FBI uncovered Russian bribery plot before Obama admin approved nuclear deal with Moscow

a reply to: dragonridr

Here you go:



World Nuclear Association

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Interestingly, you're the one that claimed that proof of intent depended on interviewing Clinton. If you want to refer to yourself as stupid, be my guest.

My statement is clear: there are a variety of levels of criminal intent, all with different standards of proof. IN most cases, intent is demonstrated by EVIDENCE about the alleged illegal actions. If you think that most suspects incriminate themselves in an interview, I can only submit you've been watching too much NCIS, or maybe Judge Judy.

You seem to think it's proven by talking to the suspect, which, as you point out, is kinda stupid.

Of course you can prove intent without interviewing the accused.

But every good investigator would not come to a conclusion on intent without interviewing the accused.

Its re first most basic step into figuring out what a person's intent was.

The fact that you excuse Comey for coming to a conclusion on intent without taking the most basic step is ridiculous.

You twoare arguing intent its not a deciding factor contrary to what Comey said. Law can never truly establish intent. Bottom line we cant read minds thats why intent is of little importance in criminal proceedings only actions which imply intent.

Much closer to the truth than anything being said otherwise by some.

However, the comment about intent wasn't even the issue. Comey stated that no prosecutor would pursue the case against Clinton based ON THE EVIDENCE which had been discovered when he started the drafts of his eventual comments.

Tell me, does anyone have a copy of what Comey initially prepared? That would solve a big part of the question rather than assuming we know what he wrote and didn't write, and why he wrote it.

Oh look, wonder of wonders, we can: FBI Vault

So please ... anyone ... please show us where in that Comey talked about Clinton's "intent." Because that's all anyone actually has in evidence (outside the FBI of course)

Folks have forgotten that Comey was OBSESSED with the FBI remaining apolitical in the matter. His actions were meticulous and controlled in support of what he thought was best for the institution of the FBI.

Washington Post

The draft statement was written before investigators had interviewed several witnesses, including Clinton. But it was reported at the time by The Washington Post and other news outlets that by early May, investigators had done the bulk of their investigative work and did not expect to file criminal charges in connection with the email server investigation.

Comey announced the closure of the investigation in July, days after Clinton's FBI interview.

Washington Examiner

In a quote to Newsweek, which first reported the documents, Ron Hosko, an assistant director at the FBI under Comey until 2014, said the gravity of the case could explain why officials got started on drafts early, noting, "When you have a significant case that is in the public domain and certainly in the public's interest, in the public's eye, I think that it could be expected that both the FBI and the prosecutors that they're working with are beginning to draft a statement of facts that could be used later, as the case is developing."

But he also said the key to determining malpractice would lie in the "content" of the statement. "I think the content of the statement is going to be important," said Hosko. "Did it purport to essentially acquit her actions way prematurely, or was it simply a running statement of what they knew?"

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

Interestingly, you're the one that claimed that proof of intent depended on interviewing Clinton. If you want to refer to yourself as stupid, be my guest.

My statement is clear: there are a variety of levels of criminal intent, all with different standards of proof. IN most cases, intent is demonstrated by EVIDENCE about the alleged illegal actions. If you think that most suspects incriminate themselves in an interview, I can only submit you've been watching too much NCIS, or maybe Judge Judy.

You seem to think it's proven by talking to the suspect, which, as you point out, is kinda stupid.

Of course you can prove intent without interviewing the accused.

But every good investigator would not come to a conclusion on intent without interviewing the accused.

Its re first most basic step into figuring out what a person's intent was.

The fact that you excuse Comey for coming to a conclusion on intent without taking the most basic step is ridiculous.

You twoare arguing intent its not a deciding factor contrary to what Comey said. Law can never truly establish intent. Bottom line we cant read minds thats why intent is of little importance in criminal proceedings only actions which imply intent.

Yes you are right. This is why comeys justification was bogus from the outset.

But I am arguing that even if we do buy his argument, we would have to believe the following.

He believes Hillary did things that the law says you can not, but doesn't believe she had intent.

We know that two months before he interviewed her or many other people, he mader that decision.

Therefore, Comey came to a conclusion about Hillary's intent two months before anyone in the FBI interviewed her.

This is insane, as anyone who is not a total partisan hack would be able to admit.

a reply to: Grambler

This is insane, as anyone who is not a total partisan hack would be able to admit.

No kidding!

The fact that you and too many others still can't comprehend what happened in that case, even though Comey and many legal experts explained it to you, is simply mind boggling.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler


Connected by a huge degree of separation. A man that worked for a subsidiary of a subsidiary.

Context is key and you are being disingenuous.

Many of them worked for the same company. How is that a huge degree of separation?

And they were all Russians and working to get the Russian state uranium as far as I can tell.

Along with many others on the comittee. Was she paid with bribes to do so?

If so, can you prove it?

No, thats why we should have an investigation.

Could we prove Trump or anyone in his administration was paid bribes before the investigation?

Nope, but you supported it.

At least here we know Russians did give Hillary 140 million dollars. There was no evidence of any Russian giving Trump or his admin any money before that investigation was launched.

Np. That is not what I said. I said people on Trump's team were being investigated because of their contacts with foreign agents. That is not the same as we see in this case.

Again, very disingenuous of you.

Ok so as the Hill article states Hillary took money from Russian agents. Whats the difference again?

Somehow, Trumps people having contact with foreign agents warrants an investigation, but Hillary herself taking millions from Russian agents does not?

What a ridiculous argument.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

This is insane, as anyone who is not a total partisan hack would be able to admit.

No kidding!

The fact that you and too many others still can't comprehend what happened in that case, even though Comey and many legal experts explained it to you, is simply mind boggling.

Right.

Comey explained how he was able to ascertain Hillarys intent months before he interviewed her, and any of us that have a question about that should just shut up.

a reply to: Gryphon66

then why are you so upset that they got control of a few uranium mines that aren't producing again?

Who said I was upset with that besides you saying I was ? ...I am trying to figure out what Russian Oligarch's are or were in play and if they are already in jail or heading there . Oh and if any Canadians or Americans will be joining them

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Gryphon66

then why are you so upset that they got control of a few uranium mines that aren't producing again?

Who said I was upset with that besides you saying I was ? ...I am trying to figure out what Russian Oligarch's are or were in play and if they are already in jail or heading there . Oh and if any Canadians or Americans will be joining them

Kewl.

I’ll ask again: who here has read Comey’s notes from May 2016?

Link provided above.

a reply to: Grambler

Many of them worked for the same company. How is that a huge degree of separation?

I was referring to the man that was working his scam on the no-bid contracts, but as far as the others mentioned, you yourself cast doubt on that aspect as it was not known if they were still involved with the company at the time.

And they were all Russians and working to get the Russian state uranium as far as I can tell.

Well, what a fruitless venture.

The deal in question only allowed them to sell the uranium to US plants.

No, thats why we should have an investigation.

It appears that may have already taken place, if there was even a reason to do so.

Could we prove Trump or anyone in his administration was paid bribes before the investigation? Nope, but you supported it.

Jesus. I have never said anything about bribes and Trump. Stop obsessing with these false equivalencies.

At least here we know Russians did give Hillary 140 million dollars. There was no evidence of any Russian giving Trump or his admin any money before that investigation was launched.

Trump is not under investigation for money, as far as I know. Again, get a grip man.

Ok so as the Hill article states Hillary took money from Russian agents. Whats the difference again?

Actual proof that it was for the purpose of pushing the deal through.

Somehow, Trumps people having contact with foreign agents warrants an investigation, but Hillary herself taking millions from Russian agents does not?

Now you get it. See, there is a difference between the two situations.

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Grambler

This is insane, as anyone who is not a total partisan hack would be able to admit.

No kidding!

The fact that you and too many others still can't comprehend what happened in that case, even though Comey and many legal experts explained it to you, is simply mind boggling.

Right.

Comey explained how he was able to ascertain Hillarys intent months before he interviewed her, and any of us that have a question about that should just shut up.

He could ascertain her potential intent with the evidence through her actions and words in the emails. Therefore he could start preparing for his final conclusion based on the logical notion that Hillary would not expose herself in the interview, if her intent was to mislead or hide info from government records.

a reply to: introvert

Spot on. Also, no one here knows what Comey wrote in May 2016.

