• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insi

Anthony60

Anthony60

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 2, 2013
Messages
24,821
Reaction score
8,345
Location
Northern New Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider | Fox News

FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider

“Basically, James Comey hijacked the DOJ’s role by saying ‘no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case,’” the Fox News source said. “The FBI does not decide who to prosecute and when, that is the sole province of a prosecutor -- that never happens.

“I know zero prosecutors in the DOJ’s National Security Division who would not have taken the case to a grand jury,” the source added. “One was never even convened.”

What a stain this is on the FBI and our country. This is banana republic crap, it has no place in our country.
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

Anthony60 said:
FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider | Fox News

FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider

“Basically, James Comey hijacked the DOJ’s role by saying ‘no reasonable prosecutor would bring this case,’” the Fox News source said. “The FBI does not decide who to prosecute and when, that is the sole province of a prosecutor -- that never happens.

“I know zero prosecutors in the DOJ’s National Security Division who would not have taken the case to a grand jury,” the source added. “One was never even convened.”

What a stain this is on the FBI and our country. This is banana republic crap, it has no place in our country.
Click to expand...

It's too bad really. The FBI was supposed to be the "CLEAN" intelligence agency and the C.I.A. was supposed to be the "DIRTY" one. Clean and dirty being by comparison to each other of course: they're both corrupt as hell but at least the FBI was all about appearances.
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

Oh well. The FBI (as did the DOJ, and the WH) got sucked into the corrupt Clinton Machine's orbit.

Yeah, definitely banana republic level of corruption.

Can you imagine what a Hillary term as POTUS is going to look like? Just more of the same. She's established a 30 year history of nothing but.
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

It's now the Federal Bureau of Immunity for the Clintons
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

1. I believe this. I know one guy who does computer investigations for the FBI. His impression during the investigation was "Dude. Somebody has to go to jail."

2. That being said. "Sources".

3. Five of them banding together could make a strong blow for the FBI's credibility - that rank and file will not accept being besmirched like this. :( But they won't. They'd be throwing away their careers, and loyalty To The Bureau is a strong part of the culture there.
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

cpwill said:
1. I believe this. I know one guy who does computer investigations for the FBI. His impression during the investigation was "Dude. Somebody has to go to jail."

2. That being said. "Sources".

3. Five of them banding together could make a strong blow for the FBI's credibility - that rank and file will not accept being besmirched like this. :( But they won't. They'd be throwing away their careers, and loyalty To The Bureau is a strong part of the culture there.
Click to expand...

You hit it right there. No matter how disappointed or angry the agents may get at the political appointees actions, they would never, NEVER, do anything that would bring a bad light upon The Bureau. In fact, if the CIA had not known about Robert Hanssen, I seriously doubt that he would have survived long enough to be arrested, just to protect The Bureau.
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

I'm not sure this "insider" is providing any insight at all other than partisan sour grapes. James Comey didn't "hijack" anything and he reached the conclusion that he could not refer the case for prosecution - not the least of which reasons was because the relevant statute(s) had never been interpreted or applied in the way Clinton's political enemies wanted them to be. So yeah, no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

If any agent who worked this case came out in public and told us what really happened.
Their career would be over and there would be no where they could hide. My bet would
be they would be charged with some federal crime. Something like trying to see that
justice was done even with the Clinton's involved.
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

Napoleon said:
I'm not sure this "insider" is providing any insight at all other than partisan sour grapes. James Comey didn't "hijack" anything and he reached the conclusion that he could not refer the case for prosecution - not the least of which reasons was because the relevant statute(s) had never been interpreted or applied in the way Clinton's political enemies wanted them to be. So yeah, no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Click to expand...

1: Only one type of person gets to decide whether or not a case should be referred for prosecution. That's the DA, or in this case the DOJ. And we all knew from the beginning that Lynch would not choose to prosecute. ESPECIALLY after she met with Bill Clinton just 3 days prior to Comey's announcement.

2: Easy to holler about "sour grapes" when "your side" "wins" huh?

This whole thing was a farce. Hillary Clinton should be facing a Jury Trial right now. Anyone of lower class stature would have been and they would have been found guilty. Plenty of evidence to support that. Instead she gets a free pass.
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

Kal'Stang said:
1: Only one type of person gets to decide whether or not a case should be referred for prosecution. That's the DA, or in this case the DOJ. And we all knew from the beginning that Lynch would not choose to prosecute. ESPECIALLY after she met with Bill Clinton just 3 days prior to Comey's announcement.

2: Easy to holler about "sour grapes" when "your side" "wins" huh?

This whole thing was a farce. Hillary Clinton should be facing a Jury Trial right now. Anyone of lower class stature would have been and they would have been found guilty. Plenty of evidence to support that. Instead she gets a free pass.
Click to expand...

Like I said, James Comey's rationale was sound. Your accusation just isn't true. The relevant statues have only ever been interpreted and applied by the FBI and prosecuted when people stole classified material they weren't authorized to be in possession of and/or had intent to or actually did provide that information to others who were not authorized to see it. The FBI was not going to re-interpret the statutes and try to establish a new precedent for the sole purpose of targeting Hillary Clinton and rightly so. If you want to be miffed then take it out on the people who wrote the statutes for not foreseeing such a scenario. I know you guys want what Hillary Clinton did to be illegal, but it isn't.
 
