It's illegal again!

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by grean

I was referring to Clinton. If there was any criminal charges that could be imposed, do you not think Sessions would have his department pursue those?

I'm sure there is something almost every politician has done, especially the Clintons, worthy of jail time.

It's just a matter of whether or not,technically, any laws were broken.

If there were any laws broken, the Justice department would have already filed charges, no?

Anytime and every time someone fails to secure classified intelligence in the manner dictated by Federal Regulations a law is broken. "Intent" has nothing to do with anything. However, it's obvious hildebeest intended to violate the law. Comey lied.

hildebeest asked and was told "no" because it violated security protocols just as Nghia Hoang Pho actions violated security protocols. Nghia Hoang Pho was prosecuted and convicted. hildebeest intentionally violated those regulations after being told she could not do what she went ahead and did, but Comey gave her a pass. If Comey's actions can be deemed criminal; then, the government can reopen a case against hildebeest.

[Yssup Rider]

Again, if Clinton goes away, the Trump loyalists have no boogie man to demonize. That is incongruous with the Trump fascist playbook. Maybe he could still use oabama as that target, but he’s far too smart and way too popular.

If Trump can’t keep the mob angry, it will turn on him.

And all it takes is a fraction of that mob to do so. He’s already blown it.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Again, if Clinton goes away,

Key point is that hildebeest has not gone away, and hildebeest is the voice and face of "#Resist" financed by the likes of Soros.

Once Comey is dealt with, there's a very good chance hildebeest will be sent away for her crimes just like Nghia Hoang Pho was sent away for his crimes

[grean]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Key point is that hildebeest has not gone away, and hildebeest is the voice and face of "#Resist" financed by the likes of Soros.

Once Comey is dealt with, there's a very good chance hildebeest will be sent away for her crimes just like Nghia Hoang Pho was sent away for his crimes

How's does an indictment on Comey affect potential charges on Clinton?

Perhaps while he was at his post, he could have prevented something. He is a private citizen now. What's stopping charges from being filed against Clinton?

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by grean

How's does an indictment on Comey affect potential charges on Clinton?

Perhaps while he was at his post, he could have prevented something. He is a private citizen now. What's stopping charges from being filed against Clinton?

Because right now, Comey's statement is hildebeest's "Exhibit A" against any government attempt to prosecute.

[grean]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Because right now, Comey's statement is hildebeest's "Exhibit A" against any government attempt to prosecute.

How do we know Wray hasnt had it investigated? I most certainly think it's been looked into, again.

Would not the current FBI director's statement backed up with evidence not easily discredit the former director who was fired? The deputy was fired as well for lack of candor.

Surely the new Director would not have any issues dealing with bogus statements made by discredited agents.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by grean

How do we know Wray hasnt had it investigated? I most certainly think it's been looked into, again.

Would not the current FBI director's statement backed up with evidence not easily discredit the former director who was fired? The deputy was fired as well for lack of candor.

Surely the new Director would not have any issues dealing with bogus statements made by discredited agents.

Cite where Comey has been charged and found guilty of misconduct or acting criminally while head of the FBI. At this point he and his actions are only being "investigated"; no final ruling has been made.

[grean]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Cite where Comey has been charged and found guilty of misconduct or acting criminally while head of the FBI. At this point he and his actions are only being "investigated"; no final ruling has been made.

He hasn't. I don't see how that has anything to do with Wray providing a statement and evidence that contradicts Comey's.

If there was anything to be charged, it would have been already.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by grean

He hasn't. I don't see how that has anything to do with Wray providing a statement and evidence that contradicts Comey's.

If there was anything to be charged, it would have been already.

Comey is still the subject of an investigation. Until his actions in the hildebeest case have been thoroughly impeached, it would be fruitless to prosecute a case against hildebeest. At present, Comey's statement -- representing the U.S. government -- that she is not guilty of committing any crime is "Exhibit A".

'Ethical' James Comey is under investigation for unethical acts

... it has been confirmed that fired FBI director James Comey is under investigation ...

(The Hill)

[grean]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Comey is still the subject of an investigation. Until his actions in the hildebeest case have been thoroughly impeached, it would be fruitless to prosecute a case against hildebeest. At present, Comey's statement -- representing the U.S. government -- that she is not guilty of committing any crime is "Exhibit A".

Great! You asked me if he was though....

But what is keeping them from charging Clinton now?

If they have evidence against her, why not move forward?

That evidence would not speak for itself? I'm not sure how the two cases are intertwined as you suggest.

If they only have evidence that would have doubt cast upon it by the statement of fired director Comey, wouldn't you agree then that it probably isn't beyond any reasonable doubt that a crime was committed?

She may very well have committed a crime.

However, if the evidence cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did commit a crime, a conviction is unlikely.

If they cannot convict her, or at least they feel that thry have a good chance to, if they do charge her and she is found not guilty, it's more fuel to a fire that sure as hell doesn't need to get bigger.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by grean

Great! You asked me if he was though....

But what is keeping them from charging Clinton now?

If they have evidence against her, why not move forward?

That evidence would not speak for itself? I'm not sure how the two cases are intertwined as you suggest.

If they only have evidence that would have doubt cast upon it by the statement of fired director Comey, wouldn't you agree then that it probably isn't beyond any reasonable doubt that a crime was committed?

She may very well have committed a crime.

However, if the evidence cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt that she did commit a crime, a conviction is unlikely.

If they cannot convict her, or at least they feel that thry have a good chance to, if they do charge her and she is found not guilty, it's more fuel to a fire that sure as hell doesn't need to get bigger.

The government first has to impeach and discredit Comey's statement absolving hildebeest of any crime BEFORE it can prosecute hildebeest for a crime, but as Nghia Hoang Pho's conviction shows, illegal handling of classified intel is a crime.

[grean]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The government first has to impeach and discredit Comey's statement absolving hildebeest of any crime BEFORE it can prosecute hildebeest for a crime, but as Nghia Hoang Pho's conviction shows, illegal handling of classified intel is a crime.

He cannot absolve her of anything. Hoover might have weilded enough influence (note, not any actual authority)as FBI director. No one else since though.

If US attorneys look at the evidence and investigate it, and then want to move forward they can. Comey could be jesus christ and he could not protect her.

[grean]

I think, IB, you and I are arguing the same side of the coin.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by grean

He cannot absolve her of anything. Hoover might have weilded enough influence (note, not any actual authority)as FBI director. No one else since though.

If US attorneys look at the evidence and investigate it, and then want to move forward they can. Comey could be jesus christ and he could not protect her.

It's a matter of record that Comey -- acting as the sole government agent -- ignored the evidence and DID declare hildebeest innocent of crimes that Nghia Hoang Pho was sent to jail for.

[grean]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's a matter of record that Comey -- acting as the sole government agent -- ignored the evidence and DID declare hildebeest innocent of crimes that Nghia Hoang Pho was sent to jail for.

That is no way prevents charges from being filed by Sessions justice department.

Why do you think it does?