(12-05-2017 08:29 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 07:31 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  I look for FBI whistleblowers to come out of the woodwork if Hillary wins.

Also this comment hasn't aged well.

Cause your gal failed to win, in particularly spectacular fashion?

Did you actually read the comment? Lol

(12-05-2017 10:25 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 08:29 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 07:31 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  I look for FBI whistleblowers to come out of the woodwork if Hillary wins.

Also this comment hasn't aged well.

Cause your gal failed to win, in particularly spectacular fashion?

Did you actually read the comment? Lol

The point I was making, which unsurprisingly passed you by, was the drastic change on his view of the FBI from only a year ago. It seems that since starting to rightfully and lawfully investigate Trump, conservatives have done a 180 on their opinion of the FBI.

People now claim the FBI is a liberal organization, despite all evidence otherwise. The only real change is their investigation of Trump, so now they have always been at war with Eastasia.

FBi agents in the field are wonderful. Clinton corrupted FBI's leadership. That's what's happened.

(12-05-2017 10:32 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 10:25 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 08:29 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 07:31 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  I look for FBI whistleblowers to come out of the woodwork if Hillary wins.

Also this comment hasn't aged well.

Cause your gal failed to win, in particularly spectacular fashion?

Did you actually read the comment? Lol

The point I was making, which unsurprisingly passed you by, was the drastic change on his view of the FBI from only a year ago. It seems that since starting to rightfully and lawfully investigate Trump, conservatives have done a 180 on their opinion of the FBI.

People now claim the FBI is a liberal organization, despite all evidence otherwise. The only real change is their investigation of Trump, so now they have always been at war with Eastasia.

False. It started when Comey laid out the case against Clinton, then failed to prosecute her. 'member when everybody was perplexed at the "extreme carelessness" statement and how that didn't amount to gross negligence? Now a year later we seem to have a little more info on just why one phrase was used instead of the other

(12-05-2017 11:52 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  FBi agents in the field are wonderful. Clinton corrupted FBI's leadership. That's what's happened.

It's only logical. That's who has the power to make or break politicians like Hoover was rumored to hold. The average FBI Joe is so way down the totem pole he's a non-entity. The upper echelon leadership in any organization can be bribed so easily.

(12-05-2017 03:01 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 10:32 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 10:25 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 08:29 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(11-07-2016 07:31 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  I look for FBI whistleblowers to come out of the woodwork if Hillary wins.

Also this comment hasn't aged well.

Cause your gal failed to win, in particularly spectacular fashion?

Did you actually read the comment? Lol

The point I was making, which unsurprisingly passed you by, was the drastic change on his view of the FBI from only a year ago. It seems that since starting to rightfully and lawfully investigate Trump, conservatives have done a 180 on their opinion of the FBI.

People now claim the FBI is a liberal organization, despite all evidence otherwise. The only real change is their investigation of Trump, so now they have always been at war with Eastasia.

False. It started when Comey laid out the case against Clinton, then failed to prosecute her. 'member when everybody was perplexed at the "extreme carelessness" statement and how that didn't amount to gross negligence? Now a year later we seem to have a little more info on just why one phrase was used instead of the other

The wording of that statement wasn't the reason she wasn't prosecuted you silly goose, and it had no factual bearing on the case itself.

(12-05-2017 04:48 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 03:01 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 10:32 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 10:25 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 08:29 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Also this comment hasn't aged well.

Cause your gal failed to win, in particularly spectacular fashion?

Did you actually read the comment? Lol

The point I was making, which unsurprisingly passed you by, was the drastic change on his view of the FBI from only a year ago. It seems that since starting to rightfully and lawfully investigate Trump, conservatives have done a 180 on their opinion of the FBI.

People now claim the FBI is a liberal organization, despite all evidence otherwise. The only real change is their investigation of Trump, so now they have always been at war with Eastasia.

False. It started when Comey laid out the case against Clinton, then failed to prosecute her. 'member when everybody was perplexed at the "extreme carelessness" statement and how that didn't amount to gross negligence? Now a year later we seem to have a little more info on just why one phrase was used instead of the other

The wording of that statement wasn't the reason she wasn't prosecuted you silly goose, and it had no factual bearing on the case itself.

Hunh.

Then why did the now-fired or demoted #2 guy make that change?

Why did the hopelessly compromised Comey use that line instead of changing it back?

Odd, no?

