US vs Flynn

[easyt65]

Right, they removed the legal term gross negligence to make it less confusing...not because it’s the exact language used to describe when to prosecute the law.

NO.

As the link I provided ...and much more evidence....shows is 'Gross Negligence' 'triggered' / identified a specific criminal act punishable by indictment, charges, prison.

Former FBI Agent Page already testified under oath that the DOJ - Rosenstein - told McCabe....in front of her...the DOJ did NOT want any criminal investigation of Hillary Clinton...and Page testified an 'official' investigation was never conducted.

Surprise, surprise, it was her adulterous lover, Strzok, who bragged about so much of this in his texts, who was the one who reportedly ordered the words to be modified. Gee, what a coincidence.....

 

[Dragonlady]

US V Flynn | PDF | Prosecutor | Social Institutions

Supp Motion to Dismiss

www.scribd.com

Evidence out now Flynn was pressured.

Popcorn time.

Bullshit. The head of the NSA was bullied into what? Exactly? That one only flies if (a). There was no transcript of the call, and a General in the US Military, and head of the NSA didn’t know it was illegal to lie to the FBI, and last but certainly not least (c) had no independent legal advice throughout.

Now you have AG Barr, the Presidents fixer, forcing the Justice Department to violate the law and the Constitution.

This could result in Barr’s disbarment.

 

[colfax_m]

He lied under oath. He was pressured by the DOJ which was, and is, headed up by republicans.

Comey admitted on TV that he sent people into the Trump administration when it was 3 days old in order to sabotage it.

Can you tell me what Flynn supposedly lied about?

I didn't think so.

How long his shoe laces were perhaps? Maybe he said his car was red when the dealership lists the color as "crimson"

“In 2017 he pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI in relation to the Special Counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections.”

Hillary lied under oath too.

**** this one-sided shit.

Amazing how she was never charged for your imaginary allegations

Comey said confidential mail was found.

She said it wasn't there.

**** off.

Not just low level bullshit confidential material that shouldn’t even be confidential, they found plenty of that. But they found the highest level confidentiality where you aren’t allowed to create it digitally, you’re only allowed to read a hardcopy in a special room surrounded by a faraday cage where all electronics are banned. She was told that it could not be sent in email, that she had to read it in the special room, berated the person who told her that and made them send it in an email anyway...to her special server that we know was hacked by the Chinese. Which is one of the reasons we made the law that you have to use a government email address for work. Another reason is so you can’t destroy the evidence, which she also did. Compare the actual crime Hillary committed to the crimes they have to keep doing mental gymnastics to say that trump committed. It’s bonkers.

None of this is true.

View attachment 328727
View attachment 328728
From the IG himself. SAP, Special Access Privilege, is the term for the room I was talking about. Post proof before you make dumbass claims. Even if this wasn’t true, there’s minimum mandatory sentencing for even the lowest level classification. It was a crime to use her service for government work in the first place. She initially denied she did that, said it was personal stuff only. That was a lie. It morphed into she never used it for classified emails. That was a lie. She deleted 33,000 that she said were personal before she turned them over, which the FBI would never allow anyone else to do EVER, which also turned out to be a lie. I know the left has a magical ability to re-write history in their minds and block out whats reality like they’re in some sort of Scientology cult...but the real history is out there.

I'm aware that some of the information on her server was deemed SAP. However, that was not copied from any files, but a reference was made to this information. The part of your claim which was bullshit was her being told specific information could not be put in an email and berating people for not doing so. The other bullshit claim is that it was hacked by the Chinese, no such information exists. Another bullshit claim is that there is a law that you must use government email for work. Another bullshit claim is that she destroyed evidence.

She never claimed her server was only for personal use. She didn't delete 33,000 emails that were personal before she turned them over.

You've really jumbled up details.

The 33,000 emails were deleted after her lawyer sorted out and submitted the work related ones. It is not illegal to use personal email for government business. No then, not now. Government employees, up to and including Trump's own family continue to do so to this day. There was a reference of her emails being forwarded to a "Chinese" IP, a report which was based on misunderstanding and poor information. Emails were forwarded as part of a server migration.

Oh you have to be ******* kidding me. A “misunderstanding” or “glitch” caused Hillary’s emails to be forwarded to servers to a Chinese company with Chinese hardware and software that’s banned for use by government employees because we already know they are filled with spyware. All because that spokesperson of that state run company says “don’t worry, we no spy”. Her server was not approved, and she lied about classified emails being on there, as well as lied about classified emails being in the 33,000 deleted ones. The Olympic level of mental gymnastics here a astounding. Don’t believe the evidence in front of your eyes...just listen to how Hillary’s lawyers say it went down. Name another instance where the FBI subpoenaed evidence, let the party in questions lawyers comb over it and select what evidence to send over? FBI are the only ones who determine what is pertinent and what isn’t in every single case. This was the one case where they let the guilty party’s lawyers determine that, and then delete everything else. Why is that?

No glitch caused the emails to be forwarded because they weren’t forwarded to a Chinese company. This was a false report put out by shoddy right wing media and shot down by Republicans.

Senate investigators find no evidence China hacked Clinton server | CNN Politics

A long-running Republican-led investigation into the handling of classified information on Hillary Clinton's private email server did not find any evidence that China had successfully hacked the former secretary of state, confirming the findings of the FBI, according to a memo released by two...

www.cnn.com

The FBI never subpoenaed Clinton for emails. At the time Clinton told her staff to delete those emails, no one else did either.

Anytime anyone is subpoenaed, their lawyers determine what is relevant. That’s how subpoenas work.

Congressional investigators find irregularities in FBI’s handling of Clinton email case

Republicans on key congressional committees say they have uncovered new irregularities and contradictions inside the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s email server.For the first time, investigators …

thehill.com

yet we have all these one-offs in handling this "one" case you say isn't that important.

Timeline of Hillary Clinton's email scandal

A timeline of Hillary Clinton's email scandal.

www.cnn.com

2014
2014 -- The State Department requests that all former secretaries of state "submit any records in their possession for proper preservation."
Also in 2014, at the request of the State Department, Clinton hands over 55,000 pages — approximately 30,000 emails. Left out were emails deemed by her and her staff to be "personal."

why does SHE get to decide what is PERSONAL?

and i'm not going to play one sided word games. the state dept asked for them and her "delete" activities came after this point.

