ADVERTISEMENT

Against Long Standing Policy.

TUMe

TUMe

I.T.S. Legend
Dec 3, 2003
23,248
2,203
113
78
The Justice Department is saying Comey made his announcement against long standing policy of not reporting investigations close to an election. His view is that he had made a report to Congress and was obliged to update them if it changed. NY Times calls it "Emails again, this time with Weiner."

Could there be another Saturday Night Massacre? Nixon, of course, ordered the firing of a special prosecutor and those who would not fire him resigned one Saturday Night.

Then there is this:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-laptop-had-tens-thousands-emails-source.html

Yes I quoted Fox like some quote Politico and Salon.

Hillary flew to Florida this morning, reportedly without Huma on board. Blame Comey, blame Huma. None of it is Hillary's fault.
 
CNN also reported that the FBI ignored Lynch because she's too politically compromised. At this point I think they all are.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TU 1978
Lynch's conduct during the investigation of Hillary's emails rustled many in the FBI. I'm not a bit surprised they told her to kick sand at this point. She is viewed as a partisan shill for the Dems.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TU 1978
astonmartin708 said:
Citing the 5th amendment does not denote guilt or innocence.
Click to expand...

I'm invoking my right to remain silent as what I would say would tend to incriminate me. Hmmmm....certainly not a ringing endorsement that I've done nothing wrong.

Fwiw....no government official should be able to invoke the 5th and remain silent as to his or her official activities without being immediately relieved of their duties. We've seen this tactic far too often over the past 8 years and it erodes public trust.
 
lawpoke87 said:
I'm invoking my right to remain silent as what I would say would tend to incriminate me. Hmmmm....certainly not a ringing endorsement that I've done nothing wrong.

Fwiw....no government official should be able to invoke the 5th and remain silent as to his or her official activities without being immediately relieved of their duties. We've seen this tactic far too often over the past 8 years and it erodes public trust.
Click to expand...

It's not just the last 8 years. There were plenty of Bush, Clinton, and Reagan era staff scandals. You don't think anyone took the 5th in Iran Contra?
 
astonmartin708 said:
It's not just the last 8 years. There were plenty of Bush, Clinton, and Reagan era staff scandals. You don't think anyone took the 5th in Iran Contra?
Click to expand...

What high level federal employees took the 5th and kept their jobs? If they did they should have immediately been relieved btw. Our AG or IRS Dept head or any other high ranking federal official should never be allowed to remain silent about their activities while in office and remain employed. If a corporate officer is suspected or wrong doing by the company's BOD and he refuses to meet and talk to them about the same do you think he keeps his job?
 
astonmartin708 said:
Citing the 5th amendment does not denote guilt or innocence.
Click to expand...
She is a witness, not the perp.
You invoke the 5th to not incriminate yourself in criminal activity, not to stonewall congress or the fbi from investigating someone else.
 
Last edited:
Even if some of the emails have been seen before, it is evidence that they have spread even further. To other people, and to other devices which could be hacked and that sloppy security went even further than believed before. Huma said she made a through check and turned over everything. Well, not quite everything. But the fault lies with Clinton for allowing to happen. She completely ignored the law, which we already knew. What we are learning now is that the extent was worse than believed. The more people who have access to secret material, the less secret it is. That is why it matters.
 
If you are the head of a friendly, enemy, or neutral country and you have a conversation with the US Secretary of State would you be comfortable knowing that by poor security it could wind up on the internet? Should military contingency plans be on an unsecure internet server? Does denying it make it better?

Our presidential candidates have different faults but both have fatal flaws.
 
For some of the emails, it's not the classification, it'seems the content


She got debate questions from donna brasille. ( why wasn't she fired like Billy bush?)
She dissed catholics.
She dissed bernie and his supporters
Pay for play in her foundation.
. . .
 
My guess is that there are emails to Huma regarding the destruction of personal electronic devices and emails made subsequent to a subpoena (we know it occurred). This would be obstruction of justice akin to Nixon and watergate.
 
Here is a question worth pondering. Does Loretta Lynch know what is in those new emails, or at least some of them?

Did she know when she tried to stop Comey from going public? Obviously very few have had a chance to read many of them. It was only yesterday that the federal judge issued a warrant to explore them in depth.

As far as Hillary demanding that the FBI tell all, she is a citizen. She is not yet the president.

Those wanting Hillary to go to jail, including Trump are out of luck. If she wins she will control the Justice Department. If she loses Obama will have two months to pardon here, just like Ford pardoned Nixon. That doesn't even assume she is guilty, it just shuts down an embarrassing indictment.
 
TUMe said:
Here is a question worth pondering. Does Loretta Lynch know what is in those new emails, or at least some of them?

Did she know when she tried to stop Comey from going public? Obviously very few have had a chance to read many of them. It was only yesterday that the federal judge issued a warrant to explore them in depth.

As far as Hillary demanding that the FBI tell all, she is a citizen. She is not yet the president.

Those wanting Hillary to go to jail, including Trump are out of luck. If she wins she will control the Justice Department. If she loses Obama will have two months to pardon here, just like Ford pardoned Nixon. That doesn't even assume she is guilty, it just shuts down an embarrassing indictment.
Click to expand...

I don't think Obama is stoopid enough to pardon Hillary and risk further tainting his shaky place in our history.
 
astonmartin708 said:
You all sound like Rush Limbaugh. Kind of funny actually.
Click to expand...

There is no need to get nasty. It's been years since I have heard Rush Limbaugh. Decades actually. And Hannity is just a Rush wannabe. Why don't you object when I trash Trump?
 
There goes aston pretending he is superior to every republican on the board. I'm just waiting with baited breath for him to say I am.
 
Last edited:
lawpoke87 said:
I'm invoking my right to remain silent as what I would say would tend to incriminate me. Hmmmm....certainly not a ringing endorsement that I've done nothing wrong.

Fwiw....no government official should be able to invoke the 5th and remain silent as to his or her official activities without being immediately relieved of their duties. We've seen this tactic far too often over the past 8 years and it erodes public trust.
Click to expand...
Wait, does the Constitution not apply to ALL citizens of the United States or just those who don't work for the government? Just like someone charged with a crime is innocent until they are proven guilty in a court of law. Everyone is all over HRC and these stupid emails on a private server (which BTW was a more common practice in government before she became SoS). She hasn't been charged with a crime, yet lawyers and non-lawyers who just happen to not like her have declared her guilty.

We can't pick and choose what parts of the Constitution are applicable and which are not to meet our own narratives. It's the same way that ultra-conservative evangelicals treat the Bible.
 
lawpoke87 said:
Obama just backed Comey's decision....shocked.
Click to expand...
So either Obama knows something and nothing will come of this further exonerating HRC, or he knows nothing will come of this further making Trey Gowdy look like the whiny little b--ch he is.
 
TU_BLA said:
So either Obama knows something and nothing will come of this further exonerating HRC, or he knows nothing will come of this further making Trey Gowdy look like the whiny little b--ch he is.
Click to expand...

lol......right
 
TU_BLA said:
So either Obama knows something and nothing will come of this further exonerating HRC, or he knows nothing will come of this further making Trey Gowdy look like the whiny little b--ch he is.
Click to expand...

Possibly. Or it could be that he is more of a statesman than a lot of people give him credit for, and he is trying to lead by example. That is, putting his faith in the system instead of further eroding the public's trust in it by attacking Comey and politicizing the FBI. Whoever the next president is will have a lot of work to do on that front, and it wouldn't hurt Obama to try and lay some of that groundwork.

Note that FBI directors are appointed to serve a ten year term (to avoid overt politicization), and Comey was appointed in 2013. He may resign under pressure, but otherwise Clinton and Comey will have a rather frosty working relationship...
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUMe and Gmoney4WW
I can respect the partisans that say "Yes, Hillary broke the law and got away with it, but that happens a lot with politicians. I'm going to vote for her anyway because she's clearly still the best choice." Not a lot of respect for willful ignorance or outright lying on the issue. I have no dog in the fight this year, but truth still matters. There's no right wing conspiracy to get her. She broke the law, she lied about it, she tried to cover it up and likely obstructed justice. The current situation is no one's fault but her's, whatever Comey's motives are.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW
URedskin54 said:
I can respect the partisans that say "Yes, Hillary broke the law and got away with it, but that happens a lot with politicians. I'm going to vote for her anyway because she's clearly still the best choice." Not a lot of respect for willful ignorance or outright lying on the issue. I have no dog in the fight this year, but truth still matters. There's no right wing conspiracy to get her. She broke the law, she lied about it, she tried to cover it up and likely obstructed justice. The current situation is no one's fault but her's, whatever Comey's motives are.
Click to expand...
Agree fully. The possible commission of a crime by Hillary does not in any way outweigh Trump's incompetency. Nor does it outweigh or excuse his use of fear, terror, and hatred to gain a racist voting base.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUBballJunkie and URedskin54
Gmoney4WW said:
Agree fully. The possible commission of a crime by Hillary does not in any way outweigh Trump's incompetency. Nor does it outweigh or excuse his use of fear, terror, and hatred to gain a racist voting base.
Click to expand...

