Reports: Emails Had Nothing to Do With Clinton

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

While I agree with you Bill Clinton Inc. Is huge, sadly like any other scandal with little dirty Clinton sausage finger involvement, it just gets brushed aside.

Or better yet, it's all "baked in" Haha. We all already knew how corrupt they are, but some still love them anyways because they feel fuzzy when they say things that they'll never carry through with.

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Nice diversionary straw man, FBI.

What's your take on this?

The Big Story this week was "Bill Cliton Inc.", but they stole its thunder with this email straw man.

We already know Comey has been on the Clinton's take since 2001, so no point in buying into anything he's spinning.

comey was on the Clinton's take????................evidence, or you're lying

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Nice diversionary straw man, FBI.

What's your take on this?

The Big Story this week was "Bill Cliton Inc.", but they stole its thunder with this email straw man.

We already know Comey has been on the Clinton's take since 2001, so no point in buying into anything he's spinning.

comey was on the Clinton's take????................evidence, or you're lying

First investigation, boom.

originally posted by: AboveBoard
a reply to: Zanti Misfit

It is NOT "reopened." By your own obvious definitions, it would have to have been officially closed, which it was not. That is SOP for investigations like this.

Hard to tell...

Attorney General: Hillary Clinton Email Case Is Closed

July 6, 2016

Attorney General Loretta Lynch, accepting the recommendation of FBI Director James Comey and others in the Department of Justice, is formally closing the investigation of Hillary Clinton's private email server without bringing any criminal charges.

a reply to: AboveBoard

If I am spinning stories without facts, then you can't really dispute the because you don't know the facts either.

Fact. The FBI is investigating issues links with Weiner's electronic devices.

Fact. During their investigation, they (the FBI) found something that has caused them to look at Hillary.

Fact. Everyone on the left is crapping their pants, including the Hillary campaign.


Questions.
Why doesn't Huma just release all her sent emails to Weiner's computer?
Why doesn't Hillary just release all her emails to Huma?

They (the Hillary campaign) has ALL THE INFORMATION. They could release everything and end this right now. It could have ended last night.

But they didn't.

a reply to: DBCowboy

Also I won't call this one fact, but I think we can all agree...

When you bleachbit subpoenaed information, you're probably hiding something...

And destroying evidence is.... You guessed it, illegal.

a reply to: CriticalStinker

If they are all innocent, then where's Huma?

Why is she hiding?

Why isn't she on every news outlet proclaiming her innocence?

a reply to: jimmyx

Take a real good look at Pardongate:
en.wikipedia.org...
Here, I already did a bit of that work for you:
www.abovetopsecret.com...
And that was only a scratch & sniff.

Where Comey gave them a pass. And so their cozy relationship began.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: CriticalStinker

If they are all innocent, then where's Huma?

Why is she hiding?

Why isn't she on every news outlet proclaiming her innocence?

I'll give her the benefit of the doubt. She probably knows it's not safe to get in a car right now. It might "crash".

Although Clinton probably does have mercy on her for having a sleezy husband.

a reply to: Willtell

Look the Hillary campaign is obviously in full panic mode. Even the perception of more criminality this late in her campaign will have the undecided thinking twice about voting for her. I think Comey did this because he has a conscience, which I would have never have thought before. But now I believe he is in massive trouble (for doing it) along with Huma. This is just the media going into full spin, and cover-up mode. Lie, deceive, and cover up.

Hillary is guilty as sin, but the American people are not supposed to know anything about it.

an official told the Los Angeles Times

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity

Woo, Two strikes.

saying FBI sources had told him

And you're out.

If there is nothing "there" then the campaign wouldn't be in such panic mode.

There is the situation that many people don't evaluate information. They just listen to what a source states and take it as fact.

originally posted by: ssenerawa

an official told the Los Angeles Times

The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity

Woo, Two strikes.

saying FBI sources had told him

And you're out.

And not even a link to where the Los Angeles Times claimed an "anonymous official" told them that.

On their website all I can find is an article saying the emails may have links to Clinton.

Go figure.

