Here Are 3 Really Simple Questions The FBI Needs To Answer Fast

[NYcarbineer]

Kissinger "We believe peace is at hand"
10-26-72

Hurt Democrats chances

Wineburger implicated in Iran=Contra 4 days before election in 1992

Hurt GHW Bushs chances

weekend before 2000 election, drunk driving ticket of GW Bush came out

Hurt GW Bushs chances

This is hardly new

So the Reagan administration indicted Weinberger to fuck over G Bush Sr. in 1988? good one.

He was indicted in 92.

Does the administration convene grand juries, or does Congress?

Fair enough, my bad on the year.

REAGAN's atty general Edwin Meese appointed Lawrence Walsh special counsel to investigate Iran/Contra in 1986. Walsh indicted Weinberger.

Actually "The Special Division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appointed Lawrence E. Walsh as Independent Counsel on December 19, 1986."

The Office of Independent Counsel (now defunct, and not to be confused with Special Counsel) also was not under the restriction of the Hatch Act.

The Office of Independent Counsel did not fall under the executive branch.

I went by this:

On Dec. 19, 1986, then-Attorney General Edwin Meese III appointed him special prosecutor to launch an inquiry into what at the time was considered the worst government scandal since Watergate. Mr. Walsh spent nearly seven years and $39 million as the special prosecutor in the Iran-contra scandal.


The investigation would conclude that the administration of President Ronald Reagan had illegally sold arms to Iran to win the release of U.S. hostages in the Middle East and had given the proceeds, in defiance of Congress, to a rebel group known as the “contras,” who were fighting to overthrow the Marxist government of Nicaragua.

Lawrence E. Walsh, Iran-contra special prosecutor, dies at 102

 

[paperview]

The Federal Bureau of Investigations has jumped into the election in a historic way. It has some questions to answer.

WASHINGTON ― FBI Director James Comey, by sending a vaguely worded letter to congressional Republicans on Friday that suggested he was re-opening the probe intoHillary Clinton’s email use, decided to become the central player in the presidential election’s final two weeks.

It was an unprecedented break with FBI practice throughout the agency’s history. But now that Comey is involved and the precedent is shattered, it looks like he has little choice but to keep talking.

“This letter is troubling because it is vaguely worded and leaves so many questions unanswered,” said four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in a letter sent Saturday. The Clinton camp, too, has been demanding Comey come forward with more information. Neither the Democratic senators nor the Clinton camp, though, have said exactly what questions they need answered.

Despite Comey’s dramatic entrance into the campaign, it’s striking how basic the remaining questions are. Here are a few.

Do you know how many emails you found? If so, how many?

There are reports that the emails number in the thousands. What is that based on? Are any of them classified? Any sent by or to Hillary Clinton? Are they duplicates of emails you’ve already read and analyzed?

Do you have access to them? Have you even seen the emails?

A letter Comey sent to FBI employees suggested the agency did not yet have access to the emails. New reporting by Michael Isikoff at Yahoo News finds that the FBI doesn’t yet have a warrant to review.

Perhaps Comey thinks that point is obvious to the public. But Donald Trump is on the campaign trail telling supporters that, without question, the FBI found something incriminating, otherwise it never would have taken such an extraordinary step. In Trump’s defense, his logic is sound. But if Comey took this step without having any idea what’s in the emails, he needs to let Trump (and everyone else) know that’s the case.

Do you plan to analyze the emails before Election Day?

The public ― and us journalists ― would kindly like to know if Comey has any more bombshells planned, or if he’s done until next Tuesday.

At this point, that’s not too much to ask.

Here Are 3 Really, Really Simple Questions The FBI Needs To Answer Fast

The fate of the nation hangs in the balance!

First off this is a lie:

It was an unprecedented break with FBI practice throughout the agency’s history. But now that Comey is involved and the precedent is shattered, it looks like he has little choice but to keep talking.

In 2006 the FBI announced an investigation against one of Andrew Cuomo's opponents 3 days before the NY Attorney General election. Nothing came of the investigation but the opponent lost big.

Second, didn't Lynch recuse herself from the Clinton investigation after her little meeting with wild willie on her airplane in AZ, saying she would go with the judgment of the FBI? Then she tries to interfere, what up with that?

Third and finally, if the clinton inc weren't so corrupt, they wouldn't have to be constantly looking over their shoulder wondering what's coming next.

No, Lynch didn't recuse herself.

 

[paperview]

Kissinger "We believe peace is at hand"
10-26-72

Hurt Democrats chances

Wineburger implicated in Iran=Contra 4 days before election in 1992

Hurt GHW Bushs chances

weekend before 2000 election, drunk driving ticket of GW Bush came out

Hurt GW Bushs chances

This is hardly new

So the Reagan administration indicted Weinberger to fuck over G Bush Sr. in 1988? good one.