LBJ used fear of Goldwater getting us into war to push his election and he wound up being a good president...well except for that thing with Vietnam.
 
There is a rhyme & a reason I put incompetency first. That is the primary issue. Fear of someone getting us into war is a little different than Trumps campaign methods.
 
There are other choices boys and girls. No one is forcing you to vote for someone who is under a federal criminal investigation over someone you view as incompetent. (I do smile at an individual who has amassed a net worth of over $3B being viewed as incompetent). I would say the way this is playing out a good argument could be made that both are incompetent under the views set forth by many. One happens to also be corrupt.

Vote third party and send a message!
 
lawpoke87 said:
There are other choices boys and girls. No one is forcing you to vote for someone who is under a federal criminal investigation over someone you view as incompetent. I would say the way this is playing out a good argument could be made that both are incompetent. One happens to also be corrupt.

Vote third party and send a message!
Click to expand...
Here's the transcript of that message: "I hate the system so much, I'm going to hurt myself"

Kind of like a teenage boy saying "Becky won't go out with me, so I'll hang myself outside her window. That'll show her!"
 
lawpoke87 said:
There are other choices boys and girls. No one is forcing you to vote for someone who is under a federal criminal investigation over someone you view as incompetent. I would say the way this is playing out a good argument could be made that both are incompetent. One happens to also be corrupt.

Vote third party and send a message!
Click to expand...
A protest vote does not stop one from having an incompetent president. I'm more concerned with the results than having protested. Four years of Trump could be dangerous, much more dangerous than four years of Clinton.
 
lawpoke87 said:
There are other choices boys and girls. No one is forcing you to vote for someone who is under a federal criminal investigation over someone you view as incompetent. (I do smile at an individual who has amassed a net worth of over $3B being viewed as incompetent). I would say the way this is playing out a good argument could be made that both are incompetent under the views set forth by many. One happens to also be corrupt.

Vote third party and send a message!
Click to expand...

One can be competent at some things and incompetent at others. I would say a total ignorance of the way the institution you plan to run operates probably raises the likelihood you'll be incompetent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUBballJunkie and Gmoney4WW
astonmartin708 said:
Here's the transcript of that message: "I hate the system so much, I'm going to hurt myself"

Kind of like a teenage boy saying "Becky won't go out with me, so I'll hang myself outside her window. That'll show her!"
Click to expand...
How does voting for someone who is not a member of the two parties that are locked in a death-grip, hurt that voter?
 
  • Like
Reactions: URedskin54
TUMe said:
How does voting for someone who is not a member of the two parties that are locked in a death-grip, hurt that voter?
Click to expand...
Because you're voting for someone who has no chance at actually being president. It would be like me asking you to write in my name "as a protest". The only one you hurt is yourself.
 
TUMe said:
How does voting for someone who is not a member of the two parties that are locked in a death-grip, hurt that voter?
Click to expand...
If you believe one is the lesser of two evils, or if one is the lesser of two evils, despite what you believe, that is how one does damage to the voter.
 
astonmartin708 said:
Because you're voting for someone who has no chance at actually being president. It would be like me asking you to write in my name "as a protest". The only one you hurt is yourself.
Click to expand...

Psst...unless you live in a swing state your vote is every bit as meaningful as a protest vote. And if you currently live in a red state, your dem vote is nothing but a protest vote.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gmoney4WW
So voting for the best candidate is hurting myself or the system. I would argue voting for someone who is corrupt hurts one self and the system not to mention promotes the existing two party system which has given us these two lousy choices. History is full of people and governments who have been not only hurt but at time destroyed by corrupt politicians....but by all means let's elect one. I will never vote for someone under federal criminal investigation regardless of party affiliation....period.

Donna Brazile was let go from CNN today for providing Hillary town hall questions ahead of time. Hillary of course took and used them without any hesitation despite it giving her an unfair advantage. Just another show of moral corruption....but yes....this is who we want governing is because she has a D in front of her name.
 
I have never, ever seen someone so incompetent as Donald Trump. This is a special and never before seen situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TUBballJunkie
Gmoney4WW said:
I have never, ever seen someone so incompetent as Donald Trump. This is a special and never before seen situation.
Click to expand...

As is a presidential candidate under federal criminal investigation....has never happened.

Which is why I'm voting for neither.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back