Everyone in government decides what is and isn’t personal and what needs to be submitted. Do you think the government employs people to do this for every employee? Obviously not. This is pretty standard.

Virtually all people in government use a personal email, for personal things, and a work email for work things....like most people do. It’s a lot easier to keep the spam out of your work email.

He lied under oath. He was pressured by the DOJ which was, and is, headed up by republicans.

Comey admitted on TV that he sent people into the Trump administration when it was 3 days old in order to sabotage it.

Can you tell me what Flynn supposedly lied about?

I didn't think so.

How long his shoe laces were perhaps? Maybe he said his car was red when the dealership lists the color as "crimson"

“In 2017 he pleaded guilty to making false statements to the FBI in relation to the Special Counsel's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 elections.”

Hillary lied under oath too.

**** this one-sided shit.

Amazing how she was never charged for your imaginary allegations

Comey said confidential mail was found.

She said it wasn't there.

**** off.

Not just low level bullshit confidential material that shouldn’t even be confidential, they found plenty of that. But they found the highest level confidentiality where you aren’t allowed to create it digitally, you’re only allowed to read a hardcopy in a special room surrounded by a faraday cage where all electronics are banned. She was told that it could not be sent in email, that she had to read it in the special room, berated the person who told her that and made them send it in an email anyway...to her special server that we know was hacked by the Chinese. Which is one of the reasons we made the law that you have to use a government email address for work. Another reason is so you can’t destroy the evidence, which she also did. Compare the actual crime Hillary committed to the crimes they have to keep doing mental gymnastics to say that trump committed. It’s bonkers.

None of this is true.

View attachment 328727
View attachment 328728
From the IG himself. SAP, Special Access Privilege, is the term for the room I was talking about. Post proof before you make dumbass claims. Even if this wasn’t true, there’s minimum mandatory sentencing for even the lowest level classification. It was a crime to use her service for government work in the first place. She initially denied she did that, said it was personal stuff only. That was a lie. It morphed into she never used it for classified emails. That was a lie. She deleted 33,000 that she said were personal before she turned them over, which the FBI would never allow anyone else to do EVER, which also turned out to be a lie. I know the left has a magical ability to re-write history in their minds and block out whats reality like they’re in some sort of Scientology cult...but the real history is out there.

I'm aware that some of the information on her server was deemed SAP. However, that was not copied from any files, but a reference was made to this information. The part of your claim which was bullshit was her being told specific information could not be put in an email and berating people for not doing so. The other bullshit claim is that it was hacked by the Chinese, no such information exists. Another bullshit claim is that there is a law that you must use government email for work. Another bullshit claim is that she destroyed evidence.

She never claimed her server was only for personal use. She didn't delete 33,000 emails that were personal before she turned them over.

You've really jumbled up details.

The 33,000 emails were deleted after her lawyer sorted out and submitted the work related ones. It is not illegal to use personal email for government business. No then, not now. Government employees, up to and including Trump's own family continue to do so to this day. There was a reference of her emails being forwarded to a "Chinese" IP, a report which was based on misunderstanding and poor information. Emails were forwarded as part of a server migration.

Oh you have to be ******* kidding me. A “misunderstanding” or “glitch” caused Hillary’s emails to be forwarded to servers to a Chinese company with Chinese hardware and software that’s banned for use by government employees because we already know they are filled with spyware. All because that spokesperson of that state run company says “don’t worry, we no spy”. Her server was not approved, and she lied about classified emails being on there, as well as lied about classified emails being in the 33,000 deleted ones. The Olympic level of mental gymnastics here a astounding. Don’t believe the evidence in front of your eyes...just listen to how Hillary’s lawyers say it went down. Name another instance where the FBI subpoenaed evidence, let the party in questions lawyers comb over it and select what evidence to send over? FBI are the only ones who determine what is pertinent and what isn’t in every single case. This was the one case where they let the guilty party’s lawyers determine that, and then delete everything else. Why is that?

No glitch caused the emails to be forwarded because they weren’t forwarded to a Chinese company. This was a false report put out by shoddy right wing media and shot down by Republicans.

Senate investigators find no evidence China hacked Clinton server | CNN Politics

A long-running Republican-led investigation into the handling of classified information on Hillary Clinton's private email server did not find any evidence that China had successfully hacked the former secretary of state, confirming the findings of the FBI, according to a memo released by two...

www.cnn.com

The FBI never subpoenaed Clinton for emails. At the time Clinton told her staff to delete those emails, no one else did either.

Anytime anyone is subpoenaed, their lawyers determine what is relevant. That’s how subpoenas work.

Congressional investigators find irregularities in FBI’s handling of Clinton email case

Republicans on key congressional committees say they have uncovered new irregularities and contradictions inside the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s email server.For the first time, investigators …

thehill.com

yet we have all these one-offs in handling this "one" case you say isn't that important.

Timeline of Hillary Clinton's email scandal

A timeline of Hillary Clinton's email scandal.

www.cnn.com

2014
2014 -- The State Department requests that all former secretaries of state "submit any records in their possession for proper preservation."
Also in 2014, at the request of the State Department, Clinton hands over 55,000 pages — approximately 30,000 emails. Left out were emails deemed by her and her staff to be "personal."

why does SHE get to decide what is PERSONAL?

and i'm not going to play one sided word games. the state dept asked for them and her "delete" activities came after this point.

Everyone in government decides what is and isn’t personal and what needs to be submitted. Do you think the government employs people to do this for every employee? Obviously not. This is pretty standard.

Virtually all people in government use a personal email, for personal things, and a work email for work things....like most people do. It’s a lot easier to keep the spam out of your work email.

Maybe. I won’t comment on how many do and dont do so. The regulations predate email. In the old days, each employee would determine what papers needed to be preserved. Same rules apply here.

 

[easyt65]

...but this is about Flynn...and Mueller and his team.

Flynn's case is far from the 1st one in which Mueller used Stalin-esque tactics in committing Prosecutorial misconduct. Mueller intentionally put men he knew were innocent behind bars.

Revealed: Mueller's FBI Repeatedly Abused Prosecutorial Discretion

Establishment DC types who reflexively defend Robert Mueller haven't explained how they came to trust him so completely. It's a question worth asking.

thefederalist.com

Not So Honorable: Docs Show Mueller’s FBI Denied Justice To Four Innocent Men

As FBI director in 2002, Robert Mueller directed his agents to oppose the pardons of four wrongfully imprisoned men because exculpatory evidence was merely “fodder for cross-examination,” newly revealed FBI documents show.

dailycaller.com

 

[colfax_m]

Gross negligence appears in the law, yes, and carries penalties with it. I mean, whats the point here?

