Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
OverSword

FBI recommends no charges for Clinton

267 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Dark_Grey
Just now, pallidin said:

FBI Director James Comey testified Thursday that Hillary Clinton’s claims -- some made under oath -- about her use of a private email server were “not true,” raising the question of whether in doing so she committed a felony.

In a wide-ranging appearance before the House oversight committee, Comey also said Clinton’s email practices put America’s secrets at risk and her actions constituted the “definition of carelessness.”

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/07/07/comey-testifies-clinton-email-claims-not-true-at-heated-hill-hearing.html

This is what the public needs to understand: yes, the FBI chose not to indict Hillary BUT that's not the end of the story. Just listening to the announcement, they made it extremely clear that she is unfit to hold this position and that any one else would have been arrested. Essentially, they admitted they could not arrest her which is very, very different than "WELP THERES NO EVIDENCE SO THERES NO CRIME!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
On 05/07/2016 at 6:14 PM, OverSword said:

This is obviously corruption.

Yes, I agree - however, charging (and possibly convicting) Clinton for what she did would open up possible retrospective actions against other political figures (Rice and Powell are others that I know of) who have done the same thing, and used a "non-government, private email server" for some of their official correspondence while in office.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't charge Clinton, and it does suggest that the "corruption" goes deeper, and has gone on for far longer, than just this current incident. If Clinton deserves punishment for what she did (and I wouldn't argue she doesn't) then so do many other political figures for actions that were comparable. However, for all the hate being directed at Clinton (again, not saying it is undeserved) I am not seeing much venom directed at the other figures who should also be held accountable for possibly illegal acts they committed while in office.

You don't "clean up Washington" by making a scapegoat of Clinton.

Edited by Leonardo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
1 minute ago, Leonardo said:

Yes, I agree - however, charging (and possibly convicting) Clinton for what she did would open up possible retrospective actions against other political figures (Rice and Powell are others that I know of) who have done the same thing, and used a "non-government, private email server" for some of their official correspondence while in office.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't charge Clinton, and it does suggest that the "corruption" goes deeper, and has gone on for far longer, than just this current incident. If Clinton deserves punishment for what she did (and I wouldn't argue she doesn't) then so do many other political figures for actions that were comparable. However, for all the hate being directed at Clinton (again, not saying it is undeserved) I am not seeing much venom directed at the other figures who should also be held accountable for possibly illegal acts they committed while in office.

I think that largely comes down to exposure. She's running for office which means her moral standards are constantly being scrutinized by the public eye.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing

Biggest difference Leo is that non of those others are mere months away from possibly holding the highest office in our country!

Sure go back and check into those others aswell...

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aftermath

"Republicans say there is evidence Clinton may have lied to Congress, a felony charge they now plan to refer to the Justice Department."(http://radio.foxnews.com/2016/07/07/republicans-hammer-home-gross-negligence-at-comey-hearing/)

 

Um-hum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
2 minutes ago, Dark_Grey said:

I think that largely comes down to exposure. She's running for office which means her moral standards are constantly being scrutinized by the public eye.

 

Just now, CrimsonKing said:

Biggest difference Leo is that non of those others are mere months away from possibly holding the highest office in our country!

Sure go back and check into those others aswell...

I don't disagree with either of you that it is her current "exposure" that is one reason for more vitriol being directed at Clinton, but as I said, you won't clean up Washington by making her the scapegoat.

Okay, you gotta start somewhere, but the silence from the public regarding other figures in high office who have been "indiscrete" in their activities suggests to me that it would also end with Clinton. The public will get their pound of flesh out of the Beast that is Washington, and then forget about it until the next scandal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dark_Grey
2 minutes ago, Leonardo said:

 

I don't disagree with either of you that it is her current "exposure" that is one reason for more vitriol being directed at Clinton, but as I said, you won't clean up Washington by making her the scapegoat.

Okay, you gotta start somewhere, but the silence from the public regarding other figures in high office who have been "indiscrete" in their activities suggests to me that it would also end with Clinton. The public will get their pound of flesh out of the Beast that is Washington, and then forget about it until the next scandal.

Bread and circuses man. Lights have to shut off or grocery store shelves become bare before we're going to see any sort of (major) resistance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing

I can't disagree with that either Leo,hell just listen to what the media says on a every two to four year basis about how polls and statistics show how disapproving the public is of the current state of affairs in Washington.

Yet...Everyone lines up like good little drones to vote for what they were given by the elite.Meh makes me sick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Aftermath

But here's the poop in the eye: the FBI could have charged her based on the evidence they presented in the presser because we all know Pres. Crackpipe was gonna pardon her in the end.  Honestly, I think I would have been ok with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Thing that bugs me is this...

Yes, other officials than Clinton have illegally used "unauthorized private servers" to effect certain communications.

You want to know "why"?

Because "authorized" computer servers have a procedure in place to automatically record email-in, email-out, and this is stored, beyond reach of the official.

What these weirdo's are doing with illegal private servers is circumventing the off-site auto-archive storage.

These private servers allows the official to erase or post-modify anything done on it, which is illegal and makes me suspect as to why they are doing this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danielost
2 hours ago, Leonardo said:

 

I don't disagree with either of you that it is her current "exposure" that is one reason for more vitriol being directed at Clinton, but as I said, you won't clean up Washington by making her the scapegoat.

Okay, you gotta start somewhere, but the silence from the public regarding other figures in high office who have been "indiscrete" in their activities suggests to me that it would also end with Clinton. The public will get their pound of flesh out of the Beast that is Washington, and then forget about it until the next scandal.

you cannot clean up Washington by letting her run for president and maybe get elected to said office.  even her current commercial about c.h.i.p.s. is a lie.  chips was started by the states and when the feds took it over they destroyed it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Wow. Gowdy was absolutely spot-on with pertinent questions that all of us care about.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Extraordinary!

I guess... "Don't mess with Congress"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Claire.
1 minute ago, pallidin said:

Wow. Gowdy was absolutely spot-on with pertinent questions that all of us care about.

Oh yeah, best thing I've watched all day. I almost started feeling sorry for Comey. Almost.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing
5 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Extraordinary!

I guess... "Don't mess with Congress"

Yep...They just might ask you questions... :sleepy:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

This hearing makes me seriously proud of Congress. No-one is above the law.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
4 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

Yep...They just might ask you questions... :sleepy:

Huh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek
3 minutes ago, pallidin said:

This hearing makes me seriously proud of Congress. No-one is above the law.

 

lol, give it few weeks, lets see where it goes, cuz i do have this suspicion, it is second part of the circus, clowns changed, but the program is still the same,

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Gromdor
6 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

Yep...They just might ask you questions... :sleepy:

They do seem to love to "committee" things to death.  In many ways they are like the forums here on UM.  Talk about an issue for 100+ pages then get bored and talk about the next issue for 100+ pages.  Of course, they get paid six digits income so I guess there is a slight difference. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CrimsonKing
3 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Huh?

Correct me if i'm wrong,but you are acting as if this "pagentry" accomplished something or anything at all really...

Just think for one second all the multi millions spent now by congress on Benghazi and now this and all the people get out of it is straight faced admission that if one is rich and powerful enough they can get away with anything!

Somehow it just seems easier to take if we don't so blatantly know that meh

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Leonardo
2 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

They do seem to love to "committee" things to death.  In many ways they are like the forums here on UM.  Talk about an issue for 100+ pages then get bored and talk about the next issue for 100+ pages.  Of course, they get paid six digits income so I guess there is a slight difference. 

You mean you don't get paid for posting here on UM??!

But...but, Saru said..."Oi!, SARU!!" :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not Your Huckleberry
6 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

They do seem to love to "committee" things to death.  In many ways they are like the forums here on UM.  Talk about an issue for 100+ pages then get bored and talk about the next issue for 100+ pages.  Of course, they get paid six digits income so I guess there is a slight difference. 

Are you trying to tell me you don't get paid six figures to post here? Chat with a mod. Hope that helps. 

Edit: WTF LEO? !

Edited by Not Your Huckleberry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
3 minutes ago, CrimsonKing said:

Correct me if i'm wrong,but you are acting as if this "pagentry" accomplished something or anything at all really...

Just think for one second all the multi millions spent now by congress on Benghazi and now this and all the people get out of it is straight faced admission that if one is rich and powerful enough they can get away with anything!

Somehow it just seems easier to take if we don't so blatantly know that meh

This is no "pageantry" 

It's a VERY serious Congressional oversight committee hearing.

Joke as you wish, or take it lightly, but they do not, nor I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aztek

lol, who screams "robbery" the loudest??? the thief 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.