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.
The simple truth is that Comey and everyone else in or out of the FBI, DOJ, and every other gov't agency believed that Hillary Clinton was going to be elected the next president, and so they were trying to avoid pissing her off while at the same time doing their jobs to investigate her and her opponent. And by all accounts, she was and still is a vindictive bitch, so it couldn't have been easy.
BUT - she was guilty as sin of breaking several laws:
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
Federal Records Act
Section 1924 Of Title 18 — Classified Information
18 USC 793(f)(1) - gross negligence
And on top of all that, Obstruction of Justice. I won't say she would have been convicted, our system of justice being what it is today. And on numerous occasions, she lied her ass off to us. Proof is hard to come by with these people, as experienced as they are in hiding or destroying evidence and employing legal teams that most of us couldn't dream about.
Tell you the truth, I have no doubt there are foreign gov'ts who are less than friendly to the US that know more about her emails than we do. I have no doubt there are conversations in those emails that may not have indicated illegal activity but did show a lot of improper activities that a person who wanted to run for president wouldn't want to be known. Convenience my ass, she was hiding stuff that would have been politically damaging if not illegal. Connect the dots, that's all you gotta do.
Cool story...but IG Report just came out and I really don’t think Clinton being a president was too much of a concern.
Cool story bro...but IG Report just came out and I really don’t think Clinton being a president was too much of a concern.
Not so, the report shows FBI agents and attorneys were trying to stop Trump and provide 'insurance' in case he got elected. No...They were VERY concerned....enough to commit crimes for Hillary.
Cool story bro...but IG Report just came out and I really don’t think Clinton being a president was too much of a concern.
Not so, the report shows FBI agents and attorneys were trying to stop Trump and provide 'insurance' in case he got elected. No...They were VERY concerned....enough to commit crimes for Hillary.
Oh yea? What did they DO? What crime did they commit?
Please quote the report in your answer.
Cool story bro...but IG Report just came out and I really don’t think Clinton being a president was too much of a concern.
Not so, the report shows FBI agents and attorneys were trying to stop Trump and provide 'insurance' in case he got elected. No...They were VERY concerned....enough to commit crimes for Hillary.
Oh yea? What did they DO? What crime did they commit?
Please quote the report in your answer.
So you just admited bias, and agency issues or even worse compromised by leftist threats.You are so naive, go back and reread the emails or just ask any Saudis Sheik.In Hillary's and Podesta's emails were proof of pay to play, we also have openly public pics of money hand offs with Saudis Sheiks as part of the pay to play.During the Hillary Clinton Server Investigation official classified documents were found on her server. When the media call for the release of those documents, even the redacted versions, President Obama himself declared the documents were SO classified that 'to release them in any format would cause grave damage to our national security'.
Understood - any foreign entity being able to gain access to these documents would cause 'grave damage' to our national security'.
SO, based on the news, Hillary Clinton DID 'cause grave damage to our national security':
Hillary Clinton's Email Accessed by Foreign Actors | National Review
“Foreign actors” accessed Hillary Clinton’s emails, including one that was classified “secret,” according to a memo produced by two Republican-led House committees"
...and snowflakes STILL be like:
The Congressional Committees, the FBI, the Senate oversight committee, the Inspector General have all said that Hillary Clinton did nothing wrong and should not be charged. You might have missed that over there is Russia.
Keep repeating your lies, Ruskie!!!!
We have historical fact accounts that in 1998
Bill Clinton let Saudis' Osama Bin Laden slip through & go, when he could have arrested or taken him out. WHY IN THE WORLD WOULD YOU NOT WANT TO KNOW IF CLINTON'S PAY TO PLAY GREED LEAD TO a Saudis favor that allowed 911? Why would you want to cover up this behavior and it's possible results cause and effects?
View attachment 199554
There was no pay for play. Donations to the Clinton Foundation went to charitable work and did not go to the Clintons who take no money from the Foundation.
This is confirmed by Republican Investigations in the House and Senate, as well as investigations by the FBI and the IRS. And the Foundation’s auditors.
You are so stupid. The Senate and the House did both. They found NOTHING. The Republican Party would lock Hillary Clinton up if they could catch her jaywalking. If any evidence of pay for play existed, they’d be on it like ham on rye.
Look at the lengths they’ve gone to twist the Uranium One Deal into evidence of pay for play. Audited Financial Records for the Clinton Foundation show otherwise. Records of meetings of the approving agencies say otherwise. Logic and reason say otherwise - who pays a bribe two years after you get what you want?
