Comey Lays His Cards on the Table

[daws101]

REPEATING

Repeating the stupid doesn't make it any less stupid.

Can you tell us what defense information Hillary supposedly gave away?

No?

You mean you're just making shit up?

Thanks for clarifying your double standard.

Didn't need to actually "give any information away".. This has never been about espionage. It's about blatant mishandling of classified information which by itself is against rules and regulations and law. She arrogantly REFUSED approved, secure methods of communication and set up a flimsy ad hoc unprotected system to do the MAJORITY of her business/personal communications.

That's removing classified information from the approved methods and practices of protecting it.

Human error.

You mean her defense is that she is naive, incompetent and lazy?

You know that her "human error" could have gotten people killed in foreign lands right?

Wouldn't be the first time or the last time someone in government fucked up.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

She actually DID break the law. In terms of statutes USC 18 1924.

Because you say so? Par for the course.

What Comey said was quite direct.
---
"Did Hillary Clinton break the law?" Chaffetz asked.

"In connection with her use of the email server? My judgment is that she did not," Comey said.
---

Oddly, you have decided that Comey really meant the opposite of what he said.

I think I'll go with his actual words, rather than your peculiar reinterpretation of his words.

Wanna try again? You probably shouldn't... Folks like me who worked in Intelligence and other secure areas are MIGHTILY pissed about the misinformation and the misconceptions that are out there.

Folks who have actually worked in intelligence don't advertise it.

She jeopardized human assets on the ground. All over the globe.

Not any evidence for that. You just made it up.

And made herself blackmail-able if any bad actors have a more complete hack of her system than the FBI received after she "wiped it with a clothe".

As you did, by informing everyone you're an intelligence target. Jail for you!

Oh wait, you're just a guy on the internet pretending to be important. Never mind.

Just another Keyboard Kowboy

 

[Mertex]

I just found this funny, since so many Liberals are in denial that she's lying... constantly... and some even deny that she's even under investigation. You know, since he points out her lies.

Bwahahaha.....I can't believe you are calling a Republican (Comey) a liar because he didn't kiss the Republican witch hunt's ass and made Hillary to be a criminal as you all wanted. Had he done that you all would be kissing his ass. What hypocrites.

First, she's supposed to forward all of her emails to be archived(She didn't), she waited two years, until finally being caught, and only then did she forward them, and right after she did(Again after keeping the emails for two years), she deleted all of the ones she didn't send, some of which were work related. There's several laws broken there, and pretty obvious intent. There's also her mishandling of classified information, the lack of security, and lying under oath. This is no witch hunt, and anyone who calls it that is blind to reality. Furthermore, what's being discussed is 'lack of ability to prove intent', not lack of guilt. If you're celebrating, it's either her ability to get away with being a criminal, or the possibility that she's too incompetent to be charged with being a criminal.

You think you are better qualified than Comey to make such determinations? If Hillary is a criminal, then Comey is an accomplice and Republicans would be going after him....which they are not.

Give it up. Hillary did no worse than Powell or Rice, but Republicans are known to be hypocrites, just like with embassy attacks. They ignored the many that happened under Reagan and Bush, but tried to make Benghazi into something that it was not.

Give it up......like Benghazi, there is nothing there.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I just found this funny, since so many Liberals are in denial that she's lying... constantly... and some even deny that she's even under investigation. You know, since he points out her lies.

Bwahahaha.....I can't believe you are calling a Republican (Comey) a liar because he didn't kiss the Republican witch hunt's ass and made Hillary to be a criminal as you all wanted. Had he done that you all would be kissing his ass. What hypocrites.

First, she's supposed to forward all of her emails to be archived(She didn't), she waited two years, until finally being caught, and only then did she forward them, and right after she did(Again after keeping the emails for two years), she deleted all of the ones she didn't send, some of which were work related. There's several laws broken there, and pretty obvious intent. There's also her mishandling of classified information, the lack of security, and lying under oath. This is no witch hunt, and anyone who calls it that is blind to reality. Furthermore, what's being discussed is 'lack of ability to prove intent', not lack of guilt. If you're celebrating, it's either her ability to get away with being a criminal, or the possibility that she's too incompetent to be charged with being a criminal.

You think you are better qualified than Comey to make such determinations? If Hillary is a criminal, then Comey is an accomplice and Republicans would be going after him....which they are not.

Give it up. Hillary did no worse than Powell or Rice, but Republicans are known to be hypocrites, just like with embassy attacks. They ignored the many that happened under Reagan and Bush, but tried to make Benghazi into something that it was not.

Give it up......like Benghazi, there is nothing there.

Firstly, he never said she was innocent, only that they can't prove intent. Secondly, the establishment Republicans are starting to back Hillary, they're probably throwing a party, because Hillary is basically an establishment lapdog, and that's exactly what they want. Furthermore, you've done nothing to disprove what I said, you only said "I'mma ignore everything you said because it's not what I want to hear".

Nobody ever said there was nothing there for Benghazi, the report detailed conflicting orders from two high levels of government. You're just repeating what CNN incorrectly reported.

 

[Contumacious]

REPEATING

Repeating the stupid doesn't make it any less stupid.

Can you tell us what defense information Hillary supposedly gave away?

No?

You mean you're just making shit up?

Thanks for clarifying your double standard.

Didn't need to actually "give any information away".. This has never been about espionage. It's about blatant mishandling of classified information which by itself is against rules and regulations and law. She arrogantly REFUSED approved, secure methods of communication and set up a flimsy ad hoc unprotected system to do the MAJORITY of her business/personal communications.

That's removing classified information from the approved methods and practices of protecting it.

That is correct.

She is not the president yet and the hillarites are already claiming that

"when Hillary does it , it means is not a crime."

.


.

And if Comey was TRULY worried about precedent he should have considered that the normal process of investigating and punishing these acts IN HOUSE -- would never work if the perp was a WH cabinet member.

So he essentially has given IMMUNITY to the HEADS of these departments. Since he acknowledged that anyone caught doing this at the FBI would be subject to AGENCY sanctions --- UNLESS

I GUESS ----------




........................... it was him.

Why do we stand for this?

Comey has argued that somehow there is such a legal chasm between extreme carelessness and gross negligence that the feds cannot bridge it. That is not an argument for him to make. That is for a jury to decide after a judge instructs the jury about what Comey fails to understand: There is not a dime’s worth of difference between these two standards. Extreme carelessness is gross negligence.

Unless, of course, one is willing to pervert the rule of law yet again to insulate a Clinton yet again from the law enforcement machinery that everyone else who fails to secure state secrets should expect.

Andrew P. Napolitano
a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey

 

[flacaltenn]

REPEATING

Repeating the stupid doesn't make it any less stupid.

Can you tell us what defense information Hillary supposedly gave away?

No?

You mean you're just making shit up?

Thanks for clarifying your double standard.

Didn't need to actually "give any information away".. This has never been about espionage. It's about blatant mishandling of classified information which by itself is against rules and regulations and law. She arrogantly REFUSED approved, secure methods of communication and set up a flimsy ad hoc unprotected system to do the MAJORITY of her business/personal communications.

That's removing classified information from the approved methods and practices of protecting it.

That is correct.

She is not the president yet and the hillarites are already claiming that

"when Hillary does it , it means is not a crime."

.


.

And if Comey was TRULY worried about precedent he should have considered that the normal process of investigating and punishing these acts IN HOUSE -- would never work if the perp was a WH cabinet member.

So he essentially has given IMMUNITY to the HEADS of these departments. Since he acknowledged that anyone caught doing this at the FBI would be subject to AGENCY sanctions --- UNLESS

I GUESS ----------




........................... it was him.

Why do we stand for this?

Comey has argued that somehow there is such a legal chasm between extreme carelessness and gross negligence that the feds cannot bridge it. That is not an argument for him to make. That is for a jury to decide after a judge instructs the jury about what Comey fails to understand: There is not a dime’s worth of difference between these two standards. Extreme carelessness is gross negligence.

Unless, of course, one is willing to pervert the rule of law yet again to insulate a Clinton yet again from the law enforcement machinery that everyone else who fails to secure state secrets should expect.

