Trump: I hope Barr will 'do what's fair' with regards to investigating Hillary

[Counselor706]

It's Hillary's turn.

Trump: I hope Barr will 'do what's fair' with regards to investigating Hillary Clinton

 

[jomar]

LOL, everybody gonna get a do over?

 

[Tigersman]

Barr and Hillary

I wish Barr would do what is best for our country by stripping Trump, placing him in a tiger cage out in the desert and leave him there. Traitors deserve no better.

 

[someoneyouknow]

It's Hillary's turn.

Trump: I hope Barr will 'do what's fair' with regards to investigating Hillary Clinton

In other words, using almost the exact same language, there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute the con artist for obstruction of justice, just like Comey didn't find sufficient evidence to prosecute Hillary.

Funny how the exact same results generates two different responses.

 

[BotanyBoy]

In other words, using almost the exact same language, there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute the con artist for obstruction of justice, just like Comey didn't find sufficient evidence to prosecute Hillary.

Funny how the exact same results generates two different responses.

Except Comey did.

He just decided not to because Clinton.

You can keep ignoring the official statement that says as much but it just highlights your partisanship and LOVE for the big (D).

 

[bbx56]

In other words, using almost the exact same language, there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute the con artist for obstruction of justice, just like Comey didn't find sufficient evidence to prosecute Hillary.

Funny how the exact same results generates two different responses.

But the FBI wanted to and NIGGER DOJ said NO

 

[someoneyouknow]

Except Comey did.

He just decided not to because Clinton.

You can keep ignoring the official statement that says as much but it just highlights your partisanship and LOVE for the big (D).

As usual, you're wrong. Here are Comey's exact words:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.​

But do go on about the "official statement".

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

 

[GILFinTEXAS]

As usual, you're wrong. Here are Comey's exact words:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.​

But do go on about the "official statement".

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

FBI’s top lawyer believed Hillary Clinton should face charges, but was talked out of it

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-h...d-hillary-clinton-should-face-charges-but-was

 

[Que]

In other words, using almost the exact same language, there wasn't enough evidence to prosecute the con artist for obstruction of justice, just like Comey didn't find sufficient evidence to prosecute Hillary.

Funny how the exact same results generates two different responses.

Comey didn't look. His original draft said gross negligence. Strozk's version said extremely careless. That whole decision was made BEFORE they even bothered to interview her while keeping no notes and allowing co-conspirators already granted blanket immunity into the non-interview.

It's not this just that you've always been a partisan hack it's that the level to which you strive to he so is astonishing.

 

[SpeareChucker]

Here's the challenge.

Get those who bemoaned the money wasted in endless Clinton investigations and juxtapose it with their new belief that we have not spent enough money to get Trump.

 

[someoneyouknow]

Comey didn't look. His original draft said gross negligence. Strozk's version said extremely careless. That whole decision was made BEFORE they even bothered to interview her while keeping no notes and allowing co-conspirators already granted blanket immunity into the non-interview.

It's not this just that you've always been a partisan hack it's that the level to which you strive to he so is astonishing.

There is a difference between someone being stupid and someone deliberately revealing classified information. That is why she wasn't charged.

And please, partisan hack? I go after all the idiots. I'm just upfront about the con artist because he's the one in office. When the next person comes in, I'll be the same.

Unlike you and several others on here who come up with every excuse imaginable to justify the con artist glorifying dictators and destroying this country with his corruption.

 

[SpeareChucker]

It sounds like the same dog whistle President Obama issued that prompted Lois Lerner into action.

 

[bbx56]

There is a difference between someone being stupid and someone deliberately revealing classified information. That is why she wasn't charged.

And please, partisan hack? I go after all the idiots. I'm just upfront about the con artist because he's the one in office. When the next person comes in, I'll be the same.

Unlike you and several others on here who come up with every excuse imaginable to justify the con artist glorifying dictators and destroying this country with his corruption.

fuck you, NIGGER and the BS,

THE FBI WANTED TO CHARGE THEM and the DOJ SAID NO

 

[Rightguide]

As usual, you're wrong. Here are Comey's exact words:

Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past.

In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.​

But do go on about the "official statement".

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

All that Comey's words prove is that he twisted facts and contorted the law in order to exonerate Hillary Clinton, and now we know he did this on the direct orders of Loretta Lynch. 18 USC 793f does not require "intent," negligence is by definition the absence of intent and she was negligent. Comey's statement is a self serving lie.

If you leave a loaded gun on the table in order to answer the door, and your child picks it up and it goes off killing the child or the neighbor, you ass is going to be tried and sent to prison for negligence and nobody in the court will give a shit about your "intent" because your negligence has noting to do with intent.

 

[HisArpy]

There is a difference between someone being stupid and someone deliberately revealing classified information. That is why she wasn't charged.

