• FBI Director James Comey Called to Testify Before Congressional Panel
    79 replies, posted
[QUOTE]WASHINGTON—House Republicans called Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey to testify before a congressional panel over his recommendation not to press criminal charges against Hillary Clinton for her use of a private email server while secretary of state. Mr. Comey is expected to face sharp questioning at the hearing on the agency’s decision, which incensed Republicans and spared the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee’s campaign from what could have been a devastating blow. An FBI spokeswoman confirmed a Thursday appearance. On Tuesday, Mr. Comey said Mrs. Clinton had been “extremely careless” in her handling of emails containing classified material, handing her opponents fresh ammunition about her judgment and her national security credentials, which have been the backbone of her pitch as to why voters should choose her over presumptive Republican nominee Donald Trump. House Speaker Paul Ryan (R., Wis.), the Republican vice-presidential nominee in 2012, said Mr. Comey’s assessment was a valid reason to prevent Mrs. Clinton from receiving classified information in briefings given to her as the Democratic presidential nominee. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper “should deny Hillary Clinton access to classified information during this campaign given how recklessly she handled classified information,” Mr. Ryan said. [...] “There are a lot of questions that have to be answered,” Mr. Ryan told reporters Wednesday. “We’re going to be asking those questions.” House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz (R., Utah) said Wednesday that Mr. Comey had agreed to testify before his committee Thursday morning. “The FBI’s recommendation is surprising and confusing. The fact pattern presented by Director Comey makes clear Secretary Clinton violated the law,” Mr. Chaffetz said in a statement Wednesday. “Congress and the American people have a right to understand the depth and breadth of the FBI’s investigation.” Mrs. Clinton’s campaign said Tuesday it was pleased the FBI had determined no further action was needed and that the matter was now resolved.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.wsj.com/articles/fbi-director-james-comey-called-to-testify-before-congressional-panel-1467829287[/url]
This is a ride that just doesn't end.
I hope heads roll, this is beyond ridiculous and is a really blatant disregard for the law.
Anyone that thinks its for the law is going to be disappointed, the republicans are just trying to milk it for all its worth in a desperate attempt to drop her ratings.
(Blind optimism alert) I hope this opens a huge corruption scandal, its insane that people like Hillary Clinton can send highly classified information through an insecure network and get off scott free, while people like Snowden (albeit different situations, but the premise is they mishandled tons of classified information) have to live out the rest of their lives in fear that the US is going to capture them.
Don't know how many people are aware of this, but Comey is a Republican and served in George W. Bush's administration.
[QUOTE=smurfy;50660854]Don't know how many people are aware of this, but Comey is a Republican and served in George W. Bush's administration.[/QUOTE] Doesn't mean he can't be intimidated by Clinton.
[QUOTE=smurfy;50660854]Don't know how many people are aware of this, but Comey is a Republican and served in George W. Bush's administration.[/QUOTE] I wish people would stop pulling this card, it means nothing. Justice Roberts is a Repub that was nominated by Bush but flipped to defend Obamacare. It happens.
Good. Make sure there wasn't corruption happening. But still, call me when they don't find anything.
[QUOTE=smurfy;50660854]Don't know how many people are aware of this, but Comey is a Republican and served in George W. Bush's administration.[/QUOTE] Anyone can be corrupted.
...you really believed Clinton paid him off, after that damaging report he did yesterday,
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50660982]...you really believed Clinton paid him off, after that damaging report he did yesterday,[/QUOTE] tbh theres a difference between writing a damaging report, and pretty much pulling clinton out of the race and putting her in prison, + I guarantee you 99.9% of american voters will not read or hear a single word more of that report than what the media tells them, so its incredibly unlikely that it will seriously damage clintons campaign.
[QUOTE=OmniConsUme;50660982]...you really believed Clinton paid him off, after that damaging report he did yesterday,[/QUOTE] he could be concerned that he may be dismissed by obama if he recommended charges be pressed against her [editline]6th July 2016[/editline] it is a possibility, though i don't really know ehat lead to the decision and for all i know it was either completely legitimate or heavily influenced by backroom dealings
[QUOTE=Saxon;50660717]Anyone that thinks its for the law is going to be disappointed, the republicans are just trying to milk it for all its worth in a desperate attempt to drop her ratings.[/QUOTE] This, it's especially important since Trump failed to go hard on attacking her as soon as the opportunity presented itself. And no, a few tweets don't count as an all out attack.
