Posted on 07/12/2016 4:07:22 PM PDT by NRx
Will Comey be conducting the probe?
Check out this article and the comments and their links.
http://www.unz.com/mhudson/the-clinton-foundation/
If there is the possibility of a FBI probe then every federal agency and every feral employee must stop talking about . . . “the ongoing investigation”. Sorry, no comment. Ongoing investigation. Again, no comment. Ongoing investigation. Sorry, we can't provide that document because of an ongoing investigation.
Until the final days on the presidential campaign when it will be announced the investigation has been completed and no evidence of wrong doing was found.
The FBI? Riiiiggght. There is no rule of law anymore, and it won’t be enforce - especially by them.
Here’s a crumd...
.
.
.
and here’s another crumb...
.
.
.
and another...
.
.
.
and another...
Blah, blah, blah.
Aint nothing gonna happen to the Teflon queen.
Have Lynch and Comey been put on the Clinton Foundation board yet?
But we did not find an intention from the three Clintons to commit any crime.
What would be the potential ‘upside’ of avoiding prosecution on one set of facts, on one set of statutes, in order to somehow fuel another investigation of other facts?
I’ve heard this theory offered up several times since Comey did the public sell-out, but I don’t get it.
I’m not the deep intellectual legal eagle that some FReepers are, but it just doesn’t make sense to me that this would be the reason to not prosecute the Hildebeast on the illegal handling of classified emails.
For others, prosecution on “X” charges does not preclude prosecution on “Y” charges, later.
I get that sometimes prosecutions are ‘timed’ based on the development of evidence of other crimes, and additional suspects, but that doesn’t seem to be in play, here.
I rather believe that the ‘fix’ was in; probably in no small part due to WJC’s ‘visit’ with LL in PHX. I can see a direct, and short, line from LL to Comey via a phone call, a text message, or a horse head in his bed. I believe it’s very likely that Bubba delivered a message that assured LL of continued employment in the First HRC Dynasty; all that was required was that she ‘convey’ to Comey that Vince Foster was not an accident, not a suicide.
I believe Comey already is, or was. Okay, not excatly, but here’s an article from today, lots of info at the links in the short “article”. The interconnected thuggery, crime, corruption and treason in the gov is beyond belief, and entirely FUBAR. Start over is the only solution after cutting all rotten wood.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3448692/posts
FBI Director Comey is a board member of Clinton Foundation connected bank HSBC.
InvestmentWatch.com ^ | 7/12/16 | IWB
Posted on 7/12/2016, 11:09:43 AM by blueyon
It seems that our beloved FBI Director is or until very recently was a director and board member of HSBC, which is tightly connected to the Clinton Foundation. Check out some of these links:
Indicting her now would tip the FBI’s hand and could jeopardize the bigger investigation. Just sayin’
The Clinton Foundation seems to be a textbook case of an international RICO crime organization....and she’ll get away with it.
No intent to defraud, collude, or otherwise racketeer for personal gain.
Stop it, drop it, and roll over!
All I see is Lucy and a football.
No prosecutor who wants to live would dare press charges against Mrs. Bill Clinton.
>>could it possibly be that Comey knew there were other and more important and more really, really, really serious charges in store<<
I think you’re spot on. I’ve always believed the more serious crimes involve the Clinton slush fund.
I’m no legal eagle either, but seem to me not only is there no upside but greater downside if they did try to prosecute. FBI director said they looked at all the facts and saw only great carelessness but no intent to break the law. So how does he pivot and now say the emails showed intention to break public corruptions laws? Comey made intent matter. So assuming they want to prosecute for corruption, they would probably have to show that her email set-up was intended to hide the corruption from Congress, from FOIA, from her boss the POTUS, from the inspector general and so on. He already said she did not intend to hide communications, it was just a bad personal decision to set up this server and a bad personal decision to delete thousands of emails. So imo, it would be hard to prosecute on corruption unless they had a real smoking gun and said “well she didn’t intend to hide her trail of corruption, but we found it anyway”. It’s ludicrous. What criminal commits crimes but doesn’t intend to hide the evidence? Deleting the emails would be imo vital to prove conscious intent to commit a crime, and cover it up. In other words, the act of covering it up shows that the criminal was aware of the crime and the evidence implicating the criminal. But Comey took that card out of the deck. They could likely never show conscious intent to commit a crime. It isn’t required to prosecute, but imo it makes it harder to convict. Again IANAL just my opinion.
using his logic she should have been indicted. Extreme carelessness = gross negligence (punishable by fine and/or imprisonment).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.