This is why Comey removed / changed the words 'Gross Negligence' regarding Hillary's crimes....

Because the phrase did not accurately reflect their decision making.

but you also said a few replies ago, the wording didn't matter.

now, it does?

it can't only matter how you want it to. if it matters it carries a cost society has placed upon it we shouldn't be able to change because we don't like "something".

so at this point you've flipped position on whether or not the words used even matter.

at least that's how i'm reading it. doesn't matter what they call it, now they're calling it what accurately reflects the "non-crime".

I’m saying this is a non-issue. The entire team including line DoJ prosecutors decided it was not appropriate to charge her with gross negligence.

The wording of his public statement would have no bearing on that decision.

"the entire team" - it was strozk who said to change it.

words matter. they required action if "gross negligence" was used. it was changed to be a slap on the wrist and not require mandatory additional action. now since the person who did this has been fired due to bias against trump, then yes i question why this was done too.

The entire team decided not to prosecute.

Again, you’re so focused on the wording of a public statement that you aren’t considering the actual decision making process.

The wording of the public statement would not change anything. If they had left the phrase gross negligence in the statement, their recommendation to not prosecute and legal rationale would have been the exact same, only that people like yourself would have been confused as to why the term gross negligence was used at all.

 

[easyt65]

Bullshit. The head of the NSA was bullied into what? Exactly? That one only flies if (a). There was no transcript of the call, and a General in the US Military, and head of the NSA didn’t know it was illegal to lie to the FBI, and last but certainly not least (c) had no independent legal advice throughout.

Now you have AG Barr, the Presidents fixer, forcing the Justice Department to violate the law and the Constitution.

This could result in Barr’s disbarment.

James Clapper has already confessed that crimes were committed but claims his defense is that he was 'just doing what the President ordered him to do'.

Clapper's criminal past goes well beyond the failed Obama coup. Clapper and Brennan were both caught illegally spying on US citizens, the media, reporters, US Senators, & USSC Justices. These 2 should have been in Gitmo years agoi.

 

[easyt65]

The entire team decided not to prosecute.

Of course the entire Obama team decided not to let Hillary go to jail....

 

[easyt65]

The regulations predate email. In the old days, each employee would determine what papers needed to be preserved. Same rules apply here.

LINK?


In several other threads several different time I posted links debunking this snowflake claim. You just made the claim again - please provide the supporting information / link.

 

[sakinago]

Gross negligence appears in the law, yes, and carries penalties with it. I mean, whats the point here?

This is why Comey removed / changed the words 'Gross Negligence' regarding Hillary's crimes....

Because the phrase did not accurately reflect their decision making.

but you also said a few replies ago, the wording didn't matter.

now, it does?

it can't only matter how you want it to. if it matters it carries a cost society has placed upon it we shouldn't be able to change because we don't like "something".

so at this point you've flipped position on whether or not the words used even matter.

at least that's how i'm reading it. doesn't matter what they call it, now they're calling it what accurately reflects the "non-crime".

I’m saying this is a non-issue. The entire team including line DoJ prosecutors decided it was not appropriate to charge her with gross negligence.

The wording of his public statement would have no bearing on that decision.

"the entire team" - it was strozk who said to change it.

words matter. they required action if "gross negligence" was used. it was changed to be a slap on the wrist and not require mandatory additional action. now since the person who did this has been fired due to bias against trump, then yes i question why this was done too.

The entire team decided not to prosecute.

Again, you’re so focused on the wording of a public statement that you aren’t considering the actual decision making process.

The wording of the public statement would not change anything. If they had left the phrase gross negligence in the statement, their recommendation to not prosecute and legal rationale would have been the exact same, only that people like yourself would have been confused as to why the term gross negligence was used at all.

Their reasoning for not prosecuting was basically “well we don’t have Hillary on video maniacally laughing saying she’s so proud of how she is knowingly and diabolically is mishandling the highest level of classified info. She didn’t give us the classic supervillain monologue divulging her evil plan so we don’t recommend prosecution.” Even though no supervillain monologue is needed since the only benchmark is negligence. But when it comes to a crime that requires intent...like obstruction...the left conveniently forgets they need to prove intent. Which in trumps case was pretty much impossible because how can you prove intent to obstruct for a crime you didn’t commit?

 

[colfax_m]

Did the emails get forwarded to Chinese made servers? Yes.

Nope. As demonstrated by the Senate report, that did not happen. Already rebutted. The confusion is that Combetta created a dummy gmail account to forward messages to as part of an account migration. The name of that gmail account was similar to the name of a Chinese construction company. It was similar but not the same. That's the total sum extent of the evidence that you have that emails were sent to China. So you can see why I don't take that allegation particularly seriously and that's even before the issue was investigated.

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2019-08-14%20Staff%20memo%20to%20CEG%20RHJ%20-%20ICIG%20Interview%20Summary%20RE%20Clinton%20Server.pdf

Relevant memo is near the very end of this document.

Did Hillary in an email instruct her staffer to remove classified top secret SAP headings in order to send them by email? Yes.

Nope. Didn't happen. You're probably referring to an episode where her secure fax was down. This wasn't SAP material, but lowest level of classification, confidential. These were talking points for a foreign policy call. She said to remove headings and turn it into a non-paper, which means that would remove the need for it to be classified. In any event, the email was never even sent.

Highlights of FBI notes on Clinton email investigation

The FBI on Friday took the unusual step of releasing to the public documents related to its yearlong investigation into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of stat…

www.chicagotribune.com

Was the same Hillary IT staffer that deleted the emails after they were requested the same one who was apprehended trying to flee the country for some shady money fraud charges? Yes.

Nope. The IT staffer that deleted the emails was Paul Combetta. The person arrested at the airport was Imran Awan. They are, surprisingly, different people.

Justice Dept. Granted Immunity to Specialist Who Deleted Hillary Clinton’s Emails (Published 2016)

Republicans have called for the department to investigate the deletions, but the deal with the specialist, Paul Combetta, makes it unlikely that the request will go far.

www.nytimes.com

Imran Awan - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I'm going to stop there, I have work to do. Thanks!