(12-05-2017 05:00 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 04:48 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 03:01 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 10:32 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 10:25 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  Cause your gal failed to win, in particularly spectacular fashion?

Did you actually read the comment? Lol

The point I was making, which unsurprisingly passed you by, was the drastic change on his view of the FBI from only a year ago. It seems that since starting to rightfully and lawfully investigate Trump, conservatives have done a 180 on their opinion of the FBI.

People now claim the FBI is a liberal organization, despite all evidence otherwise. The only real change is their investigation of Trump, so now they have always been at war with Eastasia.

False. It started when Comey laid out the case against Clinton, then failed to prosecute her. 'member when everybody was perplexed at the "extreme carelessness" statement and how that didn't amount to gross negligence? Now a year later we seem to have a little more info on just why one phrase was used instead of the other

The wording of that statement wasn't the reason she wasn't prosecuted you silly goose, and it had no factual bearing on the case itself.

Hunh.

Then why did the now-fired or demoted #2 guy make that change?

Why did the hopelessly compromised Comey use that line instead of changing it back?

Odd, no?

I don't know? It could have just been a more honest appraisal of the situation or it could have been him trying to lessen the harshness of the verbiage towards someone he liked? None of us know.

But you do grasp this document was the summation of their findings, and not the deciding factor of their findings, yes? They didn't start writing the document, get to the end, and say "well, I guess we don't prosecute her now".

(12-05-2017 10:32 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  It seems that since starting to rightfully and lawfully investigate Trump, conservatives have done a 180 on their opinion of the FBI.

Pleased to say that long before Trump was even elected president, I was asking WTF is happening to the FBI?

(12-05-2017 10:12 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  Comey's friend Peter Strzok, the FBI agent that interviewed Clinton about her emails (while not under oath). The guy that helped gave immunity to Clinton's attorney Cheryl Mills; Clinton aide and lawyer Heather Samuelson; John Bentel, who ran the State Department's information resources management office, Bryan Pagliano, Clinton's former IT aide, and Paul Combetta, an employee at the firm hired to manage her server after she left the State Department. Looks like he's the guy who got the FBI to pay for the GPS Fusion fake dossier. Hes the one that changed Comey's verbiage in Comey's now famous speech. More and more being reported everyday?

I forgot, today Fox News reports that he's the one who trapped Flynn.

When something smells bad, You just know a Democrat insider is close by.!

(12-05-2017 05:04 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  They didn't start writing the document, get to the end, and say "well, I guess we don't prosecute her now".

See, even a blind hogs finds an acorn now and then. You're right, Comey prepared his findings before the FBI investigation was over.

(12-05-2017 05:04 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 05:00 PM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 04:48 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 03:01 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 10:32 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  The point I was making, which unsurprisingly passed you by, was the drastic change on his view of the FBI from only a year ago. It seems that since starting to rightfully and lawfully investigate Trump, conservatives have done a 180 on their opinion of the FBI.

People now claim the FBI is a liberal organization, despite all evidence otherwise. The only real change is their investigation of Trump, so now they have always been at war with Eastasia.

False. It started when Comey laid out the case against Clinton, then failed to prosecute her. 'member when everybody was perplexed at the "extreme carelessness" statement and how that didn't amount to gross negligence? Now a year later we seem to have a little more info on just why one phrase was used instead of the other

The wording of that statement wasn't the reason she wasn't prosecuted you silly goose, and it had no factual bearing on the case itself.

Hunh.

Then why did the now-fired or demoted #2 guy make that change?

Why did the hopelessly compromised Comey use that line instead of changing it back?

Odd, no?

I don't know? It could have just been a more honest appraisal of the situation or it could have been him trying to lessen the harshness of the verbiage towards someone he liked? None of us know.

But you do grasp this document was the summation of their findings, and not the deciding factor of their findings, yes? They didn't start writing the document, get to the end, and say "well, I guess we don't prosecute her now".

How did they "get to the end" weeks if not months before even interviewing Clinton, not under oath, there are no notes or recording,done over the 4th of July weekend and her co-conspiritor legal counsel, granted immunity for their own lies to the FBI (Gen. Flynn, is on line two, would like a word) were allowed to be present and offer legal advice.

And nope, nothing to see here, no fix was in here...

(12-05-2017 04:48 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 03:01 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 10:32 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 10:25 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 08:29 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Also this comment hasn't aged well.

Cause your gal failed to win, in particularly spectacular fashion?

