User Panel
Quoted:
He is saying that she fucked up so bad that our own Secretary of State should be kept away from classified information. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now." WHAT. THE. FUCK. Sanctions like .... revocation of your security clearance. He is saying that she fucked up so bad that our own Secretary of State should be kept away from classified information. Yup. |
|
get it all out guys. get it all out.....Page 19 says, we will still do jack shit about it.
|
|
Quoted:
Here's the statement: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Here's the statement: https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system Washington, D.C. July 05, 2016
FBI National Press Office (202) 324-3691 Remarks prepared for delivery at press briefing. Good morning. I’m here to give you an update on the FBI’s investigation of Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail system during her time as Secretary of State. After a tremendous amount of work over the last year, the FBI is completing its investigation and referring the case to the Department of Justice for a prosecutive decision. What I would like to do today is tell you three things: what we did; what we found; and what we are recommending to the Department of Justice. This will be an unusual statement in at least a couple ways. First, I am going to include more detail about our process than I ordinarily would, because I think the American people deserve those details in a case of intense public interest. Second, I have not coordinated or reviewed this statement in any way with the Department of Justice or any other part of the government. They do not know what I am about to say. I want to start by thanking the FBI employees who did remarkable work in this case. Once you have a better sense of how much we have done, you will understand why I am so grateful and proud of their efforts. So, first, what we have done: The investigation began as a referral from the Intelligence Community Inspector General in connection with Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail server during her time as Secretary of State. The referral focused on whether classified information was transmitted on that personal system. Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way, or a second statute making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from appropriate systems or storage facilities. Consistent with our counterintelligence responsibilities, we have also investigated to determine whether there is evidence of computer intrusion in connection with the personal e-mail server by any foreign power, or other hostile actors. I have so far used the singular term, “e-mail server,” in describing the referral that began our investigation. It turns out to have been more complicated than that. Secretary Clinton used several different servers and administrators of those servers during her four years at the State Department, and used numerous mobile devices to view and send e-mail on that personal domain. As new servers and equipment were employed, older servers were taken out of service, stored, and decommissioned in various ways. Piecing all of that back together—to gain as full an understanding as possible of the ways in which personal e-mail was used for government work—has been a painstaking undertaking, requiring thousands of hours of effort. For example, when one of Secretary Clinton’s original personal servers was decommissioned in 2013, the e-mail software was removed. Doing that didn’t remove the e-mail content, but it was like removing the frame from a huge finished jigsaw puzzle and dumping the pieces on the floor. The effect was that millions of e-mail fragments end up unsorted in the server’s unused—or “slack”—space. We searched through all of it to see what was there, and what parts of the puzzle could be put back together. FBI investigators have also read all of the approximately 30,000 e-mails provided by Secretary Clinton to the State Department in December 2014. Where an e-mail was assessed as possibly containing classified information, the FBI referred the e-mail to any U.S. government agency that was a likely “owner” of information in the e-mail, so that agency could make a determination as to whether the e-mail contained classified information at the time it was sent or received, or whether there was reason to classify the e-mail now, even if its content was not classified at the time it was sent (that is the process sometimes referred to as “up-classifying”). From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were “up-classified” to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent. The FBI also discovered several thousand work-related e-mails that were not in the group of 30,000 that were returned by Secretary Clinton to State in 2014. We found those additional e-mails in a variety of ways. Some had been deleted over the years and we found traces of them on devices that supported or were connected to the private e-mail domain. Others we found by reviewing the archived government e-mail accounts of people who had been government employees at the same time as Secretary Clinton, including high-ranking officials at other agencies, people with whom a Secretary of State might naturally correspond. This helped us recover work-related e-mails that were not among the 30,000 produced to State. Still others we recovered from the laborious review of the millions of e-mail fragments dumped into the slack space of the server decommissioned in 2013. With respect to the thousands of e-mails we found that were not among those produced to State, agencies have concluded that three of those were classified at the time they were sent or received, one at the Secret level and two at the Confidential level. There were no additional Top Secret e-mails found. Finally, none of those we found have since been “up-classified.” I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work-related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them. Our assessment is that, like many e-mail users, Secretary Clinton periodically deleted e-mails or e-mails were purged from the system when devices were changed. Because she was not using a government account—or even a commercial account like Gmail—there was no archiving at all of her e-mails, so it is not surprising that we discovered e-mails that were not on Secretary Clinton’s system in 2014, when she produced the 30,000 e-mails to the State Department. It could also be that some of the additional work-related e-mails we recovered were among those deleted as “personal” by Secretary Clinton’s lawyers when they reviewed and sorted her e-mails for production in 2014. The lawyers doing the sorting for Secretary Clinton in 2014 did not individually read the content of all of her e-mails, as we did for those available to us; instead, they relied on header information and used search terms to try to find all work-related e-mails among the reportedly more than 60,000 total e-mails remaining on Secretary Clinton’s personal system in 2014. It is highly likely their search terms missed some work-related e-mails, and that we later found them, for example, in the mailboxes of other officials or in the slack space of a server. It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery. We have conducted interviews and done technical examination to attempt to understand how that sorting was done by her attorneys. Although we do not have complete visibility because we are not able to fully reconstruct the electronic record of that sorting, we believe our investigation has been sufficient to give us reasonable confidence there was no intentional misconduct in connection with that sorting effort. And, of course, in addition to our technical work, we interviewed many people, from those involved in setting up and maintaining the various iterations of Secretary Clinton’s personal server, to staff members with whom she corresponded on e-mail, to those involved in the e-mail production to State, and finally, Secretary Clinton herself. Last, we have done extensive work to understand what indications there might be of compromise by hostile actors in connection with the personal e-mail operation. That’s what we have done. Now let me tell you what we found: 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. For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail (that is, excluding the later “up-classified” e-mails). None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, like those found at Departments and Agencies of the U.S. Government—or even with a commercial service like Gmail. Separately, it is important to say something about the marking of classified information. Only a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information. But even if information is not marked “classified” in an e-mail, participants who know or should know that the subject matter is classified are still obligated to protect it. While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with respect to use of unclassified e-mail systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government. With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence. We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. We also assess that Secretary Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail domain was both known by a large number of people and readily apparent. She also used her personal e-mail extensively while outside the United States, including sending and receiving work-related e-mails in the territory of sophisticated adversaries. Given that combination of factors, we assess it is possible that hostile actors gained access to Secretary Clinton’s personal e-mail account. So that’s what we found. Finally, with respect to our recommendation to the Department of Justice: In our system, the prosecutors make the decisions about whether charges are appropriate based on evidence the FBI has helped collect. Although we don’t normally make public our recommendations to the prosecutors, we frequently make recommendations and engage in productive conversations with prosecutors about what resolution may be appropriate, given the evidence. In this case, given the importance of the matter, I think unusual transparency is in order. 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. Prosecutors necessarily weigh a number of factors before bringing charges. There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context of a person’s actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the past. In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. As a result, although the Department of Justice makes final decisions on matters like this, we are expressing to Justice our view that no charges are appropriate in this case. I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear. I know there were many opinions expressed by people who were not part of the investigation—including people in government—but none of that mattered to us. Opinions are irrelevant, and they were all uninformed by insight into our investigation, because we did the investigation the right way. Only facts matter, and the FBI found them here in an entirely apolitical and professional way. I couldn’t be prouder to be part of this organization. BULLSHIT - basically this one sentence is says volumes!! They basically throw it in our face that she's guilty and not being charged! Anyone other than her or any other democrat scumbag for that matter would have been charged and thrown in prison for the rest of their lives! |
|
Everything else aside, he basically called her old, doesn't understand technology, and should not have access to it.
Much like the typical grandparent, except she seethes with evil. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Conflict of interest. Needs to be a third party investigation because obviously any agency whose website ends in .gov is going to end up saying exactly what this idiot did. Where is this dude's coothe Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ? English please "Who will watch the watchers themselves?" Ancient quote from the Roman Poet Juvenal, with profound and timeless implications about political corruption (i.e., who is in charge of keeping the people we appoint to enforce laws from being corrupt themselves?). |
|
Quoted:
His business assets will somehow become under siege if she wins. I feel it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Trump had BETTER win this fucking election. If not for the country, to save his own ass. A President Hillary Clinton will unabashedly, without trying to hide it at all, bring the full weight of the federal government down on Trump for opposing her and make an example out of him. If she wins, he needs to expatriate before she's sworn in. His business assets will somehow become under siege if she wins. I feel it. Damn right. And rather than hide it, it will be put on public display as an example to show the people that this is the turning point of the country, where they don't even try to hide it anymore. |
|
Quoted: James Comey FULL Press Conference. 7/5/16 NO INDICTMENT FOR HILLARY CLINTONhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dYRUhQdK0E View Quote |
|
Quoted: The highlights: From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information,... It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery. there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton’s position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation. In addition to this highly sensitive information, we also found information that was properly classified as Secret by the U.S. Intelligence Community at the time it was discussed on e-mail None of these e-mails should have been on any kind of unclassified system, but their presence is especially concerning because all of these e-mails were housed on unclassified personal servers not even supported by full-time security staff, We do assess that hostile actors gained access to the private commercial e-mail accounts of people with whom Secretary Clinton was in regular contact from her personal account. 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. In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here. To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now. View Quote |
|
Quoted:
I wonder what kind of dirt she had on him? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Straight shooter Comey my ass!!!! The fix is in Billery the most corrupt bitches ever. I wonder what kind of dirt she had on him? If anything, she threatened to put him in the dirt. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the case, because only a crazy man would commit "suicide" over the email scandal. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Conflict of interest. Needs to be a third party investigation because obviously any agency whose website ends in .gov is going to end up saying exactly what this idiot did. Where is this dude's coothe Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ? English please "who watches the watchmen?" |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Conflict of interest. Needs to be a third party investigation because obviously any agency whose website ends in .gov is going to end up saying exactly what this idiot did. Where is this dude's coothe Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ? English please Latin for who will guard the guards themselves? |
|
|
How did you not think this was going to happen. Big government run by political appointees. Of course this was the outcome. And with Trump as the presumptive nominee, there are a lot of establishment Republicans that are very happy with this as well. They much rather have Hillary keep the gravy train rolling than Trump come in and possibly disturb it.
