Obstruction and election tampering

exGOPer said:
Requoting myself

"So let me get this straight - Lynch asking Comey to change the language from 'investigation' to 'matter' is obstruction

But Trump asking Comey to end an investigation is NOTHING and we should all just move on"

If Lynch did obstruct then charge her and prosecute her - DOJ is run by Trump and Adolf Keetler, should be slam dunk.

That changes nothing on Trump's own obstruction of justice which will be decided by Mueller
More...
When did Trump ask Comey to "end" the investigation?
 
exGOPer said:
How did changing the language from 'investigation' to 'matter' thwart the investigation and why isn't the same standard applied when it comes to changing the FBI director

Secondly, you are being dishonest about what Comey said



Sen. Sasse: Do you think that Secretary Clinton break any laws related to classified data?

Director Comey: We have no evidence sufficient to justify the conclusion that she violated any of the statutes related to classified information.

Can you name one another person who has been prosecuted for receiving unsolicited emails with unmarked classified information? If not, then how is it a double standard. The double standard was that she was humiliated by the FBI director in public not once but twice while saying she didn't break any law. Comey cost her the election and you guys celebrated it but when he is going after your own, suddenly he is the bad guy. Double standard indeed.
More...
That is not what happened. All liberals falsely believe that Hillary simply received emails that were unclassified at the time and later were up-classified. That is a lie.


https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

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.”

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).
 
Last edited:
WeToddDid2 said:
That is not what happened. All liberals falsely believe that Hillary simply received emails that were unclassified at the time and later were up-classified. That is a lie.
More...


That's called a STRAWMAN argument - what 'liberals' believe is that none of the emails sent or received by Hillary were PROPERLY marked

WeToddDid2 said:
She clearly broke the law without any doubt. They just choose not to prosecute..
More...

Nonsense

I will take Comey's assessment over yours


Sen. Sasse: Do you think that Secretary Clinton break any laws related to classified data?

Director Comey: We have no evidence sufficient to justify the conclusion that she violated any of the statutes related to classified information.


https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system
WeToddDid2 said:
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.”

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).
More...

And? She is the original classification authority - she could send or receive anything she deems as not classified even if it's considered classified by other agencies. Did you seriously forget that she was an OCA? Really?
 
exGOPer said:

That's called a STRAWMAN argument - what 'liberals' believe is that none of the emails sent or received by Hillary were PROPERLY marked



Nonsense

I will take Comey's assessment over yours


Sen. Sasse: Do you think that Secretary Clinton break any laws related to classified data?

Director Comey: We have no evidence sufficient to justify the conclusion that she violated any of the statutes related to classified information.


https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/p...-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system


And? She is the original classification authority - she could send or receive anything she deems as not classified even if it's considered classified by other agencies. Did you seriously forget that she was an OCA? Really?
More...
It is right there in Comey's statement. You can choose to not believe it.
 
exGOPer said:
'LET THIS GO'
More...
The below is from Comey's written testimony. Even if Trump did say that, it is very different than commanding/instructing/demanding that Comey "end" the investigation.

The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, "He is a good guy and has been through a lot." He repeated that Flynn hadn't done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." I replied only that "he is a good guy." (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would "let this go."
 
WeToddDid2 said:
The below is from Comey's written testimony. Even if Trump did say that, it is very different than commanding/instructing/demanding that Comey "end" the investigation.

The President then returned to the topic of Mike Flynn, saying, "He is a good guy and has been through a lot." He repeated that Flynn hadn't done anything wrong on his calls with the Russians, but had misled the Vice President. He then said, "I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go." I replied only that "he is a good guy." (In fact, I had a positive experience dealing with Mike Flynn when he was a colleague as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency at the beginning of my term at FBI.) I did not say I would "let this go."
More...

No it isn't different, I can list at least three cases where someone was prosecuted for obstruction 'hoping' someone would end an investigation
 
exGOPer said:
No it isn't different, I can list at least three cases where someone was prosecuted for obstruction 'hoping' someone would end an investigation
More...
List them. Also, list if the person "hoping" was the boss of the person they were telling.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top