• 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!

It Wasn’t Comey’s Decision to Exonerate Hillary – It Was Obama’s

volsrock

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
3,995
Reaction score
1,261
Location
Texas
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
The news appears in a letter written to new FBI Director Christopher Wray by two senior Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham. Pundits and the Trump administration are shrieking because this indicates the decision to give the Democrats’ nominee a pass was clearly made long before the investigation was over, and even long before key witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed.

In his April 10 comments, Obama made the obvious explicit: He did not want the certain Democratic nominee, the candidate he was backing to succeed him, to be indicted.



Bottom line: In April, President Obama and his Justice Department adopted a Hillary Clinton defense strategy of concocting a crime no one was claiming Clinton had committed: to wit, transmitting classified information with an intent to harm the United States. With media-Democrat complex help, they peddled the narrative that she could not be convicted absent this “malicious intent,” in a desperate effort to make the publicly known evidence seem weak. Meanwhile, they quietly hamstrung FBI case investigators in order to frustrate the evidence-gathering process. When damning proof nevertheless mounted, the Obama administration dismissed the whole debacle by rewriting the statute (to impose an imaginary intent standard) and by offering absurd rationalizations for not applying the statute as written. That plan was in place and already being implemented when Director Comey began drafting the “findings” he would announce months later. But it was not Comey’s plan. It was Obama’s plan.





Not Comey?s Decision Exonerate Hillary Obama?s Decision | National Review



Now this is obstruction of justice.
 
Last edited:
The news appears in a letter written to new FBI Director Christopher Wray by two senior Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham. Pundits and the Trump administration are shrieking because this indicates the decision to give the Democrats’ nominee a pass was clearly made long before the investigation was over, and even long before key witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed.

In his April 10 comments, Obama made the obvious explicit: He did not want the certain Democratic nominee, the candidate he was backing to succeed him, to be indicted.



Bottom line: In April, President Obama and his Justice Department adopted a Hillary Clinton defense strategy of concocting a crime no one was claiming Clinton had committed: to wit, transmitting classified information with an intent to harm the United States. With media-Democrat complex help, they peddled the narrative that she could not be convicted absent this “malicious intent,” in a desperate effort to make the publicly known evidence seem weak. Meanwhile, they quietly hamstrung FBI case investigators in order to frustrate the evidence-gathering process. When damning proof nevertheless mounted, the Obama administration dismissed the whole debacle by rewriting the statute (to impose an imaginary intent standard) and by offering absurd rationalizations for not applying the statute as written. That plan was in place and already being implemented when Director Comey began drafting the “findings” he would announce months later. But it was not Comey’s plan. It was Obama’s plan.





Not Comey?s Decision Exonerate Hillary Obama?s Decision | National Review



Now this is obstruction of justice.

Another drive-by? You keep posting this kind of crap and when it's debunked by the second page, you fade away and reappear with another piece of internet trash.
Wanna know how bad it's gotten? I'm the only one who reads your trash.
 
Another drive-by? You keep posting this kind of crap and when it's debunked by the second page, you fade away and reappear with another piece of internet trash.
Wanna know how bad it's gotten? I'm the only one who reads your trash.

You not wanting something to be true does not equal "debunked" first off National Review is a fairly credible publication with good standards, second off, every single claim this article makes is either objectively true or is reasonable to infer.
 
The news appears in a letter written to new FBI Director Christopher Wray by two senior Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham. Pundits and the Trump administration are shrieking because this indicates the decision to give the Democrats’ nominee a pass was clearly made long before the investigation was over, and even long before key witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed.

In his April 10 comments, Obama made the obvious explicit: He did not want the certain Democratic nominee, the candidate he was backing to succeed him, to be indicted.



Bottom line: In April, President Obama and his Justice Department adopted a Hillary Clinton defense strategy of concocting a crime no one was claiming Clinton had committed: to wit, transmitting classified information with an intent to harm the United States. With media-Democrat complex help, they peddled the narrative that she could not be convicted absent this “malicious intent,” in a desperate effort to make the publicly known evidence seem weak. Meanwhile, they quietly hamstrung FBI case investigators in order to frustrate the evidence-gathering process. When damning proof nevertheless mounted, the Obama administration dismissed the whole debacle by rewriting the statute (to impose an imaginary intent standard) and by offering absurd rationalizations for not applying the statute as written. That plan was in place and already being implemented when Director Comey began drafting the “findings” he would announce months later. But it was not Comey’s plan. It was Obama’s plan.





