• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Different prespective on Comey/Clinton

Faster horses

Well-known member
Sorry there's not a byline to this story. A friend ran across it on a blog. Interesting perspective.

And I got it in an email.

"Please read and consider what I wrote here before you want to kill me. The director of the FBI did America a favor. He.presented his case to We the People. I think that Comey did all he could yesterday. Should a case have gone to trial, there would be no verdict prior to the election and all of the evidence would have been kept from the public. He circumvented a corrupt criminal justice system that he knew would fail us. According to the Constitution, all citizens are her peers, but in the court of public opinion, only a majority is requred to defeat her. In a court of law, it must be unanimous . Comey presented his case today and there was truely damning evidence presented. Comey impaneled the American people today because there is no way that among 12 people there could be one that would not be compromised. He is all too familiar with the ways of the Clintons. Comey burned the rug today. This won't be swept under it. You have just received a call to jury duty. Be the captain. Speak loud. Comey did."
_________________________________

Comey is not a stupid guy. He may have been directed to "take the fall" with his Hillary announcement (we know that Loretta didn't want this thrown on her desk to preside over, even though the FBI has no authority to make decisions whether or not to prosecute crimes; they only investigate and Justice Dept decides that). However, he decided to do something out of the ordinary -- lay out and disclose all of his evidence during his Press Conference. He knew what he was doing and he knew that it would create a "firestorm" of controversy. If he had just sent everything he had to AG Lynch, it might have all gotten buried or, at least, not disclosed until long after the election. Instead, he threw it all out for the public to know.

He also knew that it would cause Congress to call for an investigation so, now, he will not just be able to go and answer their questions; he made himself available almost instantly ( tomorrow at 10 AM) full well knowing that they will want to dig even deeper, hear about more evidence and have an open-ended Q&A for the entire day if they want to. If he wanted to, he could have stalled this for a month just by saying "he's busy; send me a Subpoena or let's schedule it for a convenient time. I think Comey knew that this way the FBI's entire case will get a full public airing (and, since there isn't a prosecution pending, he can be candid and open about
anything and everything). If it went to the Justice Dept's hands, it would die a slow death there.

Nothing will be kept secret now; we'll learn about things (such as Hillary having 12 private servers) that no one even suspected existed. Comey can, literally, try this case before the public, just as he started to do laying out the key evidence just before "dropping the case", when everyone thought he was heading toward a recommendation of prosecution. The Public and Media will now get to know EVERYTHING that would or could have been presented in court if there was a prosecution (in fact, even more than what could be presented in court because there will be no rules of evidence holding him back). This hearing could be extremely eye-opening.

Like I said, Comey isn't a stupid guy and he might have just outsmarted Lynch and Obama when they told him to "kill this case". A Grand Jury might have taken 6 months or longer to accomplish, if playing "according to Hoyle", plus it is secret, except for leaks. Now nothing will be secret. Again, Comey is not stupid and he might also prove that he is no one's lacky; however, he will just "play it straight"; answer all of the questions and not have to volunteer anything. After all, Obama and Lynch can't tell him to lie to Congress. He might look foolish laying out this case when not recommending prosecution but he might be wiser beyond our thinking because now he will just be responding to questions "under oath."

That's my take on this scenario. This could come out to be the biggest fake-out in American history and, possibly, the only way to take down a liar and dishonest government official who is being "protected". It might, actually, be worse than anything Hillary and Bill ever imagined.

Who knows; maybe this will also carry into the Foundation crap as well. We will see.
 

Mike

Well-known member
(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.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
Well, like it or not, that's what we've been given, so hopefully it can be capitalized on. She's going to continue to lie like hell about the findings as she is already doing, and much of the media is going to carry her water. There's much to overcome, and hopefully, enough voters are put off.

Really hope the Clinton Foundation blows up in their face.
 

Traveler

Well-known member
This may or may not support what Faster horses has posted. We shall see....... or not. :???:

https://sharylattkisson.com/fbi-pros-question-decision-not-to-charge-hillary-clinton/

FBI Pros Question Decision Not to Charge Hillary Clinton

Screen Shot 2016-07-09 at 10.11.32 AM
If some in the general public were outraged, so were some in the FBI.

This week, FBI Director James Comey testified that Hillary Clinton and her aides had compromised classified information in an extremely careless fashion, exposed it to hostile adversaries, violated public records law, destroyed public documents (some permanently, so that they cannot be forensically recovered) and that Clinton made repeated false statements in public about her actions. But, he concluded, no charges should be filed. Clinton apparently told the FBI she didn’t understand classified markings and all the technology at issue, and that she didn’t know she was doing anything wrong. And the FBI takes her at her word.

Comey is well-respected by politicians in both political parties and by many within his own ranks. But there is new dissent after his Clinton decision, which some FBI insiders found baffling and contrary to normal practices.

“Many people at the FBI are outraged, but cannot speak out,” one insider told me.

Here are some of the observations by FBI professionals who wish to remain anonymous because their opinions could affect their job prospects:

Why wasn’t Clinton’s interview recorded? On May 22, 2014 the Justice Department announced a substantial change in policy “creating a presumption that FBI…agents will electronically record,” expressing a preference for video recordings over audio. “It appears to me they made a deal not to record,” says one observer, which flies in the face of the idea that Clinton was treated like anybody else.

Typically it’s the U.S. Attorney’s office, not FBI agents, deciding whether charges will be filed. “Director Comey seems to have taken on responsibilities far beyond the FBI’s purview–he assumed the duties of the Agent, US Attorney and Grand Jury.”

“It appears no Grand Jury was empaneled for this investigation,” says an insider. “This is absurd, Grand Juries are used in nearly all criminal investigations” and that’s where the decision is made as to whether the standard for charges has been met. (Attkisson Note: I have no information on whether or not a Grand Jury was empaneled)

A two-day turnaround between the interview with the target and a decision not to prosecute is “unheard of.” “Even in the most straightforward of cases, the time span between a target interview and prosecution opinion takes weeks, not days. If a good interview were conducted [with Clinton] on Saturday, there would have been leads or other new pieces of information to verify or investigate prior to any conclusion to the case.”

During his Congressional testimony, Comey indicated he didn’t look into Clinton’s false statements. He said he needed an additional “referral” or formal request for the FBI to investigate whether she committed perjury under oath to Congress. “This makes no sense,” said a career agent. “It is normal practice that if you came upon evidence of a crime different than the one you were originally investigating, it was fair game.”
The Director commented that it wouldn’t be fair to charge Clinton for her reckless behavior because no one else had ever been charged by the standard before. “I am not aware of any investigation where a government official went to such extreme measures to comb through the government records,” said a career FBI professional.
 

Steve

Well-known member
"Please read and consider what I wrote here before you want to kill me. The director of the FBI did America a favor. He.presented his case to We the People. I think that Comey did all he could yesterday.

for many who are not hillery fans, and have seen the hard hand of justice served on those who violate security laws.. her conduct was horrible and his statement damning..

BUT,.. for the average liberal.. all they heard was she wasn't guilty... hopefully the moderates and so-called independents can look at it objectively and make a sound decision.

something I have little hope of is the so-called independents making a sound decision. :x
 

Latest posts

Top