Did you actually read the comment? Lol

The point I was making, which unsurprisingly passed you by, was the drastic change on his view of the FBI from only a year ago. It seems that since starting to rightfully and lawfully investigate Trump, conservatives have done a 180 on their opinion of the FBI.

People now claim the FBI is a liberal organization, despite all evidence otherwise. The only real change is their investigation of Trump, so now they have always been at war with Eastasia.

False. It started when Comey laid out the case against Clinton, then failed to prosecute her. 'member when everybody was perplexed at the "extreme carelessness" statement and how that didn't amount to gross negligence? Now a year later we seem to have a little more info on just why one phrase was used instead of the other

The wording of that statement wasn't the reason she wasn't prosecuted you silly goose, and it had no factual bearing on the case itself.

Gross negligence in the handling of classified information is a crime under the espionage act. Had the words "gross negligence" remained in his statement, there would be little if any defense against not prosecuting Clinton. "Extremely careless" is not a punishable crime under the espionage act, despite being virtually identical to gross negligence in a legal definition.

Comey spent 12 minutes laying out a prosecutable case against clinton, including stating that others committing the same or similar acts would face legal challenges. The wording was deliberately changed and there is little reasoning other than to avoid an obviously prosecute blessed violation of law.

Sent from my SM-G900R4 using CSNbbs mobile app

Back to Comey and the 6 million dollars bonus he received from Lockheed Martin as he exited. Basically it was taxpayer money laundered through Lockheed Martin to him. He had LM donate to the Clinton Global slush fund (pay to play) and then the state dept issued LM 17 lucrative contracts. Then 6 million of the profit went to Comey. Now that his hands are dirty why not put him in charge of the FBI. He has to cover for them because he's now one of them.

(12-06-2017 04:41 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  Back to Comey and the 6 million dollars bonus he received from Lockheed Martin as he exited. Basically it was taxpayer money laundered through Lockheed Martin to him. He had LM donate to the Clinton Global slush fund (pay to play) and then the state dept issued LM 17 lucrative contracts. Then 6 million of the profit went to Comey. Now that his hands are dirty why not put him in charge of the FBI. He has to cover for them because he's now one of them.

Welllll,

That’s a nice, tidy package.

Hadn’t heard or read that lil nugget before.

Do you have something we can all read? Or dates for this quid pro quo/plant?

Interesting, sell your soul for 6 million? That might be about a threshold number.

That’s a lot of months working for the federal gubment instead...

Wholly compromised. Shut it down.

(12-06-2017 10:20 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-06-2017 04:41 AM)ODU BLUE Wrote:  Back to Comey and the 6 million dollars bonus he received from Lockheed Martin as he exited. Basically it was taxpayer money laundered through Lockheed Martin to him. He had LM donate to the Clinton Global slush fund (pay to play) and then the state dept issued LM 17 lucrative contracts. Then 6 million of the profit went to Comey. Now that his hands are dirty why not put him in charge of the FBI. He has to cover for them because he's now one of them.

Welllll,

That’s a nice, tidy package.

Hadn’t heard or read that lil nugget before.

Do you have something we can all read? Or dates for this quid pro quo/plant?

Interesting, sell your soul for 6 million? That might be about a threshold number.

That’s a lot of months working for the federal gubment instead...

Wholly compromised. Shut it down.

"How much money did James Comey make from Lockheed Martin in his last year with the company, which he left in 2010? More than $6 million in compensation.
Lockheed Martin is a Clinton Foundation donor. The company admitted to becoming a Clinton Global Initiative member in 2010."

http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidenti...onnection/

Can't make this stuff up? .... Top DOJ official demoted amid probe of contacts with Trump dossier firm

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/12/...-firm.html

(12-05-2017 05:13 PM)TechRocks Wrote:  

(12-05-2017 05:04 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  They didn't start writing the document, get to the end, and say "well, I guess we don't prosecute her now".

See, even a blind hogs finds an acorn now and then. You're right, Comey prepared his findings before the FBI investigation was over.

No, he starting drafting a document with the knowledge of the likely outcome. It's not like this was the first investigation into her emails, and everyone knew it wouldn't lead to criminal charges. It didn't.

Argue all you want but if I'm wrong, Trumps own AG and DoJ would be investigating her or pressing charges. They aren't. But here you people are still buying the nonsensensical complaint that "Clinton should be prosecuted" by the very head of the departments whose job it would be to prosecute her.

Bill Clinton fired the FBI Director the day before Vince Foster was found dead.