He was indicted in 92.

Does the administration convene grand juries, or does Congress?

Fair enough, my bad on the year.

REAGAN's atty general Edwin Meese appointed Lawrence Walsh special counsel to investigate Iran/Contra in 1986. Walsh indicted Weinberger.

Actually "The Special Division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appointed Lawrence E. Walsh as Independent Counsel on December 19, 1986."

The Office of Independent Counsel (now defunct, and not to be confused with Special Counsel) also was not under the restriction of the Hatch Act.

The Office of Independent Counsel did not fall under the executive branch.

I went by this:

On Dec. 19, 1986, then-Attorney General Edwin Meese III appointed him special prosecutor to launch an inquiry into what at the time was considered the worst government scandal since Watergate. Mr. Walsh spent nearly seven years and $39 million as the special prosecutor in the Iran-contra scandal.


The investigation would conclude that the administration of President Ronald Reagan had illegally sold arms to Iran to win the release of U.S. hostages in the Middle East and had given the proceeds, in defiance of Congress, to a rebel group known as the “contras,” who were fighting to overthrow the Marxist government of Nicaragua.

Lawrence E. Walsh, Iran-contra special prosecutor, dies at 102

Wow. He made it to 102?

I got it from this:

Excerpts From the Iran-Contra Report: A Secret Foreign Policy
Following are excerpts from the final report of the independent counsel for the Iran-contra affair, Lawrence E. Walsh, including rebuttals:


Executive Summary
In October and November 1986, two secret U.S. Government operations were publicly exposed, potentially implicating Reagan Administration officials in illegal activities. These operations were the provision of assistance to the military activities of the Nicaraguan contra rebels during an October 1984 to October 1986 prohibition on such aid, and the sale of U.S. arms to Iran in contravention of stated U.S. policy and in possible violation of arms-export controls. In late November 1986, Reagan Administration officials announced that some of the proceeds from the sale of U.S. arms to Iran had been diverted to the contras.

As a result of the exposure of these operations, Attorney General Edwin Meese 3d sought the appointment of an independent counsel to investigate and, if necessary, prosecute possible crimes arising from them.

The Special Division of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit appointed Lawrence E. Walsh as Independent Counsel on December 19, 1986.

Excerpts From the Iran-Contra Report: A Secret Foreign Policy

So he did, but he didn't.

 

[OKTexas]

The Federal Bureau of Investigations has jumped into the election in a historic way. It has some questions to answer.

WASHINGTON ― FBI Director James Comey, by sending a vaguely worded letter to congressional Republicans on Friday that suggested he was re-opening the probe intoHillary Clinton’s email use, decided to become the central player in the presidential election’s final two weeks.

It was an unprecedented break with FBI practice throughout the agency’s history. But now that Comey is involved and the precedent is shattered, it looks like he has little choice but to keep talking.

“This letter is troubling because it is vaguely worded and leaves so many questions unanswered,” said four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in a letter sent Saturday. The Clinton camp, too, has been demanding Comey come forward with more information. Neither the Democratic senators nor the Clinton camp, though, have said exactly what questions they need answered.

Despite Comey’s dramatic entrance into the campaign, it’s striking how basic the remaining questions are. Here are a few.

Do you know how many emails you found? If so, how many?

There are reports that the emails number in the thousands. What is that based on? Are any of them classified? Any sent by or to Hillary Clinton? Are they duplicates of emails you’ve already read and analyzed?

Do you have access to them? Have you even seen the emails?

A letter Comey sent to FBI employees suggested the agency did not yet have access to the emails. New reporting by Michael Isikoff at Yahoo News finds that the FBI doesn’t yet have a warrant to review.

Perhaps Comey thinks that point is obvious to the public. But Donald Trump is on the campaign trail telling supporters that, without question, the FBI found something incriminating, otherwise it never would have taken such an extraordinary step. In Trump’s defense, his logic is sound. But if Comey took this step without having any idea what’s in the emails, he needs to let Trump (and everyone else) know that’s the case.

Do you plan to analyze the emails before Election Day?

The public ― and us journalists ― would kindly like to know if Comey has any more bombshells planned, or if he’s done until next Tuesday.

At this point, that’s not too much to ask.

Here Are 3 Really, Really Simple Questions The FBI Needs To Answer Fast

The fate of the nation hangs in the balance!

First off this is a lie:

It was an unprecedented break with FBI practice throughout the agency’s history. But now that Comey is involved and the precedent is shattered, it looks like he has little choice but to keep talking.

