Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No it doesn’t. The wording of the report was changed to reflect their legal conclusions, not the other way around.Im not worried yet. The IG report was just a few months ago.
Why when Strzok, changed the final report on the Hillary investigation, so that she would be left off the hook for her crimes, did not one FBI agent comment on the way that the report was changed without any reason given or anyone taking official responsibility for the action?
You’re bringing up irrelevant details. The decision not to prosecute Clinton was made after thorough review of all the evidence and relevant statutes. An edit in a report had nothing to do with that decision.
That the conclusion of the report, stated in the language used by the law, that she committed the act that broke the law, and yet the fbi, was not going to prosecute, was bad enough.
That the report was changed to change the final FINDINGS, of the report, and no one spoke out asking who or why that happened,
strongly indicates systemic political corruption of the FBI.
The wording is irrelevant. They had decided not to indict her based on the facts of the case.
They decided to not indict her, despite the findings that she broke the law.
Strzok changed the wording AFTER that, and everyone involved just let it slide, no questions asked.
And that reflects on the organization as a whole.
They let her off because she has dirt on everyone in the swamp and they know it........No it doesn’t. The wording of the report was changed to reflect their legal conclusions, not the other way around.Why when Strzok, changed the final report on the Hillary investigation, so that she would be left off the hook for her crimes, did not one FBI agent comment on the way that the report was changed without any reason given or anyone taking official responsibility for the action?
You’re bringing up irrelevant details. The decision not to prosecute Clinton was made after thorough review of all the evidence and relevant statutes. An edit in a report had nothing to do with that decision.
That the conclusion of the report, stated in the language used by the law, that she committed the act that broke the law, and yet the fbi, was not going to prosecute, was bad enough.
That the report was changed to change the final FINDINGS, of the report, and no one spoke out asking who or why that happened,
strongly indicates systemic political corruption of the FBI.
The wording is irrelevant. They had decided not to indict her based on the facts of the case.
They decided to not indict her, despite the findings that she broke the law.
Strzok changed the wording AFTER that, and everyone involved just let it slide, no questions asked.
And that reflects on the organization as a whole.
No. They didn’t find she broke the law. No one that wrote the statement thought she broke the law. Everyone “let it slide” because they all agreed with the conclusion that she didn’t break the law. You’re clinging to this minute detail and blowing it out of proportion because that’s all you have.
Trumpers seem to have gotten lost
This isn't about Sztrok or Clinton...it's about McCabe...who a Grand Jury refused to indict.
This only came up now..(months after that and against DOJ policy) because Billy the Bagman wants to contrast it with Stone
the grand jury failed to indict him 2 to 3 different times that the Barr DOJ tried.... so it wasn't like they did not make an effort for the president, to indict him on some thing, any thing.... but the grand jury found no evidence to support charging him with any of the alleged crimes the prosecutor put forth...Trumpers seem to have gotten lost
This isn't about Sztrok or Clinton...it's about McCabe...who a Grand Jury refused to indict.
This only came up now..(months after that and against DOJ policy) because Billy the Bagman wants to contrast it with Stone
How is this even relevant? McCabe is no longer employed by the government either. What in the wide world of sports are you babbling about ...?If it wasn't for Double Standards.......the Dems wouldn't have any standards at all.
She had the same security clearance as he did...................But didn't have the NEED TO KNOW.......and for showing a notebook................the Gov't ENDED HIS CAREER.........
Just a small example of the UNEQUAL PROSECUTION of the law.................Maybe he should have slept with Hillary................BARF.........then it wouldn't have ended his career.
Those groups of people are ALL TIED TO ALL THESE THINGS...........including the investigation of Clinton......They were ALL PART OF LETTING HILLARY OFF THE HOOK...............even though she was guilty as sin..........Trumpers seem to have gotten lost
This isn't about Sztrok or Clinton...it's about McCabe...who a Grand Jury refused to indict.
This only came up now..(months after that and against DOJ policy) because Billy the Bagman wants to contrast it with Stone
No it doesn’t. The wording of the report was changed to reflect their legal conclusions, not the other way around.Why when Strzok, changed the final report on the Hillary investigation, so that she would be left off the hook for her crimes, did not one FBI agent comment on the way that the report was changed without any reason given or anyone taking official responsibility for the action?
You’re bringing up irrelevant details. The decision not to prosecute Clinton was made after thorough review of all the evidence and relevant statutes. An edit in a report had nothing to do with that decision.
