• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

hillary is a pathological liar

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
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.
Click to expand...

What. A. Post. Twin-killing like Orenthal. 2x2 FTW.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
What. A. Post. Twin-killing like Orenthal. 2x2 FTW.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jhmd2000 said:
What. A. Post. Twin-killing like Orenthal. 2x2 FTW.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Shooshmoo said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
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.
Click to expand...

I honestly have no idea, I haven't followed it closely enough to be educated on the legality one way or another. But I do know that it's not my decision, nor is it Comey's decision, it's Lynch's decision. And it certainly isn't Comey's role to worry about the Monday morning QBing of the public so as to go public with it, regardless of the profile of the case. That again is Lynch's job. She set him up to be the fallguy and he fell for it. I get 923's point about him wanting to control it, but if he really wanted to control it he would have dumped the evidence in Lynch's lap and said it's your decision. So either there really is no evidence against her (in which case he should have just simply said so without all of the other scolding of her behavior), or his recommendation should have been to proceed. He handled it basically the worst way possible and comes off looking like a bitch.
 
Last edited:
TheTwinAndreBen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think it's worth noting whether she blatantly lied to voters about her carelessness with Top Secret information. I'm zany that way.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
I honestly have no idea, I haven't followed it closely enough to be educated on the legality one way or another.
Click to expand...

So just running your mouth. Never would have guessed.

2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I think it's worth noting whether she blatantly lied to voters about her carelessness with Top Secret information. I'm zany that way.
Click to expand...

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?
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
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?
Click to expand...

We should talk about him on his own thread. This one is hers. Voter insecurity is wearing poorly on you, Tabitha.
 
Was listening to Michael Smerconish today on POTUS (really like him as a political commentator) and one of his callers asked a great question regarding the results of the FBI investigation.

To paraphrase:

"Given what we now know about Hillary, the server, her negligence regarding government information, and in general her disregard for necessary intelligence protocols...What kind of recommendation would she receive if she applied for a standard government intelligence staff position? If she wasn't running for president, would she pass a standard background check and be allowed to handle sensitive government information with this on her record?"

Smerconish's opinion was that there is no way that our government would allow someone with this kind of blemish to ever handle sensitive information again, and I have to kind of agree. Hillary's only saving grace in this entire situation/election is that she is running against Trump. If the Republicans picked literally ANY other candidate of the 16 (I don't care if it is Mike Huckabee) Hillary would have no defense on this. But instead she can (and her supporters) deflect all her own rightful criticism towards Trump who is spectacularly unqualified to be POTUS in his own way. Truly an amazing election this year, and I mean that in the absolute worst way possible.
 
I'm confused. So opinions regarding whether Hillary Clinton should have been indicted should not be deferred to the DOJ because apparently it is unable to make a fair and impartial judgment about whether to indict due to a "conflict of interest." Fair enough. But, if DOJ itself defers to the FBI and its Director who was himself the Deputy AG, that is also unacceptable, because then DOJ isn't doing its job. I suppose that is where we just punt it to the general public to decide by referendum whether to indict.
 
TheTwinAndreBen said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
2&2 Slider To Leyritz said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

:plos:
 
ChrisL68 said:
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.

:plos:
Click to expand...

I'm not mad at him either way, I don't care whether or not she gets indicted. I just think that he allowed himself to look like a patsy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top