-
-
- End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
“I think there’s legitimate criticism of the FBI here”pic.twitter.com/isBP7u7QgQ
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more -
New conversation -
-
-
If CNN had more thoughtful staff like Paul who could look @ issues dispassionately + not consistently thru a Dim or anti-Trump lens, they would have broader viewership + maybe not B laughingstock of cable news industry.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The Devil himself is shivering in hell....
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
The premise here is that when the agent changed the language of the Hillary announcement that Comey intended to charge Clinton, but then the wording of his statement was changed he forgot about those charges or was somehow incapable of pressing charges anyway....
-
Understand, the FBI does not make the decision on who to charge. The FBI only ever feels empowered to make this decision when it has been corrupted and weaponized. Similar to the IRS and DOJ.
-
You're right, 99% of the time. And FBI didn't in this instance either, but Lynch said sh'ed follow Comey's recommendation and he advised not prosecuting. The language was changed only to avoid confusion, as original language possessed potentially misleading criminal implications.
-
Hillary was too big to jail. It was a tough decision for Comey as he felt he would have decided the election. He decided it best to leave it up to the people. While tempting, it was the wrong decision. The case should have moved on to the DOJ regardless for decision.
-
If his decision was made because Hillary was "too big for jail" then, yes, it's the wrong decision, but you just made that up... That's speculation. It's easy to advance an argument when you're inserting convenient rationale that doesn't belong to the realm of facts.
-
The real issue is the difference between "Gross Negligence", (actual wording in the statute) & "extreme carelessness". I defy you to differentiate between the terms. He went down the list. She broke the law. They bent over backward to not charge.
-
Semantically there is little to no difference between the two, which is the point. If there is no evidence of criminal intent & I intend not to prosecute, why use language that can be construed as criminal when I can elect for words that avoid such confusion?
-
Section 793(f) makes it a felony for any person “entrusted with… information relating to the national defense” to allow that information to be “removed from its proper place of custody” through “gross negligence.” The law does not require intent.
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
The treatment of the FBI and Mueller by the "reasonable right" is certainly disturbing. Unconscionable, really.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Instead of the more common sense scenario that Comey did not want to charge, so the agent changed the language to be sure there was no confusion regarding the fact they weren't charging because she wasn't criminally liable.
-
Exactly. It’s not that hard to understand, but willful ignorance is willful indeed.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.