Andrew P. Napolitano
a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey

I think.. It's because he was telegraphing his "preferred" way of handling cases of mishandled classified content.
Which is not to bring a PUBLIC case -- but to have it handled at Agency/Company level.

HOWEVER --- if there ever was a REASON to prosecute it legally -- it would be if the Chief Execs of that Agency/Dept were the culprits. And for that --- I'm angry..

 

[daws101]

REPEATING

Repeating the stupid doesn't make it any less stupid.

Can you tell us what defense information Hillary supposedly gave away?

No?

You mean you're just making shit up?

Thanks for clarifying your double standard.

Didn't need to actually "give any information away".. This has never been about espionage. It's about blatant mishandling of classified information which by itself is against rules and regulations and law. She arrogantly REFUSED approved, secure methods of communication and set up a flimsy ad hoc unprotected system to do the MAJORITY of her business/personal communications.

That's removing classified information from the approved methods and practices of protecting it.

That is correct.

She is not the president yet and the hillarites are already claiming that

"when Hillary does it , it means is not a crime."

.


.

And if Comey was TRULY worried about precedent he should have considered that the normal process of investigating and punishing these acts IN HOUSE -- would never work if the perp was a WH cabinet member.

So he essentially has given IMMUNITY to the HEADS of these departments. Since he acknowledged that anyone caught doing this at the FBI would be subject to AGENCY sanctions --- UNLESS

I GUESS ----------




........................... it was him.

Why do we stand for this?

Comey has argued that somehow there is such a legal chasm between extreme carelessness and gross negligence that the feds cannot bridge it. That is not an argument for him to make. That is for a jury to decide after a judge instructs the jury about what Comey fails to understand: There is not a dime’s worth of difference between these two standards. Extreme carelessness is gross negligence.

Unless, of course, one is willing to pervert the rule of law yet again to insulate a Clinton yet again from the law enforcement machinery that everyone else who fails to secure state secrets should expect.

Andrew P. Napolitano
a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey

you do understand what former means ?

 

[Contumacious]

Repeating the stupid doesn't make it any less stupid.

Can you tell us what defense information Hillary supposedly gave away?

No?

You mean you're just making shit up?

Thanks for clarifying your double standard.

Didn't need to actually "give any information away".. This has never been about espionage. It's about blatant mishandling of classified information which by itself is against rules and regulations and law. She arrogantly REFUSED approved, secure methods of communication and set up a flimsy ad hoc unprotected system to do the MAJORITY of her business/personal communications.

That's removing classified information from the approved methods and practices of protecting it.

That is correct.

She is not the president yet and the hillarites are already claiming that

"when Hillary does it , it means is not a crime."

.


.

And if Comey was TRULY worried about precedent he should have considered that the normal process of investigating and punishing these acts IN HOUSE -- would never work if the perp was a WH cabinet member.

So he essentially has given IMMUNITY to the HEADS of these departments. Since he acknowledged that anyone caught doing this at the FBI would be subject to AGENCY sanctions --- UNLESS

I GUESS ----------




........................... it was him.

Why do we stand for this?

Comey has argued that somehow there is such a legal chasm between extreme carelessness and gross negligence that the feds cannot bridge it. That is not an argument for him to make. That is for a jury to decide after a judge instructs the jury about what Comey fails to understand: There is not a dime’s worth of difference between these two standards. Extreme carelessness is gross negligence.

Unless, of course, one is willing to pervert the rule of law yet again to insulate a Clinton yet again from the law enforcement machinery that everyone else who fails to secure state secrets should expect.

Andrew P. Napolitano
a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey

you do understand what former means ?

You do understand that upon resigning their brains are not removed nor are they debriefed.


.

 

[flacaltenn]

Didn't need to actually "give any information away".. This has never been about espionage. It's about blatant mishandling of classified information which by itself is against rules and regulations and law. She arrogantly REFUSED approved, secure methods of communication and set up a flimsy ad hoc unprotected system to do the MAJORITY of her business/personal communications.

