Equal treatment? No, not if you are the presumed electee.

limblips

Well-Known Member
In fact, the IG wrote, FBI officials fretted about how many FBI representatives should be at the interview, for fear of prejudicing Clinton against the agency if, as expected, she went on to become president.
he might be our next president," FBI attorney Lisa Page wrote, in urging that the number of people at the interview be limited to four or six. "The last thing you need us going in there loaded for bear. You think she’s going to remember or care that it was more doj than fbi?”

The link: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fl...estioning-that-led-to-false-statements-charge



And trans, sapsack, mr before you call out the source note that the lisa page comment is a quote, not a editorial comment. The FBI and DOJ colluded against Trumps people.
 

luvmygdaughters

Well-Known Member
And Bill Clinton swore he "Never had sex with that woman", Obama said "If you like your Dr. you can keep your Dr." Should I go on??
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
And she was cleared of criminal wrongdoing.

You didn't read or listen to the FBI director's comments, did you?

Director Comey said:
...seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails).

... Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it.

...there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information...

Lots of wrong-doing. The FBI specifically said that it is unreasonable to imagine Clinton didn't know she was violating statutes, the results of which likely released information to foreign actors that would cause extreme damage to the national security (by definition). The fact they knew at the time that the server had Chinese spyware installed, while also stating that they had no evidence of hacking suggests the spyware was intentionally installed, and released information to the Chinese. Given the Clintons' history with the Chinese, (selling missile technology to remove our strategic advantage), it's most likely (though not provable) that it was put there intentionally.

So, no, you're wrong.
 

Salmon

Well-Known Member
You didn't read or listen to the FBI director's comments, did

Lots of wrong-doing. The FBI specifically said that it is unreasonable to imagine Clinton didn't know she was violating statutes, the results of which likely released information to foreign actors that would cause extreme damage to the national security (by definition). The fact they knew at the time that the server had Chinese spyware installed, while also stating that they had no evidence of hacking suggests the spyware was intentionally installed, and released information to the Chinese. Given the Clintons' history with the Chinese, (selling missile technology to remove our strategic advantage), it's most likely (though not provable) that it was put there intentionally.

So, no, you're wrong.
“Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," he said
 

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
“Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," he said


:bs:


Comey was covering for Hillary
 

Grumpy

Well-Known Member
Comey was a registered Republican at the time. He sees now that there’s no room for integrity in the GOP.

Comey was covering for himself; regardless of the party, they all thought with 99% certainty that Hillary would be president and they certainly wanted to score points with the thought-to-be incoming Prez. The integrity you see in them is all blown to hell with their ill-planned Russia collusion scam. How does it feel to be so thoroughly duped by your heros?
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
“Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," he said

Of course not. No reasonable prosecutor has ever brought a case against the Clintons and lived to tell about it.

But, not bringing a case has nothing to do with your statement that she was "cleared". He detailed a long list of illegal activity that likely caused extreme damage to the national security - all done by a person who reasonably should have known better but did not. That's not "clearing" of wrongdoing, that's keeping Comey alive.
 

BOP

Well-Known Member
Comey was a registered Republican at the time. He sees now that there’s no room for integrity in the GOP.

You're getting stupider by the post. You better quit while you have any brain cells left.
 

officeguy

Well-Known Member
“Although there is evidence of potential violations regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case," he said

Then why didn't he leave that judgement to person whose job it is to make it ? Had he allowed his underlings to do what they usually do and forward the file to the US attorneys office, he wouldn't be open to the justified criticism that he subverted the process. The prosecutor has discretion on what he prosecutes, the cop doesn't.
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
Then why didn't he leave that judgement to person whose job it is to make it ?

Exactly. When a jury foreman reads a verdict, they don't explain their reasoning. They just deliver it.


Why on earth would he need ANY editorializing? Just say, nope, we're done.
 

This_person

Well-Known Member
Then why didn't he leave that judgement to person whose job it is to make it ? Had he allowed his underlings to do what they usually do and forward the file to the US attorneys office, he wouldn't be open to the justified criticism that he subverted the process. The prosecutor has discretion on what he prosecutes, the cop doesn't.

Lynch had better protection at the time, so they pressured him into it. That's my best guess.
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
Of course Comey is no Judge and Jury and his exoneration will not give her e right to plead "double jeopardy" and any real Attorney General should reopen the case and place it before a real Judge and jury. Especially now when the phony Attorney's general working for states but delving into Federal courts because of their TDS and Soros backing are determined to help the Democrats in their coup attempt.
 
Top