Comey can't indict or prosecute Hillary.

2. He pointed out she lied and broke the law.

3. He didn't recommend indictment because he knew while Barry & Loretta ran the most lawless administration ever there would never be justice done.

 

[BULLDOG]

Apparently, the agents at the FBI are livid that Comey did what he did. They are claiming there was more than sufficient evidence to bring several indictments against Hillary Clinton. It wasn't a slam dunk case, but it had more than a good probability of a conviction for Hillary Clinton.

Lynch and Obama made it clear to Comey that if he pressed for an indictment, he would be taking the Democrat nominee for president out of the election. If he failed to get a conviction he would be facing charges of tampering with and changing the outcome of a federal election, to which he would be facing the rest of his life in prison, and Obama and Lynch, as well as others, would see to it that he did.
Now you know why he presented his case the way he did and why it was so obvious he was reluctant to not press for an indictment.

Hillary's statement to the FBI was intentionally given without a court reporter present or without any recording of her testimony to prevent her from having any further exposure to legal charges like perjury. If she lied to Congress, they have no written FBI deposition to confront Hillary with. This was set up to let her walk without fear of being charged with giving False Testimony or being charged with Obstruction of Justice.

This is what those in the "legalese world" call a "Straw Man" legal charge. (It is a charge designed to make someone appear innocent of the charges!) EXAMPLE: Bill beats up Shirley at their home. Bill is arrested for "Felony Spousal Abuse" . Bill's lawyer gets the charges dismissed because Bill is not married to Shirley! (They are only "live in boyfriend and girlfriend".) Bill walks out of court totally exonerated of the charges thanks to a technicality! The twist in the case is the arresting officer knew all along Bill was not married to Shirley because the officer and Bill are old fraternity brothers. The officer intentionally charged Bill with something he knew would not stick. Bill would easily have been convicted of Assault and Battery, but he was not charged with that! This is what is known as the "STRAW MAN" charge. It is how you make a guilty person appear innocent.

This is exactly what was done with the Hillary Clinton case! If she had been charged with "Destruction of Government Documents", she would have easily been convicted, because she admitted to doing this! Instead, she was charged with "Mishandling Classified Documents" which has wiggle room for reasonable doubt regarding Criminal Intent.

Who are the agents at the FBI who are livid? Where did you get this information?

 

[BluesLegend]

Just a reminder folks that meeting Bill had on the plane with Lynch just days before Hillary skated free...totally innocent they just happened to bump into each other, not a smidgen of corruption, wink wink. /SARCASM!!

 

[JoeB131]

1. Comey can't indict or prosecute Hillary.

2. He pointed out she lied and broke the law.

3. He didn't recommend indictment because he knew while Barry & Loretta ran the most lawless administration ever there would never be justice done.

1- He could have still made a referral for prosecution.

2- Except he didn't really do that. He made a lot of insinuations. Kind of like Ken Starr did for 70 million dollars and five years. But in the end, he had to admit there was no intent to break the law here.

3 - If he really felt that this was a horrible miscarriage of justice, he should have tendered his resignation in protest.

You see, here's the thing. You could PROBABLY make an argument she violated the law. What you can't prove was that there was malicious intent.

The real reason why he didn't recommend indictment was because he knew you would not be able to empanel a DC Jury that wouldn't consider these charges utter bullshit.

 

[BluesLegend]

If you people thought Obama was bad, he's a rank amateur compared to the Clinton crime family. If she wins you better hold onto your hat people.

 

[SmokeALib]

Comey probably wanted to stay alive.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Hope this guys life insurance is paid up...but with that said I suspect Hillary's ass just puckered.

Meet The Prosecutor That Could Take Down The Clinton Foundation

Preet Bharara, dubbed ‘The Showman’ in The New Yorker for his penchant for theatrics and wisecracks, runs the U.S. Attorney’s office in the Southern District of New York and has racked up an impressive number of corruption convictions — from Wall Street bankers, hedge funds, and New York organized crime to prominent politicians.

The FBI has enlisted Bharara’s office (along with others) in part for his prosecutorial aggressiveness that career DOJ attorneys may lack.


Meet The Prosecutor That Could Take Down The Clinton Foundation

 

[Freewill]

This is exactly what was done with the Hillary Clinton case! If she had been charged with "Destruction of Government Documents", she would have easily been convicted, because she admitted to doing this! Instead, she was charged with "Mishandling Classified Documents" which has wiggle room for reasonable doubt regarding Criminal Intent.

actually, she wasn't charged with anything.

Once more, my challenge to you wingnuts, can you cite another case of someone doing what Mrs. Clinton did where criminal charges were brought.

You can't. Because the case doesn't exist.

prior to say 20 years ago would there be a case where emails were hacked? No, there would not be. The excuse for her crime that no one else was ever indicted is a piss poor one, but that is what we have come to expect from the liberal left.

People have done very similar things and have had their careers ruined and did jail time. Maybe no one else ever did what Hillary has done they didn't have the contempt for the system she does.

She put CIA agents lives in danger as Comey testified and the left just looked the other way. One Iranian spy might have actually been executed because of the information from Hillary's emails. That should be prosecuted.

