No Indictment

ndcent

ndcent

New member
I hadn't seen this discussed on here. Perhaps it's because folks are as depressed and bewildered by the situation as I am.

She is an absolute criminal. How can this go on? Why are people so ambivalent? Wide open smack you in the face corruption casually accepted because "not Trump" or "her turn."

It's so depressing I have no idea what to do.
 
Register to hide this ad
Maybe this will happen in November?

On a side note the Earth can't fly into the Sun soon enough!!!!
 

Attachments

  • download (2).jpg
    download (2).jpg
    30.7 KB · Views: 285
-JD- said:
For a while there I thought there might be a chance for a 3rd party candidate. Last I checked though he's actually going down in the polls.
Click to expand...

Yeah, looks like people want entertainment not substance....as for Hillary, I would think she just got a pass......one of many.

RunninInGA said:
This election is going to be like trying to pick up a turd from the clean end.
Click to expand...

"Bestest" analogy ever!!! We were not as bad but not good either.
 
"here are all the things she did wrong, and the crimes she committed"

"we recommend no prosecution"

those 2 things just do not add up.



plus the secret meetings just prior to this. this entire thing stinks.
 
I read a theory today about the FBI press conference. It talked about how Comey has always been a stand up guy who was well respected professionally. They suggested that Comey was out of character but not recommending any charges and that he was probably told fom somebody higher up that they needed to give Hitlery a pass. They said why would he go on and on about all of the shit she did that was illegal and then make a point to mention that other people in the same situation would not get way with no charges and then saying they aren't seeking charges against her? It's because his hand were tied and he was told he basically needed to let her by a pass and that didn't sit well, so he made damn sure to let everyone know exactly the extent of her crimes and give her a pardon in the most sarcastic asinine way possible as a big F U to her and whoever is forcing the FBI's hand.

Think about it, if they truly thought she should get away scott free he wouldn't have even said half of the stuff he did. He wants to take her down and that press conference and the backlash from it was/is his only way to try to make it happen.
 
AudiTech said:
It's because his hand were tied and he was told he basically needed to let her by a pass and that didn't sit well, so he made damn sure to let everyone know exactly the extent of her crimes and give her a pardon in the most sarcastic asinine way possible as a big F U to her and whoever is forcing the FBI's hand
Click to expand...

He could have done that more effectively by resigning immediately, showing his disgust... He didn't. This is like Son of Sam investigating Jeffrey Dahmer and concluding all is kosher...
 
DK327 said:
He could have done that more effectively by resigning immediately, showing his disgust... He didn't. This is like Son of Sam investigating Jeffrey Dahmer and concluding all is kosher...
Click to expand...


Regardless it's the closest thing of heard to a rational reason why they outline all the illegal shit she did right before saying they won't recommend charges for her specifically but would for others.
 
This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone though. Obama giving his endorsement a few weeks ago indicated to me that there wouldn't be an indictment - he wouldn't have done that if there were a chance she'd be in legal troubles because of this.
 
AudiTech said:
Regardless it's the closest thing of heard to a rational reason why they outline all the illegal shit she did right before saying they won't recommend charges for her specifically but would for others.
Click to expand...

Maybe he laid it out for the court of public opinion to decide. I have little confidence that the voters will judge this as it should be judged however.
 
RunninInGA said:
Maybe he laid it out for the court of public opinion to decide. I have little confidence that the voters will judge this as it should be judged however.
Click to expand...

I personally think they're just shoving it in peoples' face because they know most people will not do anything about it or worse, most people don't even know what planet they're on. What difference does it make at this point anyway... ;)
 
No way Comey was told by anyone to do, or not do, anything. He is one of the most respected people in Washington. If he believed that Hilary should be charged, and was ordered not to recommend charging, he would put it all out there and ride off into a legal job that pays 10 times what his FBI salary is. Being a former career high level DOJ exec, he knows what is prosecutable (winnable) and what is not. Were if not for the fact that he's a white guy, he probably would be the Attorney General. No one would like to take Hilary out more than Comey, but the facts of the case just don't get a conviction. It will be interesting what happens if she does become his boss. He serves a 10 year term, not at the pleasure of the president. He has already publicly disagreed with Obama, and he doesn't seem to be intimated by politicians. Even though he knows the case doesn't warrant charges, he sure called her out. Plus, there's the little matter of the parallel Clinton Foundation investigation. That's not over yet, by a long shot.
 
He has a reputation of being a by the book kind of guy, going back to the Bush years. Btw he didn't exactly say she was innocent of negligence. It's pretty much a trainwreck.
 
Comey is no longer a "prosecutor" (though he is a former US Attorney), he is a law enforcement officer. It is not his decision to decide whether a case should be prosecuted or not. As a police officer, I don't decide if a case (investigation) should be prosecuted or not; I complete my investigation and forward it to the prosecutor.

Another point here, Comey is basically saying that she had no "intent" to be "negligent". United States Code only requires the prosecutor(s), by way of the FBI's investigation, to prove negligence. Comey, instead, states that Clinton was "extremely careless" -- this is basically a synonym for "grossly negligent". You can Google federal jury instructions and see how "gross negligence" is described to lay individuals deciding a criminal case.

If "intent" is required to prove negligence, I can basically stop arresting people for negligent homicide by intoxicated use of a motor vehicle... since no drunk driver "intends" to kill anyone when they are driving drunk. For that matter, I can stop writing tickets for stop sign violations, since no one "intends" to be negligent in driving their vehicle.

Keep in mind, Comey was involved in the Clinton/Whitewater investigation/prosecution.
 
Being a police officer is completely different to this aspect of the FBI. There is no comparison to the complexity and sensitivity on much of what the FBI does versus police matters. Little things like interrogating Saddam Hussein, convicting governors and senators and the Enron "too big to fail" investigation. It aint a parking problem, officer. 1No one said that Jim Comey is a prosecutor, and it is standard procedure for the FBI to include recommendations regarding prosecution when forwarding an investigative report to the DOJ/US Attorney. I was hoping Hillary would be charged too, but if Comey says its not warranted, i go with that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

No members online now.
Total: 225 (members: 0, guests: 225)

Forum statistics

Threads
278,306
Messages
3,554,045
Members
248,016
Latest member
Advally Service

Share this page

Trending content

Back
Top