Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sub f. part 1 or 2 No gross negligence cited by FBI or knowledge ..... FBI found Clinton made mistake and was "careless", no laws broken, ergo no recommended prosecution.
You missed the first 15 minutes of his speech. You or I would be looking at jail time but not a Clinton.
He knew Obama would never Prosecute. He called out her lies the best he could.
Today will be interesting.
Just minutes after the speech Hillary is with Obama on the Campaign trail. The FIX was in from the beginning.
The Director just stated under oath that she did not break the law. Did not. Did not violate any criminal statute. This guy grilling him is out of his league and looks like a desperate fool.
The Director just stated under oath that she did not break the law. Did not. Did not violate any criminal statute. This guy grilling him is out of his league and looks like a desperate fool.
Then how is it that others in similar situations would get charged?
Then how is it that others in similar situations would get charged?
Similar is not equal.
I have no doubt that the Director is not influenced at all by politics.
He's going to answer your question, let's see what their process entailed.
I'm just going to add - over zealous prosecution is nothing new in the US justice system. Perhaps the poor sods that are awaiting trial over non nefarious transfer of data should not be.
The best minds in the system were on Hillary case. It's not unreasonable to assume that further down the hirachy you'll have prosecutors that aren't so adept, or for that matter, stringently meticulous.
Then how is it that others in similar situations would get charged?
That is the question I am waiting for.
Will one of these jackasses ask him to clarify exactly :
"why it is that there is no recommendation to prosecute yet you go on to say 'To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now'".
If they don't directly ask him to explain this then I think the whole hearing is a farce.
I wonder how much taxpayer money will be wasted on this debacle. If you vote for the Republicans be prepared for another war and a tax increase. They aren't the best with money despite their claims.
If you wake up from your coma, the national debt is almost 20 TRILLION...
Your precious president has spent MORE THAN EVERY OTHER PRESIDENT TO DATE COMBINED!
So don't go saying that the Republicans are bad at spending...
Then how is it that others in similar situations would get charged?
Stop using the word 'charged.' He said they'd face security or administrative consequences.
Maybe they should be 'charged' --- in Clinton's fact pattern, I say definitely should be charged --- but Comey couldn't go that far.
Comey is so afraid of something, he can't bring himself to say that Clinton would be fired from the FBI for what she did.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
