Just Comey? It Was A COORDINATED Effort Among Top FBI Brass To Decriminalize Clinton's Conduct!

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

Trial by media and trial by court is different.

This is how known criminals get off. The evidence wasn't clear enough to smash through any corruption or even pass legal prosecution standards.

C'mon now.....did the prosecution even try? Was Lynch trying to get to the Truth or just figure out a way to not charge Clinton. Would the FBI put a Clinton supporter in charge of the investigation and do the interviews with key people?

They were not trying, merely going through the motions.

For gods sake Comey had his letter of no charges drafted before Clinton was even interviewed by her own supporter.

No collusion or obstructing justice here....move along.

Ps the doj right now can read open the case if it's not just political bs.

What do you think the IG investigation is? You need to lay the ground work for it.

Either the IG will close the book on this chapter or open up yet a new book.

Supposedly it's due before the end of the year. Magically, there zero leaks about it.

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

Trial by media and trial by court is different.

This is how known criminals get off. The evidence wasn't clear enough to smash through any corruption or even pass legal prosecution standards.

C'mon now.....did the prosecution even try? Was Lynch trying to get to the Truth or just figure out a way to not charge Clinton. Would the FBI put a Clinton supporter in charge of the investigation and do the interviews with key people?

They were not trying, merely going through the motions.

For gods sake Comey had his letter of no charges drafted before Clinton was even interviewed by her own supporter.

No collusion or obstructing justice here....move along.

Ps the doj right now can read open the case if it's not just political bs.

What do you think the IG investigation is? You need to lay the ground work for it.

Either the IG will close the book on this chapter or open up yet a new book.

Supposedly it's due before the end of the year. Magically, there zero leaks about it.

Well wait are you waiting for the ig or speculating on all the stuff you mentioned. Very confusing.

If everything you mentioned was true the ig would be over. They wouldn't have needed it to begin with.

originally posted by: introvert

Separate the two and I would be willing to engage.

You proved my point... All investigations towards Trump are totally legit and warranted while anything towards the left is " politically partisan conspiracies".

It seems catching someone in a lie or miss speak no matter how small is the key to victory and overrides the original intent. Lets grill someone for hours and then analyze every word to find just one nugget of incorrectness to point fingers and say LIE! The original purpose disappears and it is all about the lie now...right? That is what we see all the time well unless you are Hillary and you are brought in for only an interview, not under oath, with most likely tea and crumpets served...lol

The subtle differences change everything..whether it's "just an interview" or a few words are changed here and there to avoid legal implications the FBI has played ball with Obama and staff differently compared to Trump and staff. Now I can't say it is out of line to suggest Trump bias has driven all this... can you?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

Trial by media and trial by court is different.

This is how known criminals get off. The evidence wasn't clear enough to smash through any corruption or even pass legal prosecution standards.

C'mon now.....did the prosecution even try? Was Lynch trying to get to the Truth or just figure out a way to not charge Clinton. Would the FBI put a Clinton supporter in charge of the investigation and do the interviews with key people?

They were not trying, merely going through the motions.

For gods sake Comey had his letter of no charges drafted before Clinton was even interviewed by her own supporter.

No collusion or obstructing justice here....move along.

Ps the doj right now can read open the case if it's not just political bs.

What do you think the IG investigation is? You need to lay the ground work for it.

Either the IG will close the book on this chapter or open up yet a new book.

Supposedly it's due before the end of the year. Magically, there zero leaks about it.

Well wait are you waiting for the ig or speculating on all the stuff you mentioned. Very confusing.

If everything you mentioned was true the ig would be over. They wouldn't have needed it to begin with.

We will see. Some of it isn't speculation anymore. A Clinton supporter, Strzok, was in one of the ones in charge of the Clinton investigation and did the interviews with Clinton and other key figures, who the justice Dept gave immunity to. Those are pretty much agreed upon facts now. That a wife of someone involved worked for Fusion GPS is also now out there.

If the Clinton server/email case we're so open and shut to begin with, why would the IG be working on it still. There are issues that need addressing so it appears.

The FBI's explanation of all of these things isn't very convincing.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The current DOJ is not Clinton's, the SC is a republican, the head of the fbi is trumps pick.

a reply to: pavil

Political pressure for one to keep the campaigns going.

And does it matter if he is a supporter. Nobody talks about Mueller trump and Republican donors for some reason or that gowdy and crew were biased against Clinton.

Don't fall for partisan tricks.

If your repeating line for line a narrative that is common you may want to wonder if you have been programmed.

originally posted by: JoshuaCox
a reply to: shawmanfromny

Zero hedge is a propaganda site that constantly pushes fake stories and doesn’t even employ journalists....

How many fake stories does it take for people to stop baa baa baaing right behind them???

you're right!.....but ATS is filled with B.S. right-wing websites being used as "factual arbiters"....so to me, it's just another Friday.....

originally posted by: luthier


The current DOJ is not Clinton's, the SC is a republican, the head of the fbi is trumps pick.

Good point and you given a great example supporting my post.

You are missing a key element in all this. There is a large group of Government workers that are not elected and that see elected officials come and go. They assume they run the Government more than the elected officials and in many ways they are correct. We do know many of them are Obama/Hillary supporters that basically hate Trump. What we have is on one side they can work with Obama's DOJ with everything in their power, and pretty much stonewall Trump's DOJ in everything they want to do.

In simple form...on one hand a person can be motivated to protect Hillary as much as they can and on the other hand a person can be motivated to take down Trump the best they can all based on their personal opinions/beliefs while seemingly doing their job in both cases.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I see so there is only bias towards Clinton even when trump has picked all the current law enforcement leaders.

Got it.

Maybe if the narrative your using is true Trump's team would be prosecuting Clinton right now.

a reply to: introvert

If you could prove she blatantly ignored the law, you would have intent and could prosecute her.

So you're saying she accidentally set up a non-secure, unapproved server?

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

Political pressure for one to keep the campaigns going.

And does it matter if he is a supporter. Nobody talks about Mueller trump and Republican donors for some reason or that gowdy and crew were biased against Clinton.

Don't fall for partisan tricks.

If your repeating line for line a narrative that is common you may want to wonder if you have been programmed.

Gowdy wasn't really part of the server investigation....not a valid comparison.

There are enough questions that need answering IMO. How did a Clinton supporter end up the lead FBI person in the Clinton Server investigation? Isn't that a little odd to you?

That's just one of numerous examples of things we don't have clear answers on. If Strzok was demoted for his anti Trump texts, the reason we have been given, why was not his pro Clinton/anti Trump behavior not noticed during his investigation of Clinton.

You seem to think these are not valid things to ask and demand better answers from the FBI about.

I respectfully disagree.

a reply to: pavil

Gowdy was benghazi.

My point is the bias is not a problem unless there is proof it effected the outcome.

Was the pro Clinton supporter good at his job so they put him there?

I guess that is impossible to you. It makes more sense that fox news has it right.

a reply to: Xtrozero

You proved my point... All investigations towards Trump are totally legit and warranted while anything towards the left is " politically partisan conspiracies".

I said nothing of the sort.

It seems catching someone in a lie or miss speak no matter how small is the key to victory and overrides the original intent. Lets grill someone for hours and then analyze every word to find just one nugget of incorrectness to point fingers and say LIE! The original purpose disappears and it is all about the lie now...right? That is what we see all the time well unless you are Hillary and you are brought in for only an interview, not under oath, with most likely tea and crumpets served...lol

Not sure what your point is.

The subtle differences change everything..whether it's "just an interview" or a few words are changed here and there to avoid legal implications the FBI has played ball with Obama and staff differently compared to Trump and staff. Now I can't say it is out of line to suggest Trump bias has driven all this... can you?

It is out of line. Trump and friends have put themselves in this position and it is not based on bias. It's based on their actions.

Now in regards to Obama and such, they are not in a similar position. The context is completely different, which changes things considerably.

originally posted by: jadedANDcynical
a reply to: introvert

If you could prove she blatantly ignored the law, you would have intent and could prosecute her.

So you're saying she accidentally set up a non-secure, unapproved server?

That is not against the law and has been done before without prosecution.

Remember the GOP and the Bush admins "secret" server?

22 millions emails "lost"?

a reply to: introvert

hahahaha
everybody else did it

bit your not defending hillary
right


hahahaja
:

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

Gowdy was benghazi.

My point is the bias is not a problem unless there is proof it effected the outcome.

Was the pro Clinton supporter good at his job so they put him there?

I guess that is impossible to you. It makes more sense that fox news has it right.

Was I referring to Bengazi?

The FBI investigation was about the Server and emails.

You are making assumptions just like you claim I have. Let's get all the facts out and then we can determine what was right and wrong about the investigations.

Duplicate

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

Gowdy was benghazi.

My point is the bias is not a problem unless there is proof it effected the outcome.

Was the pro Clinton supporter good at his job so they put him there?

I guess that is impossible to you. It makes more sense that fox news has it right.

Was I referring to Bengazi?

The FBI investigation was about the Server and emails.

You are making assumptions just like you claim I have. Let's get all the facts out and then we can determine what was right and wrong about the investigations.

You keep saying let's get the facts out and then list how the fbi is corrupt and comey ws biased.

Take your pick. You either don't know and have to wait and see or believe the Republican campaign rhetoric.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

You still following ABC and CNN?

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: pavil

originally posted by: luthier
a reply to: pavil

Gowdy was benghazi.

My point is the bias is not a problem unless there is proof it effected the outcome.

Was the pro Clinton supporter good at his job so they put him there?

I guess that is impossible to you. It makes more sense that fox news has it right.

Was I referring to Bengazi?

The FBI investigation was about the Server and emails.

You are making assumptions just like you claim I have. Let's get all the facts out and then we can determine what was right and wrong about the investigations.

You keep saying let's get the facts out and then list how the fbi is corrupt and comey ws biased.

Take your pick. You either don't know and have to wait and see or believe the Republican campaign rhetoric.

Sorry to speculate on a conspiracy website. I've said numerous times I'm looking forward to the IG report. Most of the things I have spoken about have been in mainstream papers.