Not Comey?s Decision Exonerate Hillary Obama?s Decision | National Review



Now this is obstruction of justice.


Total rubbish.
 
The news appears in a letter written to new FBI Director Christopher Wray by two senior Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans, Chairman Chuck Grassley and Senator Lindsey Graham. Pundits and the Trump administration are shrieking because this indicates the decision to give the Democrats’ nominee a pass was clearly made long before the investigation was over, and even long before key witnesses, including Clinton herself, were interviewed.

In his April 10 comments, Obama made the obvious explicit: He did not want the certain Democratic nominee, the candidate he was backing to succeed him, to be indicted.



Bottom line: In April, President Obama and his Justice Department adopted a Hillary Clinton defense strategy of concocting a crime no one was claiming Clinton had committed: to wit, transmitting classified information with an intent to harm the United States. With media-Democrat complex help, they peddled the narrative that she could not be convicted absent this “malicious intent,” in a desperate effort to make the publicly known evidence seem weak. Meanwhile, they quietly hamstrung FBI case investigators in order to frustrate the evidence-gathering process. When damning proof nevertheless mounted, the Obama administration dismissed the whole debacle by rewriting the statute (to impose an imaginary intent standard) and by offering absurd rationalizations for not applying the statute as written. That plan was in place and already being implemented when Director Comey began drafting the “findings” he would announce months later. But it was not Comey’s plan. It was Obama’s plan.





Not Comey?s Decision Exonerate Hillary Obama?s Decision | National Review



Now this is obstruction of justice.

The imaginary intent standard is probably the best I've seen it reference in a good while.

Though I do not really see more of Obama in this then Comey's, it would not surprise me to learn that he did have a hand in. Berry did love his back room dealings a bit more then any other president that I have ever seen.
 
You not wanting something to be true does not equal "debunked" first off National Review is a fairly credible publication with good standards, second off, every single claim this article makes is either objectively true or is reasonable to infer.

Plenty of people on both sides saw that (lack of intent) ruling was incredibly fishy.
 
The imaginary intent standard is probably the best I've seen it reference in a good while.

Though I do not really see more of Obama in this then Comey's, it would not surprise me to learn that he did have a hand in. Berry did love his back room dealings a bit more then any other president that I have ever seen.

After Obama trained up on the sorts of things the Clintons were able to get away with for sure Obama was willing to do these sorts of things, the ends justify the means dontcha know....
 
I'm not one to doubt that Hillary screwed up but other than breaking some law what real world effects has this issue had? I'm talking about actual secrets or whatever...not the political football aspect...real world ramifications.

Can anybody point to any evidence of actionable consequence as a result of the divulging of whatever is being claimed she did...I'm not discounting this issue at all and am seriously curious as to any reason beyond it was Hillary that this issue trumps "this Russia and Trump thing".

She lost...the world moves on in a hurry and I'm not saying it shouldn't be investigated until the cows come home if they can afford it after Harvey and the Trump and Russia thing which may or may not have contributed to the mess we are in now...do people have such a weak argument that their best defense is she was a crook so big deal if Trump is?

What are people afraid of discovering?

Wouldn't it be better to get it all resolved...find out what up with the election interference and make real world adjustments instead of not caring because he's our crook? Hillary bad.

Are we getting a bit Orwellian? Is Trump trying to create an "unperson" in Obama?
 
After Obama trained up on the sorts of things the Clintons were able to get away with for sure Obama was willing to do these sorts of things, the ends justify the means dontcha know....

Not to be too much of a conspiracy theorist, but if the Clinton's had more of a hand in this.
Someone would most likely of died.

Just saying.
 