 

[Coyote]

The filings written by Flynn’s new lawyers are always so hilarious. They really turn the drama up to 11.

Anyone who thinks Flynn wasn’t lying to the FBI agents hasn’t really looked at the evidence against him in the indictment and plea deal. I dare anyone to try and make a case that he doesn’t remember talking about sanctions

And when your mind is closed to the ideas of others, why should their minds be open to YOUR ideas?

It’s not my ideas, but the facts laid out in the court filings.

Facts which are routinely ignored by the right.

Do you really think Flynn forgot he talked about sanctions with the Russian ambassador?

Do you not think the fbi threatened his family?

Do we think the FBI threatened whose family, Flynn's? They may have threatened his son with criminal charges as well. So what? The son is also guilty of crimes.

I am getting sick and tired with the constant defense that everyone indicted and convicted of crimes, who was associated with Trump is somehow a victim and innocent.

Even if they are in fact set up, we should be upset they didn't like it?

They weren’t.

then why did the FBI lie about FISA
why did they threaten his kid?
why are we having proof in court it *was* done and yet you still say "no it wasn't"?

1. What did that have to do with Flynn?
2. What court proof?
3. Why did they threaten his kid?

Will Michael Flynn Plead Guilty And Cooperate To Protect His Son?

With Michael T. Flynn facing possible indictment, Special Counsel Mueller likely is using the threat of also prosecuting Flynn’s son for leverage. This Wall Street prosecution tested tactic from Enron and Drexel may result in a guilty plea, with the question cooperation against whom.

www.forbes.com

The extensive reporting around the involvement of Flynn’s son certainly suggests there is legitimate justification for interpreting the Flynn component of the investigation as a prosecutable family affair. Federal prosecutors leveraging one family member against another is a page directly out of a four-decade old prosecutorial playbook used successfully in Wall Street prosecutions. One need not look beyond the Enron prosecutions and guilty pleas of Andrew and Lea Fastow, husband and wife, and the Drexel-related guilty plea of Michael Milken, with Lowell Milken (his brother) averting prosecution, to find the use of this tactic in high profile white-collar prosecutions, that is outside of organized crime and gang prosecutions.

5. Why did he lie to tbe FBI? we aren’t talking minor lies, we are talking pretty major omissions of fact.

if this were being done to liberals, would you still adamant they were full of shit based on the same evidence?

Yes.

it's just as frustrating to see people delete evidence, destroy where the evidence was kept, stall for months on the initial request, get caught lying and so forth and hear people go "she didn't do nuffin..."

that's the gov we've created isn't it?

If that happens they should be held accountable and based on what the IG report found, the FBI be gone through with a fine tooth comb. I am guessing you are talking about Clinton. It is frustrating to see a person repeatedly investigated over and over despite nothing ever being found, for what seems more and more like partisan political reasons.

Flynn’s fate is in the courts. There is nothing there that does not suggest he did not do what he claimed Initially. He changed lawyers and then suddenly his tune.

According to prosecutors:
They also highlighted the severity of Mr. Flynn’s crime. They said he lied repeatedly to F.B.I. agents as a high-ranking White House official about whether he discussed sanctions with Mr. Kislyak before Mr. Trump assumed office — potentially conducting foreign policy while President Obama was still in power.
Prosecutors noted that others who pleaded guilty to lying to investigators in the Russia inquiry — including the former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos and Alex van der Zwaan, a lawyer — were sentenced to prison, and they were private citizens. As a longtime government employee, Mr. Flynn should have known better, they suggested.
“Neither defendant was a high-ranking government official, held a position of trust vis-à-vis the United States, held a security clearance, had a special understanding of the impact of providing misleading information to investigators or denied responsibility for his unlawful conduct,” prosecutors wrote.

He wasn’t coerced to lie. He didn’t “forget” and suddenly “remember. He was treated the same as other white collar criminals. If the little guys got jail time, why does Flynn get off?

and it is just as frustrating to see people break laws and have their side go "no she didn't" and yet try to hold the other side accountable for far lesser issues that are usually made up and exaggurated.

i can promise you - if trump is ever asked for evidence and he plays games up to and including deleting it - i will be livid at him and consider him guilty as i would assume you and the "i hate trump" crowd would as well.

What evidence was deleted? What did she do, in regards to personal emails that any other official did not do? There is a hell of a lot of unsubstantiated claims on this, a hell of a lot of investigations and unlike Trump - she was NOT protected by the new rule of "a sitting president can't be indicted". Honestly - what it seems like is "we'll keep investigating her until we can make something stick" - is that how justice is supposed to work?

would people do the same for those on "their" side.

now, if sounds like you are simply 100% saying the FBI didn't do this to him. before i get all into this, is that your stance, that the FBI did NOT coerce him into testifying?

No, I think the FBI may well have coerced him into testifying - the question is, was he treated any differently than any other white collar criminal? Did he break the law?

 

[iceberg]

Gross negligence appears in the law, yes, and carries penalties with it. I mean, whats the point here?

This is why Comey removed / changed the words 'Gross Negligence' regarding Hillary's crimes....

Because the phrase did not accurately reflect their decision making.

but you also said a few replies ago, the wording didn't matter.

now, it does?

it can't only matter how you want it to. if it matters it carries a cost society has placed upon it we shouldn't be able to change because we don't like "something".

so at this point you've flipped position on whether or not the words used even matter.

at least that's how i'm reading it. doesn't matter what they call it, now they're calling it what accurately reflects the "non-crime".

I’m saying this is a non-issue. The entire team including line DoJ prosecutors decided it was not appropriate to charge her with gross negligence.

The wording of his public statement would have no bearing on that decision.

"the entire team" - it was strozk who said to change it.

words matter. they required action if "gross negligence" was used. it was changed to be a slap on the wrist and not require mandatory additional action. now since the person who did this has been fired due to bias against trump, then yes i question why this was done too.

The entire team decided not to prosecute.

Again, you’re so focused on the wording of a public statement that you aren’t considering the actual decision making process.

The wording of the public statement would not change anything. If they had left the phrase gross negligence in the statement, their recommendation to not prosecute and legal rationale would have been the exact same, only that people like yourself would have been confused as to why the term gross negligence was used at all.

first - you say the words simply don't matter.

now when pushed to show they do in fact matter, now it's moving the goalposts to this was a group decision. so i'll simply ask you think to connect your statements together -

if words don't matter, why do we need a team of people to decide which words to use?

