Anger trolling the FBI....Clinton E-mails

VivaRevolution

Banned
Banned
Joined
Feb 2, 2016
Messages
34,002
Reaction score
1
Dear FBI, the Democratic Party’s Future Rests Upon Your Investigation of Clinton’s Emails
04/27/2016 09:28 am ET


To the Honorable James B. Comey, Jr. and all the good people at the Federal Bureau of Investigation,

The majority of the Democratic Party does not believe there is an ongoing FBI criminal investigation regarding Hillary Clinton’s emails. They believe, as the former Secretary of State has told them, that your work is merely a “security review,” or as one Democratic strategist call it, “another BS scandal.” Your work, thus far, has been relegated to yet another “witch hunt.” In fact, Clinton and her campaign have managed to convince millions that former secretaries of state did the same thing, which of course isn’t true.

Also, an interesting brand of logic has been used to rationalize ignoring your email investigation. While the number of agents working on this case is said to have been around 100, some voters have actually taken solace in the fact recent reports only list dozens. Only a dozen FBI agents, say loyal supporters, isn’t that big of a deal.

Since your investigation has taken so long, many people believe that nothing has been found, or simply that Clinton is too powerful to face any serious repercussions. Any attempt to warn people that Hillary Clinton could realistically face criminal indictments is either viewed as a Republican scare tactic, or lunacy. Even many Bernie Sanders supporters, a group that would benefit the most from the FBI recommending indictment of Clinton, feel it’s either disloyal, or pointless to bring up the email controversy. The massive group think within the Democratic Party, fostered by years of circumventing political scandals, has literally altered the mindset of normally rational individuals, and voters.

To a great many people, there is simply nothing Hillary Clinton can do wrong; even FBI investigations are merged with Republican Benghazi hearings.

Ultimately, your hard work, and your investigation into Clinton’s email server and correspondence, is viewed as a big, fat “nothingberger.” As Esquire’s Charles Pierce writes, The Great Hillary Email Nothingburger is Still on the Grill, and It’s Certainly Overcooked. Sadly, the FBI has become part of a satirical narrative centered upon Clinton being the victim of never-ending Republican attacks.

It’s important for everyone at the FBI to know that your investigation, and I say this with all due respect, is viewed as a source of amusement for many writers, pundits, and observers loyal to Clinton. The 22 Top Secret emails on a private server (something that should disqualify anyone running for president) are either completely ignored by party faithful, or rationalized by twisted logic. Nothing is taken seriously anymore; everything is viewed through the belief that Republicans are worse, therefore Clinton’s indiscretions are meaningless.

This should tell you something about the state of our Republic. This should also tell you something about the rule of law in our country. If anyone else in the U.S. government owned a private server storing Top Secret intelligence, for the sake of “convenience,” they’d be in jail. Lt. General Michael Flynn made that case on CNN with Jake Tapper.

The mere notion that Hillary Clinton could face criminal indictments is simply unrealistic to many voters, and I explain here what the Clinton campaign and supporters think of you and your organization. There used to be a time in U.S. history when FBI investigations were bad for campaigns; now it’s not even a speed bump for the former Secretary of State.

While I’ve stated on this CNN International appearance that Clinton could face indictment, and in a CNN New Day appearance that Clinton manages to continually circumvent scandal, only the FBI can resolve this grandiose issue.

Our country is getting closer to electing a person, under FBI investigation for potential misconduct pertaining to classified documents, that will have complete access to every single American intelligence agency.

When Univision’s Jorge Ramos asked Clinton “If you get indicted, will you drop out?” the former Secretary of State’s answer spoke volumes. She responded, “Oh, for goodness — that’s not going to happen.” The audience then cheered, for a response that no other American citizen would give to a question regarding possible DOJ indictment.

I’m not saying that people should fear the FBI. I’m saying people should respect the FBI. At this point, Bernie Sanders is the only Democratic candidate not linked to an FBI investigation, yet Clinton is leading in delegates. This dynamic would never take place in any other leading democracy. If David Cameron had been investigated by MI5, rest assured the British would never have allowed him to become leader of his political party, and eventually Prime Minister.

No doubt, you must perform your investigation without political pressure, but the reality is that millions of Bernie Sanders supporters are awaiting your verdict. Millions of independent voters, and millions of Democrats who aren’t voting for Clinton, need to hear your verdict. Needless to say, the Republicans are waiting as well.

