Good luck with that. (third rewrite)

[Ray9]

You’re in your car when flashing lights appear in your rear window. You’ve been drinking and you are driving. You go before a judge and say that you did not intend to drink and drive and you certainly did not intend to get caught. The judge listens then rises to address the courtroom. He announces that because you did not intend to drink and drive, no reasonable person would find you responsible for the crime. He then calls for an investigation of the arresting officer. Sound plausible? Good luck with that.


Witness our last election. The losing candidate was caught red-handed violating national security protocol and destroying evidence to cover it up. The FBI director confirmed this and then inexplicably inserted the word “intentional” into his assessment. In other words, she did it but “unintentionally”. She ostensibly was intending to do the right thing but mistakenly perpetrated a criminal act that is clearly on the books for everyone else with even the lowest-level security clearance. The average citizen would already be behind bars.


Her “honest” mistake is now being remedied by the losing side’s use of McCarthyism to stigmatize the election winner as a traitor who cheated by colluding with an enemy. For those who weren’t born yesterday, this is right out of the handbook of Rules for Radicals which is an instruction manual to bring down a functioning society.


The crimes are so obvious and serious that all the stops need to be pulled out to obfuscate the real picture. The strategy is similar to a defense lawyer mining a jury for confused minds and planting doubt where it might work. You remember-If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit, only with a twist-blame the other guy for something worse. The scary part is that the population is loaded with sympathetic ears and forgiving hearts for the perpetrator. It’s entirely possible that a serious criminal could skate on this one.


Get ready for a long show-trial special investigation of the other guy that will descend on the population like an alien invasion. These people will never give up. They are going to hang together because they do not want to hang separately. Their mission to fundamentally change America is in serious jeopardy and their only hope is the knuckleheaded narrative they are pushing about the president plotting with the communists.


Good luck with that.

 

[toobfreak]

Superb analysis!

 

[Jackson]

You’re in your car when flashing lights appear in your rear window. You’ve been drinking and you are driving. You go before a judge and say that you did not intend to drink and drive and you certainly did not intend to get caught. The judge listens then rises to address the courtroom. He announces that because you did not intend to drink and drive, no reasonable person would find you responsible for the crime. He then calls for an investigation of the arresting officer. Sound plausible? Good luck with that.


Witness our last election. The losing candidate was caught red-handed violating national security protocol and destroying evidence to cover it up. The FBI director confirmed this and then inexplicably inserted the word “intentional” into his assessment. In other words, she did it but “unintentionally”. She ostensibly was intending to do the right thing but mistakenly perpetrated a criminal act that is clearly on the books for everyone else with even the lowest-level security clearance. The average citizen would already be behind bars.


Her “honest” mistake is now being remedied by the losing side’s use of McCarthyism to stigmatize the election winner as a traitor who cheated by colluding with an enemy. For those who weren’t born yesterday, this is right out of the handbook of Rules for Radicals which is an instruction manual to bring down a functioning society.


The crimes are so obvious and serious that all the stops need to be pulled out to obfuscate the real picture. The strategy is similar to a defense lawyer mining a jury for confused minds and planting doubt where it might work. You remember-If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit, only with a twist-blame the other guy for something worse. The scary part is that the population is loaded with sympathetic ears and forgiving hearts for the perpetrator. It’s entirely possible that a serious criminal could skate on this one.


Get ready for a long show-trial special investigation of the other guy that will descend on the population like an alien invasion. These people will never give up. They are going to hang together because they do not want to hang separately. Their mission to fundamentally change America is in serious jeopardy and their only hope is the knuckleheaded narrative they are pushing about the president plotting with the communists.


Good luck with that.

Best post I've read in a while! Thank you.

 

[Norman]

You’re in your car when flashing lights appear in your rear window. You’ve been drinking and you are driving. You go before a judge and say that you did not intend to drink and drive and you certainly did not intend to get caught. The judge listens then rises to address the courtroom. He announces that because you did not intend to drink and drive, no reasonable person would find you responsible for the crime. He then calls for an investigation of the arresting officer. Sound plausible? Good luck with that.


Witness our last election. The losing candidate was caught red-handed violating national security protocol and destroying evidence to cover it up. The FBI director confirmed this and then inexplicably inserted the word “intentional” into his assessment. In other words, she did it but “unintentionally”. She ostensibly was intending to do the right thing but mistakenly perpetrated a criminal act that is clearly on the books for everyone else with even the lowest-level security clearance. The average citizen would already be behind bars.


