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.
Who does one safely go to if they have information on the Clintons about illegal activity? Hypothetically speaking, and with the key word being "safely," who would you report it to? I'm just wondering who a whistleblower goes to these days with that type of info if they think they can't trust the FBI, the DOJ or the news media. What would you do?
Who does one safely go to if they have information on the Clintons about illegal activity? Hypothetically speaking, and with the key word being "safely," who would you report it to? I'm just wondering who a whistleblower goes to these days with that type of info if they think they can't trust the FBI, the DOJ or the news media. What would you do?
There is no love lost between the Bureau and the Clintons. The Bureau still thinks the Clintons beat them in the 1990s over Whitewater - and they still are still ticked about it. Even though an indictment was drawn up naming Hillary, it was never presented to a grand jury because Linda McDougall refused to testify and Hillary hid the documentary evidence in the White House residence. (They were found a few weeks after the statute of limitations ran out.) Heck, relations between the Bureau and the Clinton administration was so bad that then-FBI DIrector Louie Freeh turned in his White House pass just so that every time he went there, he had to sign in as a visitor (thus creating a record).
Fast forward to July 2016: For now-Director Jim Comey to come out and declare what he did about Hillary and her server was unheard of. As a rule, when the Bureau decides not to pursue prosecution, by policy the matter is sealed, that is, not public and not subject to FOIA. That he came out (twice) and call her incompetent, extremely careless and, essentially, a liar is unprecedented. Think about it: When was the last time you heard the FBI Director come out and publicly smear a Mafia boss who they didn't have enough to prosecute? Never - but he did it to her. (And all us retired agents applauded...)
The problem with someone coming forward and telling what they know about the Clintons is that you can count on a couple hands all of the people who do have truly inside knowledge of how they do things and what their true motivation is. Most of us read the papers or listen to the electronic media and think, isn't that obvious? Why isn't the Bureau arresting them? The answer is because no one with truly inside information and admissible evidence has yet come in. One of the reasons she got off on the email thing was that her closest co-conspirator, Cheryl Mills, then her Chief of Staff, is an attorney. Hillary subsequently hired her as her personal attorney, thus triggering the attorney-client privilege. Mills can't testify against Hillary, or even be questioned about communications between herself and Hillary.
If I actually had real, original evidence against the Clintons, I would go to the Bureau's Washington Field Office. They would love nothing better than to nail the Clintons.
I think it's very sad that a whistleblower would have to find a way to contact a man who is virtually a prisoner of his own choosing in an embassy who at any minute could be paid off to throw him out to the wolves. It's very sad. All of these mysterious deaths don't inspire courage, either.
I think it's very sad that a whistleblower would have to find a way to contact a man who is virtually a prisoner of his own choosing in an embassy who at any minute could be paid off to throw him out to the wolves. It's very sad. All of these mysterious deaths don't inspire courage, either.
Well that's the only avenue for the truly paranoid, I can understand some concern regarding DOJ but FBI?
Comey didn't give them the answer they wanted so a figure that was once respected becomes part of this conspiracy theory, why? Because you don't like the decision so he must be on the take.
Well that's the only avenue for the truly paranoid, I can understand some concern regarding DOJ but FBI?
Comey didn't give them the answer they wanted so a figure that was once respected becomes part of this conspiracy theory, why? Because you don't like the decision so he must be on the take.
No, because so many that have been prosecutors say Comey had a great case and wouldn't do his job. Even lower level FBI now are dejected over his actions to make the FBI a political football. That has never happened before and it's ugly.
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.