That the conclusion of the report, stated in the language used by the law, that she committed the act that broke the law, and yet the fbi, was not going to prosecute, was bad enough.
That the report was changed to change the final FINDINGS, of the report, and no one spoke out asking who or why that happened,
strongly indicates systemic political corruption of the FBI.
The wording is irrelevant. They had decided not to indict her based on the facts of the case.
They decided to not indict her, despite the findings that she broke the law.
Strzok changed the wording AFTER that, and everyone involved just let it slide, no questions asked.
And that reflects on the organization as a whole.
No. They didn’t find she broke the law. No one that wrote the statement thought she broke the law. Everyone “let it slide” because they all agreed with the conclusion that she didn’t break the law. You’re clinging to this minute detail and blowing it out of proportion because that’s all you have.
The discussion was unequal application of our LAWS and HILLARY...............How is this even relevant? McCabe is no longer employed by the government either. What in the wide world of sports are you babbling about ...?If it wasn't for Double Standards.......the Dems wouldn't have any standards at all.
She had the same security clearance as he did...................But didn't have the NEED TO KNOW.......and for showing a notebook................the Gov't ENDED HIS CAREER.........
Just a small example of the UNEQUAL PROSECUTION of the law.................Maybe he should have slept with Hillary................BARF.........then it wouldn't have ended his career.
No it doesn’t. The wording of the report was changed to reflect their legal conclusions, not the other way around.You’re bringing up irrelevant details. The decision not to prosecute Clinton was made after thorough review of all the evidence and relevant statutes. An edit in a report had nothing to do with that decision.
That the conclusion of the report, stated in the language used by the law, that she committed the act that broke the law, and yet the fbi, was not going to prosecute, was bad enough.
That the report was changed to change the final FINDINGS, of the report, and no one spoke out asking who or why that happened,
strongly indicates systemic political corruption of the FBI.
The wording is irrelevant. They had decided not to indict her based on the facts of the case.
They decided to not indict her, despite the findings that she broke the law.
Strzok changed the wording AFTER that, and everyone involved just let it slide, no questions asked.
And that reflects on the organization as a whole.
No. They didn’t find she broke the law. No one that wrote the statement thought she broke the law. Everyone “let it slide” because they all agreed with the conclusion that she didn’t break the law. You’re clinging to this minute detail and blowing it out of proportion because that’s all you have.
The wording of the final report and the wording of the law is clear. She broke the law. And the FBI choose to let it slide.
Strzok changed the wording AFTER that.
No she didn't. I am not going to debate with a delusional freak who states his own fantasies as fact.Yet Hillary committed 110 FELONIES and didn't get tried...
Then iggy me you Wanker....................because the documents we can provide have actual court rulings to what was done..........No she didn't. I am not going to debate with a delusional freak who states his own fantasies as fact.Yet Hillary committed 110 FELONIES and didn't get tried...
No it doesn’t. The wording of the report was changed to reflect their legal conclusions, not the other way around.That the conclusion of the report, stated in the language used by the law, that she committed the act that broke the law, and yet the fbi, was not going to prosecute, was bad enough.
That the report was changed to change the final FINDINGS, of the report, and no one spoke out asking who or why that happened,
strongly indicates systemic political corruption of the FBI.
The wording is irrelevant. They had decided not to indict her based on the facts of the case.
They decided to not indict her, despite the findings that she broke the law.
Strzok changed the wording AFTER that, and everyone involved just let it slide, no questions asked.
And that reflects on the organization as a whole.
No. They didn’t find she broke the law. No one that wrote the statement thought she broke the law. Everyone “let it slide” because they all agreed with the conclusion that she didn’t break the law. You’re clinging to this minute detail and blowing it out of proportion because that’s all you have.
The wording of the final report and the wording of the law is clear. She broke the law. And the FBI choose to let it slide.
Strzok changed the wording AFTER that.
You’re confusing a few issues. Strzok changed the wording of a draft of a statement Comey made at his press conference. The wording was changed in the draft because it did not reflect their legal conclusions. The draft was edited by the highest level FBI team on the case and no one involved in that statement thought there was a case against Clinton.
It was never the final wording and it was not in the report. You have your facts mistaken.
seek helpThose groups of people are ALL TIED TO ALL THESE THINGS...........including the investigation of Clinton......They were ALL PART OF LETTING HILLARY OFF THE HOOK...............even though she was guilty as sin..........Trumpers seem to have gotten lost
This isn't about Sztrok or Clinton...it's about McCabe...who a Grand Jury refused to indict.