 

[Coyote]

The filings written by Flynn’s new lawyers are always so hilarious. They really turn the drama up to 11.

Anyone who thinks Flynn wasn’t lying to the FBI agents hasn’t really looked at the evidence against him in the indictment and plea deal. I dare anyone to try and make a case that he doesn’t remember talking about sanctions

And when your mind is closed to the ideas of others, why should their minds be open to YOUR ideas?

It’s not my ideas, but the facts laid out in the court filings.

Facts which are routinely ignored by the right.

Do you really think Flynn forgot he talked about sanctions with the Russian ambassador?

Do you not think the fbi threatened his family?

Do we think the FBI threatened whose family, Flynn's? They may have threatened his son with criminal charges as well. So what? The son is also guilty of crimes.

I am getting sick and tired with the constant defense that everyone indicted and convicted of crimes, who was associated with Trump is somehow a victim and innocent.

Even if they are in fact set up, we should be upset they didn't like it?

They weren’t.

then why did the FBI lie about FISA
why did they threaten his kid?
why are we having proof in court it *was* done and yet you still say "no it wasn't"?

1. What did that have to do with Flynn?
2. What court proof?
3. Why did they threaten his kid?

Will Michael Flynn Plead Guilty And Cooperate To Protect His Son?

With Michael T. Flynn facing possible indictment, Special Counsel Mueller likely is using the threat of also prosecuting Flynn’s son for leverage. This Wall Street prosecution tested tactic from Enron and Drexel may result in a guilty plea, with the question cooperation against whom.

www.forbes.com

The extensive reporting around the involvement of Flynn’s son certainly suggests there is legitimate justification for interpreting the Flynn component of the investigation as a prosecutable family affair. Federal prosecutors leveraging one family member against another is a page directly out of a four-decade old prosecutorial playbook used successfully in Wall Street prosecutions. One need not look beyond the Enron prosecutions and guilty pleas of Andrew and Lea Fastow, husband and wife, and the Drexel-related guilty plea of Michael Milken, with Lowell Milken (his brother) averting prosecution, to find the use of this tactic in high profile white-collar prosecutions, that is outside of organized crime and gang prosecutions.

5. Why did he lie to tbe FBI? we aren’t talking minor lies, we are talking pretty major omissions of fact.

if this were being done to liberals, would you still adamant they were full of shit based on the same evidence?

Yes.

it's just as frustrating to see people delete evidence, destroy where the evidence was kept, stall for months on the initial request, get caught lying and so forth and hear people go "she didn't do nuffin..."

that's the gov we've created isn't it?

If that happens they should be held accountable and based on what the IG report found, the FBI be gone through with a fine tooth comb. I am guessing you are talking about Clinton. It is frustrating to see a person repeatedly investigated over and over despite nothing ever being found, for what seems more and more like partisan political reasons.

Flynn’s fate is in the courts. There is nothing there that does not suggest he did not do what he claimed Initially. He changed lawyers and then suddenly his tune.

According to prosecutors:
They also highlighted the severity of Mr. Flynn’s crime. They said he lied repeatedly to F.B.I. agents as a high-ranking White House official about whether he discussed sanctions with Mr. Kislyak before Mr. Trump assumed office — potentially conducting foreign policy while President Obama was still in power.
Prosecutors noted that others who pleaded guilty to lying to investigators in the Russia inquiry — including the former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos and Alex van der Zwaan, a lawyer — were sentenced to prison, and they were private citizens. As a longtime government employee, Mr. Flynn should have known better, they suggested.
“Neither defendant was a high-ranking government official, held a position of trust vis-à-vis the United States, held a security clearance, had a special understanding of the impact of providing misleading information to investigators or denied responsibility for his unlawful conduct,” prosecutors wrote.

He wasn’t coerced to lie. He didn’t “forget” and suddenly “remember. He was treated the same as other white collar criminals. If the little guys got jail time, why does Flynn get off?

and it is just as frustrating to see people break laws and have their side go "no she didn't" and yet try to hold the other side accountable for far lesser issues that are usually made up and exaggurated.

i can promise you - if trump is ever asked for evidence and he plays games up to and including deleting it - i will be livid at him and consider him guilty as i would assume you and the "i hate trump" crowd would as well.

would people do the same for those on "their" side.

now, if sounds like you are simply 100% saying the FBI didn't do this to him. before i get all into this, is that your stance, that the FBI did NOT coerce him into testifying?

The major problem here isn’t that they coerced him to testify, even though they did and it’s a problem. THEY WITHHELD EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE. ITS A ******* BRADY VIOLATION, THATS ******* MAJOR.

What exculpatory evidence and who is claiming it?

 

[iceberg]

The filings written by Flynn’s new lawyers are always so hilarious. They really turn the drama up to 11.

Anyone who thinks Flynn wasn’t lying to the FBI agents hasn’t really looked at the evidence against him in the indictment and plea deal. I dare anyone to try and make a case that he doesn’t remember talking about sanctions

And when your mind is closed to the ideas of others, why should their minds be open to YOUR ideas?

It’s not my ideas, but the facts laid out in the court filings.

Facts which are routinely ignored by the right.

Do you really think Flynn forgot he talked about sanctions with the Russian ambassador?

Do you not think the fbi threatened his family?

Do we think the FBI threatened whose family, Flynn's? They may have threatened his son with criminal charges as well. So what? The son is also guilty of crimes.

I am getting sick and tired with the constant defense that everyone indicted and convicted of crimes, who was associated with Trump is somehow a victim and innocent.

Even if they are in fact set up, we should be upset they didn't like it?

They weren’t.

then why did the FBI lie about FISA
why did they threaten his kid?
why are we having proof in court it *was* done and yet you still say "no it wasn't"?

1. What did that have to do with Flynn?
2. What court proof?
3. Why did they threaten his kid?

Will Michael Flynn Plead Guilty And Cooperate To Protect His Son?

With Michael T. Flynn facing possible indictment, Special Counsel Mueller likely is using the threat of also prosecuting Flynn’s son for leverage. This Wall Street prosecution tested tactic from Enron and Drexel may result in a guilty plea, with the question cooperation against whom.

www.forbes.com

The extensive reporting around the involvement of Flynn’s son certainly suggests there is legitimate justification for interpreting the Flynn component of the investigation as a prosecutable family affair. Federal prosecutors leveraging one family member against another is a page directly out of a four-decade old prosecutorial playbook used successfully in Wall Street prosecutions. One need not look beyond the Enron prosecutions and guilty pleas of Andrew and Lea Fastow, husband and wife, and the Drexel-related guilty plea of Michael Milken, with Lowell Milken (his brother) averting prosecution, to find the use of this tactic in high profile white-collar prosecutions, that is outside of organized crime and gang prosecutions.

5. Why did he lie to tbe FBI? we aren’t talking minor lies, we are talking pretty major omissions of fact.

if this were being done to liberals, would you still adamant they were full of shit based on the same evidence?

Yes.

it's just as frustrating to see people delete evidence, destroy where the evidence was kept, stall for months on the initial request, get caught lying and so forth and hear people go "she didn't do nuffin..."

that's the gov we've created isn't it?

If that happens they should be held accountable and based on what the IG report found, the FBI be gone through with a fine tooth comb. I am guessing you are talking about Clinton. It is frustrating to see a person repeatedly investigated over and over despite nothing ever being found, for what seems more and more like partisan political reasons.

Flynn’s fate is in the courts. There is nothing there that does not suggest he did not do what he claimed Initially. He changed lawyers and then suddenly his tune.

According to prosecutors:
They also highlighted the severity of Mr. Flynn’s crime. They said he lied repeatedly to F.B.I. agents as a high-ranking White House official about whether he discussed sanctions with Mr. Kislyak before Mr. Trump assumed office — potentially conducting foreign policy while President Obama was still in power.
Prosecutors noted that others who pleaded guilty to lying to investigators in the Russia inquiry — including the former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos and Alex van der Zwaan, a lawyer — were sentenced to prison, and they were private citizens. As a longtime government employee, Mr. Flynn should have known better, they suggested.
“Neither defendant was a high-ranking government official, held a position of trust vis-à-vis the United States, held a security clearance, had a special understanding of the impact of providing misleading information to investigators or denied responsibility for his unlawful conduct,” prosecutors wrote.

He wasn’t coerced to lie. He didn’t “forget” and suddenly “remember. He was treated the same as other white collar criminals. If the little guys got jail time, why does Flynn get off?

and it is just as frustrating to see people break laws and have their side go "no she didn't" and yet try to hold the other side accountable for far lesser issues that are usually made up and exaggurated.

i can promise you - if trump is ever asked for evidence and he plays games up to and including deleting it - i will be livid at him and consider him guilty as i would assume you and the "i hate trump" crowd would as well.

What evidence was deleted? What did she do, in regards to personal emails that any other official did not do? There is a hell of a lot of unsubstantiated claims on this, a hell of a lot of investigations and unlike Trump - she was NOT protected by the new rule of "a sitting president can't be indicted". Honestly - what it seems like is "we'll keep investigating her until we can make something stick" - is that how justice is supposed to work?

would people do the same for those on "their" side.

now, if sounds like you are simply 100% saying the FBI didn't do this to him. before i get all into this, is that your stance, that the FBI did NOT coerce him into testifying?

No, I think the FBI may well have coerced him into testifying - the question is, was he treated any differently than any other white collar criminal? Did he break the law?

start a clinton thread if you want to go into it.

given she bleachbit her entire drive, i'd say *everything* was "deleted" depending on how you choose to define a given word today.

or are we going to disagree she didn't delete any mail at all?

at a bare minimum can we agree she is on record as saying she deleted "personal" mail before the drive or all info was turned over? i'd be glad to address NOT in a thread about Flynn.

 

[bripat9643]

Pressured to what? Plead guilty?

Pressured to lie about Trump or they will destroy his life and the lives of his family (which is exactly what they've done).

Same with roger stone, manafort, popadopolis, and many others who supported or worked with Trump.

Flynn refused to plead guilty on anything until the FBI told him that they would do to his son what they had done to him...that fact has been proven in court!

He lied under oath. He was pressured by the DOJ which was, and is, headed up by republicans.

He didn't lie under oath, moron. He was never under oath.

The DOJ may be headed by Republicans, but most of the rank and file are loyal Democrats.

 

[colfax_m]

Gross negligence appears in the law, yes, and carries penalties with it. I mean, whats the point here?

This is why Comey removed / changed the words 'Gross Negligence' regarding Hillary's crimes....

Because the phrase did not accurately reflect their decision making.

but you also said a few replies ago, the wording didn't matter.

now, it does?

it can't only matter how you want it to. if it matters it carries a cost society has placed upon it we shouldn't be able to change because we don't like "something".

so at this point you've flipped position on whether or not the words used even matter.

at least that's how i'm reading it. doesn't matter what they call it, now they're calling it what accurately reflects the "non-crime".

I’m saying this is a non-issue. The entire team including line DoJ prosecutors decided it was not appropriate to charge her with gross negligence.

The wording of his public statement would have no bearing on that decision.

"the entire team" - it was strozk who said to change it.

words matter. they required action if "gross negligence" was used. it was changed to be a slap on the wrist and not require mandatory additional action. now since the person who did this has been fired due to bias against trump, then yes i question why this was done too.

The entire team decided not to prosecute.

Again, you’re so focused on the wording of a public statement that you aren’t considering the actual decision making process.

The wording of the public statement would not change anything. If they had left the phrase gross negligence in the statement, their recommendation to not prosecute and legal rationale would have been the exact same, only that people like yourself would have been confused as to why the term gross negligence was used at all.

first - you say the words simply don't matter.

now when pushed to show they do in fact matter, now it's moving the goalposts to this was a group decision. so i'll simply ask you think to connect your statements together -

if words don't matter, why do we need a team of people to decide which words to use?

Words matter for different things.

In terms of deciding whether to not they prosecute Clinton, the words of the public statement are irrelevant.

In terms of trying not to confuse the general population when explaining that decision, words do matter.

This is about context, please try to keep context of my statements in mind.

 

[iceberg]

Gross negligence appears in the law, yes, and carries penalties with it. I mean, whats the point here?

This is why Comey removed / changed the words 'Gross Negligence' regarding Hillary's crimes....

Because the phrase did not accurately reflect their decision making.

but you also said a few replies ago, the wording didn't matter.

now, it does?

it can't only matter how you want it to. if it matters it carries a cost society has placed upon it we shouldn't be able to change because we don't like "something".

so at this point you've flipped position on whether or not the words used even matter.

at least that's how i'm reading it. doesn't matter what they call it, now they're calling it what accurately reflects the "non-crime".

I’m saying this is a non-issue. The entire team including line DoJ prosecutors decided it was not appropriate to charge her with gross negligence.

The wording of his public statement would have no bearing on that decision.

"the entire team" - it was strozk who said to change it.

words matter. they required action if "gross negligence" was used. it was changed to be a slap on the wrist and not require mandatory additional action. now since the person who did this has been fired due to bias against trump, then yes i question why this was done too.

The entire team decided not to prosecute.

Again, you’re so focused on the wording of a public statement that you aren’t considering the actual decision making process.

The wording of the public statement would not change anything. If they had left the phrase gross negligence in the statement, their recommendation to not prosecute and legal rationale would have been the exact same, only that people like yourself would have been confused as to why the term gross negligence was used at all.

first - you say the words simply don't matter.

now when pushed to show they do in fact matter, now it's moving the goalposts to this was a group decision. so i'll simply ask you think to connect your statements together -

if words don't matter, why do we need a team of people to decide which words to use?

Words matter for different things.

In terms of deciding whether to not they prosecute Clinton, the words of the public statement are irrelevant.

In terms of trying not to confuse the general population when explaining that decision, words do matter.

This is about context, please try to keep context of my statements in mind.

given how we just left a weekend where what trump said to a doctor "you're going to test this, right" and the context the left heard was shoving clorox up their ass, i find it odd we now want to be strict to what is said AND meant when heard by others.

given that trumps entire impeachment is based off a loose interpretation on what he said, i go back to again this is not something the left likes to do - i DO want to know whether or not YOU "hear what you want to hear" also or do you go strictly by what was said and context around it.

so if you are words you say and only context around it, then i would expect you to work the same as well.

fair?

 

[easyt65]

Their reasoning for not prosecuting was basically “well we don’t have Hillary on video maniacally laughing saying she’s so proud of how she is knowingly and diabolically is mishandling the highest level of classified info. She didn’t give us the classic supervillain monologue divulging her evil plan so we don’t recommend prosecution.” Even though no supervillain monologue is needed since the only benchmark is negligence. But when it comes to a crime that requires intent...like obstruction...the left conveniently forgets they need to prove intent. Which in trumps case was pretty much impossible because how can you prove intent to obstruct for a crime you didn’t commit?

Hillary lied to Congress.
Hillary lied to the FBI.
Hillary attempted to delete THOUSANDS of illegal official classified docs and files.
Hillary illegally destroyed classified devices and stole classified Sim cards

'Intent' was not required to indict and prosecute Hillary for specific crimes she committed
-- Comey and Obama's criminal Cabinet / Directors knew that.....but many of the uneducated American people were not aware of this, and if Comey told them 'Intent' was required and there was none then the people bought the lie.


'No Intent' - WTF?

Hillary had THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence of crimes on her personal server
-- THOUSANDS of counts of violations the FOIA
-- THOUSANDS of counts of violations the Federal Records Act
-- THOUSANDS of counts of 'Obstruction' - attempting to destroy all of this evidence

Hillary criminally LIED to both Congress and the FBI

The evidence to substantiate Comey's testimony that Clinton had lied and broken laws on numerous occasions was on Hillary's sever....which she tried to destroy....after telling the FBI all the data she was attempting to destroy was 'personal'

Comey outlined several clear examples of how Hillary intentionally lied (Perjury), committed Obstruction, and violated numerous crimes with FULL INTENT to do so.


Stretching the limits of even snowflake willing gullibility, Comey even declared in his 'Free Hillary - Nothing To See Here' speech that HILLARY CLINTON BROKE NUMEROUS LAWS...THEN THREW IN THE LIE THAT HILLARY SHOULD NOT BE INDICTED BECAUSE SHE WAS TOO STUPID TO KNOW SHE WAS BREAKING THOSE LAWS.

WTF?!

Comey's gambit paid off - either the 'sheep' were too stupid to realize 'IGNORANCE IN SOT A LEGITIMATE DEFENSE' for someone breaking the law....or they were such fans of 'UNEQUAL JUSTICE' when it benefits Democrats that they went right along with it.

From the start there was / is an overwhelming, undeniable amount of criminal evidence against Hillary, and there has been / remains a system of 'Justice' in this country consisting in 2 sets of laws and a complete lack of Equal Justice.

Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'

Here's a transcript of Rep. Trey Gowdy grilling FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting Hillary Clinton.

www.cnbc.com

 

[Coyote]

llm,.

The filings written by Flynn’s new lawyers are always so hilarious. They really turn the drama up to 11.

Anyone who thinks Flynn wasn’t lying to the FBI agents hasn’t really looked at the evidence against him in the indictment and plea deal. I dare anyone to try and make a case that he doesn’t remember talking about sanctions

And when your mind is closed to the ideas of others, why should their minds be open to YOUR ideas?

It’s not my ideas, but the facts laid out in the court filings.

Facts which are routinely ignored by the right.

Do you really think Flynn forgot he talked about sanctions with the Russian ambassador?

Do you not think the fbi threatened his family?

Do we think the FBI threatened whose family, Flynn's? They may have threatened his son with criminal charges as well. So what? The son is also guilty of crimes.

I am getting sick and tired with the constant defense that everyone indicted and convicted of crimes, who was associated with Trump is somehow a victim and innocent.

Even if they are in fact set up, we should be upset they didn't like it?

They weren’t.

then why did the FBI lie about FISA
why did they threaten his kid?
why are we having proof in court it *was* done and yet you still say "no it wasn't"?

1. What did that have to do with Flynn?
2. What court proof?
3. Why did they threaten his kid?

Will Michael Flynn Plead Guilty And Cooperate To Protect His Son?

With Michael T. Flynn facing possible indictment, Special Counsel Mueller likely is using the threat of also prosecuting Flynn’s son for leverage. This Wall Street prosecution tested tactic from Enron and Drexel may result in a guilty plea, with the question cooperation against whom.

www.forbes.com

The extensive reporting around the involvement of Flynn’s son certainly suggests there is legitimate justification for interpreting the Flynn component of the investigation as a prosecutable family affair. Federal prosecutors leveraging one family member against another is a page directly out of a four-decade old prosecutorial playbook used successfully in Wall Street prosecutions. One need not look beyond the Enron prosecutions and guilty pleas of Andrew and Lea Fastow, husband and wife, and the Drexel-related guilty plea of Michael Milken, with Lowell Milken (his brother) averting prosecution, to find the use of this tactic in high profile white-collar prosecutions, that is outside of organized crime and gang prosecutions.