I find it interesting that when the Bush WH fired a bunch of US attorney's in order to by-pass senate confirmations, and mysteriously "lost" twenty million emails, right-wingers were completely silent about the matter. Then the Bush WH lied, misled, and "lost" further emails. They were no indictments, no FBI investigation, no punishment whatsoever.

Not one right-winger gave a **** about that scandal, but when a minor scandal broke out about Clinton, suddenly they became concerned about the same laws the Bush WH broke years before hand, and they began chanting "lock her up" at their dumb rallies.

I'm not fan of Clinton at all, but these are simply the same political games the right-wing has played for years, and because Comey wouldn't indict Clinton simply to please them, they want him thrown under a bus and be ruined. It's just sickening to watch them act like justice is determined by mob rule in this country, and that investigations must have the outcomes they desire, or else they'll ruin the authorities that don't play along.
 
Not to be too much of a conspiracy theorist, but if the Clinton's had more of a hand in this.
Someone would most likely of died.

Just saying.
Back to the Vince Foster thing, eh? And you guys wonder why we think conservatives are irrational. :lol:
 

Mens rea is written in the model penal code and is required in statutory criminal law with few exceptions...and neither Comey or Obama wrote the model penal code or the statutory criminal laws. It's just that simple.

The right wing is beating a dead horse.
 
I'm not one to doubt that Hillary screwed up but other than breaking some law what real world effects has this issue had? I'm talking about actual secrets or whatever...not the political football aspect...real world ramifications.

Can anybody point to any evidence of actionable consequence as a result of the divulging of whatever is being claimed she did...I'm not discounting this issue at all and am seriously curious as to any reason beyond it was Hillary that this issue trumps "this Russia and Trump thing".

She lost...the world moves on in a hurry and I'm not saying it shouldn't be investigated until the cows come home if they can afford it after Harvey and the Trump and Russia thing which may or may not have contributed to the mess we are in now...do people have such a weak argument that their best defense is she was a crook so big deal if Trump is?

What are people afraid of discovering?

Wouldn't it be better to get it all resolved...find out what up with the election interference and make real world adjustments instead of not caring because he's our crook? Hillary bad.

Are we getting a bit Orwellian? Is Trump trying to create an "unperson" in Obama?

Nah I think a good majority of us can see that Trump is by no means innocent of plenty of things, though I only have gripes when it comes to people constantly repeating the same insufferable argument. Only to let a more viable topic, and more direct reasons for his failings float right on by. Though I will also admit that Orwellian is more then adequate a term to coin here, I just can't wait till the ministry of truth gets a hold of us all.

When it comes to the whole Hillary investigation, I really believe its how questionably it concluded that makes the case.

Its still just a multitude of people pointing political fingers though.
 
Back to the Vince Foster thing, eh? And you guys wonder why we think conservatives are irrational. :lol:

I know, but its more then reasonable to think something was going on there. Given the circumstance at least.

I am always open to speculation.
 
Mens rea is written in the model penal code and is required in statutory criminal law with few exceptions...and neither Comey or Obama wrote the model penal code or the statutory criminal laws. It's just that simple.

The right wing is beating a dead horse.

So the fact that a the law was verbally rewritten by Comey just to keep her from getting tagged by it, doesn't toss up a red flag? Not to mention that he had already made up his mind about her conviction even before the investigation was finished?

There are even some federal judges that are saying the investigation wasn't done correctly, and requesting that another investigation be mounted into either her emails. Or the unreleased subpoenas from said investigation.

James Boasberg & Amit Mehta are two I can readily think of.
 
The imaginary intent standard is probably the best I've seen it reference in a good while.

Though I do not really see more of Obama in this then Comey's, it would not surprise me to learn that he did have a hand in. Berry did love his back room dealings a bit more then any other president that I have ever seen.


Do you know what a backroom deal is? The idea that you would know what backroom deals did or did not happen is just obviously silly. The nature of backroom deals is that they're back deal which means they're in a back room see how that works?
 
You not wanting something to be true does not equal "debunked" first off National Review is a fairly credible publication with good standards,second off, every single claim this article makes is either objectively true or is reasonable to infer.

