The answer is quite simple. Powell is a Republican and the Democrats are not as ferocious and pesky as the Pubs. Today's Pubs remind me of that pesky animal (honey badger?) in "Gods must be crazy II."
Hillary/FBI Thread
- Thread starter MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
- Start date
Is Comey in the tank for HRC or the Dems or whatever? Otherwise, she would have been indicted, wouldn't she?
Who knows what his motivation was. Maybe he did exactly what he thought was right. Maybe he felt it wasn't important enough to disrupt the election. Maybe he just gave her a break. Maybe he likes the job. Many maybes. Evidently he had to try and explain himself to the rank and file in a memo
So you don't appear to be willing to indict (metaphorically) Comey for not recommending the indictment of Clinton. My head hurts.
We don't need to speculate on any motivation. Comey already explained in a briefing why he recommended no indictment, and then he explained it again, in more detail, to Congress. And then the FBI released a report which explained the decision yet again, in even more detail. She wasn't indicted because the FBI found no evidence that she broke a law. That's it. End of story. You people need to get over this and move on.
Navy veteran Lt John Lester disagrees with you. He thinks he would be in jail if he did what she did and he told her so last night. Of course he had to be a republican plant.
No, Navy veteran Lt. John Lester disagrees with FBI Director James Comey.
Bully for him. Lots of people don't know what they are talking about when it comes to the law, and that includes plenty of soldiers.
Why? Why do you need to add this kind of remark to the end of your post? You get into a lot of food fights with people, and it's not always the asshole liberals' fault. A lot of times it's because you throw out childish remarks like this. It's called "flame-baiting," and you're better than that. Or should be.
Not only does he disagree with Goat (among many others), he disagrees with the FBI Director. So what's your point?
Point is it's not just us right wing nuts on here that disagree with Comey, the AG and Goat.
He's not disagreeing with me at all. I have made no declaration on Clinton's actual guilt or innocence. All I did was (accurately) describe what the FBI has to say on the matter.
I stand corrected. I assumed that you agreed with Comey and Lynch.
I will get off here a leave you guys alone.
Give me a book title you would recommend I read to enlighten me.
Thanks in advance.
Honorable people can disagree. No question about that. That's how our democratic government is supposed to work. But the decision has been made, by a presumably honest and honorable arbiter. Why do we need to constantly keep plowing this same ground? If you really think it's best for all concerned to ignore Comey's decision and would prefer Donald Trump to Clinton as President, then just say so.
Agree honorable people can disagree. I don't think I bumped this thread back to the top.
Under no circumstances will I vote for Hillary. I won't vote for Stein or Johnson because that's a vote for Clinton. I am not excited about it but I will vote for Trump.
That is his opinion,but that doesn't make it fact.It doesn't even make it an educated informed position.Plenty of retired flag officers and Generals are supporting HRC,and it's ridiculous to think we should give more credence to butt hurt enlisted types who are doing nothing more than expressing an opinion.None of these folks have ever served in a cabinet role,so they really have no basis for making such nonsensical statements...
The Comey situation reminds me of the (JFK authored) Profiles in Courage.You may remember that it was at one time a tv series,and each episode/chapter presented the story of someone within the political realm who took an unpopular stand and often defied their own party.I'm thinking in particular of Republican Senator Edmund G Ross
who defied his party and voted against impeaching (Dem) Andrew Johnson.For some reason that episode has stayed with me longer than any other.
Why the need to ascribe ulterior motives to Comey? If he had recommended that she be charged,the same folks putting forth all these conspiracy theories would be hailing him as a hero.Why is it so difficult for some to just accept that someone apolitical like Comey could examine the circumstances and reach the conclusions that he did?
Once again, endorsements of HRC from anyone over Trump is really not newsworthy. Trump has openly spoken of ordering the military to commit war crimes. It's hardly worth jumping up and down that a number of officers would rather HRC be President over Trump. Hell, I would rather she be President over Trump, I just won't vote for her and I'll hope that she's a one term President. However, you ask any officer if they'd suffer signicant consequences for doing exactly what HRC did and nearly 100% would say that they would. I know dozens and dozens of officers of many ranks, all the way to 3 stars and this topic comes up from time to time. 100% of those that have expressed an opinion believe there isn't the slightest chance of keeping a clearance at a minimum, and that means 100% would be out of the military in short order. It really isn't a close question. Being butt hurt has zero to do with it. These are the consequences Comey said a person in government would face for being recklessly negligent, as she indisputably was, in handling classified information.
Also, a Lieutenant isn't an enlisted person.
Finally, HRC actually did lie, or was more ignorant than a boot Sailor about classified markings, by claiming not to recognize that "(C)" in front of a paragraph indicates that paragraph is classified Confidential. Those really are the only two possibilities. I think she lied. Given that she publicly lied about the email situation many times, from the beginning, why give her the benefit of the doubt and chalk it up to simple ignorance?
This whole FBI/Clinton thing is just weird
First of all, for the prosecuting attorney to delegate the charging decision to the investigative agency is at least highly improper if not unethical. The prosecutors have a professional and non-delegatable duty to make independent judgments about what charges to bring.
Second, for the investigators to make a charging decision is unheard of. The investigators are to investigate violations of the law, assemble all the facts relevant to the issue and turn it over to the prosecutors to make a determination. This isn't to say that the prosecutor and the investigators can't work together, but the fact remains that the the AG and the FBI have distinct and separate roles to play. They obliterated that important distinction with Clinton. The result is that her case did not receive the honest and independent review that it should have. The notes from her FBI interview unmistakably show that she was not pressed for explanations on any important matter. Matt Lauer did a better job with his questions.
With that same advocacy of war crimes in mind, what then explains the number of officers endorsing Trump?
Make up your mind. You were fine with Lynch deferring to Comey when you expected Comey to come to the conclusion you wanted.
Dude, people make their own choices who to vote for unless they live in the Old Soviet Union or Cuba. I can't stand Trump in any way, but I don't actually believe he'd ever order the military to go after the families of terrorists, or any of the other war crimes he's ignorantly spewed out of his pie hole. He'd have plenty of civilian and military advisors that would almost certainly prevent any of that nonsense from happening. People supporting Trump over HRC must believe she's even worse than he is and I can understand that POV. I don't agree, but I understand.
Latest posts
-
-
Surprised by the national media hate rhetoric regarding Indiana's CFP status.- Latest: Baller23Boogie
-
-
-