ImTheCaptain
I disagree with you
ITT: doofus inflates his Goodwill valuation
Password GODEACS?
Except this guy isn't the federal prosecutor in this situation, he is a cop, and that's the problem. TAB saying, and Comey thinking like he did when, that Comey has put away Gotti and whoever else is what is causing the consternation here. His job in this case was to solely collect the evidence and turn it over, not opine about its legality or illegality. His actual job was to turn it over to the AG's office and say "we have X e-mails, Y were marked confidential, and here is what we know about their disclosure or potential disclosure, you decide what to do with it". Lynch pulled the rope-a-dope on this clown, and the dumbass fell for it. Another government stooge who doesn't know his role.
Doofus---the Country Club Elitist Liberal.
Got it.
Except this guy isn't the federal prosecutor in this situation, he is a cop, and that's the problem. TAB saying, and Comey thinking like he did when, that Comey has put away Gotti and whoever else is what is causing the consternation here. His job in this case was to solely collect the evidence and turn it over, not opine about its legality or illegality. His actual job was to turn it over to the AG's office and say "we have X e-mails, Y were marked confidential, and here is what we know about their disclosure or potential disclosure, you decide what to do with it". Lynch pulled the rope-a-dope on this clown, and the dumbass fell for it. Another government stooge who doesn't know his role.
What. A. Post. Twin-killing like Orenthal. 2x2 FTW.
What. A. Post. Twin-killing like Orenthal. 2x2 FTW.
Too soon. Also, wrong, because it is a common occurrence that the FBI make recommendations to the DOJ regarding whether to prosecute. It's not like the FBI doesn't have any attorneys.
I think you just want to be indignant for whatever reason.
The DOJ is going to have to rely on his evidence to prosecute, so of course he is going to have to give summary, analysis and ultimately make a recommendation to the DOJ based on the investigation and how it translates to the strength of the case. In fact, not only is his job, it is what they do as a matter of course, as he noted. The only difference here is that he made the recommendation public, due to the highly politicized nature of the investigation. He likely only made a statement so he could make it crystal clear what the findings and recommendation was, since idiots would no doubt be monday morning quarterbacking afterwards. Let's also not forget that Lynch wouldn't be doing her job if she didnt ask Comey, a much more decorated federal prosecutor than herself, what their chances were.
Regardless of who is doing their job properly, do you think there was anything that rose to a criminal act? 18 US 793 (f) is the closest they have, and the case law behind that shows they have never won without proving intent to pass classified info to non-classified parties. I just don't see it.
And its not like they have the best federal prosecutor of the last 30 years as their director. Lets not ask him what he thinks, though. That would be dumb.
Except again, all tail chasing and avoids the question on whether she actually broke the law. Keep finger pointing on all other issues and ignore the core one, and you might trick people into thinking you have a point.
I honestly have no idea, I haven't followed it closely enough to be educated on the legality one way or another.
Then he should be the one serving in the AG role (thanks, Obama). But he doesn't, and he is not the prosecutor on this case, so who gives a shit about his opinion on the legality of the actions.
I think it's worth noting whether she blatantly lied to voters about her carelessness with Top Secret information. I'm zany that way.
Your unflappable nose for truth and justice has caught a career politician in a lie. Congrats. Are you zany enough to vote for the guy who lies all the time and doesn't even know what he's lying about most of the time?
So just running your mouth. Never would have guessed.
He's not. He did exactly the job he was supposed to do. He knew there would be morons like yourself who wouldn't bother to spend 10 minutes to compare the alleged actions to the statute and the corresponding case law, so he wanted to explain it to the layman. If you want to argue he should have said nothing publicly, fine I guess.
But to act like he somehow didn't do his job properly is just lazy, wrong, and smacks of partisan sour grapes regarding the outcome of the investigation.
That's exactly what I'm arguing. He brought the criticism on himself by stepping outside of his actual role, and for what reason I have no idea. He shouldn't have any concern for morons, that isn't his job, and neither is being Lynch's human shield.
So you aren't mad at him for making a recommendation in this highly public case, you are just mad at him doing it publicly so that there is full disclosure.
los: