Jump to content



Photo

Comey/Clinton/Obama Criminal Conspiracy


  • Please log in to reply
35 replies to this topic

#1 Col-Arthur

Col-Arthur

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 753 posts

Posted 26 September 2016 - 08:03 AM

Why would the director of the FBI sacrifice his reputation and that of his agency to protect the political aspirations of the most untrusted candidate in the history of the USA?

 

"During his July 6 news conference, FBI director James Comey outlined in detail the facts of Hillary's potential violations of federal law, and common sense, in using a private email system to conduct State Department business that involved national security.  But after listing all the facts Comey concluded he could not prove that Hillary had the intent to violate the laws, despite her use of BleachBit, a program to erase emails, to erase emails, her aides using hammers to destroy computers, and the destruction of over 33,000 emails many after receiving a subpoena from Congress....

...It was poor political judgment to make the decision not to indict rather than to send the matter to the Justice Department.  Let Attorney Lynch make the decision not to indict, and then it would be even more clear that the Obama Justice Department was giving Hillary a pass.  Comey chose to act as a politician to put politics above following the law.  This is reinforced by Comey releasing the FBI documents on Friday before Labor Day.  This was also done by the government to release Hillary emails on three prior occasions before holidays.  This is the standard political move: to release records on a day when people are taking a few days off and not paying attention to the news.
 
Comey has damaged his reputation and the reputation of the FBI.  He acted extremely negligent."

 


  • Quasar likes this

#2 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 26 September 2016 - 08:45 AM

Both Lynch & Comey are a disgrace to their country and have damaged the positions they hold. Both should resign in shame or be removed by the POTUS. However... since our POTUS is complicit in this arrangement... nothing at all will be done... 


  • CityBoy and Col-Arthur like this

#3 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 27 September 2016 - 09:29 AM

I don't understand how Mills could claim to be Clinton's attorney... nor be present for Clinton's FBI interview... this is a disgrace... some people need to lose their jobs over this... others need to go to prison... the American people deserve justice not the lies, corruption and coverups that we see at the top of the food chain... 

 

From the WSJ:

 

The Secrets of Cheryl Mills
If there was no evidence of criminal activity, why all the immunity?
 

Ms. Mills was a top Clinton aide at the State Department who became Mrs. Clinton’s lawyer when she left. She was also a witness, as well as a potential target, in the same FBI investigation into her boss’s emails. The laptop the bureau wanted was one Ms. Mills used in 2014 to sort Clinton emails before deciding which would be turned over to State.

 

The Mills immunity, which we learned of on Friday, has unfortunately been overwhelmed by the first Trump-Clinton debate. But the week is still young. On Wednesday, Congress will have an opportunity to put the Mills questions to FBI director James Comey when he appears before the House Judiciary Committee.
 
Now we learn about the multiple immunity deals. Immunity in exchange for information that will help make the case against higher-ups is not unusual. Even so, the Mills deal carries a special stink.
 
To begin with, Ms. Mills was pretty high up herself. As Mrs. Clinton’s chief of staff, she was in the thick of operations. In 2012, while working at State, she traveled to New York to interview candidates for a top job at the Clinton Foundation.
 
More disturbing still, not only was Ms. Mills granted immunity for the content on her laptop, she was permitted to act as Mrs. Clinton’s attorney even though she herself was also a witness in the investigation.
 
For those who think the fix was in from the start, Ms. Mills’s presence at Mrs. Clinton’s FBI interview, along with nine other people (not including the two FBI agents) is further evidence of a circus. Judiciary Committee members might do well to ask Mr. Comey why Ms. Mills and so many others were allowed to sit in on that interview.
 

 



#4 snowman

snowman

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,673 posts

Posted 27 September 2016 - 09:53 AM

oh wah...

 

Hillary emails were never a problem. Ever.  That was her personal email.  She has the right to delete it if she wants. No laws broken. Get over it. Lord...



#5 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 27 September 2016 - 09:54 AM

oh wah...

 

Hillary emails were never a problem. Ever.  That was her personal email.  She has the right to delete it if she wants. No laws broken. Get over it. Lord...

 

Believe that fantasy if you wish... live the lie... 


  • woo likes this

#6 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 27 September 2016 - 10:15 AM

Believe that fantasy if you wish... live the lie... 

Her supporters will.


  • Quasar likes this

#7 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 27 September 2016 - 11:27 AM

Her supporters will.

 

No doubt... 



#8 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 27 September 2016 - 11:29 AM

More on the immunity & corruption scandal...  