28 years of accusations and investigations and still you have yet to produce a single piece of evidence, or a single witness. You have yet to prove a crime was even committed.
>>>Quote "Justice Department denies bias against the Trump Campaign"You just proved everyone's complaint on abusing power to not prosecute your party, go after opposition campaign teams, cheat and spy on them and reveal bias/double standard then have the nerve to claim no evidence of bias and post your intollerant bias in forums. Congrats, you exposed your party.And since her campaign was involved in the fake lead and charges of "Russia Russia Russia" then fake charges is a crime and the 20 million spent on the fake investigation is owed the American people by her and the DNC.hilly obstructed justice
YA THINK!!!!!!
Violations of the espionage act.
Perjury
Violations of the Records Keeping Act
and tons more.
.
Why don't we ask Flynn, Manafort, Gates, Richard Pinedo, Alex van der Zwaan, Konstantin Kilimnik and Papadolous if anything about their guilty pleas and indictments is fake.
BenghaziGate indictments - ZERO
EmailGate indictments - ZERO
SethGate indictments - ZERO
FoundationGate indictments - ZERO
UraniumOneGate indictments - ZERO
WireGate indictments - ZERO
UnmaskGate indictments - ZERO
FISAGate indictments - ZERO
SpyGate indictments - ZERO
RussiaGate indictments - 23 and counting
And you STILL have trouble telling where fake lives?
Except none of those things happened. Trump's own Justice Department denies bias against the Trump Campaign, and says that Comey’s actions harmed the Clinton campaign and benefitted Trump.
All but one of the members of Trump’s campaign who were charged have plead “guilty”, and Trump’s team lied and lied about their contact, telephone calls and meetings with Russian officials.
Three members of the Trump Campaign now report meeting with Russian government officials offering “dirt” on Hillary Clinton, although initially all denied meeting with any Russians. Those people include Roger Stone, and Don Jr.
So don’t pretend that there’s some sort of double standard going on here. Not only did Trump’s family, staffers and advisors take those meetings, not one of them reported these offers to the FBI. Instead they lied that the meetings even happened.
The American people should have been told about this BEFORE the election. In the same way that Hillary’s Email story was blasted all over the news, because ultimately Hillary did nothing illegal.
As 75+ charges and 5 guilty pleas and counting prove in spades is that the same thing cannot be said about the Trump campaign.
Cool story bro...but IG Report just came out and I really don’t think Clinton being a president was too much of a concern.
Not so, the report shows FBI agents and attorneys were trying to stop Trump and provide 'insurance' in case he got elected. No...They were VERY concerned....enough to commit crimes for Hillary.
Oh yea? What did they DO? What crime did they commit?
Please quote the report in your answer.
They let a criminal (Hillary) go free for one.
Cool story bro...but IG Report just came out and I really don’t think Clinton being a president was too much of a concern.
Not so, the report shows FBI agents and attorneys were trying to stop Trump and provide 'insurance' in case he got elected. No...They were VERY concerned....enough to commit crimes for Hillary.
Oh yea? What did they DO? What crime did they commit?
Please quote the report in your answer.
They let a criminal (Hillary) go free for one.
"They" are Strzok, who had no final say on anything. So thats not "one".
IG Report also found that "letting Hillary go" was a well justified, bias free descision based on law and department policy. So again not "one"
Anything else? Because you are still at nothing.
Cool story bro...but IG Report just came out and I really don’t think Clinton being a president was too much of a concern.
Not so, the report shows FBI agents and attorneys were trying to stop Trump and provide 'insurance' in case he got elected. No...They were VERY concerned....enough to commit crimes for Hillary.
Oh yea? What did they DO? What crime did they commit?
Please quote the report in your answer.
They let a criminal (Hillary) go free for one.
"They" are Strzok, who had no final say on anything. So thats not "one".
IG Report also found that "letting Hillary go" was a well justified, bias free descision based on law and department policy. So again not "one"
Anything else? Because you are still at nothing.
You're a liar. The IG reported what prosecutors told him, that was not his opinion. BTW Strozk, who was escorted out of the FBI headquarters today, was the lead investigator on the bitch, prosecutors only had what he provided them to base their decisions on. Ya think he might have provided bias information to them.
.
Not so, the report shows FBI agents and attorneys were trying to stop Trump and provide 'insurance' in case he got elected. No...They were VERY concerned....enough to commit crimes for Hillary.
Oh yea? What did they DO? What crime did they commit?
Please quote the report in your answer.
They let a criminal (Hillary) go free for one.