Edit: The article does state that one official told them something similar to what the Daily Beast wrote.

The emails were not to or from Clinton, and contained information that appeared to be more of what agents had already uncovered, the official said, but in an abundance of caution, they felt they needed to further scrutinize them.

But saying they contain no new information is just the Daily Beast jumping to conclusions, as even the official later says that going through the emails could take weeks and will not be completed by election day.

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Willtell

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Willtell

Even if it is a hit piece, I noticed the left had no problem with 30+ year stories of Trump touching people a month before elections? What do you call that?

And if you say all that was true, well so is this. We all know she did wrongdoing. She used a forensic cleaner on evidence that was subpoenaed.

That’s NOT from an FBI director

Also Trump created that scandal himself.

Hillary created this scandal herself by breaking the law.

What law did she break?

NONE!

Your just espousing Trump propaganda.

You really feel offended by Hillary's actions in the email scandal and don't feel offended by Trump's groping

What law? Are you serious, let's start with lying to the FBI, being negligent with classified material, and destruction of emails, and devices that had been subpenoed. None of that is in doubt comey admitted that she did all of that in front of congress.

Just because she was not prosecuted that does not by any stretch mean she did not break laws. It just means political pressure is corrupting our legal system.

wrong....if she broke laws, she would have been indicted. Comey's utter disdain for Clinton clearly was evident in his congressional testimony.

Wrong, if comey was already told by lynch she would not indict, she gave him two choices, recommend indictment and start a circus, or back off for the good of the country, I'm sure that is what they told him anyway.

I don't think He was happy about it but he agreed, but his not liking it is why he still gave 13 minutes of his speech about all the things she did wrong, then at the end contradicted himself and said he would not recommend prosecution.

I guess by your logic if I go murder someone but never get prosecuted by the authorities the murder never happened. You really need to be honest with yourself and look at how you are twisting logic to avoid admitting your candidate is a criminal.

Look you don't need to be a lawyer or have an IQ much over 80 to understand destruction of subpoenaed evidence is breaking the law. The fact you refuse to admit that says a lot about your honesty / intelligence.

a reply to: Christosterone

Nope. No crime.

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Willtell

Even if it is a hit piece, I noticed the left had no problem with 30+ year stories of Trump touching people a month before elections? What do you call that?

And if you say all that was true, well so is this. We all know she did wrongdoing. She used a forensic cleaner on evidence that was subpoenaed.

Exactly - it should never be forgotten that she deleted thousands of emails after being subpoenaed. That in itself should have been enough for her to be forced out of the race.

There in panic mode because what Comey did can affect millions of votes not because they think he has some smoking gun evidence of her guilt.


It’s a legal technicality that’s all it likely is but suits the propaganda rhetoric of Trump’s demagogic statements

What Comey did was abuse of power and or a sinister plot to elect Trump

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: jimmyx

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: IgnoranceIsntBlisss
Nice diversionary straw man, FBI.

What's your take on this?

The Big Story this week was "Bill Cliton Inc.", but they stole its thunder with this email straw man.

We already know Comey has been on the Clinton's take since 2001, so no point in buying into anything he's spinning.

comey was on the Clinton's take????................evidence, or you're lying

First investigation, boom.

wha?......first investigation, boom?....that's you evidence?

originally posted by: Willtell
There in panic mode because what Comey did can affect millions of votes not because they think he has some smoking gun evidence of her guilt.


It’s a legal technicality that’s all it likely is but suits the propaganda rhetoric of Trump’s demagogic statements

What Comey did was abuse of power and or a sinister plot to elect Trump

He promised Congress he would update them. He would have nothing to update on if Hillary Clinton has not abused power in the first place. You only think this was abuse of power because he didn't ask permission from Clinton first. As for the content, let's wait and see. If you would like to understand real abuse of power, dig into the utter corruption uncovered in the DNC and the way the press have behaved in the last year.

a reply to: Sillyolme

Destroying subpoenaed evidence is against the law. His reasoning is there was not evidence of intent (which wording does not exist in this law, he added that).


But newly discovered evidence is pertinent to this investigation which has been reopened.