#1 Reason Comey didn’t charge Hillary

[Legion]

Excuse me but I was speaking about the original threads when the controversy first started. Go ahead, pretend you didn't know that.

Trying to change the subject?

Are you concerned that Rana might not be inclined to excuse your insinuation after all?

[christiefan915]

Trying to change the subject?

Are you concerned that Rana might not be inclined to excuse your insinuation after all?

The insinuation was yours, not mine. But you know that.

I suspect you'd like to get me banned but that's only because I'm your Nemesis.

[Nomad]

A rookie beat the smartest woman in the world. What does that say about the Hildebeeste?

It says nothing about anything but the abject stupidity and lack of decency of the American political right.

[Darth Omar]

While they were soaring in the air, they had a press conference about the emails. Strzok, who found them, told Comey he should release them. You rightys are so far under the right wing conspiracy umbrella that you cannot imagine people just doing their jobs, regardless of who gets hurt. You guys project your blind ass bias where it does not exist. Yeah, some people ,properly, thought Trump is a horrible joke on American politics. But they still did their jobs. Turned out they were wrong. There were no new emails. Are you guys crying because that made such a terrible mistake that hurt Hillary and helped trump? You should be, if you are consistent.

Horowitz didn’t have slam dunk evidence that bias affected their work [affirmative evidence might be something like the ‘insurance policy’ but spelled out in detail] but that’s a high bar to clear.

But he did say this:

Horowitz says he found no affirmative evidence that Strzok skewed his decision-making for political reasons. But he says he “did not have confidence” that Strzok’s decision in the campaign’s final month to prioritize the Trump campaign/Russia probe over new Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop “was free from bias.” He writes that Strzok and other FBI employees “brought discredit to themselves” and hurt the bureau’s reputation.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox...cutive-summary
_________

Horowitz has little confidence that Strzok wasn’t affected by his bias. Which, should be pointed, was actually animus against Trump.

Apparently, your ass is blind to it.

[Legion]

Yet you've sided with him and his insults while pretending you didn't agree with me about the Duggars when it all went down.

I've side with no one.

I have stated my opinion, based on my interpretation of your statement today and those made in the past by both parties.

"You seem anxious", is that your spidey sense at work?

No.

There's nothing to distance from because no line was crossed. Everything I said about him was confirmed by the earlier threads, despite his attempts to whitewash his comments.

So you say.

[Legion]

The insinuation was yours, not mine. But you know that.

No, I don't. Explain yourself.

I suspect you'd like to get me banned but that's only because I'm your Nemesis.

I deny both allegations.

[domer76]

I have stated my opinion, based on my interpretation of your statement today and those made in the past by both parties.

Fascinating!

[domer76]

I deny both allegations.

But, then again, you are a:

Lying
Obsessive
Shitweasel

LOSER

[Nordberg]

Horowitz didn’t have slam dunk evidence that bias affected their work [affirmative evidence might be something like the ‘insurance policy’ but spelled out in detail] but that’s a high bar to clear.

But he did say this:

Horowitz says he found no affirmative evidence that Strzok skewed his decision-making for political reasons. But he says he “did not have confidence” that Strzok’s decision in the campaign’s final month to prioritize the Trump campaign/Russia probe over new Clinton emails on Anthony Weiner’s laptop “was free from bias.” He writes that Strzok and other FBI employees “brought discredit to themselves” and hurt the bureau’s reputation.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vox...cutive-summary
_________

Horowitz has little confidence that Strzok wasn’t affected by his bias. Which, should be pointed, was actually animus against Trump.

Apparently, your ass is blind to it.

English tough for you?Did not have confidence does not mean he is saying it happened. He is not sure. Maybe. That is not what you are saying. But sad fact, is Hillary committed no crimes. If you think the Trumpican party would not have strung her up for a crime, you are blind. they had nothing, just like you. Strzok just did his job. The actions of Srtrzok and Comey hurt hillary. that is sure a weird ass bias. they were wise enough to see what a horror Trump would be, but they still had a press conference that killed her. That is proof they did not act against trump. You cannot understand that? They were so anti trump that they put him in the fucking presidency.

[Darth Omar]

English tough for you?Did not have confidence does not mean he is saying it happened. He is not sure. Maybe. That is not what you are saying. But sad fact, is Hillary committed no crimes. If you think the Trumpican party would not have strung her up for a crime, you are blind. they had nothing, just like you. Strzok just did his job. The actions of Srtrzok and Comey hurt hillary. that is sure a weird ass bias. they were wise enough to see what a horror Trump would be, but they still had a press conference that killed her. That is proof they did not act against trump. You cannot understand that? They were so anti trump that they put him in the fucking presidency.

Oh, they would never purposely do such a thing lol.

But hubris often leads to unintended results. In this case, it hurt Hillary. Well, the October release hurt her. Had she faced a grand jury—like she should have, the October release wouldn’t have mattered.

[hvilleherb]

Strzok just did his job.

So why did Gowdy want him investigated?

[J Craft]

Comey released the info and declared her innocent ... only because he happily believed the Hillbag was a lock. He based his decision to act on that "fact". Had the coronation of the queen been in doubt, ... he would not have released the info. This is clear.

Thats the sum total of it. He thought she’d win. Then he’d have his J. Edgar way with her.

[J Craft]

So?

Umm- I have the witless hypocrite on IA. I see her comments about me, or her blatant hypocrisy, when posters quote her. It’s a public message board isn’t it? Are her one dimensional feelings hurt?

[J Craft]

I don't recall expressing any fondness for JC, and I'm unaware of any compelling reason to ask him why he dislikes you.

You seem anxious to distance the discussion from this hypothesis:

Hahaha!

[J Craft]

Suggesting what you seem to be implying about JC is not what I'd characterize as "mature discussion".

May I Legion?

Cfan- I hardly practice the Duggars brand of Christianity. Your totally fucking lying about what I had as motives in the Duggar thread. In the first few days ALL ANYONE KNEW was that when he was 12 he’d behaved inappropriately with his younger sisters. We learned his parents had attempted to intervene by sending him to live with another Christian man to mentor and counsel him.

You, in your sneering rush to judgement against two parents, parents trying to balance the awful knowledge of harm to their daughters on the one hand, and love for their son on the other- were acting the total bitch you always are. Imagine it were your children?

When it was later learned that he had lalso cheated on his wife etc etc etc. You then began to gloat as if some great victory had been won- in a nutshell this exemplifies you as being a Whited Seplecher, the reflection of which you try to cast on myself- it is all yours. I am hardly the only poster who sees your nauseating hypocrisy.