"They" are Strzok, who had no final say on anything. So thats not "one".
IG Report also found that "letting Hillary go" was a well justified, bias free descision based on law and department policy. So again not "one"
Anything else? Because you are still at nothing.
You're a liar. The IG reported what prosecutors told him, that was not his opinion. BTW Strozk, who was escorted out of the FBI headquarters today, was the lead investigator on the bitch, prosecutors only had what he provided them to base their decisions on. Ya think he might have provided bias information to them.
.
Where the hell do you pull this nonsence form? From one bullshit fabricaiton to another.
Which prosecutor told IG "We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations. Rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutor’s assessment of facts, the law and past department practice.” ?
CLEARLY IG is expressing conlusions based on review, not "this guy told me this thing, which I'm simply relaying to you"
Oh yea? What did they DO? What crime did they commit?
Please quote the report in your answer.
They let a criminal (Hillary) go free for one.
"They" are Strzok, who had no final say on anything. So thats not "one".
IG Report also found that "letting Hillary go" was a well justified, bias free descision based on law and department policy. So again not "one"
Anything else? Because you are still at nothing.
You're a liar. The IG reported what prosecutors told him, that was not his opinion. BTW Strozk, who was escorted out of the FBI headquarters today, was the lead investigator on the bitch, prosecutors only had what he provided them to base their decisions on. Ya think he might have provided bias information to them.
.
Where the hell do you pull this nonsence form? From one bullshit fabricaiton to another.
Which prosecutor told IG "We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations. Rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutor’s assessment of facts, the law and past department practice.” ?
CLEARLY IG is expressing conlusions based on review, not "this guy told me this thing, which I'm simply relaying to you"
Keep glossing over what he said in the executive summary. That they had no documentary or testimonial evidence of bias in prosecutors decisions, as in no smoking gun. Now they are investigating Strozk's conduct and they walked him out of FBI HQ today, not looking good for him or the varsity of his investigation.
.
They let a criminal (Hillary) go free for one.
"They" are Strzok, who had no final say on anything. So thats not "one".
IG Report also found that "letting Hillary go" was a well justified, bias free descision based on law and department policy. So again not "one"
Anything else? Because you are still at nothing.
You're a liar. The IG reported what prosecutors told him, that was not his opinion. BTW Strozk, who was escorted out of the FBI headquarters today, was the lead investigator on the bitch, prosecutors only had what he provided them to base their decisions on. Ya think he might have provided bias information to them.
.
Where the hell do you pull this nonsence form? From one bullshit fabricaiton to another.
Which prosecutor told IG "We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations. Rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutor’s assessment of facts, the law and past department practice.” ?
CLEARLY IG is expressing conlusions based on review, not "this guy told me this thing, which I'm simply relaying to you"
Keep glossing over what he said in the executive summary. That they had no documentary or testimonial evidence of bias in prosecutors decisions, as in no smoking gun. Now they are investigating Strozk's conduct and they walked him out of FBI HQ today, not looking good for him or the varsity of his investigation.
.
Keep making shit up. You have no clue where or why he walked, but as of now he is an FBI employee.
Clinton investigation review is over and AS TO THAT CASE, no improper descion making or bias was found.
"They" are Strzok, who had no final say on anything. So thats not "one".
IG Report also found that "letting Hillary go" was a well justified, bias free descision based on law and department policy. So again not "one"
Anything else? Because you are still at nothing.
You're a liar. The IG reported what prosecutors told him, that was not his opinion. BTW Strozk, who was escorted out of the FBI headquarters today, was the lead investigator on the bitch, prosecutors only had what he provided them to base their decisions on. Ya think he might have provided bias information to them.
.
Where the hell do you pull this nonsence form? From one bullshit fabricaiton to another.
Which prosecutor told IG "We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations. Rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutor’s assessment of facts, the law and past department practice.” ?
CLEARLY IG is expressing conlusions based on review, not "this guy told me this thing, which I'm simply relaying to you"
Keep glossing over what he said in the executive summary. That they had no documentary or testimonial evidence of bias in prosecutors decisions, as in no smoking gun. Now they are investigating Strozk's conduct and they walked him out of FBI HQ today, not looking good for him or the varsity of his investigation.
.
Keep making shit up. You have no clue where or why he walked, but as of now he is an FBI employee.
Clinton investigation review is over and AS TO THAT CASE, no improper descion making or bias was found.
You don't get escorted out of FBI HQ if you're going to lunch, you can bet he was suspended pending an OPR invesitgation. I heard it happened today, but evidently it happened Friday.
