• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FBI director could appear before lawmakers to explain Clinton decision

Anthony60

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
24,991
Reaction score
8,398
Location
Northern New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
FBI director could appear before lawmakers to explain Clinton decision
FBI director could appear before lawmakers to explain Clinton decision | Fox News

FBI Director James Comey took no questions after his bombshell announcement Tuesday that he would not recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton over her private email system, but he - and his boss - may soon answer to lawmakers.

Thinking this needs a new thread...
 
He will be testifying before Congress tomorrow.
 
I suspect that Comey will say that he accepted the decision offered by career prosecutors. After all, no matter what evidence was uncovered, if prosecutors aren't willing to go forward, the evidence has basically been dismissed. It would seem more appropriate to question the career prosecutors who found the evidence presented inadequate to proceed. No, that doesn't mean Loretta Lynch. It means the career prosecutors themselves. They're the ones who made the decision, or so everyone in this administration maintains.
 
FBI director could appear before lawmakers to explain Clinton decision


FBI Director James Comey took no questions after his bombshell announcement Tuesday that he would not recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton over her private email system, but he - and his boss - may soon answer to lawmakers.

Thinking this needs a new thread...



Fox News and the GOP lawmakers are wasting their time.They'll get nowhere with this BS.

Wait and see.
 
I suspect that Comey will say that he accepted the decision offered by career prosecutors. After all, no matter what evidence was uncovered, if prosecutors aren't willing to go forward, the evidence has basically been dismissed. It would seem more appropriate to question the career prosecutors who found the evidence presented inadequate to proceed. No, that doesn't mean Loretta Lynch. It means the career prosecutors themselves. They're the ones who made the decision, or so everyone in this administration maintains.

Then they need to be question if they refuse then disbarred for obstruction of justice along with lynch.
They should all be arrested for felonies.

Lynch had already said numerous times that no matter what happened the doj would not prosecute.
She probably threatened all of her staff with their jobs if they did.

This needs a full congressional hearing and if anyone attempts to plead the 5th they are arrested on obstruction, collusion and corruption charges.
 
FBI director could appear before lawmakers to explain Clinton decision
FBI director could appear before lawmakers to explain Clinton decision | Fox News

FBI Director James Comey took no questions after his bombshell announcement Tuesday that he would not recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton over her private email system, but he - and his boss - may soon answer to lawmakers.

Thinking this needs a new thread...

I will be interested to gain some clarity on the "intent" aspect of the FBI's decision. I'm no expert, but the claim there was no intent on the part of Hilary and her crew, and thus, no case, is a curious one.
 
Then they need to be question if they refuse then disbarred for obstruction of justice along with lynch.
They should all be arrested for felonies.

Lynch had already said numerous times that no matter what happened the doj would not prosecute.
She probably threatened all of her staff with their jobs if they did.

This needs a full congressional hearing and if anyone attempts to plead the 5th they are arrested on obstruction, collusion and corruption charges.

I agree, but you have to know that this will never happen. Who's gonna prosecute the prosecutors? Congress can't. It's a done deal. There's tons of campaign fodder, but nothing to do legally. That the Justice department is completely in the tank for the party in power is not new, but we rarely see a display of it in such stark terms. It's a demonstration of raw political power at the expense of the public at large. In short, it's a giant "**** YOU" to America, because we can.
 
Has anyone heard about her staff? Are they cleared by association?

I suppose Comey can just do a "G men don't lie" thing, and tell the committee that Justice told him they were going to bury his report and the least he could do is make the facts public. Maybe Comey using the phrase "a reasonable prosecutor" is a homage to Clinton's "It depends on what the definition of 'reasonable' is", LOL

And there is nothing about the Clinton Foundation.
 
Has anyone heard about her staff? Are they cleared by association?

I suppose Comey can just do a "G men don't lie" thing, and tell the committee that Justice told him they were going to bury his report and the least he could do is make the facts public. Maybe Comey using the phrase "a reasonable prosecutor" is a homage to Clinton's "It depends on what the definition of 'reasonable' is", LOL

And there is nothing about the Clinton Foundation.

That's a separate investigation. Expect the same result.
 
I suspect that Comey will say that he accepted the decision offered by career prosecutors. After all, no matter what evidence was uncovered, if prosecutors aren't willing to go forward, the evidence has basically been dismissed. It would seem more appropriate to question the career prosecutors who found the evidence presented inadequate to proceed. No, that doesn't mean Loretta Lynch. It means the career prosecutors themselves. They're the ones who made the decision, or so everyone in this administration maintains.

Didn't a significant number of career prosecutors ditch the DOJ after Eric Holder became AG (after the Philly New Black Panthers voter intimidation thing)?
 
Fox News and the GOP lawmakers are wasting their time.They'll get nowhere with this BS.

Wait and see.

What's the BS? Comey may have raised more questions than he answered. You afraid of what the truth might be?
 
I will be interested to gain some clarity on the "intent" aspect of the FBI's decision. I'm no expert, but the claim there was no intent on the part of Hilary and her crew, and thus, no case, is a curious one.

Yes, especially when intent is not required to bring a case, and he said they weren't going to bring a case because of lack of intent. That needs an explanation.
 
I will be interested to gain some clarity on the "intent" aspect of the FBI's decision. I'm no expert, but the claim there was no intent on the part of Hilary and her crew, and thus, no case, is a curious one.

One without founding, if you ask me. The simple logic is inescapable.

Did Hillary accidentally order the installation, configuration, and on going system administration of her private servers?
I think not. That was most certainly purposeful and with intent.

Hillary knew that she was going to send and receive classified materials via email as part of her role as SoS. To think that she didn't know this would be is not credible.

Her exclusive use of this email and these servers it was a certainty that they would handling, passing and storing classified materials.

1 + 1 + 1 = 3

Hillary grossly mishandled classified materials on purpose and with intent, with the result and impact of putting the national security at risk.

Did I miss anything?
 
What's the BS? Comey may have raised more questions than he answered. You afraid of what the truth might be?

Is this you supporting infinite investigations?
 
What's the BS? Comey may have raised more questions than he answered. You afraid of what the truth might be?

I'm wondering if that wasn't Comey's objective.
 
Is this you supporting infinite investigations?

Until we get to the bottom of it, yes. Its called, "checks and balances". Its Congress's job. Keeping politicians honest is probably the most important job Congress has.
 
Until we get to the bottom of it, yes. Its called, "checks and balances". Its Congress's job. Keeping politicians honest is probably the most important job Congress has.

See, here's the problem.

They got to the bottom of it. What you really want is to skip the whole investigation thing and just convict the woman because you'd decided the "truth" long before the investigation even started.
 
FBI director could appear before lawmakers to explain Clinton decision
FBI director could appear before lawmakers to explain Clinton decision | Fox News

FBI Director James Comey took no questions after his bombshell announcement Tuesday that he would not recommend criminal charges against Hillary Clinton over her private email system, but he - and his boss - may soon answer to lawmakers.

Thinking this needs a new thread...
Trey Gowdy better not be at the helm. If there's one person who could never find the truth while generating sympathy for the accused it's that clown. He's awful.
 
I'm wondering if that wasn't Comey's objective.

Yes, it's possible. He may have said that he'll follow orders, but he won't lie before Congress. And maybe he tailored the announcement that way, because he lays out the case against her, then says no case at the end. He had to know that Congress would question him.
 
Trey Gowdy better not be at the helm. If there's one person who could never find the truth while generating sympathy for the accused it's that clown. He's awful.

Hopefully, Ted Cruz will be asking the questions.
 
See, here's the problem.

They got to the bottom of it. What you really want is to skip the whole investigation thing and just convict the woman because you'd decided the "truth" long before the investigation even started.

Comey's statement alone seems to indicate gross negligence on the part of Clinton, at the very least.
 
See, here's the problem.

They got to the bottom of it. What you really want is to skip the whole investigation thing and just convict the woman because you'd decided the "truth" long before the investigation even started.

Um, no, they didn't get to the bottom of it. Comey explicitly stated that she broke the law, but refuses to recommend a charge.
 
Didn't a significant number of career prosecutors ditch the DOJ after Eric Holder became AG (after the Philly New Black Panthers voter intimidation thing)?

I know of some. Whether that qualifies as significant or not probably depends on who you talk to. I view any departure from a career at Justice over principle as significant, but obviously others don't, or justice wouldn't be defined by the party in power.
 
Yes, it's possible. He may have said that he'll follow orders, but he won't lie before Congress. And maybe he tailored the announcement that way, because he lays out the case against her, then says no case at the end. He had to know that Congress would question him.

It appears that he was taking the monkey off his back. There's no way he could believe that he wouldn't be called in front of Congress.
 
Back
Top Bottom