GOP calls FBI head Comey to testify this week

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xuenchen

See. I told ya you guys were setting us up for another Benghazi.

Thanks for admitting it.

a reply to: neo96

I don't recall mentioning anyone by name.

True. You hide behind the T&C's and like to take pot-shots, when we know exactly who and what you are referring to.

I don't recall mentioning anyone by name.

Back to the TOPIC was about congress and FBI director having a fire side chat.

originally posted by: BlueAjah
a reply to: St Udio

I think he worded things very carefully. He spelled out that she broke the law, according to legal experts. Everyone is puzzled, but I think he was smart.

It is possible that he worded it so that he could "pass the buck" to someone else with more authority, while staying out of the way, to save his own career. Probably thinks to himself "I'm not touching this one. It's a hot potato."

a reply to: neo96

Like I said originally, the GOP is going to attempt to make this another Benghazi hearing.

Waste of time and money.

Edit:

I don't recall mentioning anyone by name.

You are still calling members a troll simply for disagreeing with you. If you can't discuss a topic without calling people trolls, perhaps you need to work on your debate skills.

a reply to: introvert

And clearly someone didn't bother to read the last part of the OP.

That was found here.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

So WHAT is it going to come down to?

Congressional hearings or at the voting booth.

My guess is the latter.

a reply to: neo96

I read that. It's your opinion.

My opinion is that the GOP will try to make this another Benghazi.

What are you not understanding?

Did I say that you, personally, wanted another Benghazi-like investigation? No.

Jesus...pay attention.

a reply to: neo96

Our system is broken as long as we have one set of rules for the Elites and another set of rules for the rest of us. We need real justice here to restore our confidence. Whether it is bankers or politicians this BS needs to end NOW.

Both Trump and Clinton are Impeachments-Waiting-To-Happen. Doesn't matter if either one of them keeps their nose squeaky clean from the inauguration forward, there is so much dirt on them both, so many favors paid for in advance, so much corrupt money floating around, so many idiotic comments still to come home to roost, that it's inevitable that their terms in office will be a morass of congressional investigations, special prosecutors and tell-all books.

Watch who they 'pick' for their VP - a usually almost completely unvetted soul who may very well end up in power.

Watch what happens over HERE, while your attention is focused THERE...

a reply to: Metallicus


Amen to that Metallicus! Trump may severely disrupt the political fabric of this country, but in the process, a lot of bullchit will be snuffed out. We need to PROVE that we're not SHEEP!

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: neo96

Our system is broken as long as we have one set of rules for the Elites and another set of rules for the rest of us. We need real justice here to restore our confidence. Whether it is bankers or politicians this BS needs to end NOW.

What set of rules was applied to this case that we have not seen numerous times in others?

80% of cases like this are never prosecuted because certain circumstances must exist. So it appears that they DoJ has a pretty consistent record of applying the rules.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: neo96

Our system is broken as long as we have one set of rules for the Elites and another set of rules for the rest of us. We need real justice here to restore our confidence. Whether it is bankers or politicians this BS needs to end NOW.

We'll always have a system with one set of rules for the Elites and another set of rules for the rest of us, as long as people only demand justice when 'the other party' benefits from the system.

Apparently, no one around here cares to take that seriously but nothing will ever change until that changes. I may as well just accept that the system will never change and save my breath.

a reply to: introvert

80% of cases like this are never prosecuted because certain circumstances must exist. So it appears that they DoJ has a pretty consistent record of applying the rules.

Sounds like an OPINION trying to be passed off as a FACT.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: neo96

Our system is broken as long as we have one set of rules for the Elites and another set of rules for the rest of us. We need real justice here to restore our confidence. Whether it is bankers or politicians this BS needs to end NOW.

What set of rules was applied to this case that we have not seen numerous times in others?

80% of cases like this are never prosecuted because certain circumstances must exist. So it appears that they DoJ has a pretty consistent record of applying the rules.

Your post is the kind of political doublespeak and BS that people have had enough of in my opinion. The fact is that you and I would have been charged given the same circumstances and if you can't admit that then you are just too brainwashed by partisan politics to be saved.

a reply to: carewemust

But modern day people are...

People stand up for the rights of transgender people, but when it's about democracy and making sure the laws are being respected, they don't give a damn, because that's just how things are...it's just politics...

99% of people are unconscious and functioning on autopilot...

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

80% of cases like this are never prosecuted because certain circumstances must exist. So it appears that they DoJ has a pretty consistent record of applying the rules.

Sounds like an OPINION trying to be passed off as a FACT.

Between 2011 and 2015, federal prosecutors disposed of 30 referrals from investigators in cases where the main proposed charge was misdemeanor mishandling of classified information, according to data obtained from the Justice Department by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Prosecution was declined in 80 percent of those cases. Of the six where charges were filed, all the defendants apparently pled guilty, the data show. Read more: www.politico.com... Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

You were saying?

a reply to: Metallicus

Your post is the kind of political doublespeak and BS that people have had enough of in my opinion. The fact is that you and I would have been charged given the same circumstances and if you can't admit that then you are just too brainwashed by partisan politics to be saved.

I'll quote the same stuff I did for Neo.

Between 2011 and 2015, federal prosecutors disposed of 30 referrals from investigators in cases where the main proposed charge was misdemeanor mishandling of classified information, according to data obtained from the Justice Department by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Prosecution was declined in 80 percent of those cases. Of the six where charges were filed, all the defendants apparently pled guilty, the data show. Read more: www.politico.com... Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

Been over this a few hundred times. Unless you or I did something that actually put National Security at risk, like sleeping with the enemy, charges would most likely be dropped.

80% of the time prosecution was declined.

So forgive me if I find your doublespeak nonsense to be laughable.

You guys don't even try anymore. You try to create this conspiracy about there being rules for the elite and rules for us, but that is completely false. It's born of a victim mentality that cannot comprehend that there is no conspiracy.

a reply to: introvert

Between 2011 and 2015, federal prosecutors disposed of 30 referrals from investigators in cases where the main proposed charge was misdemeanor mishandling of classified information, according to data obtained from the Justice Department by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse. Prosecution was declined in 80 percent of those cases. O

Another FAILURE of reading, and comprehension.

What Clinton did was FELONIOUS to say the least. Between the 110 classified emails, and the PERJURY.

Your seriously trying to compare apples to oranges.

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: neo96

Our fellow ATS friends explained to us how hillary did not commit any crime nor broke any law. Are you saying they don't know what the hell they are talking about?

She hasn't committed any crime nor broken any law, until both accused and convicted.

She stands accused only.

a reply to: neo96

Clinton was charged with nothing. Not even a misdemeanor.

That's very telling.

a reply to: introvert

Doesn't make her 'innocent'.

And EVERYONE knows it.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: introvert

Doesn't make her 'innocent'.

And EVERYONE knows it.

Wha, wha.

Let it go. Your precious witch hunts have proven to be fruitless, time and time again.