Washington (CNN)FBI agent Peter Strzok was escorted from the FBI building Friday as part of the ongoing internal proceedings at the bureau on his conduct, according to a source familiar with the matter.
FBI agent Peter Strzok escorted from FBI building Friday - CNNPolitics
.
You're a liar. The IG reported what prosecutors told him, that was not his opinion. BTW Strozk, who was escorted out of the FBI headquarters today, was the lead investigator on the bitch, prosecutors only had what he provided them to base their decisions on. Ya think he might have provided bias information to them.
.
Where the hell do you pull this nonsence form? From one bullshit fabricaiton to another.
Which prosecutor told IG "We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations. Rather, we concluded that they were based on the prosecutor’s assessment of facts, the law and past department practice.” ?
CLEARLY IG is expressing conlusions based on review, not "this guy told me this thing, which I'm simply relaying to you"
Keep glossing over what he said in the executive summary. That they had no documentary or testimonial evidence of bias in prosecutors decisions, as in no smoking gun. Now they are investigating Strozk's conduct and they walked him out of FBI HQ today, not looking good for him or the varsity of his investigation.
.
Keep making shit up. You have no clue where or why he walked, but as of now he is an FBI employee.
Clinton investigation review is over and AS TO THAT CASE, no improper descion making or bias was found.
You don't get escorted out of FBI HQ if you're going to lunch, you can bet he was suspended pending an OPR invesitgation. I heard it happened today, but evidently it happened Friday.
Washington (CNN)FBI agent Peter Strzok was escorted from the FBI building Friday as part of the ongoing internal proceedings at the bureau on his conduct, according to a source familiar with the matter.
FBI agent Peter Strzok escorted from FBI building Friday - CNNPolitics
.
Just stop talking out your ass, you've got no clue if it has any relavancy to clinton case.
Hillary deleted thousands of documents, some classified, in the crime of Obstruction to avoid prosecution. Claiming Hillary had no 'intent' after she illegally refused to comply with subpoenas and illegally destroyed classified documents and devices is BEYOND moronic and a blatant LIE.
No, I wouldn't. Because I understand how the law works.
And Hillary doesn't? That's a pretty weak argument.
You misunderstand.
Whether or not Hillary understands the law is irrelevant - she didn't break it.
She was grossly negligent which is punishable. They changed those words and we know the people investigating Hillary were Trump haters. It smells.
No one, in the history of the United States, has been prosecuted under the Espionage Act without deliberate intent to mishandle classified information.
The section of the law that includes the terms "grossly negligent" has never been used, because SCOTUS ruled that it would be unconstitutional to do so.
Thank you for demonstrating that no amount of evidence will ever get you to abandon your ridiculous defense of this career criminal and 2-time Presidential candidate LOSER!They are 'crimes' and punishable by time in prison...State department regulations are not laws.
...dumbass.
You demand 'proof' and now are going to whine and quibble about the evidence given as requested?
STFU....
No, violating state department regulations is not a "crime", and it is not punishable by time in prison.
day 2 - let me try again.except i've tried hard to keep sarcasm and hate out of it. if you really wanna go there, holler. i'm pretty damn good at it only i've found it changes nothing.
i'm far from upset. we simply disagree. quite a bit. i've tried to follow along YOUR way and provide you what YOU needed and you keep falling back to your main point of "no intent" so all is forgiven.
i totally and completely disagree and have put up links and facts around my point of which you dismiss for whatever reason you wish. i'm looking for a common ground or trying to find a basis for your thoughts on this and you're pretty much all over the map.
you asked for laws - i gave some to you. instead of clarifying the request or saying "i'm more looking for xyz" you just went to mock what i was saying and hey - intent and all. i've tried to meet you 1/2 way in finding some common ground and you keep moving the goalposts. when i get tired of following along in your game, you go NEENER NEENER I RULE.
tell me, at what point would a rational adult give up on trying to talk with your mindset when all you do is wordsmith things around and "giggle" with emotes at people trying to talk this over with you?
This is all nonsense.
You have provided one (1) statute that you claim Hillary has broken. I showed you, very explicitly, that the statute you provided requires intent for a violation. It's in plain English.
You are arguing that intent doesn't matter. That is factually incorrect. Period. Whether or not you have a different opinion, the law is clear, and your feelings don't matter.
We are discussing the law. Not how you feel, not how you're trying to meet me half way, not what you think should be true.
We know for a fact that at least on Secret document was stolen by a foreign actor.
(f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information
.