Last edited:
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

Napoleon said:
Like I said, James Comey's rationale was sound. Your accusation just isn't true. The relevant statues have only ever been interpreted and applied by the FBI and prosecuted when people stole classified material they weren't authorized to be in possession of and/or had intent to or actually did provide that information to others who were not authorized to see it. The FBI was not going to re-interpret the statutes and try to establish a new precedent for the sole purpose of targeting Hillary Clinton and rightly so. If you want to be miffed then take it out on the people who wrote the statutes for not foreseeing such a scenario. I know you guys want what Hillary Clinton did to be illegal, but it isn't.
Click to expand...

1: The FBI does NOT get to interpret or re-interpret ANY law. Their job is to enforce the law. Nothing more. Nothing less.

2: NSA contractor accused of taking classified information Say again? Comey stated that the law requires "malicious intent" for this case to be tried. Tell me Napoleon, this guy in the article claims he had no intent to give the classified information that he had to anyone and he loves his country and would not do anything to harm it. Why is HE being charged? Going by Comey's statement he should never have been arrested. Much less facing a trial. And yet.....
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

Beaudreaux said:
You hit it right there. No matter how disappointed or angry the agents may get at the political appointees actions, they would never, NEVER, do anything that would bring a bad light upon The Bureau. In fact, if the CIA had not known about Robert Hanssen, I seriously doubt that he would have survived long enough to be arrested, just to protect The Bureau.
Click to expand...

Sounds like the Nuremberg Defense: "Loyal to the Bureau" = "I was just following orders"
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

Kal'Stang said:
1: Only one type of person gets to decide whether or not a case should be referred for prosecution. That's the DA, or in this case the DOJ. And we all knew from the beginning that Lynch would not choose to prosecute. ESPECIALLY after she met with Bill Clinton just 3 days prior to Comey's announcement.

2: Easy to holler about "sour grapes" when "your side" "wins" huh?

This whole thing was a farce. Hillary Clinton should be facing a Jury Trial right now. Anyone of lower class stature would have been and they would have been found guilty. Plenty of evidence to support that. Instead she gets a free pass.
Click to expand...

That is just not the truth. lLook at what this qualified lawyer said months before the FBI decision.
First his qualifications...
What follows reflects the knowledge and experience I have gained from working at the Department of Homeland Security from 2008 until 2011. While there, I took the lead in drafting a security classification manual for one of the divisions of the DHS science and technology directorate. In this discussion, I offer answers to questions about the former secretary of state’s email that have not been frequently asked, but should be.
Click to expand...

Now for the answer to whether Hillary got special treatment. The answer may surprise you


Is there one rule for agency heads like Clinton and another rule for the rest of us?
Yes, more or less. This is true both literally and as a practical matter. When it comes to classified information, agency heads have special responsibilities and special privileges. They have plenary authority to classify or declassify information. If rules regarding classified information are broken, they have the authority to determine administrative punishments. Unless they go so far as to break the law, no one is authorized to administratively punish them. But beyond this, rules are always different for those at the very top of organizations. Government leaders like business leaders are chosen for their judgment and discretion. They must be free to exercise both. In the public sphere, problems arise because laws and administrative rules and regulations are often written in ways that admit of no exception. Moreover, some laws, like laws against corruption or against spying, should admit of no exceptions. But for the most part heads of agencies do what they think best, and if we want an effective government, this is as it should be. If leaders behave badly, appropriate sanctions are less likely to be criminal sanctions than pressure to resign or even impeachment.
Click to expand...

It is a long read but if you truly care about the truth you will read it.

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

iguanaman said:
That is just not the truth. lLook at what this qualified lawyer said months before the FBI decision.
First his qualifications...


Now for the answer to whether Hillary got special treatment. The answer may surprise you




It is a long read but if you truly care about the truth you will read it.

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis
Click to expand...

You're own article admits that there are rules for us and rules for them. But the laws do not show that. Which shows that she did indeed break the law...if not the "unwritten rule" which has no basis in our legal system. Sorry, but I don't believe in a "rules for us, rules for them" type of law. And considering the "equal under the law" clause of the Constitution, such would be unconstitutional.

Do you really advocate for and wish for Jim Crow laws to be enacted again? Only based on how much money and political power you have vs how poor and unconnected you are instead of race? Sorry but no thanks. I don't care how much money you have or how much political power you have. If our laws and Constitution are to mean ANYTHING then all laws must be applied equally.
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

iguanaman said:
That is just not the truth. lLook at what this qualified lawyer said months before the FBI decision.
First his qualifications...


Now for the answer to whether Hillary got special treatment. The answer may surprise you




It is a long read but if you truly care about the truth you will read it.

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis
Click to expand...

I find the junk that you posted to be yet more proof that the system is broken and badly needs to be fixed.

