Posted on 11/06/2016 4:03:26 PM PST by Rockitz
With just two days left until the election, John Podesta went on one of the Clinton campaign's "friendly" political talk shows to bash FBI agents leaking harmful info about their various investigations into Hillary's assorted criminal cases. In an interview that wreaked of a little desperation, Podesta lashed out at FBI agents saying "the leakers should shut up." With the interview occurring earlier this morning before the recent news that the FBI has balked, yet again, at bringing official charges against Hillary, it certainly seems possible that Podesta had advanced knowlege that a Comey announcement was forthcoming (see "Hillary Cleared As FBI Folds Again: Comey Says "Conclusions Unchanged From July" On Clinton Email Review").
I think what Mr. Comey did just 9 days ago was a mistake. I think it broke with precedent. I think it was criticized roundly by democrats and republicans. It was a mistake.
There is a reason for that policy. It looked like it was interfering in the election.
I think the men and women of the FBI are doing a tremendous job out here across the country. But the leakers should shut up.
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
Hillary was never getting indicted by an Obama admin.
That being said this is horrible for hrc 2 days before the election
They’re supposed to selling secrets and pocketing millions.
Leaking for free decreases their profit.
The reality is that there has been way more made available in Wikileaks alone to indict her than is needed.
Comey will not survive a Trump presidency.
I predict he will flee to another country (maybe Canada) and request asylum.
He can run but cannot hide. Trump will get him.
She who Is In Power gets to be as Hypocritical as she likes.
Hypoplastic why don’t you just cook up a spirit cooking menu and throw a curse on the leakers?
Did this really happen? The only thing that doesn’t ring true is Hillary saying, “I’m grateful.” She’s not grateful for anything or anyone.
Because letting it get this far was a career ending move. Letting it go to grand Jury would be a life ending move.
That is the face of a modern-day Judas Iscariot.
That’s hey podesta, not hypoplastic. Voice to text.
Headline of the Day Poll
Why won’t the FBI recommend charges over the Hillary emails?
FBI Director Comey is a coward (38%)
FBI Director Comey is corrupt (33%)
There has been no crime committed (29%)
Read more: http://www.headlineoftheday.com/#ixzz4PHHvRp00
I'll second that. I've had to tell federal agencies that their software is junk - to their faces.
MANY DC insiders seem to have known about PEDO stuff:
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3490154/posts
He’s probably tried.
But... when the power of darkness comes in like a flood, the Lord shall raise up a standard.
Evil gets to play around immensely, but just before it manages to win totally... BAM! The boom comes down on it.
To you I and other FReepers, yes, it does look like corruption.
To the corrupt, it looks like happy times.
He might be able to get a job cleaning the outhouses in a Provincial Park - if they could trust him not to steal toilet paper and/or feces...
Evil blinds itself, however, and just when it thought it had tied up every loose end... God yanks at the loose ends it did not see and it is undone.
Been there, done that myself. But, all joking aside -- if you read Comey's letter very carefully, you can see how they "completed" this review so quickly.
It was limited to email messages to and from Hillary. That alone probably reduced it to about 10-15% of the total, based on what we've seen. And they only considered whether Hillary did anything wrong, which further constrained it to messages she sent.
Next, all they had to do is compare message IDs in the headers, eliminating all messages they had already reviewed the first time. With those two sets of messages (from Weiner's laptop and the previous set) I could write a Python script to do that in an hour or less.
[I'm talking about writing the script, not actually running the script.... that would only take 10-15 minutes, depending on the speed of the computer used to do it]
Now, you have a much smaller set of messages that must be reviewed, message by message. A large percentage of them were probably replies to messages already reviewed, but unless you did the original review and remember them, you would have to check the entire chain for each.
My point: by limiting it to a very small percentage of the messages found, and eliminating ones already reviewed, the remainder would be easily reviewed in the 5 days they've had the warrant to do so.
It would take the patience of a saint for Trump to keep his temper about this.
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.