You mean the email that was hacked from one of her aide's official state.gov email address?
You can keep repeating that section as many times as you want - as the IG report made clear, there's a reason why 793(f) has never been used to prosecute anyone, without proven intent.
You guys are always crowing about a "two-tiered" justice system, benefiting the elites - how can you then claim you want Clinton prosecuted under a statute that has never been used to prosecute anyone in that way?
Doesn't matter where it was hacked, it was lost, and it wouldn't have been there had it not been removed form the secure system.
.
You're using some weird terminology here.
You understand that we didn't "lose" that information, right? We still have it.
Link to where it’s illegal to e-mail classified information.several classified emails.....watch your boy Comey's presentation.....a lot more than one.
and people have gone to jail for just one
The law was broken as soon as the information was removed from a secure place or system.
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
.
DoJ after investigation and investigation of the investigation has concluded that no charges should be brought.
Now what the fuck do you little internet dwellers think you know that DoJ does not at this point about Clinton and her emails?
It's over, time to move on with your life.
To put it simply, I wouldn't want to overwhelm you puny brain, we know everything you chose to ignore.
The bitch set up a private server to avoid federal records keeping laws.
The bitch and her minions didn't send duplicates of their communication to the State Dept Archivist, as required by law.
The bitch and her minions removed classified information from their secure networks, a violation of law.
The bitch and her minions sent and received classified information over an unsecure network and stored classified information on that network, a violation of law.
The bitch communicated with the POTUS over an unsecure system, every communication with a president is classified automatically. Therefore both violated the law with regards to security.
Comey laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence while ignoring all the points of intent. Having the server to avoid records keeping laws, false exculpatory statements made by the bitch to congress, the destruction of records under a congressional order to preserve and the destruction of devices under order to preserve.
No we have the documented bias of the people in charge of the investigation.
Which explains why immunity was handed out like candy at Halloween, why subpoenas weren't issued and why a grand jury wasn't utilized, as in all other large scale investigations.
There are many more details, but you're not worth the effort when you're going to ignore it anyway.
.
Hey dummy, what part of NO BIAS found in treatment of Clinton case do you not understand?
IG Report is concluded and that’s what it found. Case was brought to a proper conclusion.
Game Over. There is no next act here. No review of the review. Get it through your thick head and move on.
The law was broken as soon as the information was removed from a secure place or system.
18 U.S. Code § 1924 - Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or material
.
DoJ after investigation and investigation of the investigation has concluded that no charges should be brought.
Now what the fuck do you little internet dwellers think you know that DoJ does not at this point about Clinton and her emails?
It's over, time to move on with your life.
To put it simply, I wouldn't want to overwhelm you puny brain, we know everything you chose to ignore.
The bitch set up a private server to avoid federal records keeping laws.
The bitch and her minions didn't send duplicates of their communication to the State Dept Archivist, as required by law.
The bitch and her minions removed classified information from their secure networks, a violation of law.
The bitch and her minions sent and received classified information over an unsecure network and stored classified information on that network, a violation of law.
The bitch communicated with the POTUS over an unsecure system, every communication with a president is classified automatically. Therefore both violated the law with regards to security.
Comey laid out a prima facie case for gross negligence while ignoring all the points of intent. Having the server to avoid records keeping laws, false exculpatory statements made by the bitch to congress, the destruction of records under a congressional order to preserve and the destruction of devices under order to preserve.
No we have the documented bias of the people in charge of the investigation.
Which explains why immunity was handed out like candy at Halloween, why subpoenas weren't issued and why a grand jury wasn't utilized, as in all other large scale investigations.
There are many more details, but you're not worth the effort when you're going to ignore it anyway.
.
Hey dummy, what part of NO BIAS found in treatment of Clinton case do you not understand?
IG Report is concluded and that’s what it found. Case was brought to a proper conclusion.
Game Over. There is no next act here. No review of the review. Get it through your thick head and move on.
What did you fail to understand that the IG said there was no DOCUMENTED bias, meaning no one was stupid enough to put in writing or personally tell someone they were tanking the investigation, there was no smoking gun. There is adequate proof that bias existed, more than 50 FBI officials leaking to the press, multiple people were disparaging Trump and his supporters. Circumstantial evidence is still evidence.
.
Stop posting bullshit, the exact quote is:
"We found no evidence that the conclusions by department prosecutors were affected by bias or other improper considerations. Rather we determined that they were based on the prosecutors' assesment of the facts, the law, and past department practice"
It doesn't get any clearer than that and you'll have to find a more sane way to deal.
