• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed Clintonemails.com: Who is Eric Hoteham Part 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
Anybody remember how hard Republicans worked to associate the FBI investigation into this with the term "criminal investigation"? Fox news, as well as every other right wing "news" source, constantly referred to it as a "criminal investigation" over and over again, and people blindly repeated the Fox News talking points.
Oddly enough, now that it turns out that there was never a crime, they've dropped the adjective "criminal" from what is now "email investigation".

Gee, were all their anonymous sources lying to them, or were they lying to us?
 
United States v. Roller, 42 M.J. 264 (1995) (affirming 18 U.S.C. 793(f) conviction of a military serviceman who inadvertently placed classified materials in his gym bag and then took them home, which the court determined to be "gross negligence" as the statute required).

Huh.... guess Comey was wrong about precedent....
 
The_Animus said:
Comey confirms Clinton gave classified information to people without clearance.
Click to expand...

Comey confirms that she did nothing prosecutable.

Therefore, even if I accept your statement as true (I do, and see Tony's response), so what? Was it wrong for her to do so? According to Comey, I mean (not some fantasy in your head).
 
16.5 said:
United States v. Roller, 42 M.J. 264 (1995) (affirming 18 U.S.C. 793(f) conviction of a military serviceman who inadvertently placed classified materials in his gym bag and then took them home, which the court determined to be "gross negligence" as the statute required).

Huh.... guess Comey was wrong about precedent....
Click to expand...

Typical conspiracy theory behavior. You know the law better than the director of the FBI who was looked up to before a few days ago. Put the tin foil hat back on.
 
Comey said that what David Patreaus did (intentionally give info he knew to be highly classified to his mistress and then lie to the FBI about it) was much worse than what Hillary did

But what does he know. He is just the highly respected Republican FBI Director and former Deputy AG and US Attorney. It isn't like he is an expert or anything.
 
plague311 said:
Typical conspiracy theory behavior. You know the law better than the director of the FBI who was looked up to before a few days ago. Put the tin foil hat back on.
Click to expand...

Yep, this is what it comes down to. Internet jockies who think they more about the law than the director of the FBI.
 
plague311 said:
Typical conspiracy theory behavior. You know the law better than the director of the FBI who was looked up to before a few days ago. Put the tin foil hat back on.
Click to expand...

16.5 cited a case that you can easily look up. Why don't you read it for yourself instead of trusting the omniscient James Comey? He's not infallible you know. Or even all that competent as far as I can tell.
 
Newtons Bit said:
Did Comey give any reason as to why this wasn't prosecutable? (I can't watch the hearing)
Click to expand...
Yes, because she gave it to her lawyers to comply with State and there was thus no criminal intent. The GOP clown that was questioning him was very mad.
 
sunmaster14 said:
16.5 cited a case that you can easily look up. Why don't you read it for yourself instead of trusting the omniscient James Comey? He's not infallible you know. Or even all that competent as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...
I get it, people's competence are directly tied to whether you agree with them.

That is critical thinking.
 
sunmaster14 said:
16.5 cited a case that you can easily look up. Why don't you read it for yourself instead of trusting the omniscient James Comey? He's not infallible you know. Or even all that competent as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

Please don't.

That's just absurd.
 
plague311 said:
Typical conspiracy theory behavior. You know the law better than the director of the FBI who was looked up to before a few days ago. Put the tin foil hat back on.
Click to expand...

Clearly the tinfoil hat is on, and cutting off the blood flow.
 
16.5 said:
United States v. Roller, 42 M.J. 264 (1995) (affirming 18 U.S.C. 793(f) conviction of a military serviceman who inadvertently placed classified materials in his gym bag and then took them home, which the court determined to be "gross negligence" as the statute required).

Huh.... guess Comey was wrong about precedent....
Click to expand...

We have been told that a lot of people who worked for the FBI came to a unanimous agreement that she should not be charged. If that is true, then it shouldn't be about "Comey", but rather "Comey and the staff of the investigation". In fact, Comey was probably just accepting their recommendation.

If the whole staff really was unanimous, then any judgement that says they covered up her bad behavior becomes, by definition, a conspiracy theory. If that's a lie, and there were voices within the FBI recommending indictment, it will leak.

I still maintain my belief that most of the people who work for the FBI are honest, conscientious, and competent, and that they really did make the recommendations that Comey delivered to the Justice Department. Until someone presents evidence to the contrary, that's what I will believe.

And "I googled a case that I think is similar" is not evidence. At least, it's not evidence of Hillary's guilt. It's evidence of something else.

ETA: I googled the case citation above, and this thread was hit number 4 on google. Seems some people are really fishing at the bottom of the barrel here. If I can find the case, I'll take bets that there will be something about that case that makes it utterly and completely unlike the Clinton situation.
 
Last edited:
sunmaster14 said:
16.5 cited a case that you can easily look up. Why don't you read it for yourself instead of trusting the omniscient James Comey? He's not infallible you know. Or even all that competent as far as I can tell.
Click to expand...

Let me make two points here that are worthwhile:

1) You're implying I didn't read the case, or that I haven't heard it before.
2) Yours and 16.5's credibility, in my eyes, has gone so far down the drain that I'm reaching my limit of following bread crumbs.

TheL8Elvis said:
Please don't.

That's just absurd.
Click to expand...

He can't, someone has passed the opportunity to hate a democrat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom