mm
The wrong was treating her differently then other investigated people - we do not or should not base investigations on public opinion or decide to treat them differently based on that. Trump was investigated and every bit of it remained PRIVATE - they determined there was nothing criminal and that was all they said. They didn't flagilate him in public, they didn't give ANY details. Now compare that with how they handled Clinton and tell me if you think that is really right? Especially, when they announced - against all precedent, advice and possibly even the law - that they might - MIGHT - investigate again based on Weiner's emails right before the election. I don't see how anyone can't conclude that there is something way wrong in the way things were handled by Comey. The public is - burn her, she's a witch! But Comey is no calmer of the witch burning masses.
This, among other things, casts a shadow on the election's legitimacy. It might not have changed the outcome one iota, but we'll never know.
True coyote, but I keep thinking of Al Capone and the F. B. I everytime I read about Hillary and the F. B. I they are way similar
They tried and tried to get Al but he kept slipping away until he finally got busted by the I. R. S.
Hillary and Bill are extremely smart in playing the game and they frustrate the hell out of them.
In my opinion, I just don't think the Clintons are any worse than the Trumps for example. Could there be some corruption? Sure...and if it's proved and prosecuted - go for it. But I don't think it's anything like Capone. The body count stuff is pure conspiracy theory. We should all be treated equally under the law and we all deserve due process. This clearly didn't happen here and frankly looks too much like trying to influence the election.
Something else to point out - why did they wait until after the election to go after the Russian hacks? Maybe because they didn't want to influence the election by publicizing it shortly before the polls. Unlike Comey's actions.
Not talking about some body count conspiracy
Like I said before hillary is the only first lady with her finger prints on file with the F. B. I
IDK coyote I guess you dismissed all her and Bill scandals, but look at a new thread by rderp or was it lacote? How few scandals Obama had and now comparing them to trumps
.
I'm aware there were plenty of scandals with the Clintons and investigating that is legit - but they should still be treated as fairly by the FBI as any other under investigation, to depart from that in an election year taints Comey imo.
The fact that her finger prints are on file with the FBI - implies she did something wrong but really means nothing - it just sounds bad until you realized she was completely cleared:
White House FBI files controversy - Wikipedia
The
Senate Judiciary Committee was also involved in investigating the matter, holding hearings beginning June 29, 1996,
[17] and focussing on allegations that White House was engaged in a "dirty tricks" operation reminiscent of the
Nixon administration.
[17] Looking into accusations that senior White House officials or the First Lady may have inappropriately perused the files, in October 1996 Republican committee chair
Orrin Hatch requested that the FBI do a
fingerprint analysis of them.
[18] On November 3, 1996,
the FBI informed the committee that no fingerprints of either the First Lady or any other named senior official were on the files.[18]