[QUOTE=Toro;50661040]tbh theres a difference between writing a damaging report, and pretty much pulling clinton out of the race and putting her in prison, + I guarantee you 99.9% of american voters will not read or hear a single word more of that report than what the media tells them, so its incredibly unlikely that it will seriously damage clintons campaign.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure what makes you think Comey is responsible for indictments over the DoJ.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50661166]I'm not sure what makes you think Comey is responsible for indictments over the DoJ.[/QUOTE] The DoJ already said they'd follow the FBI's recommendation. If they gave the go-ahead and Lynch refused, the shitshow that Comey caused here would have been a thousand times worse, because there would be far more evidence of a conflict of interest.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50661214]The DoJ already said they'd follow the FBI's recommendation. If they gave the go-ahead and Lynch refused, the shitshow that Comey caused here would have been a thousand times worse, because there would be far more evidence of a conflict of interest.[/QUOTE] If the DoJ really wanted to prosecute they could whether Comey wanted them to or not. In this case no one involved wanted to.
[QUOTE=Reshy;50660862]Doesn't mean he can't be intimidated by Clinton.[/QUOTE] Your just all kinds of hoping. It's just a pony show.
[QUOTE=plunger435;50661261]If the DoJ really wanted to prosecute they could whether Comey wanted them to or not. In this case no one involved wanted to.[/QUOTE] It's not the DOJ as much as it is the Attorney General. If the AG doesn't want to press charges it's just not going to happen. And of course there's nothing fishy about the AG and Mr. Clinton meeting together 3 days prior to the announcement...
Honestly, I'm still waiting for some rogue FBI agents to start releasing files regarding the Clinton investigation. Some news sites reported that several groups of FBI agents intended on releasing the whole shindig if nothing was done, as they found it to be incredibly incriminating. Not to mention that some FBI agents are coming forward and saying, "Fuck the emails, pay attention to the Clinton Foundation" and keep hinting off stuff about massive money laundering.
Comey is probably one of the most principled people in Washington. We're talking about a guy who defied President Bush and his men at one point. That being said, I don't think his decision was not influenced by politics. I don't think he was intimidated/bribed/whatever by the Clintons, but I do believe he made that decision on his own partly out of political pragmatism. Had the Republicans had a better candidate running this election, I think it would've been more likely he would recommend an indictment. He doesn't want to see a Sanders or Trump presidency.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50661367]Honestly, I'm still waiting for some rogue FBI agents to start releasing files regarding the Clinton investigation. Some news sites reported that several groups of FBI agents intended on releasing the whole shindig if nothing was done, as they found it to be incredibly incriminating. [B]Not to mention that some FBI agents are coming forward and saying, "Fuck the emails, pay attention to the Clinton Foundation" and keep hinting off stuff about massive money laundering.[/B][/QUOTE] Source?
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;50661336]It's not the DOJ as much as it is the Attorney General. If the AG doesn't want to press charges it's just not going to happen. And of course there's nothing fishy about the AG and Mr. Clinton meeting together 3 days prior to the announcement...[/QUOTE] Honestly, either something fishy was going on or Lynch is an absolute imbecile. There's no other way to explain that meeting.
[QUOTE=srobins;50661378]Source?[/QUOTE] Take it with a grain of salt, [url=https://out.reddit.com/t3_4r1pry?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.sli.mg%2FWuG4nP.png&token=AQAAfOF9V5xQj9WpM1LmVsmUlgRlb-jxhFeiO2JNCP60JhJxYx02]but tons of randoms on 4chan and 8chan have been coming forward posting shit about the recent investigation because they are fairly rightfully pissed off about how their entire organization is being made a mockery of[/url]. Also some of the claims made are starting to have some fairly good connections with shit being mentioned, including one of his mentions of [url=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/06/billionaire-sex-offender-epstein-once-claimed-co-founded-clinton-foundation.html]Epstein being connected to the Clinton Foundation and possibly involved in creating a sex trafficking network[/url].
