FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - Printable Version +- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com) +-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums) +--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0) +---- Forum: P & R Archive (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-P-R-Archive) +---- Thread: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged (/Thread-FBI-not-happy-Clinton-wasn-t-charged) Pages:
1
2
|
FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - PhilHos - 10-12-2016 http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/12/fbi-doj-roiled-by-comey-lynch-decision-to-let-clinton-slide-by-on-emails-says-insider.amp.html?client=ms-android-boost-us Quote:FBI, DOJ roiled by Comey, Lynch decision to let Clinton slide by on emails, says insider So the FBI director and DOJ colluded to keep Clinton from being charged FOR BREAKING THE LAW which one of the punishments for is that she would be forbidden from holding public office but Trump said some horrible things so Clinton should be elected. This country sometimes ... Sent from my SPH-L710T using Tapatalk RE: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - bfine32 - 10-12-2016 One of the more sickening things is if you just read the transcript of the 2nd debate. Of course the talk immediately turns to the Trump video and Anderson quickly turned from moderator to prosecutor, with about 3 different "sexual assault" retorts. Then when AC and Hills both got done trashing him over it Raddatz "moves on" to the next emailer question. The question was how have you changed and Raddatz ties that one to the video. Finally, once Trump brings up the emails Raddatz comes with the hard-hitting FBI said it was careless". One question asked and no follow ups from Raddatz or AC only interrupting the exchanges with "we've got to move on" (most likely why Trump asked AC is he going to ask about the emails. So basically we had a moderator(s) doing all he could do to tie one of the candidates to admitting to a crime; yet nothing to Hills just being careless. This doesn't even take into account the first debate when Holt came out with the hard-hitting "Do you want to talk about the emails" Then shit is in the bag and has been since Hills lost to Obama in 2008. This is why i laugh at those that rail against Trump. They have become what they claim to hate. RE: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - Rotobeast - 10-12-2016 (10-12-2016, 10:03 PM)bfine32 Wrote: One of the more sickening things is if you just read the transcript of the 2nd debate. You know AC interned in the CIA, right ? Project Mockingbird RE: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - TheLeonardLeap - 10-13-2016 I need to stay off P'n'R in the mornings. It's too early to start drinking and that OP is a depressing read. Lol Even if she wasn't prosecuted, her security clearance should have most certainly been pulled. I know back when I had my clearance, if I had done even 1/3rd of what they found on Clinton, I would have almost certainly been in Leavenworth. Apparently everyone should master the art of "I don't recall" and tarmac meetings to talk about grandkids and our prison overpopulation problems will be solved instantly. RE: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - bfine32 - 10-13-2016 (10-13-2016, 11:05 AM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I need to stay off P'n'R in the mornings. It's too early to start drinking and that OP is a depressing read. Lol I think one of the misunderstood things is that Elected Officials don't get security clearances like us lowly folk. They simply make a pledge, so there is nothing to revolk except say she lied about treating classified documents with the care they deserve. I could be wrong on this, as it has been a while since I researched. It is extremely frustrating especially when you have over half of the voting population treating it as nothing. RE: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - PhilHos - 10-13-2016 (10-13-2016, 11:28 AM)bfine32 Wrote: I think one of the misunderstood things is that Elected Officials don't get security clearances like us lowly folk. They simply make a pledge, so there is nothing to revolk except say she lied about treating classified documents with the care they deserve. I could be wrong on this, as it has been a while since I researched. It may just be my perceptions, but I swear there is more outrage over Trump's lewd comments than over Hillarys email scandal. That, IMO, says A LOT about how low this country has fallen. RE: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - bfine32 - 10-13-2016 (10-13-2016, 12:33 PM)PhilHos Wrote: It may just be my perceptions, but I swear there is more outrage over Trump's lewd comments than over Hillarys email scandal. That, IMO, says A LOT about how low this country has fallen. To be fair, I don't think there has been more talk. Just the other day a member of this board told me he had heard more about Trump-Bill Clinton in regards to objectification of women that he had Clinton-Powell in regards to handling classified emails (I about fell out of my chair). I think Clinton's emails have been the biggest news of this election cycle; it's just the Libs are now trying to play catch up and everything Trump does will be put on full-blast. I aslo think there is hypocrisy on both sides: Folks that "overlook" A will condemn "B". I agree with you on how this country has become disjointed. Never have I experienced an election cycle such as we have. "Look how good my candidate is" has given way to 'Look how ban your candidate is." As to the emails: Everybody knows what Hills did could/should have at least been brought to trial. RE: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - TheLeonardLeap - 10-13-2016 (10-13-2016, 12:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To be fair, I don't think there has been more talk. Just the other day a member of this board told me he had heard more about Trump-Bill Clinton in regards to objectification of women that he had Clinton-Powell in regards to handling classified emails (I about fell out of my chair). Another reason to vote for Gary Johnson. I actually know what he wants/plans to do politically. That's grown awfully hard to find for the two main candidates through all the mud slinging. It's like you are allowed to ignore how my generation is getting screwed over by Obamacare and Social Security, or the fact that the country is $20T in debt and vastly increasing the countries we're fighting in (we're firing missles on Yemen now, too. Huzzah).... so long as you call the other candidate a racist or crook. RE: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - Belsnickel - 10-13-2016 (10-13-2016, 12:42 PM)bfine32 Wrote: To be fair, I don't think there has been more talk. Just the other day a member of this board told me he had heard more about Trump-Bill Clinton in regards to objectification of women that he had Clinton-Powell in regards to handling classified emails (I about fell out of my chair). To be fair, I have heard about the emails