Anonymous wrote:Yep. All Clear! She did all this, but "we can find no one that would reasonably prosecute her".

Anyone else doing what Clinton did would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Do you know why no one could reasonably prosecute her? No. And you don't care. You just want to see her locked up, regardless of what she did.

The FBI agents were disturbed by thousands of emails discovered on a pedophile's computer? And, Comey thought (according to Loretta Lynch who refused to recuse herself) that displayed a visceral hatred by the agents. That may have been Comey's excuse to her as to why they had to go public. We don't even know for sure that is what he told her.

Again, if the FBI had properly done their investigation, this computer would have been in FBI possession long before September. It was only discovered because of the Weiner conversations with a young girl (or someone pretending to be one--I don't recall that detail.)

There was plenty of evidence of guilt--yet no Grand Jury was convened. Unlike the Mueller investigation. Why didn't the FBI go into Weiner's house in the middle of the night? We know that HRC's IT guy mishandled and destroyed hardware--AFTER emails were subpoenaed. We know that the FBI let Mills sit in on HRC's testimony. We know that FBI agents knew HRC was lying. We know that Strozk was one of the agents who interviewed her. We know that FBI agents knew there were people allowed in her Chappaqua schiff who were lying. We know that Weiner had an amazing amount of access. And, yet, no Grand Jury.

We also know that "intent" (Sally Yates said there was no bad intent on Clinton's part) has nothing to do with innocence or guilt in the code.

And, for HRC to claim that "c" was alphabetical order on a document defies belief. She cannot possibly be that stupid. And, remember, she told one staffer to send classified information in one of those emails that was released by Wikileaks.

We also now know that Obama was communicating with her at this address and we now have confirmation that her computer was compromised by a foreign nation while in a foreign country--presumably Russia. This was in the report--the presumption of Russia was not.

Yep. All Clear! She did all this, but "we can find no one that would reasonably prosecute her".

Anyone else doing what Clinton did would be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No details of the investigation were published. Only that an investigation was taking place. That was top cover for Hillary, especially in light of her and her staff destroying evidence (mobile phones, records and emails) during an ongoing federal investigation into violations of the espionage act 18USC793.

No one in the world would get a deal like she did, given her "protected status".

That's not true at all. When Comey made his announcement that charges would not be filed against Clinton, he made detailed criticism of her. That was completely contrary to policy and he was criticized for it in the IG report. When Comey wrote to Congress about the Weiner laptop, it was much more than just saying there was an investigation. For that matter, the FBI refused to even confirm a Trump investigation. Trump was way more protected than Clinton and many of the Clinton disclosures were driving by anti-Clinton FBI agents who repeatedly leaked information.

Of course he did. That was NOT a leak. That was the announcement of findings.


Why would the FBI confirm a CI investigation? Protected? How?

It's an announcement that should not have been made but was forced to be made because of leaks by the New York office of the FBI. There were no leaks about the Trump investigation. The only leaks were anti-Clinton. There were no public announcements about the Trump investigation. The only public announcements were about the Clinton investigation. Trump was completely protected while Clinton was repeatedly harmed.

Oh please. It was an announcement to protect Clinton.

BREAKING: While his wife was taking money from Clinton operative Gov. Terry McAuliffe, and while the FBI was investigating McAuliffe for taking foreign cash from a major Clinton Foundation donor, Andrew McCabe told WFO SAC: "Please do not open a case" on the Clinton Foundation.

(WFO SAC = Washington Field Office Special Agent in Charge)


https://twitter.com/paulsperry_/status/1007343639079604226

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No details of the investigation were published. Only that an investigation was taking place. That was top cover for Hillary, especially in light of her and her staff destroying evidence (mobile phones, records and emails) during an ongoing federal investigation into violations of the espionage act 18USC793.

No one in the world would get a deal like she did, given her "protected status".

That's not true at all. When Comey made his announcement that charges would not be filed against Clinton, he made detailed criticism of her. That was completely contrary to policy and he was criticized for it in the IG report. When Comey wrote to Congress about the Weiner laptop, it was much more than just saying there was an investigation. For that matter, the FBI refused to even confirm a Trump investigation. Trump was way more protected than Clinton and many of the Clinton disclosures were driving by anti-Clinton FBI agents who repeatedly leaked information.

Of course he did. That was NOT a leak. That was the announcement of findings.


Why would the FBI confirm a CI investigation? Protected? How?

It's an announcement that should not have been made but was forced to be made because of leaks by the New York office of the FBI. There were no leaks about the Trump investigation. The only leaks were anti-Clinton. There were no public announcements about the Trump investigation. The only public announcements were about the Clinton investigation. Trump was completely protected while Clinton was repeatedly harmed.

Lynch remembers differently, obfuscates and does remember the JOKE.

Page 62,63 OIG Report

The OIG asked Lynch if she instructed or told Comey, “I want you to call it a
matter.” Lynch said that she did not and would not have, because that was not
how she spoke to people. She told the OIG that she remembered saying the
following at the meeting:

Well I, I do remember saying, you know, we typically say we have
enough resources to handle the matter.... I don’t know if I used other
words like the case, you know, the inquiry, or something like that. But
I do remember saying that, and I think I may have been saying that
because, again, I was always careful not to talk about an investigation.
I was getting questioned about the referral...and is it going to lead to
an investigation and, you know, we have it, we acknowledge it, we’re
going to handle it. And that’s all I can say kind of thing.

And so I know that in addition to saying...yes, everyone knows there’s
an investigation. They don’t need us to tell them that. They need us
to confirm it, and we don’t do that. And here’s why we don’t do that.
I remember making those statements. And I remember saying but of
course you’ve got to...respond. And one way to respond is just to
say...you’ve got what you need to handle the matter.

Lynch recalled Toscas making a joke about the “Federal Bureau of Matters”
to one of the agents who was sitting beside him, and people laughing. She said
that she took this as a joke, as good-natured “ribbing” or “teasing,” and that the
laughter told her that others in attendance also took it as a joke.

Anonymous wrote:
Then tell me WHAT I'm supposed to agree to?

What INFORMATION was leaked before Nov 8th concerning the investigation of Clinton other than there was an investigation.

The whole topic of the Weiner laptop for one. The fact that a laptop with copies of Clinton's email was found was made public even though those emails turned out to be duplicates that were not relevant to the investigation. DOJ policy is not to take actions that affect elections. The disclosure of the laptop should not have been made a week before the election. But, NYC FBI agents leaked the information to Nunes -- that's according to Nunes -- and Giuliani -- that's according to Giuliani -- which forced Comey to write to Congress about it. The news was immediately leaked and became public.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Page wrote Strzok: "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right!?"

Strzok responded, "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."

Isn’t this what all voters do when they go out and vote?

The texts were supposed to be turned over to Congress during their investigation, not suddenly "cutoff" at the statement before Strzok posted:

"No. No he won't. We'll stop it."



Let's get real here. This was a small part of a big coverup.

Great. More cover up conspiracy crap. When will it ever end. You all were hailing the IG a few days ago, now he's corrupt because he didn't validate your fantasies.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
No details of the investigation were published. Only that an investigation was taking place. That was top cover for Hillary, especially in light of her and her staff destroying evidence (mobile phones, records and emails) during an ongoing federal investigation into violations of the espionage act 18USC793.

No one in the world would get a deal like she did, given her "protected status".

That's not true at all. When Comey made his announcement that charges would not be filed against Clinton, he made detailed criticism of her. That was completely contrary to policy and he was criticized for it in the IG report. When Comey wrote to Congress about the Weiner laptop, it was much more than just saying there was an investigation. For that matter, the FBI refused to even confirm a Trump investigation. Trump was way more protected than Clinton and many of the Clinton disclosures were driving by anti-Clinton FBI agents who repeatedly leaked information.

Of course he did. That was NOT a leak. That was the announcement of findings.


Why would the FBI confirm a CI investigation? Protected? How?

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Page wrote Strzok: "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right!?"

Strzok responded, "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."

And that was the end of it. What did they do to prevent Trump from becoming President? They could have leaked to Harry Reid just like the New York office leaked to Nunes. They could have leaked to the Clinton campaign the way the FBI office leaked to Giuliani. But, they behaved professionally. In the end, the FBI hurt Clinton and protected Trump. I don't know how you could argue otherwise.

Actually, that's not the end of it. This was the end of it...

Page wrote Strzok: "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right!?"




You get what I'm saying?

The next text was not turned over to Congress. Why?

No, I do not get what you are saying. What did Page or Strzok do to prevent Trump from becoming president? Name one action that prevented Trump from becoming president? You can't, and, I assume you know, Trump became President. Whatever Strzok and Page's personal feelings, they didn't take actions based on those feelings. Again, the New York office leaked to Nunes and Giuliani. That forced Comey to disclose the Weiner laptop emails. Strzok and Page did nothing and Trump was protected until after the election.

Do you get what I'm saying?

Given what she did with classified information, she should never have been running for president to begin with.