 

[jwoodie]

This is exactly what was done with the Hillary Clinton case! If she had been charged with "Destruction of Government Documents", she would have easily been convicted, because she admitted to doing this! Instead, she was charged with "Mishandling Classified Documents" which has wiggle room for reasonable doubt regarding Criminal Intent.

actually, she wasn't charged with anything.

Once more, my challenge to you wingnuts, can you cite another case of someone doing what Mrs. Clinton did where criminal charges were brought.

You can't. Because the case doesn't exist.

Oh, what clever word mincing! In context. the word "charged" means investigated by the FBI for criminal conduct. Instead you try to interpret it as indicted, which everyone but you understands has to come from the Attorney General's office (which is the entire point of the OP).

 

[jwoodie]

Just a reminder folks that meeting Bill had on the plane with Lynch just days before Hillary skated free...totally innocent they just happened to bump into each other, not a smidgen of corruption, wink wink. /SARCASM!!

Actually, this was a setup from the get-go: This "accidental" meeting gave Lynch an excuse to absolve herself (and Obama) from any responsibility for not indicting Hillary for her obviously criminal conduct.

 

[JoeB131]

If you people thought Obama was bad, he's a rank amateur compared to the Clinton crime family. If she wins you better hold onto your hat people.

Guy, I would LOVE to have the Clinton Years of the 1990's back, where my property values doubled, my salary doubled, we weren't at war with anyone and the worst thing we had to worry about was whether or not Clinton lied about getting a blow job.

 

[JoeB131]

Oh, what clever word mincing! In context. the word "charged" means investigated by the FBI for criminal conduct. Instead you try to interpret it as indicted, which everyone but you understands has to come from the Attorney General's office (which is the entire point of the OP).

Except Comey didn't recommend criminal charges...

Because he knew no Grand Jury would ever support them for something so petty.

He didn't want to be like Ken Starr empaneling all these grand juries that refused to file any charges.

 

[JoeB131]

prior to say 20 years ago would there be a case where emails were hacked? No, there would not be. The excuse for her crime that no one else was ever indicted is a piss poor one, but that is what we have come to expect from the liberal left.

I was using emails 20 years ago, and it was probably easier to hack them then than it is now.

The real problem is that these laws are written for a paper and copy world... not really for electronic media.

It would be just as easy to hack the government servers as a private one. Probably more so.

People have done very similar things and have had their careers ruined and did jail time. Maybe no one else ever did what Hillary has done they didn't have the contempt for the system she does.

Again - NAME ONE. Because the minute you put a name out there, you usually find they actually did something a lot worse.

She put CIA agents lives in danger as Comey testified and the left just looked the other way. One Iranian spy might have actually been executed because of the information from Hillary's emails. That should be prosecuted.

But there's no evidence of that.

That Iranian spy was a man who intentionally went back to Iran after the Iranians already knew he ratted them out. Not seeing how that was Hillary's fault, exactly.

 

[owebo]

If you people thought Obama was bad, he's a rank amateur compared to the Clinton crime family. If she wins you better hold onto your hat people.

Guy, I would LOVE to have the Clinton Years of the 1990's back, where my property values doubled, my salary doubled, we weren't at war with anyone and the worst thing we had to worry about was whether or not Clinton lied about getting a blow job.

He did lie....

 

[kaz]

1. Comey can't indict or prosecute Hillary.

2. He pointed out she lied and broke the law.

3. He didn't recommend indictment because he knew while Barry & Loretta ran the most lawless administration ever there would never be justice done.

I seriously doubt that's why, he just didn't want his career to end. He chose himself over his country and the truth like John Roberts did.

Granted being vilified by the liberal media and the Democrat party for the rest of ones life is a heavy toll to pay. I believe I would do the right thing though given that choice

 

[Conservative65]

This is exactly what was done with the Hillary Clinton case! If she had been charged with "Destruction of Government Documents", she would have easily been convicted, because she admitted to doing this! Instead, she was charged with "Mishandling Classified Documents" which has wiggle room for reasonable doubt regarding Criminal Intent.

actually, she wasn't charged with anything.

Once more, my challenge to you wingnuts, can you cite another case of someone doing what Mrs. Clinton did where criminal charges were brought.

You can't. Because the case doesn't exist.

It's not about others. It's about her and whether or not someone else has been is irrelevant. Based on that attitude, no one would ever be charged unless someone else had been first. Means it never will happen and that's what you vagina lickers want.

How does it feel Joe knowing that the only vagina you'll ever get close to is one for which you'll have to vote?

 

[JoeB131]

I seriously doubt that's why, he just didn't want his career to end. He chose himself over his country and the truth like John Roberts did.

Granted being vilified by the liberal media and the Democrat party for the rest of ones life is a heavy toll to pay. I believe I would do the right thing though given that choice

No, you'd do the partisan thing.

The reason why he didn't indict is because he knew the minute he brought it in front of a grand jury pool that was 99% Democratic, (as DC is) they'd laugh him out of the room.

it wasn't John Roberts or James Comey's job to effect the political process. There's a place to deal with this kind of issue, it's called a "ballot box".