That's removing classified information from the approved methods and practices of protecting it.

That is correct.

She is not the president yet and the hillarites are already claiming that

"when Hillary does it , it means is not a crime."

.


.

And if Comey was TRULY worried about precedent he should have considered that the normal process of investigating and punishing these acts IN HOUSE -- would never work if the perp was a WH cabinet member.

So he essentially has given IMMUNITY to the HEADS of these departments. Since he acknowledged that anyone caught doing this at the FBI would be subject to AGENCY sanctions --- UNLESS

I GUESS ----------




........................... it was him.

Why do we stand for this?

Comey has argued that somehow there is such a legal chasm between extreme carelessness and gross negligence that the feds cannot bridge it. That is not an argument for him to make. That is for a jury to decide after a judge instructs the jury about what Comey fails to understand: There is not a dime’s worth of difference between these two standards. Extreme carelessness is gross negligence.

Unless, of course, one is willing to pervert the rule of law yet again to insulate a Clinton yet again from the law enforcement machinery that everyone else who fails to secure state secrets should expect.

Andrew P. Napolitano
a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey

you do understand what former means ?

You do understand that upon resigning their brains are not removed nor are they debriefed.


.

That's why Comey was suggesting it would appropriate to pull their "courtesy clearances" that they retained. MAYBE --- sanction them from obtaining future clearances for a couple years. The entire lot of them.

Americans don't realize that classified info that resides in peoples heads doesn't require "markings". Nor that every cleared person knows EXACTLY what should not be divulged and to whom (and HOW) it might be.

That's why we don't see massive "leaks" on Meet the Press every Sunday. They are TRAINED to recognize it.

 

[daws101]

Didn't need to actually "give any information away".. This has never been about espionage. It's about blatant mishandling of classified information which by itself is against rules and regulations and law. She arrogantly REFUSED approved, secure methods of communication and set up a flimsy ad hoc unprotected system to do the MAJORITY of her business/personal communications.

That's removing classified information from the approved methods and practices of protecting it.

That is correct.

She is not the president yet and the hillarites are already claiming that

"when Hillary does it , it means is not a crime."

.


.

And if Comey was TRULY worried about precedent he should have considered that the normal process of investigating and punishing these acts IN HOUSE -- would never work if the perp was a WH cabinet member.

So he essentially has given IMMUNITY to the HEADS of these departments. Since he acknowledged that anyone caught doing this at the FBI would be subject to AGENCY sanctions --- UNLESS

I GUESS ----------




........................... it was him.

Why do we stand for this?

Comey has argued that somehow there is such a legal chasm between extreme carelessness and gross negligence that the feds cannot bridge it. That is not an argument for him to make. That is for a jury to decide after a judge instructs the jury about what Comey fails to understand: There is not a dime’s worth of difference between these two standards. Extreme carelessness is gross negligence.

Unless, of course, one is willing to pervert the rule of law yet again to insulate a Clinton yet again from the law enforcement machinery that everyone else who fails to secure state secrets should expect.

Andrew P. Napolitano
a former judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey

you do understand what former means ?

You do understand that upon resigning their brains are not removed nor are they debriefed.


.

yes , but do you understand that when they resign they are instructed to not give out information of any kind,

 

[Mertex]

I just found this funny, since so many Liberals are in denial that she's lying... constantly... and some even deny that she's even under investigation. You know, since he points out her lies.

Bwahahaha.....I can't believe you are calling a Republican (Comey) a liar because he didn't kiss the Republican witch hunt's ass and made Hillary to be a criminal as you all wanted. Had he done that you all would be kissing his ass. What hypocrites.

First, she's supposed to forward all of her emails to be archived(She didn't), she waited two years, until finally being caught, and only then did she forward them, and right after she did(Again after keeping the emails for two years), she deleted all of the ones she didn't send, some of which were work related. There's several laws broken there, and pretty obvious intent. There's also her mishandling of classified information, the lack of security, and lying under oath. This is no witch hunt, and anyone who calls it that is blind to reality. Furthermore, what's being discussed is 'lack of ability to prove intent', not lack of guilt. If you're celebrating, it's either her ability to get away with being a criminal, or the possibility that she's too incompetent to be charged with being a criminal.

You think you are better qualified than Comey to make such determinations? If Hillary is a criminal, then Comey is an accomplice and Republicans would be going after him....which they are not.

Give it up. Hillary did no worse than Powell or Rice, but Republicans are known to be hypocrites, just like with embassy attacks. They ignored the many that happened under Reagan and Bush, but tried to make Benghazi into something that it was not.

Give it up......like Benghazi, there is nothing there.

Firstly, he never said she was innocent, only that they can't prove intent. Secondly, the establishment Republicans are starting to back Hillary, they're probably throwing a party, because Hillary is basically an establishment lapdog, and that's exactly what they want. Furthermore, you've done nothing to disprove what I said, you only said "I'mma ignore everything you said because it's not what I want to hear".

Nobody ever said there was nothing there for Benghazi, the report detailed conflicting orders from two high levels of government. You're just repeating what CNN incorrectly reported.

Comey never said she committed a crime, either. And, the fact that so many Republicans would rather vote for a Democrat, considering how much you all hate Democrats, ought to tell you that Trumpf must be really bad. Anything you have said, if it had substance, I'm sure that Comey, a Republican, would have jumped on to have Hillary arrested. The fact is, Comey doesn't want to appear like a fool among other prosecutors, something that rabid conservatives don't seem to mind, because he knows first-hand there is nothing to indict her with.

There is nothing there with the Benghazi Republican-made scandal either....Bush had more embassy attacks than Obama and Reagan had worse embassy attacks where more people died than did in Benghazi, but the hypocritical conservatives ignored those attacks are are focusing on Benghazi and won't even accept their own party's report that there was no blame found of Hillary or Obama because their main goal is to derail Hillary. It isn't going to happen. Only the dull-witted continue to wag their tongues regarding Benghazi.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

I just found this funny, since so many Liberals are in denial that she's lying... constantly... and some even deny that she's even under investigation. You know, since he points out her lies.

Bwahahaha.....I can't believe you are calling a Republican (Comey) a liar because he didn't kiss the Republican witch hunt's ass and made Hillary to be a criminal as you all wanted. Had he done that you all would be kissing his ass. What hypocrites.

First, she's supposed to forward all of her emails to be archived(She didn't), she waited two years, until finally being caught, and only then did she forward them, and right after she did(Again after keeping the emails for two years), she deleted all of the ones she didn't send, some of which were work related. There's several laws broken there, and pretty obvious intent. There's also her mishandling of classified information, the lack of security, and lying under oath. This is no witch hunt, and anyone who calls it that is blind to reality. Furthermore, what's being discussed is 'lack of ability to prove intent', not lack of guilt. If you're celebrating, it's either her ability to get away with being a criminal, or the possibility that she's too incompetent to be charged with being a criminal.

You think you are better qualified than Comey to make such determinations? If Hillary is a criminal, then Comey is an accomplice and Republicans would be going after him....which they are not.

Give it up. Hillary did no worse than Powell or Rice, but Republicans are known to be hypocrites, just like with embassy attacks. They ignored the many that happened under Reagan and Bush, but tried to make Benghazi into something that it was not.

Give it up......like Benghazi, there is nothing there.

Firstly, he never said she was innocent, only that they can't prove intent. Secondly, the establishment Republicans are starting to back Hillary, they're probably throwing a party, because Hillary is basically an establishment lapdog, and that's exactly what they want. Furthermore, you've done nothing to disprove what I said, you only said "I'mma ignore everything you said because it's not what I want to hear".

Nobody ever said there was nothing there for Benghazi, the report detailed conflicting orders from two high levels of government. You're just repeating what CNN incorrectly reported.

Comey never said she committed a crime, either. And, the fact that so many Republicans would rather vote for a Democrat, considering how much you all hate Democrats, ought to tell you that Trumpf must be really bad. Anything you have said, if it had substance, I'm sure that Comey, a Republican, would have jumped on to have Hillary arrested. The fact is, Comey doesn't want to appear like a fool among other prosecutors, something that rabid conservatives don't seem to mind, because he knows first-hand there is nothing to indict her with.