[QUOTE=Mr._N;50661376]Comey is probably one of the most principled people in Washington. We're talking about a guy who defied President Bush and his men at one point. That being said, I don't think his decision was not influenced by politics. I don't think he was intimidated/bribed/whatever by the Clintons, but I do believe he made that decision on his own partly out of political pragmatism. Had the Republicans had a better candidate running this election, I think it would've been more likely he would recommend an indictment. He doesn't want to see a Sanders or Trump presidency.[/QUOTE] I think it's much more that the case law on the Espionage Act has always required intent, even if the direct wording of the law doesn't. 100 years of interpretation of the law have required explicit intent. Even the legal definition of "gross negligence" implies some degree of intent. I think it's totally fair to defer to the long history of case law on the Espionage Act over the explicit wording of a document created 100 years ago, long before the advent of the Internet or emails could have been predicted.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50661409]Take it with a grain of salt, [url=https://out.reddit.com/t3_4r1pry?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.sli.mg%2FWuG4nP.png&token=AQAAfOF9V5xQj9WpM1LmVsmUlgRlb-jxhFeiO2JNCP60JhJxYx02]but tons of randoms on 4chan and 8chan have been coming forward posting shit about the recent investigation because they are fairly rightfully pissed off about how their entire organization is being made a mockery of[/url]. Also some of the claims made are starting to have some fairly good connections with shit being mentioned, including one of his mentions of [url=http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/07/06/billionaire-sex-offender-epstein-once-claimed-co-founded-clinton-foundation.html]Epstein being connected to the Clinton Foundation and possibly involved in creating a sex trafficking network[/url].[/QUOTE] No offense but I can't take a /pol/ thread as a source no matter how much salt is involved. There's literally nothing proving that they're FBI agents or substantiating anything they say.
[QUOTE=srobins;50661448]No offense but I can't take a /pol/ thread as a source no matter how much salt is involved. There's literally nothing proving that they're FBI agents or substantiating anything they say.[/QUOTE] I'd take crayon drawings in a bathroom stall in a convenience store in rural Kansas over an anonymous /pol/ poster.
I can understand that, but I'm going to keep most of what I read in mind, while I wait to figure out what is going on here. With all the stuff in the recent years coming up about Bill Clinton, be it flying on Loli Express, rape and sexual assault accusations, tons of really shady shit going on... I just cannot reasonably turn my head away anymore, even from anons on /pol/. It's to the point that I'm waiting on a Trump victory, and most of the Clinton Foundation being put into jail for life or the day when Bill croaks and Hillary loses her head to some crazed fuck. Just seeing how our countries justice system is being made a mockery of, it just starts to eat you away man.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;50661485]I can understand that, but I'm going to keep most of what I read in mind, while I wait to figure out what is going on here. With all the stuff in the recent years coming up about Bill Clinton, be it flying on Loli Express, rape and sexual assault accusations, tons of really shady shit going on... I just cannot reasonably turn my head away anymore, even from anons on /pol/. It's to the point that I'm waiting on a Trump victory, and most of the Clinton Foundation being put into jail for life or the day when Bill croaks and Hillary loses her head to some crazed fuck. Just seeing how our countries justice system is being made a mockery of, it just starts to eat you away man.[/QUOTE] Be aware that a lot of those accusations are baseless conspiracy theories on par with thinking that the government killed JFK and that there are globalist Jewish illuminati leaders controlling the world economy. Seriously - there's theories that the Clintons had people murdered that conveniently leave out loads of information. There's theories that Hillary's actually a lesbian. The Clintons are such a prolific name that they get accused of some bizarre shit. A lot of the conspiracies against them leave out evidence that debunks the whole thing. Be skeptical, don't accept hearsay on the internet unless there's concrete evidence behind it. That's how the Obama birther shit started, too. Let's not have that happen again.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50661418]I think it's much more that the case law on the Espionage Act has always required intent, even if the direct wording of the law doesn't. 100 years of interpretation of the law have required explicit intent. Even the legal definition of "gross negligence" implies some degree of intent. I think it's totally fair to defer to the long history of case law on the Espionage Act over the explicit wording of a document created 100 years ago, long before the advent of the Internet or emails could have been predicted.[/QUOTE] You know, even ignoring the espionage act, there are other laws in question. For example Title 18 section 1924 states: "Whoever, being an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the United States, and, by virtue of his office, employment, position, or contract, becomes possessed of documents or materials containing classified information of the United States, knowingly removes such documents or materials without authority and with the intent to retain such documents or materials at an unauthorized location shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for not more than one year, or both." ([URL]https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1924[/URL]) She clearly broke that law.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.