Course some of these folks are long on illogical beliefs short on actual fact.

a reply to: theantediluvian

Well, this kind of pulls the carpet out from beneath the whole issue. Can't believe I bought into it as much as I did. It's sad to think about all the users on the first few pages of this thread who where gleeful about "the usual suspects" not daring to show up. Maybe those usual suspects where actually looking into the case before jumping to conclusions.

a reply to: Grambler

It might be hard to find a big Russian company that hasn't had some sort of shady dealings going on. I'm not trying to demonize them, just being realistic. Doesn't mean Russians are lesser people, let's just call it cultural differences. My point is that Obama could have made a fuss and blocked the sale, but it would've been seen as an extremely strange decision, hurtful to diplomatic relations and to economy. And to what end? This was before the Crimean war, European nations had been virtually dismantling their armies for two decades, history was supposed to have ended, most people believed Russia and the West would exist in peaceful harmony. Certainly business wanted that.

Edit: And that hot mic episode is a joke. It was dumb to have the mic on, but can't we admit that any president has more leeway after the second election? Was he not supposed to say that to Medvedev? I think Dmitri understands it too, he's not dumb.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
I’ll ask again: who here has read Comey’s notes from May 2016?

Link provided above.

Yes I read it, it is almost all redacted.

From the article you linked.

Portions of the transcript included in Graham and Grassley's letter reveal Rybicki said that Comey, in search of "the most forward-leaning thing we could do," circulated a draft of the eventual statement, "knowing the direction the investigation is headed," in the spring. As the senators pointed out, by May 2016, the FBI still had not interviewed Clinton, or "sixteen other key witnesses, including Cheryl Mills, Bryan Pagliano, Heather Samuelson, Justin Cooper, and John Bentel."

Even given Hosko's favorable defense of the early draft as a reasonable move for officials working on a high-profile investigation, the timeline is bizarre. Hosko himself asked the key question, pointing towards the contents of the draft: "Did it purport to essentially acquit her actions way prematurely, or was it simply a running statement of what they knew?"

It's time for Comey to return to Capitol Hill and answer that question.

www.washingtonexaminer.com...

It was bizarre as it says.

Given that Comey relied so heavily on not having intent as a reason to not recommend charges, it seems ridiculous that he made up his mind about intent before even interviewing her or many other witnesses.

Has the FBI done an investigation and realized that she never acted carelessly or pooroly and did any of the things that they admitted she did, then fair enough, it would make sense to know before interviewing her that they were not going to recommend charges.

But given that Comeys final statement was a laundry list of all of the things done wrong, but saying that chiefly becuase they couldn't prove intent they would recommend charges, it is ridiculous to come to a conclusion before interviewing her.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: introvert

Spot on. Also, no one here knows what Comey wrote in May 2016.

Course some of these folks are long on illogical beliefs short on actual fact.

True.

Also, from what I've experienced, which is somewhat limited, it is not uncommon for investigators to begin preparing for the end of their investigations well before they tie up loose ends, like final interviews and such.

Based on the idea that the person in question will not incriminate themselves and the evidence does not support recommending charges.

a reply to: introvert

This is why you said Trump needed to be investigated.

Also, Trump's case warranted investigation due to confirmed connections between foreign agents and his staff. Not sure why I would have to prove his intent to warrant an investigation and I'm not sure why you would ask me to prove his intent

Did Hillary have connections to foreign agents? In addition to those connections, did she recieve huge sums of money from them?

If so, if that reason was good enough for an investigation into Trump, why not Hillary?

a reply to: Grambler

Did Hillary have connections to foreign agents?

As SoS, I'm sure she did. But did she, outside of the role of SoS, or her staff have undocumented contact with foreign agents to discuss US policy if elected, or meet with them for the sake of getting dirt on their opponent in the US election?

In addition to those connections, did she recieve huge sums of money from them?

The largest sum seems to come from one person they had worked with before.

If so, if that reason was good enough for an investigation into Trump, why not Hillary?

Still can't understand the difference, can you?

a reply to: Grambler

So you have no idea of the content Comey started writing in May?

Is that correct?