FBI Lied About Lynch-Clinton Tarmac Meeting, 30 Page Document to be Released Next Month

MovingPictures said:

I'd call the president of the US encouraging FOX to pimp the story about Seth Rich being the leaker of the DNC emails a wee bit worse.

Click to expand...

Julian Assange practically implied the same. Now assassinate his character in an attempt to avoid why the President of NBC lies for serial rapists....

Superfly said:

We are seriously back to the emails again?

California is on fire. Practically the whole ****ing state. Puerto Rico has people breaking locks, and drinking water from Superfund sites. We are almost at war with NK and close with Iran. Jared Kushner, Ivanka Trump, Steve Bannon, Reince Preibus, Gary Cohn and Stephen Miller (and possibly others) all used private emails to conduct White House matters as well. Where is the outrage for them?

Y'all need to quit beating this dead ****ing horse.

Click to expand...

So your saying what difference does it make now.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

apdst said:

You seriously don't have a problem withe Tarmac Meeting?

Click to expand...

You seriously don't have a problem with Liddle Don's meeting with the Russians?

holbritter said:

I think if the FBI lied about the meeting, it should be looked into. The OP is about that, not the emails. We already know she was guilty.

Click to expand...

The head of the FBI is a 45 appointee. Has he raised a stink? I'm not aware that he has. Are you?

FBI Lied About ...

No ****, Sherlock.

The FBI is made up of people who are the lyingest bunch on the planet, so does it really come as any surprise when the FBI lies?

camlok said:

FBI Lied About ...

No ****, Sherlock.

The FBI is made up of people who are the lyingest bunch on the planet, so does it really come as any surprise when the FBI lies?

Click to expand...

Why would a 45 appointee of the FBI lie and /not expose wrongdoing(s) of Democrats?

Parrish said:

Why would a 45 appointee of the FBI lie and /not expose wrongdoing(s) of Democrats?

Click to expand...

To protect the FBI from the apocalyptic response from the Democrat Party, should they hold the FBI responsible for destroying their Presidential Candidate.

holbritter said:

No. They story is THE FBI LIED. If that's ok with you fine. It's not with me and I hope it's investigated.

Which actually brings up what was so important in the documents that they hid their existence? I guess that doesn't concern you either. :shrug:

Click to expand...

I like the implied assumption that government workers are omniscient and omnicompetent.

truthatallcost said:

Julian Assange practically implied the same. Now assassinate his character in an attempt to avoid why the President of NBC lies for serial rapists....

Click to expand...

Jeeze. Of all the people you could have brought to bear to try to accuse someone else of being a rapist....

cpwill said:

To protect the FBI from the apocalyptic response from the Democrat Party, should they hold the FBI responsible for destroying their Presidential Candidate.

Click to expand...

The new director is a GOP appointee. Why hasn't he done anything? Maybe because there's nothing to Judicial Watch's claim? Yep. That's probably it.

Parrish said:

The new director is a GOP appointee. Why hasn't he done anything? Maybe because there's nothing to Judicial Watch's claim? Yep. That's probably it.

Click to expand...

Done anything... About what? About the President's Very Good friend who he doesn't want to go after?

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Parrish said:

You seriously don't have a problem with Liddle Don's meeting with the Russians?

Click to expand...

There was nothing illegal, nor inappropriate about.

cpwill said:

Jeeze. Of all the people you could have brought to bear to try to accuse someone else of being a rapist....

Click to expand...

I did no such thing. Assange has nothing to do with the Weinstein part of the convo, he was mentioned in regards to Seth Rich.

We dont know when these 30 pages were created, and I believe that there is a reasonable time after creation of documents to turn them over the the record keepers, let's find out of someone did something wrong before we get all excited.

Parrish said:

The head of the FBI is a 45 appointee. Has he raised a stink? I'm not aware that he has. Are you?

Click to expand...

Your attempt to make this about Trump is noted.

Of course the head of the agency accused of lying isn't going to react. Doesnt matter when the lie took place (last year) he would still have to answer questions. It's early yet, we'll see.

holbritter said:

I think if the FBI lied about the meeting, it should be looked into. The OP is about that, not the emails. We already know she was guilty.

Click to expand...

guilty of what? James Comey - might have heard of him? Former head of the FBI that your dumb ass president fired? He found that there was nothing untoward about her emails. And he is a Republican.

There's nothing left of this dead horse for y'all to beat.

trouble13 said:

So your saying what difference does it make now.

Sent from my SM-T800 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I'm saying "what difference does it make period." James Comey found no reason to investigate any further. As the Republican (former) head of the FBI, if there was anything to be found, he would have found it.

There's nothing here. Give it up.

At this point, y'all are starting to look ridiculous. Everything that is going on in the world right now and y'all are still yammering about something that was found BY THE FBI to be a non-issue.

Superfly said:

guilty of what? James Comey - might have heard of him? Former head of the FBI that your dumb ass president fired? He found that there was nothing untoward about her emails. And he is a Republican.

There's nothing left of this dead horse for y'all to beat.

Click to expand...

Uhm yeah, that's not what he found, and it's your President too.

holbritter said:

Uhm yeah, that's not what he found, and it's your President too.