Her “honest” mistake is now being remedied by the losing side’s use of McCarthyism to stigmatize the election winner as a traitor who cheated by colluding with an enemy. For those who weren’t born yesterday, this is right out of the handbook of Rules for Radicals which is an instruction manual to bring down a functioning society.


The crimes are so obvious and serious that all the stops need to be pulled out to obfuscate the real picture. The strategy is similar to a defense lawyer mining a jury for confused minds and planting doubt where it might work. You remember-If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit, only with a twist-blame the other guy for something worse. The scary part is that the population is loaded with sympathetic ears and forgiving hearts for the perpetrator. It’s entirely possible that a serious criminal could skate on this one.


Get ready for a long show-trial special investigation of the other guy that will descend on the population like an alien invasion. These people will never give up. They are going to hang together because they do not want to hang separately. Their mission to fundamentally change America is in serious jeopardy and their only hope is the knuckleheaded narrative they are pushing about the president plotting with the communists.


Good luck with that.

Unfortunately, you are correct.

 

[BULLDOG]

Excellent work. Won't do a bit of good because she didn't do anything punishable, but still impressive work. What are you going to do for your next whining diatribe that will be a waste of time too?

 

[Ray9]

The problem in this case is that Comey investigated her and found her culpable. He then inserted his opinion that she should not be prosecuted which is not his job. We've just seen Elizabeth Warren speaking at a commencement and carping about no one being "above" the law referring to the President but not to Clinton. What do people think when they see this? It certainly appears to be hypocritical in a way so obvious than no one could miss it. Our Constitution should guarantee Clinton's prosecution otherwise it isn't worth the paper it is written on.

 

[HaShev]

You’re in your car when flashing lights appear in your rear window. You’ve been drinking and you are driving. You go before a judge and say that you did not intend to drink and drive and you certainly did not intend to get caught. The judge listens then rises to address the courtroom. He announces that because you did not intend to drink and drive, no reasonable person would find you responsible for the crime. He then calls for an investigation of the arresting officer. Sound plausible? Good luck with that.


Witness our last election. The losing candidate was caught red-handed violating national security protocol and destroying evidence to cover it up. The FBI director confirmed this and then inexplicably inserted the word “intentional” into his assessment. In other words, she did it but “unintentionally”. She ostensibly was intending to do the right thing but mistakenly perpetrated a criminal act that is clearly on the books for everyone else with even the lowest-level security clearance. The average citizen would already be behind bars.


Her “honest” mistake is now being remedied by the losing side’s use of McCarthyism to stigmatize the election winner as a traitor who cheated by colluding with an enemy. For those who weren’t born yesterday, this is right out of the handbook of Rules for Radicals which is an instruction manual to bring down a functioning society.


The crimes are so obvious and serious that all the stops need to be pulled out to obfuscate the real picture. The strategy is similar to a defense lawyer mining a jury for confused minds and planting doubt where it might work. You remember-If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit, only with a twist-blame the other guy for something worse. The scary part is that the population is loaded with sympathetic ears and forgiving hearts for the perpetrator. It’s entirely possible that a serious criminal could skate on this one.


Get ready for a long show-trial special investigation of the other guy that will descend on the population like an alien invasion. These people will never give up. They are going to hang together because they do not want to hang separately. Their mission to fundamentally change America is in serious jeopardy and their only hope is the knuckleheaded narrative they are pushing about the president plotting with the communists.


Good luck with that.

His intention argument goes out the window when she knowingly destroys requested and mandatory handing over of evidence.
That act is admission of guilt on other accounts. Once he had those missing emails Comey seemed to do nothing about it's content which revealed why she covered up and destroyed evidence of further criminal acts. The biggest question not asked by Comey: now that we know the Clintons took illegal money for favors hidden by the guise of the foundation, and stole charity money missappropriating the funds, the question to ask is who got favors and what did they entail?
Example: Saudis paid to play, even openly giving money envelopes, itcs in the emails, so what favors did they receive and is that also why Obama(who got him some action) was hush about Saudis ties to 911? When Bill mysteriously let Bin Laden slip away in 1998, was that a favor that resulted in 911, Afghan war, Iraqis war, and Isis and perhaps Syria debacle as well.
All events most likely coming from that one source error or payoff.
The fact Comey never asked these serious questions is part of the problem and oerhaps shows he was compromised by blackmail from the left regarding his wife's political career. He surely acted like a man being blackmailed by the left.