Good choice. If I were you I’d be cutting my losses too.
So you feel no obligation to check the veracity of something you heard/saw reported before you repeat it?
Are you really saying that if you repeat something you heard/saw reported, you are absolved of any responsibility for spreading it if it proves to be fault because “Hey! I HEARD/SAW it being reported”?
Is this what you’re saying?
2 Likes
Comey deviated from standard procedures when he gave immunity to combetta and pagliano for exactly nothing new. FBI guidelines state there must be relevant , new information that isnt already available to investigators in other places. The immunity agreements must be scrapped and new interviews assigned to new field agents. Combetta’s lies before the agreement are still on the table though. See how long it takes him to “remember” the details of his phone calls staring down a 3 year stretch in club fed.
This is incorrect.
The vaunted FBI is in utter disarray because their leadership failed.
you sir are wrong…
- combetta lied twice in his first official interview
- Comey deviated from standard procedures in order to obstruct justice
- Pagliano lied after his immunity agreement be telling the coverup story
According to the IG report, this did not represent a deviation from protocol.
You can’t just revoke an immunity deal for no reason.
Pagliano did not lie after being immunized.
It would seem there are several misconceptions about the IG report.
-
The IG did not report there was no bias in decision making; he reported that he found no evidence of it. This was made clear in his testimony today where he admitted he has “no confidence” that political bias was not an issue in Strojk’s decisions.
-
James Comey is a hypocrite. How is it he did not recuse himself from the investigation and demand McCabe do the same since the report shows both of them used personal email accounts for FBI business? How can they be in charge of this investigation when they are doing the exact same thing that the subject of the investigation was an not be predisposed to finding that what they themselves are doing is perfectly okay?
-
The report itself concludes that there was no evidence that Comey used his personal email for any classified materials; however, in testimony the IG states that the only personal emails he saw from Comey were the ones he forwarded to his FBI account. No such conclusion can be drawn from that. Especially in light of the fact that Comey himself is under investigation for leaking classified materials.
A full accounting of whether or not bias was a factor cannot be determined until the personal email accounts of Comey, McCabe and Strojk are examined. This case is far from closed.
It is refreshing to listen to others in some capacity of oversight, question the conclusions of the IG. Maybe…“we” can one day drain the ■■■■■■■ swamp?
I’m not arguing whose expert is best. I’m arguing that there are experts on both sides of that argument - including former federal prosecutors - so you cannot tell me that there is only one right answer to the argument.
It just depends on which expert you ask and more importantly which expert gets to make the call. In this case it was Comey but it could EASILY have been an expert that indicted Clinton, instead.
M
Gowdy isn’t an expert. He’s never prosecuted any of these cases. He hasn’t researched the statute. He hasn’t examined the case law.
He’s making a politically motivated grandstanding speech, not giving a legal argument.
Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Bias Monster…Legends of the 2020 campaigns!
If you look at what he’s talking about it is about what constitutes “intent” in any criminal case. You feckless attempt to make it NOT relevant isn’t going to work. He’s schooling Comey in “Prosecutor 101” - not in the specifics of that particular law.
M
Then let me school Gowdy on being a fair and unbiased prosecutor 101. You don’t ignore information that doesn’t fit your narrative because you have a vendetta against someone.
The private server was established for convenience and to more easily facilitate her job. The state email server was buggy, frequent to crash and frequently out of service. It did not allow her to use most devices and access it from most places. The private server fixed all these things. It was not “set up” to do anything, it was pre-existing.
There were clear efforts to avoid using the system for classified information. For starters, Clinton never originated any emails with classified information. Secondly, emails with classified information appeared when the typical classified system (which she used frequently) was unavailable, specifically when her staff were away from the office, on holidays or overseas. During these times, the staff were seen to attempt to minimize the classified information by being referential and less specific in an obvious effort to “talk around” the issue.
Next, false exculpatory statements are not necessarily evidence of intent. In Clinton’s case, even if you can prove that she said these statements knowingly which is already hard to prove, she clearly had another motive to say them, which is political given she was running for President at the time.
In every instance of Gowdy’s tirade there’s a rational alternative explanation which he ignores. Gowdy did not allow Comey to respond, which is a sure sign of weakness.
1 Like
Good post.
To bad that incorrect assessment of the situation, and Lynch’s erroneous decision not to proffer charges couldn’t be remedied at some time in say the last, oh, year and a half.
Good post.
If you are running a global money laundering slash influence peddling operation that makes it tough to keep records away from prying eyes.
Just wipe em like with a cloth.
Come on. Didn’t we all know that Trump supporters would never accept this report and would start new conspiracies.
None of this is surprising.
There isn’t probable cause to investigate Comey’s private email account. This is extremely thin.