To me, it just comes across as a bunch of sophistry.
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

Napoleon said:
I'm not sure this "insider" is providing any insight at all other than partisan sour grapes. James Comey didn't "hijack" anything and he reached the conclusion that he could not refer the case for prosecution - not the least of which reasons was because the relevant statute(s) had never been interpreted or applied in the way Clinton's political enemies wanted them to be. So yeah, no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Click to expand...

In a nutshell, Comey outlined what she did, how she broke the law, then said that they are letting her go. Seems theses agents feel that they worked the case without any bias of who the criminal is, and Comey wiped that all away with pressure from his superiors.
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

Anthony60 said:
In a nutshell, Comey outlined what she did, how she broke the law, then said that they are letting her go. Seems theses agents feel that they worked the case without any bias of who the criminal is, and Comey wiped that all away with pressure from his superiors.
Click to expand...

No. In a nutshell, the FBI investigated and found no applicable crime to charge her with.
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

cpwill said:
1. I believe this. I know one guy who does computer investigations for the FBI. His impression during the investigation was "Dude. Somebody has to go to jail."

2. That being said. "Sources".

3. Five of them banding together could make a strong blow for the FBI's credibility - that rank and file will not accept being besmirched like this. :( But they won't. They'd be throwing away their careers, and loyalty To The Bureau is a strong part of the culture there.
Click to expand...

Loyalty to the bureau is not their job. Their job is to uphold the law.
something they failed to do.
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

Napoleon said:
No. In a nutshell, the FBI investigated and found no applicable crime to charge her with.
Click to expand...

You'd have to have blinders on to come to that conclusion. The entire point is that they had plenty to charge her with a crime, and just said no at the very end, wasting all the hard work by the agents and hurting the integrity of the agency.
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

Kal'Stang said:
1: The FBI does NOT get to interpret or re-interpret ANY law. Their job is to enforce the law. Nothing more. Nothing less.

2: NSA contractor accused of taking classified information Say again? Comey stated that the law requires "malicious intent" for this case to be tried. Tell me Napoleon, this guy in the article claims he had no intent to give the classified information that he had to anyone and he loves his country and would not do anything to harm it. Why is HE being charged? Going by Comey's statement he should never have been arrested. Much less facing a trial. And yet.....
Click to expand...

Why? Because he stole top-secret material.
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

Napoleon said:
I'm not sure this "insider" is providing any insight at all other than partisan sour grapes. James Comey didn't "hijack" anything and he reached the conclusion that he could not refer the case for prosecution - not the least of which reasons was because the relevant statute(s) had never been interpreted or applied in the way Clinton's political enemies wanted them to be. So yeah, no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case.
Click to expand...

Sure he did it is not the job of the FBI to determine what a prosecutor would or would not do. that is the job of the prosecutor.
it is applied that way all the time to regular service people that are responsible for even low levels of classified data.

Yes they would have because at a minimum she should have lost her security clearance just like everyone else that gets caught mishandling classified data.
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

Kal'Stang said:
1: The FBI does NOT get to interpret or re-interpret ANY law. Their job is to enforce the law. Nothing more. Nothing less.

2: NSA contractor accused of taking classified information Say again? Comey stated that the law requires "malicious intent" for this case to be tried. Tell me Napoleon, this guy in the article claims he had no intent to give the classified information that he had to anyone and he loves his country and would not do anything to harm it. Why is HE being charged? Going by Comey's statement he should never have been arrested. Much less facing a trial. And yet.....
Click to expand...

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/st...secuted-officer-shouldnt-discharged/86797536/

what about his guy? he sent 1 email because coms wouldn't work through his private email warning a base of a possible attack. probably saved a ton of lies and is now
being prosecuted for sending classified data through a private email server.

LOL the very same thing that Clinton did. only instead of hundreds and thousands of emails it was 1.
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

Napoleon said:
No. In a nutshell, the FBI investigated and found no applicable crime to charge her with.
Click to expand...

You'd have to have blinders on to come to that conclusion. The entire point is that they had plenty to charge her with a crime, and just said no at the very end, wasting all the hard work by the agents and hurting the integrity of the agency.
 
Re: FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says

iguanaman said:
That is just not the truth. lLook at what this qualified lawyer said months before the FBI decision.
First his qualifications...
Now for the answer to whether Hillary got special treatment. The answer may surprise you
Click to expand...

https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/st...secuted-officer-shouldnt-discharged/86797536/

We know she got special treatment otherwise this guy wouldn't be facing prosecution for the very same thing.



It is a long read but if you truly care about the truth you will read it.

Why Hillary Won't Be Indicted and Shouldn't Be: An Objective Legal Analysis
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

No the law is the law or it isn't the law. other people are punished for violating it Clinton should be held to a higher standard not a lesser one.
she does not have the authority to declassify anything but her own departments information.
The fact she sent above top secret information over an unsecured email server is malicious intent. she knew exactly what she was doing.
we either hold people to the law or we apply the law equally to everyone. equal protection remember.

either case she broke the law and at least should have had her security clearances revoked.

instead she gets special treatment that other people do not get because of corruption and collusion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom