FBI Director James Comey Called to Testify Before Congressional Panel
79 replies, posted
Good.
I want an explanation as to how negligence is not a reason to press charges against someone who committed a crime, intentionally or not. If you unintentionally run someone over because you weren't paying attention you get charged with manslaughter instead of murder, but its still a hefty punishment.
They'll never throw her in jail. The Clintons are way too politically powerful. There's a greater chance of world hunger being cured than Hillary being charged.
I'm not calling for her arrest, I'm calling for her trial.
If she gets arrested its a near guaranteed win for Trump.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;50661997]I'm not calling for her arrest, I'm calling for her trial.
If she gets arrested its a near guaranteed win for Trump.[/QUOTE]
I actually think Trump might have a worse time if she were actually arrested. The DNC would replace her with a less hated individual.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50662009]I actually think Trump might have a worse time if she were actually arrested. The DNC would replace her with a less hated individual.[/QUOTE]
The DNC would replace her with a complete unknown and this late in the game that'd be disastrous. There isn't another candidate that's ready to go cept maybe Biden and that's a huge stretch.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;50661997]I'm not calling for her arrest, I'm calling for her trial.
If she gets arrested its a near guaranteed win for Trump.[/QUOTE]
If she get's arrested wouldn't Sanders be the likely replacement? and he has a much higher rate than either of the two. Unless the DNC want to give it to some unknown and give the reps a free run.
[QUOTE=Ricenchicken;50662090]If she get's arrested wouldn't Sanders be the likely replacement? and he has a much higher rate than either of the two. Unless the DNC want to give it to some unknown and give the reps a free run.[/QUOTE]
The DNC has made it clear they don't want sanders.
Sanders wouldn't make it as an alternative to Clinton this late in the game anyway.
[editline]7th July 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=sgman91;50662009]I actually think Trump might have a worse time if she were actually arrested. The DNC would replace her with a less hated individual.[/QUOTE]
Yes and the GOP would have a ton of ammo against the DNC if she were arrested.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50662009]I actually think Trump might have a worse time if she were actually arrested. The DNC would replace her with a less hated individual.[/QUOTE]
The Democratic party would be destroyed if she was arrested [I]after the nomination[/I]. At that point 3rd parties become relevant since the Democrats have no credibility, and then the two party system could come crumbling down as people who were only voting Trump to not have Hillary suddenly get other options.
The fuck are you gonna ask him?
"Mr. Comey, IF THAT'S YOUR REAL NAME, how long do you plan to cover up Secretary Clinton being literally the [I]Hitler Mafia[/I]?!"
[QUOTE=Disgruntled;50662552]The fuck are you gonna ask him?
"Mr. Comey, IF THAT'S YOUR REAL NAME, how long do you plan to cover up Secretary Clinton being literally the [I]Hitler Mafia[/I]?!"[/QUOTE]
What? Did you watch the press conference? The first two thirds of it was a listing of the things she did in pedantic detail, even admitting the omission of 35,000 emails which were subpoenad evidence, which is a federal crime on its' own. They confirmed 160+ emails were classified at the time of sending, with the security/secrecy headers deliberately removed, as well as 2,000+ that were made secret after she'd sent them. Also both blatantly a crime, and in the most fundamental transgression of the laws around them.
Then he just goes "yeah not recommending persecution lol."
I could go to wikileaks right now and get a majority of these things, and i'm some chump in a basement. And they're trying to pass it off like russia, china or anyone else never saw any of it. I'd bet Putin checked her email more often than she did. He all but said "look if i do anything i'm going to end up dead in a ditch tomorrow with a shitty suicide note torn up in a glovebox across town. what the fuck do you want from me"
[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]
First Benghazi now this.
The way I see this going, I think the FBI may be praying for trump to win the elections, that way Obongo can't protect her, they have all the evidence, they haven't tried her. They're probably waiting for the right time. The FBI may be afraid that Clinton may get a pardon from Obango, but if he does that, the Democrats lose any chance of getting into the white house for many years. The situation is lying on a razor edge, the feds screw this up she gets away, they get this right and she goes behind bars.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Racist/Memeshit" - rilez))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=justinl132;50663158]The way I see this going, I think the FBI may be praying for trump to win the elections, that way Obongo can't protect her, they have all the evidence, they haven't tried her. They're probably waiting for the right time. The FBI may be afraid that Clinton may get a pardon from Obango, but if he does that, the Democrats lose any chance of getting into the white house for many years. The situation is lying on a razor edge, the feds screw this up she gets away, they get this right and she goes behind bars.[/QUOTE]
The FBI doesn't try people. They investigate and recommend their decision, based on their investigation, to the DOJ.
Also, you're actually using "Obongo?" Come on. That's as idiotic and immature a nickname as "Drumpf" is for Trump, or "Crooked Hillary" is for Clinton. Let's just use their actual names instead of resorting to elementary school playground nicknames, okay justin? more like justintheBUTT haha mean nicknames are funny and i'm 9
At the current state of the Democrats, it's really hard for me to trust them. I'd rather go with Trump than Clinton. Sanders is out of the picture for me because I hate Socialism as intense as his. Personally I'd prefer Ben Carson, but we can't get everything.
I've never heard of Drumpf, thats pretty new to me.
[QUOTE=justinl132;50663278]At the current state of the Democrats, it's really hard for me to trust them. I'd rather go with Trump than Clinton. Sanders is out of the picture for me because I hate Socialism as intense as his. Personally I'd prefer Ben Carson, but we can't get everything.
I've never heard of Drumpf, thats pretty new to me.[/QUOTE]
So you hate mild social democracy? Trump's [I]far[/I] closer to fascist than Sanders is to socialist - which is to say not even remotely. We have a very skewed view of socialism in the US - we think any and all social programs are socialist, when socialism is actually the complete and total ownership of the means of production by the people - something about 900 miles away from Sanders' political views.
Carson's an intelligent guy, but being a neurosurgeon doesn't translate well to the political world just like being a chemical engineer doesn't translate well to fashion design. He thought the pyramids were for grain silos and he advocated a [i]flat tax rate[/i] - both highlight that you can be an expert in one field and know literally nothing about another.
People could list off a million things wrong with Clinton. I could list off a million and one things wrong with Trump. Your decision, and if he fits your political ideology, go for it. But do independent research.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;50661105]he could be concerned that he may be dismissed by obama if he recommended charges be pressed against her[/QUOTE]
The president doesn't have the authority to fire the FBI Director.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50663309]So you hate mild social democracy? Trump's [I]far[/I] closer to fascist than Sanders is to socialist - which is to say not even remotely. We have a very skewed view of socialism in the US - we think any and all social programs are socialist, when socialism is actually the complete and total ownership of the means of production by the people - something about 900 miles away from Sanders' political views.
Carson's an intelligent guy, but being a neurosurgeon doesn't translate well to the political world just like being a chemical engineer doesn't translate well to fashion design. He thought the pyramids were for grain silos and he advocated a [i]flat tax rate[/i] - both highlight that you can be an expert in one field and know literally nothing about another.
People could list off a million things wrong with Clinton. I could list off a million and one things wrong with Trump. Your decision, and if he fits your political ideology, go for it. But do independent research.[/QUOTE]
Sanders is borderline communist. What Sanders is advocating for is free college and free healthcare. That will never happen because in order to have 'free' anything from the government, you need up the taxes. Personally I don't like the thought that my Tax money is going so it pays for someone else's tuition or surgery. I'm fine with social security, not so much for welfare. The more crutches you give people, the more they stay dependent. Trump wants to bring back jobs to america, working jobs, factory jobs. The jobs that employed thousands of people in places like detroit. It'll allow all those poverty stricken people a chance to climb up the ladder instead of shooting each other or slinging drugs.
I also like the idea of better immigration control, not nessecarily the wall. I find it unfair that people who came through the border illegally get all the medical and other benefits, when someone came through legaly and waited years to be naturalized for the same reason.
I also believe that the second amendment is one of the most sacred ammendments, it gives us the freedom to bear arms against tyranical governments as well as if someone breaks into my home I can defend myself.
Free education and free healthcare don't make people more dependent, it makes them less so. And your tax money could go to (and does go to) much worse things than providing basic welfare for people who don't have the means to pay for it themselves. Without it, minimum wage factory jobs make little difference when it comes to people shooting each other and dealing drugs. Nobody "climbs the ladder" starting as a factory worker with no education.
Not to mention that saying Sanders is borderline communist is not accurate at all, he's closer to a social democrat or even a socialist than a communist.
If Hillary doesn't get jail time then The United States of America is a joke
[QUOTE=justinl132;50664246]Sanders is borderline communist. What Sanders is advocating for is free college and free healthcare. That will never happen because in order to have 'free' anything from the government, you need up the taxes. Personally I don't like the thought that my Tax money is going so it pays for someone else's tuition or surgery. I'm fine with social security, not so much for welfare. The more crutches you give people, the more they stay dependent. Trump wants to bring back jobs to america, working jobs, factory jobs. The jobs that employed thousands of people in places like detroit. It'll allow all those poverty stricken people a chance to climb up the ladder instead of shooting each other or slinging drugs.
I also like the idea of better immigration control, not nessecarily the wall. I find it unfair that people who came through the border illegally get all the medical and other benefits, when someone came through legaly and waited years to be naturalized for the same reason.
I also believe that the second amendment is one of the most sacred ammendments, it gives us the freedom to bear arms against tyranical governments as well as if someone breaks into my home I can defend myself.[/QUOTE]
It's not your tax money, it's the state's. Once the state collects taxes, it can spend it however it sees fit. If society can be improved by offering free healthcare and education, then the state is obliged to spend money on it.
No plan to "bring back jobs" will ever work, because those jobs moved overseas for a damn good reason. The US should be looking to retrain workers (hint: this is where free education comes into play) so that they can be deployed to higher-skilled jobs. That is how an advanced economy should evolve.
They were ripping into him earlier. I only caught a little though.
Ok, honest question here:
What happens if Hillary is indicted? If they press charges, would that mean she has to drop out? Or would that only happen after a conviction?
What happens if she is convicted after she (possibly) becomes president?
Do they just go to the runner-up (Bernie Sanders?) before the election?
Does it mean the election process would be restarted?
What a massive cluster-fuck this election is.
There's really no precedent for it, but I assume Sanders would become the Democratic nominee and therefore President.
The Dems will never turn the party over to Sanders
[QUOTE=Trilby Harlow;50663058]What? Did you watch the press conference? The first two thirds of it was a listing of the things she did in pedantic detail, even admitting the omission of 35,000 emails which were subpoenad evidence, which is a federal crime on its' own. They confirmed 160+ emails were classified at the time of sending, with the security/secrecy headers deliberately removed, as well as 2,000+ that were made secret after she'd sent them. Also both blatantly a crime, and in the most fundamental transgression of the laws around them.
Then he just goes "yeah not recommending persecution lol."
I could go to wikileaks right now and get a majority of these things, and i'm some chump in a basement. And they're trying to pass it off like russia, china or anyone else never saw any of it. I'd bet Putin checked her email more often than she did. He all but said "look if i do anything i'm going to end up dead in a ditch tomorrow with a shitty suicide note torn up in a glovebox across town. what the fuck do you want from me"[/QUOTE]
I'll just copy and paste this from the other thread:
The fact of the matter is that stating [I]"extreme carelessness"[/I] in a press conference is not the same as stating [I]"gross negligence"[/I]. There is a reason Comey picked those words specifically, and it was to weasel out of recommending prosecution. The reason is because [B]there is simply no similar case law to support a prosecution under 18 USC 793(f)[/B]. It doesn't matter what people think about the application of the "proper place of custody", because what matters is the case law, and the case law doesn't support it. "I think proper place of custody would mean this" is not the same thing as "this is what it means" in the legal world. Sorry.
If a prosecutor knows that he can't get a conviction due to lack of admissible evidence, he isn't supposed to continue with the charges. That's just a tenet of the criminal justice standards, and that's what the FBI concluded from their investigation. [B]It would be unethical for a prosecutor to continue, so the FBI did not recommend it.[/B] Whether you agree with what happened or not is irrelevant, because you don't work for the FBI, you don't work for the DOJ, and you probably aren't even a lawyer. The only thing you can do is simply not vote for her if you feel she broke the law, and that's your right.
In addition to that,[B] gross negligence is legally defined as necessarily causing "grave injury or harm."[/B] It's real tough to prove that Hillary was grossly negligent, even if you don't have to prove intent, because you have to show quantifiable injury or harm to national security - like a US agent being killed or captured as a result of that negligence. Since the FBI found no evidence of severe security breaches (though they found plenty that were [I]possible[/I]), proving actual gross negligence would be incredibly difficult, and like Snowmew said, almost definitely not worth pursuing due to the knowledge that there was no evidence to show gross negligence on Hillary's part.
[QUOTE=Snowmew;50664818]I'll just copy and paste this from the other thread:
The fact of the matter is that stating [I]"extreme carelessness"[/I] in a press conference is not the same as stating [I]"gross negligence"[/I]. There is a reason Comey picked those words specifically, and it was to weasel out of recommending prosecution. The reason is because [B]there is simply no similar case law to support a prosecution under 18 USC 793(f)[/B]. It doesn't matter what people think about the application of the "proper place of custody", because what matters is the case law, and the case law doesn't support it. "I think proper place of custody would mean this" is not the same thing as "this is what it means" in the legal world. Sorry.
If a prosecutor knows that he can't get a conviction due to lack of admissible evidence, he isn't supposed to continue with the charges. That's just a tenet of the criminal justice standards, and that's what the FBI concluded from their investigation. [B]It would be unethical for a prosecutor to continue, so the FBI did not recommend it.[/B] Whether you agree with what happened or not is irrelevant, because you don't work for the FBI, you don't work for the DOJ, and you probably aren't even a lawyer. The only thing you can do is simply not vote for her if you feel she broke the law, and that's your right.[/QUOTE]
He admitted in the hearing that she broke the law. He said that a lack of intent based on her total ignorance of how technology works was the only think that stopped him from recommending prosecution.
[QUOTE=sgman91;50665974]He admitted in the hearing that she broke the law. He said that a lack of intent based on her total ignorance of how technology works was the only think that stopped him from recommending prosecution.[/QUOTE]
Which follows 99 years of case law to the letter. It's a weird case and there's room for discussion - but his decision is absolutely as valid as the people saying he should've followed the wording to the letter, even though it's pretty clear that they didn't find any evidence of gross negligence or a concrete threat to national security.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;50666017]Which follows 99 years of case law to the letter. It's a weird case and there's room for discussion - but his decision is absolutely as valid as the people saying he should've followed the wording to the letter, even though it's pretty clear that they didn't find any evidence of gross negligence or a concrete threat to national security.[/QUOTE]
HE said that she broke the terms of the law. He said that. So I'm not sure why you're saying that there was no evidence for it.
I think Isak wants to date Clinton at this point.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.