Comey Plotted To Avoid Charges Against Hillary BEFORE The FBI Interviewed Her

a reply to: Kali74recommend charges what are you going on about the fbi is supposed to collect evidence build a case and once that done give it to a prosecutor they determine if charges are filed not head of fbi. and the way the law reads mishandling of classified data even with out realizing it is a felony. no intent needed she broke the law period. and you keep bring up intent well she intentionally destroyed evidence that is also a felony. we all know the private server was setup with one goal so foriegn powers could get intel in exchange for money laundered thru clinton fondation . that is called treason my friends and can get you put in front of a firing squad.

After nearly a year and more than ninety interviews, they had identified eighty-one message chains deemed to be classified that passed through her private server.


Clinton’s practices were sloppy, irresponsible, and in defiance of State Department policies, but investigators found no proof of criminal conduct—just a misguided effort by Clinton to maintain control over what the public, and her opponents, could learn about her.

I'd like to point out that "a misguided effort to maintain control over what the public could learn about her" is a blatant violation of the Federal Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act. As a lowly E-5, Staff Sergeant, in the Air Force, I received low-level training on the FRA and FOIA and knew I could not do what she did. The SecState receives more extensive training, which combined with her years of experience in the Senate, renders it impossible for her to not know it was illegal. It shows clear intent to anyone with an open mind or the slightest clue of how classified info and federal records are supposed to be handled.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

There's nothing wrong with my post.

Oh except it goes against the lies you all believe.

That's ok. I'm comfortable in what I know.

What do you know? I would hazard a guess that it's nothing that the people in government don't know. If there was anything to this Russia stuff it would have come out by now. You're being deceived.

I know you've been around a few years. You should know better than to fall for this smokescreen. Sorry.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: infolurker

I don't see what is so unusual. Comey found the evidence too weak to recommend charges. That can happen before witnesses are interviewed and is not concrete. If Hillary or any other witness had said anything in interviews that was incriminating it could easily have gone the other way. The title of the Daily Wire article is click bait. The article doesn't support the title.

As the inquiry neared its end, Comey, who had closely monitored it from the start, requested summaries of more than thirty government prosecutions involving mishandling of classified information. He waded through the records, seeking to understand the cases’ rationale and how they had been resolved. In the end, he agreed with the investigators’ unanimous conclusion: Clinton should not face criminal charges...

The Daily Wire

I'm not sure why you would call the evidence too weak. If you send classified information to someone who is not allowed to see it, or send classified information to a location that isn't secure...you broke the law...period.

originally posted by: WeAreAWAKE

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: infolurker

I don't see what is so unusual. Comey found the evidence too weak to recommend charges. That can happen before witnesses are interviewed and is not concrete. If Hillary or any other witness had said anything in interviews that was incriminating it could easily have gone the other way. The title of the Daily Wire article is click bait. The article doesn't support the title.

As the inquiry neared its end, Comey, who had closely monitored it from the start, requested summaries of more than thirty government prosecutions involving mishandling of classified information. He waded through the records, seeking to understand the cases’ rationale and how they had been resolved. In the end, he agreed with the investigators’ unanimous conclusion: Clinton should not face criminal charges...

The Daily Wire

I'm not sure why you would call the evidence too weak. If you send classified information to someone who is not allowed to see it, or send classified information to a location that isn't secure...you broke the law...period.

Exactly. They keep trying to spin it as having a lot of grey area, it's easy to get confused and accidentally do the wrong thing. As someone that's been through the training I can tell you it's anything but confusing. It's very clear, an 18 year old Army private knows not to do what she did. With her extensive experience it's plain impossible for her not to know she was breaking the law. Intent would be exceedingly easy to prove in a court. Once they explained the training and procedures, an open-minded jury would definitely conclude that no reasonable person could expect someone in her position with her experience to not know. Comey even said this.

originally posted by: Sillyolme
a reply to: rickymouse

What stuck?

Trump.