This only came up now..(months after that and against DOJ policy) because Billy the Bagman wants to contrast it with Stone
We can go to the Obama years......and the ABUSE OF FISA............SHALL WE.....
The Uncovering – Mike Rogers’ Investigation, Section 702 FISA...
They were using the FISA courts as a Weapon long before Trump was even on the scene..........
The FISA warrants on Page WERE ILLEGAL............PERIOD..........
LOLseek helpThose groups of people are ALL TIED TO ALL THESE THINGS...........including the investigation of Clinton......They were ALL PART OF LETTING HILLARY OFF THE HOOK...............even though she was guilty as sin..........Trumpers seem to have gotten lost
This isn't about Sztrok or Clinton...it's about McCabe...who a Grand Jury refused to indict.
This only came up now..(months after that and against DOJ policy) because Billy the Bagman wants to contrast it with Stone
We can go to the Obama years......and the ABUSE OF FISA............SHALL WE.....
The Uncovering – Mike Rogers’ Investigation, Section 702 FISA...
They were using the FISA courts as a Weapon long before Trump was even on the scene..........
The FISA warrants on Page WERE ILLEGAL............PERIOD..........
The prosecutors seeking to find a crime on McCabe, are BARR PICKED TRUMP SUPPORTING PROSECUTORS..... not Stzrok or McCabe or Comey or the FBI.... silly silly silly one! With a newly picked grand jury.....
The
Gawd, you really need some help... you can't even discern simple differences that matter....US woman gets five years in prison for leaking NSA document
The former Air Force translator worked as a contractor at a National Security Agency (NSA) office in Augusta, Georgia, when she printed a classified report and left the building with it. Winner told the FBI she mailed the document to an online news outlet.
In court on Thursday, Winner apologised and acknowledged that what she did was wrong, taking responsibility for "an undeniable mistake that I made".
"I would like to apologise profusely for my actions," she told the judge. "My actions were a cruel betrayal of my nation's trust in me."
Authorities never identified the news organisation.
The Justice Department announced Winner's June 2017 arrest the same day The Intercept reported on a secret NSA document.
AND YET THESE GUYS..........NOTHING.
No it doesn’t. The wording of the report was changed to reflect their legal conclusions, not the other way around.
The wording is irrelevant. They had decided not to indict her based on the facts of the case.
They decided to not indict her, despite the findings that she broke the law.
Strzok changed the wording AFTER that, and everyone involved just let it slide, no questions asked.
And that reflects on the organization as a whole.
No. They didn’t find she broke the law. No one that wrote the statement thought she broke the law. Everyone “let it slide” because they all agreed with the conclusion that she didn’t break the law. You’re clinging to this minute detail and blowing it out of proportion because that’s all you have.
The wording of the final report and the wording of the law is clear. She broke the law. And the FBI choose to let it slide.
Strzok changed the wording AFTER that.
You’re confusing a few issues. Strzok changed the wording of a draft of a statement Comey made at his press conference. The wording was changed in the draft because it did not reflect their legal conclusions. The draft was edited by the highest level FBI team on the case and no one involved in that statement thought there was a case against Clinton.
It was never the final wording and it was not in the report. You have your facts mistaken.
If the wording never showed that there was a case against CLinton, then why would it have to be changed to reflect the legal conclusions? Your words there. And they don't make sense.
BS............Gawd, you really need some help... you can't even discern simple differences that matter....US woman gets five years in prison for leaking NSA document
The former Air Force translator worked as a contractor at a National Security Agency (NSA) office in Augusta, Georgia, when she printed a classified report and left the building with it. Winner told the FBI she mailed the document to an online news outlet.
In court on Thursday, Winner apologised and acknowledged that what she did was wrong, taking responsibility for "an undeniable mistake that I made".
"I would like to apologise profusely for my actions," she told the judge. "My actions were a cruel betrayal of my nation's trust in me."
Authorities never identified the news organisation.
The Justice Department announced Winner's June 2017 arrest the same day The Intercept reported on a secret NSA document.
AND YET THESE GUYS..........NOTHING.
Winner STOLE the top secret documents, with the INTENT to pass the top secret information on to a newspaper.
Clinton did no such thing... there was absolutely no INTENT to hand deliver, personally stolen top secret information over to the newspaper or enemies....
YOU ARE CLUELESS, and ranting on like a madman without a head..... seriously.... your comparisons, even for the patraeus situation which Comey testified before congress, was much much much much worse than what Hillary did,
and Patraeus only got a slap on the wrist misdemeanor with no jail time in a plea deal...