In 2006 the FBI announced an investigation against one of Andrew Cuomo's opponents 3 days before the NY Attorney General election. Nothing came of the investigation but the opponent lost big.

Second, didn't Lynch recuse herself from the Clinton investigation after her little meeting with wild willie on her airplane in AZ, saying she would go with the judgment of the FBI? Then she tries to interfere, what up with that?

Third and finally, if the clinton inc weren't so corrupt, they wouldn't have to be constantly looking over their shoulder wondering what's coming next.

No, Lynch didn't recuse herself.

So she didn't say she would leave the decisions to the FBI and prosecutors?

Video: Loretta Lynch Promises to Follow FBI Recommendations in Hillary Clinton Email Scandal

 

[paperview]

The Federal Bureau of Investigations has jumped into the election in a historic way. It has some questions to answer.

WASHINGTON ― FBI Director James Comey, by sending a vaguely worded letter to congressional Republicans on Friday that suggested he was re-opening the probe intoHillary Clinton’s email use, decided to become the central player in the presidential election’s final two weeks.

It was an unprecedented break with FBI practice throughout the agency’s history. But now that Comey is involved and the precedent is shattered, it looks like he has little choice but to keep talking.

“This letter is troubling because it is vaguely worded and leaves so many questions unanswered,” said four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in a letter sent Saturday. The Clinton camp, too, has been demanding Comey come forward with more information. Neither the Democratic senators nor the Clinton camp, though, have said exactly what questions they need answered.

Despite Comey’s dramatic entrance into the campaign, it’s striking how basic the remaining questions are. Here are a few.

Do you know how many emails you found? If so, how many?

There are reports that the emails number in the thousands. What is that based on? Are any of them classified? Any sent by or to Hillary Clinton? Are they duplicates of emails you’ve already read and analyzed?

Do you have access to them? Have you even seen the emails?

A letter Comey sent to FBI employees suggested the agency did not yet have access to the emails. New reporting by Michael Isikoff at Yahoo News finds that the FBI doesn’t yet have a warrant to review.

Perhaps Comey thinks that point is obvious to the public. But Donald Trump is on the campaign trail telling supporters that, without question, the FBI found something incriminating, otherwise it never would have taken such an extraordinary step. In Trump’s defense, his logic is sound. But if Comey took this step without having any idea what’s in the emails, he needs to let Trump (and everyone else) know that’s the case.

Do you plan to analyze the emails before Election Day?

The public ― and us journalists ― would kindly like to know if Comey has any more bombshells planned, or if he’s done until next Tuesday.

At this point, that’s not too much to ask.

Here Are 3 Really, Really Simple Questions The FBI Needs To Answer Fast

The fate of the nation hangs in the balance!

First off this is a lie:

It was an unprecedented break with FBI practice throughout the agency’s history. But now that Comey is involved and the precedent is shattered, it looks like he has little choice but to keep talking.

In 2006 the FBI announced an investigation against one of Andrew Cuomo's opponents 3 days before the NY Attorney General election. Nothing came of the investigation but the opponent lost big.

Second, didn't Lynch recuse herself from the Clinton investigation after her little meeting with wild willie on her airplane in AZ, saying she would go with the judgment of the FBI? Then she tries to interfere, what up with that?

Third and finally, if the clinton inc weren't so corrupt, they wouldn't have to be constantly looking over their shoulder wondering what's coming next.

No, Lynch didn't recuse herself.

So she didn't say she would leave the decisions to the FBI and prosecutors?

Video: Loretta Lynch Promises to Follow FBI Recommendations in Hillary Clinton Email Scandal

She did -- but she didn't recuse herself.

Difference.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Maybe if all the sock account got together and said, "Boooooooooooooosh!" this would all go away

 

[OKTexas]

The Federal Bureau of Investigations has jumped into the election in a historic way. It has some questions to answer.

WASHINGTON ― FBI Director James Comey, by sending a vaguely worded letter to congressional Republicans on Friday that suggested he was re-opening the probe intoHillary Clinton’s email use, decided to become the central player in the presidential election’s final two weeks.

It was an unprecedented break with FBI practice throughout the agency’s history. But now that Comey is involved and the precedent is shattered, it looks like he has little choice but to keep talking.

“This letter is troubling because it is vaguely worded and leaves so many questions unanswered,” said four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in a letter sent Saturday. The Clinton camp, too, has been demanding Comey come forward with more information. Neither the Democratic senators nor the Clinton camp, though, have said exactly what questions they need answered.

Despite Comey’s dramatic entrance into the campaign, it’s striking how basic the remaining questions are. Here are a few.