The entire nation is waiting for you to disclose the details of your year-long email investigation.

Whether or not you recommend indictment, and whether or not you’ve found criminal wrongdoing pertaining to Clinton, should be known before the end of the Democratic Primary. Democrats can’t nominate a person who could potentially face indictment on November 7, 2016.

Of course, I’m a huge Bernie Sanders supporter, and while even many Bernie voters have surrendered to the myth that this investigation is purely politics, I believe otherwise. I remember a time when government officials respected the FBI, and a time when FBI investigations could never be associated with winning the presidency. In my humble view, I’d take the recent letter you received from agents who worked on ABSCAM very seriously, and I explain here why your reputation is at stake.

If Clinton wins, and if she did nothing wrong, then Americans need to know. However, if Clinton jeopardized national security, or might have jeopardized national security, then Democrats must rally around Bernie Sanders before it’s too late.

Your own website states “Every day, criminals are invading countless homes and offices across the nation—not by breaking down windows and doors, but by breaking into laptops, personal computers, and wireless devices via hacks and bits of malicious code.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/dear-fbi-the-democratic-p_b_9784334.html


_______________________________________________________________________________


I would like to add to this beautiful anger trolling attempt by Mr. Goodman. Wassup Mr. Comey, do you wear a dress, and let Ms. Clinton peg you?

You going to let the Clinton's and DNC punk you out, or are you going to man up and stand for the rule of law?

I guess I can go look at what areas of the law the FBI has sole jurisdiction on, and start breaking those laws if Ms. Clinton isn't charged here, because if this is the case, the FBI is obviously full of a bunch of nutless wonders, with a spine made of JELL-O.
 
It's the same director that went after the Republicans and got praised by Obama. How strange.
 
We all know the FBI is not going to charge Clinton, can't give Trump ground to look good on
 
Clinton Email Scandal: More Evidence State Department Was In On Cover-Up
Corruption: Last week it looked as if the State Department worked with Hillary Clinton to cover up her email trouble. This week it isn’t a question of involvement but rather how deeply the department was entangled.

During the Watergate scandal, one of the relevant questions asked by Tennessee Sen. Howard Baker was what did President Nixon know about the break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters and when did he know it? Today a similar question should be asked of the State Department officials who allowed Clinton to use her personal email handled by a private server in her home:

When did the State Department realize her email was a problem and how far did it go to try to hide it?

A week ago we covered the State Department’s attempt to obscure the scandal by filing a secret court brief asking a federal judge to hide tens of thousands of Clinton’s emails. At issue, we said, were the 30,000 emails that Clinton generated while she was secretary of state — and then deleted because she decided they were too personal for public consumption. Those emails have never been released.

They might have been, though, had the State Department not withheld a Benghazi email that was part of a Judicial Watch Freedom of Information Act lawsuit asking for “records related to the drafting and use of the Benghazi talking points.” Now that email, says Judicial Watch, has been located.

That “found” email is germane because if it had been released when it was supposedly first discovered, “Clinton’s email server and her hidden emails would have been disclosed nearly two years ago, before Clinton authorized the alleged deletion of tens of thousands of emails,” Judicial Watch explains.

In other words, the State Department bought Clinton time to delete the emails she didn’t want released, the ones that are surely the most revealing as to what she was up to as secretary of state, the ones she desperately wanted to hide. Those emails are almost certainly the reason she chose to use her personal account rather than a secure State Department setup.

U.S. District Court Judge Royce Lamberth, who is presiding over one of Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuits, has said that the State Department has acted in bad faith in this case. Indeed, it appears to be acting as a hindrance whenever it can, in much the same way the IRS has done its best to obstruct any inquiries looking into its targeting of the Tea Party and conservative groups that were seeking nonprofit status. Officials at these government bureaus seem to think they are above the law.

That mindset was likely accelerated at the State Department with Clinton at the top. She and Bill have a history of behaving as if the law and rules were made for everyone but them. She and her aides could have chosen to use protected government email accounts but decided that the expectations that they would weren’t for them.

The Clintons have carried this attitude since at least the couple’s Arkansas years. Hillary’s above-the-law mentality has helped her maintain her ability to brush off questions about her email and brazenly claim that she’s never going to be indicted for being caught with classified material — some of it top-secret — in her accessible-to-the-world email. It’s why she and Bill have never feared scandal. They’ve considered themselves too big and too important to pay the consequences.