The FBI was slow rolling the case and placed favorable agents in positions to protect her. That only comes from the White House. Comey was writing his draft exoneration long before the facts were in and the FBI was handing out immunity deals like it was candy to keep everyone quiet and sequestered in process. You know it happened, but as a die hard democrat, you turn your head away.

Not true at all. Will you address, just once. Just once, address the fact that information about the Clinton investigation was repeatedly leaked or officially publicized while information about the Trump investigation was kept secret until after the election? Don't change the subject to your fantasies, but just once, address this point.

Then tell me WHAT I'm supposed to agree to?

What INFORMATION was leaked before Nov 8th concerning the investigation of Clinton other than there was an investigation.

Anonymous wrote:
No details of the investigation were published. Only that an investigation was taking place. That was top cover for Hillary, especially in light of her and her staff destroying evidence (mobile phones, records and emails) during an ongoing federal investigation into violations of the espionage act 18USC793.

No one in the world would get a deal like she did, given her "protected status".

That's not true at all. When Comey made his announcement that charges would not be filed against Clinton, he made detailed criticism of her. That was completely contrary to policy and he was criticized for it in the IG report. When Comey wrote to Congress about the Weiner laptop, it was much more than just saying there was an investigation. For that matter, the FBI refused to even confirm a Trump investigation. Trump was way more protected than Clinton and many of the Clinton disclosures were driving by anti-Clinton FBI agents who repeatedly leaked information.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Page wrote Strzok: "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right!?"

Strzok responded, "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."

Isn’t this what all voters do when they go out and vote?

The texts were supposed to be turned over to Congress during their investigation, not suddenly "cutoff" at the statement before Strzok posted:

"No. No he won't. We'll stop it."



Let's get real here. This was a small part of a big coverup.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Page wrote Strzok: "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right!?"

Strzok responded, "No. No he won't. We'll stop it."

And that was the end of it. What did they do to prevent Trump from becoming President? They could have leaked to Harry Reid just like the New York office leaked to Nunes. They could have leaked to the Clinton campaign the way the FBI office leaked to Giuliani. But, they behaved professionally. In the end, the FBI hurt Clinton and protected Trump. I don't know how you could argue otherwise.

Actually, that's not the end of it. This was the end of it...

Page wrote Strzok: "[Trump's] not ever going to become president, right? Right!?"




You get what I'm saying?

The next text was not turned over to Congress. Why?

No, I do not get what you are saying. What did Page or Strzok do to prevent Trump from becoming president? Name one action that prevented Trump from becoming president? You can't, and, I assume you know, Trump became President. Whatever Strzok and Page's personal feelings, they didn't take actions based on those feelings. Again, the New York office leaked to Nunes and Giuliani. That forced Comey to disclose the Weiner laptop emails. Strzok and Page did nothing and Trump was protected until after the election.

Do you get what I'm saying?

Given what she did with classified information, she should never have been running for president to begin with.

The FBI was slow rolling the case and placed favorable agents in positions to protect her. That only comes from the White House. Comey was writing his draft exoneration long before the facts were in and the FBI was handing out immunity deals like it was candy to keep everyone quiet and sequestered in process. You know it happened, but as a die hard democrat, you turn your head away.

Not true at all. Will you address, just once. Just once, address the fact that information about the Clinton investigation was repeatedly leaked or officially publicized while information about the Trump investigation was kept secret until after the election? Don't change the subject to your fantasies, but just once, address this point.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You are living in a fantasy world. The investigation shows just how biased the FBI agents were in favor of Hillary and against Trump. Those agents are Giglio impaired from here on out.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-15/fbi-agent-called-hillary-president-while-investigating-her-texted-screw-you-trump

funny since it says no bias. How did you miss that?

What it said was far from saying "there was no bias." There are concrete examples of bias all over the place. These fools texted biased statements 24/7.

24/7? Then where are they? There should be tons of them if they texted them 24/7, but all we ever see are the same two messages, which were inconsequential.

Well, they tried that and announced the texts were irretrievably lost.

Then the whole country called BS, and suddenly....ta da!


The whole top echelon was in cover up mode for Clinton.

Wrong. The facts are that Trump was protected. Nothing was disclosed about the Trump investigation until after the election. News about the Clinton investigation was repeatedly leaked or officially publicized. You have it exactly in reverse. The top echelon was committed to protecting Trump, which they did successfully.

No details of the investigation were published. Only that an investigation was taking place. That was top cover for Hillary, especially in light of her and her staff destroying evidence (mobile phones, records and emails) during an ongoing federal investigation into violations of the espionage act 18USC793.

No one in the world would get a deal like she did, given her "protected status".