overall much more, I just haven't heard about the Clinton/Powell things as much as I have the Trump/Bill thing. You're right, though, this is very much an election cycle where people are more about voting against someone than for someone, and that is very disheartening. There are a lot of theories as to why, I was just looking at some graphs about the increased polarization of our country yesterday that some people point to. It's really hard to pin down what it really happening, but one thing for certain is that is sucks. (10-13-2016, 01:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Another reason to vote for Gary Johnson. I actually know what he wants/plans to do politically. That's grown awfully hard to find for the two main candidates through all the mud slinging. I want to much to see a third party/independent candidate make a big enough wave, but the problem is that with first past the post elections we will never see any movement away from the two party system. RE: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - masterpanthera_t - 10-13-2016 (10-13-2016, 01:44 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I want to much to see a third party/independent candidate make a big enough wave, but the problem is that with first past the post elections we will never see any movement away from the two party system. Serious question: what is required for any change to the electoral system? A constitutional amendment? RE: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - fredtoast - 10-13-2016 FBI is no different than any other company/business. There are some employees who think Hillary was guilty and some who think she was not. If EVERYONE[b][/b] in the FBI thought her was guilty then their sources would not have to keep their names secret. RE: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - Mike M (the other one) - 10-13-2016 (10-13-2016, 07:44 PM)fredtoast Wrote: FBI is no different than any other company/business. There are some employees who think Hillary was guilty and some who think she was not. As long as 1 felt either way, then your statement holds true. Such a generic statement. You have no idea how many fell which way so you make a generic statement trying to play it down. Typical. They did sign non-disclosure agreements. Or is there something Legal that would allow them to talk and keep their jobs at the same time? RE: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - fredtoast - 10-13-2016 (10-13-2016, 08:26 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: You have no idea how many fell which way so you make a generic statement trying to play it down. Typical. No one knows how many fell which way yet the headline reads "FBI not happy Clinton was not charged." Typical. RE: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - Belsnickel - 10-13-2016 (10-13-2016, 06:34 PM)masterpanthera_t Wrote: Serious question: what is required for any change to the electoral system? A constitutional amendment? That is a tricky question. The way elections happen is actually decided at the state level. The Constitution lays out some rules for federal offices, like the electoral college and what not, but the rest (beyond date, but that's a different story) is left up to the states. Making the switch to alternative/instant runoff is a state level decision, Maine currently has it on their ballot. The problem is that the parties are typically the gatekeepers for things like that getting on the ballot, and since it means them losing power, it ain't happening. Maine is doing it because they have been shafted by first past the post twice and want to make sure it doesn't happen again. Want to look at the spoiler effect of independents? Look at Maine's governor. All of that being said, it could be remedied with an amendment. The question is, which would be more difficult to make happen? RE: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - Rotobeast - 10-13-2016 (10-13-2016, 01:18 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Another reason to vote for Gary Johnson. I actually know what he wants/plans to do politically. That's grown awfully hard to find for the two main candidates through all the mud slinging. PREACH !!!! RE: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - JustWinBaby - 10-15-2016 I wonder why the FBI even needed to make a recommendation to prosecute? He could have just presented the facts, and then said it was now in the DOJ hands. Unless a backroom deal was cut that in order to lay out the facts, he also had to "recommend" no prosecution. But put yourself in Comey's shoes....if you recommend prosecution, that might end-up with Trump being POTUS! Otherwise, the security issues won't be an issue with Hillary as POTUS, because she won't be running a home server and her handlers will make sure it isn't an issue. And because so much of POTUS records are sealed from, basically everyone, she doesn't need to take steps to hide and bleach her underhanded dealings. RE: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 10-16-2016 Quote:Well before Comey’s announcement, which came days after Bill Clinton met in secret with Comey’s boss, Attorney General Loretta Lynch, there were signs the investigation would go nowhere, the source told FoxNews.com. One was the fact that the FBI forced its agents and analysts involved in the case to sign non-disclosure agreements. Huh? So agents involved in the investigation signed nondisclosure agreements which should prevent them from talking to the media like the anonymous source is doing with Fox News which is something FBI agents shouldn't do anyway kinda rendering a nondisclosure agreement a moot point. Since the anonymous claims to be involved in the investigation and also claims agents were required to sign nondisclosure agreements then the anonymous source is in violation of his own nondisclosure agreement. But, anyway, how does signing a nondisclosure agreement stifle the investigative process? RE: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - Belsnickel - 10-16-2016 (10-16-2016, 01:51 AM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Huh? Isn't it actually part of their contract not to discuss investigations unless authorized to do so? RE: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - oncemoreuntothejimbreech - 10-16-2016 (10-16-2016, 08:27 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Isn't it actually part of their contract not to discuss investigations unless authorized to do so? I don't know, but it seems like a given agents aren't allowed to disclose information related to an investigation. If they want a conviction, leaking information could potentially help the defense. RE: FBI not happy Clinton wasn't charged - tigerseye - 10-16-2016 If the Clintons can break/circumvent the laws, then every one else can. Right? Thats the mind set many will have. When there is no rule of law at the top and everybody knows it the whole system will follow right down the toilet with them. It's good to know that many in the FBI are outraged by the actions of Comey (and Loretta Lynch for that matter). Gives us some hope. |