Do you know how many emails you found? If so, how many?

There are reports that the emails number in the thousands. What is that based on? Are any of them classified? Any sent by or to Hillary Clinton? Are they duplicates of emails you’ve already read and analyzed?

Do you have access to them? Have you even seen the emails?

A letter Comey sent to FBI employees suggested the agency did not yet have access to the emails. New reporting by Michael Isikoff at Yahoo News finds that the FBI doesn’t yet have a warrant to review.

Perhaps Comey thinks that point is obvious to the public. But Donald Trump is on the campaign trail telling supporters that, without question, the FBI found something incriminating, otherwise it never would have taken such an extraordinary step. In Trump’s defense, his logic is sound. But if Comey took this step without having any idea what’s in the emails, he needs to let Trump (and everyone else) know that’s the case.

Do you plan to analyze the emails before Election Day?

The public ― and us journalists ― would kindly like to know if Comey has any more bombshells planned, or if he’s done until next Tuesday.

At this point, that’s not too much to ask.

Here Are 3 Really, Really Simple Questions The FBI Needs To Answer Fast

The fate of the nation hangs in the balance!

First off this is a lie:

It was an unprecedented break with FBI practice throughout the agency’s history. But now that Comey is involved and the precedent is shattered, it looks like he has little choice but to keep talking.

In 2006 the FBI announced an investigation against one of Andrew Cuomo's opponents 3 days before the NY Attorney General election. Nothing came of the investigation but the opponent lost big.

Second, didn't Lynch recuse herself from the Clinton investigation after her little meeting with wild willie on her airplane in AZ, saying she would go with the judgment of the FBI? Then she tries to interfere, what up with that?

Third and finally, if the clinton inc weren't so corrupt, they wouldn't have to be constantly looking over their shoulder wondering what's coming next.

No, Lynch didn't recuse herself.

So she didn't say she would leave the decisions to the FBI and prosecutors?

Video: Loretta Lynch Promises to Follow FBI Recommendations in Hillary Clinton Email Scandal

She did -- but she didn't recuse herself.

Difference.

So tell me semantics warrior, what is it called when an official takes themselves out of the decision making loop?

 

[paperview]

The Federal Bureau of Investigations has jumped into the election in a historic way. It has some questions to answer.

WASHINGTON ― FBI Director James Comey, by sending a vaguely worded letter to congressional Republicans on Friday that suggested he was re-opening the probe intoHillary Clinton’s email use, decided to become the central player in the presidential election’s final two weeks.

It was an unprecedented break with FBI practice throughout the agency’s history. But now that Comey is involved and the precedent is shattered, it looks like he has little choice but to keep talking.

“This letter is troubling because it is vaguely worded and leaves so many questions unanswered,” said four Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee in a letter sent Saturday. The Clinton camp, too, has been demanding Comey come forward with more information. Neither the Democratic senators nor the Clinton camp, though, have said exactly what questions they need answered.

Despite Comey’s dramatic entrance into the campaign, it’s striking how basic the remaining questions are. Here are a few.

Do you know how many emails you found? If so, how many?

There are reports that the emails number in the thousands. What is that based on? Are any of them classified? Any sent by or to Hillary Clinton? Are they duplicates of emails you’ve already read and analyzed?

Do you have access to them? Have you even seen the emails?

A letter Comey sent to FBI employees suggested the agency did not yet have access to the emails. New reporting by Michael Isikoff at Yahoo News finds that the FBI doesn’t yet have a warrant to review.

Perhaps Comey thinks that point is obvious to the public. But Donald Trump is on the campaign trail telling supporters that, without question, the FBI found something incriminating, otherwise it never would have taken such an extraordinary step. In Trump’s defense, his logic is sound. But if Comey took this step without having any idea what’s in the emails, he needs to let Trump (and everyone else) know that’s the case.

Do you plan to analyze the emails before Election Day?

The public ― and us journalists ― would kindly like to know if Comey has any more bombshells planned, or if he’s done until next Tuesday.

At this point, that’s not too much to ask.

Here Are 3 Really, Really Simple Questions The FBI Needs To Answer Fast

The fate of the nation hangs in the balance!

First off this is a lie:

It was an unprecedented break with FBI practice throughout the agency’s history. But now that Comey is involved and the precedent is shattered, it looks like he has little choice but to keep talking.

In 2006 the FBI announced an investigation against one of Andrew Cuomo's opponents 3 days before the NY Attorney General election. Nothing came of the investigation but the opponent lost big.

Second, didn't Lynch recuse herself from the Clinton investigation after her little meeting with wild willie on her airplane in AZ, saying she would go with the judgment of the FBI? Then she tries to interfere, what up with that?