Click to expand...

What did he find? After how many investigations? He said that they were carelessly handled, but also said, "We did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information."

And no, he is not my president. I wasn't stupid enough to vote for him.

Superfly said:

guilty of what? James Comey - might have heard of him? Former head of the FBI that your dumb ass president fired? He found that there was nothing untoward about her emails. And he is a Republican.

There's nothing left of this dead horse for y'all to beat.

Click to expand...

That was not Comey's argument. He pointed out the law had been broken many, many times, but then decided that the brand new legal standard of "extreme carelessness" allowed him to find no Intent, even where the law did not require such.

He himself didn't outright lie as much as he did dissemble and make himself complicit in others lies. The idea, for example, that SECSTATE didn't know what a classification marking was is simply not tenable.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

cpwill said:

That was not Comey's argument. He pointed out the law had been broken many, many times, but then decided that the brand new legal standard of "extreme carelessness" allowed him to find no Intent, even where the law did not require such.

He himself didn't outright lie as much as he did dissemble and make himself complicit in others lies. The idea, for example, that SECSTATE didn't know what a classification marking was is simply not tenable.

Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Well, he can't manufacture intent. If the law said that there was no intent, which was necessary to bring criminal charges, then there was no intent. You can't make things up to charge people with. AG Lynch said that she would abide by the findings of the FBI, and the FBI failed to charge her because why? No proof of criminal intent was found.

So what's the problem? Intent matters, and none was found. If no intent was found, then what is Comey to do? Or even AG Lynch, for that matter?

Superfly said:

Well, he can't manufacture intent. If the law said that there was no intent, which was necessary to bring criminal charges, then there was no intent.

Click to expand...

It was not his job to determine intent, however:

1. The law does not require intent.
2. There was plenty to establish it in a courtroom, should a prosecutor be allowed to do so. Again, however,
3. The law does not require intent, only Gross Negligence.

Comey made up the legal standard of "Extreme Carelessness", which, despite not being found anywhere in law, he decided was not the same thing as Negligence, and therefore not chargeable, just illegal :roll:

cpwill said:

That was not Comey's argument. He pointed out the law had been broken many, many times, but then decided that the brand new legal standard of "extreme carelessness" allowed him to find no Intent, even where the law did not require such.
...

Click to expand...

Perhaps that is because almost everyone using .gov email regularly for policy issues would be in violation of such a restrictive standard as you are suggesting.
We don't get to see what errors they made, because they are classified. Apparently the people who looked at them, mostly, think they are relatively benign.

CletusWilbury said:

Perhaps that is because almost everyone using .gov email regularly for policy issues would be in violation of such a restrictive standard as you are suggesting.

Click to expand...

I have used .gov addresses regularly for more than a decade. You are incorrect.

We don't get to see what errors they made, because they are classified.

Click to expand...

Actually we did, because the redacted portions were properly classified; we were able to see the kind of classified information the Secretary and her immediate circle were putting on an unsecured, unclassified server.

Apparently the people who looked at them, mostly, think they are relatively benign.

Click to expand...

Went through a course with a guy who worked cyber for the FBI at the time. He was apoplectic and insisted that "Someone" had to go to jail.


Sent from my XT1526 using Tapatalk

cpwill said:

I have used .gov addresses regularly for more than a decade. You are incorrect.

Click to expand...

For policy?

Actually we did, because the redacted portions were properly classified; we were able to see the kind of classified information the Secretary and her immediate circle were putting on an unsecured, unclassified server.
...

Click to expand...

I didn't look that closely, I welcome you to help become more informed if you want to bother.

Superfly said:

What did he find? After how many investigations? He said that they were carelessly handled, but also said, "We did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information."

And no, he is not my president. I wasn't stupid enough to vote for him.

Click to expand...

The problem is connected to the $millions of dollars given to the Clinton foundation, by the Russians. Hillary was a top level board member at the time. As far as I know there is no such money exchange with Trump who is accused of collusion.

When this donation was given, did Putin turn over a new leaf and find his humanity during this period of charitable donations. Had the evil Putin turned into a Christmas kitten? Or was the current Democrat painted picture of an evil Putin still in affect, and that money was given as an investment for access? The Lynch-Clinton meeting about the server is all connected to damage control because of Russian access. Does the investigation into Russian collusion include this money, since there is a money trail to Russia at the highest levels?

My theory is the Russian gave that money for access to national secrets. This may have included access via the private server. If one had access to Hillary's private server you also had access to the DNC server via a secure connection. If the Democrats are right and the Russian undermined the DNC and Hillary, did the Clintons double cross Putin, so the Christmas Kitten;s feelings were hurt so he converted back to the evil tyrant, who tried to get even ? The entire DNC meme or the evil Russians to undermine Trump may have hurt comrade Putin's feelings, so he felt betrayal.

Mueller should investigate this instead of go off on thin tangents that have no direct plausible scenario of Russian collusion. If not, he is part of the swamp protecting its own. Then he should be investigated for why he ignored the obvious. This brings up back to Lynch and even Obama who was on board with the Russians, until Trump won.