5. Why did he lie to tbe FBI? we aren’t talking minor lies, we are talking pretty major omissions of fact.

if this were being done to liberals, would you still adamant they were full of shit based on the same evidence?

Yes.

it's just as frustrating to see people delete evidence, destroy where the evidence was kept, stall for months on the initial request, get caught lying and so forth and hear people go "she didn't do nuffin..."

that's the gov we've created isn't it?

If that happens they should be held accountable and based on what the IG report found, the FBI be gone through with a fine tooth comb. I am guessing you are talking about Clinton. It is frustrating to see a person repeatedly investigated over and over despite nothing ever being found, for what seems more and more like partisan political reasons.

Flynn’s fate is in the courts. There is nothing there that does not suggest he did not do what he claimed Initially. He changed lawyers and then suddenly his tune.

According to prosecutors:
They also highlighted the severity of Mr. Flynn’s crime. They said he lied repeatedly to F.B.I. agents as a high-ranking White House official about whether he discussed sanctions with Mr. Kislyak before Mr. Trump assumed office — potentially conducting foreign policy while President Obama was still in power.
Prosecutors noted that others who pleaded guilty to lying to investigators in the Russia inquiry — including the former foreign policy adviser George Papadopoulos and Alex van der Zwaan, a lawyer — were sentenced to prison, and they were private citizens. As a longtime government employee, Mr. Flynn should have known better, they suggested.
“Neither defendant was a high-ranking government official, held a position of trust vis-à-vis the United States, held a security clearance, had a special understanding of the impact of providing misleading information to investigators or denied responsibility for his unlawful conduct,” prosecutors wrote.

He wasn’t coerced to lie. He didn’t “forget” and suddenly “remember. He was treated the same as other white collar criminals. If the little guys got jail time, why does Flynn get off?

and it is just as frustrating to see people break laws and have their side go "no she didn't" and yet try to hold the other side accountable for far lesser issues that are usually made up and exaggurated.

i can promise you - if trump is ever asked for evidence and he plays games up to and including deleting it - i will be livid at him and consider him guilty as i would assume you and the "i hate trump" crowd would as well.

What evidence was deleted? What did she do, in regards to personal emails that any other official did not do? There is a hell of a lot of unsubstantiated claims on this, a hell of a lot of investigations and unlike Trump - she was NOT protected by the new rule of "a sitting president can't be indicted". Honestly - what it seems like is "we'll keep investigating her until we can make something stick" - is that how justice is supposed to work?

would people do the same for those on "their" side.

now, if sounds like you are simply 100% saying the FBI didn't do this to him. before i get all into this, is that your stance, that the FBI did NOT coerce him into testifying?

No, I think the FBI may well have coerced him into testifying - the question is, was he treated any differently than any other white collar criminal? Did he break the law?

start a clinton thread if you want to go into it.

given she bleachbit her entire drive, i'd say *everything* was "deleted" depending on how you choose to define a given word today.

You brought Clinton up to make comparisons.

or are we going to disagree she didn't delete any mail at all?

at a bare minimum can we agree she is on record as saying she deleted "personal" mail before the drive or all info was turned over? i'd be glad to address NOT in a thread about Flynn.

Yes, we can agree on that.

 

[Coyote]

Their reasoning for not prosecuting was basically “well we don’t have Hillary on video maniacally laughing saying she’s so proud of how she is knowingly and diabolically is mishandling the highest level of classified info. She didn’t give us the classic supervillain monologue divulging her evil plan so we don’t recommend prosecution.” Even though no supervillain monologue is needed since the only benchmark is negligence. But when it comes to a crime that requires intent...like obstruction...the left conveniently forgets they need to prove intent. Which in trumps case was pretty much impossible because how can you prove intent to obstruct for a crime you didn’t commit?

Hillary lied to Congress.
Hillary lied to the FBI.
Hillary attempted to delete THOUSANDS of illegal official classified docs and files.
Hillary illegally destroyed classified devices and stole classified Sim cards

'Intent' was not required to indict and prosecute Hillary for specific crimes she committed
-- Comey and Obama's criminal Cabinet / Directors knew that.....but many of the uneducated American people were not aware of this, and if Comey told them 'Intent' was required and there was none then the people bought the lie.


'No Intent' - WTF?

Hillary had THOUSANDS of pieces of evidence of crimes on her personal server
-- THOUSANDS of counts of violations the FOIA
-- THOUSANDS of counts of violations the Federal Records Act
-- THOUSANDS of counts of 'Obstruction' - attempting to destroy all of this evidence

Hillary criminally LIED to both Congress and the FBI

The evidence to substantiate Comey's testimony that Clinton had lied and broken laws on numerous occasions was on Hillary's sever....which she tried to destroy....after telling the FBI all the data she was attempting to destroy was 'personal'

Comey outlined several clear examples of how Hillary intentionally lied (Perjury), committed Obstruction, and violated numerous crimes with FULL INTENT to do so.


Stretching the limits of even snowflake willing gullibility, Comey even declared in his 'Free Hillary - Nothing To See Here' speech that HILLARY CLINTON BROKE NUMEROUS LAWS...THEN THREW IN THE LIE THAT HILLARY SHOULD NOT BE INDICTED BECAUSE SHE WAS TOO STUPID TO KNOW SHE WAS BREAKING THOSE LAWS.

WTF?!

Comey's gambit paid off - either the 'sheep' were too stupid to realize 'IGNORANCE IN SOT A LEGITIMATE DEFENSE' for someone breaking the law....or they were such fans of 'UNEQUAL JUSTICE' when it benefits Democrats that they went right along with it.

From the start there was / is an overwhelming, undeniable amount of criminal evidence against Hillary, and there has been / remains a system of 'Justice' in this country consisting in 2 sets of laws and a complete lack of Equal Justice.

Rep Trey Gowdy rips into FBI Director James Comey on Hillary Clinton's 'intent'

Here's a transcript of Rep. Trey Gowdy grilling FBI Director James Comey two days after he recommended against prosecuting Hillary Clinton.

www.cnbc.com

Good lord the Hilary Derangement Syndrome is strong here.