I lol'd
 
You know it's funny. Leftists seem to be really excited about a special counsel digging in to find SOMETHING...ANYTHING...they can use against Trump re obstruction of justice. Yet when you have been presented with some obviously hinkey stuff regarding something that was admittedly a crime compounded with the involvement of secret meetings between the AG and Bill, a letter drafted BEFORE an investigation, etc. your immediate response is to defend to left at all costs. Shocking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I'm not one to doubt that Hillary screwed up but other than breaking some law what real world effects has this issue had? I'm talking about actual secrets or whatever...not the political football aspect...real world ramifications.

Can anybody point to any evidence of actionable consequence as a result of the divulging of whatever is being claimed she did...I'm not discounting this issue at all and am seriously curious as to any reason beyond it was Hillary that this issue trumps "this Russia and Trump thing".

She lost...the world moves on in a hurry and I'm not saying it shouldn't be investigated until the cows come home if they can afford it after Harvey and the Trump and Russia thing which may or may not have contributed to the mess we are in now...do people have such a weak argument that their best defense is she was a crook so big deal if Trump is?

What are people afraid of discovering?

Wouldn't it be better to get it all resolved...find out what up with the election interference and make real world adjustments instead of not caring because he's our crook? Hillary bad.

Are we getting a bit Orwellian? Is Trump trying to create an "unperson" in Obama?

Correct. The dismissal was at least in part recognition that the careless but harmless disclosure of classified information happens all the time. Everyone who works in the federal government knows this.
Now Trump disclosed highly classified national security information to the Russian foreign minister and Russian ambassador but Hillary's outraged critics haven't a word to say about it.
 
I find it interesting that when the Bush WH fired a bunch of US attorney's in order to by-pass senate confirmations, and mysteriously "lost" twenty million emails, right-wingers were completely silent about the matter. Then the Bush WH lied, misled, and "lost" further emails. They were no indictments, no FBI investigation, no punishment whatsoever.

Not one right-winger gave a **** about that scandal, but when a minor scandal broke out about Clinton, suddenly they became concerned about the same laws the Bush WH broke years before hand, and they began chanting "lock her up" at their dumb rallies.

I'm not fan of Clinton at all, but these are simply the same political games the right-wing has played for years, and because Comey wouldn't indict Clinton simply to please them, they want him thrown under a bus and be ruined. It's just sickening to watch them act like justice is determined by mob rule in this country, and that investigations must have the outcomes they desire, or else they'll ruin the authorities that don't play along.
Are you calling for investigations into the Clinton and FBI scandals?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You know it's funny. Leftists seem to be really excited about a special counsel digging in to find SOMETHING...ANYTHING...they can use against Trump re obstruction of justice. Yet when you have been presented with some obviously hinkey stuff regarding something that was admittedly a crime compounded with the involvement of secret meetings between the AG and Bill, a letter drafted BEFORE an investigation, etc. your immediate response is to defend to left at all costs. Shocking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Bengaziiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii.....
 
Why is this all coming out so late?

When Obama was in office, you attacked him for not being American and for being a Muslim and other horse****.

Now that Trump, the Republican Messiah, who is orange-hair deep in Putin's man hole, is being legitimately pursued by the justice department, suddenly *scramble scramble, fake news, Hannity! Ya'll get in this! Run with this! Hillary and Obama fake dirt...go, go, say it enough and the stupids will believe it's relevant!"
Attacking trump with legal stuff? OK, two can play...here's what Hillary and Obama were doing illegal, giggle-snort.

Unbelievable.
 
So the fact that a the law was verbally rewritten by Comey just to keep her from getting tagged by it, doesn't toss up a red flag? Not to mention that he had already made up his mind about her conviction even before the investigation was finished?

There are even some federal judges that are saying the investigation wasn't done correctly, and requesting that another investigation be mounted into either her emails. Or the unreleased subpoenas from said investigation.

James Boasberg & Amit Mehta are two I can readily think of.

Comey didn't rewrite the law, verbally or otherwise.

Neither Judge James Boasberg or Judge Amit Mehta said the FBI investigation wasn't done correctly.

It seems your entire premise is based on a lie. So what else is new?
 
Back
Top Bottom