Discussion » Statements » Rosie's Corner » Comey created a big mess for Hillary. There was NEVER any there there. Does he just walk unscathed? Why?

Comey created a big mess for Hillary. There was NEVER any there there. Does he just walk unscathed? Why?

Posted - November 7, 2016

Responses


  • 5614
    A bigger mess would have been to charge her in the beginning like he could have done. She should be grateful. At least her minions are which is why they wish to put it all behind them. How gracious of them.
      November 7, 2016 11:17 AM MST
    1

  • 3934
    @O-uknow -- So, are you in FAVOR of politically-motivated prosecutions when the evidence doesn't warrant it?

    https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clinton2019s-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system

    Or only in the case of the Evil Clinton Bi...er, Witch?
      November 7, 2016 11:19 AM MST
    0

  • 5614
    The bar was raised just for Hillary. No one of us gets that kind of justice. The evidence did warrant a charge.
      November 7, 2016 12:03 PM MST
    1

  • 3934
    You have made several claims.

    Other than the Thank You Captain Obvious claim that the Rich and Powerful are treated differently by our Best Justice System Money Can Buy, I see no evidence offered to support them.

    Note: I agree the double-standard for the Rich and Powerful is a major problem of our society. I don't see how selectively reversing that double-standard for the Evil Clinton Bi...er, Witch does anything but increase partisan rancor.
      November 7, 2016 12:10 PM MST
    0

  • 113301
    "...her minions are which is why  they wish to put it all behind them." SAY WHAT?  Her minions are which? What the heck does that mean? Sounds like gibberish to me.  If you understand what "her minions are which is why" means would you tell me? As it stands it makes no sense, Happy Election Day Tuesday O.
      November 8, 2016 1:42 AM MST
    0

  • 3934
    Well, here's the thing...

    Given Comey's public statements that HRC's conduct, while negligent and unwise, don't rise to the level of prosecutible offenses, about the most non-partisan thing one can say about HRC is she SHOULD have known better.

    In the wake of Comey's letter to Congress about the Abedin/Weiner e-mails, about the most non-partisan thing one can say about Comey is he SHOULD have known the letter would be leaked for political purposes and he SHOULD have known better than to send it.

    If HRC's "Should have known better" is not a reason for sanctioning her, then I don't see how Comey's "should have known better" is a reason for sanctioning him.
      November 7, 2016 11:22 AM MST
    0

  • 113301
     I see it differently OS. You are making two entirely different things comparable when they are not remotely comparable. You call people out for doing that very thing. I am surprised that you would do what you don't let others get away with.  The history of the FBI is that you do not say anything about what  you are investigating to anyone. No leaks. No letters. Nothing public No press conferences. No TV interviews. Silence.. Comey himself has said that discussing investigation of Russia's hacking our system would  be inappropriate since it has political connotations and  is too near an election and might influence it YET he had no problem talking about the Weiner laptop and possible "pertinent" information vis a vis Clinton emails. The FBI  is supposed to be apolitical. He made it political. That is a separate issue and should not be conflated with whatever failures of judgment Clinton is guilty of. One set of judgment failures does not condone/justify another set. At least in my opinion. Mahalo for your reply and Happy Tuesday Election Day. .
      November 8, 2016 1:51 AM MST
    0

  • 2500
    Hil-LIAR-y created that whole mess for herself.

    Comey has tried to give her a pass on that - twice now. He went so far as to spell out the indictable offenses as he was giving her a pass the first time around. (I just wonder if his new house will be near Bernie's "pay-off", or maybe it's just his fear of political retribution?)

    There are people sitting in Federal prisons like Leavenworth "doing 20" for far less egregious violations of the Espionage Act. THEY deserve to see Hil-LIAR-y tried in the Courts for her alleged violations of that law.  So much for Lady Justice being blind . . . . (although she could still be on the hook if Trump wins and wants to pursue the matter.)
      November 7, 2016 11:45 AM MST
    0

  • 3934
    Re: "There are people sitting in Federal prisons like Leavenworth "doing 20" for far less egregious violations of the Espionage Act."

    Please name at least two.
      November 7, 2016 12:06 PM MST
    0

  • 2500
    Sure, no problem . . .

    Let's start with Bradley/Chelsea Manning. Then there's John Kiriakou. We can also mention James Hitselberger who was arrested and served time BEFORE he was "convicted" (actually plea bargained). And that's just a few of the many arrested and prosecuted  on those kinds of charges during Obama's tenure.

    I do find it interesting that the Obama administration has been one of the most aggressive non-wartime administrations to pursue these cases while giving Hil-LIAR-y a pass on what may be some of the most most egregious, most damaging violations. But we may never know at this point. Makes Nixon look like his worst transgression was to cross the street against a red light. (Just how did "the enemy" know about that Navy SeAL helicopter, and how did the insurgents know about the security that they were going up against in Benghazi?) Weird, huh? 
    This post was edited by Salt and Red Pepper at November 7, 2016 4:10 PM MST
      November 7, 2016 2:11 PM MST
    0