No one should have that luxury, because it generates abuse. The hope is the FBI will make sure that Hillary isn’t above the law and treat her acts as if they were committed by a low-level bureaucrat.

http://www.investors.com/politics/e...idence-state-department-was-in-on-a-cover-up/
 
That's a lot of talk, and not a lot of evidence or charges. While I feel she acted improperly, especially considering she was a classification authority, I haven't seen a legal argument for charging her over this. Just a whole lot of "narrative." There's also the "narrative" that government (including Hillary) were too fucking inept and lazy to rewrite their procedures so the Secretary could do her job.
 
I like the "A dozen is not a lot" thing too. 3 dudes led the CIA's covert war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. The FBI has 9 more on this...
 
Sooo........ Still nothing then. Thought that she was going to be indicted last year. Or then at the beginning of the year. And then every month this year.

Its not happening. Get over it.
 
giphy.gif
 
Sooo........ Still nothing then. Thought that she was going to be indicted last year. Or then at the beginning of the year. And then every month this year.

Its not happening. Get over it.

Yep, just like Obama was going to get impeached abd tried for treason.
 
Anyone that still supports this woman is nothing but a shill. But it goes beyond just being a shill..its far worse. It's like they are intentionally voting for the bad guy..so what would it make the voter?, to be complacent in such fuckery...
 
That's a lot of talk, and not a lot of evidence or charges. While I feel she acted improperly, especially considering she was a classification authority, I haven't seen a legal argument for charging her over this. Just a whole lot of "narrative." There's also the "narrative" that government (including Hillary) were too fucking inept and lazy to rewrite their procedures so the Secretary could do her job.
But when you hear that she intentionally hid certain E-mails...or her server was conveniently wiped "like, with a cloth"? (UGH) ...isn't this another case of..the things that make you go hmmmm?
 
But when you hear that she intentionally hid certain E-mails...or her server was conveniently wiped "like, with a cloth"? (UGH) ...isn't this another case of..the things that make you go hmmmm?
There's talk of her hiding e-mails. I don't know. Another thing I don't know, is what the Secretary of State's authority is. As one of the highest classification authorities in the country, it's possible she got to play by rules that we are not even aware of. Would we know if she had the authority to to what she did? I feel like no, we wouldn't, that would be a very highly classified piece of information. And that's entirely aside from the question of whether she broke the law, which I can't determine. All I can say for sure is that it was terrible judgment, and if she had to have another system in order to do her job, her server should have been locked away on government property behind a big fucking steel door and a couple of dudes with big guns.
 
So what about the Romanian hacker known as “Guccifer” claims that he hacked the server and talks about the technical know how within the last few weeks??? takes it all to another direction
 
First the amount of money she receives from speeches and donations is beyond greedy and negligent.
Second, she is on video saying , we came, he saw, he died, taking about Gaddafi.
What was her role in the illegal lynching and invasion of libya and gadaffi?
Never was it reported in the media about a libya invasion .
Clinton should be on trial for war crimes in the sabatoge of the Libyan gov and funding and planning of the lynching
 
First the amount of money she receives from speeches and donations is beyond greedy and negligent.
Second, she is on video saying , we came, he saw, he died, taking about Gaddafi.
What was her role in the illegal lynching and invasion of libya and gadaffi?
Never was it reported in the media about a libya invasion .
Clinton should be on trial for war crimes in the sabatoge of the Libyan gov and funding and planning of the lynching

Give her a break she has PTSD from being under sniper
 
Clinton should be on trial for war crimes in the sabatoge of the Libyan gov
This is probably true. That would mean that Obama is also somehow connected and should be in jail. Under the same standards, there have got to be things about Iraq that would land Bush and his cabinet in jail. Clinton, Bush I -- you could find similar things. Reagan? Iran Contra. Going back? Vietnam, secret bombings in Cambodia...

Under that criteria, every president and cabinet of the last century should be in jail. That's ridiculous. We have to allow people in power some leeway or they'll never be able to do anything without fear of going to jail. They simply make too many decisions and too important decisions for all of them to be legal. A country can't run that way.

Yes -- Hillary is too powerful to face prosecution. A normal government employee might be in jail. That's a good thing.
 
Back
Top