House Republicans wrap their investigation into FBI's handling of Clinton and Russia probes

[eohrnberger]

"Court level evidence"? Not sure what you mean because you need an indictment or Mueller's final report to determine criminal intent. I believe that will be easily demonstrated, but of course we'll see.

OK, if not "Court level evidence" how about 'other than the court of public opinion' ?
Or perhaps 'other than some wild biased media more of then than not BS claims and accusations' ?

Take your pick.

You observe that 'we'll see'. That's accurate, but I suspect a Mueller 'whiff' if in the offing.

 

[Cardinal]

OK, if not "Court level evidence" how about 'other than the court of public opinion' ?
Or perhaps 'other than some wild biased media more of then than not BS claims and accusations' ?

Take your pick.

You observe that 'we'll see'. That's accurate, but I suspect a Mueller 'whiff' if in the offing.

What are you ranting about? I didn't say anything about the court of political opinion and wasn't referring to it in any way.

 

[eohrnberger]

What are you ranting about? I didn't say anything about the court of political opinion and wasn't referring to it in any way.

If there's one thing that sticks in my craw more than anything else on this topic, it's the disparity between the FBI's handing of the Hillary email investigation (and it breaking from established FBI policies and procedures - just for her no doubt - it was Obama's FBI and DOJ after all) and other similar high profile investigations, as well as the two tired justice system reinforced by this case, and others, when the legal principal is 'equal before the law'.

Most infuriating is that some blithely accept this two tired justice because is suits their politics.

Specific to my point in our exchange is that Mueller's investigation has garnered guilty pleas, but for minor 'process crimes' and little more, when the charter of his counter intelligence investigation was to find 'Russian Collusion' of which there hasn't been any found or presented.

 

[Cardinal]

If there's one thing that sticks in my craw more than anything else on this topic, it's the disparity between the FBI's handing of the Hillary email investigation and other similar high profile investigations, as well as the two tired justice system reinforced by this case, and others, when the legal principal is 'equal before the law'.

Most infuriating is that some blithely accept this two tired justice because is suits their politics.

Specific to my point in our exchange is that Mueller's investigation has garnered guilty pleas, but for minor 'process crimes' and little more, when the charter of his counter intelligence investigation was to find 'Russian Collusion' of which there hasn't been any found or presented.

There's no disparity. If you followed both investigations and listened to the opinions of law professionals you would have seen the demand for evidence of criminal intent in both cases.

 

[eohrnberger]

There's no disparity. If you followed both investigations and listened to the opinions of law professionals you would have seen the demand for evidence of criminal intent in both cases.

I'd have to disagree that there were no disparities. I've listed them before, in this thread, and others, and there were even more disparities and more egregious ones than the ones that I've listed.

So from my view, your claim of no disparities isn't factual. Sorry.

 

[Cardinal]

I'd have to disagree that there were no disparities. I've listed them before, in this thread, and others, and there were even more disparities and more egregious ones than the ones that I've listed.

So from my view, your claim of no disparities isn't factual. Sorry.

Well, I'd say that there's a disparity only in the sense that one investigation resulted in zero indictments and guilty pleas and the other has resulted in god-knows-how-many indictments and guilty pleas. But in both investigations the need to demonstrate criminal intent was ubiquitous.

 

[eohrnberger]

Well, I'd say that there's a disparity only in the sense that one investigation resulted in zero indictments and guilty pleas and the other has resulted in god-knows-how-many indictments and guilty pleas. But in both investigations the need to demonstrate criminal intent was ubiquitous.

I think you are only seeing only what you want to see.

You just has to ask yourself, is it compliant with established FBI procedures for a material subject of an FBI investigation to have other material witnesses in the same investigation attending the same interview?
The answer to that is obviously no. It's 'No' because the FBI would want to focus on where the witnesses recounting of the events were different.

So why was this done, permitted, during the Hillary email investigation?

If you wish to claim no discrepancies with credibility, then you'd have to demonstrate the same was done in similar high profile cases, wouldn't you?