 

Clinton confidant's immunity deal looms over debate: Jonathan Turley
Jonathan Turley 2:01 p.m. EDT September 26, 2016
FBI appears to have undermined its own investigation with ill-considered witness agreements.
 
When FBI Director James B. Comey announced that there would be no criminal charges in the Clinton email scandal, there was an outcry by many who saw glaring contradictions, attempts to destroy evidence, and knowing failures to protect classified or sensitive information.  At the time, I acknowledged that Comey’s decision was understandable and, while criminal charges might have been possible, this was not out of bounds of prosecutorial discretion. However, the news this week of a previously undisclosed immunity deal with a top Clinton aide raises serious questions over the handling of the FBI investigation.
 


#9 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 28 September 2016 - 09:11 AM

From the WSJ:

 

James Comey’s Clinton Immunity
More questions about the FBI’s special handling of the email case.
FBI Director James Comey appears Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee, where he’ll get another chance to explain his agency’s double standard regarding Hillary Clinton. His probe of the former Secretary of State’s private email server is looking more like a kid-glove exercise with each new revelation.
 
House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz on Friday disclosed that the FBI granted immunity to Mrs. Clinton’s top aides as part of its probe into whether Mrs. Clinton mishandled classified information. According to Mr. Chaffetz, this “limited” immunity was extended to former chief of staff Cheryl Mills and senior adviser Heather Samuelson, in order to get them to surrender their laptops, which they’d used to sort through Mrs. Clinton’s work-versus-personal emails.
 


#10 Col-Arthur

Col-Arthur

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 753 posts

Posted 28 September 2016 - 12:55 PM

I just watched Comey's latest appearance before the Oversight Committee.

It sickened me to see him smirking as he repeatedly dodged questions, danced around the issues and thumbed his nose at the American people.

The "tree of liberty" is dying.


Edited by Col-Arthur, 28 September 2016 - 01:09 PM.


#11 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 29 September 2016 - 08:29 AM

I'm sure that this treasonous bastard will be rewarded handsomely in the Clinton administration for his betrayal of America... 

 

By: David Harsanyi a Senior Editor at The Federalist. 

 

Rather than striking immunity deals with virtually every person who had intimate knowledge of Hillary Clinton’s illegal private server and emails, the Justice Department would have saved everyone some time by offering Hillary protection instead.
 
FBI Director James Comey, who testified in front of two congressional committees this week, still maintains he was unable to recommend that the Justice Department charge Clinton with mishandling classified documents because of insufficient evidence proving “intent” — although the actions themselves are irrefutably illegal.
 
Well, how exactly did he anticipate gathering this proof when the Justice Department had proactively shielded the five people tasked with setting up the private system and then destroying it? Was he hoping to extract a confession directly from Hillary?
 

  • CityBoy and Col-Arthur like this

#12 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 30 September 2016 - 07:58 AM

I want to see Comey's resignation... he's either an incompetent pos or he was bought and paid for... no other option... 

 

Jim Comey’s Blind Eye
The FBI director can’t defend immunity for Hillary Clinton’s aides—which says volumes.
 
When Ms. Mills worked at the State Department she was not acting as Mrs. Clinton’s personal lawyer. She was the secretary's chief of staff. Any interaction with Mrs. Clinton about her server, or any evidence from that time, should have been fair game for the FBI and the Justice Department.
 
Ms. Mills was allowed to get away with this “attorney-client privilege” nonsense only because she claimed that she did not know about Mrs. Clinton’s server until after they had both left the State Department. Ergo, no questions about the server.
 
The FBI has deliberately chosen to accept this lie. The notes of its interview with Ms. Mills credulously states: “Mills did not learn Clinton was using a private email server until after Clinton’s tenure” at State. It added: “Mills stated she was not even sure she knew what a server was at the time.”
 
Which brings us to the hearing’s second revealing moment. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) pointed out that the FBI’s notes from its interview with Clinton IT staffer Bryan Pagliano expose this lie. In late 2009 or early 2010, Mr. Pagliano told investigators, he approached Ms. Mills to relay State Department concerns that the private server might pose a “federal records retention issue.” According to Mr. Pagliano, Ms. Mills told him not to worry about it, because other secretaries of state had used similar setups.
 

