• 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.
FBI investigation into Clinton emails fixed

Surprise to no one, AG Lynch knew the fix was in a the FBI was going to roll over on the Clinton investigation.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/21/politics/second-strzok-text-production/index.html

Strzok texted, "(t)iming looks like hell. Will appear to be choreographed." Page eventually texts back, "And yeah, it's a real profile in couragw (sic), since she knows no charges will be brought.
 
I am not the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. They wrote the definition, and I do not even think they are the intenet either (nice try tho!)



No, he did not consider gross negligence which was why he was wrong.



No hint? I already explained it, i.e. she is a worthless husk.

You want more reasons? 'k: Sword of Damocles

Well, lookee here, Comey did consider gross negligence! In fact he specifically called Clinton's conduct "gross negligence" in the first draft of his statement, and it appears that someone noticed that was a violation of the statute, so Comey and his gang walked that back as part of the fix.

The Fix was in
 
Last edited:
That the statement originally said "grossly negligent" is old news. It was changed because that has a legal meaning and you cannot issue a statement in which you are saying that someone hasn't committed a crime in which you also use language which implies that they have.
 
That the statement originally said "grossly negligent" is old news. It was changed because that has a legal meaning and you cannot issue a statement in which you are saying that someone hasn't committed a crime in which you also use language which implies that they have.

Yet that is what the first draft said. Seems like it was a hell of a lot easier to fix the press release to cover up the original assessment than to actually correctly enforce the statute.

Oh well, Lynch knew there was no way in hell that charges would be brought.
 
Yet that is what the first draft said.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/07/politics/james-comey-hillary-clinton-grassley/index.html

A source familiar with the FBI decision tells CNN that Comey and his FBI colleagues were "playing with the language throughout" the process, but consistently held the belief that they needed to condemn Clinton's handling of classified information while asserting they would not bring charges.
Instead, Comey ended up criticizing Clinton's conduct as "extremely careless," but said no reasonable prosecutor would pursue charges based on the evidence.

"Although we did not find clear evidence that Secretary Clinton or her colleagues intended to violate laws governing the handling of classified information, there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information," Comey said in July.

[...]

A source familiar with the decision-making process at the FBI at the time tells CNN that "the Bureau and Jim were trying to see what a statement of declamation might look like -- and they were playing with the language throughout. The one thing that's a constant is that they thought what they had seen so far, subject to change, was that charges would not be appropriate but that the conduct was worthy of criticism. It was a matter of how to explain both."

"They wanted to get a sense of what this statement might look like," the source said. "They hadn't stopped investigating and they were continuing to seek access to all sorts of things from Hillary that she was fighting to have to turn over. But they also wanted internally to discuss what an end game might look like."

Throughout this end game, the source said, Comey thought that while the while there was evidence of violations, no reasonable prosecutor would proceed. Which is what he stated on July 5, 016: "Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case."

[...]

"I think she was extremely careless. I think she was negligent -- that I could establish," Comey told the House Oversight and Government Reform panel. "What we can't establish is that she acted with the necessary criminal intent."

As I said, this is old news.
 
"old news"? Well you see, there is "new news" namely that Lynch knew that Comey was not going to bring charges, which brings a whole new shiny bright glare on the Fix.

Well, firstly, that's not what the link you provided actually says. And, secondly, if the director of the FBI and the Attorney General communicated informally before they communicated formally - so what?
 
Surprise to no one, AG Lynch knew the fix was in a the FBI was going to roll over on the Clinton investigation.

http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/21/politics/second-strzok-text-production/index.html

Strzok texted, "(t)iming looks like hell. Will appear to be choreographed." Page eventually texts back, "And yeah, it's a real profile in couragw (sic), since she knows no charges will be brought.

Well, firstly, that's not what the link you provided actually says. And, secondly, if the director of the FBI and the Attorney General communicated informally before they communicated formally - so what?

Yes it is. I highlighted it

You know who else "communicated informally." the AG and the target's husband, on a tarmac.

plus, the AG said she was recusing herself and would follow whatever recommendation the FBI made, which sounds impressive until you learn that the Fix was already in.
 
Yes it is. I highlighted it

That doesn't say what you think it does.

There are plenty of people who will say that George W. Bush knows his dad orchestrated 9/11. Does that mean he did?

You know who else "communicated informally." the AG and the target's husband, on a tarmac.

This is changing the subject.

plus, the AG said she was recusing herself and would follow whatever recommendation the FBI made, which sounds impressive until you learn that the Fix was already in.

This also has nothing to do with anything I've said.
 
That doesn't say what you think it does.

There are plenty of people who will say that George W. Bush knows his dad orchestrated 9/11. Does that mean he did?

This is changing the subject.

This also has nothing to do with anything I've said.

By your responses I am getting the clear idea that you have no idea who Strozek/Page were nor their role in the investigation.

And the fact you think that Lynch "recusing" herself does not have anything to do with your question is utterly amazing.
 
Well, firstly, that's not what the link you provided actually says. And, secondly, if the director of the FBI and the Attorney General communicated informally before they communicated formally - so what?

Yeah, I figured this was the source of all the activity.

I saw some news about how Lynch knew what his recommendation was going to be. And my response was the same - and?

So the AG knew about the FBI's recommendations before they told the general public in a news conference.

Someone has to explain to me why that is in any way news, or nefarious?
 
Yeah, I figured this was the source of all the activity.

I saw some news about how Lynch knew what his recommendation was going to be. And my response was the same - and?

So the AG knew about the FBI's recommendations before they told the general public in a news conference.

Someone has to explain to me why that is in any way news, or nefarious?

Oy vey... because she knew before the investigation was ended and knew when she said she was going to accept the FBI's "recommendation" following the meeting she had with the perp's husband.

This is so simple, I am almost amazed that the people bother typing out "what's the big deal" that the Obama Gang fixed it for the Clinton gang
 
I have to confess, that I do enjoy how Strzok talking about how events were not choreographed is evidence that they were.
 
I have to confess, that I do enjoy how Strzok talking about how events were not choreographed is evidence that they were.

He didn't say they weren't choreographed, at least not that I've read. He said, "(t)iming looks like hell. Will appear to be choreographed."

Kinda like, "Don't drive that car you look like a drug dealer"
"But I am a drug dealer" :)

It's been awhile and trying to get this in order - so Lynch/FBI are deciding whether or not to charge Hillary, Bill has a "surprise" meeting on Lynch's plane, Lynch later says that due to the meeting with Bill she will go with whatever the FBI says, knowing full well what they are going to do because she is Loretta Lynch.

So what was the meeting on the plane about again? Grandkids?

CT time (the Clintons themselves are a conspiracy). Maybe Bill wanted her to "recuse" herself. She says she freaked when she learned that the husband of the focus of the investigation was approaching her plane. You can't get more weird and public than a mysterious meeting on a runway. Almost seems deliberate. Comey was on the take, Lynch not so much, let's get her out of the way. /CT ;)

Can't the Clintons just die already?
 
Last edited:
I have to confess, that I do enjoy how Strzok talking about how events were not choreographed is evidence that they were.

did you "enjoy" this part?

Page eventually texts back, "And yeah, it's a real profile in couragw (sic), since she knows no charges will be brought. "

He also in no way shape or form says that the events were not choreographed. Absolutely ridiculous and totally made up!

:thumbsup::D:thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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