Third and finally, if the clinton inc weren't so corrupt, they wouldn't have to be constantly looking over their shoulder wondering what's coming next.

No, Lynch didn't recuse herself.

So she didn't say she would leave the decisions to the FBI and prosecutors?

Video: Loretta Lynch Promises to Follow FBI Recommendations in Hillary Clinton Email Scandal

She did -- but she didn't recuse herself.

Difference.

So tell me semantics warrior, what is it called when an official takes themselves out of the decision making loop?

Ask these "semantic warriors"

GOP Rep. Presses Lynch On Why She Didn't Recuse Herself

Jul 12, 2016 - During a House Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Tuesday morning, committee Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) ...

 

[OKTexas]

First off this is a lie:

In 2006 the FBI announced an investigation against one of Andrew Cuomo's opponents 3 days before the NY Attorney General election. Nothing came of the investigation but the opponent lost big.

Second, didn't Lynch recuse herself from the Clinton investigation after her little meeting with wild willie on her airplane in AZ, saying she would go with the judgment of the FBI? Then she tries to interfere, what up with that?

Third and finally, if the clinton inc weren't so corrupt, they wouldn't have to be constantly looking over their shoulder wondering what's coming next.

No, Lynch didn't recuse herself.

So she didn't say she would leave the decisions to the FBI and prosecutors?

Video: Loretta Lynch Promises to Follow FBI Recommendations in Hillary Clinton Email Scandal

She did -- but she didn't recuse herself.

Difference.

So tell me semantics warrior, what is it called when an official takes themselves out of the decision making loop?

Ask these "semantic warriors"

GOP Rep. Presses Lynch On Why She Didn't Recuse Herself

Jul 12, 2016 - During a House Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Tuesday morning, committee Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) ...

Nice to see you applauding republicans even when they ask stupid questions.

 

[paperview]

No, Lynch didn't recuse herself.

So she didn't say she would leave the decisions to the FBI and prosecutors?

Video: Loretta Lynch Promises to Follow FBI Recommendations in Hillary Clinton Email Scandal

She did -- but she didn't recuse herself.

Difference.

So tell me semantics warrior, what is it called when an official takes themselves out of the decision making loop?

Ask these "semantic warriors"

GOP Rep. Presses Lynch On Why She Didn't Recuse Herself

Jul 12, 2016 - During a House Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Tuesday morning, committee Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) ...

Nice to see you applauding republicans even when they ask stupid questions.

Weak tea, lil bee.

You can say thank you now for having been informed she did not recuse herself.

 

[OKTexas]

So she didn't say she would leave the decisions to the FBI and prosecutors?

Video: Loretta Lynch Promises to Follow FBI Recommendations in Hillary Clinton Email Scandal

She did -- but she didn't recuse herself.

Difference.

So tell me semantics warrior, what is it called when an official takes themselves out of the decision making loop?

Ask these "semantic warriors"

GOP Rep. Presses Lynch On Why She Didn't Recuse Herself

Jul 12, 2016 - During a House Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Tuesday morning, committee Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) ...

Nice to see you applauding republicans even when they ask stupid questions.

Weak tea, lil bee.

You can say thank you now for having been informed she did not recuse herself.

What's a bee got to do with tea? And experienced prosecutors and former judges have said she did. Argue your semantics with them.

 

[paperview]

She did -- but she didn't recuse herself.

Difference.

So tell me semantics warrior, what is it called when an official takes themselves out of the decision making loop?

Ask these "semantic warriors"

GOP Rep. Presses Lynch On Why She Didn't Recuse Herself

Jul 12, 2016 - During a House Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Tuesday morning, committee Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) ...

Nice to see you applauding republicans even when they ask stupid questions.

Weak tea, lil bee.

You can say thank you now for having been informed she did not recuse herself.

What's a bee got to do with tea? And experienced prosecutors and former judges have said she did. Argue your semantics with them.

That's why she testified she did not recuse herself.

 

[OKTexas]

So tell me semantics warrior, what is it called when an official takes themselves out of the decision making loop?

Ask these "semantic warriors"

GOP Rep. Presses Lynch On Why She Didn't Recuse Herself

Jul 12, 2016 - During a House Judiciary Committee hearing with Attorney General Loretta Lynch on Tuesday morning, committee Chair Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) ...

Nice to see you applauding republicans even when they ask stupid questions.

Weak tea, lil bee.

You can say thank you now for having been informed she did not recuse herself.

What's a bee got to do with tea? And experienced prosecutors and former judges have said she did. Argue your semantics with them.

That's why she testified she did not recuse herself.

What ever, this is too trivial to spend this much effort on.