  • Tina likes this

#13 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 07 October 2016 - 09:24 PM

They're starting to turn on Comey... Time for him to go...

http://nypost.com/20...-clinton-probe/

#14 Tina

Tina

    Tinacious

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,739 posts

Posted 08 October 2016 - 09:01 AM

Just a reminder Rand Paul voted NO on his appointment.
  • kelley and Quasar like this

#15 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 13 October 2016 - 07:53 AM

More grumbling from inside the FBI and DOJ... good. I hope they keep it up until Comey is forced out... 

 

FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider

 

The decision to let Hillary Clinton off the hook for mishandling classified information has roiled the FBI and Department of Justice, with one person closely involved in the year-long probe telling FoxNews.com that career agents and attorneys on the case unanimously believed the Democratic presidential nominee should have been charged.
 
The source, who spoke to FoxNews.com on the condition of anonymity, said FBI Director James Comey’s dramatic July 5 announcement that he would not recommend to the Attorney General’s office that the former secretary of state be charged left members of the investigative team dismayed and disgusted. More than 100 FBI agents and analysts worked around the clock with six attorneys from the DOJ’s National Security Division, Counter Espionage Section, to investigate the case.
 
“No trial level attorney agreed, no agent working the case agreed, with the decision not to prosecute -- it was a top-down decision,” said the source, whose identity and role in the case has been verified by FoxNews.com.
 


#16 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 17 October 2016 - 11:42 PM

More proof that the powerful walk... where little people never could... the rich and powerful are above the law in this country... 

 

Kennedy should be fired immediately... 

 

In 2015, a possible “quid pro quo” with the FBI over one disputed e-mail was discussed with Patrick Kennedy, the undersecretary of State for management, according to another person interviewed by the FBI. “In exchange for marking the email unclassified, STATE would reciprocate by allowing the FBI to place more Agents in countries where they were presently forbidden,” according to the person, who also wasn’t named.
 
A second interview summary indicated that under the proposal made to Kennedy, the State Department would back “the FBI’s request to increase its personnel in Iraq” in exchange for looking into the e-mail, which it said was related "to the attacks on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi” that killed four Americans.
 


#17 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 17 October 2016 - 11:45 PM

Comey must go... 

 

According to an interview transcript given to The Daily Caller, provided by an intermediary who spoke to two federal agents with the bureau last Friday, agents are frustrated by Comey’s leadership.
 
“This is a textbook case where a grand jury should have been convened, but was not. That is appalling,” an FBI special agent who has worked public corruption and criminal cases said of the decision. “We talk about it in the office and don’t know how Comey can keep going.”
 


#18 Big Bopper

Big Bopper

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,035 posts

Posted 18 October 2016 - 11:14 AM

oh wah...

 

Hillary emails were never a problem. Ever.  That was her personal email.  She has the right to delete it if she wants. No laws broken. Get over it. Lord...

 

That's the problem.  They have been allowed to get away with so much for so long.

I assume that you are a reasonably intelligent person.  Then again we are told that we shouldn't assume things.

Why would you need to bleach bit 33,000 personal emails?  Why would you destroy 33,000 emails that have been subpoenaed by congress?

Why would you need to lie, when questioned by the FBI, that you only had one electronic device.  Then destroy several, that you had and lied about owning and using, with a hammer?

I could go on and on but it seems to be useless to some.  I guess the old saying is true," Ignorance is Bliss". 



#19 Savile Row

Savile Row

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,922 posts

Posted 18 October 2016 - 12:54 PM

Breakfast Club Inspirational Message

https://pbs.twimg.co...rwFWcAA5T-O.jpg



#20 Quasar

Quasar

    Dux Ducis

  • Administrators
  • 6,636 posts

Posted 19 October 2016 - 07:07 AM

Sometimes I think... that life would be easier had I swallowed the blue pill like so many others... it's becoming painfully clear that this mess went all the way to the top... that coward Comey still must go... 

 

The Clinton-Obama E-mail Scandal
 
Podesta’s proposal confirms that top advisers to Obama and Clinton were well aware of the improper e-mail setup, and provides further evidence that the likeliest explanation for the demise of the Clinton investigation is the simplest: The Clinton e-mail scandal is also the Obama e-mail scandal. Because the president’s e-mails would be admissible as evidence in the event of a Clinton prosecution; because it would then become clear that the president himself had sent classified information over a non-secure e-mail server, the communications of high-level executive officials with the president being presumptively classified; and because the president could not formally invoke executive privilege without tacitly admitting Clinton’s guilt — the president could not let any prosecution go forward. Huma Abedin’s requesting a copy of a Clinton–Obama e-mail exchange from investigators suggests she was canny enough to grasp the point at once.
 

  • Tina and apirateatheart like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users