There is nothing there with the Benghazi Republican-made scandal either....Bush had more embassy attacks than Obama and Reagan had worse embassy attacks where more people died than did in Benghazi, but the hypocritical conservatives ignored those attacks are are focusing on Benghazi and won't even accept their own party's report that there was no blame found of Hillary or Obama because their main goal is to derail Hillary. It isn't going to happen. Only the dull-witted continue to wag their tongues regarding Benghazi.

Of course Trump is really bad. That's not the reason, though, it's because Hillary is a corrupt Establishment Servant, not that Trump is somehow worse. The Republican party has recently become as corrupt as the Democrat party, all they care about is serving their establishment masters.

Comey doesn't have to say Hillary committed a crime, it's blatantly obvious for all to see, and the only people that deny it are delusional. Comey was appointed by Bush, who is an Establishment servant, and a friend of the Clintons, who are also Establishment servants. They stick up for their own and when suits them.

There's plenty there about Benghazi, four Americans died due to incompetence in the high levels of government.

The Republican party never claimed Hillary had nothing to do with it, and the fact that you're claiming that only shows you know nothing about the report. You're only repeating what you were told by CNN after Republicans claimed it wasn't about Hillary, but four dead Americans. It was about the conflicting orders that prevented deployment of troops.

Hillary was never 'exonerated', she has clearly committed all kinds of crimes. Lack of prosecution is not lack of guilt.

 

[Boss]

Comey never said she committed a crime, either.

Yes he did... he even said that one other person has been tried in the past for the crime she committed and he didn't feel it warranted charges and no prosecutor would take the case. But he most certainly said she broke the law.

 

[Vigilante]

 

[Mertex]

Bwahahaha.....I can't believe you are calling a Republican (Comey) a liar because he didn't kiss the Republican witch hunt's ass and made Hillary to be a criminal as you all wanted. Had he done that you all would be kissing his ass. What hypocrites.

First, she's supposed to forward all of her emails to be archived(She didn't), she waited two years, until finally being caught, and only then did she forward them, and right after she did(Again after keeping the emails for two years), she deleted all of the ones she didn't send, some of which were work related. There's several laws broken there, and pretty obvious intent. There's also her mishandling of classified information, the lack of security, and lying under oath. This is no witch hunt, and anyone who calls it that is blind to reality. Furthermore, what's being discussed is 'lack of ability to prove intent', not lack of guilt. If you're celebrating, it's either her ability to get away with being a criminal, or the possibility that she's too incompetent to be charged with being a criminal.

You think you are better qualified than Comey to make such determinations? If Hillary is a criminal, then Comey is an accomplice and Republicans would be going after him....which they are not.

Give it up. Hillary did no worse than Powell or Rice, but Republicans are known to be hypocrites, just like with embassy attacks. They ignored the many that happened under Reagan and Bush, but tried to make Benghazi into something that it was not.

Give it up......like Benghazi, there is nothing there.

Firstly, he never said she was innocent, only that they can't prove intent. Secondly, the establishment Republicans are starting to back Hillary, they're probably throwing a party, because Hillary is basically an establishment lapdog, and that's exactly what they want. Furthermore, you've done nothing to disprove what I said, you only said "I'mma ignore everything you said because it's not what I want to hear".

Nobody ever said there was nothing there for Benghazi, the report detailed conflicting orders from two high levels of government. You're just repeating what CNN incorrectly reported.

Comey never said she committed a crime, either. And, the fact that so many Republicans would rather vote for a Democrat, considering how much you all hate Democrats, ought to tell you that Trumpf must be really bad. Anything you have said, if it had substance, I'm sure that Comey, a Republican, would have jumped on to have Hillary arrested. The fact is, Comey doesn't want to appear like a fool among other prosecutors, something that rabid conservatives don't seem to mind, because he knows first-hand there is nothing to indict her with.

There is nothing there with the Benghazi Republican-made scandal either....Bush had more embassy attacks than Obama and Reagan had worse embassy attacks where more people died than did in Benghazi, but the hypocritical conservatives ignored those attacks are are focusing on Benghazi and won't even accept their own party's report that there was no blame found of Hillary or Obama because their main goal is to derail Hillary. It isn't going to happen. Only the dull-witted continue to wag their tongues regarding Benghazi.

Of course Trump is really bad. That's not the reason, though, it's because Hillary is a corrupt Establishment Servant, not that Trump is somehow worse. The Republican party has recently become as corrupt as the Democrat party, all they care about is serving their establishment masters.

Hillary was not found to be at blame for Benghazi, and did not commit a crime with the e-mail issue. That she is corrupt is only in the minds of Democratic-hating conservatives. None of the Republican created scandals have yielded any evidence that she is corrupt, so to put Trump at the same level, after claims of his "fake" university have been filed against him, and his disappearing condo project which he settled only on the condition that those suing buyers keep their mouths shut to thwart the government's investigation of fraud puts Trump at a very high level of dishonesty. Now that is corrupt.


A number of the suing buyers at Trump Soho may have simultaneously been cooperating with the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office related to a criminal investigation of fraud at the new development. The probe was opened after the DA’s Major Economic Crimes Bureau caught wind of the allegations brought against the developers by attorney Adam Leitman Bailey. According to the New York Times, the settlement terms required more than 20 buyers to cease cooperating with government agencies charged with investigating any alleged fraud. The criminal investigation was later closed, likely because the key witnesses went silent.
Secret criminal investigation targeted fraud at Trump Soho: report

Comey doesn't have to say Hillary committed a crime, it's blatantly obvious for all to see, and the only people that deny it are delusional. Comey was appointed by Bush, who is an Establishment servant, and a friend of the Clintons, who are also Establishment servants. They stick up for their own and when suits them.

You are delusional. Of course Comey would have to say that Hillary committed a crime if she had. He didn't say it because Hillary did not commit a crime. You are claiming to have more knowledge of ithe situation without seeing the e-mails or knowing what constitutes a crime, which just makes discussing this with you a total waste of time. It doesn't become a crime just because you want it to be...no matter how obvious it may seem to non-experts.

There's plenty there about Benghazi, four Americans died due to incompetence in the high levels of government.

It is no worse than the many embassy attacks that occurred under Bush's watch and certainly not worse than one that occurred under Reagan where many more than 4 Americans lost their lives. That conservatives or myopic and are able to ignore those and focus only on Benghazi has become blatantly obvious to the rest of America that you really aren't that concerned about the 4 that died in Benghazi, just that Hillary be punished for it.

The Republican party never claimed Hillary had nothing to do with it, and the fact that you're claiming that only shows you know nothing about the report. You're only repeating what you were told by CNN after Republicans claimed it wasn't about Hillary, but four dead Americans. It was about the conflicting orders that prevented deployment of troops.

And, you are only repeating what you hear on Faux News and Rush Limbaugh. Of course the Republican committee, led by Republicans, did not find any blame on Hillary or Obama. Post a link if you have information where there was conflicting orders that prevented deployment of troops. And even if there was conflicting orders, they were not orders given by Hillary.

Conservatives were criticizing Obama for not calling the Benghazi attackers terrorists, but one of your own, Charlene Lamb, who was in the middle of it all, and resigned in order to avoid any more exposure is never even mentioned.


But in October the House of Representatives formed an Oversight and Government Reform Committee hearing to look into the Benghazi incident. Here are the facts as we know them:

1. The first fact is that Charlene Lamb, who as the State Department official stationed in Washington, was allegedly monitoring electronically from that post what was happening in real time in Benghazi, Libya. This means she would have been intimately aware of what was really going on.

2. Despite having first hand knowledge, Charlene Lamb would not answer the question of Representative Dan Burton (R-IN):

“You Miss Lamb…have described these attackers in a number of ways but you don’t mention terrorist at all. Why is that? I mean the compound had been attacked once before and breached. And these people had all these weapons; projectiles, grenades, all kinds of weapons. Why would you call this anything other than a terrorist attack? And why do you call them attackers?”

In reply, Charlene Lamb dodged the question:



Benghazi Timeline: Charlene Lamb Resignation Leaves Unanswered Consulate Deaths [Op-Ed]

Hillary was never 'exonerated', she has clearly committed all kinds of crimes. Lack of prosecution is not lack of guilt.

Why don't you list your supposed crimes that Hillary has committed? The fact that she hasn't been prosecuted is because there is no real evidence that she committed any crime. You need to give up your imagined evidence and come up with "real" evidence, if you believe she committed any crime.

 

[Boss]

Why don't you list your supposed crimes that Hillary has committed?

From Comey's testimony, she violated the Espionage Act
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

18 U.S. Code § 793 (f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

His testimony was, that even though she had violated this law, only one other individual had ever been tried for the crime and he felt that no reasonable prosecutor would bring the case.

Now you fuctards can sit there and LIE LIE LIE... until November about this... I don't really care. But the testimony given by Comey stands.... it's a matter of public record now.... She certainly DID violate the law.

 

[Mertex]

Comey never said she committed a crime, either.

Yes he did... he even said that one other person has been tried in the past for the crime she committed and he didn't feel it warranted charges and no prosecutor would take the case. But he most certainly said she broke the law.

You are lying. Comey never said such a thing. Please post a link where Comey said "for the crime she committed". The fact is that he didn't accuse Clinton of gross negligence, either, just negligence, so the case you are referring to was "gross negligence" and Comey admitted that it was starkly different than Clinton's.

If Hillary had been charged with "gross negligence" Guliani wouldn't have made the comment that he would have charged her with "gross negligence".

Take a comprehension class, you are grossly misrepresenting the facts.

An FBI official confirmed to POLITICO Thursday that Comey's public references to a single, gross negligence classified information case in the past century were to the indictment of Smith over a decade ago. The FBI director suggested the Smith case was starkly different than Clinton's.

"It's been one case brought on a gross negligence theory," Comey told the House Government Reform and Oversight Committee as Republican lawmakers pressed him on why Clinton wasn't being prosecuted for negligence in operating a private email server that Comey said contained highly classified information.


The FBI director also appeared to take a shot at former U.S. Attorney Rudy Giuliani and other ex-prosecutors who have been saying they would've charged Clinton with gross negligence.


Here's the other 'gross negligence' case Comey cited in Clinton email testimony

 

[Mertex]

Why don't you list your supposed crimes that Hillary has committed?

From Comey's testimony, she violated the Espionage Act
18 U.S. Code § 793 - Gathering, transmitting or losing defense information

18 U.S. Code § 793 (f)
Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—

Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

His testimony was, that even though she had violated this law, only one other individual had ever been tried for the crime and he felt that no reasonable prosecutor would bring the case.

Now you fuctards can sit there and LIE LIE LIE... until November about this... I don't really care. But the testimony given by Comey stands.... it's a matter of public record now.... She certainly DID violate the law.

You are not a criminal unless you are indicted and convicted of a crime. She was neither. Quit exaggerating.

And he didn't even accuse her of "gross negligence" - which is the case that he mentioned.

So, you lying fucktard, learn to read and quit making up bullshit. She will not be tried. Get over it.

 

[Boss]

You are lying. Comey never said such a thing. Please post a link where Comey said "for the crime she committed". The fact is that he didn't accuse Clinton of gross negligence, either, just negligence, so the case you are referring to was "gross negligence" and Comey admitted that it was starkly different than Clinton's.

He didn't explain any damn thing except that he didn't think a "reasonable prosecutor" would bring the case. He certainly DID indicate she violated this statute. He used the term "extremely careless" instead of "gross negligence" but the two terms are exactly the same in meaning. You're trying to pull a Slick Willie "meaning of is" trick here and it's not going to work for you this time. She is going to continue to be plastered as the corrupt and crooked lying ***** she is all the way to the election and this administration is going to be grilled and hounded until someone spills the beans on what kind of shady underhanded shenanigans took place. We're a nation of laws and no one is above the law, not even Queen Hildabeast!

 

[Boss]

And we've still got her Clinton Foundation scandal to come.