There's not a right and a left class only a ruling class and they intend to keep it that way. |
|
With what faith I did have in the rule of law is now irrevocably gone. We now have a state of tyranny. The rule of law only applies to us peons who do not march to the beat of their drums. Good thing I'm tone deaf.
|
|
Quoted:
Sanctions like .... revocation of your security clearance. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now." WHAT. THE. FUCK. Sanctions like .... revocation of your security clearance. And fired! This is a firing offense even without a criminal indictment. |
|
Quoted:
July 4, 1776 America claims it's independence July 5, 2016 The republic is lost Most corrupt administration in American history. View Quote This. I am sadden by the fact that the day after we celebrate our liberation from a corrupt and overreaching government, we find ourselves facing the same thing. |
|
Quoted:
Comey is treating it as though some peon made a one time, single scope mistake and immediately self-reported. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Yale law graduate First Lady Senator from NYS Secretary of State and Mr. FBI thinks there was no intent on her part, yeah like she is some run of the mill moron. I almost feel like I did the night that Obama was re-elected, and the feeling is that I am absolutely stunned. Comey is treating it as though some peon made a one time, single scope mistake and immediately self-reported. He knows he will end up dead if he doesn't follow the script. Clinton's leave a trail of bodies. |
|
Quoted:
"Who will watch the watchers themselves?" Ancient quote from the Roman Poet Juvenal, with profound and timeless implications about political corruption (i.e., who is in charge of keeping the people we appoint to enforce laws from being corrupt themselves?). View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Conflict of interest. Needs to be a third party investigation because obviously any agency whose website ends in .gov is going to end up saying exactly what this idiot did. Where is this dude's coothe Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? ? English please "Who will watch the watchers themselves?" Ancient quote from the Roman Poet Juvenal, with profound and timeless implications about political corruption (i.e., who is in charge of keeping the people we appoint to enforce laws from being corrupt themselves?). Damn right bro |
|
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. View Quote In other words, FBI is saving DOJ's ass from having to deal with the hot potato being thrown in their lap. |
|
Could it be possible he was pressured into that and doesn't actually agree with the outcome?
I mean, I know it was pre-scripted, but why spend all of that time planting the idea that she was careless, committed a crime, etc... They could have said Hillary did nothing wrong, and we're dropping charges. Instead, they built a clear picture of corruption and bias for the American voters to process when they hit the polls. Maybe I'm grasping at anything in hopes that the law isn't dead. |
|
This type of shit makes me ashamed I work for the .gov. I want out. Private sector here I come.
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
Could it be possible he was pressured into that and doesn't actually agree with the outcome? I mean, I know it was pre-scripted, but why spend all of that time planting the idea that she was careless, committed a crime, etc... They could have said Hillary did nothing wrong, and we're dropping charges. Instead, they built a clear picture of corruption and bias for the American voters to process when they hit the polls. Maybe I'm grasping at anything in hopes that the law isn't dead. View Quote It's dead, Jim. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
"To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now." WHAT. THE. FUCK. Quoted for truth, this is insanity Again. |
|
|
This working for a living is for suckers.
