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.
Thats must be why Comey took his bias against Donald Trump, and helped him win the election by releasing the fact that they were re-opening Clintons email investigation.
Do you even remotely understand how foolish that sounds? Think about it. Your statement makes absolutely no sense when compared to actual reality.
Maybe you just need to bone up on your reading comprehension skills.
The question of intent is critical actually. Go check out similar cases-where there was no intent to deceive or intent to be careless no one has ever been charged. Why should Clinton be treated differently? Ohhh because you'd rather have a actual real political bias involved. Got it.
There have been many actual lawyers that have stated that for a "Gross Negligence" misconduct charge, intent is not a requirement. Maybe you should "go check that out".
In this case Comey, not so craftily, changed it to "Extreme Carelessness". Maybe you can tell us how those two descriptions are not one in the same.
fired for letting their political opinion affect an investigation
these crooked cops coddled Clinton, and damaged any type of investigation against ANYONE
Being a lockstep liberal you want trump taken down...yet these idiot crooked cops damaged the investigations even against trump, by coddling / supporting hitlery
fired for letting their political opinion affect an investigation
these crooked cops coddled Clinton, and damaged any type of investigation against ANYONE
Being a lockstep liberal you want trump taken down...yet these idiot crooked cops damaged the investigations even against trump, by coddling / supporting hitlery
The report does not say that, what it says is that perception was created from their personal beliefs.
I totally agree with the report's findings. I fully believe that Comey and the Russian Propaganda machine cost Hillary the election, though I was not wanting her to win. (I wanted Sanders.)
What a joke, Comey helped her stay out of jail. just ask the navy kid.
lets goes thru some sane logic:
Clinton is the one that had a private email server setup.
Clinton is the one that mishandled classified information.
Clinton is the one that cost Clinton the election.
What a joke, Comey helped her stay out of jail. just ask the navy kid.
lets goes thru some sane logic:
Clinton is the one that had a private email server setup.
Clinton is the one that mishandled classified information.
Clinton is the one that cost Clinton the election.
line 1 wasnt illegal
Line 2 didnt happen
meaning line 3 is based on a flawed argument in and of itself.
Using a personal email account exclusively is a potent prescription for flouting the Federal Records Act and circumventing the Freedom of Information Act," Metcalfe said. "And there can be little doubt that Clinton knew this full well."
Anyone in her position and in government as long as she was would have been informed of this many times.
That is not what your cite says. It makes it pretty clear that Clinton is in fact pretty well covered over the period when she served. And the cite makes much use of "exclusive" when in fact much if not most of
Clinton's mail would have be classifier and secure. Which says Clinton did not exclusively use her private email.
Now, I do not work for State or FBI; however, I can tell you that mishandling of classified happens more than you think (sadly). People do not lose their jobs if they mishandled without malicious intent. After the conclusion of the Hillary email investigation, I distinctly remember Comey stating that they had looked at precedent of mishandling and her actions did not warrant firing because of what is normally done. In order to fire in the government, you definitely have to do an evaluation of actions taken against similar incidences of behavior. The data suggest that others had not been fired so they did not prosecute that. At least that was my understanding. At the time, I remember thinking "true, where I am I know of several incidents and they were not fired."
Now, if someone maliciously releases classified with dishonorable intent, that is a totally different story.
So far as I know, Comey is the only person of authority that has made the case that intent is required to be shown when someone divulges secret information by "Gross Negligence" or, as in this case, he used the term "Extreme Carelessness" in order to confuse the easily confused. Please find someone in a high position in any top secret government organization who has said anything similar to Comey.
line 1 wasnt illegal
Line 2 didnt happen
meaning line 3 is based on a flawed argument in and of itself.
agreed line 1 isnt illegal, I have a private server myself. Trusting gmail is lol.
line 2 DID happen, else how did wikileaks get her emails.... of course we know you wont answer this and instead will say something along the lines of where/what are the charges?
line 3 is not flawed at all to sane and logical people, but the left isnt logical and certainly not sane.
next.
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.
