James Comey Has a History of Not Finding the Clintons Guilty of Anything

Some more historical information about connections between former (fired) FBI Director James Comey and the Clintons.

Some examples of past "investigations" and what not.

Very intriguing and cloak & dagger style !!

Well "pardon" me ..........

James Comey Has a History of Not Finding the Clintons Guilty of Anything

Former FBI Director James Comey couldn’t find anything wrong in a long laundry list of egregious activities by Hillary Clinton, stretching the boundaries of believability by claiming she didn’t have intent. It wasn’t the first time Mr. Comey could find no fault in the Clintons’ sketchy past.

It’s reasonable to say the Clintons have a prosecutor they can count on in James Comey.

The Case of the Fugitive Swindlers

Federal prosecutor Mary Jo White was appointed to investigate the pardon of Marc Rich and Pincus Green by Bill Clinton who said the pardons “were in the best interest of justice“. White was replaced by then-Republican James Comey.

He took over the case when he was appointed U.S. attorney or the Southern District of New York.

The investigation was to determine if Bill Clinton pardoned two fugitive criminals Marc Rich and Pincus Green in exchange for $450,000 Rich’s ex-wife Denise Rich donated to the Clinton Foundation, along with other donations including $100,000 to Hillary’s senatorial campaign. This was at the same time Hillary Clinton was running for senator from New York.

The Case of the New Square Four

Then there was the case of the infamous New Square Four who bilked the government out of tens of millions of dollars. Then-president Bill Clinton reduced the sentences of the four Hasidic Jews from New Square in Rockland County where Hillary campaigned in their village and later won it overwhelmingly – unbelievably overwhelmingly.

We mean it was unbelievable.

Hillary had actively and visibly campaigned in the Hasidic Village. She won with out-of-the-ordinary numbers, beating her opponent Rick Lazio 1400 to 12. She didn’t receive anywhere near that number in other nearby Orthodox villages.

"Class Dismissed !"

a reply to: xuenchen

Thats why he is still alive

I'm seriously experiencing the mandala effect from this threa...

a reply to: xuenchen

James Comey Has a History of Not Finding the Clintons Guilty of Anything

So do the Republicans.


(Get it? Get it? Because Repubs found Bill "not guilty" during the impeachment process and none of the Republican-led investigations against Hillary landed her in jail.)

a reply to: enlightenedservant

A little sensationalized when you actually "count".

How the senators voted on impeachment

originally posted by: xuenchen
a reply to: enlightenedservant

A little sensationalized when you actually "count".

How the senators voted on impeachment

So acquitted of both charges even when I count by hand.... Cool.

The Clintons are above the law. If any of us had done the things they have done we would be in prison. Oh well, "The strong do what they can, and the weak suffer what they must." It's just the way of the world.

a reply to: xuenchen

Is that it???

Not one piece of evidence to support their claim that something was wrong. Just them saying they don't agree with it. Oh well. Don't agree with it then. But not liking something and claiming it's illegal aren't the same thing.

Maybe that's why Comey didn't bust them like you wanted. Because he didn't have any evidence proving they did anything wrong just like you don't have any.

What's he supposed to do?? Arrest them on charges he can't prove???

a reply to: xuenchen

So you agree or disagree that Republicans also have a history of not finding the Clintons guilty of anything?

a reply to: enlightenedservant

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: xuenchen

So you agree or disagree that Republicans also have a history of not finding the Clintons guilty of anything?

9 out of 54 agree.

a reply to: xuenchen

This seems like character assassination of Comey at this point to be suggesting that he's not prosecuting the Clintons when you have no proof or evidence showing why he should.

Didn't the Republicans investigate the Clintons like 12 times for Bengahzi and they never charged her with a crime either. Why not call them crooked and assassinate them like you are Comey???

I mean I think everyone assumes she's crooked but since nobody has proof of that we can't exactly do anything about it now can we??? Maybe James Comey is in that same boat.

a reply to: mOjOm

Didn't the Republicans investigate the Clintons like 12 times for Bengahzi and they never charged her with a crime either. Why not call them crooked and assassinate them like you are Comey???

Is it safe to say that's a rhetorical question?

a reply to: xuenchen

So do you agree or disagree that Republicans also have a history of not finding the Clintons guilty of anything?

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: xuenchen

Is that it???

Not one piece of evidence to support their claim that something was wrong. Just them saying they don't agree with it. Oh well. Don't agree with it then. But not liking something and claiming it's illegal aren't the same thing.

Maybe that's why Comey didn't bust them like you wanted. Because he didn't have any evidence proving they did anything wrong just like you don't have any.

What's he supposed to do?? Arrest them on charges he can't prove???

This is why Trump supporters point out hypocrisy.

a reply to: Wardaddy454

What's to point out though. It's on both sides and we all see it already. Anything blamed on one side can be blamed on the other side. Dems excuse what Dems do but jump on the Cons. The cons do the same thing.

Does that mean it's ok??? No. I say either we arrest them all or let them all run amok. One or the other. Believe me, if I could somehow give you Hillary on a platter I would. Would you do the same with Trump???

I'll even trade Obama for Chaney. That's a deal right???

But we can't do that. We all have to wait and push for the right thing when we see it.

originally posted by: xuenchen
Some more historical information about connections between former (fired) FBI Director James Comey and the Clintons.

Some examples of past "investigations" and what not.


The investigation was to determine if Bill Clinton pardoned two fugitive criminals Marc Rich and Pincus Green in exchange for $450,000 Rich’s ex-wife Denise Rich donated to the Clinton Foundation, along with other donations including $100,000 to Hillary’s senatorial campaign. This was at the same time Hillary Clinton was running for senator from New York

Comey was not the pardons attorney, in fact he said Rich was a guilty man since he prosecuted him, however Roger Adams was the pardons attorney, who acquiesced to Eric Holder. So go and check it out.
No matter what, your man Trump, once he told Russia to go and 'find the missing HC e-mails, should be pulled up for consorting with a foreign power, against a US political party...in his own words, "A major political party" more so if those e-mails were classifed articles.
I see no difference between Trump and Assange, Assange being wanted by the US in his perceived involvement of the publishing of secret American documents, however the reality is that Assange is cooped up and in hiding/refuge, while Trump is free to spout his nonsense and his bleeding heart, (same thing really )

a reply to: xuenchen

I agree. He should just indict the Clintons without any evidence.

a reply to: mOjOm

it`s not part of his job duties to decide whether a case can be proven or not,it`s also not his decision whether to arrest someone or not based on the evidence that is collected.

Both of those are the responsibility and job duties of the department of justice,but since the director of the department of justice abrogated her duties and responsibilities to the tax payers by agreeing to honor the recommendations of the FBI in the Hillary investigation,justice was not done and due process was not served.

comey and the FBI agents aren`t lawyers,it`s the duty and responsibility of the lawyers at the department of justice to look at the evidence collected by the FBI and make the decision to prosecute or not.
if they decide that there is enough evidence to prosecute they will go to a judge and attempt to get an arrest warrant issued.

comey and the FBI have no authority to decide whether there is enough evidence to prosecute nor do they have the authority to issue arrest warrants.

this is clearly a case of dereliction of duty by the department of justice.

a reply to: Tardacus

Ok, well point that out to the OP then because they think it's all Comey's fault apparently.

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
a reply to: xuenchen

So you agree or disagree that Republicans also have a history of not finding the Clintons guilty of anything?

I would disagree. Republicans did find them guilty, Democrats didn't. Republicans don't run the country or dispense justice by themselves, they need Democrats to come along as well, and if they won't, well the you have people like the Clintons getting off free.