And please, partisan hack? I go after all the idiots. I'm just upfront about the con artist because he's the one in office. When the next person comes in, I'll be the same.

Unlike you and several others on here who come up with every excuse imaginable to justify the con artist glorifying dictators and destroying this country with his corruption.

There is no requirement under the applicable law for there to be any INTENT to reveal classified information.

Even an errant "lip slip" is sufficient.

But, keep on repeating the lie the MSM is peddling. It's making you look like a fool, but that's a good look for you since it elevates you up at least 1 rung from idiot.

 

[Que]

There is a difference between someone being stupid and someone deliberately revealing classified information. That is why she wasn't charged.

And please, partisan hack? I go after all the idiots. I'm just upfront about the con artist because he's the one in office. When the next person comes in, I'll be the same.

Unlike you and several others on here who come up with every excuse imaginable to justify the con artist glorifying dictators and destroying this country with his corruption.

First of all, that was not the reason for the specific wording change the reason that they changed the wording was because the wording exactly near the actual statute that she violated on numerous counts.

Secondly the statue doesn't give a fuck about intent. They made that up. That has never been the standard, it is not part of the law and other than her no one has ever been not prosecuted because oops they didn't mean to.

Third, she obviously very much did mean to so you and they are full of shit. As per usual

 

[TontoedRanger]

There is no requirement under the applicable law for there to be any INTENT to reveal classified information.

Even an errant "lip slip" is sufficient.

But, keep on repeating the lie the MSM is peddling. It's making you look like a fool, but that's a good look for you since it elevates you up at least 1 rung from idiot.

MS. Clinton used her personal computer. It's not like she TOTALLY went AGAINST any well established protocols on that endeavor. Anyone else would be shit canned.

Also, sorry I yelled 2 words there sarcastically. Sorry about that "S" word. I almost feel as if we are being not monitored.

 

[Rightguide]

There is the Fisa application fiasco as well. It could put people in jail when you consider the Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide states that “only documented and verified information may be used to support FBI applications to the (FISA) court.” The DOJ follows the same rules and it can be a felony to conceal relevant information and deceive the FISA Court.

Six statutes make it a crime to perpetrate a fraud on a court, including Deprivation of Rights (18 USC 242), Perjury (18 USC 1621 and 1623), and False Statements (18 USC 1001). Several obstruction of justice and fraud statutes would be applicable, as well.

Who signed off on the four successive warrant applications, attesting to their veracity? James Comey, Andrew McCabe and Justice Department officials Sally Yates, Dana Boente, and Rod Rosenstein.

 

[BotanyBoy]

As usual, you're wrong. Here are Comey's exact words:

But do go on about the "official statement".

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

You left out this part where he point blank says she got busted committing felonies we regularly lock people up for.

From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification.

And then admits it...

To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system


Don't come up off that partisan (D)ick for air!!! Just keep your mouth on that (D).

How's Clintons ass taste now that you've made it clear you support her being above the law??

There is a difference between someone being stupid and someone deliberately revealing classified information. That is why she wasn't charged.

There is?

It's zero tolerance for poor people.....little people fuck up they go to prison.

E5 takes a picture on his phone with the wrong piece of equipment in the background? PRISON!!

A GS-8 loads the wrong files on their phone? PRISON.

O2 loads the wrong map on his personal laptop? PRISON.

Clinton steals 110 classified documents? No charges...nothing fishy or elitist about that at all.

And please, partisan hack? I go after all the idiots. I'm just upfront about the con artist because he's the one in office. When the next person comes in, I'll be the same.

You're defending Clinton being above the law and accusing Trump of things you feel and have no evidence of.

Unlike you and several others on here who come up with every excuse imaginable to justify the con artist glorifying dictators and destroying this country with his corruption.

What corruption???

What destroying???

Your blatant partisanship is showing.

 

[phrodeau]

There is no requirement under the applicable law for there to be any INTENT to reveal classified information.

Even an errant "lip slip" is sufficient.

But, keep on repeating the lie the MSM is peddling. It's making you look like a fool, but that's a good look for you since it elevates you up at least 1 rung from idiot.

Trump is guilty of revealing classified info to foreign agents. Did you not know that?

 

[Rightguide]

Trump is guilty of revealing classified info to foreign agents. Did you not know that?

That's a lie. The President is the final arbiter of what is classified and what isn't classified. You need a civics lesson.

 

[TontoedRanger]

Trump is guilty of revealing classified info to foreign agents. Did you not know that?

Oh. You again. Somehow I keep forgetting you. The old brain cells ain't what they used to be.

 

[phrodeau]

That's a lie. The President is the final arbiter of what is classified and what isn't classified. You need a civics lesson.

Only legitimate Presidents qualify.

 

[Rightguide]

Only legitimate Presidents qualify.

He is the legitimate President.

 

[bbx56]

BOSTON HERALD EDITORIAL: Time To Investigate The Investigators.

The drumbeat is starting