FFBI FHRC FBHO F ALLOFTHEM |
|
"I do not know whether it is to yourself or Mr. Adams I am to give my
thanks for the copy of the new constitution. I beg leave through you to place them where due. It will be yet three weeks before I shall receive them from America. There are very good articles in it: and very bad. I do not know which preponderate. What we have lately read in the history of Holland, in the chapter on the Stadtholder, would have sufficed to set me against a Chief magistrate eligible for a long duration, if I had ever been disposed towards one: and what we have always read of the elections of Polish kings should have forever excluded the idea of one continuable for life. Wonderful is the effect of impudent and persevering lying. The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, and what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? And can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20. years without such a rebellion. The people can not be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. We have had 13. states independant 11. years. There has been one rebellion. That comes to one rebellion in a century and a half for each state. What country ever existed a century and a half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed by the insurrection of Massachusets: and in the spur of the moment they are setting up a kite to keep the hen yard in order. I hope in god this article will be rectified before the new constitution is accepted." - Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, Paris, 13 Nov. 1787 |
|
Quoted:
Dude I'm starting an MBA in the fall just to try and do this. I don't want to do another Master's program but if I can escape from these shit heads I'll push through!! View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
This type of shit makes me ashamed I work for the .gov. I want out. Private sector here I come. Dude I'm starting an MBA in the fall just to try and do this. I don't want to do another Master's program but if I can escape from these shit heads I'll push through!! Yeah maybe it's time to use that post 9/11. |
|
Quoted:
Nope, but I didn't expect them to be so blatant about it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol...were you guys ACTUALLY expecting a different outcome? Nope. Nope, but I didn't expect them to be so blatant about it. No reason to be coy at this point. There is no more rule of law. The elite do what they want. The laws are for the "little folks". |
|
|
Is there a chance there's an honorable SS agent that will push her down some steps
|
|
Quoted:
Could it be possible he was pressured into that and doesn't actually agree with the outcome? I mean, I know it was pre-scripted, but why spend all of that time planting the idea that she was careless, committed a crime, etc... They could have said Hillary did nothing wrong, and we're dropping charges. Instead, they built a clear picture of corruption and bias for the American voters to process when they hit the polls. Maybe I'm grasping at anything in hopes that the law isn't dead. View Quote At best, and giving him far more credit than I believe is warranted, he could have meant to implicate her in spirit and provide ammunition against her, but knew that any charges he recommended would be ignored. That would be him knowingly going up against an impossible obstacle which would never be visible to the public eye, and trying to deliver enough derogatory information to hinder her presidential campaign. I think that's beyond optimistic, though. |
|
Sorry guys I heard a fucking coward, too god damned scared to stand up with his oath and vows to fight for what is right with the laws.
He sounds like his entire family was threatened and he is to pussy to stand up for them much less than the American public. |
|
Quoted:
Could it be possible he was pressured into that and doesn't actually agree with the outcome? I mean, I know it was pre-scripted, but why spend all of that time planting the idea that she was careless, committed a crime, etc... They could have said Hillary did nothing wrong, and we're dropping charges. Instead, they built a clear picture of corruption and bias for the American voters to process when they hit the polls. Maybe I'm grasping at anything in hopes that the law isn't dead. View Quote That still makes him a coward, and in a just world he would get a coward's fate. We're on a list, I know. But I'm sure there's more than a few people out there with "lists" of their own. It goes both ways. |
|
|
Corruption in every facet of this administration, from top to bottom.
I would be quivering with rage over this, except that I pretty much expected this kind of result. |
|
I'm eagerly awaiting some investigation leaks to start dripping over the next few months. I don't expect it to change anything but it will help to restore som credibility to the FBI. (Sad when you think they need to leak investigation info to regain credibility).
|
|
Quoted:
Straight shooter Comey my ass!!!! The fix is in Billery the most corrupt bitches ever. View Quote He had to prove to me he was as dishonest as Obama and the rest of his goat smelling followers. He has done such without even breaking a sweat. Hillary's private server was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the law, She was warned by the White House to stop using the server and she continued to defy the law. She destroyed documents she knew were public records and required to be preserved. She directed the mishandling of classified records in full knowledge it was illegal. She is a f'ing lawyer and knows is is wrong. So witch gets a pass. The rule of law was just mocked and destroyed for all the world to see. |
|
I just went next door and punched my neighbor in the face. I apologized and told him I didn't know that was considered assault, so I can't be prosecuted.
|
|
|
|
Quoted:
I'm eagerly awaiting some investigation leaks to start dripping over the next few months. I don't expect it to change anything but it will help to restore som credibility to the FBI. (Sad when you think they need to leak investigation info to regain credibility). View Quote Credibility They will not undo the damage that was just done! |
|
Quoted:
I'm eagerly awaiting some investigation leaks to start dripping over the next few months. I don't expect it to change anything but it will help to restore som credibility to the FBI. (Sad when you think they need to leak investigation info to regain credibility). View Quote Credibility I said...They will not undo the damage that was just done! |
|
Quoted:
I just went next door and punched my neighbor in the face. I apologized and told him I didn't know that was considered assault, so I can't be prosecuted. View Quote Hopefully he punches, "forwards", your punch to his neighbor and so on. Then a bunch of people also can't be prosecuted. |
|
Quoted:
If anything, she threatened to put him in the dirt. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the case, because only a crazy man would commit "suicide" over the email scandal. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Straight shooter Comey my ass!!!! The fix is in Billery the most corrupt bitches ever. I wonder what kind of dirt she had on him? If anything, she threatened to put him in the dirt. No reasonable prosecutor would bring the case, because only a crazy man would commit "suicide" over the email scandal. Most likely. No one wants to commit suicide by shooting themselves 3 times in the face after all. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.